Homeless Rights?

[Firefighterchen]

Do homeless people have a Right to bear arms?

(Been a thought that has been running through my mind lately, not sure where the discussion will head, hope it's interesting though)

 

[Ringo]

Do homeless people have a Right to bear arms?

Of course they do. One does not lose their rights nor can they be denied their rights simply because they don't have a home.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Of course they do. One does not lose their rights nor can they be denied their rights simply because they don't have a home.

I agree, as its a natural Right, one doesn't lose it just because they're homeless, but...

How does one purchase a firearm without a home address (aside from private purchases, let's say homeless people in states that do not allow private purchases)?

Do you [anyone] think the general population would look at it negatively? Law enforcement?

 

[jcreek]

Just a question - Is it necessary in USA to have proof of purchase of a firearm? What happens if someone gives a firearm to another person?

Laws vary from state to state but in the vast majority of them, no. Private sales of firearms are legal and bills of sale are not required. They're not a bad idea if you're selling though, in case the gun you sell is used in a crime and the police come knocking, and can prove you sold it beforehand. They act as a sort of decentralized and non-government controlled registry. Government has no idea who owns what but the police can still trace it if they need to (pending court orders if the sellers desire.)

 

[jcreek]

Of course they do. One does not lose their rights nor can they be denied their rights simply because they don't have a home.

I agree, as its a natural Right, one doesn't lose it just because they're homeless, but...

How does one purchase a firearm without a home address (aside from private purchases, let's say homeless people in states that do not allow private purchases)?

Do you [anyone] think the general population would look at it negatively? Law enforcement?

Of course they still have the RIGHT to bear arms however, homelessness is often caused by things like severe drug addiction or inability to hold down a job due to metal illness which would disqualify them. In addition, I have a feeling most would prefer have $500 of food or clothing rather than a Glock.

 

[cluznar]

There have been needless attacks by thugs on homeless people. Those homeless could have used a gun. On the whole though I'm not sure how good an idea it is for homeless to have guns. Though all homeless are not bad people, some with mental problems or drug/alcohol problems could end up using those guns improperly. Touchy situation.

 

[UATKP]

Nothing in the Second Amendment says anything about having a place to live. When our founders proclaimed their rights, some of the people of the new land didn't even live in a house, because they lived off the land.
Your rights don't end when you get evicted for failure to pay rent or house payment. IMO

 

[BluesStringer]

Of course they still have the RIGHT to bear arms however, homelessness is often caused by things like severe drug addiction or inability to hold down a job due to metal illness which would disqualify them. In addition, I have a feeling most would prefer have $500 of food or clothing rather than a Glock.

I used to drive the donations collections truck for the Huntsville Salvation Army, and still volunteer there during disaster relief, or drive/man the food trucks that go out to other areas affected by disasters. The Thrift Store and church are within walking distance of the homeless encampment that has been under a cloverleaf of a major highway and interstate junction for many years. They could get food and clothes for free if they wanted them, and while some do, most don't. Never really understood it, but after seven or eight years of being associated with the SA, I can say that's the way it is.

You're definitely right; on any given night at the SA shelter, everyone staying there could be a mixture of addicts and/or severely mentally ill folks. While the people who cycle through the SA's rehab program(s) represent a fraction of the overall homeless community here, they are typical. On particularly cold nights we take the food truck down to the camp, set up heated tents and serve hot chocolate and coffee, so we interact with all of them even though most don't choose to stay in the shelter, enter a program, or go to the Thrift Store for clothes or the church for food.

To address Chen's question, I've got to equivocate a bit. It's not really a matter of "allowing" homeless folks to carry or not here. They are as poor as any group on the planet, and thus couldn't afford even the $15 or $20 bucks that it takes to get a permit, much less afford to buy a weapon. I have heard of some coming to the shelter or entering a program and having a knife or hammer or other type of weapon confiscated from them, but I've never heard of anyone coming to the SA with a gun. Obviously, all are searched for drugs, alcohol and weapons.

On the other hand, I can't think of a story off the top of my head where a homeless person was arrested for committing a violent crime. The folks I've dealt with over the last seven or eight years have all been non-violent, even if they were belligerent, annoying or otherwise difficult to deal with.

So I guess my answer would be that I would treat them just like any other citizen - on a case-by-case basis. I don't believe homelessness itself should be an automatic disqualification for carrying a weapon, but in my experience, it would be the circumstance of homelessness itself that kept the few who might want to carry from being able to afford to carry. I will never answer the question in a way that denies any citizen his/her rights under the Constitution without due process, so I'll say yeah, homeless folks should be allowed the same rights or privileges or permissions as anyone else until such time as a legal process identifies them as ineligible. I just don't think that there's going to be very many instances across the country where it's a civil rights issue. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I believe it is going to be a medical issue, so I wouldn't advocate for any special laws to cover homeless people only.

