For those who think felons should never have guns...

[Frank Ettin]

waldonbuddy,

[1] The ***** business didn't show up on the list of Alabama laws.

[2] But all we have here is another laundry list of weird laws, without good citations and without anything to suggest that there has been a prosecution under any of them.

[3] Some laws are identified as ordinances. That means that they were enacted by a city of county. They would not be felonies and could be simple infractions.

 

[9mmepiphany]

posted by Agostini
My two cents: Once a non-violent ‘felon’ has completed his sentence all gun and other rights should be reinstated

i'd have some concern about "non-violent" felonies...as they would include drug trafficing and manufacture, auto theft, burglary, fraud, embezzlement, smuggling...etc

somehow, thieves and druggies wouldn't be my first choice of folks i'd want to be legally armed

 

[Officers'Wife]

All these posts seem to start with the assumption that the state fails in incarceration every instance. With a 20% recidivism rate (or whatever) condemning the other 80% that have rehabilitated is not justice only vindictiveness. And quite frankly, a vindictive man with a firearm is more a threat to a peaceful society than the 80% he condemns.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I know it's fashionable among some folks here to analogize our circumstances to those that obtained in Nazi Germany. But we are so far from Nazi Germany that the comparison is ludicrous.

What do you suggest, then; for us to wait until we become like Nazi Germany? How about we recognize the trend - that's called exercising vicarious learning - and put a stop to it, repair the damage, and move on in freedom, security and personal sovereignty?

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

...With a 20% recidivism rate (or whatever) condemning the other 80% that have rehabilitated is not justice only vindictiveness...

A very wrong number.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1983 and 1994 more than two-thirds of persons released were re-arrested within three year (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm).

And the remedy for the problem you outline is implementation of a reasonable process whereby one may seek restoration of rights.

What do you suggest, then; for us to wait until we become like Nazi Germany? How about we recognize the trend - that's called exercising vicarious learning - and put a stop to it, repair the damage, and move on in freedom, security and personal sovereignty?

What does that have to do with the subject under discussion?

But yes, we educate ourselves and our fellows and make full use of the political and legal legacies left by the Founding Fathers to preserve and enhance personal freedom. There are, of course, widely divergent views of what that means and what the correct path to that goal may be. But what we need on any reasonable path is a realistic assessment of things and not exaggeration and hyperbole.

 

[Agostini]

i'd have some concern about "non-violent" felonies...as they would include drug trafficing and manufacture, auto theft, burglary, fraud, embezzlement, smuggling...etc

somehow, thieves and druggies wouldn't be my first choice of folks i'd want to be legally armed

All drug trafficking involves violent crime.

I'm not proposing a CCW program from the first day of incarceration. As long as you're free to roam the streets of America, you'd be allowed to own a firearm.

I was once denied a permit to purchase a gun, because the chief of police "did not know me." He had 7 days either too deny or issue the permit.

I'm more worried of the eagerness of our government to deny us the right to own or carry a firearm than a 'felon' granted the right after s/he had done the time.

We gun owners are being labeled a terrorists, but the real terrorist are forbidden to be called terrorists, jihadis, or even islamists.

A 14-year-old autistic kid draws a picture where the character is pointing 'gun' and he is being charged with a felony terroristic threat.

We're all felons soon ...

 

[danez71]

There's certainly a good argument to be made that convicted violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to go and buy guns. But that's not what I want to start here, again...

This is an example of what a "felony" can be in 2010 America. This is why I do not believe that RKBA should be automatically denied to felons, as opposed to the subset of felons who have actually committed serious crimes.



http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/100108/

^^^^^^OP^^^^^^^
I'm not too "quick" sometimes.....

In the OP, there wasnt even a question. 9pgs LOL

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What does that have to do with the subject under discussion?

Everything.

But yes, we educate ourselves and our fellows and make full use of the political and legal legacies left by the Founding Fathers to preserve and enhance personal freedom. There are, of course, widely divergent views of what that means and what the correct path to that goal may be. But what we need on any reasonable path is a realistic assessment of things and not exaggeration and hyperbole.

This is why we need to divest ourselves of those unnecessary wide and divergent views of whatever preserving and "enhancing" our personal freedoms might be and simply abide the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers laid it out quite succinctly in the Constitution so we shouldn't need to fret. Only those wishing to infringe, abridge, dominate and take are those who should fret, not us doing the preserving. As for the "enhancing" thing, preserving our rights and freedoms is all that's necessary.

This segues into what should be done with the felon/arms question. If you abide the Constitution, felons and violent felons will never(can't) lose their rights. Felons shall do their time and come out free men. Violent felons must be kept locked up until they are safe to return to society and become free men once again.

Woody

 

[pharmer]

The whole "justice" system is a giant revenue gathering apparatus. Really desperate and dangerous criminals are out before the jump squad can process the paperwork. Joe

 

[waldonbuddy]

Fiddletown, your missing my point. Point being there are too many laws on the books today that the average citizen don't know if he/she might be breaking one, or not at any given time.

