newfalguy101 said:
Fair enough, but I believe my point still applies.
A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.
Dude, former armed robber, current burglar. They are not the same thing in the least.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I get a kick out of the folks here and on other forums saying how felons should be given back their rights to guns and voting, but I never seem to see you guys working with any of the political parties to try to make this happen.
Let's see, oh yeah, felons have a real tough time forming lobbying groups to represent their wishes. I wonder why?
Joey2 said:
As already said here he has paid his debt to socitey. His rights should be restored.
Defending yourself is a natural law which surpasses man-made law.
He should not have to patition anybody to have his natural law of self defense restored to him.
The law saw him to trustworthy enough to release back into society.
He must of been a good productive citizen for 20 yrs., running his own business.
Well Joey, you see for felony convictions, part of the penalty is a permanent loss of rights to such matters as voting and gun ownership. Sometimes, these can be restored, sometimes not. However, jail time is but one aspect of the penalty that comes with being a convicted felon.
I don't know what it is you mean by natural law superceding man-made law in this case. Nothing said that he didn't have the right to self defense. He could have used a bat and sent the guy's head into left field and as a felon he can own a bat. He just can't own a gun.
And no, the law did not deem him trustworthy enough to release into society. I see where you have mixed concepts. First it was that he had paid his debt and second was that he was released because of being trustworthy. Just because you do time and are released does not mean anyone thinks you are trustworthy. Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a child molestor being released and people singing his praise for how trustworthy he is?
Perry knew the rules, knew he was a felon, and still voluntarily broke the law again but possessing a gun. I will hand it to him, for handguns, he played it right. Regardless of caliber, the possession of a gun by a felon is the same. Why mess with a .22 lr when you can have a .44 magnum? From the sounds of things, that is the best decision he made.