Businessman kills burgler.... then he is arrested for being a felon with gun


PDA






jsalcedo
December 24, 2005, 11:05 AM
This bugs me.


Jackson Clarion-Ledger of December 23, 2005
Tow firm shooter faces gun charge

A Jackson businessman who shot and killed a suspected burglar is facing a new charge because of a conviction more than two decades ago.

Fred James Perry, 55, owner of Livingston Towing & Recovery at 3228 Medgar Evers Blvd., has been charged as a felon in possession of a firearm.

Perry was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery, according to Hinds County Circuit Court records.

A felon can't own or possess a firearm. Under federal law, felons convicted of possessing firearms face up to 10 years in federal prison or a $250,000 fine. Under state law, the maximum penalty is three years in prison.

Jackson Police Department Detective Brendon Bell said Perry has not been charged in the Saturday night shooting of Timothy Darby, 36, of Jackson. The shooting is still under investigation, he said. The case will be presented to a grand jury.

Bell said he did not know when detectives did a background check on Perry. But Perry was taken to the police station and questioned Saturday night, police said.

Perry was arrested Wednesday, according to the police docket. He was released Thursday afternoon on $10,000 bond from the Hinds County Detention Center at Raymond.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/NEWS/512230371/1002/NEWS01

If you enjoyed reading about "Businessman kills burgler.... then he is arrested for being a felon with gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Firethorn
December 24, 2005, 12:43 PM
Hmmm.. Conviction 23 years ago. Business owner. Sounds like he's reformed.

There should be a way for felons to regain their rights, after proving themselves reformed.

I'll assume that the shooting was adjucated as self-defense, seeing as how they're only charging him with felon in possession, not murder.

edit:I need remedial math.

Langenator
December 24, 2005, 12:47 PM
Some states have ways for felons to regain their rights-and it always requires a good bit of legal effort on the part of the felon-and some states don't. Don't know what the law is in that state.

newfalguy101
December 24, 2005, 01:00 PM
He knew he was taking a risk as I am quite sure he knew he couldnt legally possess a firearm.

He may have been able to get his rights restored and if thats the case, he should have jumped through the legal hoops to do so.

Its true enough that "felony" is used to paint a pretty broad stroke these days, but c'mon, the guy was CONVICTED of armed robbery, to my way of thinking, that( in my mind anyway), is a legitamate reason to bar someone from enjoying the same rights I enjoy as someone who has never committed a serious crime.

HighVelocity
December 24, 2005, 01:06 PM
Perry was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery, according to Hinds County Circuit Court records.

Regardless of whether he was justified in shooting the burgler, there's no way he didn't know it was illegal for him to be in posession of a firearm.
Everything we do in life has consequences even if it's 20+ years after the fact.

Rem700SD
December 24, 2005, 01:18 PM
iirc, There WAS a way to petition the BATFE to regain firearm owner status as a felon. In 1994, Congress (remember that Clinton guy) forbid any funding for this program. It was challanges a couple years ago in the ourts, and congress won. I don't recall the case name, but the defendent was caught in Mexico w/ a case of ammo, and was appealling to get his FFL back, as he had broken no US law, regardless of his location.
Sounds like this guy may have been trying to pull his life back together, that's a tragedy.

Firethorn
December 24, 2005, 01:38 PM
I feel that there's a good chance of jury nullification at some point in this case. It'd be interesting if somebody kept track of this.

Heck, even if convicted, he might end up only on probation or something.

I wonder if he realizes now that "That could have been me... 20 years ago".

Flyboy
December 24, 2005, 04:04 PM
This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. This guy was pretty clearly justified in shooting; his life was in jeopardy. The fact that he did something stupid a quarter-century ago has no bearing whatsoever on his right to defend himself from harm, using the most effective tools possible.

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

Firethorn
December 24, 2005, 04:15 PM
If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

Well, I disagree with this at least a bit. I think that additional restrictions after release are reasonable. Prison/jail is such a different enviroment that you have to verify that they've reformed in real society.