However, besides all of that, if you go to prison then you PAY your debt. You should start with a clean slate. Think about how many good people are in prison today simply because they could not afford a good defense.

Also, I can play the semantics game as well as you. Can YOU tell us all the felonious crimes that ARE on the books and ARE prosecuted? I'm waiting.....................................................................................................................................

 

[9mmepiphany]

posted by Agostini
All drug trafficking involves violent crime.

actually is doesn't. the charge of selling or possession of drugs for sale isn't a violent crime by definition...it is just having and selling an illegal item. i've seen many dope dealers come through the courts and be sentenced to 18 months...which means counting the time they've done in county jail awaiting trial, they be walking the streets again within a year of arrest.

so since they are free to roam the streets, you're saying they should be able to own a handgun...i guess it would give them a way to defend themselves during disagreements over "marketing locations" for their product. they would at least be legally armed now. i have visions of the movie Romeo + Juliet

 

[Officers'Wife]

And the remedy for the problem you outline is implementation of a reasonable process whereby one may seek restoration of rights.

So, the first assumption that the government has failed it's duty is to be universal. A blanket condemnation of the effectiveness of LEO's, DA's and correctional departments.

A very wrong number.

Thus the 'whatever the number is'

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1983 and 1994 more than two-thirds of persons released were re-arrested within three year (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm).

Yet... those released for 20 years without incident are still tarred with the same brush as the 66%. It was once believed that it was better for a hundred guilty be released than one innocent be incarcerated. Since we are a gentler kinder society now Mr Scalia assures us that innocence is irrelevant to incarceration. One poster noted that we are far from a Nazi regime, I guess a socialist state is only evil if it targets Jews and gypsies.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This is why we need to divest ourselves of those unnecessary wide and divergent views of whatever preserving and "enhancing" our personal freedoms might be and simply abide the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers laid it out quite succinctly in the Constitution so we shouldn't need to fret. Only those wishing to infringe, abridge, dominate and take are those who should fret, not us doing the preserving....

But the difficulty is, Woody, that I've seen enough of your view of things to know that I'm not going to follow your path. And no doubt, you're not interested in following mine.

...Only those wishing to infringe, abridge, dominate and take are those who should fret,..

And I suspect that you believe I fall into that category. If so, that is your right. If I have to sign on to your way of looking at things to change your mind, I guess I'll just have to live with things as they are.

...if you abide the Constitution, felons and violent felons will never(can't) lose their rights. Felons shall do their time and come out free men. Violent felons must be kept locked up until they are safe to return to society and become free men once again....

First, I don't concede that abiding by the Constitution necessarily leads to the result you outline. Second, the chances of the result you suggest actually coming to pass in real life are vanishingly small. So can you suggest anything that might be meaningful in the real world?

...Can YOU tell us all the felonious crimes that ARE on the books and ARE prosecuted? I'm waiting...

What I know is that if I plan to engage in some activities, like transporting a firearm across state lines or making wine or various other types of activities that may involve legal issues, I'll need to do the research or consult with another lawyer for advice.

...However, besides all of that, if you go to prison then you PAY your debt. You should start with a clean slate....

But in real life it's not that way, and perhaps has never been that way. For one thing, part of that debt under current federal law is the loss of gun rights.

For another, even putting aside the gun rights question, a conviction for a felony can carry a variety of legal and social disabilities that continue long past the end of the prison sentence. Among other things, a convicted felon may be barred from engaging in certain professions and can not be hired for any job for which he must be bondable.

...Think about how many good people are in prison today simply because they could not afford a good defense...

How many such persons there may be is highly speculative at best. In any case, perfect justice will only be found in heaven.

 

[waldonbuddy]

So then, why not just execute everyone who commits a felon? It makes no sense to keep them in prison wasting taxpayers money. When they get out they will not be able to get jobs, or defend themselves which will lead to crime which leads back to prison which leads to wasting money again.

Then we can eliminate dangerous criminals of the state, as well as curb the population at the same time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...why not just execute everyone who commits a felon? It makes no sense to keep them in prison wasting taxpayers money....

One possible answer is that in the real world these things are decided through the political process, balancing and compromising various divergent views of how things ought to be done.

 

[waldonbuddy]

Woops double post.............

 

[DammitBoy]

You're in trouble now - double posting is a felony...

 

[Officers'Wife]

What I know is that if I plan to engage in some activities, like transporting a firearm across state lines or making wine or various other types of activities that may involve legal issues, I'll need to do the research or consult with another lawyer for advice.

You mean like any kind of agriculture? Any kind of manufacturing? Any service industry that requires seasonal labor? When you require the advice of lawyer to live your daily life something is very very wrong with your society.

 

[SuperNaut]

I was out shooting all day until about 5 minutes ago, I'm sad to see that no-one else did the same.