Blues

 

[momstar]

Do you [anyone] think the general population would look at it negatively? Law enforcement?

There is a large part of the general population who looks at it negatively that I own/carry a gun - and I've lived in the same house 15 years now.

I agree with others who said that homelessness alone would not end anyone's rights, but the reason for them being homeless might (mental illness). Homeless doesn't necessarily mean living under a bridge - it can mean living in your car, renting various campsites, or crashing on a series of friends' couches.

 

[ccwaz]

To counter the question with a question: Why would a homeless person not have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else? Are human rights tied to property ownership or economic status in this country? Do we only allow the wealthy to defend themselves, and not the poor? Is this a democratic republic, or not? This is one of the problems with many of the gun control laws that are passed, that they tend to favor the wealthy and powerful and disenfranchise the poor. Our system is intended to guarantee that that never happens. You might as well ask, "Are Jews allowed to have guns?" "Are black people allowed to have guns?" "Are people of Japanese or Chinese or Mexican or Irish or Italian or Arabic descent allowed to have guns?" If you're going to pick a group and take away their God-given, constitutionally guaranteed rights, what is the standard for your choice?

 

[arizona-user]

Of course they still have the RIGHT to bear arms however, homelessness is often caused by things like severe drug addiction or inability to hold down a job due to metal illness which would disqualify them. In addition, I have a feeling most would prefer have $500 of food or clothing rather than a Glock.[/QUO

Not all weapons are new Glocks or expensive firearms. There are millions of hand me down guns received as gifts. If I found my self living on the mean streets of Phoenix even a cheep Jennings or Raven would be comforting.

 

[Dasraa]

Homeless

There is a large part of the general population who looks at it negatively that I own/carry a gun - and I've lived in the same house 15 years now.

I agree with others who said that homelessness alone would not end anyone's rights, but the reason for them being homeless might (mental illness). Homeless doesn't necessarily mean living under a bridge - it can mean living in your car, renting various campsites, or crashing on a series of friends' couches.

It can also mean living in an RV full time !

 

[BC1]

The bill of rights is not contingent on having a home. It applies to all equally.

 

[Ringo]

I will never answer the question in a way that denies any citizen his/her rights under the Constitution without due process, so I'll say yeah, homeless folks should be allowed the same rights or privileges or permissions as anyone else until such time as a legal process identifies them as ineligible. I just don't think that there's going to be very many instances across the country where it's a civil rights issue. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I believe it is going to be a medical issue, so I wouldn't advocate for any special laws to cover homeless people only.

Blues

We haven't seen anything yet. To fully experience the consequences of "Fundamentally Changing the United States of America" we must wait for ObamaCare to be in full effect, and ENFORCED.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
so I'll say yeah, homeless folks should be allowed the same rights or privileges or permissions as anyone else until such time as a legal process identifies them as ineligible.
-snip-

Blues

With respect Blues...

I would be very careful of using the disclaimer of, and I quote:

"until such time as a legal process identifies them as ineligible"

because those in power are in control of what constitutes... "a legal process". All that is necessary is for those in power to change the criteria and "a legal process" could make everyone "ineligible".

There are other ways to deal with protecting society from those who are violent criminals and those who are violently mentally ill than denying natural born rights. And the laws in regards to those methods of incarceration and commitment are already on the books.

The right to keep and bear arms is something (a right) each individual is born with just the same as they are born with arms or legs or a heart and lungs and is nothing more than an extension of the natural right to defend life. Simply because if we don't have the ability to protect our lives and end up dead... having rights suddenly becomes a moot concept.

And a homeless person has just as much right to protect their life as a rich dude living in a mansion.

 

[yuppor]

I have invented a throwing knife that always "sticks". After you throw it, it's still in your hand ,too(in a most effective manner! It will probably retail for about $60, but aint hard to homemake, so used ones will soon be everywhere, for the $10 or so that a homeless person can afford. It will also offer quiet, harmless practice (via a rubber tip) that the homeless (and teenagers everywhere) can use to entertain themeselves any place tht they can susspend an old blanket or hunk of carpet, to act as a "catcher" for the blade.

Such a weapon isn't even illegal to carry in most US jurisdictions, and it can legally be shipped in the mail to almost anyone. in this country. Virtually anyone can learn to be quite effective with it to 10 yds of distance, and if the knife point and edges are serrated and chemically-treated, it can be used to 20 yds, by those with strong arms. Again, it is silent, and also, it will pierce kevlar. It's going to sell very well, provided that I can get it and its nylon, IWB, velcro-wrap-beltpc, made for about $15, by the thousands.

