Anyone know any felon shooters?


PDA






klover
October 16, 2005, 09:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong. Once you commit a felony, serve your time, and resume life, you are no longer allowed to own a firearm for self defense.

Let's say you came out of prison with sincere regrets about your past, and want to live doing the right thing by society as well as God.

Now, if I hand you a .22 rifle, and invite you to go target shooting with me, am I violating the law? Of course, after the shooting, the arms stay with me (I am NOT a felon).

Due to many circumstances, I might just make such an offer because of it's potential social benefit. Target shooting could be a tool to help keep a man "on the High Road".

I'm old enough to know to mind my own business. A little voice is screaming at me to mind my own. Will the Law scream at me leagally? :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone know any felon shooters?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Preacherman
October 16, 2005, 09:15 PM
You make yourself an accessory to the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In a word - forget it!

M-Rex
October 16, 2005, 09:24 PM
Once you commit a felony, serve your time, and resume life, you are no longer allowed to own a firearm for self defense.

Let's say you came out of prison with sincere regrets about your past, and want to live doing the right thing by society as well as God...

...Due to many circumstances, I might just make such an offer because of it's potential social benefit. Target shooting could be a tool to help keep a man "on the High Road".

IF you give a firearm to a felon, not only will the felon return to prison (where he should have remained, anyway), but you will also be commiting a crime. Not to mention that you are endangering your life and the lives of those around you depending on the P.A.L. (Parolee At Large).

Granted, though. My experience with felons is somewhat jaded having worked in close proximity to them for many years. I sincerely never have met one who wanted to 'go straight'. Ever.

Why in the world would you want to give a felon a weapon?

Beetle Bailey
October 16, 2005, 09:40 PM
Unless his firearms rights have been legally restored, I would never even entertain the idea of handing a convicted felon a firearm, and even if their rights were restored, I'd be extra careful about it.

Well, if you really are set on helping this guy stay on the "straight and narrow" then think about an air rifle or air pistol. That should be a positive activity and a legal one. But don't ever cross the line into "real" guns. Ever.

Standing Wolf
October 16, 2005, 09:43 PM
What's needed is a method for felons' Second Amendment civil rights to be restored.

Ala Dan
October 16, 2005, 10:32 PM
I agree my with friend, Preacherman~!:D Don't Do It.

Lupinus
October 16, 2005, 10:34 PM
I wouldn't trust it.

Mr_Moore
October 16, 2005, 10:49 PM
I have heard that a pardon gets your rights back.

If a person straightens out his/her life they can apply for a pardon.

Farnham
October 16, 2005, 10:58 PM
I knew a felon shooter a while back...

Recently released felon broke into his house, and my neighbor (the felon shooter) put a load of birdshot into his neck and chest. Good aim, poor choice of equipment. At least the felon got to go home afterwards (Chino, if I recall)...:D

S/F

Farnham

robert garner
October 16, 2005, 11:07 PM
Farnham beat me to it!
can I still volunteer?

MechAg94
October 16, 2005, 11:36 PM
I believe felons can shoot some black powder arms. Better than nothing.

Lupinus
October 16, 2005, 11:43 PM
With laws and some felons I wouldn't trust it.

Though if you can;t be trusted to be follow the same rule's as everyone else I don't particuarly think you belong out of prision.

Combat-wombat
October 16, 2005, 11:46 PM
Why in the world would you want to give a felon a weapon?
SO many crimes are felonies today. It seems people only associate "felon" with violent thugs, but now more than ever there are laws turning more and more crimes into felonies, and creating new felony crimes that shouldn't even be illegal.

Lupinus
October 16, 2005, 11:52 PM
True com.

Felonies should have different classes as far as what get's you banned from having a gun

If it isnt violent you should be allowed a gun

Kurush
October 17, 2005, 12:03 AM
+1, it's amazing the dumb things, even paperwork crimes, that are felonies these days.

Read this:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/AG/content/htm/ag.002.00.000014.00.htm

Yes Virginia, you can lose your guns for "unlawful delivery of grain" :scrutiny:

Cosmoline
October 17, 2005, 12:22 AM
It's also possible to lose your rights to buy firearms via NICS if you have been hit with a misdemeanor charge and served no time. Some misdemeanors are treated as felonies if it's theoretically possible to put someone in prison for more than a year under them.

I trust felons a lot more than feds.

LawDog
October 17, 2005, 12:26 AM
For your edification, Texas Penal Code, Chapter 46:

§ 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person
who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Also of interest, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 48:

Art. 48.05. Restoration of Civil Rights

(a)(1) An individual convicted of an offense described by Subdivision (2) of this subsection may, except as provided by Subsection (b) of this article, submit an application for restoration of any civil rights forfeited under the laws of this state as a result of the conviction.

(2) This article applies to:

(A) a federal offense, other than an offense involving:

(i) violence or the threat of violence;

(ii) drugs; or

(iii) firearms; and

(B) an offense under the laws of another country, other than an offense involving:

(i) violence or the threat of violence;

(ii) drugs; or

(iii) firearms, if the elements of the offense are substantially similar to elements of an offense under the laws of this state punishable as a felony.

(b) An individual may not apply for restoration of civil rights under this article unless:

(1) the individual has completed the sentence for the offense;

(2) the conviction occurred:

(A) three or more years before the date of application, if the offense is a federal offense; or

(B) two or more years before the date of application, if the offense is an offense under the laws of another country; and

(3) the individual has not been convicted at any other time of an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States.

LawDog

Zundfolge
October 17, 2005, 12:28 AM
Note: When I started typing all this, the last post in the thread was MechAg94's (#11) :p

Haven't met many felons, have you? IF you give a firearm to a felon, not only will the felon return to prison (where he should have remained, anyway), but you will also be commiting a crime. Not to mention that you are endangering your life and the lives of those around you depending on the PAL (Parolee At Large).
Considering how easy it is to become a felon in this day and age I bet most of us know plenty of "felons".

Heck, I own a carbine kit for a Steyr pistol ... if I assemble the parts in the wrong order I've committed a felony (the barrel MUST be installed before snapping on the stock).

Put the wrong information on the wrong line on a federal government form and you've committed a felony.

If your kid was to bypass filtering software on your school's computer to get a faster internet connection (and access music and porn) like these kids did (http://www.berksmontnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14742096&BRD=2694&PAG=461&dept_id=552980&rfi=6) and they are a felon.

Or if your kid writes a fictional story about zombies (http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614&nav=EQlpWjof) invading his school, he's now a felon.

Dress up like an Abu Ghraib prisoner (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03885837.asp) and if the cops over react you could be facing a felony.

If this (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/145) passes, and you make a mistake when filing your taxes via an e-file site that uses SSL encryption and you've committed a felony.

I several states its a felony for two gay men (or women) to have sex.

You have some rural property that you don't keep groomed? Well the plant Cannabis sativa L grows wild in some places (or if some pothead plants it on your property) you're a felon.

Your wife has surgery, the doctor prescribes a pain killer and doesn't use them all up so a year later you pull a muscle and find the old prescription pain killer in the medicine cabinet so you decide to take one. Now you're a felon.

You would be amazed at all the ridiculous crap that can get you a felony conviction ... we no longer live in a country where "felony=serious crime" and "misdemeanor=non serious crime".

One of the greatest things the antis have done is get gun owners to jump up and down in agreement with "no 2A rights for felons" ... for the umpteenth time read my sig :rolleyes:

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 12:34 AM
SO many crimes are felonies today. It seems people only associate "felon" with violent thugs, but now more than ever there are laws turning more and more crimes into felonies, and creating new felony crimes that shouldn't even be illegal.

Like what?

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 12:41 AM
Note: When I started typing all this, the last post in the thread was MechAg94's (#11) :p


Considering how easy it is to become a felon in this day and age I bet most of us know plenty of "felons".

Heck, I own a carbine kit for a Steyr pistol ... if I assemble the parts in the wrong order I've committed a felony (the barrel MUST be installed before snapping on the stock).

Put the wrong information on the wrong line on a federal government form and you've committed a felony.

If your kid was to bypass filtering software on your school's computer to get a faster internet connection (and access music and porn) like these kids did (http://www.berksmontnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14742096&BRD=2694&PAG=461&dept_id=552980&rfi=6) and they are a felon.

Or if your kid writes a fictional story about zombies (http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614&nav=EQlpWjof) invading his school, he's now a felon.

Dress up like an Abu Ghraib prisoner (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03885837.asp) and if the cops over react you could be facing a felony.

If this (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/145) passes, and you make a mistake when filing your taxes via an e-file site that uses SSL encryption and you've committed a felony.

I several states its a felony for two gay men (or women) to have sex.

You have some rural property that you don't keep groomed? Well the plant Cannabis sativa L grows wild in some places (or if some pothead plants it on your property) you're a felon.

Your wife has surgery, the doctor prescribes a pain killer and doesn't use them all up so a year later you pull a muscle and find the old prescription pain killer in the medicine cabinet so you decide to take one. Now you're a felon.

You would be amazed at all the ridiculous crap that can get you a felony conviction ... we no longer live in a country where "felony=serious crime" and "misdemeanor=non serious crime".

One of the greatest things the antis have done is get gun owners to jump up and down in agreement with "no 2A rights for felons" ... for the umpteenth time read my sig :rolleyes:


So?

hammer4nc
October 17, 2005, 12:46 AM
So, how many felons have had their rights restored? In Texas, or any other state? Citations?

How about federal offenses, eh?

When .gov employees always crow about the process for restoration of rights, (sometimes even blythely posting chapter and verse) why do they ALWAYS have amnesia about the caveat that BATF won't even accept any applications for 2A rights restoration...for LACK OF FUNDING!!!

Couple that with the fact that the feds are prosecuting a larger percentage of crimes every year...

Sheesh, sometimes I think someone's trying to mislead us?

+1 on the point that felonies are a lot more common than they used to be...when the prohibition was first instituted.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 12:49 AM
We have it codified in our law that a felon can have their rights reinstated. I believe there are a few folks who did it, but I will have to dig around a bit to find specific examples.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=52388510356+14+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

why do they ALWAYS have amnesia about the caveat that BATF won't even accept any applications for 2A rights restoration...for LACK OF FUNDING!!!

Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?

Zundfolge
October 17, 2005, 12:53 AM
So?
So just because someone is a "felon" doesn't mean they are dangerous.


And the more we as gun owners go along with this silly notion that any felony = deserving of revocation of rights then we're going to wake up some morning to discover that the Second Amendment still exists but its been rendered moot because we're all "felons".

Again, read my sig.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:00 AM
So just because someone is a "felon" doesn't mean they are dangerous.
Thanks, but I'm not willing to bet my life on that.
And the more we as gun owners go along with this silly notion that any felony = deserving of revocation of rights then we're going to wake up some morning to discover that the Second Amendment still exists but its been rendered moot because we're all "felons".

Again, read my sig.

Try one of these, and relax a little. :neener: ;)

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Telperion
October 17, 2005, 01:02 AM
Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?Not really; it's buried in the annual appropriations bill. Who wants to read that? ;)

Here is a case that exemplifies the problem, though: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=01-704

After attending a gun show in Laredo, Texas, respondent, Thomas Lamar Bean, a gun dealer, and his associates drove respondent's vehicle to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, for dinner. Bean v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 253 F. 3d 234, 236 (CA5 2001). When Mexican officials stopped the vehicle at the border, they found in the back, in plain view, approximately 200 rounds of ammunition. Ibid. According to respondent, he had instructed his associates to remove any firearms and ammunition from his vehicle, but inexplicably one box remained. Ibid. Respondent was convicted in a Mexican court of importing ammunition into Mexico and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Because of his felony conviction, respondent was prohibited by 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1) from possessing, distributing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. Relying on §925(c), respondent applied to ATF for relief from his firearms disabilities. ATF returned the application unprocessed, explaining that its annual appropriations law forbade it from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications such as respondent's.

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 01:02 AM
Zund-

It depend's on the crime they commited.

A murderer or rapist? Screw um. Far as Im concerened you could give them a bullet, in the head. Individual case's reviedwed of course to see if such would not be appropriate. If you are the scum of socity, they far as Im concerned you have given up your right's. If you preform a violent criminal act that hurt's someone of has a high potential to, then yes you in my book have given up your right's.

Felony for driving to fast? Maybe even something like embezelment? To many parking ticket's not paid on time? People like these do not earn their rights being revolked. In fact in all but some of the most very extreme case's you shouldn't even be put in jail.

LawDog
October 17, 2005, 01:04 AM
Or if your kid writes a fictional story about zombies invading his school, he's now a felon.

No, he's not. Grand Jury refused to indict on the felony charge, instead he was indicted on a misdemeanor charge. In October all charges were dropped.
http://www.bowjamesbow.net/2005/10/10/all_charges_dro.shtml He was placed on probation, when his two years are up, he'll not have a criminal record.

Dress up like an Abu Ghraib prisoner and if the cops over react you could be facing a felony.

Again, all charges dropped.
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/03950810.asp
Although, a Google search on the name "Joe Privetera" is ... interesting.

The thriteen kiddies are harder to research, although it's still early in their case.

LawDog

hammer4nc
October 17, 2005, 01:07 AM
...why do they ALWAYS have amnesia about the caveat that BATF won't even accept any applications for 2A rights restoration...for LACK OF FUNDING!!!
(mrex asked)
Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?

Sure:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0368.htm

excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another misconception is that state judges can restore a reformed criminal's rights. On paper, this is at least partly true. Even on paper, however, only A.T.F. can restore the right to purchase a firearm -- even if an offense has been pardoned or expunged! -- although many states do allow possession in the home after a certain number of years have passed. What difference do the state laws make if you can be arrested merely for the attempt to purchase a firearm? So can these people make application to A.T.F. to restore their rights? Well, they can apply all day long, but it will never happen. For many years, the rights restoration program through A.T.F. has been un-staffed and unfunded. So it simply never happens these days. Never. And I know this to be true, because I have been trying for twenty years to assist another very law-abiding friend in expunging his ancient offense and recovering his rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are numerous other citations, do a google search.

One of the most egregious cases of denial of rights restoration (at the supreme court level, no less) - see Thomas Bean Vs. USA. Link: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1617/

Read it and weep.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:14 AM
Felony for driving to fast? Maybe even something like embezelment? To many parking ticket's not paid on time? People like these do not earn their rights being revolked. In fact in all but some of the most very extreme case's you shouldn't even be put in jail.

Fair enough. I can ride that bus.

However, where is the line? For example, one of our local 'celebrity dirtbags' used to come into the jail a lot...and I mean A LOT. He is one of the few people who has ever been sent to prison for 'drunk in public'. I kid you not, he served time in prison because he would not clean up his act. He was involved in some minor scuffles and fights, but nothing too serious. Certainly nothing of 'violent felony' level. Yet, one of our more conservative judges finally sent this guy up the river because he showed absolutely no proclivity to change his ways. Bear in mind, this wasn't after two or three convictions. This was after, literally, years of activity with about a hundred, or so, arrests...possibly more (one night the printer ran out of paper when printing up his rap sheet).

In fact, after he was parolled, he violated the terms of his parole and was sent back up again...a few times. Each time he went back to the pen, he came out a little harder and more criminally sophisticated.

When should this guy considered to have his rights abrogated ?