 

[danez71]

--- First, I don't concede that abiding by the Constitution necessarily leads to the result you outline.

--- What I know is that if I plan to engage in some activities, like transporting a firearm across state lines or making wine or various other types of activities that may involve legal issues, I'll need to do the research or consult with another lawyer for advice.

--- In any case, perfect justice will only be found in heaven.

The Constitution 2A says "shall not be infringed". Are we now back to interpreting the 2A?

Why even research and consult with another lawyer if in "real life", as you say, even the Constitution isnt holding mustard?

--- I agree, heaven, from what Ive heard about, sounds like a pretty fair place to be.


But seriously, what is the point you're trying to make?

You're not (and many others at this point) conceding to much of anything.

As an example, you didnt even concede that the Tenn law existed nor that SuperNaut was at least partly right even when proof was provided.

Basically you just rationaized why you put a bigger burden of proof on SuperNaut which was basically that based on someone else past posts (cassandradaddy) you believe cassandrasdaddy too the point of dimissing SuperNaut.

If you were defending a client, would you just tell the judge "Your Honor, I'm not going to defend my client because he has a past record for the crime he is now being charged with based on past dealings, officers are usually more trust worthy and so in my judgement call Ive disregarded clients alibi.".

You cant play both sides of the fence.

It seems at this point, no matter what any post says, it just gets 1) rationalized, 2) then dismissed or not acknowledged, 3) replied to as a re-baited statement/question.



This thread is hardly productive at this point.

 

[Agostini]

9mmpihany

actually is doesn't. the charge of selling or possession of drugs for sale isn't a violent crime by definition...it is just having and selling an illegal item. i've seen many dope dealers come through the courts and be sentenced to 18 months …

So, now you’re being disingenuous, 9mm, is that your principle or you usually misconstrue simple facts?

Oh yes it does, tens of thousands die prior to your average teenager selling her dope to her her dope friend. The whole drug dealing business creates tens of thousands of murders in the US only.

During the last four years, 18,000 Mexicans died in the drug war, 35,000 in Brazil, Afghanistan, Colombia, Russia … everybody in the drug business has blood in his or her hands.

Why the DA’s make the deals they concoct is totally another topic. My son just busted a couple gang-members who declined then DAs offer of two years. Both were convicted for 30 years!

i have visions of the movie Romeo + Juliet

Dream on.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

When they get out they will not be able to get jobs, or defend themselves which will lead to crime which leads back to prison which leads to wasting money again.



not the case in real life though many do use it as an excuse

 

[jaholder1971]

IMO Forgery and Identity theft are every bit as much a personal crime as a mugging.

Again it bears saying: If they knew it was a crime, then don't complain about the consequences. "The punishment doesn't fit the crime" argument is BS if you willingly decided that the reward was worth the risk of losing your RKBA.

Felon=No guns has been the law for 40 years and it's known by everyone.

 

[waldonbuddy]

cassandrasdaddy said.."not the case in real life though many do use it as an excuse "

Oh really? I guess what your saying is that most if not all potential work places are just dying to hire an ex-felon? Just for fun check the little box titled "have you ever been convicted of a felony". See if you get a call back..........lol. And even though I can't make sense of half of what you write, please use the caps button every once in a while.

 

[Carter]

Again it bears saying: If they knew it was a crime, then don't complain about the consequences. "The punishment doesn't fit the crime" argument is BS if you willingly decided that the reward was worth the risk of losing your RKBA.

Felon=No guns has been the law for 40 years and it's known by everyone.

Okay, but I think what the general gist of this thread is that the idea of a felony now-a-days is getting quite ridiculous. Especially the case about the autistic kid in school. Yes, violent felons should not have guns, repeat offenders shouldn't have them either imo. Drug traffickers and distributers no. Kids who got caught with some drugs? Come on, most kids in America have tried drugs and lie about it and not been caught, so it "never happened". Now drug addicts or large quantities I can see that as an argument. The case the OP used, yes stupid idea by the parents, but the schools not allowing you to get your kid out of school should also be a crime...ITS THEIR KID.

The idea of a felony has gotten worse and worse because crime is becoming so rampant due to our laws they want a harsher way to deal with offenders. Despite this, the real bad guys get out the next day or so and start offending again. Domestic violence and assault cases are another situation where one can be extremely discriminated against and whoever calls the cops first is the victim and the other person gets a charge that prohibits weapons ownership. Trivial cases are being pursued that back up the system so the system appears to be doing its job.

One poster stated we'll all be felons soon, and I'm sure if we were all watched 24/7 this would be true. And as more and more laws get made it becomes more likely as well.

The loss of firearm rights should not be an automatic consequence, but something decided later. As part of release/parole/probation. And Sheriffs not allowing handgun licenses for underage drinking/possession of alcohol even after a person turns 21 is another thing that goes to show the abuse of our 2 amendment rights (local sheriff in my county). Not just felons are affected. But thats an entirely different subject about something that has been debated about for years.