crazed_ss
Member
Californians have lost their gun rights? Hmm .. News to me.
What kinds of people have lost their gun rights.
- Thread starter STAGE 2
- Start date
- Status
Californians have lost their gun rights? Hmm .. News to me.
Titan6
member
Gosh... Maybe Old Dog did not believe me? I will be happy to send hundreds of more cases if I have the time... But who has that kind of time?
These are the lucky ones. After being convicted they won on appeal. They were still convicted though.
This guy fell asleep while driving and killed somone. Convicted of felony in the state of Kansas. Not a felony everywhere. Won on appeal. Negligence is the requirement. Is Negligence a crime that you would have knowledge of prior to commiting it? Sometimes. But while you were asleep?
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2005/20050513/92291.htm
This guy had a diabetic blackout. Convicted. Conviction overturned on appeal. Convicted of a felony for a diabetic blackout?
http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/0113972.txt
Also look at Hargrove vs. Virginia and so on...
I suggest a review of Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter: A Dilemma by
Frank A. Karaba
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951), Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jul. - Aug., 1950), pp. 183-189
doi:10.2307/1138424
Here is a listing of states who are trying to make it a felony to fall asleep while driving:
http://www.sleepfoundation.org/site...k.DBB3/2007_State_Bills_on_Drowsy_Driving.htm
Now why should I care? It happened to a friend of mine. It ruined his life. He fell asleep while driving (sober) and spent two years in prison. Happens every day.
Here is a whole web site dedicated to reckless driving. There are hundreds of cases of people being convicted of a felony for falling asleep while driving. Knock yourself out. Then tell me it does not happen. Or everyone knows you should not fall asleep while driving. Everyone also know you should not hit yourself with a hammer. Yet every year thousands of people bang their thumbs, hands and fingers with a hammer. I do not think most people would want to fall asleep while driving. It is likely just as hazardous to themsleves as it would be to the public.
http://law.mongabay.com/news/Reckless_Driving.html
These are the lucky ones. After being convicted they won on appeal. They were still convicted though.
This guy fell asleep while driving and killed somone. Convicted of felony in the state of Kansas. Not a felony everywhere. Won on appeal. Negligence is the requirement. Is Negligence a crime that you would have knowledge of prior to commiting it? Sometimes. But while you were asleep?
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2005/20050513/92291.htm
This guy had a diabetic blackout. Convicted. Conviction overturned on appeal. Convicted of a felony for a diabetic blackout?
http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/0113972.txt
Also look at Hargrove vs. Virginia and so on...
I suggest a review of Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter: A Dilemma by
Frank A. Karaba
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951), Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jul. - Aug., 1950), pp. 183-189
doi:10.2307/1138424
Here is a listing of states who are trying to make it a felony to fall asleep while driving:
http://www.sleepfoundation.org/site...k.DBB3/2007_State_Bills_on_Drowsy_Driving.htm
Now why should I care? It happened to a friend of mine. It ruined his life. He fell asleep while driving (sober) and spent two years in prison. Happens every day.
Here is a whole web site dedicated to reckless driving. There are hundreds of cases of people being convicted of a felony for falling asleep while driving. Knock yourself out. Then tell me it does not happen. Or everyone knows you should not fall asleep while driving. Everyone also know you should not hit yourself with a hammer. Yet every year thousands of people bang their thumbs, hands and fingers with a hammer. I do not think most people would want to fall asleep while driving. It is likely just as hazardous to themsleves as it would be to the public.
http://law.mongabay.com/news/Reckless_Driving.html
Old Dog
Member
Well, Titan6, it appears you are arguing against the validity of the laws in question, which, again, is not what the OP was asking for
but more to the point, I'd hope most folks understand that if you kill someone with your motor vehicle, and you are at fault, it is very likely you will be charged with a crime. Regardless of causal factors for falling asleep behind the wheel, there will always be -- and should be -- consequences when the results are bad ... The individual makes the choice to drive, and getting behind the wheel when one knows one is overtired/sleep-deprived is as bad as getting behind the wheel when one knows he's had too much too drink.
freedomwanted
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 28
Revjen 45
When your young an terrified you don't think to good. The D.A. told me that he would charge me with 1st. degree murder if i didn't do an say a certain way. I'm glad its over been 26 years but i would like my 2A back.Because i was done wrong!Like i said i'm doing a life sentence.
When your young an terrified you don't think to good. The D.A. told me that he would charge me with 1st. degree murder if i didn't do an say a certain way. I'm glad its over been 26 years but i would like my 2A back.Because i was done wrong!Like i said i'm doing a life sentence.
Titan6
member
No. Actually my argument is the opposite. There are very few laws prohibiting driving while sleeping. In none of the cases I cited is there such a law, however some are in the works.
So while driving while overtired and even while sleeping may be stupid and poor judgement it breaks no laws either. And certainly if one is asleep than one has no earthly idea they are about to kill someone. So it is an exact fit to the argument.
This is not a matter of semantics either. If the OP wants to turn it into a battle of semantics he needs to reword the question for the fourth time and keep rewording it every time there is a fly in the ointment until there are no possible outcomes other than the desired one which is this; no cases match his criteria. When one starts with a theroy and looks only for evidence to prove that theroy than dismissing the ''wrong evidence'' is easy.
