While I understand the example was pretext to the conversation, but I think someone is being misled if they were told a parent got charged with 2 sex offense felonies based on a naked selfie the daughter possessed. Quite simply, that seems extremely unlikley, and there is VERY likley information regarding the case being withheld from the OP to some degree.
Felons and guns
- Thread starter crazysquirrel
- Start date
- Status
My thoughts are people like Martha Stewart and G Gordon Liddy should get their gun rights back. They done the time, paid the price and should be free and clear. The sentence should not follow them around for the rest of their lives.
.
.
Officers'Wife
Member
My only experience is an employee that my Dad had that had been in prison for 2nd degree murder/manslaughter. Knowing the number of times he was arrested on "suspicion" for crimes he couldn't have committed that if not for Dad's sense of justice in defending him he would have been convicted of I'm just a bit leery of the stats on recidivism as being a self fulfilling prophecy.
GBExpat
Member
I have only read the OP.
I read something recently that pointed to a particular Congress as having done a poor job because it passed so few new laws.
It went on to compare it to so other recent "good" Congresses and their high-number new-laws tallies.
To me, this is fundamentally wrong ... and supports Shakespeare's excellent idea.
Regarding the fellow with the kiddy porn conviction, the summary is far too thin ... but it wouldn't surprise me that some overzealous functionary(ies) railroaded some poor soul as it happens all of the time.
Off the top of my head ... I think that, at a minimum, there should be a structured "Way Back" for those convicted of Felonies. It should be geared to being a second chance for those who really deserve it.
I think that we have too many laws.
I read something recently that pointed to a particular Congress as having done a poor job because it passed so few new laws.
It went on to compare it to so other recent "good" Congresses and their high-number new-laws tallies.To me, this is fundamentally wrong ... and supports Shakespeare's excellent idea.
Regarding the fellow with the kiddy porn conviction, the summary is far too thin ... but it wouldn't surprise me that some overzealous functionary(ies) railroaded some poor soul as it happens all of the time.
Off the top of my head ... I think that, at a minimum, there should be a structured "Way Back" for those convicted of Felonies. It should be geared to being a second chance for those who really deserve it.
lemaymiami
Member
Lawyers will lawyer - and law makers will make laws... At least that's been my observation. Yes, I've known more than a few bad guys that I never want to see allowed to own a weapon legally - but I've also known a fair number of folks with felony convictions that I'd have no problem with knowing they had their rights to own a firearm restored (but that sort of stuff is so easily "demagogued" by low end politicians that I don't see any pathway to achieving a reasonable balance...).
In my years in police work I also knew officers that were absolutely straight arrow -but also a few that were up to no good most of the time... Yes, there are instances where an officer lies in court (and another officer swears to it...) but less than the movies and TV would have you believe. All any of us can do is support good, honest, local government (something not easy to do since the best liars and crooks are very skilled at concealing there actions...) and hope that our local police forces are held accountable and that bad actors get weeded out.... I know a bit about this since I ran Internal Affairs in a 100 man department for about three years as just one part of my duties back then.... No, that's not a job that makes you very popular...
I used to joke that my job involved lying, stealing, and all kinds of mean nasty ugly things - but if I got tired of it I could always leave the station.... Still, most cops and folks in the "system" are pretty honest. It only takes a few to give all of them a bad name though.
In my years in police work I also knew officers that were absolutely straight arrow -but also a few that were up to no good most of the time... Yes, there are instances where an officer lies in court (and another officer swears to it...) but less than the movies and TV would have you believe. All any of us can do is support good, honest, local government (something not easy to do since the best liars and crooks are very skilled at concealing there actions...) and hope that our local police forces are held accountable and that bad actors get weeded out.... I know a bit about this since I ran Internal Affairs in a 100 man department for about three years as just one part of my duties back then.... No, that's not a job that makes you very popular...
I used to joke that my job involved lying, stealing, and all kinds of mean nasty ugly things - but if I got tired of it I could always leave the station.... Still, most cops and folks in the "system" are pretty honest. It only takes a few to give all of them a bad name though.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842
http://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.r5J0lpFhR
You might not commit 3 a day but you're for sure committing them from time to time. Absolutely no way to know and understand all of the hundreds of thousands of laws you're subject to.
