should ex felons be restricted


PDA






cheese_head
December 2, 2004, 12:53 PM
should ex felons be restricted from owning guns once they have paid there debt to society?
are ex felons family members also prohibited from RKBA?

If you enjoyed reading about "should ex felons be restricted" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AZRickD
December 2, 2004, 01:04 PM
In the good ol' days they weren't.

If they are too dangerous to be outside a prison with a gun, then they are too dangerous to be outside of prison with a butter knife, or a car. Guns are easy to get, even in island nations such as England.

I have heard that if a felon lives in a house where there is a gun, that gun must not be accessible to the felon (lock and key, etc). Don't quote me.

Rick

countertop
December 2, 2004, 01:04 PM
should ex felons be restricted from owning guns once they have paid there debt to society?

It depends on the felony. Someone convicted of a non violent offense (tax fraud, theft, violating some environmental crime, drug possession, etc) shouldn't have the right removed. Of course, I would also argue that those shouldn't be criminal actions either but treated differently.

People convicted of violent crime in the first degree - murder, rape, kidnapping, arson - should lose the right. Of course, they shouldn't see the light of day again either, but thats another discussion.

As for people convicted in the second degree (and beyond) it depends on the circumstances.

However, in call cases, the loss of the right should be a clear part of the punishment, included in the sentencing report at the time of conviction. If should not be applied retroactivly. I feel the same way about registering pedophiles and sex offendors. Include the registration as a term of conviction and I've got no problem with it. However, it strikes me as particularly unfair (and lacking sufficient moral foundation) to pass a law after a crime was convicted that requires the criminal to undergo additional punishment.

are ex felons family members also prohibited from RKBA?

Not unless that family member is also a felon. As G. Gordon Liddy likes to point out, his wife has one hell of a gun collection.

longrifleman
December 2, 2004, 01:05 PM
Short answer is no. If they are still dangerous why are they out of prison? Restricting full exercise of rights, not just RKBA, for some period to prove the felon is re-habilitated is reasonable. The period is debatable. I think 5 yrs for non-violent crimes and 10 yrs for violent crimes is about right but could be persuaded otherwise.

are ex felons family members also prohibited from RKBA?

Not directly, but a firearm in the house with a felon is setting them up for more time in Club Fed. It will be pretty easy for a prosecutor to make the case against the felon, along with a strawman charge against the significant other.

TimRB
December 2, 2004, 01:06 PM
I know I will be well-outnumbered, but I think that it is reasonable to restrict a felon's RKBA even after he has served his term. There is a process by which a felon who keeps his nose clean can have his civil rights fully restored, and it is foolish not to recognize that many felons are career criminals who can't be trusted with firearms.

Tim

taliv
December 2, 2004, 01:08 PM
it's my understanding you can go through the court and spend a couple grand on lawyers after 7 years and get most felonies removed from your record to restore your "right" (or get a job or whatever else you need to do that requires you to not be a felon)

JamisJockey
December 2, 2004, 01:08 PM
Should they be?
IMHO: No. Once someone has repaid their debt to society all rights should be restored. If someone is too dangerous to society to possess a gun, should they really be out of prison?


I believe the felony conviction prevents them from being 'in possesion' of a weapon. In the same room or car as an unsecured weapon would probably be considered 'in possesion'.

cheese_head
December 2, 2004, 01:11 PM
a felon needs to get a govenors pardon
and an unsecured firearm in a house even without the felons knowledge is constructive possession
a man can get 15 years for a unsecured bullet here with or without there knowledge

cracked butt
December 2, 2004, 01:32 PM
a felon needs to get a govenors pardon

Nope. I have a friend who had a felony drunk driving conviction about 10 years ago who just had a hearing before a judge earlier this spring who restored his rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and an unsecured firearm in a house even without the felons knowledge is constructive possession
a man can get 15 years for a unsecured bullet here with or without there knowledge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never heard of this. In fact I highly doubt it.

cheese_head
December 2, 2004, 01:41 PM
if a gun is in the house and the felon knowingly or unkonowingly has access to it. It is deemed constructive possession. It is not necessary to demonstrate intent.

If the guys father has hunting rifles in the house. And they are not locked up. The felon has constructive possession of the firearm.

Firethorn
December 2, 2004, 01:49 PM
Ouch, if that's true, Wisconsin gives cops a real oppertunity to convict felons that they don't like, simply by dropping a round somewhere in the house, such as in or behind the couch. I really object to people getting convicted for something they don't even know about. How can you be "guilty" in a more traditional sense if you don't even know what's going on?

My opinion is that if they're still dangerous, you shouldn't let them out of prison, however, how can you tell while they're still in prison? That's what parole is for. And all punishments should be part of the original sentence. I think that your rights should be restored once you're off of parole. I kinda object to the "pay thousands of dollars" part to see a judge to get it restored, but I don't object to having a judge take a look at the felon's life at the end of parole to determine if there are any lingering effects. Make it so that the felon can appeal those yearly or so.

Very Very few career criminals are able to get off of parole before commiting another crime. Once it's been determined(three strikes?), lock them up and throw away the key.

And people are right, I'm not concerned about non-violent crime as much as violent crime for this. I'll go so far as to say that there are misdemeanor assults that should have harsher penalties than some of the non-violent felonies.

fjolnirsson
December 2, 2004, 02:11 PM
I believe parole should be a part of all releases from prison. Once parole is over, if the person is safe to be released, his rights should be restored. No second class of citizens for me, thank you.

Make them full citizens, or keep 'em under lock and key.

Or kill 'em.

victory
December 2, 2004, 02:14 PM
if you can't trust him with a gun, how can you trust him out in society. In fact, i believe when they are paroled they should be given a gun, and a key to the parole boards houses.

Fletchette
December 2, 2004, 02:25 PM
No, they should not be restricted.

An Unalienable Right is an Unalienable Right. Under the Constituion, the state may repress one's rights under 'due process'; a jury of one's peers convict the accused of a crime. Then that person goes to prison where his freedoms are restricted. This is when he "can't have a gun" -in prison. Once the person is released back into society he should have his full rights restored so that he may be a productive citizen. If we can't trust him with a gun, we can't trust him to walk among us.

Think about it. Anyone can go into Home Depot and buy an axe or a chainsaw. If we can't trust a convict with a gun should we trust him to own these items as well?

I am very concerned with the direction out society has gone in the last several decades. We seem to want to punish someone for a crime and keep punishing them (see the thread about the first-time drug offender getting 55 years) without regard to the severity of the crime.

Also, "gun-crime" laws - laws that impose harsher punishments for a crime that involves a gun- simply re-enforces the notion that guns a "evil". In society's mind it is "worse" to murder someone with a gun than to murder someone with a knife. I think we should punish criminals for the actual crime, not the tools he used, or the clothing he wore, or the color of his skin...

Let me put it another way: should we allow ex-cons to marry? If so, doesn't the former convict have a right and DUTY to defend his family?

Art Eatman
December 2, 2004, 08:49 PM
Reading the discussions of the Second Amendment in the Anti-Federalist papers gives some notions of the ideas of the writers of the Constitution. They're ideas are good enough for me.

Ownership of firearms should not be allowed for "those of unsound mind or ill repute"; apparoximately the wording. Ill repute, I believe, would equate to today's felon.

Before the feds got into the act, Texas was more liberal than the Founding Fathers. A felon could possess a firearm within his home, for self defense. He could not go elsewhere and be armed. Remember, though, that this was in an era when nobody was allowed to carry a pistol except when legally defined as a traveller.

Art

Lone_Gunman
December 2, 2004, 09:48 PM
it is foolish not to recognize that many felons are career criminals who can't be trusted with firearms.

If a felon wants a gun, it doesnt matter if it is legal or not... he will find a way to get one.

It is very easy for a felon to get a gun if he wants one. Laws making it illegal for him to possess them do no good.

All he has to do is pick up a newspaper or go to a gunshow, and he can find plenty of people who will unknowingly sell to him.

armoredman
December 2, 2004, 09:54 PM
As one on the inside, there are some felons I would not think twice about being right behind me with a loaded firearm. There are many, many more who should never have a staple. Why do we let them out? We don't have any choice - they do thier time, and leave. I have seen them actually have to be Tased to get them out of VCU,(the Hole), to be released. Many have walked out these gates I would rather have seen carried out, but if they do the time, they get out. I believe they should be able to apply to restore thier FULL rights, (as BATFE was defunded to process firearm rights restoration), and posess legally again. My next door neighbor has a stupid kid felony from 25 years ago - he should be restored, as he has a 13 year old daughter and wife to worry about, and is a fine upstanding citizen.
Laws make zero differance to the criminal - I have done informal surveys among our inmate population, and the most I get in referance to gun laws is laughter, and "We love gun control!" One told me he could have a weapon in hand before he was out of sight of Traffic Control, and I believe him.
Could we keep them for life? Sure, if you want to pay for it. $25,000 a year to keep one behind bars here. Personally, and this is my opinion, not of my Dept or anyone else in this state - if they are doing a life sentance, with no possablilty of parole/release, they should be executed. Prison is for rehabilitation or temporary confinement. If they must stay here for ever, and will never be "rehabilitated", there is no use spending the money keeping them here and alive. Again, my opinion, and should not be applied or assumed of any other correctional personell

DMF
December 2, 2004, 09:56 PM
Haven't we beat this horse enough recently?

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=100141&highlight=18USC922

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=92099&highlight=18USC922

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=83191&highlight=18USC922

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=77426&highlight=felon

If you're curious about my opinion, it's on those threads, and a few more if you care to search some more.

DMF
December 2, 2004, 09:59 PM
If a felon wants a gun, it doesnt matter if it is legal or not... he will find a way to get one. Yeah, if someone is intent on committing murder they will do it anyone, so I guess laws against murder are useless too? :rolleyes:

18USC922 gives society a way of punishing career criminals, if they continue to pose a threat to society.

cheese_head
December 2, 2004, 10:04 PM
i dont see a reason to punish people once they have paid there debt to society. im kinda alarmed by all the new laws creating more felonies out of misdemeanors
it just seems to me we are losing more and more freedoms

Fletchette
December 2, 2004, 10:35 PM
related issue on Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140204,00.html

The gusto with which Congress passes laws also does significant damage to civil liberties. Author Gene Healy writes in the introduction to the new book, Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything, that in 1998, the American Bar Association assembled a task force charged with compiling a complete list of federal crimes. The panel concluded that a complete list was nearly impossible to assemble, given that the approximately 4,000 federal laws were interwoven between regulatory law, judge-made law, and the 27,000 pages of the US. Code.

"[Even] teams of legal researchers — let alone ordinary citizens — cannot reliably ascertain what federal law prohibits," Healy writes.

cheese_head
December 2, 2004, 10:44 PM
for starting this thread
there is a lot of opinon on this all over the high road
thanks for all your views
i dont feel like a freak now for thinking the way i did
in the real world (as opposed to here) people freak out when you say restoration of rights for felons i guess everyone believes in freedom except when it doesnt concern them

Fletchette
December 2, 2004, 10:54 PM
Cheese_Head - you don't have to apologize. This was a good topic, and the debate pretty civil (I've seen a lot worse). Besides, a good heated debate is necessary for the Republic.

"Evil prevails when good men remain silent" - Edmund Burke

Double Naught Spy
December 2, 2004, 11:21 PM
Just because felons have served time in prison, it does not mean that they have paid their debt to society. There are additional punitive rammifications. As a result of the felony, they also lose their rights to gun ownership and voting.

This was the law when the felony was committed and so by committing the felony, they are essentially volunteering to give up those right as they committed the felony voluntarily or out of some for of negligence such as vehicular homicide.

cheese_head
December 2, 2004, 11:33 PM
in wisconsin
in the 90s
if your drivers license was revoked
first offense was longer revocation
2nd offense was 5 years revocation
ad nauseum
what happened was people living in the rural areas (not served by busses)
kept getting caught
3rd fouth and 5th offenses could get you 2 years in the county jail
well the jails filled up with "criminals" driving without a license and they actually relaxed the penalties a little
felonies
DAs' were/are still judged by how many felony convictions they produce
so if some one did something they angled for the felony charge
the proverbial stealing hub caps became:
theft trespassing criminal damage to property and possesion of burglary tools
the concept of constructive possession came in vogue
if you had a party and some one brought drugs whether you knew it or not you now possessed drugs
when people think of felony they think of homicide kidnapping etc.
at least this state isnt florida with the denial of votes thing
there is no restoration of rights in wisconsin
the only way to get rights restored is thru a govenors pardon
govenors dont like pardoning people for past transgressions cause it is political suicide
there are a lot less hunters now because the DNR database cross checks the NCIC for felonies
of course that didnt stop chai vang shooting 8 people but that is beside the point
any ways its bed time nite all

Chuck Jennings
December 3, 2004, 12:08 AM
Just as disturbing is when the right to vote is taken away and not given back.

Chuck Jennings
December 3, 2004, 12:14 AM
DAs' were/are still judged by how many felony convictions they produce

This is the case in many states. What I find disheartening at times is that majority of judges come from the ranks of DA's. As a result, the attitiude of "they wouldn't be on trial if they weren't guilty" creeps into the mentality of the judiciary.

joe sixpack
December 3, 2004, 01:51 AM
The problem with ex-felons is that they are not ex-criminals. Recidivism rates under the current system are alarming at best.
We are not "rehabilitating" these people, but we are giving them a graduate course in crime and hooking them to the major criminal communication lines of the world.

cheers, js

Fletchette
December 3, 2004, 02:20 AM
The problem with ex-felons is that they are not ex-criminals. Recidivism rates under the current system are alarming at best.
We are not "rehabilitating" these people, but we are giving them a graduate course in crime and hooking them to the major criminal communication lines of the world.

It is my belief that a big part of this problem is the continued punishment of convicts after they have finished their sentences. If you get out of prison but cannot get a job other than flipping burgers because of your record, you end up being a criminal again. It is just like the stereotypical kid whose father constantly tells him that he is a loser - he ends up being a loser because that is what he is told, even if he hates his father.

The_Antibubba
December 3, 2004, 04:38 AM
"Ex-Felons" are people who no longer have a Felony conviction against them-no reason they cannot own a firearm.

"Ex-Convicts" are those who are no longer imprisoned.

Methinks this thread is about "ex-convicts".

cheese_head
December 3, 2004, 08:27 AM
i was looking for the actual list of felonies in wi. and found this.
its about a bill for firing school employees for previous convictions
all i can find is that there are 500 offenses considered felonies.
not paying child support for 120 is a felony

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm29/news/news/2003/031903Compromise%20Failure.htm

The bill, as written, would deny anyone employment by a school district for ANY felony. According to state statutes that would mean theft of cable or satellite TV, bouncing a check, writing graffiti, failure to pay child support for 120 days, and dozens of other crimes currently classified as felonies under Wisconsin state law.

Once upon a time there used to be a phrase to describe many of these crimes. It was “youthful indiscretions.” Now, for an act of stupidity committed when you were 18, you would NEVER be able to be employed by a school district, even as a janitor or bus driver or cafeteria worker. In fact, long-term employees from school districts who committed a felony thirty years ago could be faced with losing their jobs, never mind that they have been responsible law-abiding tax paying citizens ever since.

beerslurpy
December 3, 2004, 08:41 AM
The removal of gun rights from felons is done for the same reason as removing voting rights. It helps to strip the tools away from minorities and the economic underclass of our society. Disarmed people cant riot. They also cant defend themselves against tyranny and they cant turn their representatives out of office when they fail to represent them.

Gun control is very much a racial and economic issue. Why do you think that the areas with the strictest gun control also have the highest minority populations?

I hate to quote the black panthers, but they hit the nail on the head when they observed that the 1968 GCA should have been called the "take guns away from ******s act." Strict controls on dealership licensing and tracking where guns are officially sold allows local governments to more effectively deny guns to their "undesireable" population.

Say it aint so.

Zedicus
December 3, 2004, 11:23 AM
beerslurpy just Hit the nail on the head & drove it all the way in with the one hit!

USP45usp
December 3, 2004, 05:21 PM
Yes, ex-covicts should have their Rights restored after they show that they are rehab'ed (say maybe 2 or 3 years after release).

Also, don't apologize for starting this thread, some folks think that one topic, no matter how long the thread gets, should only be talked about in that one area and not restarted..... the way I see it, if the Owner, Admins and Mods don't mind that there is another thread started, I don't see how a NON OWNER, ADMIN, or MOD should have a say in the matter. JMHO.

Actually Beer, they (the governments) aren't just after one minority but after everyone that 1) Isn't an elite, 2) Isn't in charge of the government and 3) Isn't elite and in charge of the government.

Gun Control = Disarm everyone but the elites/government. It's not "just a black thang" any more (which is why I love it when I see Black/Asian/Women gun owners and shooters).

Wayne

Hkmp5sd
December 3, 2004, 05:50 PM
Yeah, if someone is intent on committing murder they will do it anyone, so I guess laws against murder are useless too? :rolleyes:
You're absolutely correct. The laws against murder are useless in preventing someone intent on committing murder from killing someone. Its only function is to provide punishment should the person be caught after the fact. Therefore, Lone Gunman is also correct in his assertion that laws prohibiting felons from possessing guns do not prevent a felon from getting one if he chooses to do so. I think it has something to do with only law abiding citizens abide by laws and by definition, this does not include criminals.

Russ
December 3, 2004, 06:30 PM
I didn't read through all of the replies but it seems to me that it depends on the "FELONY" one is convicted of. For example, many years ago, if you got caught with a "Roach" (what remains of a Marijauna cigarette) you could be charged and potentially convicted of a FELONY. Now the same offense is an infraction. In other words, pay a traffic fine and go home. For these types of non-violent crimes, I think a "FELON" should be able to get a gun after going through the process the legal system demands.

However, if one has been convicted of a "FELONY" based on violence to another person then they should never own a gun again.

No one has the right to hurt someone else unless threatened and certainly not the right to use lethal force unless responding to the same type of threat.

I have a nephew in San Quentin. He will not say why he is there. I suspect he likely killed someone or hurt them badly. San Quentin in CA is where the worst go. I don't even want to know why he is there now. If he ever gets out, I sure don't want a guy like this owning a gun again. He has been convicted in the past of armed robbery.

What that means is he stuck a loaded revolver in a businessman's face and demanded his wallet and jewelery. He is in the prison now for doing worse. I hope he stays in jail until he is too old to walk.

So, the answer is this. Non-violent felons should be able to get guns again.
Those who use guns or other items to inflict violence on innocents should not get the chance to own guns again.

My 2 cents. My advice is worth as much as you paid for it. Nothing!

WT
December 3, 2004, 07:54 PM
My standard reply:

"No, a felon should not be allowed to possess a firearm or any ammunition, ever."

"If he needs to defend himself he can use his fists."

Chris Rhines
December 3, 2004, 08:02 PM
Does that include you, WT? Because I can guarentee you, you are a felon who just hasn't been caught and convicted yet...

I'd be willing to consider barring felons from gun ownership if felony were redefined as "murder, assault, theft, and destruction of private property, and nothing else."

- Chris

Edit: I take that back. I wouldn't be willing to consider it.

io333
December 3, 2004, 08:20 PM
The answer to the question in the title of this thread is so easy:


Yes, of course an an ex-felon should be allowed to own a gun. If the person cannot be trusted with a gun, THEN WHY THE HECK WAS THE MENACE TO SOCIETY LET OUT?


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss: :cuss: :banghead:

beerslurpy
December 3, 2004, 08:33 PM
The government has demostrated that it cannot be trusted to do a good job of denying gun ownership to even the most dangerous of criminals. So it should not be given that responsibility. Background checks are an awesome idea, except for how they dont actually keep guns away from criminals. Nothing does. You can't uninvent guns and they are not difficult to make.

Let everyone have guns. The average man on the street is no less trustworthy than the average cop. Average citizens armed with guns dont frighten me any more than citizens with cars or penises or angry dogs- all of which can be used to commit serious crimes. Give people as much responsibility as they want- there is plenty of time to punish people AFTER they do something bad or irresponsible.

When people do bad things, give them real punishments. The concept of "someone convicted of a serious crime attempting to buy a gun" shouldnt even be possible unless they start selling guns in jail. Unfortunately, the US prison system is more about maintaining a sufficiently large captive labor force than about rehabilitating prisoners.