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:21 AM
...why do they ALWAYS have amnesia about the caveat that BATF won't even accept any applications for 2A rights restoration...for LACK OF FUNDING!!!
(mrex asked)
Sure:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0368.htm

excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another misconception is that state judges can restore a reformed criminal's rights. On paper, this is at least partly true. Even on paper, however, only A.T.F. can restore the right to purchase a firearm -- even if an offense has been pardoned or expunged! -- although many states do allow possession in the home after a certain number of years have passed. What difference do the state laws make if you can be arrested merely for the attempt to purchase a firearm? So can these people make application to A.T.F. to restore their rights? Well, they can apply all day long, but it will never happen. For many years, the rights restoration program through A.T.F. has been un-staffed and unfunded. So it simply never happens these days. Never. And I know this to be true, because I have been trying for twenty years to assist another very law-abiding friend in expunging his ancient offense and recovering his rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are numerous other citations, do a google search.

One of the most egregious cases of denial of rights restoration (at the supreme court level, no less) - see Thomas Bean Vs. USA. Link: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1617/

Read it and weep.


Ooooook, I meant something factual and not off someone's personal editorial, but I did find the Bean case in a search.

Thanks!

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 01:24 AM
Rex-

I would agree I suppose in that case. Someone who has shown countless disreguard for law or public safty give's up certian right's I suppose.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:29 AM
Ahhhh....here's a good article referencing the Bean case.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/10/142436.shtml

In this case, IMO, the court was wrong, and the BATFE should have reinstated his rights. This particular fellow wasn't the classical 'ex-con' type felon.

I think this gentleman was a victim of the bureaucratic mind set more than anything else.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:31 AM
Rex-

I would agree I suppose in that case. Someone who has shown countless disreguard for law or public safty give's up certian right's I suppose.

This one is a hard one. I know the guy in question. He's a turd through and through. But...he was never 'violent'...at least, I never saw him get violent when he was locked up. He was vocal, and borderline resistive, but I don't recall him ever actually being violent.

A tough call, to say the least.

Gordon Fink
October 17, 2005, 01:31 AM
On the contrary, felons can have whatever weapons they want, without the impediments of background checks, waiting periods, or any of the other restrictions that law-abiding citizens suffer. It’s almost enviable.

That said, my brother-in-law is a felon because he did something that is common and even expected in his home country. To expedite the customs process, he offered money to a federal agent. He’s hardly a dangerous criminal, but now he will never own a “legal” firearm.

~G. Fink

Double Naught Spy
October 17, 2005, 01:36 AM
True com.

Felonies should have different classes as far as what get's you banned from having a gun

If it isnt violent you should be allowed a gun

Okay, what is it that you don't understand about misdemeanors? It is at the misdemeanor level of law breakage where you keep rights such as being able to own or possess a gun, vote, etc. It is at the felony level where you lose these rights. So you have your different classes already present. You apparently don't agree with the upper end class, the felon class.

So just because someone is a "felon" doesn't mean they are dangerous.

No, they are not necessarily dangerous. However, they have demonstrated to society that they are not willing to play by society's laws and have managed to get caught for a serious breech of the law.

Law Dog posted Texas laws concerning felons and guns. Regardless of state law, felons in possession of firearms will be breaking federal law, except in those cases where rights have been restored.

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 01:37 AM
neither will people of such thing's as getting into a loud argument.

Man beat's his wife that's violent.

People and couple's argue, yelling is not violent.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:39 AM
On the contrary, felons can have whatever weapons they want, without the impediments of background checks, waiting periods, or any of the other restrictions that law-abiding citizens suffer. It’s almost enviable.

That said, my brother-in-law is a felon because he did something that is common and even expected in his home country. To expedite the customs process, he offered money to a federal agent. He’s hardly a dangerous criminal, but now he will never own a “legal” firearm.

~G. Fink

Good point.;)

NineseveN
October 17, 2005, 03:10 AM
Let's all take a deep breath and go back and read the 2A. Tell me WHERE does it mention anything about those rights being able to be revoked from a free person for whatever reason? Cite it? Quote it? I am sorry, I cannot find it. must be my public school education.

When they are imprisoned, they are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration (i.e. no guns). And of course, while incarcerated, they are obviously not free.

You can't have it both ways folks. This is the same crap the Anti's try to pull by reinventing the constitution and interpreting things that are not there and citing "saftey" and the "greater public good" as reasons to revoke an irrevocable right.

Should one that slanders someone never again be allowed their freedom of speech?

Should a felon also have their right to due process revoked simply because they have committed a felony in the past?

Why do even gun folks often treat the 2A different than any other Amendment or right when it suits them, and then turn around and blame the anti's for the errosion of our rights? Anyone familiar with the phrase, "slippery slope"?

Do I like that felons should be able to own firearms after their release? Nope. I don't like that my brother in law can own a gun either, cause he's an idiot. It doesn't matter what I think on the matter. One giving up liberty, even someone else's, for some measure of personal safety makes one deserve neither.

PCGS65
October 17, 2005, 05:13 AM
IF you give a firearm to a felon, not only will the felon return to prison (where he should have remained, anyway)

In Illinois if you get a DUI and then get caught driving on a revoked licence on your way to work or where ever. The charge can be upgraded to a felony.

Also in Illinois if you get caught urinating in public you will have to register as a sex offender if the prosecutor chooses. Get caught twice and that would be a felony.

So all felons should remain in jail for life? And never poses a firearm? I don't think so. Neither does the state of Illinois.

The state of Illinois will reinstate FOID privleges of a convicted felon as long as it's NOT a violent crime. However you must provide all details of the felony court records, successful completion of punishment ect. Also you must submit at least 3 letters of recomendation from non family members.

I have 2 long time friends that committed non violent minor felonies in their youth. Have since grown up applied for FOID cards and received them.

They are 2 of the most respectible people I know.

I also know some people that have never comitted a felony have FOID cards that I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw them and don't associate with by the way.

Tough topic :banghead:

junyo
October 17, 2005, 06:02 AM
No, they are not necessarily dangerous. However, they have demonstrated to society that they are not willing to play by society's laws and have managed to get caught for a serious breech of the law.There is the viewpoint that the citizen is rightfully to be expected to conform to the law, and that such law exists for a reason. One can only assume that that's the viewpoint that motivates the argument that the government has the right to revoke a basic human right over whatever triviality they choose to designate as a "felony". Do you honestly hold that every single law on the books is morally correct and/or reasonable? If not how do you justify removing a person's rights over those laws? Further, if laws have a statute of limitations, a point at which the crime is no longer worth prosecuting, how do we justify a likely permanent punishment for a crime that we're only willing to punish outright for X number of years?

Apparently nobody else read Zundfolge's sig. Free men live by whatever code they choose to, so long as they don't cause injury to others; therefore dangerous to others is the only reasonable criteria why someone's rights can be removed. If the state can't prove that someone is still a danger, they should have to restore their rights, automatically.

Zaire
October 17, 2005, 06:14 AM
I am married to a felon.

My wife supposedly commited a felony back in 1998 when we were dating. A lady cop was questioning her brother(14 at the time) about an auto burglary that he did not commit because he was home the whole day. My wife told him to go inside and get mama and the cop told him no!, he could not get his mother. Wife told him to get her anyway and he walked up the porch steps, my wife following, back to the lady cop. Cop grabs my wife, slams her down on the sidewalk, OC in the face, cuffs, and into the car. Cop charges my wife , resisting arrest, trying to disarm a peace officer, and agravated battery towards a peace officer!:mad: My wife is black, the cop white, my wife is now 5'6" and 110 lbs, but was about 98lbs at the time. 3 witnesses (older white couple and there daughter)across the street testified that my wife did npthing to the ladycop. Still CONVICTED of aggravated battery to a peace officer, and trying to disarm a peace officer. Clearly the cop LIED twice. There was a mistrial the first time because a tape came up in court with injuries to the officer supposedly caused by my wife but never put on the evidence list given to either the prosecutor or defense attorney. Still a CONVICTION, a violent one at that, from a person with no violent bones in her body. I was not there, but have asked her several times if there was anything that she could have done that would have been threatening to the cop and she said NO! This same cop has been in trouble for a few things, she got suspended for excessive brutality or something a few years back. Anytime she sees us in public she smiles at my wife. BITCH

Just wanted to let you know that there are people out there who were railroaded. She couldn't afford an attorney,and the public defenders sucked. Them and the prosecutors wanted her to plea, and BOTH of them admitted they didn't think she did it. I asked the PROSECUTOR why we were here then, and he said his boss likes convictions on everything. I asked him how does he live with himself.

So, I have a felon living in my house. My good friend is a patrol sargent with our police force and knows about all of this. Guess he doesn't care/knows the situation and knows there is no threat. Now I'm pissed again.

Gotta love Make up, I mean Macon County!

By the way, she only got 1 year probationa nd only served 9 of those because of good behavior.

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 07:12 AM
Them and the prosecutors wanted her to plea, and BOTH of them admitted they didn't think she did it. I asked the PROSECUTOR why we were here then, and he said his boss likes convictions on everything.

And that is often what it's all about. Law for prosecutor's is no longer about justice. It is about racking up as many conviction's as possible.

Okay, what is it that you don't understand about misdemeanors? It is at the misdemeanor level of law breakage where you keep rights such as being able to own or possess a gun, vote, etc. It is at the felony level where you lose these rights. So you have your different classes already present. You apparently don't agree with the upper end class, the felon class.

I understand it just fine. But there is violent and non-violent. If someone get's themselves convicted for beating his wife. That is violent and loose's their right to firearm's because they have proven themselve's to be a danger to other's. But not all felonies have squat to do with violence. If I drive 26 mph over the speed limit, that is a felony. Violent how? If I don't pay my taxes that is a felony. Violent how? The list of felonies which are non-violent and in no way clasify you as a danger are long. More sever then misdemeanor? Sure. Dangerous? No. If you are to be striped of a right, it need's to be for a damn better reason then unpaid parking ticket's.

No, they are not necessarily dangerous. However, they have demonstrated to society that they are not willing to play by society's laws and have managed to get caught for a serious breech of the law.

So it is about being a danger or not playing by society's rule's that determine's you can be stripped of your right's? By commiting certian act's you give up certian freedom's. But just because it is a felony does not make you a dangerous person. Doing any one of hundred's if not thousand's of thing's could get you landed with a felony. Doesn't make you a danger to society. If what you did warent's it. You have lost your right to bare arm's for the sake of public safty. If what you did doesn't warrent that you shouldn't be needlessly stripped of one of your right's. Frankly if it does, I question if you should be out of prision in the first place.

When they are imprisoned, they are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration (i.e. no guns). And of course, while incarcerated, they are obviously not free.
Valid point. But there are certian time's when you can't lock someone up and throw away the key. Murder's, rapist's, child molestor's, lock them up and throw away the key or rid the world of their usless existence. Most thing's I think should loose you your right to bare arm's for public safty I think should keep you in prision for a life sentence or executed. We shouldn't go back to the day's we hung people for stealin a horse. But we are far to scared to inflict major punishment to the very worst the human race has to offer.

So all felons should remain in jail for life? And never poses a firearm? I don't think so. Neither does the state of Illinois.

And I agree with what they are doing. But violent offender's need to be treated occordingly and either not released or strictly monitered. Right now if some psycopath serve's 20 year's for murdering someone. They day they leave prision they can maintain the first thing they are going to do is go fillet someone for the fun of it. And they will be released anyway. A child molestor can say he is going to go make a visit to the park. These are people who should have never been released from prision or executed. The guy that had to many unpaid parking ticket's? Once he serves his time and/or pay's his fine's he should have all his right's restored.

I have 2 long time friends that committed non violent minor felonies in their youth. Have since grown up applied for FOID cards and received them.
I couldn't agree more. Some people do stupid thing's in youth. Some people do stupid thing's and are truly reformed. Some people jsut do stupid thing's that count as a felony but wouldn't hurt a fly. These are the people who should have their right's restored to them upon serving their punishment.
Then there are people for whatever reason are just violent or sick individual's. These are people who should never have certian right's restored if they are even released from prision in the first place.

Victemless/Non-violent crime- People should have their right's restored when their punishment is done. Also you could consider mildly violent crime's.

Violent Criminals (murder's, rapist's, child molestor's, etc.)- I question their freedom if not their continued existence, let alone their right's.

Mixlesplick
October 17, 2005, 08:19 AM
I know a felon. He drew a pistol on two guys that were about to beat and rob him when he was putting some band instruments in his van after a show. This was before Michigan had a ccw shall issue. The two guys called the cops and guess who got arrested? Yep. I don't know what the charges were but he did prison time.

I met him after he got out. To the best of my knowledge being a felon has never stopped him from arming himself again. I won't give him or sell him a gun because I don't need the trouble but he doesn't need my assistance anyway. There are plent of people willing to help him out in this regard. All I have to say about this is: Good for him.

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 08:36 AM
Hopfully thing's will turn in his favor, and people like him.

To many true criminal's get off because of technicalities or "misconduct" :rolleyes: by the public or police.

klover
October 17, 2005, 08:37 AM
we are going shooting:D

Kharn
October 17, 2005, 09:18 AM
We have it codified in our law that a felon can have their rights reinstated. I believe there are a few folks who did it, but I will have to dig around a bit to find specific examples.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=52388510356+14+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?ATF's annual budget is given with the restriction that no funding may be used for the restoration of firearms rights.

I think we had a discussion here on THR about it earlier this year, the ATF's budget had some interesting lines in it.

Kharn

thatguy
October 17, 2005, 09:30 AM
A convictwed felon cannot own or possess a gun under federal law (I think this was part of the GCA 1968).

A convicted felon can petition a court to clear a criminal record. Fairly routine if the crime was non-violent and several years have passed without further trouble with the law, harder to do for violent offenses.

I would NOT provide a firearm to a convicted felon. I would encourge this person (assuming he or she has been living a sterling life since "paying his debt") to speak with an attorney about expunging his criminal conviction. Once this is done, all rights are restored.

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 09:47 AM
And that process is often long complicated and expensive and by no means sure.

So I do 30 mph over the speed limit and end up with a felony. Not only do I have to pay my fine's, loose my license, and maybe even jail time, I now have to spend month's petitioning the court and racking up thousands in lawyer bill's? Right....

Or if I am a true criminal I can always just go find a car trunk dealer and get myself one.

jondar
October 17, 2005, 09:48 AM
How about a cap and ball revolver? Does that count? My reason for asking is that a released felon shot and killed a fellow druggie not far from where I live. He used a replica Model 1849 Pocket Revolver. He was charged with murder but I don't remember his being charged with possession of a firearm.

entropy
October 17, 2005, 10:08 AM
What, was it a carry gun or something? Even with the cylinder stuffed to the point where I had to shave the front of the ball off, I got 38 S&W class velocites out of mine. (Checked it on a friend's chronograph) I think I'd opt for a Walker or Dragoon if limited to a cap and ball revolver.:eek:


Congress passes a law banning all personal posession of firearms tomorrow; now who's the felon?;) :rolleyes: :what:

And for those who think "Hey that violates the Third and Fourth Amendments"; If they were negating the Second, do you think they'd care about the rest?

Zundfolge
October 17, 2005, 10:30 AM
What NineseveN said +1

El Tejon
October 17, 2005, 11:56 AM
I know several former felon shooters and I had something to do with the modifier former.:D

A while ago, I also knew of a federal felon who was not disqualified by the SSA. So, yes, I know of a few shooters who have been convicted of felonies.

Gunpacker
October 17, 2005, 11:56 AM
All the guys that bought pardons from bill clinton.
Including Puerto Rican terrorists that he pardoned.
Heck, I think that bill clinton could shoot if he wanted to.

jondar
October 17, 2005, 12:15 PM
I'm not sure if he carried it or not. He emptied watever was in the cylinder but his buddy was still crawlig on the ground trying to escape so the perp went into the house, I think he got someone in there to reload, then went out and shot him some more. I sat in on some of the trial, but just don't remember him being charged with firearm possession by a felon.