Down here in Georgia a whole hell of a lot of people have committed a whole hell of a lot of felonies without knowing.
The quickest way to point this out to people: A knife with a blade over 2" long on a college campus or at a college event, to include the parking lot...felony. Swiss Army knife in your center console when you park at school? Felony.
And it used to be...walk down the sidewalk in the city while carrying a handgun with a license? Probably a felony for coming within a "reasonable distance" of a bus stop. Maybe even driving down the street and driving next to a bus stop with a gun in your car was a felony, who knows.
How so?
Because it violates the law as written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/poli...ently-banned-under-federal-law-important.html
Sav .250
Member
Violent felons......... no
Non-violent felons.........yes
Florida is one of three states out of the entire US that does not automatically
re-store a felons civil right after successfully completing his/hers court ordered conditions!
Then you have to "apply" to a board to do so..............That on top of having to wait 5 years after you`ve competed said court ordered conditions.
Non-violent felons.........yes
Florida is one of three states out of the entire US that does not automatically
re-store a felons civil right after successfully completing his/hers court ordered conditions!
Then you have to "apply" to a board to do so..............That on top of having to wait 5 years after you`ve competed said court ordered conditions.
The United States has the world's highest number on incarcerated citizens. Think about that for a moment. A large number of these people were incarcerated because of the war on drugs (including possession of marijuana). The Federal Govt. has absolutely no authority to do this within the limits imposed upon them by our Constitution. To convict people of a felony, throw them in prison and then strip them of their basic rights as human beings because they smoked a plant is completely insane (and illegal). The Bill of Rights states that "all men are endowed with basic rights" - not "all men (unless they were convicted of a felony for breaking a law that we had no authority to pass in the first place)". But the real absurdity here is the belief that after a violent felon has completed his sentence he will now obey a law that prevents him from obtaining and possessing a firearm. Violent criminals will happily disobey every single law we make - no matter how many laws we pass. Making it illegal for him to possess a firearm is not realistic. In our country we punish a person for actually committing a crime - not for simply having the means to possibly commit one. If we're going to do that then the entire country will end up being run by the mentality that gave us the TSA. Stand in line. Take off your belt and shoes. Show us your papers. Let us violate your Fourth Amendment Rights because you MIGHT BE about to commit a crime. That is not freedom.
Last edited:
crazysquirrel
Member
The ones you want to deny can be victims of circumstances or unreasonable laws.
A 13 year old touching a 12 year old - child molestation and possibly a lifetime of grief.
Is this justice? Probably not. Should they lose their gun rights? I feel they shouldn't.
Arson - most acts are deliberate but what does a gun have to do with that? As long as they repaid society and restitution, why deny them for making a stupid mistake?
Everyone is entitled to protect themselves, their families, neighbors, community, and possessions.
Unalienable means just that - never taken away. This does (unfortunately in many cases), mean bad people can have their rights. Only when they are incarcerated in jail or mental hospital can those rights supposedly be sequestered.
If you were falsely charged with a crime and convicted due to 'unethical' legal processes, would you want to lose your rights forever?
Petitioning for reinstatement after so many years also would violate people's rights. If they have to wait then keep them locked up until they can have their full rights automatically restored upon release.
No free man should ever be barred from having guns. Key words - free man.
crazysquirrel
Member
There are no automatic restoration of gun rights if you commit a federal felony. That takes a presidential pardon to do so.
State felonies are a different matter.
Sometimes people get convicted of a violent offense when that offense was justified. Others really DO learn their lesson and go on to be great citizens (non violent).
Everyone deserves at least a second chance, right?
A scenario - 2 guys get into a bar fight and then one pulls a knife. The other guy, during the struggle twists the knife and kills the first one that pulled a knife. In states without stand your ground laws, the true victim is arrested and charged with a felony. Now a violent offender when they were merely defending themselves. There can be many scenarios that a person could be convicted of a crime they really did not commit and yet they are barred forever in most cases.
Some say a lot of companies hire felons. I know a few felons that couldn't buy a job if their lives depended on it. Most companies see a felony on an application or background check and file-13 the application.
