What kinds of people have lost their gun rights.

[STAGE 2]

As an addendum to the other thread I'd like to see examples of cases where people were engaging in activity which normal people would have no idea was illegal, let alone a felony, were convicted and subsequently lost their rights.

Before some of you get too excited, here's what I'm not looking for. I don't want a discussion of whether a law is valid, just or "good". I don't want an argument about whether its proper for non-violent felons to lose their gun rights.

What I do want are actual convictions of adults. I do want cases which involves activity that normal people would have no earthly idea was illegal. That rules out infringing upon copyrights, having sex with people under the age of consent, possessing or transmitting child pornography, or the various vague technical laws governing firearms. (I shouldn't need to say this but it seems there are people who think individuals should be able to do these things.)

Have at it.

 

[alex_trebek]

well I know of a case that is kind of along these lines. The kids involved knew what they were doing were illegal. A cop I am acquaintances with arrested a car full of kids that were shooting bottle rockets out the window. They also evaded. All three were under 18, only the driver was old enough to drive. Each were charged with felonies, including evading police. The kids were being punks about it, and the acuaintance pointed out that they were being charged with felonies.

Here is how it is related to what you were asking stage 2, recently in Indiana the law was changed so that felonies committed before the age of 18 stay on your record after you become a legal adult. None of these kids were aware of this, and the only reason they ran was because they were expecting a slap on the wrist. When they found out they would probably never be able to own a firearm, vote, or get a government loan for college they freaked out.

 

[hkmp5g17]

Who have lost gun rights..

Californians, Australians, the British... the list goes on....

 

[Standing Wolf]

We've all lost enormous portions of our Second Amendment civil rights.

 

[REOIV]

I do want cases which involves activity that normal people would have no earthly idea was illegal. That rules out infringing upon copyrights, having sex with people under the age of consent, possessing or transmitting child pornography, or the various vague technical laws governing firearms. (I shouldn't need to say this but it seems there are people who think individuals should be able to do these things.)

Wouldn't highly technical issues be exactly what a normal person WOULDN'T know about?

But since you asked how about this one:

November 1, 1999—A jury has convicted a northern California superintendent of felony eavesdropping for installing a hidden video recorder in a principal's office.

He had permission to do so from the school's DA and board of trustees.

The school paid $4,500 to install it.

And yet here is convicted of a felony for trying to catch a thief.

 

[fixyurgun]

I know one man who missed a court date for his 2nd dui, no show = guilty=no guns for you.(turns out he had another dui in another state.who would have thought that states would network these charges?) But he's clean & sober now & no-one was harmed in any of his 3 incidents

 

[Flyboy]

Genarlow Williams.

Even if you expect him to know that she was underage (and that there was no age-differential requirement), surely nobody who remembers President Clinton would think getting head would be a felony.

 

[Hawk]

What I do want are actual convictions of adults. I do want cases which involves activity that normal people would have no earthly idea was illegal.

That'd be as easy as finding someone that really believed someone was 18 years of age when that individual was really 17.9 with a disapproving parent.

Sure the bar shouldn't be raised a little higher?

 

[Fletchette]

You know what I believe.

Keeping and bearing arms is a RIGHT.

That means that whatever litmus test we use for other RIGHTS is the same litmus test we should use for gun ownership. If the person in question can speak freely, decide to change their religion, publish controversial information, etc etc then that person also has the RIGHT to own and carry a gun.

Children can be forced by their parents to go to church. Criminals serving their sentences in prison cannot be secure in their home and affects. Yes, both children and prisoners may be allowed to worship freely, but at the discretion of their supervisors.

A free society means that people you don't like still have the same rights you do. Deal with it.

 

[STAGE 2]

Here is how it is related to what you were asking stage 2, recently in Indiana the law was changed so that felonies committed before the age of 18 stay on your record after you become a legal adult. None of these kids were aware of this, and the only reason they ran was because they were expecting a slap on the wrist. When they found out they would probably never be able to own a firearm, vote, or get a government loan for college they freaked out.

It may be related on some level, but 1) these are kids and 2) shooting rockets out of a moving car and subsequently evading police are both things that people understand is illegal. As such it doesn't qualify for this situation.

Wouldn't highly technical issues be exactly what a normal person WOULDN'T know about?