We need to stop using jail as a place to put political prisoners and the poor. There are a great many non-serious (in my opinion) crimes that are punished by long jail sentences. We need to stop putting drug addicts in jail and start focusing on people who are really dangerous. Potheads dont need rehabilitation, they need to be left alone. Likewise, those criminals who are clearly beyond the reach of rehabilitation need to be dealt with in a permanent manner. Murderers and armed robbers dont need to be rehabilitated, they need to be executed.

When we try to make law enforcement and prison profitable instead of merely serving the interests of justice we corrupt the entire system. Has anyone been pulled over for speeding lately?

Waitone
December 3, 2004, 09:38 PM
Stop it, Stop it, Stop it right now!

I can't handle it any longer. Felons and other gradients of criminals don't wrong society and therefore do not have to "pay their debt to society." Criminals wrong individuals and should be forced to restore what was stolen or destroyed then followed by restitution based on the economic value of what was stolen or destroyed. We get our BVD's wadded up because we look at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope.

In my idealistic, non-existent world those to commit crime would be forced to restore what was stolen or destroyed. After full restoration takes place there is no more debt to the victim (not society). The perp then is fully vested in society and can have his voting rights returned or his gun rights established. "Well, whaddya do with repeat offenders?" Simple. Repeat offenders keep doing restoration and restitution or, and this is really simple, harsh, and terribly un-PC, they are killed by the state. :eek:

neoncowboy
December 3, 2004, 10:29 PM
Should pedophiles be kept from working in pre-schools?
Should people convicted of forgery be barred from working at a bank?
Should multiple DUI drivers lose their commercial pilot certificates?
Should safe crackers be kept out of locksmithing jobs?

I believe that people who forsake their rights through irresponsibility or just proving themselve untrustworthy with the rights they have...are in danger of losing their rights or having them restricted.

Fletchette
December 3, 2004, 10:42 PM
neoncowboy:

Should felons be allowed to marry?

neoncowboy
December 3, 2004, 10:54 PM
You'll notice that I didn't generalize 'felons', but instead questioned specific rights as they apply to specific abusers of those rights.

So, in general, I don't see any reason why an ex-felon who has won the trust of someone who wants to marry them should not enjoy the right to.

Fletchette
December 3, 2004, 10:56 PM
...then shouldn't that felon have the right to fullfill his duty to defend his family?

Ezekiel
December 4, 2004, 01:48 AM
With respect:

First, there is no such thing as an "ex-felon". If you have ever committed a felonious activity, then you are -- by definition -- a "felon". Second, as a former (thank God) Parole Officer, I can indicate with clarity that merely because one has been released from prison matters not in terms of an individual's specific danger to society.

In sum, when one is remanded, an individual is committed to the supervision of the Secretary of Corrections. In essence, a sentence of 7.5 years to life (in Kansas) can result in a mere 3 years in prison and a lifetime of parole supervision as "life" merely means being under the scrutiny of the Secretary. The key has nothing to do with prison time, it has to do with the duration of supervision. If you're on supervision, you should not have a weapon. In Kansas, "constructive possession" can, in fact, occur exactly as has been described previously in this thread.

[sigh] I don't care for the broad concept of "inalienable rights" because it is simplistic and overtly general. If a single situation can be construed wherein a "right" should be tempered then it is not inalienable! The broad scope that individuals who "pay their debt" should recoup all their "inalienable rights" goes back to the discredited correctional idea of penance -- hence, Penitentiary –- and just cannot be universally applied. If you "screw up", you should pay a permanent price [loss of rights], in my opinion.

Thanks,

Zeke

neoncowboy
December 4, 2004, 03:33 AM
...then shouldn't that felon have the right to fullfill his duty to defend his family?

Sorry...that felon should have thought about that before demonstrating to the rest of the world through their felonious behavior that they are not able to be trusted with firearms.

It's a tough world.

I'm all for restoration of rights and status to anyone who deserves it, but as lame a job as our criminal justice system is doing of rehabilitating criminals: NO, I do not think getting out of prison or completing your sentence ought to mean you automatically get back the right to keep and bear arms.

But then, I think that violent criminals should be hanged...so what do I know.

hammer4nc
December 4, 2004, 08:16 AM
Restoration of 2nd amendment rights is only one aspect of rights restoration for ex cons. Some here, who have advocated not granting rights to ex cons have claimed social safety as a reason for withholding. This reasoning is flawed.

First of all, withholding other rights besides RKBA often prevents the ex con from holding various business licenses, becoming a productive member of society. How does that protect society? Sounds more vindictive, than having any concern for social benefit.

Secondly, the "felony" net has spread like cancer, as our police state has blossomed, to include minor offenses not previously felonies (many in the drug realm). Again, imposing extreme sanctions against these folks (post sentence) is misguided, costly to society.

In summary, .gov shows itself to be a bumbling, inept administor of "justice", with more than a little vindictive streak. Can't identify truly dangerous hombre's, can't discern between various rights, so throw a blanket over the problem. Won't be the first time .gov has shot itself in the foot, is it?

"String 'em all up, they deserve it!!"... What a waste, but it does appeal to the vindictive members of law enforcement and others who make a living in this industry.

DMF
December 4, 2004, 08:47 AM
"Secondly, the "felony" net has spread like cancer, as our police state has blossomed, to include minor offenses not previously felonies . . ."

What a huge myth this is. First there have been many silly felony statutes in many states, for hundreds of years it's not something new. However, it is now LESS LIKELY that someone will get prosecuted for minor offenses that have been classified as felonies. The courts are too overloaded to waste time on prosecuting felonies unless it is a serious offense. It's not uncommon for people to have several arrests on a felony warrant, only to have them plead down to a misdemeanor.

The truth is, if a prosecutor takes a case to trial, or a suspect pleads to a felony, it's because they are a serious criminal. Sure you will see weird cases where a prosecutor is pushing for a trial in some cases that seem a little trivial, but in those rare cases there are usually some aggravating circumstances which cause the prosecutor to pursue those charges.

The idea that minor offenders (even those that have actually committed felonies according to the law) are prosecuted and wind up with felony convictions is ridiculous. Often even very solid cases, with serious offenders are declined for prosecution, because even though those offenders are very bad, the prosecutors case load is full of people who are much worse.

It boils down to this, if you can't handle ALL the consequences, don't do the crime. Those criminals make a choice to violate the law, and commit serious felony offenses, and I have no sympathy for them when their crimes are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or they plead out).

wwhitby
December 4, 2004, 09:01 AM
Let me tell you this story: I have a good friend who made a mistake years ago. He was entrused with money from his company, and the temptation was too much. He stole over $1000, which this state considers a felony theft of property crime. First offense. He did his time, served his probation, and paid back the money. Since then, he hasn't gotten so much as a speeding ticket (he won't even speed since he doesn't want the trouble.)

He's still considered a felon, and will probably remain so until he dies. Yes, he can get a pardon from the state and vote again as well as be cleared in the eyes of the state to own a gun, but since Congress won't give the ATF(E) the money to restore former felon's firearms rights, he's SOL when it comes to gun ownership.

Knowing this fella and his family personally, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to own a gun. Being in jail scared the fecal matter out of him and he doesn't want to go back. Also, the pain of hurting his family was much worse than any time he ever spent in jail.

So, to make my long story short, it all depends on the individual. I think we really need to start looking at individuals instead of the whole.

BTW, I used to be a "lock 'em all up, never give 'em their rights back" kind of guy until my friend was arrested and convicted. His situation really made me think..........

DMF
December 4, 2004, 09:10 AM
wwhitby, it I'll say it again, it boils down to this, if you can't handle ALL the consequences, don't do the crime.

TinCup
December 4, 2004, 09:37 AM
Absolutely YES a convicted felon sould be restricted. The commission of a crime is a choice. If you choose to commit a crime, you pay the penalty. There's no need for debate on the subject...it's called personal responsibility.

TC

beerslurpy
December 4, 2004, 09:38 AM
wwhitby, it I'll say it again, it boils down to this, if you can't handle ALL the consequences, don't do the crime.

This is such a cop out.

1) these consequences didnt exist until 1993 and are steadily getting worse as more "serious" crimes are getting added to the list that prohibits firearms purchasing. They are even trying to add childhood offenses to the list. If your kid hits another kid in school, they could get him on assault, which is a serious felony for adults and would bar him from firearms use. Soon misdemeanor drinking and pot arrests will quality.

2) the brady system bars people that have had their rights restored because the ATF ignores requests to update their computer system. Once you get listed as a "prohibited person" you are prohibited forever unless someone like the president steps in for you.

3) the system treats murderers and check bouncers and youthful pot smokers all equally. No one is arguing that violent criminals and crazies should be allowed to get guns (I'm arguing that they dont belong in general ciruclation anyway) we resent that the police can enforce laws in a biased way and thus disenfranchise significant portions of the population.

Why is it that drug use is very widespread amongst the white population, but black people make up like 80-90 percent of arrests even though they are only 10 percent of the population? When you watch cops, to whose house are the police called for (now disqualifying) violent domestic disputes? Poor white people.

Its not a coincidence that the people that government generally doesnt want voting or owning guns are also the people that the cops are most often sent to harass. I think the real abuses of the brady system are yet to come. Wait until people have gotten used to it and they start adding traffic infractions and other even more petty crimes to the list.

Mr. Kook
December 4, 2004, 09:50 AM
I'm going to say that punishment should only be a lifelong thing for capital offenses. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers, armed home invaders, etc. should be killed, no questions about it. They demonstrate a higher degree of disrespect for people's rights and property than do any other group of criminals; hence thier punishment should last just as long as it takes to flip the switch on the electric chair (pull trigger on fireing squad, open trap door on gallows, etc.).

However, for other groups of criminals, those that do not endanger life in their activities, I see no reason why after doing their time and hopefully learning their lesson, that they should not be able to exercise their rights.

Inalienable rights are those rights which we all possess. Even the most heinous criminal has the right to self defense and freedom. We just infringe upon that right by locking them up in a place where they (hopefully) can't get weapons.

The law isn't about taking rights away or restoring rights. It is about infringing upon existing rights, and the removal of that infringement.

I am of the mind that once a criminal has served their time (provided that crime was NOT one of those mentioned above that I believe warrants death), that all infringements upon their rights should be removed.

This is a practical consideration.

If a person (ex-convict or otherwise) wants a gun they will get one. Laws against it just ensure they will get one by less than legal means.

Laws against where a person can work make it very difficult for a person to find employment. It does no good to send a person to jail for a non-violent felony and have them get out unable to get any kind of meaningful job, leaving them with little choice but to either flip burgers or rob someone.

Their are many many felony crimes on the books, and not all DAs are as busy as those in major cities. It is not unimaginable for a person to commit a felony without even knowing it, get convicted and thrown in jail for a "crime" that is absolutely silly. Should that person have his/her rights infringed upon by society forever?

Bemidjiblade
December 4, 2004, 09:58 AM
But I've cruised this with intense interest, what with me being a felon and all.
(No, I'm not going there, so don't ask).

But you guys are all law abiding citizens who either haven't committed serious crimes, or, just as likely, haven't gotten caught. I'm really respectful of this community at THR, so I'm going for the former.

So... At the risk of my good standing here, I feel a responsibility to weigh in. On the wrong side of the tracks we talk about being off of probation or parole (probation being if you've been in jail, parole being if you've been sent to prison) as being "off paper".

You have talked about recivitism, but I doubt many of you are familiar of the actual repeat offending rates of most crimes. I will never forget the day my PO summarizing that murderers have the lowest repeat offending rates, and sex offenders have the second lowest, just for starters. Most of the remoseless felons I know of are drug dealers and drunk drivers. Tell me those two things don't destroy lives...

You'll all probably be surprised to hear me agree with a lot of your arguments. I particularly empathize with the embittered and frustrated things I hear from the Parole Officers and Corrections Officers on this thread and others. I don't think I'd have the heart to do those jobs, even if I were permitted. I've been on paper for about 2 years now, and I've already seen too many men prove to me how untrustworthy they really are. And I've lost too many friends who didn't put in the effort to change their thinking and life, and they went back.

Ezekiel, you made a GREAT point about someone serving 7.5 yrs in prison and then being back on supervision for life. But you're probably also familiar that many felons never even see the inside of a prison, but merely a county jail et cetera.

My take on it is this: Once a felon is off paper, RKBA should be restored. That may sound too easy to many of you, but I doubt most of you are familiar with the enormous amounts of time that some of us are on paper for. It's nothing for the more violent offenders to be on paper for the rest of their lives, or for forty years. For all but extreme cases, I don't think that we should be allowed to use/possess fire arms while we are still on paper. And for many of the cases you are all discussing, that means a life-long ban. That is good and right! I agree with you on that one.

The hard truth is that many felons should never be trusted with firearms. But some of us are trying hard to correct the things in our lives that helped us make the wrong choices and committing the illegal acts that landed us on paper. I believe that this is reflected in the length of time felons are on probation, and that varies widely, from individual to individual and from crime to crime. I think that this does well to reflect the possibility that some of us are capable of rehabilitation. Whether that's a slim minority or not will probably depend upon your personal experiences and worldview. I know that the judge's opening statement for my own sentencing was, "Bemidjiblade, you give me hope."

I believe that felons should be able to expect a full restoration of rights if they get to the point where they are no longer "on paper".
I believe that if the crimes a felon is convicted of are such that they are on paper for forty years, or life, then they should resign themselves to not having the right to keep or bear arms during that period. While incarceration can vary widely at a judge's discression, probation/parole lengths seems to be much more consistent and conservative, and I think they make an excellent barometer for the RKBA.
The big problem I see with this, and perhaps the PO's and Corrections Officers can correct you all if I'm wrong, but if the felons I know of violate their probation, they don't get additional time on supervised release. I think they should have more time added to their supervision, so that probation lengths become a better reflection of the trustworthiness of the human being.
With that disclaimer, people should be able to get back the RKBA when they're done with probation or parole.

Just to restate, I think that felons should be able to regain the RKBA when and IF they are able to successfully complete their terms of probation and/or parole without showing any further antisocial behaviors.

Given the opinions posted here, I'm quite ready for this to be my last post on THR for the sake of the peace of the forum. I've really enjoyed my time here.

Oh, I've mentioned knowing other THR people. I hope that you won't think any less of them for associating with me. They're wonderful people with such strength of character I'm often amazed. I'm working hard to become more of the sort of person they already are.

PS. The statement that felons can defend themselves w/ their fists is debatable, but that's the plan. And what arms I may bear, (swords and my ability to train to defend myself), molon labe! Bemidjiblade signing out for now.

Bemidjiblade
December 4, 2004, 10:17 AM
Oh yeah...
I didn't weigh in for your sympathy.
But because of excellent people I know, and my love for the passions and principles of the founding fathers of this nation, RKBA is very important to me, and so it seemed like I needed to weigh in from my perspective, even if the cost was your respect.

lostone1413
December 4, 2004, 10:22 AM
I don't think felons should own guns. Allot of people will say what about the non violent felon. The trouble with that is how many of the non violent felons had some money to start with so to do their dirty work they just hired someone. To me he would be as guilty as the one he hired. I bet almost the majority of the ones in a federal prison would fall in this class.

45-auto
December 4, 2004, 10:37 AM
The government has demostrated that it cannot be trusted to do a good job of denying gun ownership to even the most dangerous of criminals. So it should not be given that responsibility.

That about says it all, in my opinion. But then I'm an absolutist where the Second Amendment is concerned: I believe it absolutely prohibits any governmental regulation of arms whatsoever. Felons should NOT be an exception.

Lock 'em up or kill 'em, but if you let them loose they regain every right they lost when they went into the joint. That's practical reality.

tyme
December 4, 2004, 01:57 PM
No.

If an ex-felon (or felon on parole) is going to use a gun to commit a crime, why were they let out? Doesn't the parole board know that a criminal can get an off-paper firearm within hours of release?

Aside from that, it's mostly unenforceable.

USP45usp
December 4, 2004, 03:47 PM
I, for one, would love to ask DMF if he (or she/it? PC you know) knows every single law in the US? There are so many laws that have been made into felonies that I'm sure that he (she or it) has broken enough (just like the rest of us) unknowingly to be in the same boat. As a federal officer, I'm sure that he (she or it) is "in the know".

If you can't be trusted with Rights that are yours from birth then you shouldn't be on the street. If you are on the street then you have (not should have) all your Rights.

I, for one, don't care what DMF or the government or whatever "power" is in charge, you are on the streets, you have your Rights. PERIOD. It's not our fault or problem that people like DMF can't keep the ones that shouldn't have guns off the street. It's not our problem that people use guns for killing/robbing/etc.. It's not our problem that the revolving door of the feds and the state governments allow people that can't be trusted from getting guns or committing crimes.

Our problem is the federal and the state governments and their employees letting those that can't be trusted out to commit more crimes.

Is a convicted person's (rightfully or wrongfully) life lower than ours? Do they deserve to die or to be defensless? If the answer is yes, then why doesn't the federal and the state governments and their employees just get it done when the person is caught?

Until you give a straight answer on why a person is lesser than another just because of a mistake and should be left to die at the hands of another, and don't give this "it's the law" BS, then I don't think that you really have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and DMF, don't go to Florida and spit on the sidewalk and be sure to dismantle your car if a horse is coming the other way... these laws are still on the books and are... felonies.

Wayne

*Don't get me wrong, but until you read each and every law on the books, don't tell me that anything is a "choice". You could be committing a felony at anytime without even knowing it and of course "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Ezekiel
December 4, 2004, 04:31 PM
That about says it all, in my opinion. But then I'm an absolutist where the Second Amendment is concerned: I believe it absolutely prohibits any governmental regulation of arms whatsoever. Felons should NOT be an exception.

To me, Absolutism, in any argument, is inherently simplistic. Are you merely a Second Amendment Absolutist, incorporating an ad hoc and laissez faire attitude towards your alignments, or do you apply a grand sweep of approval across all of the Declaration and Constitution documents? I'm merely trying to identify a pattern here...

I, for one, don't care what DMF or the government or whatever "power" is in charge, you are on the streets, you have your Rights. PERIOD. It's not our fault or problem that people like DMF can't keep the ones that shouldn't have guns off the street. It's not our problem that people use guns for killing/robbing/etc.. It's not our problem that the revolving door of the feds and the state governments allow people that can't be trusted from getting guns or committing crimes.

Oh. Nevermind: I see a pattern. Basically, "It's not your problem." :uhoh:

Is this what you meant? Please (sincere), I await a clarification of your position as I am not an Absolutist on anything and you don't strike me as a "head in the sand" type.

Here's my position upon which we can debate: It is inherently more expensive (to a great degree) and significantly less fair (in terms of potential for personal/society harm) to continue to jail all offenders who might commit crime with a firearm as opposed to integrating (or attempting to do so) them back into society with restricted rights.

Agree? Disagree?

Thanks,

45-auto
December 4, 2004, 05:11 PM
I'm pretty much an absolutist on the whole Bill of Rights. And some things ARE simple.

The BoR is NOT the government's gift to us. It does not give us anything. Instead, it was intended to set whole, large swaths of life clear out of bounds for government interference. It was meant to delineate areas where the government could NOT legislate or make rules of any kind. It was meant as a limit on government.

The whole idea that working out a compromise benefits everybody involved is, in my opinion, naive, especially when applied to civil rights. If you compromise, then you have set in motion a system where you'll simply keep giving rights up until you have none.

And, lawyers notwithstanding, weapons are the ultimate guarantors of all our rights.

Ezekiel
December 4, 2004, 05:22 PM
weapons are the ultimate guarantors of all our rights

And, of course, weapons remain the tool most often used to restrict our rights.

As such, following your argument to a logical conclusion, the world would be safest if everyone possessed both nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? This would, of course, "guarantee our safety"? :confused:

Am I reading this correctly?

USP45usp
December 4, 2004, 05:38 PM
EZ, you're too late, I am the trouble maker here.

Let's just make this easy for you... ban all guns and such and all good things will happen. Put everyone in jail because, knowingly or not, they have broken the law. Hell, lets just kill everyone except government and state employees and get it over with.

If you are a free man or person or whatever, it isn't the governments place to place any restrictions on you. You are out and about, then you deserve to do so with all Rights. If you are not going to use what you have for good, then you should be dead. You another federal agent troll?

I will admit that fear of your fellow person isn't a good thing, but it keeps you honest doesn't it? And you will think twice about screwing someone over. That, is worth it don't you think?

Wayne

45-auto
December 4, 2004, 05:42 PM
My last word on this topic: "When you come to get my guns, bring yours: you'll need them."

Pursuing a chain of logic too far very often results in absurd conclusions.