Derby FALs
October 17, 2005, 12:49 PM
We have it codified in our law that a felon can have their rights reinstated. I believe there are a few folks who did it, but I will have to dig around a bit to find specific examples.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=52388510356+14+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve



Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?

(A10) (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a10) Q. How can a person convicted of a felony apply for relief from firearms disabilities?

A. Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. section 922(g).) The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety. (See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) The Secretary delegated this authority to ATF.

[b]Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 107-67, 115 Stat. 514, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place.

Furthermore, the restriction contained in Pub. L. No. 107-67 does not change the status of prohibited persons. They are still prohibited from possessing, receiving, transporting, or shipping firearms under Federal law.

thatguy
October 17, 2005, 12:55 PM
Lupius- I have never lived in a state where +30 was a felony. That usually requires injury or fleeing from police. What state do you in where speeding can amount to a felony?

Jondar- Criminals who use guns are almost never charged with gun violations. I heard somewhere that only a handful of crooks have been charged under the Brady Law with illegal possession. They pass these laws claiming it's to fight crime but then they don't use them.

Derby FALs- I spoke of a judge clearing the record. The ATF can reinstate gun rights but as you noted they aren't doing it.

Derby FALs
October 17, 2005, 12:59 PM
Lupius- I have never lived in a state where +30 was a felony. That usually requires injury or fleeing from police. What state do you in where speeding can amount to a felony?

Jondar- Criminals who use guns are almost never charged with gun violations. I heard somewhere that only a handful of crooks have been charged under the Brady Law with illegal possession. They pass these laws claiming it's to fight crime but then they don't use them.

Derby FALs- I spoke of a judge clearing the record. The ATF can reinstate gun rights but as you noted they aren't doing it.


The feds have also been known to overule the judge.

Molon Labe
October 17, 2005, 01:04 PM
I know several former felon shooters and I had something to do with the modifier former.:D

A while ago, I also knew of a federal felon who was not disqualified by the SSA. So, yes, I know of a few shooters who have been convicted of felonies.I know one guy who is a felon and regular shooter. He's a good man, and I believe he has a right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not he is a "felon."

When new people come to shoot on our property, I always tell them, "If you're a felon, I don't want to know. Keep it to yourself."

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:19 PM
(A10) (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a10) Q. How can a person convicted of a felony apply for relief from firearms disabilities?

A. Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. section 922(g).) The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety. (See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) The Secretary delegated this authority to ATF.

[b]Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 107-67, 115 Stat. 514, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place.

Furthermore, the restriction contained in Pub. L. No. 107-67 does not change the status of prohibited persons. They are still prohibited from possessing, receiving, transporting, or shipping firearms under Federal law.


Thanks Derby. That is interesting.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 01:21 PM
I know one guy who is a felon and regular shooter. He's a good man, and I believe he has a right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not he is a "felon."

When new people come to shoot on our property, I always tell them, "If you're a felon, I don't want to know. Keep it to yourself."

What did he do time for?

Powderman
October 17, 2005, 01:21 PM
we are going shooting:D

klover, PM me. BEFORE you go shooting.

Yours,

Powderman

Powderman
October 17, 2005, 01:36 PM
Before you do something that you will regret, think about this:

1. Read RCW 9.41.040. Read it well. You will notice that possession of a firearm by a prohibited person can be punished as either a Class B or Class C Felony.

2. In this State, being arrested as an accessory to a crime will bring a charge one step less than the original offense. (C Felony, Gross Misdemeanor)

I know that the law is NOT fair in this regard. However, are you willing to undergo a life-changing experience simply because of this? Consider: if caught, you will be a felon, your firearms rights will be stripped, you will lose your job because you will be in prison; you will lose your guns; you will possibly lose your home and belongings.

You will never vote again, never be able to touch a firearm or ammunition. No CCW for you, either.

And, is it worth all of this just to give a felon a chance to shoot?

The law isn't perfect, friend. But there are ways to change it. Don't do this--for your sake and your family's sake. The law is there--please don't break it deliberately.

Yours,

E. C. Tovar Jr.
Puyallup Tribal Police
(aka Powderman)

rot13enatre
October 17, 2005, 01:51 PM
A good friend of mine's longtime boyfriend is a felon. Story I got was he had about four pot plants, got busted, and they weighed the plants with alot of the dirt. With the dirt it was over the amount needed for a felony. He was around college age when that happened.

Young and dumb, yes. But is he dangerous? I really doubt it. The guy is a big outdoorsman, and it seems a shame the guy can't hunt with firearms.

The most dangerous thing I've encountered from most of the potheads I've known is getting caught in those stupid conversations, i.e. what a life changing experience it was to follow the band du jour. (Stereotype, yes. But I still shudder from some of those.)

I'm not into the drug scene, not LE, or a lawyer, so I don't know all the ins and outs of drug law. Any insight or correction is welcome.

EDITed to add: But the law's the law. I don't think he shoots, and I certainly wouldn't be around him shooting.

TXGunGeek
October 17, 2005, 02:31 PM
Please to read CFR921 Definitions concerning firearms laws:

(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

If you are convicted of a STATE felony and that conviction is pardoned and or expunged by an officer of the state (Governator), you are no longer a felon when it comes to firearms law and disability. You only have to apply to ATF for permission if you are convicted of a FED felony!! Those are the folks who have no hope.

klover
October 17, 2005, 09:18 PM
and will be heeded. The "we're going shooting" was to get some clarity going.

Think I'll hang with the spritual folks, and let those who've made mistakes find their own "High Road".

Perhaps if you come up this way, we might shoot together someday. PM me if you travel North to shoot.

Joey2
October 17, 2005, 09:34 PM
I 'll not mention the state or name , but he is a very good friend of mine. He did 5 yrs. for 2d degree murder. He is very small in stature and was attacked by a very big man. To make a long story short my friend broke a pool cue over the table and stabbed the other guy in the throat.

He was on parole and we went shooting togather. He had a .357 Colt SA, .45 Colt, 30-30 Marlin, etc.

I don't know if he bought it after he got out under the table or owned them before he got into trouble.

I did not and do not care because he is not a threat to society. He has a right to the 2d Amendment just like us.

He was a tunnel rat in Vietnam with the 1st Inf. Div. He earned his rights.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 09:43 PM
I 'll not mention the state or name , but he is a very good friend of mine. He did 5 yrs. for 2d degree murder. He is very small in stature and was attacked by a very big man. To make a long story short my friend broke a pool cue over the table and stabbed the other guy in the throat.

He was on parole and we went shooting togather. He had a .357 Colt SA, .45 Colt, 30-30 Marlin, etc.

I don't know if he bought it after he got out under the table or owned them before he got into trouble.

I did not and do not care because he is not a threat to society. He has a right to the 2d Amendment just like us.

He was a tunnel rat in Vietnam with the 1st Inf. Div. He earned his rights.

He also murdered someone by stabbing him in the throat with a broken pool cue, and made the choice to give them up.

Carlos
October 17, 2005, 10:29 PM
He also murdered someone by stabbing him in the throat with a broken pool cue, and made the choice to give them up.

Who attacked whom? M-Rex, you are straight by the book, eh, no moving any way, just blindly follow, no logic, just blind faith. Correct?

Looks like the guy defends himself, does his time, and you're still coming up with gems like, "and made the choice to give them up." Yes, I'm sure that was the first thing on his mind as a gorilla was going after him.

I also really liked the one about all felons should stay in jail. Glad you're not in charge. I sure hope you read some of the other circumstances that can cause one to become a felon.

Keep up the good work. :cuss:

Joey2
October 17, 2005, 10:30 PM
M-Rex,
He was minding his own business. The guy he killed was banned from the pool hall for picking fights on numerous occsions.

My friend weighed about 130 lbs. and stands maybe 4' 10". He minds his own business and has never started any trouble with anybody.

Married with 2 children and a hard worker. Never been in trouble before.

This guy was going to kill him, he defended himself.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 10:33 PM
Who attacked whom? M-Rex, you are straight by the book, eh, no moving any way, just blindly follow, no logic, just blind faith. Correct?

Looks like the guy defends himself, does his time, and you're still coming up with gems like, "and made the choice to give them up." Yes, I'm sure that was the first thing on his mind as a gorilla was going after him.

I also really liked the one about all felons should stay in jail. Glad you're not in charge. I sure hope you read some of the other circumstances that can cause one to become a felon.

Keep up the good work. :cuss:

Not to drift too far off topic, but you are making assumptions based on your already preconceived biases. A jury of his peers found the person in question guilty of 2nd degree murder. By stabbing another person in the throat with a broken pool cue, he demonstrated that he had no problem living with the consequences of his actions. Thus, he decided to abrogate his rights by murdering another person. I don't care if you don't like it.

Stop feeling and start thinking.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 10:35 PM
M-Rex,
He was minding his own business. The guy he killed was banned from the pool hall for picking fights on numerous occsions.

My friend weighed about 130 lbs. and stands maybe 4' 10". He minds his own business and has never started any trouble with anybody.

Married with 2 children and a hard worker. Never been in trouble before.

This guy was going to kill him, he defended himself.

That may be true. However, a jury of his peers decided otherwise based on the evidence presented. Sorry. I'm not buying it.

junyo
October 17, 2005, 10:41 PM
However, a jury of his peers decided otherwise based on the evidence presented.
...and the criminal justice system is widely known for it's absolute infallibility.

NineseveN
October 17, 2005, 10:41 PM
That may be true. However, a jury of his peers decided otherwise based on the evidence presented. Sorry. I'm not buying it.

OJ Simpson's peers found him not guilty, what's your point? Juries don't make mistakes? Lawyers don't get beat and innocent people don't suffer for it. You cling to the law when it suits you...tell me again where it says in the USC that a free person can forfeit their inalienable rights permanently...


Thanks.

M-Rex
October 17, 2005, 10:44 PM
OJ Simpson's peers found him not guilty, what's your point? Juries don't make mistakes? Lawyers don't get beat and innocent people don't suffer for it. You cling to the law when it suits you...tell me again where it says in the USC that a free person can forfeit their inalienable rights permanently...


Thanks.

No, as a general rule, they don't. Go read the Gun Control Act of '68. You might find an answer there.

Man, you guys are itching to fight tonight.:rolleyes:

Double Naught Spy
October 17, 2005, 10:48 PM
Carlos and Joey2, if the guy was just defending himself as claimed, then he would not have been convicted of murder. There is something in the act that he peformed that was not within the legal bounds of the law.

Here is a real life example where an initial self defense act was justified, but then degraded into murder because the "good guy" basically executed the downed bad guy.

Man charged in shooting death of naked neighbor http://web.philly.com/content/inquir...26SHOOTING.htm

Tuesday, September 26, 2000 Man charged in shooting death of naked neighbor
Court papers say Paul Bellina fired six times at an already wounded Craig Holtzman as Holtzman walked away from Bellina's Upper Gwynedd house.
Paul Bellina. (AP) By Erin Carroll
INQUIRER SUBURBAN STAFF
Manslaughter charges were filed today against the Upper Gwynedd man who shot his naked next-door neighbor to death when he found the man trying to open the sliding glass door to his basement.
Montgomery Country District Attorney Bruce L. Castor announced the decision to charge Paul Bellina, 52, in the death of Craig Holtzman, 31, at a press conference this morning.
Castor said that while the initial two shots that Bellina fired at Holtzman on Sept. 13 were a legitimate act of self-defense, a series of later shots, including three into Holtzman's head while he was on the ground outside, warranted the charge.
Manslaughter is a first degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
According to officials, Holtzman was actually walking away from Bellina's townhouse when Bellina unlocked the sliding glass door and told Holtzman to put his hands up. Holtzman did, but then began taking steps toward Bellina, ignoring Bellina's requests to halt, and eventually entering Bellina's house, officials said.
Castor believes that Holtzman may have been very disoriented since toxicology reports show that he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.22 percent at the time of his death.
Bellina then fired two rounds in the basement, according to an affidavit of probable cause. A "critically wounded" Holtzman then walked out of the house and Bellina pursued him firing six shots from at least two different locations, according to the affidavit.
Authorities then say that Bellina fired three shots into Holtzman's head, the last one being a "coup de grace," according to the affidavit.
Bellina was to be arraigned this afternoon in Blue Bell. Castor said bail would be set at $30,000 and that Bellina would need to post 10 percent of that amount and would have to turn over three guns that he now has in his possession.
Bellina surrendered to police at 9 a.m. this morning, Castor said.
Castor had delayed making a decision on the whether or not to charge Bellina for nearly two weeks while he waited for the results of toxicology, forensics, and ballistics tests.
The law regarding use of force to protect oneself in one's home is fairly clear and can largely be summed up by the expression "A man's home is his castle,", Castor has said.
The accepted rule of self-defense is that a person is permitted to use an amount of force necessary to protect against what a person perceives to be an imminent threat of injury or death.
Bellina used a 9mm pistol to shoot Holtzman in the early morning hours of Sept. 13. After an alarm sounded in his house, Bellina found a naked Holtzman attempting to open the sliding glass door to the basement.
Bellina went back upstairs, loaded his gun, and returned to the door.
Castor has said he does not believe Holtzman was attempting to break in to the house, but rather, was disoriented. Holtzman slept in the basement of his parents townhouse next door which has an identical sliding glass door, and often went outside to urinate, according to an affidavit.
Erin Carroll's e-mail address is ecarroll@phillynews.com

Double Naught Spy
October 17, 2005, 11:21 PM
Let's all take a deep breath and go back and read the 2A. Tell me WHERE does it mention anything about those rights being able to be revoked from a free person for whatever reason? Cite it? Quote it? I am sorry, I cannot find it. must be my public school education.

When they are imprisoned, they are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration (i.e. no guns). And of course, while incarcerated, they are obviously not free.

You can't have it both ways folks.

NineseveN, your public school education may be pretty good in that you could not find anything in the 2nd amendment about revoking rights, but your reading comprehension is lacking in that the 2nd amendment does not include the qualifier about a person being free.

Just curious, where did you find it in the 2nd amendment or otherwise in the Constitution or amendments that imprisoned persons are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration? Where does it say that imprisoned folks don't have all the same rights as everyone else? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Obviously, RKBA can be infringed. Otherwise, folks in jail could have guns, at least according the the Constitution.

What I am doing here is simply drawing parallels to the arguments you were making that are contrary to your arguments. Your argument that we can't have it both way is bogus as that is exactly what you are trying to do.

PCGS65
October 18, 2005, 01:46 AM
That may be true. However, a jury of his peers decided otherwise based on the evidence presented. Sorry. I'm not buying it.

We all know how prosecutors love to put feathers in their cap. The jury is provided evidence by the prosecutors who love putting feathers in their cap.

Anybody hear of the dupage seven in Illinois, dupage being the county this happened.
In 1983 a young girl was murdered in naperville Illinois. Since naperville is a upscale town there was a lot of pressure on the police to solve this crime.
Three men with criminal records were arrested and brought to trial.

I have several friends that are policemen. A friend of mine told me(this was also in the paper but not why he quit) one of the investigators in this murder quit because he saw how evidence was being fabricated to get a conviction. He didn't want to be a part of it. One man was eventually convicted after being tried 3 TIMES even though another man in jail for another murder confessed to the murder. The prosecutors discounted his confession because they would have to admit they convicted the wrong man. Years later the innocent(convicted man)was freed from jail after one of the cops admitted to falsifing evidence. Then the top blew off the pot. Seven cops and prosecutors were brought to trail for official misconduct among other charges. In the end none of the dupage seven were convicted. Yet an innocent man was in prison for over 10years. They sure do take care of their own.

