Ad JS

Collapse

Leaderboard

Collapse

Leaderboard Tablet

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Jesse Jackson Jr. have his gun rights revoked by Illinois police?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Jesse Jackson Jr. have his gun rights revoked by Illinois police?

    .


    If he goes on a rampage won't people say he should have been barred from having weapons as he himself has stated people with a mental illness should not have firearms?




    http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-fo...-state-police/



    .
    Shouldn't Jesse Jackson Jr. Have His Gun Rights Revoked by Ill. State Police?


    -By Warner Todd Huston

    We all know that Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. is a huge anti-gun activist. It is also public knowledge in Illinois that he is a holder of an Illinois Firearms Owner ID (a FOID card). This state-issued ID that allows Illinois residents to legally purchase firearms and ammunition is supposed to be revoked for people that have been admitted to a mental health facility. So, will the state revoke Jackson's FOID card?

    Rep. Jackson was admitted to a mental health facility last month claiming "exhaustion" but it has since been learned he suffers from a more serious mental condition such as depression. His own wife said that he's been "completely debilitated by depression."

    In fact, on August 13 it was reported that Jackson is suffering from a bipolar disorder."

    Now, many anti-gun, anti-Constitution activists like Jackson are fond of saying that mental patients should have all their rights to self protection instantly removed once they are identified with any sort of disorder. The Brady Campaign against guns, for one, has since it began said that anyone with a mental problem should be prevented from access to guns.

    The relevant portion of the state FOID law is section 8 and 8E:

    Sec. 8. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:

    (e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years or has been adjudicated as a mental defective;
    So, the big question is, will there be calls from the left to have Jackson's rights to his firearms removed in accordance both with the law in his state and city but in accordance to his left-wing ideals?

    (H/T Days of our Trailers blog).
    .

  • #2
    That's very interesting.

    Comment


    • #3
      No, no, no....don't you all realize that there are two sets of rules?

      One for politicians and connected folks, and one for the rest of us.
      "You're never fully dressed without a smile."

      Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

      Three things I know for sure: (1) No bad deed goes unrewarded, (2) No good deed goes unpunished, and (3) It is entirely possible to push the most devoted, loyal and caring person beyond the point where they no longer give a 5h!t.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, he should have it revoked. But will it happen, probably not.
        "Visualize what you want out of life and think big. Don’t feel undeserving. We're all deserving of living our dreams—some of us realize it and some don't. You’re not doing anyone any favors by living small. Embrace these truths and step up. The world is waiting." –Jillian Michaels

        Comment


        • #5
          .

          What's good for the goose is not good for the gander. lol
          .

          Comment


          • #6
            OK, from what I read of the cited passage, they have the authority to revoke, it did not say "must revoke." From the way I would read this, it is a discretionary thing.

            I am about to take a contrarian view here. Denying his rights to own firearms is essentially stripping him of his constitutional rights. Never a thing that should be taken lightly. If he is truly a danger to himself or others, then the state should do what it has to do. I would never advocate using a law against someone just because I disagree with his politics. That slippery slope goes both ways.
            When you are dead, you don't know you're dead. It is difficult only for the others around you.

            It is the same when you are stupid.

            Comment


            • #7
              To me the question is if he has been declared mentally incompetent, and by whom, and what legal body rendered that decision. I don't support mentally incompetent individual carrying a firearm.

              If he has been declared mentally incompetent, then we should apply that to all members of the House and Senate as well.
              Retired

              Comment


              • #8
                I love the fact that this anti-gun jack-hole has a gun card.
                Mmmm...the hypocrisy...it smells like coconut!
                sigpic
                Don't make me gassy.
                You wouldn't LIKE me when I'm gassy...
                _________________________________

                If you're offended by something that I've said...it was just your turn.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tom S View Post
                  OK, from what I read of the cited passage, they have the authority to revoke, it did not say "must revoke." From the way I would read this, it is a discretionary thing.

                  I am about to take a contrarian view here. Denying his rights to own firearms is essentially stripping him of his constitutional rights. Never a thing that should be taken lightly. If he is truly a danger to himself or others, then the state should do what it has to do. I would never advocate using a law against someone just because I disagree with his politics. That slippery slope goes both ways.
                  So you advocate discretion even if a person is legally classified as "mentally ill"? It's hard to tell since you claim 2nd Amendment rights in one sentence and then immediately follow it with "the state should do what it has to do."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Personally when talking about Illinois and that other communist country California I'm all for the U.S.A setting a nuke on both places and calling it good. Then banning anyone from those 2 countries in our country. More so their politics.

                    Wait what was the topic?
                    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless - like water.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mr crowley View Post
                      So you advocate discretion even if a person is legally classified as "mentally ill"? It's hard to tell since you claim 2nd Amendment rights in one sentence and then immediately follow it with "the state should do what it has to do."
                      I am pointing out the way the law is written. I did not write the law and thankfully do not live in Illinois. I do not know anything about Mr Jackson or his situation. Is he full blown psychotic. Is he depressed because the mailman ran over his dog? Do you have any insight on this matter you would like to share? The fact is, the original argument is written in a "gotcha" tone due to Jackson's liberal politics. And I damn sure don't like it. Advocating taking his rights just because a person doesn't like his political positions smacks of the hypocrisy that some others accuse him of. I stand by my original comment.
                      When you are dead, you don't know you're dead. It is difficult only for the others around you.

                      It is the same when you are stupid.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes, because it would be unfair to treat him diffrently. some may even say racist. An he is all about equality right?
                        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not all forms of mental illness mean a firearm would pose a danger.

                          Depression & bipolar would mean the gun would pose a suicide risk but neither of those mean he's likely to use it on anyone else.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Simple answer (Opinion), confirmed mental illness (?)....REVOKE IT.
                            My comments are my personal opinion and are based on my life experiences and training. They are not to be construed as legal advice in any form as I am not an attorney. Should you act on any of the information I provide in my comments, you do so at your own risk!!

                            Comment

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 7741 users online. 390 members and 7351 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X