Bemidjiblade
December 4, 2004, 06:07 PM
45 Auto... You said that a man on the street HAS all of his rights back, but that is not in the best interest of the individual and society, and that is where the laws come from.

Rights can be surrendered. In order to gain one's freedom, we sign a paper that lists the conditions we're willing to abide by in order to gain our freedom. Everyone has to do it or they don't let you out the door. If the felon in question has signed a paper vowing to abide by the condition of not "using, owning, or possessing" a firearm, then why should we not hold them to their word?

Again... I think when that bit of paper expires, then they should regain their complete freedom.

jefnvk
December 4, 2004, 06:18 PM
Nothing that hasn't been covered yet, but IMHO, there are two types of felons:

1) Non-violent. As already mentioned, this can cover a wide range of offenses. I was reading an article a while back, where a man in CA was being charged with a felony, simply because he ran over a seagull while doing donuts in a parking lot :uhoh: This can also include white-colar crime, computer hackers, failure to pay child support, theft, whatever. Basically, anyone that has comitted a crime, but didn't harm anyone in the process.

These types of people, for the most part, should never be in prison, or considered felons. IMHO, there needs to be another category for these types of crimes, esp. first offenses. They pay back their crimes and a little extra for the inconvienence, and go on in life with a black mnark on their record. All their rights are restored

2) Violent. These types of people are the rapists, murders, so on and so forth.

These people don't get out of prison, until they can be fully trusted. For the extreme cases, there is the death penalty. But, when these people are trustful enought to be released, they get ALL their rights back.


Anyway, since I know this isn't going to happen in the forseeable future, I guess I don't disagree with restricting felons rights to guns. What we need, though, is an ATTAINABLE way for them to get their rights back, where someone charged with a federal felony DOESN'T have to get a presidential pardon. Fill out some paperwork, go through a review, and the burden of proof is on them to prove you can;t be trusted with a gun.

Ezekiel
December 4, 2004, 07:53 PM
EZ, you're too late, I am the trouble maker here.

Not in the slightest. (And you know that.) :evil:

We merely disagree in some instances.

You another federal agent troll?

If you actually knew me, you'd find this to be an utterly laughable query.

Zeke

Ezekiel
December 4, 2004, 07:57 PM
Pursuing a chain of logic too far very often results in absurd conclusions.

Then the subject matter is not a "chain of logic", it is a house of cards: the difficulty lies within the original assertion, based upon the conclusions that can be drawn.

More often, when a logical conclusion cannot be reached, it is because the premise is crap.

wwhitby
December 4, 2004, 08:34 PM
>wwhitby, it I'll say it again, it boils down to this, if you can't handle ALL
>the consequences, don't do the crime.

My friend never thought he'd get caught. I imagine quite a lot of folks think that way.

As I said in my earlier post, I used to think the way you do. But then something happened to make me take a good hard look at what I believed.

armoredman
December 4, 2004, 09:37 PM
Bemidji, I wish you well. I had a kid get out a month ago I hope I never see again, because he was working very hard to straighten his life out after this one screwup. I certainly don't see anyone being less because they associate with you, if you are as you sound, a felon who made his screwup, did his time, and is not about to ever do it again. My next door neighbor is a felon - heck of a nice guy who has babysat my son! His offense was stupid, 25 years ago, and never repeated.
I will say your PO had it backwards - murderes to tend to reoffend at a high rate, but I can tell you sex offenders reoffend at an almost 100% rate. I work an SO yard now, and I see it all on that side.And no, I will not ask you your crime - I don't want to know the crimes of the inmates I supervise, so I will not treat them any differant from any other inmate. Firm, fair, and consistant is our motto, one the Feds should adopt....
Yes, the law states what felons can and cannot do, and that is the law. If you want it changed, work to do so - the legal way through your elected things, or BECOME one. Run for office, local, state, or national, and change things. At the very least, VOTE!

45-auto
December 4, 2004, 11:50 PM
I'll regret this in the morning. . .

A released felon has no trouble obtaining a weapon (NOTE: I did NOT say at a licensed gunshop). Or getting a drink of whiskey. Or speaking his mind. Or attending the church of his choice. Or voting, if he moves to the right jurisdiction. Or avoiding a warrantless search during a random road stop, if he's not stupid about what's in plain sight.

We have this wonderful country because our forefathers sought to strictly limit the powers of government. In the intervening years, a lot of laws that reasonable people might regard as unconstitutional, illegitimate and not really enforceable have been passed, mostly by lawyers with no guts and fine suits. Anyone who chooses can obey them. Or not. There are potential consequences either way. A free man feels free to choose.

Arguments about the mechanisms of logical discourse almost always degenerate into dense thickets of incomprehensible prose. Wise men avoid them since they tend to waste a lot of time.

2nd Amendment
December 5, 2004, 12:05 AM
First off, I don't believe there should be any such thing as a "non-violent" felony. Now that's a bit simplistic and I am certain if we put our minds to it we could come up with something that could reasonably fill such a category, but I'll stick with that generalization.

Second, a violent felon should not be on the street if he or she can not be trusted. Screw the "debt to society" part, is this person a continuing danger? Yes? Then why are they out? No? Then why would we treat them any different than anyone else? And as far as the idea of "Don't do the crime if ya can't do the time", I would bet there's almost not a single person here who couldn't be busted and convicted by determined LEO for something from some point in their lives under current(and ever expanding) definitions of felonies.

But of course we're touching on the very foundation of government expansion: If everyone is a criminal then everyone is more easy to control.

Bemidjiblade
December 5, 2004, 01:06 AM
Armoredman,
I need to thank you for getting me off of my kiester to do some of my own research instead of taking other people's words for things. You were making the case that recidivism (re-offending) rates for murderers and sex offenders were the highest. It was worth digging up since the RKBA should be restored to persons on the basis of their likelihood of ever committing a new crime. So I'm doing some digging and throwing what I'm finding here since it seems germaine to the discussion and a good way to keep the debate centered in reality and not flights of fancy. Actually, it's been really easy since almost every time I check on a link to recidivism they're talking about sex offenders. Funny how little people are worried if someone's going to go back to selling 8 year olds crack.

The best summary I've come across so far is from Canada:
The reconviction rate for the first fiscal year release cohort was 44.0%, 42.8% for the second release cohort and 40.6% for the third cohort. These reconviction rates were comparable to other rates reported internationally and from other Canadian studies using a similar methodology. Nonviolent reconvictions accounted for the majority of the reconvictions. The violent reconviction rate was much lower; approximately 13% for all three release cohorts and the sexual offence reconviction rate was very low (0.7% to 1.7%). (From the executive summary of a report on the recidivism rates of federal offenders given by the office of the soliciter general. http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/200302_e.asp )

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections has an excellent breakdown of recividism of offenders released over a 15 year period between 1985 and 2000. I can't copy and paste it here although I wish I could. PLEASE if you're reading this post take the time and check out the chart at the bottom, it's a real eye-opener:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/CHARTS/recidivi.htm#by%20crime%20type
To summarize for those just skimming through this post (you're missing out... check out this page! oh well... I tried....)
The overall recividism rates up to a 10 year period were around 40%. Recividism was divided up by crime, and the results are staggering.
Out of 27 felonies listed, sex offences other than rape had the second lowest recidivism rates overall at 16.9% in 15 years covered. Rape came in only 7th lowest out of 27th at 20.7%, nearly 50% lower than the general average. Murder II scored 3rd lowest out of 27 at 18.8%, followed by kidnapping (only 19.1%) and then manslaughter (19.7%).

I did run into some higher numbers, but also found interesting things linked with those numbers, such as what constitutes recidivism. The statistics I'm using are for new convictions. I don't have a link to a word for word quote, but the testimony of one of the ISR (Intensely Supervised Release) teams in nothern MN to Governor Pawlenty's commission on sex offending was summed up to me like this: "50% of the guys we get out of prison go back. Most of those are for violating no-drink orders, seeing their families, or doing drugs. Only 1% of them go back for committing a new sex offense."

To look at nationwide statistics, I found an interesting quote on the website of the American Psychological Association. Needless to say they probably have access to a lot of data on the topic.
"In the 1980s, American states made the decision that sex offenders were not sick; they were bad," LaFond says. "Some states decided to offer treatment, but there wasn't much hope that it would work. Now, however, there's an emerging optimism that psychologists can deal with these people and offer alternatives to continued incarceration."

Some of that optimism comes from a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders published in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment (Vol. 14, No. 2) in 2002. That analysis showed for the first time a significant difference between recidivism rates for sex offenders who were treated and those who were not, says psychologist R. Karl Hanson, PhD, lead author of the study and senior researcher for the Solicitor General Canada--the government agency that manages Canadian courts and corrections.

The study revealed, among the most recent research samples, sexual recidivism rates of 17.3 percent for untreated offenders, compared with 9.9 percent for treated offenders. Though that's not a large reduction, the large sample size and widely agreed-upon research methods make it statistically reliable and of practical significance, Hanson says. That's from their journal online. http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/newhope.html

I'm not saying this to undermine the validity of your personal experience. I can only imagine how much recidivism you see in the SO block. Then again, here in MN, the DOC reports that about 70% of sex offenders recieve jail sentences and probation, and are not imprisoned (amazing what one finds when he spends 3 hours digging through the internet for the sake of THR). So, you'd be dealing with the worst third of the lot! For my part, I want to thank you and all the other corrections officers willing to do such a low paying, dangerous, and often thankless job.

But... I've done my digging and the numbers I've found bear out what I've heard from my PO and others about murderers and sex offenders. How ironic is it that if we're talking about the felons most likely to be safer in the future, the people we here demonized all the time are the ones who are statistically far less likely to cause future problems.

Copernicus here I come....

captain obvious
December 5, 2004, 02:32 AM
Absolutely not.


Once one has repayed their debt to society they should return to society with all the rights and priviliges that they enjoyed prior to the felony conviction. If a felon is not viewed to be responsible to exercise RKBA, then they have no business being out of jail. Felons deemed by the state necessary to have rights denied should be still in jail or executed. End of story.

This "Civil Death Penalty" is, in my view, both unconstitutional and immoral.

Art Eatman
December 5, 2004, 11:33 AM
For the absolutists:

Ever been in a fight? Even a teenage brannigan, not necessarily a late-night brawl in a bar...

"What if": You feel justified in slugging some guy, and when he falls he does the old crime-novel deal of hitting his head on something very hard--and dies.

You had no intent whatsoever of causing a death, but you did. Odds are, there's historical reason to believe you'd get some prison term for this unintended homicide.

Is a total loss of civil rights justified for this sort of crime?

For absolutists on the Second Amendment: Is it reasonable to go BEYOND the intent of those who wrote it? They weren't all-inclusive for all people and all the time...

Art

why_me
December 5, 2004, 12:27 PM
Getting the "public" to buy into restoration of rights for felons?
How would you get the "Im tough on crime" politicians to sponsor bills changing the laws?
Im all for restoration of rights but it is not going to happen. In the future i see even more restrictive gun laws even with the "pro gun agenda" politicians
The NRA has spent so much capitol on defining gun owners as different from "criminals" that to even suggest changing the laws that disinfranchise felons from owning firearms would be no goer.

Ezekiel
December 5, 2004, 03:47 PM
For absolutists on the Second Amendment: Is it reasonable to go BEYOND the intent of those who wrote it? They weren't all-inclusive for all people and all the time...

You did a much better job of framing the "Absolutism doesn't work" argument then I did.

telewinz
December 5, 2004, 04:05 PM
"What if": You feel justified in slugging some guy, and when he falls he does the old crime-novel deal of hitting his head on something very hard--and dies. My point exactly poor judgement, speaks for itself!

White Collar felons maybe, violent low life convicts don't be insane. Why do you think they were in prison...too many parking tickets? IMHO Paying your debt to society is more of a legal term rather than a matter of fact.Second, a violent felon should not be on the street if he or she can not be trusted. Screw the "debt to society" part, is this person a continuing danger? Yes? Then why are they out? AMEN to that.

Remember one thing...in general for every day served an inmate gets anywhere from 1-2 days (depends on state) good time off his sentence. That turns a 10 year sentence into less than 4 years! :barf:

Visit your local prison (tour) take a look at the inmates. You will become hard on crime real quick!

omega5
December 5, 2004, 04:15 PM
Not only should they be restricted, they should lose all rights to "disability". I'm sick of these scumbags coming on to my case load and drawing SSI Disability cause they've been in prison and their "nerves" are shot. Bull ????. They can climb into your house at night and carry off your stuff but can't work. We need a lot more restrictions on the scum than we have :cuss:

Fletchette
December 5, 2004, 05:52 PM
For absolutists on the Second Amendment: Is it reasonable to go BEYOND the intent of those who wrote it? They weren't all-inclusive for all people and all the time...

If it is necessary to go beyond the intent as originally written, then a Constitutional Amendement is required. For example, at the time the Constitution was written blacks in the south were not citizens and were forbidden to own guns. The Fouteenth Amendment rectified this injustice.

beerslurpy
December 5, 2004, 06:16 PM
Actually Dred Scott (pre 14th, pre civil war) was a great case for the 2nd amendment. They denied that blacks were entitled to be citizens because it would entiitle them to (among other things) bear arms wherever they went. It was claimed that since the founders could not have wanted such an absurd state of affairs that blacks were clearly not deserving of citizenship.

It was only in the past century or so (during the new deal?) that it became acceptable to actually start infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Until then every supreme court case that mentions it talks about it like an inalienable individual right like the 1st.

The real damage that has been done in the past 40 years is all of the circuit courts engaging in intellectual dishonesty about US v Miller and claiming it says things that it does not. The other half of the problem is that the supreme court keeps denying certiorari on these miscarriages of justice so they keep getting perpetrated. It really pisses me off that the supremes havent seen fit to make the whole bill of rights binding on the states, as was obviously intended from the start.

DMF
December 5, 2004, 08:33 PM
Ever been in a fight? Even a teenage brannigan, not necessarily a late-night brawl in a bar...

"What if": You feel justified in slugging some guy, and when he falls he does the old crime-novel deal of hitting his head on something very hard--and dies.

You had no intent whatsoever of causing a death, but you did. Odds are, there's historical reason to believe you'd get some prison term for this unintended homicide.

Is a total loss of civil rights justified for this sort of crime? Art the only time someone is justified to use force is to defend themselves or others from an attack. Everything else is a crime.

In the case you describe, if "you feel justified" is BS unless it is self-defense. If someone does something to make you mad and you take a swing, well that's a crime. You may not have intended to kill the guy, but assaulting him was a felony in and of itself, and since you did intend to hurt him, and his death resulted from the intended harm you inflicted then you're on the hook for manslaughter, or homicide, depending on the state laws.

Again, if you aren't defending yourself why are you hitting that guy?

Hypnogator
December 5, 2004, 09:18 PM
A couple of points from one who has spent most of his life putting felons behind bars:

The "If they're not rehabilitated, why aren't they in prison?" crowd lives in the same Pollyanna world as the "If we could only outlaw those terrible guns, everyone would love and respect each other" bunch. The real world is full of violent felons who are out on parole simply because there isn't room enough or money enough to keep 'em where they belong.

If a person is convicted of a felony, it means (s)he is so contemptuous of the law that (s)he ignores it to the detriment of society. If you don't believe a law is just, work to change it. Don't disobey it unless you're prepared to accept the consequences. The consequences are, among other things, loss of your right to own or possess firearms.

Those who speak of the Second Amendment as an "Unalienable Right" are ignorant of the Constitution. The "unalienable rights" are innumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution as, the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However it specifically states that these rights are unalienable except when taken away by a court of law. Elsewise, we could have neither the death penalty nor imprisonment.

From an historical perspective, we must remember that at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, most felony crimes were punishable by death. The framers didn't have to spend a lot of time worrying about what to do with a former felon, since said felon was soon left hanging from a tree.

In my experience, the only reliable predictor of behavior is past behavior. I oppose allowing any convicted felon to have access to firearms unless his or her rights have been restored by a court of competent jurisdiction. I believe that this restoration process should be more readily available than it is, but that such petitions should be granted sparingly, and only after the petitioner shows evidence that (s)he has truly reformed.

Just my $.02 worth.

Fletchette
December 5, 2004, 11:55 PM
The real world is full of violent felons who are out on parole simply because there isn't room enough or money enough to keep 'em where they belong.

...because the prisons are filled with non-violent "felons" that shouldn't really be there.

My largest complaint with parole is the creation of a whole new class of second-class citizens. It used to be that you could go into a gunshop, say, "I'll buy that one," give the guy behind the counter cash and walk out. Under that system, the sky didn't fall, and crime rates fluctuated in the same ranges they fluctuate now.

Under the "new" system, you walk into a gun shop and must submit to a un-Constitutional breach of privacy, violating the First, Second Fourth and Fifth Amendments. You must pay for this injustice (equivalent to a poll-tax). The whole reason for all this is to prove what class of citizen you are - first, second, third, etc. This is exactly the type of system our Founders wanted to prevent.

If we didn't persecute pot-heads, there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep every violent criminal behind bars without parole. That is how the old system worked. First class citizens = everyone walking about. Second class citizens = those in prison.

beerslurpy
December 6, 2004, 12:09 AM
The system is broken because of three things:

1) the jails are full of people that shouldnt be in jail, taking away room from serious criminals
2) people are being put in jail for really serious crimes instead of being executed
3) background checks are creating a whole class of citizens who "might be dangerous" and denying them guns. This doesnt just apply to violent felons and the insane- it also applies to people going through divorces, people with any alcohol or drug offenses, many misedemeanors, people who were youthful offenders, non-violent felons, etc etc etc. And people like Ted Kennedy are lobbying to get it further expanded.

The solutions to these problems are:
-end background checks since the government just abuses it
-end the war on victimless crimes (most notably drug posession and trafficing)
-bring back the death penalty for more crimes (maybe a 3 strikes and youre out forever system?)

Art Eatman
December 6, 2004, 09:01 AM
DMF, "Intent" is built in to all phases of our criminal justice system, and always has been. Generally, "reasonable and prudent person" is in there as well.

In my scenario, sure, you were merely defending yourself, without using deadly force. Unfortunately, you committed a homicide. Unintentional? Sure. But you're going before a Grand Jury (in Texas, anyway) and they may or may not decide to indict for Involuntary Manslaughter. They can do so, and you can be found guilty and you can serve time.

My point, overall, is that "there ain't no always" in these sorts of situations, when one is talking about restorations of civil rights. It's case by case, as are most of them.

Next question: Does an ex-con lose his human right of self-defense in his home? Texas law held that he could, and could possess a firearm for such need--limited to within his home.

Art

why_me
December 6, 2004, 04:18 PM
texas is a whole other country
restoration of rights for felons is such a hurdle it is almost impossible for a felon to get his rights restored.
i know MN has it automatically after 5-10 years but most states i know it is a court procedure or govenors pardon
govenors pardons are not going to happen

telewinz
December 6, 2004, 05:15 PM
Does an ex-con lose his human right of self-defense in his home As an inmate...Yes, both combatants go to lock-up no matter who or what started the fight. In the home, no but the (ex)convict is restricted as to what "tools" he can legally use for self defense. I'm sorry but in most cases few have any idea what an inmate has to do to be in a maximum security prison. Inmates are very often Evil, Sick people who are in prison not to pay their "debt" but to protect society from them. The hard core MAX security types aren't going to change no matter what skills or treatment you provide then. They are too weak to master their own lives and blame everyone else for their poor decisions. If you aren't responsible enough to control your own actions, why should you have possession of ANY weapon? Monsters do exist, why is this so hard to believe?

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 12:48 AM
NON VIOLENT CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The guy who breaks into your house during the day and steals your guns is a NON VIOLENT CRIMINAL in most states.

Either you are a Law Abbiding citizen or NOT. Those who break the laws should have to jump through hoops to get their rights reinstated.
Prove to society you have mended your ways and a judge MAY reinstate your rights.

I would however agree that not all felony convictions should be automatic loss of the rights. Let the courts decide and state the loss of rights in the original conviction. A DWI should not be an automatic loss of the right to keep arms but if you get a DWI while in posession of a loaded firearm you are pushing the limits.

Fletchette
December 7, 2004, 05:02 AM
Inmates are very often Evil, Sick people who are in prison not to pay their "debt" but to protect society from them.

The people you are referring to should be in prison. The problem is that there are many people in prison that DON'T deserve to be there.