A few years later the innocent(convicted man)won +/- $3 million in a lawsuit. He is by no means an outstanding citizen and is constantly watched and being arrested for minor things by police. It's to bad but if the police/prosecutors want you in jail you will be there.

By the way former Illinois gov. Jim Ryan(yes the one that's on trial right now)gave clemency to all prisoners on death row about 3 years ago. Because with modern DNA testing many were found innocent of the charges that put them on death row. Just because someone has a history of being a criminal doesn't mean they belong in jail for a crime they didn't commit!!

They say for every DUI driver, 900 get away with it.
I sure hope it's not the same ratio for prosecutors and policemen trying to convict someone. But it sure looks like it. :banghead:

artherd
October 18, 2005, 03:24 AM
Thanks, but I'm not willing to bet my life on that.


Try one of these, and relax a little. :neener: ;)

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


Hey M-Rex, do you own any semi-automatic firearms?

I would bet good money that you are an as yet unprosecuted felon. Try it, stick 11 rounds in one of your 10 round mags.

Still feel "relaxed"?

M-Rex
October 18, 2005, 12:02 PM
Hey M-Rex, do you own any semi-automatic firearms?

I would bet good money that you are an as yet unprosecuted felon. Try it, stick 11 rounds in one of your 10 round mags.

Still feel "relaxed"?

An 'unprosecuted felon'?

You're trying to hard. I'm quite relaxed, thanks. The only 10-round magazine I own came with my 10/22. All the rest are high capacity grandfathered magazines. Nice try, though. ;)

Derby FALs
October 18, 2005, 12:16 PM
An 'unprosecuted felon'?

You're trying to hard. I'm quite relaxed, thanks. The only 10-round magazine I own came with my 10/22. All the rest are high capacity grandfathered magazines. Nice try, though. ;)

Can you prove that?

M-Rex
October 18, 2005, 12:18 PM
Can you prove that?

Yes I can.

Gordon Fink
October 18, 2005, 12:27 PM
Where does it say that imprisoned folks don’t have all the same rights as everyone else?

In the 14th Amendment, I think. Nevertheless, even incarcerated felons manage to arm themselves on a regular basis.

~G. Fink

R.H. Lee
October 18, 2005, 12:29 PM
I would bet good money that you are an as yet unprosecuted felon There is no such thing. 'Felon' is a legal term describing a status that must be preceded by a conviction.

NineseveN
October 18, 2005, 12:53 PM
NineseveN, your public school education may be pretty good in that you could not find anything in the 2nd amendment about revoking rights, but your reading comprehension is lacking in that the 2nd amendment does not include the qualifier about a person being free.

Just curious, where did you find it in the 2nd amendment or otherwise in the Constitution or amendments that imprisoned persons are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration? Where does it say that imprisoned folks don't have all the same rights as everyone else? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

I think you'll find that the relevant words appear in both the 5th and the 14th Amendments. But thanks for playing.


Seriously, our disagreement may boil down to our understanding of the 2A, and what level of gun control we find agreeable. If that is the case, I suspect neither of us will budge.

Derby FALs
October 18, 2005, 01:54 PM
Yes I can.

Good for you. Don't lose your paperwork.

thatguy
October 18, 2005, 03:23 PM
Derby FALs- "The feds have also been known to overule the judge."

If you mean the feds can take precedence over a state judge in clearing a felon's record, no they can't. If it's not a federal offense then the feds have no jurisdiction. If it was a federal conviction then a federal court would have to be petitioned and it's still up to the individual judge so you tell your attorney to shop around for a Clinton or Carter appointee who is soft on crime and likes to turn criminals loose.

stealthmode
October 18, 2005, 03:27 PM
i know shooters that became felons.

FNFiveSeven
October 19, 2005, 12:24 PM
M-Rex,

Your unflinching, blind confidence in the system is starting to get annoying. When you get brought up on some BS felony charge you'll change your tune. You've almost certainly commited a few felonies in your lifetime, the fact that you haven't been caught/charged/convicted is just dumb luck.
"0% Pro-Police State"... who are you kidding?

Powderman
October 19, 2005, 12:56 PM
M-Rex,

Your unflinching, blind confidence in the system is starting to get annoying. When you get brought up on some BS felony charge you'll change your tune. You've almost certainly commited a few felonies in your lifetime, the fact that you haven't been caught/charged/convicted is just dumb luck.
"0% Pro-Police State"... who are you kidding?

Well, I dunno about that. Not a flame, but in 46 years I have managed to avoid getting "caught up" in any BS felony charges.

It's quite simply called thinking before you do. Do I agree with ALL the laws on the books? Of course not. But knowledge of those laws is what will keep you out of trouble--that and self-discipline.

Interestingly enough, my mother once defined discipline as "what you do when you think no one's watching".

Glocker
October 19, 2005, 01:56 PM
I had a felony and two years ago I was pardoned by my state governor and also had it exsponged locally. it's not exsponged through ncic but A.T.F. gave me a peace of paper that when i buy a new gun i show them ( dealer ) the paper and it passes through, i'm one of the lucky ones, i've stayed out of trouble sence 1983.

Texfire
October 19, 2005, 05:46 PM
Granted, though. My experience with felons is somewhat jaded having worked in close proximity to them for many years. I sincerely never have met one who wanted to 'go straight'. Ever.

I am very good friends with someone who did something stupid when he was a young kid. I don't excuse his past mistake and he doesn't either, but I would trust him with my life. Now he may be the exception to the rule, but I had the same reservations about convicted felons until I learned that my good friend was one. At what point is their debt to society paid? I figure you have to take every person on their own merits.

Kurush
October 19, 2005, 06:57 PM
Do I agree with ALL the laws on the books?Do you know all of the laws on the books? How about federal laws, federal regulations, laws in other states that you've visited, etc? There is no way anyone can know that they've never committed a felony.

At some point there are so many laws that it's impossible not to break them, and people just have to keep their heads down and hope they don't draw attention. At that point we stop being "A nation of laws, not of men".

cracked butt
October 19, 2005, 07:52 PM
A guy I work with had a felony drunk driving conviction in the past. Last year he had his rights restored by a judge. I think he had to wait about 7 years to do so.

M-Rex
October 19, 2005, 08:59 PM
M-Rex,

Your unflinching, blind confidence in the system is starting to get annoying. When you get brought up on some BS felony charge you'll change your tune. You've almost certainly commited a few felonies in your lifetime, the fact that you haven't been caught/charged/convicted is just dumb luck.
"0% Pro-Police State"... who are you kidding?

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

M-Rex
October 19, 2005, 09:01 PM
I am very good friends with someone who did something stupid when he was a young kid. I don't excuse his past mistake and he doesn't either, but I would trust him with my life. Now he may be the exception to the rule, but I had the same reservations about convicted felons until I learned that my good friend was one. At what point is their debt to society paid? I figure you have to take every person on their own merits.

Granted. I'm sure there are a few out there.

There are exceptions to everything, but truly, in my experience, I've never met one who sincerely wanted to 'go straight'.

Joey2
October 19, 2005, 09:59 PM
My friend was defended by a public defender who talked him in to taking the 2d degree charge. No more to it than that, no hidden circumstances etc. Believe it or not.

It has been way over 20 yrs. he has been and still is a productive citizen of society.

Strings
October 20, 2005, 12:02 AM
>A guy I work with had a felony drunk driving conviction in the past. Last year he had his rights restored by a judge. I think he had to wait about 7 years to do so.<

Cracked Butt: PM me a few more details, if you could?

I've got a friend who stole some money from where he worked. There were extenuating circumstances to it (an over-controlling father, who had complete control of my then college going friend's finances). He was convicted of a felony. I'd like to pass whatever you could tell me on to him...

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 12:21 AM
Well, I dunno about that. Not a flame, but in 46 years I have managed to avoid getting "caught up" in any BS felony charges.
You just haven't been caught :p that doesn't mean you haven't committed a procedural felony or two

Do I agree with ALL the laws on the books? Of course not. But knowledge of those laws is what will keep you out of trouble--that and self-discipline.
So you know ALL the laws?

Before you quickly answer with "yes", you should think about it. There are tens of thousands of laws on the books. Many are quite obscure, and more and more these obscure laws are felonies.


Do I have to say it again? (read my sig)

M-Rex
October 20, 2005, 01:04 AM
You just haven't been caught :p that doesn't mean you haven't committed a procedural felony or two...blah blah blah hyperbole hyperbole...
Do I have to say it again? (read my sig)

Ok. Ok. We get it. You're proud of your signature. Yay for your team.:rolleyes:

Read mine.:cuss:

FNFiveSeven
October 20, 2005, 01:16 AM
At least Zundfolge's sig doesn't reek of hypocricy. 0% police state :rolleyes: :barf:

Strings
October 20, 2005, 01:17 AM
Ummm... High Road, people... High Road!

Powderman
October 20, 2005, 01:49 AM
as a matter of fact, I can't say that I even know the majority of them--even in my own State.

However, the fact remains that I make it a point to not consciously break any laws--that I am aware of.

There are still the elements of a "criminal act" to consider:

RECKLESSNESS: Proceeding with the act regardless of the consequences.
INTENT: The signified intent to complete the act.
NEGLIGENCE: Commission, or attempted commission of the act with no regard of the impact it has on others--not exercising care or caution (similar to recklessness)
and, the big one,

CRIMINAL KNOWLEDGE: The knowledge that what you are doing/about to do IS a criminal act.

Is anyone here perfect? I don't think so. Is anyone here better than anyone else? I doubt it seriously.

And, back to the main question:

Do I believe that ALL persons convicted of a felony should be stripped of a good portion of their Constitutional rights, for the rest of their lives?

NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES, NO!

Now, that being said, would I willingly and with forethought break the law, by knowingly allowing a felon access to a firearm and ammunition?

Again, NO.

Yes, it sucks. But the fact remains--I have taken an oath to uphold the law. I will not break that oath. And, until the law is changed, convicted felons have lost the right to bear arms.

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, but that fact remains. And until it is changed by law, it is the law of the land.

You don't have to like it, but you DO have to follow it--or be willing to pay the consequences.

FNFiveSeven
October 20, 2005, 02:25 AM
convicted felons have lost the right to bear arms.


You can't lose an inalienable right.

I have taken an oath to uphold the law. I will not break that oath.

I don't buy this excuse. Are you saying that because of your "oath", you never break the law?! Never drive 1 mph over the speed limit, never j-walk? Furthermore, are you saying you would never break the law, even if every moral fiber in your body told you it was the right thing to do? C'mon. Let's say a riot breaks out in your neighborhood, and your next door neighbor (a non-violent ex-felon) needs to borrow your shotgun, what are you going to do? Uphold your oath?

Joey2
October 20, 2005, 04:30 AM
What this thread has done is seperate the robots from the free thinking humans. For every law there is an exception. Not all laws are moraly right. Any may made law that infringes upon the natural law is not a law we have to follow.

The problem we have with the courts today is that they place mans law above Gods law thinking they are wiser than He.

Moonclip
October 20, 2005, 05:37 AM
Thread lock a coming! Anyways I knew a guy that used to do it, obviously he had to buy all his guns in private sales.

His story,which I believed, was he had met some girl at a bar, went to her house to have sex, continue drinking. He did not know the house was involved in the manufacture and sale of meth.

House gets a SWAT team raid and he is also charged with some sort of serious drug charge, ends up getting like 3 year sentence. To add insult to injury, he gets shot in prison by a guard while getting in to a fight with another inmate who attacked him or something. Almost died.

Guy seemed to be a regular working man and he gave up drinking too after the choice he made to go home with that girl but I hope he never ended up getting caught with guns.

db_tanker
October 20, 2005, 07:36 AM
Some have stood up for the "evil law-breaking individual"...others have not...as Joey2 has stated, the Sheeple have seperated themselves from those who think and feel.


I haven't read through the entire thread, but has anyone here actually though about what it would be like to be stripped of what we love?

This would be the same thing as living in one of these third-world countries that we read about and see the talking heads discuss. I would daresay that, if it were me, I would feel more than naked...unprotected...vulnerable...I first read some of this post yesterday, and all the rest of the day and into the night...while watching my Astros get what they truly deserve...it was turning in the back of my mind how I would feel...I didn't like that feeling...


This worries me.

Shall I quote The Rolling Stones?

Just as all the cops are criminals,
and all the sinners saints...

NO OFFENSE meant to any LEO in here, okay?

Darrell

M-Rex
October 20, 2005, 09:41 AM
I haven't read through the entire thread, but has anyone here actually though about what it would be like to be stripped of what we love?

Yes, I have. That's precisely why I don't run around committing felonies. Actually, I don't think this thread separates the 'robots' from 'free thinking humans' so much as it separates people who know there are consequences for actions and people who believe there shouldn't be.

His story,which I believed, was he had met some girl at a bar, went to her house to have sex, continue drinking. He did not know the house was involved in the manufacture and sale of meth.

House gets a SWAT team raid and he is also charged with some sort of serious drug charge, ends up getting like 3 year sentence. To add insult to injury, he gets shot in prison by a guard while getting in to a fight with another inmate who attacked him or something. Almost died.

This is classic. This is the quintessential 'inmate excuse story'. 'It's always someone else's fault', or 'I was just sittin' there doin' nothin'. EVERY inmate has a version of this story. This is the story he tells his wife/girlfriend/friend in the visiting room. I've heard this same story, or rather particular attitude, literally hundreds of times.

Let's say a riot breaks out in your neighborhood, and your next door neighbor (a non-violent ex-felon) needs to borrow your shotgun, what are you going to do?

1. I make good money and I researched where I live. I don't live where riots break out.

2. See above. I don't live next to FELONS (there is no such thing as an ex-felon).

3. No guns loaned. Any questions?

Behold! The Threadlock is coming!

Kramer Krazy
October 20, 2005, 10:15 AM
All I can say is that I don't know any convicted felons, but......I have seen some people commit felonies....and some involving firearms. :scrutiny:

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 10:40 AM
That's precisely why I don't run around committing felonies.
And my point is that I would bet you've committed several felonies over the years and not known it. Because so many things that shouldn't be felonies have been made into felonies and thus watered down the term "Felon" that the only thing that separates you from these "evil scum felons" is that you've never been caught.

Therefore blindly and in blanket fashion claiming that "Felon=bad person; no exception" is a false and inaccurate way to look at the people around you.

2. See above. I don't live next to FELONS.
I call shenanigans.

Clearly nobody here is defending people who have been convicted of what are honest to God "high crimes" (rape, robbery and other violent crimes) but we just must be wary of allowing the government to strip people of their God given, inalienable rights just because of the title "felon" especially when its government that gets to define what a felony is (if some overzealous legislature decides to make J-Walking a felony are you going to be all high, mighty and superior acting around some poor slob who didn't cross at the light? Are you going to claim it would be dangerous and irresponsible to let that guy have a gun?).

Just remember that in this day and age of "felonies"; There but for the grace of God go I.

And I keep pointing to my sig because this is EXACTLY what Ayn Rand warned us about.

M-Rex
October 20, 2005, 11:22 AM
And my point is that I would bet you've committed several felonies over the years and not known it. Because so many things that shouldn't be felonies have been made into felonies and thus watered down the term "Felon" that the only thing that separates you from these "evil scum felons" is that you've never been caught.

Bet me.

You are operating under a false assumption that people cannot control their base impulses. Please don't try to use others to justify your lack of self control.

Gordon Fink
October 20, 2005, 11:50 AM
No, M-Rex. He is arguing that you have probably filled out a government form incorrectly at some point in your life … accidentally and with no ill intent.

~G. Fink

Aikibiker
October 20, 2005, 12:30 PM
While working as a Corrections Officer I met quite a few felons who were open with me about owning weapons out on the street. One trustee I had was an avid hunter and shooter despite being in and out of prison on a regular basis. When I asked him how he got around the laws on firearms he told me: "I don't own any guns, but my wife has one hell of a collection!"