No. A person doesn't need to know the specifics of the law, merely that there may be some questions regarding legality. As I said before, the nature of the ATF and status of gun laws puts all gun owners on notice that monkeying with things may land you in the pokey.

But since you asked how about this one:

November 1, 1999—A jury has convicted a northern California superintendent of felony eavesdropping for installing a hidden video recorder in a principal's office.

Finally a candidate. While this case is going to be appealed (and likely reversed given the language of the law) I would qualify this as an example of a person losing their rights doing something most people think is perfectly legal.

So now we have one. Of course one does not a pandemic make. Surely if this is as bad as some people say there must be others.

That'd be as easy as finding someone that really believed someone was 18 years of age when that individual was really 17.9 with a disapproving parent.

Sure the bar shouldn't be raised a little higher?

Whether the bar should be raised isn't the issue. In todays society if you don't know that "I didn't know she wasn't 18" isn't a defense then you probably deserve everything you get.

Genarlow Williams.

I expect him to know, not be stupid enough to videotape it and as a minor, he doesn't fit the paramters of this discussion.

 

[iiibdsiil]

If the felon is allowed out on the streets, after being "rehabilitated" by the prison system, I feel as though they *should* be safe enough to be trusted with a firearm, else they never should have never been released from prison.

And any reasonable sex crime (not a 19 year in that's in love with a 17 year old), murder, torture, other extremely violent crime should be punishable by death, so we shouldn't have to worry about their rights being restored

 

[Flyboy]

Genarlow was not eligible to have his case tried in juvenile court because in Georgia age 17 is the age for adult criminal court.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1710300

(In other words, in the eyes of the law, he's not a minor.)

As to the videotape, by saying "I expect him...not to be be stupid enough to videotape it," you are saying that he, specifically, was the one doing the taping. I've not heard it claimed that he was the cameraman; in fact, everything I've heard suggests that he was, er, otherwise occupied. Can you substiantiate that claim. And, as for expecting him to know [that it was a felony], A) at that age, do you really expect people to say "hey, wait a sec, before you finish taking off my pants, would you please show me your ID," and B) I asked if you would expect him to know it was a felony, particularly in light of the actions we've seen in entertainment and society, even up to the Oval Office. Also, in your response, please consider that if he had actually had vaginal intercourse with her, it would only have been a misdemeanor. In other words, would you reasonably expect somebody to expect intercourse to be a less severe crime than oral sex?

Also, a correction, his surname is Wilson, not Williams. The error was mine; mea culpa.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think the Lautenberg amendment is the one most people don't realize. If you get slapped with a restraining order, kiss your 2A rights goodbye.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Agreed. It's not so much those who have committed crimes, but those who have lost their rights for being determined by someone to be too great of a risk.

Restraining orders, personal protection orders, and afaik, even in my shall-issue state, wtr CPLs, being treated for any mental illness or, depending on the county, having been at some point diagnosed with any mental illness.

So, to answer the original question, activities like:

Getting a divorce. Often ppo's are just vindictiveness in a divorce situation.
Seeing a therapist.
Having someone decide you are somehow a threat and come up with a half-way decent reason to support their assertion.

 

[Hawk]

Whether the bar should be raised isn't the issue. In todays society if you don't know that "I didn't know she wasn't 18" isn't a defense then you probably deserve everything you get.

Nevertheless, it meets your criteria of an "activity that normal people would have no earthly idea was illegal". It doesn't meet your criteria for being smart but that's an entirely different issue.

As far as "...then you probably deserve everything you get" - you're entitled to your opinion. We'll just put it down to irreconcilable differences unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

[Crunker1337]

Fletchette, I understand that in a totally free society, that would indeed be the case.

Freedom doesn't necessarily equal safety, however.

 

[Never No More]

WHen I was in the army a guy got booted for losing his rights, how?

Thowing a piece of dog doo at his step son who wont pick up his dogs mess.

True story.

Here is the Democratic Republic of Washington, more folks lose their rights then there are gun owners.