...and before I get the standard "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" BS, the following people commited very small infractions, if any at all. A small crime deserves a small sentence. Sheesh!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133204,00.html

Read the whole article. Many examples of "felons" that have lost their right to keep and bear arms, as well as much of their lives.

telewinz
December 7, 2004, 05:47 AM
The people you are referring to should be in prison. The problem is that there are many people in prison that DON'T deserve to be there. It's very hard for a person to be sent to prison if for no other reason than the costs involved to the state. The Feds (and Texas) are a little different, they take a VERY tough stance against crime. The case you cite seems to me to be an exception, why did a jury convict him? Fox doesn't give both sides of the story. My experience as a juror indicates to me that his actions were illegal in some manner although his intent may have been reasonable (evidence determines guilt, not PR). I've got ministers (child rape) to Ex-correctional officers (VERY violent crimes), believe me I'm better off and you are better off with these monsters in jail.If we didn't persecute pot-heads, there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep every violent criminal behind bars without parole. Most of my inmates are "pot heads" but are in prison for other much more serious crimes.

Bemidjiblade
December 7, 2004, 07:38 AM
Most felons I know don't go to prison because of drugs, unless they were dealing. Oh, sure, that's the first reason they give.

'course, while they were doing drugs they...
beat someone into hospitalization
ignored the word no
stole 7000 from their work to cover their gambling debts
decided it was quicker to sell drugs to school kids than go to college...

Here in MN, the 'just use' people tend to spend up to a year in jail and then get another shot... by the time they go to prison they've done something else to really screw up their lives.

why_me
December 7, 2004, 08:56 AM
but i am sure a large proportion of felons never go to prison
you have to remember felon means anytime more than 2 years (maybe 1 year)
A lot of felony convictions are plea bargains where there is no time
Martha Stewart. She has some money. Lots. If i was a criminal. I would hit her. She is a felon she cant have guns> Although im sure her bodygaurds can.
Ok bad example. Heres another one.
The woman that steals lottery tickets at the gas station. She loses her right to possess firearms? I know there are examples out there. Of course there is the Bean guy who had a box of shot shells in his car.

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 11:07 AM
Martha and the lottery thief are both law breakers. If the courts took their rights away by virtue of the conviction then let the courts restore them by virtue of proven rehabilitation.
Steal money, steal lottery tickets, steal my guns or steal a young child. It is all NFG and they don't deserve the same rights that I have.
Everyone keeps referring to a "Mistake". I don't know where you are comming from because I was always taught I had to pay for mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the cost is too high then don't even think about making them.
There are many among us who have managed to stay above the law and maintain our rights and it is usually not a mistake.
Sure the laws need some tweeking and sure there are alot of miscarriages of justice but I basically believe the vast majority of law breakers were completely aware they were stepping over the line. I do not believe that there are all that many completely innocent fellons who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught, convicted and sent to prison. Sorry, that dog don't hunt!

why_me
December 7, 2004, 06:01 PM
The courts either will not or cannot restore a persons rights. Rush Limbaugh is going to go down hard. And yes there are people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. How many drug addicts get charged with distributing just because they are at the drug house buying drugs when the LEOs' come in?
Another problem i see is the list of felonies is growing. You could lose your RKBA for a court ordered restraining order. Ive never had one but its easy for a woman to shed crocodile tears and get one againts her estranged husband.
He loses his right to purchase andhe cannot even go into his own house. Ive seen that happen. A freind of mine use to be a worthless drunk. Now he is born again. His old lady had enough of his crap. Went to court told the judge he was a menace and she was scared. Bingo. He cant even go into his own house. And now if he wanted to he cannot purchase a firearm.
That is wrong.

Waitone
December 7, 2004, 07:31 PM
My personal favorite is the pre-emptive restraining order. File for divorce and an automatic RO is issued.

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 07:49 PM
How many drug addicts get charged with distributing just because they are at the drug house buying drugs when the LEOs' come in?

How many DRUG ADDICTS would you like packing heat????????????????

I do not agree with the new laws regarding restraining orders and how easy it is for woman to totally screw up a guys future. I also do not agree with many of my buddies on how they handle their woman problems. If you get physical and loose it, weather it be with a man or particularly with a woman, you deserve what might come your way. I had a few buddies who were real "TOUGH GUYS" with their woman----- HAD!
I have relatives who are DRUG ADDICTS, sadly I can't get rid of them and will leave it up to the courts. They are not welcome near my home and will be shot if they cross the line at my front or back door!
What part of "Law Abbiding" do you not understand?????????????????????????

This crap about the guy who got caught out there is a bunch of BS. He got caught out there while breaking the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why_me
December 7, 2004, 08:35 PM
i smoked pot b4 i went into the us navy daily.
i havent smoked in 16 years. My "Dealer" a fellow class mate who runs a business now. Used to have 4 or 5 ounces laying on the table. So your saying "I" have no redeeming values?
If the cops had busted my freind while i was there i would of had a felony rap.
I can gaurantee you break laws every single day. Everyone does and they dont even know it.

Fletchette
December 7, 2004, 10:09 PM
What part of "Law Abbiding" do you not understand?????????????????????????

The part where actions that do not hurt anybody is considered a "crime". I am not argueing that these people broke the law. I am arguing that these laws are insane. Just because a law is passed does not mean that it is just...It was once a law that you could own slaves.

The guy I cited in the Fox article was in a wheel chair due to a previous auto injury. I seriouly doubt that he assaulted, raped or did anyone harm like you suggested. He simply forged one of his own prescriptions and got it filled by his pharmacy. He did not sell his drugs - he swallowed them.

Now he is in prison for 25 years without parole. Do you really think that this law is just?!?

:banghead:

why_me
December 7, 2004, 10:38 PM
sorry i just did the math
i havent done drugs since '82 so thats 22 years not 16
my bad

telewinz
December 8, 2004, 06:29 AM
"course, while they were doing drugs they...
beat someone into hospitalization, ignored the word no, stole 7000 from their work to cover their gambling debts, decided it was quicker to sell drugs to school kids than go to college" or sold their child into protitution, stole from their family, seriously injuried someone, jumped bond, beat-up their girlfriend, tried to murder a witness, repeated DUI offenses, illegal CCW, and selling stolen property. This is the typical history of an inmate but if it serves a "cause" (legalize drugs) lets just cite that he was sent to prison for using drugs. :banghead:And, lawyers notwithstanding, weapons are the ultimate guarantors of all our rights. And a gun in the hands of a criminal means you have NO RIGHTS. What don't you understand? :scrutiny:

Firethorn
December 8, 2004, 07:10 AM
Telewinz,
Sure, there is probably a certain percentage of people in prison now who would still be in prison without the war on drugs.

But when the federal prison system shows that 54.1% of inmates imprisoned for drug offenses? (http://www.bop.gov/fact0598.html)

beat someone into hospitalization, ignored the word no, stole 7000 from their work to cover their gambling debts, decided it was quicker to sell drugs to school kids than go to college" or sold their child into protitution, stole from their family, seriously injuried someone, jumped bond, beat-up their girlfriend, tried to murder a witness, repeated DUI offenses, illegal CCW, and selling stolen property.

Then throw them into jail for assault. What the heck does embezzlement for gambling have to do with the WOD? Throw them in jail and give them a big fine for selling to minors(same as with alchohol & cigs). Child Prostitution of their own child? Throw them in prison and toss the key. Let's see. Arrest for theft, another assault, fleeing before trial, assault, attempted murder, alchohol is legal if you're old enough(I'd have the offender spending time in jail), there is no such thing as "illegal CCW"(There is "illegal use of a gun").

If they actually get sent to this, while they'll go into the pile "imprisoned with drug offenses", they might not go into the pile "imprisoned on/for drug offenses", and definatly wouldn't go into the "imprisoned soley for drug offenses".

This site (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/ny-drugs.htm) is for NY state, but it shows some points:
One in three (31.8%) of drug offenders sent to prison were first offenders with no prior felony convictions
89% of the repeat drug offenders were convicted of minor crimes (class C, D or E).
One in four incarcerated drug offenders was convicted of simply possessing drugs. The rest were convicted of possession with intent to sell, attempted sale or sales. Whether guilty of possession or sales-related offenses, most of the incarcerated offenders were low-level offenders involved with small amounts of drugs.
Three out of four (77.5%) drug offenders sent to prison have never been convicted of a violent felony
Data on incarcerated drug offenders nationwide recently published by the U.S. Department of Justice6 indicates similar pattern of nonviolent drug offenders: 76.4%.of drug offenders in state prisons in 1997 had no prior convictions for violent crimes; 32% of drug offenders had prior sentences limited to drug offenses and 17.4% were first offenders with no prior convictions for any kind of crime.

The earlier example, for the guy in a wheelchair who everybody agreed was forging the prescriptions for his own use? Remember, he was charged with intent to distribute/sell. It apparently took three trials to find a guilty verdict. Remember the who suppression of the idea of jury nullification? They finally found a jury that said "Well, here's the facts, we disagree with the law, but we have to find him guilty anyways". The whole problem was caused by the DEA because he couldn't get a pain doctor because the feds were going after them (oh my god, people in persistant extreme pain might get addicted to pain-killers!).

why_me
December 8, 2004, 08:47 AM
cost during the prohibition and adjusted to inflation how much does it cost today.
The war on drugs inflates the profits on drugs. If the drug addicts didnt do any crimes other than use drugs would that be acceptable? Say Joe cokesnorter,worked and payed taxes and using his own money bought drugs
on a regulated market where his 200 dollar a week habit costs only 5 bucks would that be ok?

GAMALOT
December 8, 2004, 09:49 AM
Jo Cokesnorter gets his drugs from an elaborate system of Law Breakers.
Coke, I think comes from Puru, it is smuggled out and then into the US.
None of us have a clue as to how many people died in this beginning process.
You are all attempting to make the end user seem like NOT A BAD GUY.
The truth is Drugs are illegal weather it be a joint or syringe the mechanism of totally bad people must still be in place to supply the end user.
I can't say I agree with all the drug laws but I do know the above is as real as real gets so quit your bitching and look at the total picture.
The guy smoking the occasional joint may well be a nice guy but he is supporting a network of scum bags along the way who would cut all of our throats for the profits they make.
Poppy's are grown in Afganistan and the profits go to terrorists who are killing our soldiers and funding the people who destroyed the twin towers and many thousands of innocent lives.
The next time you light up, think about the path of destruction left behind and I don't mean the guy sitting in his living room watching the NFL and starting his own business being Mr. Good Guy.
Go to Kentucky and take a walk in the woods. If you happen to end up walking into a POT field protected by a bunch of druggies, you might get the picture.

why_me
December 8, 2004, 11:55 AM
ok so your saying
if it was legal.
then there wouldnt be any bad guys producing the stuff cause it is legal and there is not enough profit in it? ergo. If it is legal any one can grow it in there house. If it is legal. You can buy it from the drug store just like oxycontin (ask Rush limbaugh). Imagine if those scum bags like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were around today. They would be in the federal penetentiary for growing marijauna.
I see your point though. 22 years ago when i was smoking pot i was supporting a scumbag network of my buddy who grew it on his pig farm. Sometimes i think the biggest resistance to ending the war on drugs is the loss of jobs in the corrections institutions that would result from it.
The opium grown in afghanistan actually goes to warlords. They are domestic terrorsits that terrorise other warlords and there own people. They dont export the terror. Under the taliban opium production was very much depressed. We even gave them money and thanked them for there anti drug efforts
the true cost of cocaine
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/foreign_policy/foreign_policy01nov07.htm
The raw cocaine price in Colombia is only about 1 percent of its street price in the United States, because of the risk premium added on to prices at each stage of the distribution
were talking about a dollar a gram i really dont think joe junkie is going to rob sister mary innocent for a dollars worth of cocaine he might be a nuisance pan handling though

GAMALOT
December 8, 2004, 12:33 PM
Apparently, you are better informed on the drug culture then I.
Missing the point in that your Buddies farm should be called a Pot farm with pigs since the monetary gains are much higher for americas #1 CASH CROP.

I have enjoyed the bantar but the "spin stops here"!

The Rabbi
December 8, 2004, 12:48 PM
Anyway, on the topic:

The very question seems bizarre. Whether someone served his sentence for a felony or not, people tend to be consistent in their behavior. Someone who is irresponsible enough to commit, get caught and be punished for a felony sure isnt responsible enough to own a firearm. While there might be individual exceptions, we don't make rules based on exceptions but on the majority. The majority of felons are recidivists--they commit crimes over and over.
It is similar to someone filing bankruptcy. Would you lend that person money again? No. But if someone re-established themselves as responsible over a number of years then it is a much smaller risk. Same here. There are certainly mechanisms in place to allow people who have demonstrated responsibility to petition for restoration.

Fletchette
December 8, 2004, 01:11 PM
repeat of earlier post:

What part of "Law Abbiding" do you not understand?????????????????????????



The part where actions that do not hurt anybody is considered a "crime". I am not argueing that these people broke the law. I am arguing that these laws are insane. Just because a law is passed does not mean that it is just...It was once a law that you could own slaves.

The guy I cited in the Fox article was in a wheel chair due to a previous auto injury. I seriouly doubt that he assaulted, raped or did anyone harm like you suggested. He simply forged one of his own prescriptions and got it filled by his pharmacy. He did not sell his drugs - he swallowed them.

Now he is in prison for 25 years without parole. Do you really think that this law is just?!?

:banghead:
----------------end of repeat

Radical idea: prosecute criminals for tha actual crime they commit (assault, pimping, raping etc.) rather than use trumped-up bogus charges that end up ensaring innocent people.

Fletchette
December 8, 2004, 01:13 PM
It is similar to someone filing bankruptcy. Would you lend that person money again? No.

The ability to borrow money is a privilage. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.

why_me
December 8, 2004, 01:22 PM
Post bankruptcy loan offers are usually higher after 2 years. Banks know if you file bankruptcy you cannot do it for 7 more years.
As far as petitioning for restoration of rights. Thats a non starter. Many states require a govenors pardon. We all know thats not going to happen.
Federal relief from disabilities is non funded that is not going to happen. I just dont see the point of Martha Stewart being denied RKBA because of a felony conviction. Maybe if Rush gets nailed for a felony people will see things differently.
The reason i even started this thread was a good freind of mine cannot go hunting. In 1989 he commited a non violent Drug felony. No guns were ever involved. He was convicted party to a crime of delivery of cocaine. He wasnt a saint thats for sure. But he owns a thriving business. Now he cant hunt. Thats not fair. Who here would say he is not a positive member of the community? Are we supposed to burn a mark in his forehead cause of his stupidity almost a couple of decades ago. The guy didnt even go to prison he got 3 years probation. I dont think thats fair.

The Rabbi
December 8, 2004, 01:27 PM
The part where actions that do not hurt anybody is considered a "crime".

Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone? Sure, there might be laws on the books that somehow end up with seemingly unjust consequences. But as I posted, we don't make laws based on exceptions but on the general rule.

The ability to borrow money is a privilage. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.

That's a distinction without a difference for this discussion. The point is that people's past behavior is generally a good indication of their future actions. Not 100% certainly but I don't know a better predictor. I would think anyone would want to err on the side of caution after weighing the benefits of allowing felons to own arms versus the liabilities.

The Rabbi
December 8, 2004, 01:32 PM
Post bankruptcy loan offers are usually higher after 2 years. Banks know if you file bankruptcy you cannot do it for 7 more years.

Not strictly true. You can file a Chapter 13 at any time. Rates are higher for former bankrupts to make up for the increased risk they will do it again.

Glock Glockler
December 8, 2004, 02:10 PM
The guy smoking the occasional joint may well be a nice guy but he is supporting a network of scum bags along the way who would cut all of our throats for the profits they make.

I agree, let's legalize the stuff so we put these modern day Al Capones out of business.

Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone?

Sure, how about the just about everything the BATF enforces.

That's a distinction without a difference for this discussion. The point is that people's past behavior is generally a good indication of their future actions. Not 100% certainly but I don't know a better predictor. I would think anyone would want to err on the side of caution after weighing the benefits of allowing felons to own arms versus the liabilities.

Either people have rights or they do not. You will have a govt that respects and protects those rights or you do not. Do ex-felons have a right to freedom of religion, what about free speech, what about the right to be free of unjust searches? By your denying them RKBA you are essentially saying that they do not have the right to protect their life.

While there might be individual exceptions, we don't make rules based on exceptions but on the majority

Wrong, if that law prevents someone who isn't currently a criminal from protecting himself or his family it is unjust and ought to be removed. We base our system of law on individual rights not 'majority rights', whatever that is.

why_me
December 8, 2004, 02:13 PM
everything but this deleted.

G. Gordon liddy
"Mrs. Liddy has a fine collection of firearms. Some of which are on my side of the bed."

Chuck Jennings
December 8, 2004, 08:50 PM
Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone?

A lie on a federal form.

Fletchette
December 8, 2004, 09:41 PM
Hmm. I am beginning to think that you aren't reading my replies, but here it goes for a third time:

The guy I cited in the Fox article was in a wheel chair due to a previous auto injury. I seriouly doubt that he assaulted, raped or did anyone harm like you suggested. He simply forged one of his own prescriptions and got it filled by his pharmacy. He did not sell his drugs - he swallowed them.

Now he is in prison for 25 years without parole. Do you really think that this law is just?!?


So, in answer to your question:

Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone?

Yes. Read above. The man forged his doctor's signature on his own prescription and bought (not stole) drugs at his pharmacy for his own consumption. This "felony" did not hurt anyone.

USP45usp
December 8, 2004, 10:21 PM
The way that I am reading all the replies, even THR is falling into groups:

Group 1, usually the LEO's and Fed LEO's on the board: The law is the supreme law of the land, not anything else. If you break "our" laws then you should be treated like dog poop.

Group 2: Depends on what law was broken and how constitutional it was. That if a law is unconstitutional then it is null and void but we do have exceptions to the rule and the exceptions are what we say they are.

Group 3: We are human, we make mistakes, many times those mistakes are against a law that shouldn't be due to it was not a law back when our forefathers wrote the constitution or the BoR's when they had the same "problem" in those days so if they had wanted it to be against the law they would have said so and thus written it into the documents that make up America.

If a person or persons can't be trusted on the streets then they should not be on the streets. Any "freeman" (defined as anyone on the streets) have (not should have, may have, etc..) their Rights as outlined in the BoR's and the Constitution. If you don't like that then either move to Canada or ensure these scumbags aren't out on the street.

If you wish to disarm a portion of the population due to mistakes then ensure that they stay behind bars, or better yet, are hanged or fried. If you think that they should be out in the streets then they have all their Rights, no matter the law. Those LEO's and Fed LEO's that like to get their rocks off by harressing these folks once they are out are out of line and it is their oath to allow these people to either hang themselves and go to jail forever (or die) or to allow them to be a part of America.

This elitist BS that I see and read make what I believe even more logical. If a person can't be trusted to be on the streets then why the hell are they on the streets? If they are let out then why can't they be trusted?

You start taking away the peoples Rights then you get nothing but more problems. You allow them to pay for their mistakes and allow them to be free then they should be free. No inbetween, no second, third class citizens, no making the peoples life even more harder just because of their past.

I know that many here will call me "uninformed", "stupid", "???????", and "one that won't confirm to what we wish". This is what I believe. I've met many a "criminal" that I would gladly be by my side if the SHTF. I've met many a "law abiding" that I have had second thoughts about. I've met many here that I would be scared to death to meet in RL due to the fact that I may be arressed on some "charge" and put away in a fed. prison.

The way I see it is this. If a criminal does the time and comes out and does nothing more to victimize anyone else then okay. If they do, the law should be as it was, everyone has a gun and the criminal won't have to worry about doing time, just what he or she is going to say to God when the victim sends the criminal to Him.

Wayne

Art Eatman
December 9, 2004, 08:37 AM
:D

Me, me, me, Wayne! Don't forget me!

I'm the guy who said, "Case by case basis."

:D, Art

Double Naught Spy
December 9, 2004, 09:37 AM
Very interesting read and opinions. For me, as I learned it, being dumb enough to commit a felony and subsequently be caught means a couple of things. First, it means you aren't bright enough to not get caught. Second, by committing the felony and being convicted, you basically suffer a vote of no confidence. In other words, by committing the felony, you have shown society that you are unwilling to play be the rules of the society and are more than willing to violate the rights of others at your own personal gain. Punishment then includes time in jail/prison (most times) and a loss of some key rights. Felons lose the rights to decide in elections or own guns because of their demonstrated disregard for the rights of others.

If you weren't willing to give up the rights, you should not have committed the crime and been stupid enough to get caught.

