Man who accidentally shot himself gets over 8 years in prison

[Byron Quick]

Who we kidding anyway, he behaves himself, he'll be out on parole in three years, not eight.

He might if it was a state prosecution but the article quoted the federal prosecutor of his case. Federal time means what? You do about 90% of your sentence unless you can rat someone else out to them on a fairly severe basis? Sure hope that none of our Missouri members are friends of his and didn't know about his past.

Same thing with the comment about the length of sentence and that part of the state. Nope. Federal sentencing guidelines are nationwide.

The reason that no felons are getting their rights restored is that anti-gun Senators and Congressmen are blocking the government from applying the applicable lawful procedures upon petition by the felons. That doesn't bother you? It bothers me.

Burglary? I think it's a darn shame that the owner of the building burglarized didn't kill him on the spot. Shame that lethal boobytraps are illegal.

But the mindset about felons losing their rights is playing right into our enemies hands. Might need to check out just what all is a felony, folks.

Here in Georgia, it was a felony until just a few years ago to engage in oral sex acts with your wife. There was at least one man doing a twenty year sentence for the same when the courts finally ruled the law unconstitutional after a couple of centuries. I don't know if he got out then or not. How many of you think it should be a felony for him to own a firearm? Just to add icing on the cake: how'd he get arrested and convicted of a crime that occurred in his bedroom? Well, it seemed him and his wife were getting a divorce... For that matter, just think how many unconvicted felons owning firearms there were running around the state of Georgia before that law was overturned? 80% of the adults in the state? More? Shhh, if the anti's find out they may try to ram a bill through Congress to ban everyone in the state of Georgia from owning firearms. You might better look through your own state's penal code rather carefully. There's still some wacky stuff on the books from centuries ago in some states. Some of that wacky stuff are felonies. Some of you are probably unconvicted felons and don't know it.

 

[Byron Quick]

Oh, there's one more thing that should bother all firearms owners about the provision in the 1968 Gun Control Act stripping all felons from owning firearms: felony proliferation.

What do I mean by that? Well, go check what crimes were felonies in 1905. Count them. Now check how many felonies exist today in 2005 that were not even crimes in 1905. Now use that difference between the two to do a basic extrapolation to 2105. Think about the fact that the creation of felonies of American activities will probably both continue and accelerate. How confident are you that your great-grandkids will not have their right to own firearms stripped because they convicted of felony jaywalking or some such?

Just one more example of gradually turning the heat up on the frogs in the pot, folks. The gun-grabbers are out to get all of us. If they've got to turn gum-chewing in public into a felony...you want to bet they won't? Ever read the fable about the tortoise and the hare?

 

[ksnecktieman]

Felony jaywalking is plausible. If you walk out in traffic, and cause a major accident, with serious injuries, or even deaths.

Why not? Driving under the influence can be a felony, if it causes an accident and personal injury.

A cussing and screaming match between a husband/wife, or a parent/child can be treated as a felony for firearms purchases, if it gets written up by police as a "domestic disturbance".

NO, I do not approve, but it appears our government wants everyone to be a criminal. It is harder every day to avoid everything they make a crime.

 

[Fletchette]

dojpros1998,

With all due respect, the case you link to is distinguishable as it is as a state prosecution and is only in federal court because the def, after apparantly exausted his state appeal rights, filed a writ of habea corpus pursuant to federal civil law. I believe the citations to the federal case are slightly out of context as they talk about whether changes in the penalty section of the already exisisting felon in possession statute are to be deemed retroactive, not the underlying felon in possession statute itself.

You are missing the point. The prohibition on felons owning firearms was retroactive. You asked for an example, here it is. Lower court agrees, Feds squash it.

Moreover, while they do not occur often, criminal acts arrising out of the same conduct can often be charged both federally and by state authorities without triggering double jepordy issues becaus the essentials elements of the crime are slightly different. i.e state FIP charges typically do not have an interstate commerce element whereas federal FIP charges do.

The commerce clause has been wildly abused by the Federal government, and has led to many cases of double jeopardy. The most famous I can think of was the Federal conviction of the police officers who beat Rodney King after they were found not guilty in state court. While I don't condone their actions, that certainly sounds like being tried twice for the same crime.

dojpros1998, I am guessing that you are employed professionally by the Feds due to your handle. My position is that the Feds spend way too much time building up cases on legal mumbo jumbo, stretching previous decicions based on legal mumbo jumbo, in order to get what they want. All to often I see prosecutors cite a previous case as justification, and if you read the previous case, it turns out to be completely unConstitutional! They keep building and building on bad laws.

 

[beerslurpy]

Flechette, the restriction isnt a punishment. Gun control, legally speaking, is NEVER a punishment. It is a restriction of a class of activity that specifically applies to the law abiding. If it were a punishment, all gun control would violate due process.

Its a pointless law with an overly strict punishment, but the environment it creates isnt a punishment in itself. We may think that this environment of disarmament is harmful to citizens, but that is why we write our representatives and vote whenever we can. The place to change this is the legislature.

 

[Fletchette]

If it were a punishment, all gun control would violate due process.

Exactly, all gun control does violate due process because keeping and bearing arms is a right.

Besides, the '68 Gun Control Act is unConstitutional in many, many ways, not just the ex post facto aspect.

But DA's will continue to cite it as precident and more unConstitutional laws will be upheld by citing it as precident because people refuse to think for themselves.

 

[motoman]

gc70

The info I posted is public data, I didn't post arrest info, only conviction data. Its the same thing the newspaper published, minus the details.

 

[DMF]

Whoops was looking something up and replied to the wrong thread.

 

[Beren]

Punishment should fit the crime, ideally. Yes, the guy had a felony robbery conviction from twenty years ago. Yes, he was a felon illegally in possession of a shotgun.

He shot himself chasing down a snake on his lawnmower. Does this guy REALLY sound like a threat to society?? Threat to himself, yes. They should have given him a box of shells and told him to go chase more snakes on his lawn, if the authorities were so worried.

I think society would've been content, in the context of this particular case, had the man received probation or at most six months in jail.