Still, 5-10 years should be plenty of time to figure this out.

mmike87
December 24, 2005, 04:17 PM
Hmmm.. Conviction 23 years ago. Business owner. Sounds like he's reformed.

There should be a way for felons to regain their rights, after proving themselves reformed.

I'll assume that the shooting was adjucated as self-defense, seeing as how they're only charging him with felon in possession, not murder.

edit:I need remedial math.

I would tend to agree - however it's difficult to know really when someone is reformed.

The ironic thing here is that if this now otherwise respectable member of society had died at the hands of the burglar, the law would be happy with the outcome. :banghead:

Firethorn
December 24, 2005, 04:35 PM
I would tend to agree - however it's difficult to know really when someone is reformed.

The ironic thing here is that if this now otherwise respectable member of society had died at the hands of the burglar, the law would be happy with the outcome. :banghead:

From my reading, a person who manages to stay out of trouble for around five years has chances of being arrested again little higher than the standard population.

edit: would the law really be 'happy'? I'd be thinking that the burglar would have been charged with murder, assuming they caught him.

db_tanker
December 24, 2005, 04:48 PM
how can we know what is truly in a mans (or womans) heart?

I feel that there should be a legit process for someone who has been convicted to expunge the felony from his record. Should it be easy? HELL no.

BUT it should be possible.

We all have our own oppinions of this...and we always will. Which is why THR is such a good place to get oppinions. :)


D

EghtySx
December 24, 2005, 04:55 PM
He will now be judged by 12 instead of being carried by 6.

Sounds like he made a choice. How many of us agree with that choice?

One of Many
December 24, 2005, 05:22 PM
Do Black Powder guns qualify as firearms for the Felon in Possession charge? If not, he could have kept a replica black powder revolver in his home or business for defense.

grimjaw
December 24, 2005, 05:47 PM
Perry was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery

If there was ever anyone who knew the value of the right to keep and bear arms, it was this man. Not only did he commit a crime using a weapon, one in which he might have been stopped if his victims had been carrying, he stopped a crime similar to the one he committed with a weapon.

I feel bad for the guy if he's truly reformed, but if we don't enforce the current law, people opposed to guns will use this as just more ammunition.

jmm

ARperson
December 24, 2005, 06:49 PM
This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. This guy was pretty clearly justified in shooting; his life was in jeopardy. The fact that he did something stupid a quarter-century ago has no bearing whatsoever on his right to defend himself from harm, using the most effective tools possible.

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.


I totally agree. If they're so damn dangerous that they shouldn't have firearms, then they shouldn't be let out to roam the public streets either. Such a mindset would negate the argument on whether felons should own firearms, because it wouldn't be an issue of their status as a felon, but would focus on their status as a danger/menace to society.

I don't care what the crime/conviction was for or how many years ago. If the person is okay to let loose on the streets he/she is okay to let loose with all of their rights restored. Period.

Part of the problem is that we let people out who should never be let out and it creates a public mindset that criminals cannot/do not reform themselves. So the poor bastard who does some stupid thing 20+ years ago can't get a fair shake. If our country actually held to the belief that "he served his time/debt to society" and accepted that by being released he was no longer a threat, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, that goes back to my original premise that you have to keep the dangerous ones locked up. :fire:

Ryder
December 24, 2005, 07:32 PM
Wonder if the burglar knew this guy was not legally allowed to own guns? Surprise, surprise, surprise :evil:

Fred's unalienable rights were not negotiable.
I don't see a problem with that.

Standing Wolf
December 24, 2005, 08:50 PM
I wonder how long it's going to take some enterprising leftist extremist to think of redefining virtually all crimes as felonies to cut down on the number of citizens who can legally keep and bear arms.