Double Naught Spy
October 20, 2005, 12:43 PM
I think you'll find that the relevant words appear in both the 5th and the 14th Amendments. But thanks for playing.

Seriously, our disagreement may boil down to our understanding of the 2A, and what level of gun control we find agreeable. If that is the case, I suspect neither of us will budge.

Neither the 5th or 14th amendments say anything about rights being limited only during time of imprisonment. The 5th just saying you won't be deprived without due process. Part of that due process is a loss of rights after being found guilty. It does not say the rights will be reinstated. Similar words are found in the 14th as well. With due process, your rights can be curtailed. Imagine that. Can you tell me where it says that the rights will be given back after completion of a felony sentence?

So, the aforementioned claim and battlecry of "shall not be infringed" is a conditional statement that is most definitely NOT absolute and is actually in conflict with later Amendments, except that later amendments trump previous amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as you have not committed a capital or otherwise infamous crime and been found guilty after due process.

NineseveN, I do appreciate you drawing to my attention the fact that the later amendments most definitely state that a person's rights can be infringed after due process, thereby answering your own challenge to the contrary, Tell me WHERE does it mention anything about those rights being able to be revoked from a free person for whatever reason?

It isn't in the 2nd, but the 2nd isn't the only amendment that pertains to gun rights. I appreciate you being person enough to admit to your error and answer your own challenge.

Article [V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 01:03 PM
You are operating under a false assumption that people cannot control their base impulses. Please don't try to use others to justify your lack of self control.

:rolleyes:

You are operating under a false assumption that all felonies are things that are obviously illegal and therefore only "bad" people would ever be convicted of a felony.

Like I said earlier, if I assemble my Steyr pistol carbine kit in the wrong order I've committed a felony (that is if I put the stock on the gun before putting the 16" barrel on it) ... making that mistake doesn't require a lack of control of base impulses, it could easily be done by any law abiding person by accident. All anyone would have to do is happen to put it together at the range in front of an ATF agent who just happened to be there (or maybe if I accidentally put it together in front of YOU you'd fell obligated to turn me in to the feds).

There are many examples of these kind of "procedural felonies". Living in California you're probably at more risk of this crap then me here in Colorado.

But I'm sure I'm just lying to cover for my lack of self control and you really are 0% police state :rolleyes:

Edited to add an example:
I hope you're never walking along in the woods and stumble across an interesting feather ... decide to take the feather home (although I'm sure you have more impulse control then that). As you're walking out of the woods you walk past a park ranger who arrests you (possibly at gunpoint) because the feather in your hand is *gasp* from an American Bald Eagle. Possession of an American Bald Eagle feather is a Felony. (http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/) Of course in your world anyone who would dare pick a feather up off the ground is probably an inch away from becoming a crazed killer :rolleyes:

thorn726
October 20, 2005, 01:05 PM
m-rex has some issues, obviously.
i think he feels a need to justify the system he is part of.

at the same time, the rest of us are determined to prove he commited at least one felony during his life.

how about a compromise already?

like maybe not all felonies should reult in loss of RKBA, while accepting it is possible he never commited one.

M-Rex
October 20, 2005, 04:11 PM
No, M-Rex. He is arguing that you have probably filled out a government form incorrectly at some point in your life … accidentally and with no ill intent.

~G. Fink

If it's an accident and there was no ill intent, then it's not a felony.

M-Rex
October 20, 2005, 04:13 PM
:rolleyes:

You are operating under a false assumption that all felonies are things that are obviously illegal and therefore only "bad" people would ever be convicted of a felony.

Like I said earlier, if I assemble my Steyr pistol carbine kit in the wrong order I've committed a felony (that is if I put the stock on the gun before putting the 16" barrel on it) ... making that mistake doesn't require a lack of control of base impulses, it could easily be done by any law abiding person by accident. All anyone would have to do is happen to put it together at the range in front of an ATF agent who just happened to be there (or maybe if I accidentally put it together in front of YOU you'd fell obligated to turn me in to the feds).

There are many examples of these kind of "procedural felonies". Living in California you're probably at more risk of this crap then me here in Colorado.

But I'm sure I'm just lying to cover for my lack of self control and you really are 0% police state :rolleyes:

Edited to add an example:
I hope you're never walking along in the woods and stumble across an interesting feather ... decide to take the feather home (although I'm sure you have more impulse control then that). As you're walking out of the woods you walk past a park ranger who arrests you (possibly at gunpoint) because the feather in your hand is *gasp* from an American Bald Eagle. Possession of an American Bald Eagle feather is a Felony. (http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/) Of course in your world anyone who would dare pick a feather up off the ground is probably an inch away from becoming a crazed killer :rolleyes:

Zund...you are trying too hard. You are splitting hairs and trying to find justifications to your world view.

You are operating under a false assumption that all felonies are things that are obviously illegal...

Am I missing something here? Felonies are things that are obviously illegal. Hence that's why we call them F E L O N I E S.

Strings
October 20, 2005, 04:20 PM
M-Rex: it's one thing to accept that there are consequences for your actions. It's quite another to have to continue paying for a mistake that you've already paid your dues for.

So... my friend made a mistake. He admitted it, paid the price for it, and he has to continue paying? That isn't reasonible, by any stretch of the imagination. To compound matters, his WIFE was tole that SHE couldn't have a gun either, because they live together. So... because he made a mistake (due to circumatsnces, he wasn't thinking cearly at all), it's ok in your worldview that they no longer be able to defend themselves?

Nothing in life is either black or white. There are MANY shades of grey...

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 04:21 PM
If it's an accident and there was no ill intent, then it's not a felony.
Okay, in theory yes ... good luck if you ever find yourself staring down the gavel though. Despite the whole notions of "innocent until proven guilty" and "the burden of proof lies on the prosecution" the reality of the situation is that you will be the one who has to prove "no ill intent".

I'm sure a fine upstanding citizen with perfect impulse control such as yourself would NEVER run into an overzealous prosecutor (especially since based on your posts I assume you're a cop) but most of us proles out here don't have a badge to hide behind or can afford top drawer lawyers to protect us from an overzealous prosecutor.

Add to that legislatures that constantly crank out new and sillier "felonies" (like a new law in New Mexico that allows you to be charged with a felony if your dog bites someone) and you're going to see more and more good, honest, decent people who are "felons".

Am I missing something here? Felonies are things that are obviously illegal. Hence that's why we call them F E L O N I E S.

Ugh ...yes YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING ... you seem to refuse to actually read my posts. There are tons of things that are illegal that you would never in a million years believe are illegal (some are old laws that nobody enforces, some are created by extremely complex laws like the Endangered Species Act). Among these laws, some are felonies.

You can tell me honestly that you KNEW since you where in short pants that picking up a feather off the ground in the woods could easily be a felony? Maybe you where born an expert in ornithology, but I doubt I could identify a Bald Eagle feather on sight.

I'm defending a world view that says that laws should be rooted in common sense ... that punishment should also fit the crime and that the reality is that our legal system has drifted closer and closer to a jack booted police state and I'm amazed that there are so many people who gleefully champion the coming police state (I guess if you get to be the police in said police state that you really could care less about the injustice heaped upon the people ... some animals are more equal then others eh?)

M-Rex
October 20, 2005, 05:22 PM
Okay, in theory yes ... good luck if you ever find yourself staring down the gavel though. Despite the whole notions of "innocent until proven guilty" and "the burden of proof lies on the prosecution" the reality of the situation is that you will be the one who has to prove "no ill intent".

I'm sure a fine upstanding citizen with perfect impulse control such as yourself would NEVER run into an overzealous prosecutor (especially since based on your posts I assume you're a cop) but most of us proles out here don't have a badge to hide behind or can afford top drawer lawyers to protect us from an overzealous prosecutor.

Well, no, because I don't run afowl of 'overzealous prosecutors' as a habit. :rolleyes: I have a gut suspicion that your definition of 'overzealous prosecutor' is a bit on the liberal side.

Add to that legislatures that constantly crank out new and sillier "felonies" (like a new law in New Mexico that allows you to be charged with a felony if your dog bites someone) and you're going to see more and more good, honest, decent people who are "felons".

Answer: Control your dog. Any questions?

Ugh ...yes YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING ... you seem to refuse to actually read my posts. There are tons of things that are illegal that you would never in a million years believe are illegal (some are old laws that nobody enforces, some are created by extremely complex laws like the Endangered Species Act). Among these laws, some are felonies.

If they are unenforceable, are they, in fact, crimes?

You can tell me honestly that you KNEW since you where in short pants that picking up a feather off the ground in the woods could easily be a felony? Maybe you where born an expert in ornithology, but I doubt I could identify a Bald Eagle feather on sight.

I can honestly tell you that I don't skip merrily through the forest picking up the droppings from various and sundry fauna. That's kind of weird.

I'm defending a world view that says that laws should be rooted in common sense ... that punishment should also fit the crime and that the reality is that our legal system has drifted closer and closer to a jack booted police state and I'm amazed that there are so many people who gleefully champion the coming police state (I guess if you get to be the police in said police state that you really could care less about the injustice heaped upon the people ... some animals are more equal then others eh?)

Yeah, yeah, yeah...blah blah blah...f*ck da po po, all cops are pigs, power to the people, fight da man, vast right wing conspiracy, big brother, Animal Farm...blah blah blah. I've heard it all before.

Your 'common sense' sounds an aweful lot like garden variety anarchist propaganda to me.:scrutiny:

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 05:35 PM
Well, no, because I don't run afowl of 'overzealous prosecutors' as a habit. :rolleyes: I have a gut suspicion that your definition of 'overzealous prosecutor' is a bit on the liberal side.
Yep, most overzealous prosecutors are liberals

Answer: Control your dog. Any questions?
And if you don't you deserve to lose your voting and gun rights forever?

If they are unenforceable, are they, in fact, crimes?
I didn't say unenforceable, I said not enforced ... big difference (I'm talking there about laws that require you to get out of your car and shoot a pistol in the air when you come to an intersection, or laws against mustaches and such).

I can honestly tell you that I don't skip merrily through the forest picking up the droppings from various and sundry fauna. That's kind of weird.
Weird means its right to revoke someone's voting and gun rights forever? And there I'm just pointing out that there is all sorts of ridiculous crap that you can be charged and convicted of a felony for?

Yeah, yeah, yeah...blah blah blah...f*ck da po po, all cops are pigs, power to the people, fight da man, vast right wing conspiracy, big brother, Animal Farm...blah blah blah. I've heard it all before.
Heard it all before and probably continute to contribute to the tainting of those men with badges who are honorable men capable of independent thought and proud to be called an officer of the peace instead of demanding to be called Law Enforcement Officers while they call their fellow citizens civilians. :rolleyes:
Responding to my arguments with bumper stickers doesn't make your argument any more "common sense". Oh and big brother is part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Your 'common sense' sounds an aweful lot like garden variety anarchist propaganda to me.:scrutiny:
Yeah, those garden variety anarchists like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin and all those other kooks who thought that jack booted enforcement of capricious laws was a bad thing. :uhoh:

Derby FALs
October 20, 2005, 06:31 PM
Oral Sex (http://www.sodomy.org/laws/) is still a felony in some states.

:what:

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 06:33 PM
Oral Sex (http://www.sodomy.org/laws/) is still a felony in some states.
Yeah ... but oral sex is weird and liberal :neener:

Derby FALs
October 20, 2005, 06:44 PM
Yeah ... but oral sex is weird and liberal :neener:


Aye. Can you imagine oral sex with a Republican woman? :eek:

thorn726
October 20, 2005, 07:00 PM
Aye. Can you imagine oral sex with a Republican woman?

ok now we're going too far, i am sliding into the gutter.

(we got ALL kinds in California) ill leave it at that

Zundfolge
October 20, 2005, 10:12 PM
Aye. Can you imagine oral sex with a Republican woman? :eek:
I'm married to a Republican woman and I have no comment ;)

Sir Aardvark
October 21, 2005, 02:02 AM
To all of you quoting the Constitution:

The Constitution is becoming more and more just a guideline, easily interpreted to mean whatever the current Supreme Court justices want it to mean.

Also, to quickly quote Frank Zappa:

"America is a nation of laws; poorly written and randomly enforced"


And finally:

How soon until there is "felony failure to stop at the stop sign"?.

NineseveN
October 21, 2005, 12:55 PM
Sorry, was a away for a bit, but had to come back to reply to this.


Thank you for the reply Double Naught, now consider the following:

The Second Amendment is no different (or should be no different) than any other amendment. While imprisoned, an inmate is not protected against unreasonable search and seizure, nor can inmates elect to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, their inalienable rights to liberty are also suspended (and this is important if you understand what inalienable means, look it up). The very act of imprisonment is a forfeiture of liberty, and also many other rights.

However, every single right that is forfeited during imprisonment as part of that action, is immediately restored once the prison term is served to satisfaction…except the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote. However, voting rights are specifically mentioned in the document and the stipulation is clearly defined in that case that you will lose voting rights. No such admission is made about the RKBA. And that is wrong. It is going against the very nature of the Constitution, and for someone on a site such as this, someone that should be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms to declare it is okay to deny and infringe upon a right that by the very wording of the amendment cannot be infringed unsettles my bile.

Ask yourself this, in the 1700's, was the right to keep and bear arms restored to an individual after they were released from prison?

Did private civilians legally possess military weapons and vessels (cannons and war ships)?

Was there any mechanism to permanently revoke a right from a free individual (i.e. not imprisoned or in custody)?

Why is it different now?


You make a bold and incredulous leap with the statement that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as you have not committed a capital or otherwise infamous crime and been found guilty after due process" because those words do not appear in the Constitution either. Now do they?


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

And this quote, particularly what is in bold letters, proves a very important point. Those words do state that the right to vote can be infringed if a person is guilty of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". That clause is very specific, yet we do not see that clause on any other amendment, do we? Where is that clause on the Second Amendment? I am sorry, again I fail to see it. There is no clause in the Constitution or the amendments that states that the right to keep and bear arms can be permanently revoked for being a felon. In any case where a certain right can be revoked or forfeited, a specific clause is included or further enumerated somewhere in the document (see the right to vote). You are interpreting the document instead of reading it, and you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of forming a valid opinion. I am not for felons getting firearms per se, but I am for following the document's decrees and treating each right the same.

Gordon Fink
October 21, 2005, 03:16 PM
Of course, voting is a civil right, while bearing arms is a natural right, but I digress.…

~G. Fink

FNFiveSeven
October 21, 2005, 06:28 PM
M-Rex,

Are you trying to annoy people by purposefully ignoring what they say, or do you honestly not understand the point of what Zundfolge is trying to tell you? Your comments have failed to address any of his arguments. For example:

I can honestly tell you that I don't skip merrily through the forest picking up the droppings from various and sundry fauna. That's kind of weird.



Fine, you think it's weird. Good for you. But once again, you have missed the point. Let me spell it out for you so that you can understand. The point is, there are so many felonies out there that you might easily commit one without knowing it... but it doesn't make you a dangerous person and it shouldn't cause you to lose your rights. So let's say you collect bird feathers and you pick up a Bald Eagle feather, do you deserve to lose your rights? Yes/No?