We have too many laws period. Not even the lawyers or politicians or Judges know 1/2 of them. We have too many of those laws that make things a felony when they shouldn't.
Some punishments are too light while others are too severe. Seems backwards to me. Money crimes garner some of the longest prison sentences while many violent offenders get a proverbial slap on the wrist.
If you cannot trust someone with their full rights then why are they loose among us?
And how do you measure that too? Who determines whom is untrustworthy?
State felonies are a different matter.
Sometimes people get convicted of a violent offense when that offense was justified. Others really DO learn their lesson and go on to be great citizens (non violent).
Everyone deserves at least a second chance, right?
A scenario - 2 guys get into a bar fight and then one pulls a knife. The other guy, during the struggle twists the knife and kills the first one that pulled a knife. In states without stand your ground laws, the true victim is arrested and charged with a felony. Now a violent offender when they were merely defending themselves. There can be many scenarios that a person could be convicted of a crime they really did not commit and yet they are barred forever in most cases.
Some say a lot of companies hire felons. I know a few felons that couldn't buy a job if their lives depended on it. Most companies see a felony on an application or background check and file-13 the application.
We have too many laws period. Not even the lawyers or politicians or Judges know 1/2 of them. We have too many of those laws that make things a felony when they shouldn't.
Some punishments are too light while others are too severe. Seems backwards to me. Money crimes garner some of the longest prison sentences while many violent offenders get a proverbial slap on the wrist.
If you cannot trust someone with their full rights then why are they loose among us?
And how do you measure that too? Who determines whom is untrustworthy?
deadin
Member
OK, What should it take to be considered "Violent"? One time slapping the wife around because she asked for it, or a number (how many?) of bodily injury acts. Are just threats violent or does it take actual physical contact? Is breaking and entering violent?
My point is that there are many levels of violence, so should just one instance be enough to get someone classified as being violent and taking away their "rights" (Or locked up for life, or excecuted, as has been suggested by some.
My point is that there are many levels of violence, so should just one instance be enough to get someone classified as being violent and taking away their "rights" (Or locked up for life, or excecuted, as has been suggested by some.
crazysquirrel
Member
I believe the law is specific on what constitutes a violent act.
Not a lawyer here.
I think I read it is actual physical harm (battery) or a 'real' threat of physical harm (assault?).
Violence can be willful and wanton destruction of someone else's property in a violent or extreme manner.
Mental 'harm' is too ambiguous to be considered anything but a civil matter. But liberal laws may deem otherwise. Check your local laws.
Slapping the wife? LOL
A wife used to be chattel....
Still is in some countries.
Go figure.
Under no circumstances should anyone lose any rights, especially gun rights, once they get out of jail.
If you can't trust them with a gun then why let them out?
Either they paid the price for their crime or they didn't. On the former, full automatic restoration is warranted. On the latter, Nope, no way.
Not a lawyer here.
I think I read it is actual physical harm (battery) or a 'real' threat of physical harm (assault?).
Violence can be willful and wanton destruction of someone else's property in a violent or extreme manner.
Mental 'harm' is too ambiguous to be considered anything but a civil matter. But liberal laws may deem otherwise. Check your local laws.
Slapping the wife? LOL
A wife used to be chattel....
Still is in some countries.
Go figure.
Under no circumstances should anyone lose any rights, especially gun rights, once they get out of jail.
If you can't trust them with a gun then why let them out?
Either they paid the price for their crime or they didn't. On the former, full automatic restoration is warranted. On the latter, Nope, no way.
Last edited:
More of our misdemeanors should be civil infractions settled by issuing a monetary fine on the spot like a speeding ticket. At least half of our felonies should be misdemeanors.
If you're safe enough to be turned back loose on society we may as well let you have your guns back because it's not like you won't get them anyways if you want to commit a crime.
If you're safe enough to be turned back loose on society we may as well let you have your guns back because it's not like you won't get them anyways if you want to commit a crime.
deadin
Member
So the next time someone breaks into my house, doesn't threaten me in any way, just wants my TV set, I had better not pull a gun on him and threaten to shoot if he doesn't get out or I might be considered violent??
How does one stop "non-violent" theft that goes on and on because the victim is a wuss and won't do anything because they don't want to be labeled "violent".