Double Naught Spy
December 24, 2005, 08:56 PM
Reformed? Sure, whatever. Every day he was in possession of a firearm, he broke the law...all while being a "reformed" criminal. Sorry. It just ended up that while being reformed and illegally possessing a gun, he had to use it and that resulted in the cops learning of his possession of a firearm.

I think some of y'all are confused with "reformed" and "not caught yet this time."

rfurtkamp
December 24, 2005, 09:08 PM
I'd do the same exact thing the business owner did.

I grew up in Chicago - us peons couldn't have handguns, let alone carry them.

We made choices every day, that if caught, would have put us in prison for a long, long time.

If the man was deemed safe to release for his armed robbery, and hasn't continued doing so (although I'm sure there are some who would consider a towing business to be just that in some cases), I have no problem with his having a firearm.

Judging yesterday's "violent criminal" for what they might do once the courts are through with them is just as flat out wrong as the gun-grabbers judging normal folks for what they might do with them.

The Second Amendment has no prohibitions on the people. Neither does the First - and felons can scream and whine and slander and commit criminal acts with words with no additional penalty for recidivism based on their choice of "weapon."

Firethorn
December 24, 2005, 09:16 PM
Reformed? Sure, whatever. Every day he was in possession of a firearm, he broke the law...all what being a "reformed" criminal. Sorry. It just ended up that while being reformed and illegally possessing a gun that he had to use it.

I think some of y'all are confused with "reformed" and "not caught yet this time."

And you have to remember that us libertarians draw a line between crimes that affect others and those that don't. We don't really like the latter. Mere possession of a firearm isn't a big deal to us. Using it on others is. Threatening constitutes use. This guy managed to go for sometime, perhaps years, without giving the police any reason to search him for a gun. Unless he's very, very good, he's kept his nose otherwise clean for years.

Flyboy
December 24, 2005, 09:34 PM
I wonder how long it's going to take some enterprising leftist extremist to think of redefining virtually all crimes as felonies to cut down on the number of citizens who can legally keep and bear arms.
You say that like it isn't already happening.

Majic
December 24, 2005, 10:11 PM
I don't know what others think, but he is a convicted felon. He could have applied to get his rights back, but he didn't. When he chose to disobey the law and carry a firearm is something he only knows, but at that moment he had a jail cell waiting for him. Now that it is 23 years later changes nothing. Let's not start applying the law only where we think it should be.

newfalguy101
December 26, 2005, 10:23 PM
I see this as kind of poetic justice.

He killed someone for DOING the VERY THING HE WENT TO PRISON FOR!!!!!!!

If someone had killed him during his criminal activities, this discussion wouldnt be happening.

Spose he has realized how fortunate he was to have gone to prison and NOT the morgue.

Double Naught Spy
December 26, 2005, 11:37 PM
I see this as kind of poetic justice.

He killed someone for DOING the VERY THING HE WENT TO PRISON FOR!!!!!!!


At least with the current information, it is tough to tell if he killed a person for the same reason he went to jail. Perry was convincted of armed robbery. The person he shot was a burglar and we don't know yet if the burglar was armed or not.

Hawkmoon
December 27, 2005, 09:01 AM
I feel that there should be a legit process for someone who has been convicted to expunge the felony from his record. Should it be easy? HELL no.

BUT it should be possible.
It should not only be possible, it should be automatic.

Way back when I was in school, the theory of incarceration (as it was explained in Social Studies class) was that upon release (and completion of any parole, if applicable), a person was considered to have "paid his debt to society." If that's true, then we should not ... repeat NOT ... extend various aspects of their punishment for the remainder of their natural lives.

Once a felon has completed his term and parole, he/she should have ALL rights restored. Period. If we are not comfortable with doing that with certain individuals, then the system messed up and they should have received a longer sentence.

Let's not forget that the former president of Smith & Wesson was a convicted felon. Technically, I'm betting he violated the law probably every day at the office, unless he studiously avoided handling any of the company's products. Why wasn't he rearrested and charged?