In the cases I cited that were won on appeal the offender knew in advance that they should not be driving (diabetic prone to blackouts, narcolepsy, etc.) and drove anyway. The irony here is that in most cases people who fall asleep while driving had no idea that that would happen. So why does the law allow those who knew that they had a condition that would put them at much greater risk go free while condemning those who did not? One would think that negligance would be much easier to prove in such cases.
So while driving while overtired and even while sleeping may be stupid and poor judgement it breaks no laws either. And certainly if one is asleep than one has no earthly idea they are about to kill someone. So it is an exact fit to the argument.
This is not a matter of semantics either. If the OP wants to turn it into a battle of semantics he needs to reword the question for the fourth time and keep rewording it every time there is a fly in the ointment until there are no possible outcomes other than the desired one which is this; no cases match his criteria. When one starts with a theroy and looks only for evidence to prove that theroy than dismissing the ''wrong evidence'' is easy.
In the cases I cited that were won on appeal the offender knew in advance that they should not be driving (diabetic prone to blackouts, narcolepsy, etc.) and drove anyway. The irony here is that in most cases people who fall asleep while driving had no idea that that would happen. So why does the law allow those who knew that they had a condition that would put them at much greater risk go free while condemning those who did not? One would think that negligance would be much easier to prove in such cases.
I'm going to agree with people who think rights should be restored.
When I was a kid I got in a LOT of trouble. I did some really really dumb stuff.. some things that would of gotten me felony convictions for sure (all drug crimes). Thankfully the statue of limitations is up and I can tell people about them Some of the lesser stuff I got caught for and was locked up in a juvie place for about 5 months.
After getting out, I cleaned up went to college and moved on with my life. Now I have thought how horrible that would of been if that dumb crap I did as a kid would of prevented me from owning guns the right of my life.
Once you do your time, you are out and it should be over. If you shouldn't be trusted with a gun then you shouldn't be trusted in public. Period. Some people actually do get reformed through the criminal justice system.
Also, do you really think a person who wants a gun badly enough isn't going to find one through illegal channels?
Another point.. felonies are supposed to be for horrible crimes, they are handed out much too easily today.
When I was a kid I got in a LOT of trouble. I did some really really dumb stuff.. some things that would of gotten me felony convictions for sure (all drug crimes). Thankfully the statue of limitations is up and I can tell people about them
Some of the lesser stuff I got caught for and was locked up in a juvie place for about 5 months. After getting out, I cleaned up went to college and moved on with my life. Now I have thought how horrible that would of been if that dumb crap I did as a kid would of prevented me from owning guns the right of my life.
Once you do your time, you are out and it should be over. If you shouldn't be trusted with a gun then you shouldn't be trusted in public. Period. Some people actually do get reformed through the criminal justice system.
Also, do you really think a person who wants a gun badly enough isn't going to find one through illegal channels?
Another point.. felonies are supposed to be for horrible crimes, they are handed out much too easily today.
I think you missed my post on the first page of this thread.
http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3660613&postcount=5
A guy at the advice of his lawyer and school board installed a security camera to catch thieves and was convicted of wire tapping.
No way to know that would be a felony, especially since there was no sound being recorded.
And he EVEN asked a lawyer for advice. What more is needed?
Just keep redrawing the line until the statement is so narrow it cannot be disproved.
How about women that file restraining orders on their husbands as part of normal divorce preceding? The husband can't own fire arms anymore and was never convicted of anything.
Woops that doesn't count.
How about in Ohio where it takes a judge and one other person to get you added to the sex offender registry. You don't even get a trial, or charged with anything. Yet now you're listed as a sex offender and I'd be willing to bet there are states that have laws against sex offenders owning weapons.
But again sex offender law and no conviction.
How about people convicted all the time of felony copyright infringement? Oh wait that was specifically listed in the first post because it is an easy example of where normal people wouldn't know the laws they are breaking and that those laws are felonies. I mean did you know it is a felony to make a back up of your DVDs or console video games? Even though under the law you're allowed to make archival copies in case of disaster etc? Problem is to make the copies you have to commit a felony...
How about gun convictions? Again listed in the first post. Yet the whole point of this thread was to give convictions of crimes a normal person wouldn't know were a felony.
I'm surprised to see no one else has really pointed out the deep flaw in original post:
Means it has to be something no one knows was illegal, but somehow it rules out items that people don't know the full legalities of like VAGUE TECHNICAL FIREARM LAWS.
Even when I pointed this out in POST #5 the response was yet again conflicting with the original premise of the thread:
Ok so let me get this straight.
1. Normal people would have to have no earthly idea it was illegal implying they have no knowledge of a law or set of laws prohibiting their actions. Check
2. They don't have to know the specifics of that law at all. Check
2. But they need to know there may be some questions of legality...
***? How does one know and not know a law?
So basically Stage2 is asking for only situations where a person doesn't know if it was bad or if there was a law about it yet should be dubious of the legality of their actions and WAS convicted for this nonsensical hypothetical situation? Not only that BUT LOTS of examples of this nonsensical situation. So that in the off chance you find something matching the criteria it can be said it doesn't seem to be a pandemic, just a few cases.