The Rabbi
December 9, 2004, 10:06 AM
This isn't a question of justice or fairness. It is a question of common sense. A person with a demonstrated history of life mismanagement (i.e. felony conviction) simply shouldnt be trusted with a gun. The risks are too great to everyone else. A person convicted of financial fraud shouldnt be hired as comptroller of a company. This is just common sense. The argument about "if he cant do this then he shouldnt be allowed to do that" is just a straw argument. You could use that argument to prove anything.

As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.
As for lying on a Federal form: OK, Chuck, I agree. Now I expect you to get out and lobby your congressmen for restoration of rights for anyone convicted of lying on a FNMA 1003 (mortgage application). We're right behind you.

why_me
December 9, 2004, 12:29 PM
Like you lose your rights for 10 years.
after 10 years if you haven't commmited any crimes or misdeameanors would that be ok? That actually seems right by me. Lifetime ban no way. When i think of it there are people who I dont want to have rights. Pedophiles i dont want them running day care. Actually as far as pedophiles concerned i dont want them out of prison EVER. Also they need to rewrite the sex offender statutes. a 18 year old going out with a 16 year old should not be a sex offender crime. And a 35 year old molesting a 14 year old should never ever see the light of day. Im talking solitary confinement for life.

Glock Glockler
December 9, 2004, 08:22 PM
Felons lose the rights to decide in elections or own guns because of their demonstrated disregard for the rights of others.

They do lose those rights when they are in jail, but if they are released it is essentially a de facto aknowledgement that their debt to society is paid, and if it is not paid they should still be in jail?

As I said before, does a person released from jail have the right to free religion?

Do they have the right to free speech?

Do they have the right to defend themselves from violent attack? Your denying them RKBA is essentially saying that they dont have the right to be free of aggression.

This isn't a question of justice or fairness. It is a question of common sense.

You should campaign for the Brady Bunch with "common sense" gun control being stylish and all. Hate to say it but you basically just shot any credibility of yours to hell by trying to dismiss justice and fairness as being irrelevant.

A person with a demonstrated history of life mismanagement (i.e. felony conviction) simply shouldnt be trusted with a gun

The past doesn not equal the future, just because someone has done bad things does not mean they automatically will do so again. I guess no one ever straightens themselves out in your world but you are essentially disregarding the idea of innocence until proven guilty.

As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.

Uh, maybe he was under the false impression that his body belonged to him and he shouldnt have to ask anyone for permission. Even if he went to his doctor the best he would have done is written a prescription that is supposed to act just like marijuana except that it actually isnt as effective as the real thing and it costs exponentially more.

Chris Rhines
December 9, 2004, 08:34 PM
If you claim to own your own body, then it is your business what chemicals you put into it. No one elses.

Anyone who claims to be pro-gun, but supports prohibition, is a D-flawless, blue rare hypocrite.

- Chris

The Rabbi
December 9, 2004, 08:42 PM
They do lose those rights when they are in jail, but if they are released it is essentially a de facto aknowledgement that their debt to society is paid, and if it is not paid they should still be in jail?

Their release is not an aknowledgement of paying a debt to society. It is an aknowledgement that their term of incarceration is over. They can suffer legal disability for long after that in other ways, e.g. loss of voting privelage and rights to gun ownership.


Do they have the right to free speech?

Maybe. If their conviction involved revealing some information they might still be under orders not to speak about it.

Do they have the right to defend themselves from violent attack? Your denying them RKBA is essentially saying that they dont have the right to be free of aggression.

That is absolute and unadulterated garbage. If you take someone's driver's license are denying the right to go places? If you take someone's right to vote are you denying them the ability to express political opinions? Someone without rights to gun ownership can lawfully defend himself in any way he wants provided he doesnt own a gun in the process.

The past doesn not equal the future, just because someone has done bad things does not mean they automatically will do so again. I guess no one ever straightens themselves out in your world but you are essentially disregarding the idea of innocence until proven guilty.

You just shot your credibility of sentience with this one. The point is the person WAS proven guilty. You're right--it does not automatically mean they will do it again. Yet the stats are they will, something like 80%. Want to take the chance? Not me, thanks. If your world ignores things like likelihood of an event and chances of anything occurring or re-occurring then you need a reality check because the rest of humanity operates on just those principles. Why do you think someone with multiple speeding tickets pays more for car insurance than someone with no speeding tickets?

Uh, maybe he was under the false impression that his body belonged to him and he shouldnt have to ask anyone for permission.

Ignoring the obvious: his body belonged to him but the drugs belonged to the pharmacy and the right of prescribing them belonged to the doctor.

Fletchette
December 9, 2004, 08:56 PM
As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.

Well, if you had read the article...you would have found out that this guy DID go to his doctor. He had a valid prescription for painkillers for his back, but he needed more because they were losing effectiveness. His doctor raised his dose several times, but then decided against raising any further out of fear of the DEA (which has been harassing doctors). So...the patient had three choices:

1) Get a different doctor - illegal. See Rush Limbaugh fighting charges of "doctor shopping".

2) Copying his valid prescription and getting it filled twice - illegal. He is doing 25 years in prison for this.

3) Live in excruicating pain.


The system totally sucks. This guy had no way out. Even if you fault him for copying his own prescription, 25 years and a felony conviction is completely unreasonable. I can't believe anyone would think it is! Where is the "victim"?!? You cannot even make the arguement that he is supporting organized crime - he bought the drugs from his pharmacy!!!

I swear, I believe some people cannot grasp the concept of a misdemeanor. They think every crime should be a felony! Personally, I think this guy should have been let off with a warning.

telewinz
December 9, 2004, 09:28 PM
The past doesn not equal the future, just because someone has done bad things does not mean they automatically will do so again. OK, which one of my inmates do you want to move next store to you, the mentally ill child rapist (IQ 65), the mentally ill murderer (1st grade education), the born again Christian that killed his entire family with a baseball bat when he was 17 or maybe the pagan that stabbed his grandparents to death then sat down at their kitchen table and fixed himself a sandwich. None have been caught taking drugs or booze for over 15 years and they have not killed anyone while under our custody. Maybe your point of view is right, I think you should provide a "home plan" to the parole board so that the inmate of your choosing may be granted a well deserved parole. It's caring individuals as yourself that we (and inmates) need more of. After all, we all know that inmates are just unforunate (but "normal") victims of society.
Monsters only exist in a person's mind. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

So...the patient had three choices: No, maybe four like go to another doctor. Maybe the guy was becoming addicted to the pain killers and his doctor didn't want to be sued. Doctors routinely switch medication, strange that of the dozens of different pain killers available none were effective on him. Maybe not all the facts are in the story, maybe the guy has a history substance abuse. Anyhow, how did a jury of his peers convict such an "innocent" victim of the system.

Fletchette
December 9, 2004, 09:49 PM
No, maybe four like go to another doctor.

I listed that choice as number 1.

Anyhow, how did a jury of his peers convict such an "innocent" victim of the system.

Because juries are routinely told that they cannot judge the merit of the law, and can only decide if the accused violated the law. It is cases like this that exemplify the need for FIJA. In any case, the 25 year minimum sentence came as a complete surprise. I suspect the jury was expecting something much, much less.

Edit: From the article:

At least one juror has since expressed regret for the verdict. Paey today sits in his wheelchair in a Florida penitentiary.

Waitone
December 9, 2004, 10:12 PM
Because juries are routinely told that they cannot judge the merit of the law, and can only decide if the accused violated the law. It is cases like this that exemplify the need for FIJA.At which point the concept of jury nullification takes hold contrary to what the judge says. You don't a big deal of it; you just refuse to convict someone on the basis of an unjust law.

And yes, I've been told I'll never sit on a jury.

Glock Glockler
December 9, 2004, 11:25 PM
Their release is not an aknowledgement of paying a debt to society. It is an aknowledgement that their term of incarceration is over.

If they still owe society then they shold still be in jail, you essentially advocate a system where people do not have equal rights under the law.

If you take someone's driver's license are denying the right to go places?

Driving on a govt road is not a right, as it is owned by the govt.

If you take someone's right to vote are you denying them the ability to express political opinions?

Yes, voting is the most effective way that people can express themselves politically.

Someone without rights to gun ownership can lawfully defend himself in any way he wants provided he doesnt own a gun in the process

Do I own myself?

I, therefore, have the right to defend myself.

Do I have the right to own property?

I, therefore, have the right to defend myself with my property.

What about that don't you understand?

Yet the stats are they will, something like 80% Want to take the chance?

When someone is a repeat offender that is something called and "aggrivating circumstance" which means they will get a much stiffer sentence than someone who is on trial for their first time. It seems the real issue is that violent criminals get let out of jail far too early.

Not me, thanks. If your world ignores things like likelihood of an event and chances of anything occurring or re-occurring then you need a reality check because the rest of humanity operates on just those principles.

Suppose some kid comes from a family of criminals and lowlifes, should we just get right to the chase and throw him in jail from the start because the odds overwhelmingly favor that he will be a criminal?

Why do you think someone with multiple speeding tickets pays more for car insurance than someone with no speeding tickets?

Poor analogy, no one has a right to insurance because it must be voluntarily by another.

Ignoring the obvious: his body belonged to him but the drugs belonged to the pharmacy and the right of prescribing them belonged to the doctor

Did he steal the pharmacy's drugs or was he simply consuming the drugs he bought?

45-auto
December 9, 2004, 11:35 PM
Wow!

Lots of hypotheticals here. Guys in wheelchairs with nasty addictions. Guys who can't buy car insurance at any reasonable price.

For me it's simple: the government does a lousy job of keeping felons from having guns. A fact that's proven in dozens of gas station robberies daily.

The effort simply proliferates useless -and unconstitutional- agencies like the BATF.

Anyway, the important item is not whether a felon has a gun or not. Seems like they can always get one. It's what they do with the gun that matters.

Punish behavior. Don't legislate against mere possession. The government has NO business legislating on the issue of gun possession. That's what the second amendment says.

telewinz
December 10, 2004, 05:34 AM
Because juries are routinely told that they cannot judge the merit of the law, and can only decide if the accused violated the law. It is cases like this that exemplify the need for FIJA. In any case, the 25 year minimum sentence came as a complete surprise. I suspect the jury was expecting something much, much less. BS! I served on a jury and all of us ignored the judge's instructions and voted our conscience, no problem.
At least one juror has since expressed regret for the verdict With or without a juror's regret (common feeling) the guy was still guilty! 1) Get a different doctor - illegal. See Rush Limbaugh fighting charges of "doctor shopping". It's not illegal to shop for multiple doctors and has never been illegal. I have four right now, an eye doctor, VA doctor, a family doctor, and a plastic surgeon. Rush admitted he was addicted and was seeking drugs from other doctors (and his house maid) to feed his addiction.

Firethorn
December 10, 2004, 07:05 AM
For the guy in the wheelchair, Richard Paey (http://reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml), it was a little different. He moved, and was no longer in contact with his old doctor. He could not find a new doctor willing to take him on, due to the fed's crackdown on pain meds. He is in extreme pain due to injuries sustained in a car accident, botched surgery, and multiple sclerosis. He didn't double fill his prescriptions from a doctor he could find, he filled using his old doctor's forms.

Unable to find a local physician who was comfortable taking him on as a patient, Paey used undated prescription forms from Nurkiewicz's office to obtain painkillers in Florida. Paey says Nurkiewicz authorized these prescriptions, which the doctor (who could face legal trouble of his own) denies.

Apparently they found a doctor for him in prison who went a step further...
Today, as he sits in jail in his wheelchair, a subdermal pump delivers a steady, programmed dose of morphine to his spine.

If only he could have found a doctor willing to suggest that outside!
And as for the jury finding him guilty, the juror also mentioned that the foreman assured them that all Richard would get would be probation... They felt a slap on the hand more appropriate for forging a prescription for personal use than 25 years in the pen (which they didn't know about).

The Rabbi
December 10, 2004, 09:51 AM
Their release is not an aknowledgement of paying a debt to society. It is an aknowledgement that their term of incarceration is over.
If they still owe society then they shold still be in jail, you essentially advocate a system where people do not have equal rights under the law.

You have contradicted yourself. If the law is that convicted felon cannot own a gun then how is it not having equal rights under the law to say he cannot have one? Michael Milliken went to jail for securities fraud. He got out of jail. He still cannot and never will be able to work in the securities industry again. "Pursuit of happiness" is a much more inalienable right than gun ownership and yet the government has (wisely) barred him for life.
By your logic everyone anywhere anytime has the "right" to own and carry a gun. That would apply to people in prison. That would apply to pre-schoolers. That would apply to people with limited mental capacity. Why dont you lobby for Hinkley to gain gun rights? Your view of the Second Amendment is ahistorical, logically flawed, and downright absurd.

The Rabbi
December 10, 2004, 10:31 AM
The system totally sucks. This guy had no way out. Even if you fault him for copying his own prescription, 25 years and a felony conviction is completely unreasonable. I can't believe anyone would think it is! Where is the "victim"?!? You cannot even make the arguement that he is supporting organized crime - he bought the drugs from his pharmacy!!!

Well, I asked my older brother, who is a palliative care specialist and soon to relocate to Lexington KY about this. Here is his response after reading the article:

The answer is to have chronic pain patients treated by a legitimate (emphasis on that word) specialist with appropriate training (someone like me). As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for treatment, response to treatment, and regular follow up, a physician need not fear the DEA

So there you have it. Did he knowingly violate the law? Yes. Is he guilty? Yes. Does that make it fair? I dunno. But he obviously had other options.

Finch
December 10, 2004, 01:01 PM
Depends opn the felony. If your a felon because you went to fast on the highway, then no, you shouldn't be barred from gun ownership, but if you made the ill decision to use a gun in the commision of a felony, then yes, say bye bye to your RKBA.

Fletchette
December 10, 2004, 02:44 PM
So there you have it. Did he knowingly violate the law? Yes. Is he guilty? Yes. Does that make it fair? I dunno. But he obviously had other options.

My arguement is that, even if he did violate the law, this is such a minor infraction that he should be charged with a misdemeanor. I think (my honest opinion) that a 25 year felony charge for this is very excessive.

The Rabbi
December 10, 2004, 03:21 PM
And how old were you the first time your mom told you "life isnt always fair" ? I agree it seems excessive given the circumstances as far as we know. The villain would seem to be the mandatory sentencing guidelines. If I had an easy solution to that I'd be running for office.

telewinz
December 10, 2004, 08:26 PM
My arguement is that, even if he did violate the law, this is such a minor infraction that he should be charged with a misdemeanor. And how many counts was he charged with? I don't think it's minor at all AND HE KNEW HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW!The answer is to have chronic pain patients treated by a legitimate (emphasis on that word) specialist with appropriate training (someone like me). As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for treatment, response to treatment, and regular follow up, a physician need not fear the DEA Now that sounds like an accurate statement to me.

Firethorn
December 10, 2004, 09:18 PM
<i>Unable to find a local physician who was comfortable taking him on as a patient</i>

Again, due to whatever factors(though the fed's witchhunt for overprescribing doctors seems to be a factor), he was unable to find a doctor willing to take him on.

The answer is to have chronic pain patients treated by a legitimate (emphasis on that word) specialist with appropriate training (someone like me). As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for treatment, response to treatment, and regular follow up, a physician need not fear the DEA

Was such a specialist available in his area? Was that one taking on new patients?

"As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for the purchase, response to purchase, and regular follow up, a FFL need not fear the ATF"

But from what I've heard, the FFL's here on the board dread a FFL visit. What if you're accused of making a straw sale?

why_me
December 10, 2004, 09:19 PM
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051704.htm

When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.

Dr. Cecil Knox of Virginia is one recent victim of federal authorities, who cannot abide physicians using their own judgment when prescribing pain medication. Dr. Knox faces federal criminal charges for prescribing legal pain drugs, and tragically has been forced to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending himself. Virginia state authorities have neither charged him with a crime nor revoked his medical license, yet the federal government- which constitutionally has no authority to usurp state drug laws- perversely seeks to imprison Dr. Knox for life!

Even if Dr. Knox is acquitted of all charges, his life will never be the same. His professional reputation and clientele cannot be easily restored, and the enormous legal bills cannot be easily repaid. So whether federal prosecutors obtain a conviction of Dr. Knox or not, the message sent to other doctors is chillingly clear: prescribe the wrong drugs and we will destroy you. The end result is that doctors become afraid to prescribe pain medication, no matter how appropriate for a patient. The judgment of doctors has been replaced by the judgment of federal drug warriors.

Those who support the war on drugs may well change their views if one day they find themselves experiencing serious pain because of an accident or old age. By creating an atmosphere that regards all powerful pain medication as suspect, the drug warriors have forced countless Americans to live degraded, bedridden lives. Even elderly deathbed patients sometimes are denied adequate pain relief from reluctant doctors and nurses. It’s one thing to support a faraway drug campaign in Colombia or Afghanistan, but it’s quite another to watch a loved one suffering acute pain that could be treated. A sane, compassionate society views advances in medical science- particularly advances that relieve great suffering- as heroic. Instead, our barbaric drug war treats pain patients the same way it treats street junkies.

Doctors are not slaves, and they will not continue practicing medicine forever if the federal government insists on monitoring, harassing, fining, and even jailing them. Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment, nor should they be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.

My thoughts
My grandfather until the last week of his life Didnt even get morphine. He died of colon cancer. This is a moment where i want to really get pissed off at some of the flippant remarks made here. You cannot say how much pain another person feels.

Fletchette
December 10, 2004, 10:58 PM
And how many counts was he charged with? I don't think it's minor at all AND HE KNEW HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW!

I am curious, Telewinz, what type of crime do you think warrants a misdemeanor?

Bemidjiblade
December 11, 2004, 11:14 AM
I guess sometimes taking the High Road means saying what is unpopular because you believe that it is both important and right:

I hear three major arguments about not allowing felons to possess firearms.
1] You've proven that you're untrustworty, and people don't change so you can never be trusted with firearms again.
2] The only reason that people are released on probation or parole is because there are no room for them in the jails/prisons.
3] Felons can get firearms anyway, because they aren't restricted enough, and they're just going to offend again anyway.

This is why I find these arguments unconvincing:
1] People can and do change. People who have changed from immoral to moral lifestyles are not merely the stuff of legend, they tend to be major contributors to the society we all share. St. Patrick, St. Augustine, King David, Henry V, these are only the famous people I can mention. Each of them committed acts that could be considered felonies in modern times, and each of them went on to help shape western civilization as we know it.
2] I have looked and looked. I can find no legal or documented basis to state that the "only" or even the primary reason that felons are released into community. I and others like me are sentenced to probation, because the judge did not feel that our offences merited sending us to prison unless there were further problems. "This can NEVER happen again" was how the judge who sentenced me put it. If you can demonstrate with official documentation or judicial review that the purpose for probation is a lack fo space et cetera, I am willing to reconsider. I've looked and so far I haven't found any. What I HAVE found on the US DOJ website about the criteria used to end probation/parole conditions early is about adjustment to society, NOT punishment.
3] I'm sorry, but if you're going to be making assertions that all offenders of one type or another reoffend, then I would like to see the proof. I did HOURS of research. I've seen an 80% rearrest rate in 3 years, but that doesn't mean a whole lot to me, since my own PO can put me in jail for up to 4 days at her own disgression, and I've known her to do so with other cases when she feels someone isn't taking things seriously enough. This would contribute to your 80% statistics, and has absolutely nothing to do with new wrongdoing. The fact is that the government websites of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States all point to an average re-conviction (NEW criminal activity) rate of about 40%.

So... because I believe that persons can change. Because I can believe probation and parole are about regaining place and trust in society, and becauase I believe that felons have at least a fifty-fifty chance of learning how to be productive members of society...

I believe that felons should be able to petition on a case by case basis for restoration of the right to keep and bear arms. All OTHER rights are returned at the end of probation/parole, and I don't see how this is any different.

Finally, as to the "felons can just defend themselves without firearms"... This is the first and maybe the biggest case of hypocracy that I've EVER encountered on THR. Isn't one of the main premises of this site that an unarmed man is not able to defend himself or his family against an armed opponent.

A friend of mine from the police academy and I spent HOURS one day trying every concievable martial arts response to an armed assailant, and the short answer always goes like this: If the person who is holding the fiearm is not both a complete fool and incredibly careless, you're dead meat. So, saying that a felon can just defend himself in a fashion that you state is unacceptable for you and yours, this is tantamount to saying that a felon's life is worth less than your own.