BTW, it's funny to read comments like this:

big brother, Animal Farm...blah blah blah. I've heard it all before.

from someone who claims to be "0% Police state". What do you think a police state is, anyway? Do you even know what the term big brother refers to? :banghead:

thorn726
October 21, 2005, 07:13 PM
big brother would never confirm nor deny his actual existence

that's what kept him strong.

kinda like what we have in this thread

Powderman
October 21, 2005, 08:33 PM
M-Rex,

Are you trying to annoy people by purposefully ignoring what they say, or do you honestly not understand the point of what Zundfolge is trying to tell you? Your comments have failed to address any of his arguments. For example:



Fine, you think it's weird. Good for you. But once again, you have missed the point. Let me spell it out for you so that you can understand. The point is, there are so many felonies out there that you might easily commit one without knowing it... but it doesn't make you a dangerous person and it shouldn't cause you to lose your rights. So let's say you collect bird feathers and you pick up a Bald Eagle feather, do you deserve to lose your rights? Yes/No?

BTW, it's funny to read comments like this:



from someone who claims to be "0% Police state". What do you think a police state is, anyway? Do you even know what the term big brother refers to? :banghead:

I believe that you are missing one thing here, blackthorn.

Everyone here has unwittingly broken the law. Some have even been contacted by law enforcement because of it.

The element that has kept most of these people from being arrested and charged is one thing--INTENT.

The presence of mens rea--the evil mind, or the intent to commit crime--is what is missing in the cases of unwitting lawbreaking. This is what M-Rex is saying.

For instance, let's say that you were driving from Oregon to New Mexico. You decide to take along a couple of rifles and stop in at the NRA Whittington Center, in Raton, NM.

One rifle is an M1 Garand. The other is an M1A National Match, in the pre-ban color.

Your route of travel involves going straight down I-5 thru CA, where you will take I-10 near Los Angeles. Guess what?

AS SOON AS YOU CROSS THE STATE LINE OF CALIFORNIA, YOU BECOME AN INSTANT FELON.

Why?

Because that evil M1A is not in California legal configuration. Now, what will keep you from being arrested, should you be stopped?

1. You get stopped by an officer with a good mindset, and
2. You honestly had no intent of flaunting California State law.

(Of course, it helps if you have the bolt removed from the rifle, too.)

It is INTENT that separates us from the criminal.

thorn726
October 21, 2005, 09:02 PM
uh, although it doenst bother me, you may be unwittingly insulting mr blackrazor
addign my name to his.........:neener:

thorn726
October 21, 2005, 09:04 PM
The presence of mens rea--the evil mind, or the intent to commit crime--is what is missing in the cases of unwitting lawbreaking. This is what M-Rex is saying.



uh, than why do we keep hearing "ignorance is no excuse"

it would be great if all LE took into account the intent of violator, but they don't.

having bene profiled and treated like dirt by enough cops for having long hair, you think i make a mistake like that the cops will "understand"

considering some of the BS games i've had run on me by LE

i take no comfort in the above theory

FNFiveSeven
October 21, 2005, 09:13 PM
and that's the problem. As a matter of fact, that the WHOLE POINT of this discussion, that you could intend to be the most honest, lawabiding, model citizen in the world, and you can still become a felon and therefore lose your rights.

Cetain crimes should be felonies, e.g. murder, robbery, etc. You cannot commit one of those crimes with the INTENTION of being a bad person. But you can certainly pick up a bald eagle feather with no evil intent whatsoever. Pick up the feather, lose your rights and go to jail. And that's exactly what's going to happen when some overzealous prosecutor tries to add your conviction to his resume. Are you willing to bet your freedom on one police officer's "good mindset"?

You see, your intent may be what *you* think seperates you from the criminal, but the law doesn't agree. This is where the phrase "ignorance is no defense" comes from... how can you be ignorant of the law and intend to break it? You can't. Nonetheless, many people have been and will be arrested for breaking laws they were unaware of.

HI express
October 21, 2005, 09:26 PM
I have true two stories..just food for thought before you decide.

I would say that even if you think you know the person, unless you predicted that the person would commit a felony you didn't know the person. I will relate two true stories that illustrate my point.

I worked with a young troubled man for fifteen years. He seemed to be a hard worker and very responsible. The two times that he went into county lock-up wasn't his fault if you believed his story. I did. So the second time that he came out he said that he will marry his baby's momma but he was having trouble with a gang that didn't want to let him out of the gang. He asked if he could borrow my rifle for home protection because his family was in danger with these home invaders in his neighborhood, he showed me news clippings that showed a rash of home takeovers where the attackers wore body armor. I loaned him my Gali in 308.

A few weeks later he disappears from work. Didn't hear from this guy for 5 years. I'm out a $1000 rifle registered to me and I'm wondering what happened.

I called up a favor with my LEO buds and they found that my so called coworker and his brother got caught..armed robbery with my rifle. My rifle got confiscated and crushed. Sigh. Being a convicted felon, that was an added charge for his conviction for armed robbery.

A friend of mine thought he knew this high school buddy who was a convicted felon. After his friend got out of prison, expressing his regret for committing a felony, the convicted felon convinced my friend to take him out for some plinking like they used to do when they were high school buds. One morning they went shooting outdoors in the Angeles Crest Forest. They found my friend and another shooter friend dead up in the forest. Eventually they caught the convicted felon..found my friend's Uzi pistol and his BHP. You do the math. The UZI carbine was sold to another known felon who used it in a shooting.

All I'm saying is you're taking an extra risk when you hand a convicted felon a loaded firearm. You're an adult, you weigh your risks..and remember if he is caught with your gun..you just helped the felon go back to prison. That is a violation of his parole.

Good luck with your decision.

NineseveN
October 21, 2005, 09:31 PM
Let us also not forget, it is not only felonies that will remove your right to keep and bear arms...

While the felonies are bad enough, misdemeanors and other loopholes are even worse.

FNFiveSeven
October 21, 2005, 09:32 PM
HI Express

As a little added bonus to your story, you realize that you just admitted to being a felon yourself for loaning a firearm to a convicted felon/gangmember? So by your logic, can we trust you with a firearm?

NineseveN
October 21, 2005, 09:39 PM
Touche.

thorn726
October 21, 2005, 09:47 PM
Cetain crimes should be felonies, e.g. murder, robbery, etc. You cannot commit one of those crimes with the INTENTION of being a bad person. But you can certainly pick up a bald eagle feather with no evil intent whatsoever. Pick up the feather, lose your rights and go to jail. And that's exactly what's going to happen when some overzealous prosecutor tries to add your conviction to his resume. Are you willing to bet your freedom on one police officer's "good mindset"?

You see, your intent may be what *you* think seperates you from the criminal, but the law doesn't agree. This is where the phrase "ignorance is no defense" comes from... how can you be ignorant of the law and intend to break it? You can't. Nonetheless, many people have been and will be arrested for breaking laws they were unaware of.

that's exaclty what i mean, much more well said

M-Rex
October 21, 2005, 11:15 PM
and that's the problem. As a matter of fact, that the WHOLE POINT of this discussion, that you could intend to be the most honest, lawabiding, model citizen in the world, and you can still become a felon and therefore lose your rights.

Well...in a very general way, I suppose that is true...IF 'you' suddenly developed intent and went out and committed a crime, were apprehended, stood trial, were found guilty, and incarcerated.:rolleyes:

Cetain crimes should be felonies, e.g. murder, robbery, etc. You cannot commit one of those crimes with the INTENTION of being a bad person. But you can certainly pick up a bald eagle feather with no evil intent whatsoever. Pick up the feather, lose your rights and go to jail. And that's exactly what's going to happen when some overzealous prosecutor tries to add your conviction to his resume. Are you willing to bet your freedom on one police officer's "good mindset"?

That is, of course, if one assumes that the 'overzealous prosecuter' has the time to prosecute people who pick up eagle feathers...in between all of the murders, robberies, rapes, and burglaries.

I think the problem isn't so much law and it's interpretation/application. Rather, it appears that you have a deep-rooted, inherent, and entirely illogical fear of authority figures and you believe that 'overzealous prosecuters' are just festering for you to pick up an eagle feather so they can pounce on you like a cat on a proverbial mouse.

You see, your intent may be what *you* think seperates you from the criminal, but the law doesn't agree. This is where the phrase "ignorance is no defense" comes from... how can you be ignorant of the law and intend to break it? You can't. Nonetheless, many people have been and will be arrested for breaking laws they were unaware of.

Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.

You don't appear to have any real knowledge of how the legal system works, other than what you watch on CSI or Law & Order. You have no factual basis for your argument. Finally, you are throwing out baseless assumptions to fog your ignorance.

You are not that important. 'They' are not out to get you. Truly, I am amazed at the number of cop-bigots that pollute these forums. It's unreal.

Strings
October 22, 2005, 12:13 AM
>Because that evil M1A is not in California legal configuration. Now, what will keep you from being arrested, should you be stopped?<

Actually, I seem to recall that there's something called "fair travel" laws, or somesuch...


>Well...in a very general way, I suppose that is true...IF 'you' suddenly developed intent and went out and committed a crime, were apprehended, stood trial, were found guilty, and incarcerated.<

Which can happen VERY easily, with no intent on "your" part...

>That is, of course, if one assumes that the 'overzealous prosecuter' has the time to prosecute people who pick up eagle feathers...in between all of the murders, robberies, rapes, and burglaries.<

Or is willing to go after an unwitting accomplice to a crime, because it's high profile? Read on...

>Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.

You don't appear to have any real knowledge of how the legal system works, other than what you watch on CSI or Law & Order. You have no factual basis for your argument. Finally, you are throwing out baseless assumptions to fog your ignorance.

You are not that important. 'They' are not out to get you. Truly, I am amazed at the number of cop-bigots that pollute these forums. It's unreal.<

Time to tell another friend's story, I guess. It relates back to "overzealous prosecuter"...

Eric had sme friends that weren't upstanding pillars by any stretch. Into all KINDS of things they shouldn't have been. Late one night, they call him at his dorm room, and ask if he'd be willing to give them a ride. Being that he considered them friends, he said yes...

When they had gotten into his car, they informed him that they had just killed a cop. He went ahead and started driving them to where they wanted to go, figuring that the sooner he got rid of them, the sooner he would be out of danger (and could call the police himself). Along the way, they got pulled over, and the whole carload was arrested...

There were two girls and two guys in the group that did the shooting: my friend was still at his dorm at the time. Who got prosecuted? My friend and the other guys. Now, my friend got lucky, and beat the rap (putting himself into serious hock in the process, which he's just recently paid off. This was over five years ago). If he hadn't been able to get the money together for the best possible lawyer, he would've been a felon, without any intent involved on his part (except that of staying alive).

By your logic, my being willing to defend him makes me "anti cop". That's Bull. Saying "the system is broken" is NOT the same as saying "those who work for the system are bad". My friend faced SERIOUS consequences for something he didn't bloody do. He actually had to DEAL with consequences because he was charged (lost the tuition he had paid for school when he got kicked for the incident, and has faced serious harrasment by local police ever since). But you think the DA was correct in going after him?

BTW: the girls (who had been present at the shooting) were never charged with anything...

NineseveN
October 22, 2005, 12:24 AM
You are not that important. 'They' are not out to get you. Truly, I am amazed at the number of cop-bigots that pollute these forums. It's unreal.

I happen to be very fond of LEO's in general, but your incessant pom-pom waving does not change the fact that you do not speak for the entire law enforcement and legal community.

You are clearly biased if you say prosecutors do not pull harder than they need not to sometimes (young prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, DA's office trying to make an example, someone is just an arsehole, disagreement on the practicality of prosecuting someone for grabbing a feather). Some DA's will run you into the ground unless you cop a plea. For someone that truly feels they are innocent, this can become a legal tug of war where it does, in fact, go to court. It does happen, every day. There are millions of court cases settled every day, most never go to trial, but if one truly felt they had no intention of breaking the law and were faced with a silly felony, I doubt they'd cop a plea.

As for police officers not being out to get others. More often than not, this is true, but if you expect a reasonable person to turn a blind eye to the faction of rule-bending, ambitious or corrupt cops in this country and agree that there are not police officers that will ruin you if you get in the way or if they have a bad day or if they just don't like you, you might want to try and sell someone a bridge in Brooklyn sometime...might prove easier by comparison.

This is hardly the rule, and definitely a rare occurrence, but when we're dealing with over a million lawyers and LEO's, rare can still mean 50,000 cases...if the liberty of those 50,000 people is a risk you're willing to take to serve as a shortcut for keeping violent felons from legally owning firearms for the safety of the people, well then as the saying goes, you deserve neither liberty nor safety.


But hey, you know, I'm only saying this cause I hate cops. :rolleyes:

bcochran
October 22, 2005, 12:25 AM
When you have a legal question, do you ask the corner auto mechanic? Oh, and when he responds and you follow his direction, do you blame him if he is wrong?

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 01:24 AM
By your logic, my being willing to defend him makes me "anti cop". That's Bull. Saying "the system is broken" is NOT the same as saying "those who work for the system are bad". My friend faced SERIOUS consequences for something he didn't bloody do. He actually had to DEAL with consequences because he was charged (lost the tuition he had paid for school when he got kicked for the incident, and has faced serious harrasment by local police ever since). But you think the DA was correct in going after him?

No. Defending your friend makes you his friend. Your friend faced serious consequences because of a serious lack in judgement and decision making, not because of some 'bad cop' or 'overzealous prosecuter'. He associated with people who claimed to have killed a cop. Why he didn't tell them to get out of his car is beyond me. I don't have any friends that I can think of that claim to be 'cop killers'. He chose to give them a ride, and in so choosing, became an accessory after the fact. He's lucky that all he lost was his tuition money. Don't ask me to feel sorry for him.

As to the 'pom pom waving'. Don't think of it so much as cheerleading. Rather think of it as common sense bucking the frothy anti-cop bigotry rampant on these boards.

And, this is just plain stupid.
For someone that truly feels they are innocent,...
Jeezus Crimeney! I used to watch over almost 500 inmates who 'felt they were innocent'. Not a single one of them were, mind you...but they all 'felt' they were.

You really have no idea how the justice system works. In a general sense, it is structured to allow 100 criminals to go unpunished for every criminal that is incarcerated as a caution against locking up the wrong person. Quite frankly, with all the hand-wringing, excuse making, and loophole technicality exploitation done by defense attornies, I'm surprised anyone makes it to prison.

Judging by your post, I don't think you are anti-cop per se, but I do think there is a distinct and vitriolic anti-cop world view propegated by a significant number of posters frequenting this board.

Strings
October 22, 2005, 02:04 AM
>No. Defending your friend makes you his friend. Your friend faced serious consequences because of a serious lack in judgement and decision making, not because of some 'bad cop' or 'overzealous prosecuter'. He associated with people who claimed to have killed a cop. Why he didn't tell them to get out of his car is beyond me. I don't have any friends that I can think of that claim to be 'cop killers'. He chose to give them a ride, and in so choosing, became an accessory after the fact. He's lucky that all he lost was his tuition money. Don't ask me to feel sorry for him.<

He associated with people he shouldn't have, yes. They were already IN HIS CAR when they informed him they had shot the cop. Why didn't he tell them to get out? Because he didn't want to get shot himself! Which would be the reaction of ANY human in the same situation... except those like yourself who are bulletproof, I guess. He chose to give a ride to friends HE DIDN'T KNOW HAD COMMITED A CRIME. As for the "he's lucky..." comment: he lost that DESPITE AQUITAL. Never asked for your sympathy, merely that you admit that the system consists of fallible human beings. Too much to ask? Seems so...


NOW I know why WA and Spiffy make so much use of that one button...