 

[yuppor]

This is just a very few months from local market testing and less than a year from being massively available, almost anywhere. It will seriously hurt the sale of junk autos and revolvers, and probably almost wipe out the sales of derringers and mini-revolvers. You can ccw a pair of them in front of your hips, and another pair of them behind your hips, and have thrown 6 lethal projectiles, while still retaining one such in each hand. I can start, hands on hips, everything concealed, and put 2 of them on a torso at 5 yds in well under 1.5 seconds, throwing with both hands at the same time. In another 2.0 seconds, I can put 2 more blades into that torso.


I am busy practicing doing all this as I charge a pair of targets, placed 20 ft from where I start, 6 ft apart. I can't yet reliably get all hits, but soon it will be a YouTube video. It's not at all hard to be more deadly with this sytem than ANYONE is with a mini revolver, and twice as deadly as anyone who only has a derringer.


NO background checks, to buy this, no manufacturere's license, nothing left at any scene, no "ballistic marks", no serial numbers, no nothin, practice in attic, garage, basement, abandoned building, or thicket, all you want, no further cost at all! And the sharp edges and point will of course serve all the many uses of any other knife.


Many millions of people, world wide, are soon going to be quite skilled with this weapon. It is my hope that many of the oppressed will use them to take pistols and AK's from the tyrant's minions.

 

[Bikenut]

I have invented a throwing knife that always "sticks". After you throw it, it's still in your hand ,too, in a most effective manner! It will probably retail for about $60, but aint hard to homemake, so used ones will soon be everywhere, for the $10 or so that a homeless person can afford. It will also offer quiet, harmless practice (via a rubber tip) that they, and teenagers everywhere) can use to entertain themeselves any place tht they can susspend an old blanket or hunk of carpet, to act as a "catcher" for the blade. Such a weapon isn't even illegal to carry in most jurisdictions, and it can legally be shipped in the mail to almost anyone. Virtually anyone can learn to be quite effective with it to 10 yds of distance, and if the knife point and edges are serrated and chemically treated, it can be used to 20 yds, by those with strong arms. Again, silent, and also it will pierce kevlar. It's going to sell very well, provided that I can get it and its nylon, IWB, velcro-wrap-beltpc, made for about $15.

This is just a very few months from local market testing and less than a year from being massively available, almost anywhere. It will seriously hurt the sale of junk autos and revolvers, and proably almost wipe out the sales of derringers and mini-revolvers. You can ccw a pair of them in front of your hips, and anothe pair of them behind your hips, and have 6 lethal projectiles, while retaining one such in each hand. I can start, hands on hips, everthing concealed, and put 2 of them on a torso at 5 yds in well under 1.5 seconds, throwing with both hands at the same time. In another 2.0 seconds, I can put 2 more blades into that torso. I am busy practicing doing all this as I charge a pair of targets, placed 20 ft from where I start, 6 ft apart. It's not at all hard to be more deadly with this sytem than ANYone is with a mini revolver, and twice as deadly as anyone who only has a derringer. NO background checks, no nothin, practice in attic, garage, basement, abandoned building, or thicket, all you want, no further cost at all! Many millions of people, world wide, or going to be quite skilled with this weapon, very soon now. Many will use them to take pistols and AK's from the tyrant's minions.

I'm gonna stick around just for the entertainment.... :haha::biggrin:

 

[Ringo]

With respect Blues...

I would be very careful of using the disclaimer of, and I quote:

"until such time as a legal process identifies them as ineligible"

because those in power are in control of what constitutes... "a legal process". All that is necessary is for those in power to change the criteria and "a legal process" could make everyone "ineligible".

With respect Bikenut, don't you get it??? What do you think will be the result of ObamaCare when "in full effect, and ENFORCED"? ObamaCare will be that "legal process" to identify them as ineligible to own a firearm. leasantry:

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
With respect Blues...

I would be very careful of using the disclaimer of, and I quote:

"until such time as a legal process identifies them as ineligible"

because those in power are in control of what constitutes... "a legal process". All that is necessary is for those in power to change the criteria and "a legal process" could make everyone "ineligible".

With respect Bikenut, don't you get it??? What do you think will be the result of ObamaCare when "in full effect, and ENFORCED"? ObamaCare will be the legal process to identify them as ineligible to own a firearm. leasantry:

Umm... yep... isn't that what I just said? Those in power will be the one's to set the criteria (Obama care is one avenue) that will be used in a "legal process" that denies everyone the ability to exercise the right to bear arms.

Ringo... unless I missed something... I'm agreeing with you.