Bemidjiblade
December 11, 2004, 11:17 AM
one more thing...

We're talking about felons regaining a right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't the very fact that a felon would be willing to go through the thousands of dollars in court costs and time to regain their rights the legal and socially acceptable way count for something?

After all, how many times have members of this site argued that 'gun control' laws are ineffective because most criminal acts are committed with illegally owned fiearms?

No offense, but it sounds like most of you have a huge double standard about this one.

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 12:49 AM
You have contradicted yourself. If the law is that convicted felon cannot own a gun then how is it not having equal rights under the law to say he cannot have one?

You see, it's called a bad law, much like the plenty of unconstitutional gun control laws we have that allow LEOs, who are civilians just like me, to have all sorts of neat weapons that I cant. Some are more equal than others.

The felon who is released from jail, does he have to pay less in taxes than the rest of us? He certainly is getting less from the govt, as he cannot protect himself to the degree as everyone else can? You also never answered my questions from before, does he have a right to property?

By your logic everyone anywhere anytime has the "right" to own and carry a gun. That would apply to people in prison

When people are in prison they are stipped of their rights as they have violated the rights of another, which is why they are there in the first place. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, so since you will not allow him to defend himself when he gets out of prison are you going to provide additional police protection for him?

That would apply to pre-schoolers

Nice try, but they do not have full rights like an adult, whish is also why a legally binding contact with a 3 year old is invalid. Better luck next time.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 06:37 AM
If you can demonstrate with official documentation or judicial review that the purpose for probation is a lack fo space et cetera, I am willing to reconsider. "I was told that due to over crowding, I can NOT take away good time (parole) unless an inmate rapes or attacks a staff member" instructions given to and told to me by prison magistrate! With an 80% return rate, doesn't that indicate that most inmates have NOT changed? And why does the public blame the parole board when they take your advise?Those who support the war on drugs may well change their views if one day they find themselves experiencing serious pain because of an accident or old age. Well, my sister in law died of cancer 2 years ago and received all the pain killers she needed (morphine), WHILE at home and in the hospital. I recently was severely injuried by an attack by an inmate, I received all the pain killers I needed (morphine) while at home and in the hospital, didn't even have to ask. So personal experience enters into my beliefs.Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, In most cases, cons and ex-cons do very poorly in taking personal responsibility for their actions. If they DO CHANGE :evil: , in many states they can request to have gun ownership restored.I am curious, Telewinz, what type of crime do you think warrants a misdemeanor? Why make the issue more complex with personal opinion? My feelings aren't important but the facts and stats are. There are mainly only two reasons why a drug offender is prosecuted; A large amount of drugs are involved or the person has a past criminal record and they can finally nail him with a criminal act and get him off the streets. They do this in the interest of public safety which is what they are paid to do and what the vast majority of the public (including me) wants them to do. MONSTERS DO EXIST! KEEP THEM BEHIND BARS!

"Sucker punched" by inmate I have never seen so much blood, I thought you were dead Lets see...broken nose, broken cheek bone, torn retina, and concussion. And you really what this guy to have access to a gun when he gets out? If not him, how are you going to pick and choose which inmate with any certainty? No disrespect intended, but someone sounds somewhat naive in their values/judgement.

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 09:57 AM
telewinz,

"Sucker punched" by inmate

Ok, charge him with that crime and add another decade or 2 to his sentence. What is so hard about that?

And you really what this guy to have access to a gun when he gets out?

I would expect a statement like that from the Brady bunch. Do you really think that having a law is going to prevent someone like him from getting a gun? He will get it anyway, the only thing you will do is prevent ex-felons who want to straighten themselves out from obtaining a firearms. Great path you have him on now, so if we wants to protect himself he has to go back to being a lawbreaker.

No disrespect intended, but someone sounds somewhat naive in their values/judgement

If you think that just trying to limit someones access to firearms after they get out of prison will do the job you are sorely mistaken. There are many issues at work that create the culture of people in prison such as the welfare system, the tax system, minimum wage laws, the education system, the war on some drugs, and a host of other stuff. Although I dont mind discussing this subject you must eventually address the cause if you want to be effective.

The Rabbi
December 12, 2004, 11:54 AM
When people are in prison they are stipped of their rights as they have violated the rights of another, which is why they are there in the first place.

So you're saying that people in prison have no right to practice their religion, no right of free speech, etc etc? You have contradicted yourself yet again. Obviously rights are not an all or none proposition.

I would expect a statement like that from the Brady bunch. Do you really think that having a law is going to prevent someone like him from getting a gun? He will get it anyway,

By that logic nothing should be illegal, nothing should be restricted from anyone. Heck, just call a toll-free number and have the item delivered at government expense next-day express. Obviously laws restricting items do restrict them from some people. The fact that they dont work 100% doesnt mean they dont work at all. Yes, a person determined to get a gun will likely get one. The key word is "determined." Most people lack sufficient determination.

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 02:10 PM
So you're saying that people in prison have no right to practice their religion, no right of free speech, etc etc? You have contradicted yourself yet again. Obviously rights are not an all or none proposition.

No contradiction here, if they claim that their religion requires them to gather in large groups for a long time to pray that can easily be a threat to guard security and also pose a risk to them escaping, so the prison can restrict that. They might claim the religion requires them to keep chicken bones on them, but those can easily be sharpened and used as a weapon, so the prision can restrict that. They might claim they have a right to free speech, but if one of the Aryan nation guy wants to get up and make a speech about how they will kill all the mudpeople in the upcomming race war, that might very well be inflammitory and lead to a big fight/riot in the prison, so they can restrict that as well.

By that logic nothing should be illegal, nothing should be restricted from anyone.

Incorrect yet again. Something should be illegal when the act infringes on someone's rights. I don't infringe on anyone's rights if I own a full-auto belt fed machinegun, and an anti doesnt have a right to "feel" safe, so that should not be illegal, however, if I start taking shots at his house the law should come down on me with full force.

Heck, just call a toll-free number and have the item delivered at government expense next-day express.

No, thanks. They can pay for it themselves, there is no reason for the govt to pick up the tab on private transactions. I dont do socialism.

Obviously laws restricting items do restrict them from some people. The fact that they dont work 100% doesnt mean they dont work at all

Brilliant, so let's definately trample on the rights of the well meaning people because we might prevent a potential bad guy from getting one.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 02:56 PM
I would expect a statement like that from the Brady bunch. Do you really think that having a law is going to prevent someone like him from getting a gun? He will get it anyway, the only thing you will do is prevent ex-felons who want to straighten themselves out from obtaining a firearms. Great path you have him on now, so if we wants to protect himself he has to go back to being a lawbreaker. No but when they are caught (and they will be) the justice system can do more than fine them with a parking ticket!
If you think that just trying to limit someones access to firearms after they get out of prison will do the job you are sorely mistaken. There are many issues at work that create the culture of people in prison such as the welfare system, the tax system, minimum wage laws, the education system, the war on some drugs, and a host of other stuff. Although I dont mind discussing this subject you must eventually address the cause if you want to be effective. Increase taxes a great deal and we will have all the welfare systems you desire to fix the problem(s). We have not and the public has no desire to do so! Therefore we must deal with reality and the present system with the resources we are given. You have no idea what evil is do you? Evil exists only in story books and newspaper articles, right?

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 02:59 PM
increase taxes a great deal and we will have all the welfare systems you desire to fix the problem(s)

I desire no govt. welfare system, and increasing taxes is a horrible idea.

BTW, the ACLU can go to hell for all I care.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. I desire no govt. welfare system, and increasing taxes is a horrible idea. Then you have no workable solution...keep what we have.
most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Well, Dr. Paul (MD?) certainly does not speak for me, he isn't a "special interest" for doctors is he? My idea of drug offenders are those that have a previous history of crime(s) on file. The drug bust is just a tool to put them away.We're talking about felons regaining a right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't the very fact that a felon would be willing to go through the thousands of dollars in court costs and time to regain their rights the legal and socially acceptable way count for something? Maybe IF he got the money legally and isn't up to his old habits as 80%+ are.

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 03:32 PM
Then you have no workable solution...keep what we have.

Wrong, I have plenty of workable solutions. Start with lowering taxes and getting rid of govt welfare programs.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 03:49 PM
Wrong, I have plenty of workable solutions. Start with lowering taxes and getting rid of govt welfare programs. So fix a problem(s) with less resources. Then you have no workable solution...keep what we have. Like I said before.

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 04:16 PM
So fix a problem(s) with less resources

Has it ever occured to you that the govt welfare system IS the problem?

People on welfare are essentially rewarded for having more children that they cannot support, and the taxpayer must pick up the tab. We then have welfare mothers getting more money if the father is not at home, which creates a financial disincentive for a stable family, and the taxpayer must again pick up the tab.

So we then have an entire population of kids from broken families who have not been properly raised but they do know they get a check yet they do not work, and that is a disasterous precedent you set because they now think they are entitled to get money from others.

Combine that with the fact that the economy is much weaker because those that actually produce pay far more in taxes to support those that do not. That means there is far less economic opportunity for those that come from that broken welfare system to actually advance and earn their keep for a change.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 04:35 PM
So we then have an entire population of kids from broken families who have not been properly raised but they do know they get a check yet they do not work, and that is a disasterous precedent you set because they now think they are entitled to get money from others. First, we don't have "entire population" and we never did.That means there is far less economic opportunity for those that come from that broken welfare system to actually advance and earn their keep for a change. And a convict has even less opportunity. Thats why he is a convict and is much more likely to be a repeat offender. We understand the cause, whats the cheap solution thats more effective than what we have now?

Fletchette
December 12, 2004, 04:45 PM
Wow. A lot of back and forth here, some of it getting pretty 'spirited'. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.

I want Telewinz to understand that he has my sympathies; the guy that did that to him should not be let out, which of course precludes him from having a gun.

However, I too have been on the receiving end of crime, and I do not think that we should set up a class society in response. I am not advocating that violent felons (aka "real felons") be let out with short terms. I am advocating that violent felons serve long sentences while non-violent felons, especially wrongly incarcerated felons that should have been charged with a misdemeanor (like Mr. Paey) should serve much shorter sentences.

If this were upheld, then we certainly could keep violent offenders in prison for a very long time. If we as a society think that they still are not to be trusted with a gun,then they should not be let out at all.

If the system operated like that, we would not have a class society, we would keep violent offenders in prison for a very long time, and we wouldn't have to worry about background checks and such.

Having been on the receiving end, I know that it is very easy to slip into an "us vs. them" mindset where someone who commits the slightest infraction is viewed as sub-human. After years if thought, I have concluded that we need to be extremely diligent in making sure that the punishment fits the crime, because the consequences are enormous (citizen enduring an excessive sentence/society being exposed to violent criminals that are released as a result of crowded prisons). Considering the fact that the average incarceration rate for murder is less than 6 years, I really think we need to prioritize who we sentence long terms to. Mr. Paey does not deserve the sentence he received.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 05:10 PM
I do not include "white collar" crime inmates like Martha Steward. They are indeed a whole different creature and all the rehabilitation efforts (if really needed) apply and probably have a high success rate. I'm talking MAX security types that are the "real" expensive problems. I am superintendent of a prison industries enterprize. We "employ" 61 inmates and we "hire" the cream of the crop. My average inmate has 8.5 years of education and has an IQ under 80. My lowest is retarded (raped small children) and my most educated is a college grad thats a 3 time loser (last offense-sold stolen pistol/murder weapon to minor while serving as a Marine). Almost without exception they have the work ethic of a 13 year old (very poor) and the moral values of a weasel(little to none). There just isn't much to work with here and most likely never will be BUT I don't want them released in my city...EVER!

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 05:19 PM
First, we don't have "entire population" and we never did.

When was the last time you walked through a ghetto or spoke with people in a public housing sector? I have that "privilage" far more than I would like and it is not an isolated incident that I see people with a broken set of values in a bankrupt culture. The overwhelming majority of the people there think the world is owed to them even though they've done nothing to earn anything. Packs of little kids come up to me demanding money, trying to pick my pockets, and when I tell them no I am the evil white man who is oppressing me. I might get off easy with some harsh words or they might throw rocks at me. I've long since parked my car in a packing garage and walked to my appointments since I dont want it to get trashed by these little animals. You walk a mile in my shoes, you go where I have gone and tell me if these people created by the welfare system are just isolated exceptions or if it is pervasive.

And a convict has even less opportunity. Thats why he is a convict and is much more likely to be a repeat offender. We understand the cause, whats the cheap solution thats more effective than what we have now?

Did you even bother to read my post? Perhaps I am failing to explain it properly. When you constrict an economy you make it worse for everyone, even people at the top though they are less impacted than the people at the bottom. Yes, convicts do have even less opportunity than most people, which is all the more reason to take the handcuffs off of the economy. With the govt intervention screwing up the economy the ex-convict has even less chance now to make it on the right path than he would otherwise. Take the handcuffs off, get the govt to stop screwing things up and let the market do its thing and the ex-convict will be better able to stay straight.

why_me
December 12, 2004, 06:32 PM
telewinz said
my most educated is a college grad thats a 3 time loser (last offense-sold stolen pistol/murder weapon to minor while serving as a Marine).

How exactly did he become a marine after his first 2 offenses? There is no way i can agree with most of what you say. You seem to put the world into good and evil. Its not that way at all. There is truly some evil people. And even rarer there are some truly good people. We all have faults. Some people make mistakes and they learn from them.
The question is do we damm some one for a non violent felony for life. It is a felony to pick up certain bird feathers on the ground. There are people who do to a weakness and moment of vulnerability make a wrong choice. There are victims of a goverment run amok like possession of cocaine that are felons. They werent dealers they just had a party planned. And last but not least. How many felons actually go to trial. Justice is blind but it sure knows the value of money. Most of your felons wouldnt be felons if they had the money for a good lawyer. Do you think Public Defenders can do the best job they can saddled with the case load they have?
Isnt it funny OJ Simsom can buy a gun but martha stewart cant?

Minnesota allows a felon to purchase handguns and rifles after a certaiin period of time. There crime rate didnt go thru the roof. Texas felons can have a firearm in there home.

And to those who dont obviously know Dr. Paul is a congressman from Texas. He is not a tool of any drug company lobby. He is a strict constitutionalist.

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 06:57 PM
Ok, charge him with that crime and add another decade or 2 to his sentence. What is so hard about that? He is already serving a life sentence, I don't think an extra 20 years will matter.
Take the handcuffs off, get the govt to stop screwing things up and let the market do its thing and the ex-convict will be better able to stay straight. Sounds good but in reality the convict will at best have a shot at a low paying job. Again, if he was content with that standard of living, he would not be in prison to begin with. No skills, no education, and no work ethic equals a low standard of living. Increasing the number of low paying jobs 5 fold will not help an (ex)inmate.

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 07:02 PM
I know of ex-inmates who are working in low end jobs, they're not glamorous jobs (welding, tree cutting, construction, etc) but they get by with them. More economic growth might not guarantee success for them but it's better than what we have now. At the very least we'll be moving towards the end of the welfare culture.

If you have a better solution let me know

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 07:07 PM
I haven't heard a better workable solution. I think we should keep what we have. :)

The Rabbi
December 12, 2004, 07:11 PM
No contradiction here, if they claim that their religion requires them to gather in large groups for a long time to pray that can easily be a threat to guard security and also pose a risk to them escaping, so the prison can restrict that. They might claim the religion requires them to keep chicken bones on them, but those can easily be sharpened and used as a weapon, so the prision can restrict that. They might claim they have a right to free speech, but if one of the Aryan nation guy wants to get up and make a speech about how they will kill all the mudpeople in the upcomming race war, that might very well be inflammitory and lead to a big fight/riot in the prison, so they can restrict that as well.

Yes! And if they claim their religion requires child sacrifice or it requires polygamy or anything else that is illegal and repugnant to society then they wont get to practice it, regardless of whether they are in jail or not. Does that mean they have no right of free exercise of religion? No. It means there are limits set in place to protect others. Ditto for gun rights. You have just proven my point, thanks.
This thread seems to be careening into irrelevance.

USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 07:23 PM
I don't know. I just reread my Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it says nothing about taking away a persons Rights, whether they are felons or not. I just can't seem to find that, if you have read yours and you saw it printed, please enlighten me on the subject.

"Shall not be Infringed" seems to be a basic line, I didn't read "shall not be infringed if you are *insert word or words here*.

So, pray tell my good people, where do you get off by saying what you have? If the person is not able to maintain his or her rights, then why aren't they either buried beneath the jail or on the table?

There is no mistaken what the Constitution or the Bill or Rights outlines. Read it as you may, make it a "living document" if that is what pleases you. Yet in no way or no how does it disbar a person, a freeman, from any Rights as outlined.

My next door neighbor may be a killer, a crook, or a scumbag, that is the life that he or she has chosen. If he or she is out of jail due to the fact that you (the cops/feds and whomever) deem them to be "safe" then he or she should have their Rights, in full.

Oh, just to give some of you people a clue, in Oregon felon's have all their Rights except RKBA. They vote here people and that is more scary then allowing them to have a gun.

People like Tele and others have a thing against felons. They work in the system and their thoughts are what they are. If the person that committed a crime isn't safe enough to be freed then it's the problem of the legal system and not ours. If the person is freed then that person is a freeman and should have all Rights restored to him or her. If you don't think so then why is this person out in the first place?

People do change. Remember (men) when you were young, dumb and full of cum? You did stupid things then, like speeding and maxing out the power of your car (and or motorbike) and some still do. Remember when you took a "toke" off your first wacky weed cigg? Remember the first time that you took your new found freedom and did something stupid?

If you are "you can't throw a rock at this house" (which if anyone says they are holier than thou they are freaking lying their ass off) then maybe you have a say. But why judge? I remember a saying, "Do not judge yet you may be judged". Not quite right in the context but the message comes through.

I understand that the people that want non gun ownership by others are scared. They are the ones that think that if they can maintain a "power" over others then its a good thing. And the feds, the few we have here, they don't want any guns in any hands besides themselves (from what I've read). Bad guys (and gals) have existed before we were born. We have to ensure that we are equal on all grounds, and that you screwed up shouldn't be a death sentence, who the hell are you to play God and Judge?

If you are that scared of what may happen, join the damn brady bunch and let them ease your fears with things that cannot be. Live in a dream world and hide your head from your shame and your fear.

If you wish for reform, why don't you work to ensure that the monsters don't get out, if you fear the person that you are in charge of then ensure that they don't get back into society.

You see, I don't live in fear. My neighbors across the street are drug dealers, years of calling the cops have done nothing. No money in it. I have informed them that I am armed, 24/7 and I will kill them if they even look at me wrong, they have left me alone for years because they know that I am serious in the matter. Take their guns from them? Ha, the cops won't even bust them so what does it matter. I know they have guns, they know that I have guns. I know that if I interfare with their deals, they will interfare with my life yet at the same time they know that it's not going to be easy for them to take me out.

Should they be in jail, well the ones that have done more than sell drugs, I'm sure that many have done other things, somthing I gathered by talking with them one on one. Should they be disbarred their RKBA? If I wanted nothing but a sense of safety then I would be on the front of the line banning guns but I know that it can't be done so I have come to an agreement with them. What about the people that come over and buy their drugs... well, they want them so they should have the right to do whatever they please. If they die tonight or if I read about them in the paper, it's not my business, they choose that life.

Should the people across the street have their arms? Yes. If the government, state or feds don't think them as a problem then as a freeman they have all their Rights. Until the People demand that these people stay behind bars then it's an American Right that shall not be Infringed.

Wayne

The Rabbi
December 12, 2004, 07:28 PM
I don't know. I just reread my Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it says nothing about taking away a persons Rights, whether they are felons or not. I just can't seem to find that, if you have read yours and you saw it printed, please enlighten me on the subject.

I thought we covered this already. By your logic anyone anywhere should be able to have a gun, whether they are in jail or not. Whether they were adjudged mentally unstable or not. The Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about children not having guns so let's arm them as well.
Again, your view of the Second Amendment is simplistic, a-historical, and dowright absurd.

USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 07:37 PM
Rabbi

We all have our Rights the day we were allowed to be born.

Yes, children have a Right to a gun, as well as speech and as well as to choose their own Religion.

Absurd, I don't think so. You, I think, is the one that is absurd.

If a child or a person has no Rights then why don't we just use the children as sex slaves to do our bidding? If they have no Rights then why shouldn't we be able to keep them quiet until we decide they can talk? If we as American's, felons or not, have no God given Rights then why don't we just give up this "high road" and allow ourselves to just do what we wish against anyone that we wish.