PCGS65
October 22, 2005, 08:14 AM
Hey M-Rex and Zundfolge.......Now someone caught burning leaves twice will be a felon. M-Rex do you think a felon convicted of burning leaves will always commit felonies and be in and out of prison the rest of their lives and will never want to go straight? Make sure you read the last paragragh.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/1805681.html

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 11:21 AM
>No. Defending your friend makes you his friend. Your friend faced serious consequences because of a serious lack in judgement and decision making, not because of some 'bad cop' or 'overzealous prosecuter'. He associated with people who claimed to have killed a cop. Why he didn't tell them to get out of his car is beyond me. I don't have any friends that I can think of that claim to be 'cop killers'. He chose to give them a ride, and in so choosing, became an accessory after the fact. He's lucky that all he lost was his tuition money. Don't ask me to feel sorry for him.<

He associated with people he shouldn't have, yes. They were already IN HIS CAR when they informed him they had shot the cop. Why didn't he tell them to get out? Because he didn't want to get shot himself! Which would be the reaction of ANY human in the same situation... except those like yourself who are bulletproof, I guess. He chose to give a ride to friends HE DIDN'T KNOW HAD COMMITED A CRIME. As for the "he's lucky..." comment: he lost that DESPITE AQUITAL. Never asked for your sympathy, merely that you admit that the system consists of fallible human beings. Too much to ask? Seems so...


NOW I know why WA and Spiffy make so much use of that one button...


His mistake was associating with lowlife. Don't believe for a minute that he 'didn't know'. The system worked as it should have. Your friend suffered the natural consequences of his bad decision. And, yes, I read the part where he was aquitted. Sucks to be him.

Essex County
October 22, 2005, 11:55 AM
The State of New Hampshire passed a law, effective January 1st, 2005 making first offense DWI a felony. A friend of my daughter who is a sportsman and a pretty solid citizen was arested a couple of days later. Yep, He's now a convicted felon and this will have a major impact on his life. Before anyone jumps down my throat I DO NOT condone DWI. I just don't see the connection between this and his bird hunting.........Essex

FNFiveSeven
October 22, 2005, 01:10 PM
PCGS65,

I just read your story. WOW. What the hell is going on in this country?! A Felony for burning leaves, and yet the fine is only $50? I've had parking tickets for more than $50, so by that logic it would now be acceptable to issue felony parking tickets! Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the old constitution, we don't really use that anymore.

Slightly off topic, but this story has me wondering, is it even legal for local counties/cities to enact ordinances where a felony conviction can result? Let's say you're driving through some backwoods rural town and they have made smoking a felony. There go all your rights?!?! Because some 500 person community is offended by smoking?

PCGS65
October 22, 2005, 01:40 PM
Yeh blackrazor isn't that something. I first thought it was a joke untill I read the article. The thread I copied that from is in the legal and political section. :banghead:
I also was wondering when it would be a felony for first time DWI. But according to "essex county" in New Hamphire it is as of this year.

The coming police state is closer than we think!!:cuss:

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 02:00 PM
PCGS65,

I just read your story. WOW. What the hell is going on in this country?! A Felony for burning leaves, and yet the fine is only $50? I've had parking tickets for more than $50, so by that logic it would now be acceptable to issue felony parking tickets! Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the old constitution, we don't really use that anymore.

Slightly off topic, but this story has me wondering, is it even legal for local counties/cities to enact ordinances where a felony conviction can result? Let's say you're driving through some backwoods rural town and they have made smoking a felony. There go all your rights?!?! Because some 500 person community is offended by smoking?

On this we agree. A felony for burning leaves is silly, as is the scenario you you outlined above. But, don't blame the 'police'. Blame the legislators and the lobbies they answer to.

FNFiveSeven
October 22, 2005, 03:47 PM
M-Rex,

First and foremost, yes, I do blame the legislators. They are the worst of the worst, from traitors like Feinstein/Schumer/Boxer down to the aspiring small town fascists who pass laws making leaf burning a felony. They are the true enemies of freedom.

Secondly, I blame the criminals, the scumbags, and the lowlifes. Now mind you I'm not talking about your modern leaf burning, bald eagle feather posessing "criminal", but the gang banging, murdering, rapists who deserve to have their guts carved out with a spoon. If it weren't for these sub-human sacks of $&#% infesting our inner cities, we wouldn't have all these legislators making so many crazy laws.

HOWEVER, I cannot hold the police completely blameless. No one's forcing anyone to become a police officer, it is a voluntary choice. A choice which allies you with legislators, who's laws you are duty bound to enforce, regardless of how wrong they are. And if you choose to be part of a police force which enforces felony leaf burning, then you become a willing accomplice to tyranny.

Any issues I have with police are very region dependent. If you're a small town cop in Alaska, hey, you're probably an upstanding great guy. OTOH, if you're an ATF field agent who enjoys shooting someone's family in Idaho because you don't agree with their politics... well... :fire:

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 04:15 PM
M-Rex,

First and foremost, yes, I do blame the legislators. They are the worst of the worst, from traitors like Feinstein/Schumer/Boxer down to the aspiring small town fascists who pass laws making leaf burning a felony. They are the true enemies of freedom.

Secondly, I blame the criminals, the scumbags, and the lowlifes. Now mind you I'm not talking about your modern leaf burning, bald eagle feather posessing "criminal", but the gang banging, murdering, rapists who deserve to have their guts carved out with a spoon. If it weren't for these sub-human sacks of $&#% infesting our inner cities, we wouldn't have all these legislators making so many crazy laws.

HOWEVER, I cannot hold the police completely blameless. No one's forcing anyone to become a police officer, it is a voluntary choice. A choice which allies you with legislators, who's laws you are duty bound to enforce, regardless of how wrong they are. And if you choose to be part of a police force which enforces felony leaf burning, then you become a willing accomplice to tyranny.

Any issues I have with police are very region dependent. If you're a small town cop in Alaska, hey, you're probably an upstanding great guy. OTOH, if you're an ATF field agent who enjoys shooting someone's family in Idaho because you don't agree with their politics... well... :fire:

I agree with everything you said, except the third paragraph. That is just transfering the blame off of those who should rightfully carry it...and it sounds like more wacko anti-cop, 'black helicopter' drek.

When I wore a badge, I certainly wasn't an 'ally' of Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer. In fact, I openly stood against them on a few occasions, and spoke before my local county supervisors wanted to restrict FFL 'home firearms dealers'. So, I'll thank you not to paint us all with the same 'dey-iz-out-to-gets-us' brush.

PCGS65
October 22, 2005, 04:35 PM
Yes blackrazor and M-rex, I wonder what fines and how much jail time comes with a class C felony in Indiana for burning leaves? If I was a cop in Indiana and caught someone burning leaves for the first or second time. I would explain how excessivly severe the penalty is then walk away. Kind of like what police can do when pulling someone over for traffic violations. I for one could not enforce such a ludicrous law. :banghead:

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 05:02 PM
Yes blackrazor and M-rex, I wonder what fines and how much jail time comes with a class C felony in Indiana for burning leaves? If I was a cop in Indiana and caught someone burning leaves for the first or second time. I would explain how excessivly severe the penalty is then walk away. Kind of like what police can do when pulling someone over for traffic violations. I for one could not enforce such a ludicrous law. :banghead:

+1 Agreed. I don't really know what a 'class C felony' is, as we don't have them here in California.

thorn726
October 22, 2005, 06:32 PM
Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.

funny. maybe not for felonies, but you should see how far the cops will stretch to write a ticket around here.

smoking a cigarette to close to a store entry is against the law.
same with jaywalking, riding your bike the wrong way, etc.

some get a warning, some get a ticket

honestly, it is a law problem more hta na police problem. techincally the police sohuld do their jobs and enforce the law, they shouldnt be put in the position of deciding "is it fair to apply this law to this person"

FNFiveSeven
October 22, 2005, 06:47 PM
Selective enforcement of the law is a particularly bad idea, history has shown this time and again. This is how we wind up with racist police departments, busting people for being the wrong race, when all they did was break a law that would never be enforced on a white guy. Remember, as a police officer, you have taken an oath to enforce the law, if you agree to be a police officer, you agree to arrest somebody for burning leaves, stripping them of their rights forever. In my mind, the only acceptable response to that situation would be to resign in disgust.


M-Rex,

If you were ordered to arrest all gunowners due to a new law that was just placed on the books, what would you do?

thorn726
October 22, 2005, 07:06 PM
tell us he's already retired so it is moot

havent you been following?

ha ha.

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 07:53 PM
Selective enforcement of the law is a particularly bad idea, history has shown this time and again. This is how we wind up with racist police departments, busting people for being the wrong race, when all they did was break a law that would never be enforced on a white guy. Remember, as a police officer, you have taken an oath to enforce the law, if you agree to be a police officer, you agree to arrest somebody for burning leaves, stripping them of their rights forever. In my mind, the only acceptable response to that situation would be to resign in disgust.


M-Rex,

If you were ordered to arrest all gunowners due to a new law that was just placed on the books, what would you do?

Again, you are showing your ignorance of how the system works, and what working in law enforcement entails. I counted six out-and-out fallacies in your first paragraph alone. You are simply arguing in broad generality with a lot of 'I heards' and 'my friend saids', and 'well, everyone knows thats'.

There is such a thing as 'officer discretion'. You call it 'selective enforcement'. This is most used dealing with infractions. What would serve the greater good? A warning, or a citation? There are times when either one is appropriate. In general, misdemeanors must occur in an officer's presence to be acted upon. Felonies can be acted upon whether they occur in the officer's presence or not. Both misdemeanors and felonies require the 'probable cause' standard for arrest. It is not so simplistic that if I hear of(or heard of, and the case may be), I don't suddenly mount my black and white steed and roar off to combat evil. It isn't like what is shown on television.

Furthermore, taking the oath isn't like signing a contract signing away all cognitive ability and judgement.

In my mind, the only acceptable response to that situation would be to resign in disgust.
Yes, and 'in your mind', you are completely wrong, naive to the point of ridicule, and ignorant to a fault of how the real world works. Plainly, and simply, you do not know what you are talking about.

Besides, your point about the 'burning leaves felony' is moot. The author of the article you were citing was wrong. Read it.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/10/18/local.20051018-sbt-LOCL-B1-County_bracing_for_l.sto
Violators will get one warning. After that, they can be charged with a Class C civil infraction and be fined $50.

NineseveN
October 22, 2005, 09:21 PM
While I think some are being a bit hard on M-REX, I can't say his attitude did not bring it upon himself. He has some very valid points...these things are not as commonplace as TV makes them out to be, but they do happen. Anyone that tries to say otherwise without proof should be taken very lightly. It's a system of human beings, regardless of how well or strict or even open to interpretation those rules are, just like every single system comprised of human beings, designed by human beings, it is fallible and subject to error.

There are a lot of gray areas here, let's try not to be too biased either way. My opinion is that when even simple things, things that aren't even felonies, things that should not even involve the legal system (such as Act 20/section 302 in PA or the way domestic violence laws are written in FL) can revoke a right guaranteed in the Constitution permanently, things are wrong, and the legal system is being perverted.

Is there any other right that can be stripped from a felon that has been released from prison and paid their debt to society and that is specifically guaranteed in the constitution except as otherwise noted to be revoked upon the conviction of a crime? If not, why is the 2A different? If you say it is because firearms are dangerous or it is for the greater common good, congratulations, you've just joined the VPC...it's is a very slippery slope indeed, there should be no tolerance or compromise on things of this nature.

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 10:24 PM
While I think some are being a bit hard on M-REX, I can't say his attitude did not bring it upon himself. He has some very valid points...

Thank you. I didn't realize that confidence was an 'attitude' these days.

FNFiveSeven
October 22, 2005, 10:31 PM
M-Rex,

I see that despite your lengthy response, you still haven't answered the one and only question I posed to you. Care to try again?

M-Rex
October 22, 2005, 10:56 PM
M-Rex,

I see that despite your lengthy response, you still haven't answered the one and only question I posed to you. Care to try again?

No, thank you. It's irrelevent.

NineseveN
October 22, 2005, 11:15 PM
M-REX.

I apologize that my confidence at being right, and knowing what I'm talking about bothers you. Thank you for the mini-psychoanalysis.

Nice edit. :)

Point, set, match.

Anyway, it's not your confidence, I can appreciate that, I think we should all have so much confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and blind dimissal, and it is easy to cross when one is so convinced they are right. We all do it, though most of us humble folks can admit that...maybe not in the heat of the moment, but eventually. I only hope that once this discussion settles that you at least come away with some new viewpoints, I am rather certain I will.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 12:26 AM
M-REX.



Nice edit. :)

Point, set, match.

Anyway, it's not your confidence, I can appreciate that, I think we should all have so much confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and blind dimissal, and it is easy to cross when one is so convinced they are right. We all do it, though most of us humble folks can admit that...maybe not in the heat of the moment, but eventually. I only hope that once this discussion settles that you at least come away with some new viewpoints, I am rather certain I will.

One humble folk does what one can to remain civil. ;)

So far, I've seen nothing to convince me that my viewpoint was in error, but I appreciate what you're saying.

NineseveN
October 23, 2005, 01:07 AM
One humble folk does what one can to remain civil.

It is difficult, is it not? I appreciate that we all have remained more or less civil throughout this discussion. I can also appreciate your viewpoint, I tend to disagree with a lot of it, but does not mean I find no merit in anything you are saying here.

Peace.

PCGS65
October 23, 2005, 07:38 AM
Hey M-rex how you doing? The THR moderator Lawdog checked on a class C felony in Indiana here it is..........

Okay, quick Google check of the Indiana Statutes reveals that a Class 'C' Felony in Indiana will net you 2-8 years in the pen and a fine not to exceed $10,000.
Sec. 6. (a) A person who commits a Class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar50/ch2.html

Geeeeeesss How would you like to lose everything you have for burning leaves? The house and wife would be gone. Tough to make the mortgage payment if in jail for a minimum of 2 years.

I don't even want to think about whats next...........

neoncowboy
October 23, 2005, 08:18 AM
Interesting look into the mind of a cop for sure.

I guess it always just spoke to me in simpler terms:
1. The law anymore is a joke, bad laws are passed in huge volume all over the country (eg: AW bans, felony DUI, broad powerd of DFACS, gun-free school zones, etc ad nauseum).
2. LEOs are sworn to enforce the law. Period.
3. If the law is bad...and the LEOs are servants of the law...then what does that make LEOs?

Sorry M-Rex, I'm trying not to be ignorant of how it works in real life, it just seems really that simple to me.

More and more, the law is being designed to strip rights from people and craft a society of subservients to the government. Being an enforcer of those laws ultimately makes one an agent of whatever evil is being done by government.

It's certainly honorable to dress for work everyday with the intent to stand between criminals and the innocent as a protector and all that...but I don't know that it makes up for the fundamental of being a sworn agent of a wrong, enslaving government out-of-control.

I guess if your take on the overreaching intrusion of government into the lives of citizens isn't like mine...and you excuse it by just blaming the laws on the voters...you could mind-f#@# your way into seeing yourself as a hero of the people or whatever.

I'm not buying it though.

Look at some of the asinine, freedom-hating laws that LEOs enforce...and recognize that the primary allegiance isn't to the people...but to those laws. In California especially, it won't take a genius to see that LEOs aren't serving and protecting the people, they're serving and protecting their masters.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 11:57 AM
Hey M-rex how you doing? The THR moderator Lawdog checked on a class C felony in Indiana here it is..........

Okay, quick Google check of the Indiana Statutes reveals that a Class 'C' Felony in Indiana will net you 2-8 years in the pen and a fine not to exceed $10,000.
Sec. 6. (a) A person who commits a Class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar50/ch2.html

Geeeeeesss How would you like to lose everything you have for burning leaves? The house and wife would be gone. Tough to make the mortgage payment if in jail for a minimum of 2 years.

I don't even want to think about whats next...........