Nice real nice.
Never mind that 'monkeying' with a firearm is as simple as adding a 5 dollar foregrip to a pistol and you are a felon. Or putting a detachable magazine or new camo stock on an SKS/Most Surplus rifles without reducing the foreign part counts. A normal person wouldn't think that to be monkeying. Especially when both are legal on their own to own and use. MANY people don't consider changing grips on a 1911 monkeying or just inserting a magazine monkeying and so wouldn't think twice about customizing their rifles and have NO clue that what they are doing is a felony. But aha this is one of those vague technical gun laws that doesn't apply.
This whole thread is pointless.
Old Dog
Member
Quite possibly ... but then again, perhaps not. I know where Stage2 was coming from, as I too grow weary by the vast numbers of people who apparently believe (and make claims on the internet) that our legal system is rife with malicious or frivolous prosecutions and thousands of folk are being unjustly "railroaded" and otherwise deprived of their Constitutional rights solely due to capricious prosecution for violating obscure laws ... what this thread does reflect is the apparent rarity of people who lose their gun rights subsequent to conviction for committing felony violations of all those laws no one has ever heard of or are aware of ...
Of course, don't even get me started on Lautenberg or the topic of ROs, TROs, or "protection orders" ... now that leads to the real definition of what can be abused and "unjust." But that's a whole 'nother topic ...
REOIV said:
i agree, as long as the OP is allowed to keep defining his own terms, he can prove anything. there's a similar thread going on over at TFL. the OP asked what rights have been lost since 1899 or something. when people gave him examples, he kept redefining what a right was. an entirely pointless endeavor.
How about this kid, who is about to permanently lose his gun rights over a swiss army knife:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/04/knife_0905.html
Examples abound and are widespread. Anyone in these forums who doesn't see what is happening has their head in the sand.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/04/knife_0905.html
Examples abound and are widespread. Anyone in these forums who doesn't see what is happening has their head in the sand.
You're reading a different thread then.
There are lots of cases where people lost their 2nd amendment rights for non violent convictions, yet many of the major easy ones that most people would blunder into were removed from the running by the OP.
You can't use convictions for copyright infringement even though the RIAA and MPAA are suing people left and right over it.
You can't use gun laws for some reason in that everyone that owns a gun should apparently know every minutia related to the legality of ADDING extra cosmetic parts.
You can't use sex offender laws that have gone so far off track that a person can be come a felon for taking nude pictures of themselves if they are under 18. LOTS of those cases.
The way the situation is set up a person first off has to know of a law that most people DON'T know about.
And THEN find someone convicted of that law.
Not surprising that there aren't going to be a lot of examples.
Quick name me 5 laws you don't know about that people were punished for.
See no one gets punished for laws you don't know about.
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
Old Dog,
I want to clarify my statement to the effect that “thousands of people are railroaded each year by the criminal justice system”. I did not mean it to sound like our justice system does not work at all or that it is not in fact the best justice system in the world. In the words of Mark Levin, “most of the time justice is served but sometimes, it isn’t!” In this vast country “sometimes it isn’t” does indeed number in the thousands.
Do you think the Duke Lacrosse players were railroaded? If yes do you think that in Mike Nifongs’ career as a prosecutor this was the only time he abused the power of the office? This man alone has prosecuted hundreds of cases and he's not the only lawyer in the DA's office that was involved. Do you think he is the ONLY DA that has abused his prosecutorial power for political or other personal gain?
To the OP’s question, there was a thread a while back where two young adults were stopped by the police on a routine traffic violation. The passenger of the vehicle had a video camera with him and thought it would be interesting to video tape the event. The police arrested him and the DA subsequently charged the passenger with Felony wire tapping. I believe the charges were eventually dropped but that was likely only because of negative media exposure. He could just as easily been a convicted felon. I’m now convinced this kind of abuse happens far more than is realized by the public.
I want to clarify my statement to the effect that “thousands of people are railroaded each year by the criminal justice system”. I did not mean it to sound like our justice system does not work at all or that it is not in fact the best justice system in the world. In the words of Mark Levin, “most of the time justice is served but sometimes, it isn’t!” In this vast country “sometimes it isn’t” does indeed number in the thousands.
Do you think the Duke Lacrosse players were railroaded? If yes do you think that in Mike Nifongs’ career as a prosecutor this was the only time he abused the power of the office? This man alone has prosecuted hundreds of cases and he's not the only lawyer in the DA's office that was involved. Do you think he is the ONLY DA that has abused his prosecutorial power for political or other personal gain?
To the OP’s question, there was a thread a while back where two young adults were stopped by the police on a routine traffic violation. The passenger of the vehicle had a video camera with him and thought it would be interesting to video tape the event. The police arrested him and the DA subsequently charged the passenger with Felony wire tapping. I believe the charges were eventually dropped but that was likely only because of negative media exposure. He could just as easily been a convicted felon. I’m now convinced this kind of abuse happens far more than is realized by the public.
Last edited:
- Status