Hell, why don't we just make it a law to gas a certain people or to deny the Right to life to others. That's always worked in the past didn't it?

Yes, it was a cheap shot but you should know better then any others here. You were considered felons under the law of a country not that long ago, and it caused over 3 million deaths.

Care to restate your position or was the law at the time, justified?

Wayne

USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 07:43 PM
Too add to what many will think is anti-Jewish.

Many of my "kind" were also gassed, gays. I look back and say Never Again, I cannot speak for any others.

Rights are Rights.

Wayne

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 07:51 PM
Absurd, I don't think so. You, I think, is the one that is absurd. Maybe you should re-think your position OR maybe we should start looking for some good two year old children for the next presidential election. :D

USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 08:15 PM
Tele

Maybe we should, couldn't do any worse then what we've had so far.

Maybe they would swallow and not leave a mark on the blue dress... what say you?

Wayne

Firethorn
December 12, 2004, 08:17 PM
religion requires child sacrifice or it requires polygamy or anything else that is illegal and repugnant to society then they wont get to practice it

Human sacrifice, in whatever form, harms another human, and thus is quite illegal.

Polygamy? The act that's typically prosecuted in the US is when somebody marries multiple others without them knowing. The old sailor's "woman in every port". But what if all parties are consenting with full knowledge?

What about the "vision quests" some tribes practice by taking hallucinogenic substances? These are generally done in controlled situations, and do not lead to long disability or addiction.

We have, or at least had, laws against "unnatural sex". Even between a married, consenting couple in private. It may be "repugnant", but I feel that if I'm not offended at least a bit by what others do, society isn't free enough.

If it doesn't directly threaten or harm another, or break a contract, it shouldn't be illegal.

As for convict's rights, it is commonly held that, at least during their sentence, that they've forfeighted their rights. But what about once they get out? I can see a period of restriction, but I believe that regaining the right to keep and bear arms should be a scheduled part of that restoration.

If you look at career criminals, as a rule, they're unable to keep their noses out of trouble for any length of time. If somebody is convicted, serves their time in prison, is released, then stays out of trouble for, say, a decade, why shouldn't we restore their rights? A kid (I'm talking mental maturity), steals a car at 18. He serves five years in prison, learns to be a welder or some other trade. He's now 23. He finds a job, keeps up with his parole officer, eventually marries. Let's say that he's now 25. At 26 he has his first kid. At age 33 he has two kids, age 7 and 5.

Do you think this man, who stole a car as a 'kid', but has since kept his nose clean, deserves to legally own a gun, be able to teach his children firearms safety? When the one who hasn't kept his nose clean, obtained a gun illegally 9 3/4 years ago, and is serving a new 20 year sentence?

telewinz
December 12, 2004, 08:46 PM
Maybe they would swallow and not leave a mark on the blue dress... what say you? Not very tasteful (I've heard) no matter how you take your comment :D

USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 09:41 PM
Tele,

I wanted to make that commet as distastful as I could.

It's what makes a person think.

Please read your comments and reflect on them, as all that have given a con to the question.

I think that a smart one would rethink his or her commentment on the subject.

All one has to do is think back on the history, think forward to the present, and think of the future and no matter the malady or the happenings of the present, or the past, can a sane man think that to take away a Right of another is justice or what should be done.

Our Forefathers killed and maimed and were called extremist and criminals. They fought a battle and won, yet we who have inherited this blessing condemns his fellow man, without question and just because the "law" states it so.

Our Forefathers went against the King and that was considered a felon in the olden times. To those that are Christian, many of the ones that preached the word were murders, thiefs, criminals yet they found Grace when all others left them up for dead or anti-social.

We are we to judge or to look another in the eye and tell them that they are lower class citizens based on our word? Who are we to act as God and as judge and jury? Who are we to tell another that he or she is not worth the life that was given to them.

Are you God Tele? Are you God (to the feds)? Are you God? People will make mistakes, it's human nature to do so, yet are you goddly enough to pass your judgement on these people? Are you willing to take them into your embrace and protect them since you've deemed that they they are sub human? Look around your household, how many of these people do you have there? How many of these people do you thing sub humam over a mistake and how many have you helped?

As Oleg put it, "A human Right". One of his first posters. A human Right, to be safe by any means possible. You make a mistake you pay the price (even though I believe the price may be too high in many cases). You are allowed out then you are equal with all, you are a human being and if you are blessed to live in America, then you have all your Rights, no questions asked.

And to all that says that you should show everyone what I believe:

My 1 year old nephew has his own pellet gun. I bought it, it's his. Should he have it at two, you bet you. It's his Right as an American.

Have I bought the Eagle Eddie tape, you bet you and he watches it every day. Overkill, no, firearms are a fact of life, he should learn about them.

Will this little boy learn how to shoot before he's even out of diapers, damn straint. You got a problem with that, then enlighten me.

As for myself, I have thought enough and done enough to be branded a felon. Yet I still pass the NICS check and I still keep myself from being caught. The laws that I break are not against a person but the laws that are on the books. Laws that shouldn't be. Why do I mention that when I know that there are feds who are looking at this board, because no law that is against the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is null and void. Law of man is void, I only obey the law of the land.

Wayne

*hell, my English is bad. I'm Dutch yet I believe more in America then Americans. Sad isn't it.

jptsr1
December 12, 2004, 09:44 PM
Yes.

J.

why_me
December 12, 2004, 09:45 PM
What your missing here and mnay others is this. The felon you mentioned has kept his nose clean. Maybe he is working nights in a crappy neighborhood.
HIS wife cannot own a gun! See if a cop comes to his house and sees his WIFES gun on the nightstand. He is going to do time for posession If he borrows his freinds car and the freind has a gun in the trunk HE is guilty of possession. IF his son or daughter goes hunting and brings there rifle home HE is guilty of possession.
when you take away a felons RKBA you not only take away his right to protect his family you also take away any member in his houses' right to protect there family.
Do you think low paying jobs get you into gated communitys? If we take away a felons right to protect his family then we need to provide 24 hour security for that person. Do you agree to that? Didnt think so.

JMag
December 12, 2004, 09:46 PM
The majority, as I hear it, do not repay their debt to society...they only make a down payment and walk early.

No, those guilty of certain felonies should not have access to a gun, knife, etc.
I realize there are ways that they do gain access. I think the law as it stands now recognizes that, too.

USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 09:58 PM
JMAG,

Then shouldn't they be in jail, for life, or dead by the death chamber?

You can't have it both ways, restricting a fellow humans Right when they are free.

Many here have already said that I'm too simplistic. Yet I only have one thought, "shall not be infringed". I don't know how to put it any other way. Every Freeman (or women) deserves the ability to protect themselves, no matter the history.

To all gun owners here, give me a reason or a fact that goes against that last part of the 2nd. Give me a reason why a person that is freed should not be able to protect or have the tools that will help them.

Your thoughts, your postings, have not proven the agrument. You want them to be disarmed due to their mistakes and your fear. If you have a gun to equal the engagement then what do you have to fear? You fear and that leaves a stink on you. You smell and others can smell it on you, as well as the criminals which will take you.

Wayne

*I'm not mean to be cruel, I'm mean to show you the light.

Fletchette
December 12, 2004, 10:09 PM
to own a gun, or to vote, or otherwise be a first-class citizen again, I ask you a question:

Should we count them in the census?

After all, if they can't vote, then they aren't represented. Why should a state have the number of Congressmen appointed by counting all the people in the state, citizens and slaves.

telewinz
December 13, 2004, 04:58 AM
can a sane man think that to take away a Right of another is justice or what should be done. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!Should we count them in the census? Yes, just like we count children. They can't own a firearm for self protection either.If you have a gun to equal the engagement then what do you have to fear? You fear and that leaves a stink on you. You smell and others can smell it on you, as well as the criminals which will take you. Maybe it's not fear but common sense.If you REALLY knew some of my inmates, you would know fear and this would have been a very short thread!IF his son or daughter goes hunting and brings there rifle home HE is guilty of possession. Not true! And his wife IS allowed to own a firearm.when you take away a felons RKBA you not only take away his right to protect his family No, you prevent him from easily using a firearm AND poor judgement to commit more crimes. 80%+ return to prison, and not because they were late reporting to work at MacDonalds.Please read your comments and reflect on them, as all that have given a con to the question. Friend, I've been working with inmates for years. My comments aren't based on wishful thinking or a political agenda but on daily observation and interaction with inmates.Are you God Tele? Are you God (to the feds)? Are you God? People will make mistakes, it's human nature to do so, yet are you goddly enough to pass your judgement on these people? No but you don't have to be a God to exercise good common sense. It's part of the growing process, thats why children can't enter into a legal contract or vote. I'm sure their are reasons why children should be permitted to do both, but experience and mature judgment prevail (hopefully). Who told you that using poor judgment in the exercise of your rights didn't have a consequence?if you are blessed to live in America, then you have all your Rights, no questions asked. Wrong! the questions are being asked and debated every day both in the courts and out of them.
A lead pipe across the back of the head without warning, makes the debate of CCW and personal protection pointless. "High Noon" was a movie, inmates won't give you that edge!

why_me
December 13, 2004, 10:35 AM
Quote:
IF his son or daughter goes hunting and brings there rifle home HE is guilty of possession.

Not true! And his wife IS allowed to own a firearm.Quote:

It is called Constructive possession. It is an enforced concept. If the felon can access the firearm and can have dominion and control he is guilty of constructive possession and the law does not differentiate punishment.

And it does not have to be a firearm either it can be a Bullet!

Possession of an object can be actual or constructive. State v. Alston, 131 N.C. App. 514, 519, 508 S.E.2d 315, 318 (1998). A person has constructive possession of an object if he does not have it on his person, but is aware of its presence and has both the power and intent to control its disposition. See State v. Williams, 136 N.C. App. 218, 222, 523 S.E.2d 428, 431-32 (1999). "Evidence of constructive possession is sufficient to support a conviction if it would allow a reasonable mind to conclude that defendant had the intent and capability to exercise control and dominion over the controlled substance." State v. Matias, 143 N.C. App. 445, 448, 550 S.E.2d 1, 3, aff'd, 354 N.C. 549, 556 S.E.2d 269 (2001).

Quoth the atfOnly a few defendants have opted for a jury trial, but they have all been found guilty. The average sentence has been 15 to 17 years in federal prison, which is day-for-day prison time with no early releases.

"These people are pleading guilty to 15 years mandatory minimum. This shows how effective this is," said James Mercer, Resident Agent in Charge of the ATF Raleigh office. "We've basically transformed the landscape of crime. All they did was possess a gun…something they have been doing forever."

Glock Glockler
December 13, 2004, 10:53 AM
The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

Ok, so you argee with FDR's lackey that we should violate the Constitution whenever we dont feel safe. So how does that make you any different from the Brady bunch who want other unconstitutional gun control laws?

If you REALLY knew some of my inmates, you would know fear and this would have been a very short thread!

It seems that the main problem is that these guys are breathing and don't have the bullet in the back of their head they really need. Why don't you concentrate on fixing the problem instead of creating non-solutions that create more problems?

Fletchette
December 13, 2004, 11:53 AM
Yes, just like we count children. They can't own a firearm for self protection either.

That's debatable. In many states, minors may own guns, but they may not be able to buy them. Also, just last year in Colorado a teenager used his father's shotgun to kill a pit bull that was mauling him. No charges filed.

Another important difference between minors and felons is that minors have guardians. In many cases, if a minor commits a crime the guardian is liable. The guardian also has a responsibility to protect the minor from harm. That is not the case with felons.

I think that felons should have the RKBA, after they are released, or they should have personal guardians and not be counted in the census. If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they should be in prison.

The Rabbi
December 13, 2004, 12:09 PM
So far I have learned from this thread that the 2A applies to mental patients, small children, and anyone else born here or naturalized and breathing.
I have learned that common sense is the province of the Brady Bunch and the left wing. Apparantly conservatives are not subject to common sense.
I have learned that no matter what you did in the past you have absolutely no propensity to do the same thing in the future.
I have learned that people should be either locked up for life, killed, or handed guns on their way out of jail.
I guess things really are black and white. :banghead:

CAS700850
December 13, 2004, 01:41 PM
Folks, I must say that this has truly been a fascinating read. I looked into it out of curiosity, and kept going because, on occassion, I prosecute individuals who have been convicted of certain felony offenses for Possession of a Weapon Under Disability (the term for having been convicted of certain felony offenses here in Ohio). From what I gather here, I am probably guilty of some crime in the eyes of teh members, either for failing to getthe felon executed in the first place, or for denying him his righst after the fact.

The law in Ohio is about as close a match to my beliefs as I've found. If you are convicted (tried or plead guilty and sentenced) of certain violent or drug related offenses, you are "under disability" and cannot possess a firearm unless that disability is relieved. the disability is relieved by the court that convicted the felon, by applying for relief (a written request, no attorney necessary) and then waiting for a response. The State9prosecutor's office) hats a chance to respond/object. The Court orders an updated report on the individuals situation (updated criminal history, drug test, etc.) If your record is clean, and no problems turn up, the disability can be relieved. If not, the request is denied, and the disability continues.

It is truly fascinating how many people see this as a black and white issue, especially in an area where there are so many shades of grey. I can think of an example to support both arghuments without working hard at it. That's why I think the Ohio law is about as good as can be expected, in that it truly allows for a case by case examination of the facts to determine what is best in that situation.

why_me
December 13, 2004, 01:57 PM
What about states that require a govenors pardon? What about the federal relief from disabilities that is unfunded. Do you have a problem with a convicted felon after say 10 years of good behaviour owning a gun?

tyme
December 13, 2004, 04:20 PM
cas700850, what do you expect of us? "Mr. X (who got a murder charge reduced to manslaughter 2 via a plea bargain) deserves to be let out after 3 years... just don't let him have a gun."

That doesn't make any sense and is exactly why so many people you see on both sides are so frustrated at the status quo you help perpetuate. Sorry.

There's really only one side, and pigeonholing our viewpoints into "let them have guns" and "fry them" is silly. The vast majority (all?) of us think prison sentences for dangerous people are too short. None of us wants that hypothetical (or not-so-hypothetical) Mr. X to be out prowling around with a gun after 3 years. The difference is, under your system where they're let out after 3 years but technically can't have a gun, they are often out there prowling around with a gun anyway. Under ours, either they're fried or they're still in jail. When they finally get out, if they get out, they might still be dangerous. Maybe they shouldn't have a gun even then, but they're going to get one whether or not we allow it. Enforcing this "no guns for felons" policy is not only mostly ineffectual, but costs money and results in crap like brady checks and firearm carry licensing, and all sorts of other annoyances for responsible firearm owners.

Double Naught Spy
December 13, 2004, 08:01 PM
And you know, they may be ex-convicts when they get out of prison, but they are NOT ex-felons. The felony conviction stays with them. That is yet another rammification for being dumb enough to commit, get caught, and successfully prosectued for a felony. You get the lifelong title of "felon." You also get the title of "convict" while staying in one of our resort detention centers.

Fletchette
December 13, 2004, 11:12 PM
WWJMBD? What WOULD John Moses Browning Do?

...get arrested and be prosecuted for any number of "felonies" that didn't actually hurt anyone.

telewinz
December 14, 2004, 05:31 PM
It seems that the main problem is that these guys are breathing and don't have the bullet in the back of their head they really need. Why don't you concentrate on fixing the problem instead of creating non-solutions that create more problems? It's called dealing with reality. Fully understanding the problem should be the first step

Glock Glockler
December 14, 2004, 05:43 PM
It's called dealing with reality. Fully understanding the problem should be the first step

Ok, fully understand why they are still breathing then get back to me.

Fletchette
December 14, 2004, 10:22 PM
It's called dealing with reality. Fully understanding the problem should be the first step

Well, my opinion of the "problem" is that many people assume that "felon" = "really bad person". The reality is that many of the "felons" we convict today are not bad people and have not hurt anyone.

The Rabbi
December 14, 2004, 10:30 PM
The reality is that many of the "felons" we convict today are not bad people and have not hurt anyone.

You're kidding, right?

I can just see it-- I was hanging around minding my own business and this guy came up and stuck a bag of coke in my pocket and a gun in my hand and.... Get real. There might be some people caught up in the system but they are probably like less than 1%. The rest are guilty as heck.

EricOKC
December 14, 2004, 10:50 PM
You're kidding, right?

I can just see it-- I was hanging around minding my own business and this guy came up and stuck a bag of coke in my pocket and a gun in my hand and.... Get real. There might be some people caught up in the system but they are probably like less than 1%. The rest are guilty as heck.

So you're equating posession of a controlled substance with the crime of, oh i dont know, lets say...murder? Someone should be forbidden to own a gun forever because he had a few ounces of pot?

Firethorn
December 14, 2004, 11:01 PM
Here's where we get into the idea of "consensual crime". Where all parties involved are knowing & consenting.

Say: I grow & smoke my own pot or whatever. I don't sell it, I use within my own house, and show up to work in a suitable condition to do acceptable work. Yet because I have six or so plants, when the cops raid my house, I'm convicted as a dealer because I have over an arbitrary limit. I'm now a felon.
Am I any more dangerous than the average citizen?

What if my accountant makes a serious error on my tax return? If it goes over a certain dollar amount, I could theoretically be convicted of lying on my tax return, and become a felon.

What if I'm passing through a city or a state, stopped by the cops and it's found that I don't have my weapons stored properly? I know there's a law for safe passage, but cops can still give me heck.

Would the majority of felons still be felons if drugs were legalized? Maybe, maybe not. Meanwhile we're spending enourmous amounts of resources trying unsuccessfully to prevent people from using drugs. Meanwhile we're saying that if you mess up, you can't be forgiven (assuming you're not friends or get lucky with the president or governer).

Heck, there are misdemeanors that bar you from firearms ownership. Some people pleabargained the misdemeaner because they didn't want to spend the money to fight the higher charge. For somebody not making high wages, 30 days of "community service" and some counseling is cheaper than paying a lawyer to fight the higher charge. Even if the lawyer says you can win.

telewinz
December 15, 2004, 05:11 AM
Ok, fully understand why they are still breathing then get back to me. OK. due process, the the state constitution and a tradition of under funding the penal system. The death penalty costs the states more money (legal costs) than a life sentence. Why do you think most states have done away with the death sentence? Hurt feelings!

The Rabbi
December 15, 2004, 11:51 AM
Say: I grow & smoke my own pot or whatever. I don't sell it, I use within my own house, and show up to work in a suitable condition to do acceptable work. Yet because I have six or so plants, when the cops raid my house,

If you were really doing all that why would the cops raid your house? Yeah, theoretically anything that is a felony could be prosecuted as such but the reality is this is not what happens. DAs have better things to do than prosecute people for mis-stating information on a FNMA 1003 mortgage application. The vast overwhelming majority of people convicted under felony crimes are low-lifes who got caught because they were stupid. If they werent caught for this crime they will be caught for another. There is no point, zero, in creating the most benign scenario and then saying that it should apply to every felon no matter what.


Someone should be forbidden to own a gun forever because he had a few ounces of pot?

Yeah. Why not?

Glock Glockler
December 15, 2004, 01:41 PM
Yeah. Why not?

Uhh, because he's not infringing on anyone's rights by doing so. By your logic we should arrest people for possessing a case of beer.

OK. due process, the the state constitution and a tradition of under funding the penal system. The death penalty costs the states more money (legal costs) than a life sentence. Why do you think most states have done away with the death sentence? Hurt feelings!

Is the legal system underfunded or is it more crowded and stressed than it should be? Maybe if we stoped wasting time and money jailing people for owning pot we could concentrate resources on the violent animals you deal with. Prosecutors would not be so eager to plea bargain because the system wouldnt be as stressed.

If the death penalty takes that long and is that expensive then just lock him up and throw away the key. I'd prefer to have these guys underground but at least a huge sentence will keep him off the streets.

Ezekiel
December 15, 2004, 02:01 PM
By your logic we should arrest people for possessing a case of beer.

Is possession of beer illegal? If so, "The Man" will never take me alive!

The reality is, however, in some places you can be arrested for possession of beer w/intent: it's called bootlegging. It's the implied intent that makes the previous marijuana possession argument problematic with felony gun ownership.

"Commit a felony = no guns." I can live with that.

Fletchette
December 15, 2004, 02:12 PM
"Commit a felony = no guns." I can live with that.

