Jump to content

Convicted of Animal Abuse? No Guns For The Rest of Your Life!


mauserme

Recommended Posts

This will be an interesting read when the bill gets filed.

I think he's right about some opposition.


http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/11/14/proposed-ill-bill-would-keep-animal-abusers-from-owning-guns/

 

Proposed Ill. Bill Would Keep Animal Abusers From Owning Guns

November 14, 2017 9:45 AM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?
Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

 

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

 

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

 

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

 

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

 

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

 

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

I am with you Skinny. Remember that pos Michael Vick? Where is his dog killing a**?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they make every criminal act a disqualifier, the only difference is that we'll have a bunch of criminals who cannot ever own a gun (hmmmmmmmm...is THAT what this is about?). If they drop the hammer on those who abuse animals (without adding to the list of disqualifiers) then maybe at least some people will think twice about it. The rest, well, if they want a gun then they'll get one regardless of some "lifetime ban."

 

All of this predicting criminals crap is nonsense. My opposition to this is due to what I know about those who hate guns with a passion and would do anything to keep civilian ownership at a virtually non-existent level. They simply wish to make everyone a prohibited person and they are "beginning" (this started a long time ago) with the stuff that most people won't argue about. I mean, one cannot truly understand what the true motivation behind this is if one doesn't know the endgame. They start at "well, no felon should own a gun" (I believe that is unconstitutional as applied, but not on its face for obvious reasons) and end at "no one can own a gun," all while filling in the blank space between those two. "No one convicted of animal abuse should own a gun" is a lot more palatable to the general public than "No one who's ever received a speeding ticket should own a gun" but they could and would love to get to that point. I don't think that would stand up in court (now) but if they sufficiently screw up the heads of kids, who go on to become judges, it is definitely possible. Meanwhile, they continue with slaps on the wrist for those convicted of animal abuse.

 

Guns are not the issue. Creating psychopaths is the issue and not dealing with them before they go on to become murderers is the problem. Taking away guns from a budding serial killer is...it's utterly pointless. They're psychopaths. And it isn't like animal abuse just started. Good Lord some politician is gonna sit there and tell me this is something new? It isn't new. It's only publicized more frequently because of social media. That's it. Notice how everyone gets outraged at crap that has always taken place? This isn't new. Stop trying to predict stuff, acting like this is some new trend, and actually deal with the true problem instead of take away constitutional rights yet not do a thing to address the true problem.

 

FWIW I also don't believe the Lautenberg crap is constitutional as applied to the entire class of offenders. I have an acquaintance who's got a lifetime bar because of the Lautenberg crap and it's because his ex tried to beat the snot out of him, he held her back (didn't strike her at all), called the cops himself, and ends up with a DB conviction. She tried it five more times until he left her based on advice from the police who finally wised up to her being completely unhinged and stopped taking her seriously. He's a huge guy with sleeves of tattoos. Basically the perfect defendant. The way I see it, anyone who believes that suspending his right to keep and bear arms is constitutional is also condoning violence on men, excusing violence perpetrated by women. The thing is that it doesn't even bother him much because he wouldn't be where he is in life (happily married family man with a good paying blue collar job) if that hadn't happened to him.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be an interesting read when the bill gets filed.

 

I think he's right about some opposition.

 

 

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/11/14/proposed-ill-bill-would-keep-animal-abusers-from-owning-guns/

 

 

 

Proposed Ill. Bill Would Keep Animal Abusers From Owning Guns

November 14, 2017 9:45 AM

 

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

 

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

 

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

 

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

 

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

 

 

 

If that is the case, then I will take the Illinois Constitutional Carry law that will undoubtedly save many more than one life by allowing those who are unable to afford the expense and red tape of getting a CCL to carry a firearm to protect themselves from criminals intent on doing them harm or, in many cases, fatal injury. Remember, if such a law saves even one life, then it will have been worth the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal is clearly to expand the set of prohibited persons until it includes everyone who is not a law enforcement officer or a member of the military on active duty. The tactic is to do this one hard-to-object-to step at a time. Each one of these laws that slips through makes the next one easier to enact. Before you know it, we'll be down to defending the 2A rights of serial parking ticket scofflaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, just a thought, don't kick your dog and you have nothing to worry about.

Not that simple.

 

Lets say your dog runs on a line, you have a fenced yard, put your dog on a line in your yard, etc. You let your dog out to do his/her business. It's coldish out, 28-30 degrees. You get an emergency call, call from work, something happens that you slightly lose time. You DON'T have a dog house in your yard. An animal rights activist drives by and reports you for leaving that dog outside over 30 minutes with no shelter. You are now cited/charged for animal abuse.