BTW, No one has answered my question of just who will have the decision if someone is "safe" to be returned to society with full rights.
How does one stop "non-violent" theft that goes on and on because the victim is a wuss and won't do anything because they don't want to be labeled "violent".
BTW, No one has answered my question of just who will have the decision if someone is "safe" to be returned to society with full rights.
In the Legal Forum we discuss what the law is, how it actually works, and how it applies in particular situations.crazysquirrel said:
We might also consider whether under applicable principles a law enacted by a legislative body is or is not within its powers to enact -- whether because of the constitutional scope of its powers or otherwise.
But questions of policy, i. e., whether there ought to be a law to do something or prohibit something, are not topics for the Legal Forum. They are questions appropriately addressed to legislative bodies, which can decide the matter with input through the legislative process from interested parties.
So this thread has gone on for a while in sort of a "rip-roaring", free-form manner.
But now, this thread will focus on what the law is, how it actually works, how it applies in particular situations and the constitutional authority of legislatures to enact it. The discussion should be based on legal principles reference to which can be supported by reference to authority.
If we can't stay focused, the thread will be closed.
deadin
Member
Frank,
Sorry, I thought this thread was in General Discussion. I missed that it had been moved to legal......
Sorry, I thought this thread was in General Discussion. I missed that it had been moved to legal......
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
People are endowed with unalienable rights by the Creator. This means that people cannot take these rights away. All people can do is repress these rights, but individuals still have them.
We can lawfully repress these rights on someone through "due process", i.e. a fair trial by a jury of your peers, etc.
Sending someone to prison lawfully represses the convict's rights, but it does not "take them away".
Once the sentence is completed and the convict is released he/she should have all rights restored.
If we continue to repress these people's rights after they are released we create a bunch of problems.
1. We have established the precedent of a class society. When you seek to exercise your rights (like buying a gun) the government can ask you essentially, "what class of citizen are you?". How many classes of citizen will we create?
Will you be a Class 2 B3 citizen, able to buy a gun after a six month waiting period but still is on a no-fly list? Class 2 B2 citizens do not have to wait six months...
We are all supposed to have equal rights.
2. We have prevented a bunch of people from making an honest living because many of these released convicts have all sorts of insane employment restrictions. This means that it is much more likely that they will return to a life of crime.
3. Lastly, we are criminalizing acts that should not really be crimes. We need to reexamine what is a "crime" and what is not. Look at the original poster's story: a guy is convicted of being a "sex offender" because his teenage daughter had a nude picture of *herself*.
Ask yourself: Why is it a huge felony to have a picture of a naked teen, who may even be above the legal age of consent, but it is completely legal to have videos of some poor guy getting his head sawed off by some terrorists?
We need to reassess what is illegal and why.
We can lawfully repress these rights on someone through "due process", i.e. a fair trial by a jury of your peers, etc.
Sending someone to prison lawfully represses the convict's rights, but it does not "take them away".
Once the sentence is completed and the convict is released he/she should have all rights restored.
If we continue to repress these people's rights after they are released we create a bunch of problems.
1. We have established the precedent of a class society. When you seek to exercise your rights (like buying a gun) the government can ask you essentially, "what class of citizen are you?". How many classes of citizen will we create?
Will you be a Class 2 B3 citizen, able to buy a gun after a six month waiting period but still is on a no-fly list? Class 2 B2 citizens do not have to wait six months...
We are all supposed to have equal rights.
2. We have prevented a bunch of people from making an honest living because many of these released convicts have all sorts of insane employment restrictions. This means that it is much more likely that they will return to a life of crime.
3. Lastly, we are criminalizing acts that should not really be crimes. We need to reexamine what is a "crime" and what is not. Look at the original poster's story: a guy is convicted of being a "sex offender" because his teenage daughter had a nude picture of *herself*.
Ask yourself: Why is it a huge felony to have a picture of a naked teen, who may even be above the legal age of consent, but it is completely legal to have videos of some poor guy getting his head sawed off by some terrorists?
We need to reassess what is illegal and why.
Last edited:
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,619
deleted
Last edited:
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,619
You forgot: stop letting them plea-bargain felonious activity down to a misdemeanor.
- Status