Thanks PCGS65. I would certainly say that is a bit excessive for burning leaves. I think the author of the article in question that mentions the Class C felony wrote 'felony' where he meant 'infraction', as evidenced in the other article I quoted earlier.

PCGS65
October 23, 2005, 12:20 PM
Yes M-Rex, I want to think there is a mistake about it being a felony. But untill I hear otherwise I don't like to assume. Take care.:)

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 12:20 PM
Interesting look into the mind of a cop for sure.

I guess it always just spoke to me in simpler terms:
1. The law anymore is a joke, bad laws are passed in huge volume all over the country (eg: AW bans, felony DUI, broad powerd of DFACS, gun-free school zones, etc ad nauseum).
2. LEOs are sworn to enforce the law. Period.
3. If the law is bad...and the LEOs are servants of the law...then what does that make LEOs?

Sorry M-Rex, I'm trying not to be ignorant of how it works in real life, it just seems really that simple to me.

More and more, the law is being designed to strip rights from people and craft a society of subservients to the government. Being an enforcer of those laws ultimately makes one an agent of whatever evil is being done by government.

It's certainly honorable to dress for work everyday with the intent to stand between criminals and the innocent as a protector and all that...but I don't know that it makes up for the fundamental of being a sworn agent of a wrong, enslaving government out-of-control.

I guess if your take on the overreaching intrusion of government into the lives of citizens isn't like mine...and you excuse it by just blaming the laws on the voters...you could mind-f#@# your way into seeing yourself as a hero of the people or whatever.

I'm not buying it though.

Look at some of the asinine, freedom-hating laws that LEOs enforce...and recognize that the primary allegiance isn't to the people...but to those laws. In California especially, it won't take a genius to see that LEOs aren't serving and protecting the people, they're serving and protecting their masters.

You are entirely entitled to your worldview, no matter how mistaken it may be. Though, your anger and venom is wasted on the wrong group of people. You are simply pumping up your own anti-cop bias with generality. Blaming a cop because of bad law is like blaming your mechanic when General Motors maked a bad automobile.

FNFiveSeven
October 23, 2005, 12:53 PM
Blaming a cop because of bad law is like blaming your mechanic when General Motors maked a bad automobile.

This is a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be to blame the GM auto worker for building a car with a faulty design... and I would blame them. No one's forcing them to build cars, but if they do it anyway despite known design flaws which get people killed, blood is on their hands.

Likewise, no one's forcing you to go into the field of law enforcement, that was YOUR decision. And if, as the result of YOUR desicion are obligated to enforce tyrannical laws... well, you do the math. This whole "I'm just following orders" BS didn't fly 60 years ago, and it still doesn't today. No one's buying it. If you think the laws are bad, then don't sign up to enforce them. Sheesh. If you don't think the laws are bad, then just admit it.

You *still* haven't answered my original question, and your silence is damning. It has everything to do with this discussion, and I think you're afraid that your answer will paint you into a corner (because it will).

Oh, and here's another question for you (although I doubt you'll answer it). Were the German police wrong to round up the Jews during WW2? I mean, they didn't make the laws, they were just enforcing them, right?

PCGS65
October 23, 2005, 01:08 PM
Thanks PCGS65. I would certainly say that is a bit excessive for burning leaves. I think the author of the article in question that mentions the Class C felony wrote 'felony' where he meant 'infraction', as evidenced in the other article I quoted earlier.

M-Rex I just read the article you posted(I must have missed it)that sounds more like it a $50 fine. But the way the government is going wanting to imprison everybody I would belive something like that eventually.
Thanks for the info.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 01:13 PM
M-Rex I just read the article you posted(I must have missed it)that sounds more like it a $50 fine. But the way the government is going wanting to imprison everybody I would belive something like that eventually.
Thanks for the info.

No problem at all, my friend.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 01:14 PM
This is a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be to blame the GM auto worker for building a car with a faulty design... and I would blame them. No one's forcing them to build cars, but if they do it anyway despite known design flaws which get people killed, blood is on their hands.

Likewise, no one's forcing you to go into the field of law enforcement, that was YOUR decision. And if, as the result of YOUR desicion are obligated to enforce tyrannical laws... well, you do the math. This whole "I'm just following orders" BS didn't fly 60 years ago, and it still doesn't today. No one's buying it. If you think the laws are bad, then don't sign up to enforce them. Sheesh. If you don't think the laws are bad, then just admit it.

You *still* haven't answered my original question, and your silence is damning. It has everything to do with this discussion, and I think you're afraid that your answer will paint you into a corner (because it will).

Oh, and here's another question for you (although I doubt you'll answer it). Were the German police wrong to round up the Jews during WW2? I mean, they didn't make the laws, they were just enforcing them, right?

Get used to disappointment.

You have a lot of adolescent anger left over, and no small amount of paranoia. Your post above sounds like a classic persecution complex.

Seek help.

neoncowboy
October 23, 2005, 01:41 PM
You are entirely entitled to your worldview, no matter how mistaken it may be.

Oh yeah, of course. Just as you are entirely entitled to your self-righteousness and holier-than-thou-ness :)

This is a terrible analogy.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't support charities that contribute to values contrary to mine. I wouldn't work for a company that leaned into values/principals that I don't support. I don't even by products from companies that support causes I don't agree with. What does it say about a man if he joins forces with today's American government?

There's too many infractions on the part of government to excuse. By joining their ranks, you are ultimately putting your seal of approval on their actions, policies, methods and objectives.

No way I could do that, but whatever works for you.

I thought THR was a forum about freedom and liberty as much as anything else. Sadly, our government is not a champion of the freedoms of the individuals who give it it's power.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 01:56 PM
Oh yeah, of course. Just as you are entirely entitled to your self-righteousness and holier-than-thou-ness :)



My thoughts exactly.

I don't support charities that contribute to values contrary to mine. I wouldn't work for a company that leaned into values/principals that I don't support. I don't even by products from companies that support causes I don't agree with. What does it say about a man if he joins forces with today's American government?

There's too many infractions on the part of government to excuse. By joining their ranks, you are ultimately putting your seal of approval on their actions, policies, methods and objectives.

No way I could do that, but whatever works for you.

I thought THR was a forum about freedom and liberty as much as anything else. Sadly, our government is not a champion of the freedoms of the individuals who give it it's power.


Actually, most of the legal and political talk on the forum just ends up being an exercise in spouting anti-cop hate and bigotry, or libertarian prosleytizing.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 01:58 PM
This is a terrible analogy.

And yet, spot on correct as evidenced by your bewailing reaction.

neoncowboy
October 23, 2005, 02:06 PM
an exercise in spouting anti-cop hate and bigotry

I've noticed here and elsewhere that you guys seem really, really sensitive about this. Is there something to that?

I don't hate cops. I like to try to give cops the benefit of the doubt and assume that they made it into their jobs just due to idealism and ignorance of the bigger picture. I'd love to develop a relationship with a law enforcement professional that I might be able to see that side of the whole thing and work through the issues with someone from the other side. Most of them I meet though, just don't have any interest in exploring philosophy and fly off with the cop hating bigotry crap whenever questions about their performance/actions are raised.

This is something I have been struggling with a lot lately. Pardon my awkwawrdness while I try to work through it. It's hard to balance the desire to be one of the good guys, a team player, a loyal American, law abiding citizen, etc and all...with a very real and very justified suspicion of government. In a lot of instances, the cops are out of line and there's all kinds of instances where the law has stepped way, way outside of the authority we gave it in the constitution.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 02:21 PM
I've noticed here and elsewhere that you guys seem really, really sensitive about this. Is there something to that?

I don't hate cops. I like to try to give cops the benefit of the doubt and assume that they made it into their jobs just due to idealism and ignorance of the bigger picture. I'd love to develop a relationship with a law enforcement professional that I might be able to see that side of the whole thing and work through the issues with someone from the other side. Most of them I meet though, just don't have any interest in exploring philosophy and fly off with the cop hating bigotry crap whenever questions about their performance/actions are raised.

This is something I have been struggling with a lot lately. Pardon my awkwawrdness while I try to work through it. It's hard to balance the desire to be one of the good guys, a team player, a loyal American, law abiding citizen, etc and all...with a very real and very justified suspicion of government. In a lot of instances, the cops are out of line and there's all kinds of instances where the law has stepped way, way outside of the authority we gave it in the constitution.


Trust me, man. I know where you're coming from. And, believe it or not, I applaud you for trying to look at both sides.

I've noticed here and elsewhere that you guys seem really, really sensitive about this. Is there something to that?

Only that whenever society has an ill, the first reaction is something along the lines of "no justice, no peace", or "f*ck da po-lice", or some idiot spouting off lines from Animal Farm. Bad law comes down the pike? Blame law enforcement for 'enforcing tyranny'. Someone get's robbed? Blame law enforcement for not getting there quick enough. Someone get's a ticket? Blame law enforcement for not concentrating on real crime. Some criminal gets shot? Blame law enforcement for using too much force. Some criminal get's away? Blame law enforcement for having 'no duty to protect'.

I think there is some merit to what one of our instructors told us the first week of the academy. "If you want to be liked, go be a fireman."

People react to police officers the same way they react to parents. Law enforcement are the folks who say "No". No one likes to be told 'no'.

FNFiveSeven
October 23, 2005, 04:02 PM
still waiting for your answer to either question M-Rex, I'm not going anywhere, what are you afraid of? Your little quips don't change the fact that you continue to fail to answer any real questions, you just reply with endless rhetoric. I'll answer any of your questions, the least you could do would be to return the favor.

Your argument might benefit if you actually participated in the discussion... as it stands, all you seem capable of doing is copying and pasting pre-drafted responses from some handbook.

Actually, most of the legal and political talk on the forum just ends up being an exercise in spouting anti-cop hate and bigotry, or libertarian prosleytizing.

Sorry if the libertarian bent on this board offends you M-Rex. Being that libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, I guess I can see why you hate it so much, you've made that clear enough.

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 05:41 PM
still waiting for your answer to either question M-Rex, I'm not going anywhere, what are you afraid of? Your little quips don't change the fact that you continue to fail to answer any real questions, you just reply with endless rhetoric. I'll answer any of your questions, the least you could do would be to return the favor.

Your argument might benefit if you actually participated in the discussion... as it stands, all you seem capable of doing is copying and pasting pre-drafted responses from some handbook.



Sorry if the libertarian bent on this board offends you M-Rex. Being that libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, I guess I can see why you hate it so much, you've made that clear enough.


Keep waiting.

FNFiveSeven
October 23, 2005, 06:54 PM
I don't need to keep waiting, your cowardly refusal to answer *any* question is just as informative to me and everyone else here when it comes to determining what sort of person you are. Your attitude comes as no surprise to me; I've seen it from your kind many times before, and I'm sure I'll see it again. :rolleyes:

M-Rex
October 23, 2005, 08:04 PM
I don't need to keep waiting, your cowardly refusal to answer *any* question is just as informative to me and everyone else here when it comes to determining what sort of person you are. Your attitude comes as no surprise to me; I've seen it from your kind many times before, and I'm sure I'll see it again. :rolleyes:

Really?

My 'kind'? How enlightened.:neener:

FNFiveSeven
October 24, 2005, 03:00 AM
:rolleyes:

blume357@bellsouth.net
October 24, 2005, 07:41 AM
Don't believe everything 'they' tell you.
I know a person here in S.C. that was convicted of a felony close to 30 years ago.. they never served time for it but could have, just had to pay a fine...but this is enough of a crime that they can't serve on Jury Duty. They like to shoot and recently decided to try and get a CWP in the state. On the form they listed their conviction along with the usual traffic violations. CCW permit came in the mail 90 days later. It seems that the state knows more than we do.

entropy
October 24, 2005, 09:21 AM
I guess what blackrazor is so eloquently trying to say is; When a New Orleans type situation comes down in your jurisdiction, and you are given orders to attempt to disarm law-abiding gun owners whose only "crime" is trying to prevent their untimely demise at the hands of those who think nothing of taking a life to gain a pack of cigarettes, you will have a decision to make. The Molon Labe in your sigline says one thing, you seem to be saying another. Food for thought.;)

Powderman
October 24, 2005, 10:47 AM
I was going to address this once more--but since it's not good manners to hijack a thread, I'll start another one. :)

M-Rex
October 24, 2005, 11:04 AM
I guess what blackrazor is so eloquently trying to say is; When a New Orleans type situation comes down in your jurisdiction, and you are given orders to attempt to disarm law-abiding gun owners whose only "crime" is trying to prevent their untimely demise at the hands of those who think nothing of taking a life to gain a pack of cigarettes, you will have a decision to make. The Molon Labe in your sigline says one thing, you seem to be saying another. Food for thought.;)
When did this go from a discussion on whether or not felons should have firearms to whether or not I will confiscate guns from people?

'blackrazor' is not interested in an answer to his inane question. He is simply looking for another demon to point his finger at to justify his anti-cop bigotry. I'm his 'flavor-of-the-month'.

neoncowboy
October 24, 2005, 11:33 AM
There's not really any excuse for the way you as an individual are being treated here (by blackrazor particularly)...but I can see the connection.

What we're really talking about is the point at which government crosses the line. As an agent of the government, one might be the individual out at the tip of that spear, so to speak. It was an individual who set fire to the compound at Waco, for example...even though the government bears ultimate responsibility, the individuals participating are also culpable.

Soul searching is in order...there seems to me to be a point in our government's evolution coming soon where men of good conscience simply can't support the actions of their government with their participation.

M-Rex
October 24, 2005, 01:23 PM
<snipped>

Soul searching is in order...there seems to me to be a point in our government's evolution coming soon where men of good conscience simply can't support the actions of their government with their participation.

Good point.

Molon Labe
October 24, 2005, 02:19 PM
The Molon Labe in your sigline says one thing, you seem to be saying another.Not only that, but he refuses to pay me royalties. :evil:

M-Rex
October 24, 2005, 02:27 PM
Not only that, but he refuses to pay me royalties. :evil:
The check's in the mail. Honest.;)

Gordon Fink
October 24, 2005, 04:22 PM
Before anyone jumps down my throat I DO NOT condone DWI. I just don’t see the connection between this and his bird hunting.…

That’s because there isn’t one. If we can’t trust ex-felons with firearms, how can we trust them with automobiles, which are far more dangerous? Not that it matters in either case, of course, because criminals can always get guns and cars.

~G. Fink

NineseveN
October 24, 2005, 10:57 PM
give up his power and his pension. Just being suspended makes them cry like babies.

That's a completely unfair and ridiculous statement without basis or merit. Bad n00b. Bad, bad n00b!! :banghead:

charliemopic
December 11, 2005, 10:03 PM
I am a convicted felon and live in Illinois. 27 years ago I was convicted of having a quantity of pot. Since then I've worked at the same place for 22 years, become a home owner and been as law abiding as any non felon. Being that was my first and last offense I was sentanced to 3 years probation that I completed without issue and I've never been to prison. The wife has her IL. FOID so we can have guns & ammo in the house, my house. We are responsible-safe gun owners and shoot 2 or 3 times a month during the summer at her mother's farm. There is also an outdoor range here in IL. that does not ask for nor require a FOID to shoot but they charge $20 for all day and we shoot there once in awhile.
I have applied for an IL FOID. And I answered 'Yes' to the application question 'Have you ever been convicted of a felony?' As a result I was initialy denied and am in the process of appealing the denial which includes getting the court records of my felony case and 3 letters of character referrance. As I understand if the case does not include any aggravation, violence or anything of a forcible nature they may grant the FOID. I sent it all off Thanksgiving weekend. Hope I get it because I would like to join the Il. Rifle Assn. and shoot at some of the indoor ranges during the winter. And, I very much prefer to follow the letter of the law.
Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone know any felon shooters?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!