 

[freedomwanted]

In 1980 i testified in a murder case. The prosecuting attorney and the sheriff said that i would get police protection an the sheriff told me to carry a gun. That's the biggest lie i have ever been told.I've been shot, beaten up, theaten and they did nothing.So i did what i had to do to get these people off my back.What i did was'nt legal but it worked.If the law would have done there job i would'nt be in the shape i'm in now.There were 2 cops that were involed in what i did but nothing happen to them.I was sentenced an done 60 days in jail.Now i'm a second class citizen paying first class taxes.The judge who sentenced me was kicked out of office for misused county funds an possion of coke about 8 years ago.Now all i've done in the past 26 years was got 2 speeding tickets. I now have my own bussiness i have 6 workers.This maybe not what your looking for but what was done to me was'nt fair at all.I'm doing a life sentence as far as i'm concearned.

 

[Fletchette]

Fletchette, I understand that in a totally free society, that would indeed be the case.

Freedom doesn't necessarily equal safety, however.

Where did 'safety' come into the discussion?

 

[Fletchette]

Freedomwanted:

From your story you are exactly the type of person I have been talking about. It appears to me that you are a 'criminal' in name only. Having your rights being repressed as they are is an abomination to the very concept of what this country is supposed to be about.

Even if someone did commit a bonafide crime, we should not look down on them as sub-human. No one is perfect so we should not pretend that only perfect people have rights. Everyone, even criminals have rights (that's what "unalienable" means ).

If you read through the legal theory of how our society is supposed to work, they make a careful distinction between 'not having rights' and 'the lawful suppression of rights'.

Everyone has inalienable rights. However, society may 'lawfully repress' someone's rights through due process. For example, a citizen who has committed felonious assault can have his inalienable right to keep and bear arms 'lawfully repressed' by convicting him of said crime by a jury of his peers. Then, and only then, does the State have the authority to repress that right by confining the convicted in prison.

Note that while that citizens' right to keep and bear arms is being lawfully repressed by the State, the State now assumes responsibility for the protection of that citizen. Someone who is assaulted in public by a criminal cannot sue the State for failing to protect them, but someone assaulted in prison CAN.

However, once that sentence is served, that citizen should be released back into society with all of his rights intact. To continue to repress that citizens' rights is not only unlawful, but it creates a caste system where there are several different classes of citizens. The end result is that society itself is no longer "free" as people have to go around proving what caste they are in before they can exercise a right. The right has thus become a privilege.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

However, once that sentence is served, that citizen should be released back into society with all of his rights intact. To continue to repress that citizens' rights is not only unlawful, but it creates a caste system where there are several different classes of citizens. The end result is that society itself is no longer "free" as people have to go around proving what caste they are in before they can exercise a right. The right has thus become a privilege.

At least he can still petition to have his 2A rights restored; get hung up on Lautenberg, even if if you've never been convicted of a crime, and you're screwed.

 

[freedomwanted]

Talk about the rights that you lose.I had to do finger prints for a SBA loan. After 26 years of staying out trouble. The a t f has'nt returned anyones rights sence 1992. The violance policy center will not let the a t f have the funds to do that nor will they let the person who wants them restored pay for it. Lobbyist in washinton. DC. I consider my self a true patriot.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

a SBA loan. After 26 years of staying out trouble. The a t f has'nt returned anyones rights sence 1992. The violance policy center will not let the a t f have the funds to do that nor will they let the person who wants them restored pay for it.

What? Of course the ATF hasn't returned anyones rights. They don't have the power to do so. Also, the Violence Policy Center does not control the ATF or individuals.

 

[Fletchette]

What? Of course the ATF hasn't returned anyones rights. They don't have the power to do so.

So let me get this straight: The ATF does have the power to take people's rights, but not give them back? How conveinient...

To be blunt, I completely disagree. The ATF could decide to re-re-interpret some of their unilateral decisions and restore many citizens' rights. For example, it could simply reconsider 922 (r).

It doesn't, however, not becasue it can't, but because it is full of people who are soley interested in taking power.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Most felons have proven themselves to be a threat to society so in order to provide public safety for the masses all felons, which have basically surrendered some of their rights by their actions, must not be allowed to be armed IMO.
Although there is a rare few cases where someone got the justice shaft and were convicted of a felony for a crime that did not legitimately rise to the level of a felony forever barring firearms ownership, that is what govenor and presidential pardons and commutaions are for (in some states the power resides in a state committe or board). Felons have one last recourse and if they truly deserve their rights to be restored, then it is possible.