The problem I see here is that the government can effectively disarm the People by slowly making everything a "felony". With the amount of laws on the books, and the ridiculous length of the laws (1000's of pages) the government is rapidly creating a second class society that cannot vote, carry guns, own businesses etc.

For clarity, I am NOT advocating that people who actually hurt someone be given a soft ride. I am advocating that many of todays "felonies" should be prosecuted as misdemeanors, or legalized altogether.

TearsOfRage
December 15, 2004, 02:41 PM
Some people pleabargained the misdemeaner because they didn't want to spend the money to fight the higher charge. For somebody not making high wages, 30 days of "community service" and some counseling is cheaper than paying a lawyer to fight the higher charge. Even if the lawyer says you can win.

That's exactly what happened in my boyfriend's case. He was accused of a felony that he did not commit (there was no mens rea which that offense requires). Our lawyer was sure he would be found not guilty, but we decided to plead guilty in exchange for a year's probation and a suspended sentence. Better that than the risk, however small, of years in prison.

The Rabbi
December 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
Uhh, because he's not infringing on anyone's rights by doing so. By your logic we should arrest people for possessing a case of beer.

Infringing on rights is not the issue. The issue is that a felon cannot legally own a gun and in my view and that of a lot of other people that makes perfect sense. Is it "just" 100% of the time? No. But the downside of doing the opposite is too much. How is arresting people for possesing a legal substance comparable to arresting people for possessing an illegal one?

thorn726
December 15, 2004, 03:42 PM
yeah no bullets, or any parts of weapons allowed.
here in CA, no
pepper spray
taser
stun guns
here/maybe everywhere= no body armor.

a HOST of MISDEMAENORS make you gunless-
domestic violence, and related charges.
certain types of theft!
mental illness, drunk driving even in some cases!

if gun is accessible by felon, he is criminal. so if it's in the house, it's too close.

i think it should be possible to restore these rights in some cases, but it genreally isnt, and reality-
most felons have had their guns removed for a very good reason.

commiting a felony shows you have the capacity to ignore the law, and risking the lives of others with that is no good.

i think the best thing would be a realistic time limit=
commit a felony, and be restricted from gun onwnership for 10 years, something like that.
maybe keep guns away from people busted for Violent crimes, or like drug dealers caught with lots of guns and drugs, the kind things that end up in gun battles.

a lot of people do make mistakes and become bette people later, and should have the right to defend themselves.

telewinz
December 15, 2004, 07:05 PM
For clarity, I am NOT advocating that people who actually hurt someone be given a soft ride. I am advocating that many of todays "felonies" should be prosecuted as misdemeanors, or legalized altogether. I have serious doubt that the public could agree on what "hurt" means. Every special interest would want any felony that applies to their passion be legalized or downgraded to a misdemeanor. "You vote to legalize my vice or I won't vote to legalize yours". It's called politics. :D

Firethorn
December 15, 2004, 07:41 PM
I have serious doubt that the public could agree on what "hurt" means. Every special interest would want any felony that applies to their passion be legalized or downgraded to a misdemeanor. "You vote to legalize my vice or I won't vote to legalize yours". It's called politics.

So the druggies and the gunnies can team up? Sure, we'll help you legalize x list of drugs if you help us get new legal machineguns...

It's in the best interests of all... :evil:

Glock Glockler
December 15, 2004, 08:43 PM
You vote to legalize my vice or I won't vote to legalize yours". It's called politics.

Ok, I go to the range and blast off a few hundred rounds, can you please show me the damage I've done to someone's person or property?

Suppose someone lights up a joint in the living room while watching Monday night football, show me the harm to person or property.

Infringing on rights is not the issue.

So I suppose all those Jews that were stuffed into ovens by the Nazis shouldn't have complained because after all, "Infringing on rights is not the issue". You advocate a thug govt that acts for the "greater good" regardless of how many people it has to destroy in search of it. Your philosophy is really no different from that of Nazis and Communists.

How is arresting people for possesing a legal substance comparable to arresting people for possessing an illegal one?

Upon what basis is one made illegal? That makes about as much sense as arresting in 2000 for posessing a post-ban AR-15 with a flash supressor but not a pre-ban AR-15 with a flash supressor, one is illegal and one is not.

The Rabbi
December 15, 2004, 08:50 PM
Internet rule of thumb is that when one person calls another a Nazi then the debate is over.
Thanks, guys. Its been fun.

Glock Glockler
December 15, 2004, 09:03 PM
I didnt specifically call you one, only that your philosophy that justifies trampling on people's rights in search of the greater good is no different than what Nazis and Communists believed in. That's ok though, I'll just take it as a de facto admission that you cannot present any logical arguement that would counter my claim.

Art Eatman
December 15, 2004, 09:27 PM
And that's enough. For those interested, marshall your arguments and start over. Or take it to PM/email...

Art

USP45usp
December 15, 2004, 09:31 PM
I think that some people really enjoy the fact that they are placed above others and those others are not 2nd or 3rd class citizens.

Shows that no matter what people say, they secretly enjoy the fact that they have been made better by law (even if that law is wrong or unconstitutional).

The Rabbi is the one that really disappoints me the most in his comments. His people were declared criminals just because of who they were, and from what I have read *edited due to not right comments*. Even if that horrible period in our time had never had happened, just if they had just taken the guns and proclaimed them criminals, that would have been just fine and dandy (I don't think this, just what I am getting from reading the replies).

The gays are the same way from what I've heard and seen (in person). Depending upon the government to decide who can and should own firearms and to what degree they can restrict firearms.

I know that most to all of the folks that agree with this law are scared. They are scared that these people will turn around and do the same things when out.

But that is what freedom is all about, the way it was mentioned in our governering Documents.

To go out on a limb and may tick off some people, with the logic on the pro side then:

Blacks shouldn't own guns. They are still viewed as "criminals" to most whites and even asians.

Whites shouldn't own guns. They are viewed as "criminals" because they don't trust some of other races.

Etc..

So therefore we create a class and racial warfare. You shouldn't have a gun because you broke some law, which may or may not warrent such a punishment, and even though we "felt" you were okay to be in a free society, you are now a lower classed citizen.

No persons mistakes are worth their life in all cases. There should be people that are devoid their rights, and they are the ones that are in prison for life or on death row. To devoid a person of their rights based on pass mistakes is just wrong, morally as well as humanistically. To say so makes one no better than the ones that we complain about the most on these boards.

In no way am I calling anyone a nazi. I will say that maybe one should review history, not only of our nation when first conceived but of all nations of the world. And look especially at their laws and what they say is a felony and what our beloved America is moving toward.

Look at what "laws" other countries put into place to deprive a person from having a firearm and then look at what they are trying to do to America.

Not to be trollish or to hurt anyones sensitivities but think about it this way. What if it does happen in America (one point is to think back at what happened with Jap* (don't know how to spell it) American's during the world war. They were deprived of all Rights and were less then even second class citizens.

If a person should be disarmed so they can die then why doesn't our justice system keep them in prison and do society a favor?

Wayne

why_me
December 16, 2004, 12:51 AM
The longer a thread goes the more chance the word nazi shows up.
Oh well it was nice getting to know some of you. Good luck all.
Some people believe in true freedom. Some people believe in true freedom for only themselves.

telewinz
December 16, 2004, 04:53 AM
I know that most to all of the folks that agree with this law are scared. They are scared that these people will turn around and do the same things when out. Thats the same logic you (I,we) use when we carry a spare tire in our vehicle. EXCEPT I'm not scared of the flat tire or the convict, it's just prudent to use caution when past events dictate the need. Gun ownership is like credit...poor judgment limits your access. Or didn't you know that "rights" can be lost if used improperly, just ask any inmate. Law and ORDER does not have to equal Nazi.

why_me
December 16, 2004, 04:59 AM
A felony conviction takes away RKBA for life.

telewinz
December 16, 2004, 05:11 AM
A felony conviction takes away RKBA for life. Depends on your state, felons can regain their right to bear arms.

Fletchette
December 16, 2004, 01:26 PM
Thats the same logic you (I,we) use when we carry a spare tire in our vehicle. EXCEPT I'm not scared of the flat tire or the convict, it's just prudent to use caution when past events dictate the need. Gun ownership is like credit...poor judgment limits your access. Or didn't you know that "rights" can be lost if used improperly, just ask any inmate. Law and ORDER does not have to equal Nazi.

I agree with the first part - I carry a gun and a spare tire, basically for the same reason (to be prepared).

I disagree with the second part, keeping and bearing an arm is a right, not a privilage like getting a loan or credit. Yes, inmates cannot have a gun in prison, but they still have that right (!). When a citizen has gone through due process (tried and convicted) his/her rights are legally surpressed, or "annulled". The convict still has the basic right.

This is exactly the same concept where the Founders wrote that "they acknowledge" these rights as pre-existing; the Constitution did not "give" these rights to the People.

Because of this, we have some interesting ramifications. I am sure most of the people here are familiar with the fact that if you get mugged and try to sue the police for failing to protect you, you will lose in court. The police have NO responsibility to protect citizens, their responsibility is to enforce the law. Individuals have the right and responsibility to defend themselves.

However, if a law-abiding citizen is summoned to court, he/she cannot bring a gun into the courtroom. Their rights are "temporarily annulled", much like a convict in prison. As a consequence, if this citizen is assaulted in court he/she CAN SUE THE STATE FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT THEM. Why? because if the state legally surpresses the citizen's unalienable right it must assume the responsibility that goes with that right.

So, in a nutshell, prison inmates do have the right to keep and bear arms. This right is legally repressed by the State and therefore the State must assume the responsibility for the welfare of the prisoner.

Thus, when the prisoner is released, the State gives up the responsibility for the welfare of the citizen and that citizen should therefore be able to excersize all of his/her rights...including the right to keep and bear arms.

why_me
December 16, 2004, 01:37 PM
Good point! bang done its over.
Actually most states it is almost impossible to get your RKBA back. The cost and process are prohibitive. Saying there is a possibility and the actual chances of regaining your RKBA are 2 different things.
I know it is possible for me to be president.
But the chances are pretty non existent

telewinz
December 16, 2004, 04:50 PM
Sounds nice but most police departments (if not all) are protected from this type of lawsuit (upheld by the Supreme Court several times). I know of no convict (ex or otherwise) who convinced a court using your "logic/theory". Do You? Please cite your cases.

JMag
December 16, 2004, 10:12 PM
A prisoner released from prison who was guilty of a violent crime with or without a gun has no business possessing one. Period. Shades of grey (gray) with this you say? I don't think so. That's a large problem with the legal system today. Too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers looking for a fence to ride and waiting for a certain wind to blow them off to one side. It is black and white to me.

Thats akin to offering a currently-sober alcoholic a bottle of Scotch. It's just too risky and has the ability to injure; either oneself or others.

As for a non-violent offender, I'm all for a case-by-case review. That's sensible.


:banghead:

why_me
December 16, 2004, 11:25 PM
Martha Stewart cannot own a gun, OJ simpson can.
Govenors generally dont give pardons. No one wants to be percieved as Soft on crime. We are all felonies waitng to happen. It is true you cannot make it to work without breaking a law. It is a gray area to me. DAs' are judged on how many felony convictions they can get. They Pile on cahrges and plea down to what they can get. Plea bargains are given to clear there work schedule and cover the unforseen circumstance that they might lose.
Defendants, innocent ones will plea bargain because again losing is a possibility and when your gambling with your freedom it is better to be free on probation then doing 5 years in prison.
How recent was the law changed to denie felons RKBA and what were the reasons? Everyone wants to be nostalgic in regards to crime rates.
What were the crime rates when felons could possess guns?
any one know?
FBI stats 1960 - 1999
http://members.aol.com/dpen98/ucrus.htm
FBI STATE BY STATE
1960 - 2001
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm/ucrus.wk1

USP45usp
December 16, 2004, 11:56 PM
JMag,

Why are they out if it was that violent?

I don't think that you people truly understand what our Constitution and Bill of Rights were based upon. Please, reread it and throw out all these "new laws" that have been proclaimed since then.

Just from this thread, I would have to say that most to all of the respondence on here are afraid of true freedom. That even though most proclaim that they hate/dislike/disagree with the leftist side agruements, they believe the same ideals.

Throw away the fear, stand up so that you have your Rights, and if they allow a criminal out for whatever reason, know the fact that you have no worries about what those criminals may try to do, because you can do to them what should have been done in the first place (you have your right to bear arms).

All of us will become felons in the eyes of the state or the government. Think about it, the day is coming and is here already in some states. Before you give me the "kook" label think about it.

Why do we wish or want 2nd or 3rd class citizens? Does not the Constitution quote "All men are created equal"? Why is a man's, a women's, a child's life worth less due to the going against the modern laws of the day?

In the eyes of most of the con's here (as in not allowing felon's to have guns), our forefathers were con's according to british law, which was the law of the land until we became America. Think about it.

Now, you say, but, but, but... yes, there are cases that are so extreme that those people should never be allowed back on the street. It's not a felon problem, it's not a individual problem, it's a justice problem. You kill someone just for the heck of it (no matter the tool used), die. If it's justisfiable then you get off.

We have laws on the books about murder (no matter the tool used), drinking and driving, etc..

Damn folks, I'm trying to be nice, but most of you that are on the "don't allow it" side, have come up with some pretty stupid remarks and just shows your fear.

In a way, understanded, but mostly, disgusted.

Wayne

telewinz
December 17, 2004, 04:25 AM
I would have to say that most to all of the respondence on here are afraid of true freedom. You bet I am! Rape, murder, I guess only Attila has enjoyed true freedom, thank God!Why are they out if it was that violent? Because about 25% of inmates (regardless of their crime) are never paroled, they are discharged after having served their full sentence. Totally unsupervised release, no strings attached (except sex offenders)!not a privilage like getting a loan or credit. You have RIGHTS when it comes to credit, a simple phone call to your bank will prove my point.As for a non-violent offender, I'm all for a case-by-case review. That's sensible. I agree 100%.

Fletchette
December 21, 2004, 02:11 AM
I've been away for a little while (ya gotta earn a paycheck, ya know).

Sounds nice but most police departments (if not all) are protected from this type of lawsuit (upheld by the Supreme Court several times). I know of no convict (ex or otherwise) who convinced a court using your "logic/theory". Do You? Please cite your cases.

I am not sure I undestand what you are asking for here. I essentially agree with you first sentence - the police are not held liable. What are you asking with regards to a convict convincing a court?

A prisoner released from prison who was guilty of a violent crime with or without a gun has no business possessing one. Period. Shades of grey (gray) with this you say? I don't think so. That's a large problem with the legal system today. Too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers looking for a fence to ride and waiting for a certain wind to blow them off to one side. It is black and white to me.

First, with all due respect, I do not think you have the legal authority to decide what "business" others have, regardless of past actions.

Second, I must take issue with your complaint that there are "too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers". Should we just accept who the government throws in jail or how they are punished, because "The Government" is always right? I completely disagree on this. This is supposed to be a government "of the People, by the People, for the People" ...so the People have a DUTY to participate.


Quote:
I would have to say that most to all of the respondence on here are afraid of true freedom.

You bet I am! Rape, murder, I guess only Attila has enjoyed true freedom, thank God!

I believe this is betrays a bit of prejudice on your part - that those who want freedom are anarchists. No one is advocating rape or murder, we just want to be able to do as we please so long as we do not infringe on someone else's rights.

USP45usp
December 21, 2004, 11:06 PM
This has gone on long enough and I'm about to get this post closed with the following comments.

First, you are not the boss of me or others. If a person is let out of jail then they should have all Rights. If you don't agree then why don't you ensure they don't get out of jail.

For those that think that "so and so" or whatever damn law that the government comes up with to take away your Rights, just remember the Jim Crow laws of the south.. yes, no ****** could have or own a gun. Or lets take the japenese(sp) that were sent to camps and died because we were at war. Tell that to the Jews and Gays and the Gypties(sorry to misspell that). Tell that to the Black Americans or to the Asian Americans that went through worse then what us white people have had to deal with.

Yes, I am throwing in all the race cards, due to all these laws and aspects that you agree with, were nothing but to put them down and control them.

If you are a felon, that doesn't mean that the state or the freaking government ownes your life. If they let you out then you are a freeman.

Yet, due to the way the law works, and they let out those who shouldn't be out, why not just give our Right to keep and bear arms seriously and that means, we blow those MF's away and that takes care of the problem?

Come on people, who I think have at least one brain cell working, what is it that you fear? The criminal that they let out or the government that gives you the laws of what you may, can, or maybe can do?

I fear no man myself, whether "they" (state or federal government) ""allow"" me to do, I care not because it's my life and I will do, anywhere, what I believe it right for me. I am not a felon but I will fight for their Rights as much as I fight for mine.

Maybe some of us, those that don't believe themselves better than all, to rethink their position.

Wayne

telewinz
December 22, 2004, 06:17 AM
First, you are not the boss of me or others. If a person is let out of jail then they should have all Rights. If you don't agree then why don't you ensure they don't get out of jail. In this country we go by the rule of law, not perfect but its better than no law at all.If you are a felon, that doesn't mean that the state or the freaking government ownes your life. If they let you out then you are a freeman. If you are released on parole, an inmate agrees to all sorts of restrictions. He/she is far from being a free man BY MUTURAL AGREEMENT. let out those who shouldn't be out, why not just give our Right to keep and bear arms seriously and that means, we blow those MF's away and that takes care of the problem? If your solution is to "blow them away" why let them have a gun in the first place? They might easily be a better shot than you.Come on people, who I think have at least one brain cell working, what is it that you fear? I fear the future actions of felons who have PROVEN they have poor judgment and little respect for the law.I am not a felon but I will fight for their Rights as much as I fight for mine. Wasted effort, they have and WILL fight to take away YOUR rights, why do you think they are in prison? Most of the inmates I know would "eat you alive" due to your idealistic beliefs, you are easy pickings. They would be laughing while they shove your CCW up your hind end.

patrick88240
December 30, 2004, 12:52 PM
not everybody that lost their rkba deserves it! i myself lost my right due to a misd. i have a domestic violence against me, i came home from a night out, while my home was being burglarized, i beat the crap out of him, called the cops, they arrested him, then arrested me for domestic violence against my drug addict brother, that was back in '89, i got a court appointed lawyer he advised me to plead no contest and pay the 50 dollar fine, its a simple misd. no muss no fuss, yea right, if i had the slightest clue what was to happen a few years later, i wouldve sold everything i owned and fought it tooth and nail,
hopefully soon i'll be able to hire a good lawyer and go for a expungement or a pardon,

Molon Labe
December 31, 2004, 04:21 AM
In this country we go by the rule of law, not perfect but its better than no law at all.Unless, of course, the law is immoral, tyrannical, or unconstitutional, in which case we have a moral duty to not abide by the law...

Fletchette
December 31, 2004, 02:48 PM
Quote:
In this country we go by the rule of law, not perfect but its better than no law at all.
End quote

reply:
Unless, of course, the law is immoral, tyrannical, or unconstitutional, in which case we have a moral duty to not abide by the law...


ditto

GhostRider-Nine
December 31, 2004, 04:07 PM
Losing your rights over breaking a Malum in Se law is one thing....but over a Malum Prohibitum is quite another.

telewinz
January 1, 2005, 03:03 PM
Unless, of course, the law is immoral, tyrannical, or unconstitutional, in which case we have a moral duty to not abide by the law... This statement is sooo lame. Something an outcast/non-conformist might WISH to believe to justify their anger.

GhostRider-Nine
January 1, 2005, 03:45 PM
Unless, of course, the law is immoral, tyrannical, or unconstitutional, in which case we have a moral duty to not abide by the law...
This statement is sooo lame. Something an outcast/non-conformist might WISH to believe to justify their anger.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams, 1776 (Who was no doubt labled as an outcast/non-conformist)

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Molon Labe
January 1, 2005, 05:32 PM
This statement is sooo lame. Something an outcast/non-conformist might WISH to believe to justify their anger.I can only assume you believe Rosa Parks was an angry outcast/non-conformist for (gasp!) breaking the law.

And what about those minutemen of 1776? I can only assume you would have supported the redcoats. After all, those minutemen were lawbreakers. Every one of them.

The lesson here is that some laws are not worthy of respect or recognition. And as a free People it is our duty to fight – and if circumstances require, violate – such laws.

A strict observation of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. - Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810

USP45usp
January 2, 2005, 08:05 PM
edited because of the post in General by SM.

I figure that I would be the first to start the healing.

Wayne

If you enjoyed reading about "should ex felons be restricted" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!