 

I have seen the above scenario happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they make every criminal act a disqualifier, the only difference is that we'll have a bunch of criminals who cannot ever own a gun (hmmmmmmmm...is THAT what this is about?). If they drop the hammer on those who abuse animals (without adding to the list of disqualifiers) then maybe at least some people will think twice about it. The rest, well, if they want a gun then they'll get one regardless of some "lifetime ban." All of this predicting criminals crap is nonsense. My opposition to this is due to what I know about those who hate guns with a passion and would do anything to keep civilian ownership at a virtually non-existent level. They simply wish to make everyone a prohibited person and they are "beginning" (this started a long time ago) with the stuff that most people won't argue about. I mean, one cannot truly understand what the true motivation behind this is if one doesn't know the endgame. They start at "well, no felon should own a gun" (I believe that is unconstitutional as applied, but not on its face for obvious reasons) and end at "no one can own a gun," all while filling in the blank space between those two. "No one convicted of animal abuse should own a gun" is a lot more palatable to the general public than "No one who's ever received a speeding ticket should own a gun" but they could and would love to get to that point. I don't think that would stand up in court (now) but if they sufficiently screw up the heads of kids, who go on to become judges, it is definitely possible. Meanwhile, they continue with slaps on the wrist for those convicted of animal abuse. Guns are not the issue. Creating psychopaths is the issue and not dealing with them before they go on to become murderers is the problem. Taking away guns from a budding serial killer is...it's utterly pointless. They're psychopaths. And it isn't like animal abuse just started. Good Lord some politician is gonna sit there and tell me this is something new? It isn't new. It's only publicized more frequently because of social media. That's it. Notice how everyone gets outraged at crap that has always taken place? This isn't new. Stop trying to predict stuff, acting like this is some new trend, and actually deal with the true problem instead of take away constitutional rights yet not do a thing to address the true problem. FWIW I also don't believe the Lautenberg crap is constitutional as applied to the entire class of offenders. I have an acquaintance who's got a lifetime bar because of the Lautenberg crap and it's because his ex tried to beat the snot out of him, he held her back (didn't strike her at all), called the cops himself, and ends up with a DB conviction. She tried it five more times until he left her based on advice from the police who finally wised up to her being completely unhinged and stopped taking her seriously. He's a huge guy with sleeves of tattoos. Basically the perfect defendant. The way I see it, anyone who believes that suspending his right to keep and bear arms is constitutional is also condoning violence on men, excusing violence perpetrated by women. The thing is that it doesn't even bother him much because he wouldn't be where he is in life (happily married family man with a good paying blue collar job) if that hadn't happened to him. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

DING DING DING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be an interesting read when the bill gets filed.

 

I think he's right about some opposition.

 

 

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/11/14/proposed-ill-bill-would-keep-animal-abusers-from-owning-guns/

 

 

 

Proposed Ill. Bill Would Keep Animal Abusers From Owning Guns

November 14, 2017 9:45 AM

 

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

 

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

 

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

 

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

 

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

 

 

Be interesting to read based on how it's worded. If it's properly worded, any opposition will make those who oppose seem like evil, heartless and vile. Which probably is absolutely the intention of the bill.

 

Remember perception is reality. "Oh my god you hate animals. You want these evil heartless butchers to have guns! Don't you know those people who abuse animals grow up to be serial killers! You want serial killers to have guns! blah blah blah"

 

"saves just one life" LMFAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, just a thought, don't kick your dog and you have nothing to worry about.

Slippery slope, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you don't support this bill you agree puppies and kittens should be beat up. I see the angle they are going with this one.

Yes. Exactly. I doubt they give a care if the bill passes or not. They want pro gun politicians on the voting record as voting against it and they want to be able to paint the NRA and other gun rights groups who oppose it as evil heartless etc... This is a publicity and propaganda bill, nothing more.

 

It's lose lose once this bill gets introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal is clearly to expand the set of prohibited persons until it includes everyone who is not a law enforcement officer or a member of the military on active duty. The tactic is to do this one hard-to-object-to step at a time. Each one of these laws that slips through makes the next one easier to enact. Before you know it, we'll be down to defending the 2A rights of serial parking ticket scofflaws.

 

Yes. That has always been their goal, and this is one step toward that goal. They know that no-one want to defend animal abusers, so they can add one more checkbox to the "prohibited persons" list. The end goal is that virtually everyone will be prohibited. This should stop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets try this ...

 

Every Study finds Muslim, more than any other religion, tend to be terrorist. Ban them from owning guns or entering US.

Every Study finds transgender things, much more than any other, tend to ........

Every Study finds homosexuals, much more than non-homosexuals, tend to ......

Every Study finds women who have had at least one abortion tend to think its ok kill babies.

 

Ban them All ...... from voting!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hes not a member of the Senate or House so he wont be submitting the bill. Curious to see which member of the legislature decides to go along with him to introduce it.

 

An interesting combination...

 

ILLINOIS STATE CRIME COMMISSION / POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS

 

..."Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission."...

 

..."Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...