P0832177
December 27, 2005, 09:17 AM
The law is the law, and if we do not like then change the law. If he wanted his rights restored he could have made an effort, but no he did not! So, although the shooting reads as though it is legit, but it was done by Oh Yeah a Convicted Felon!

I have no sympathy for those that think they are above the law! He knew he was committing a crime 20+ years ago, and there are long term repercussions assoicated with his choices!

jsalcedo
December 27, 2005, 09:21 AM
I have no sympathy for those that think they are above the law! He knew he was committing a crime 20+ years ago, and there are long term repercussions assoicated with his choices!

Like submitting to death at the hands of a robber?

CentralTexas
December 27, 2005, 10:19 AM
iirc, There WAS a way to petition the BATFE to regain firearm owner status as a felon. In 1994, Congress (remember that Clinton guy) forbid any funding for this program. It was challanges a couple years ago in the ourts, and congress won. I don't recall the case name, but the defendent was caught in Mexico w/ a case of ammo, and was appealling to get his FFL back, as he had broken no US law, regardless of his location.
Sounds like this guy may have been trying to pull his life back together, that's a tragedy.


It costs the DOJ about 2-3K per case to process and Clinton wouldn't allow funds to be spent on it. Guess what? GW Bush won't allow funds to be spent on it either.
CT

jsalcedo
December 27, 2005, 01:13 PM
Clinton wouldn't allow funds to be spent on it. Guess what? GW Bush won't allow funds to be spent on it either.

Giving felons their guns back would make a plump N juicy sound byte on CNN.

CentralTexas
December 27, 2005, 01:20 PM
Giving felons their guns back would make a plump N juicy sound byte on CNN.

Agreed, but I prefer to say giving felons their [I]rights[I]back.
The Dems seem to want to do that so they can vote....
CT

obm
December 27, 2005, 01:44 PM
Agreed, but I prefer to say giving felons their rights back.
The Dems seem to want to do that so they can vote....
CT

how about people learn not to become felons in the first place and they won't have this problem.

:)

newfalguy101
December 27, 2005, 02:43 PM
At least with the current information, it is tough to tell if he killed a person for the same reason he went to jail. Perry was convincted of armed robbery. The person he shot was a burglar and we don't know yet if the burglar was armed or not.

Fair enough, but I believe my point still applies.

A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.

Fidel Castro
December 27, 2005, 08:31 PM
Quote:
I wonder how long it's going to take some enterprising leftist extremist to think of redefining virtually all crimes as felonies to cut down on the number of citizens who can legally keep and bear arms.
You say that like it isn't already happening.
The government says taking away the right to bear arms is not punishment hence no ex post facto. ie. All those convicted of a certain misdemeanor prior to 1997 are now prohibited persons. A new misdemeanor in the pipe is a firearms ban for all misdemeanor sex offenses. Hey? I wonder if the will include former President Clinton in the oval office fiasco? That would be having sex, dang it wasn't sex, in a public place. I'll bet misdemeanor drugs is next then dui after that cools.....then....and......

newfalguy101
December 27, 2005, 09:38 PM
I believe the "certian misdemeaner" offense you are refering to is Domestic assualt, which I never really understood why a guy could beat the hell out of his wife and only be charged with a misdemeaner anyway.

If you are referring to something else, please feel free to elaborate.

Fidel Castro
December 27, 2005, 11:53 PM
I believe the "certian misdemeaner" offense you are refering to is Domestic assualt, which I never really understood why a guy could beat the hell out of his wife and only be charged with a misdemeaner anyway.

If you are referring to something else, please feel free to elaborate.

Yes, you get a cookie, domestic violence and it's not just '"beating the hell out of his wife"' but a multitude of other abuses such as coercion, threats, intimidation, isolation, and emotional, sexual and physical abuse.........Have you ever insulted your wife, mother, father, daughter, son, girlfriend, boyfriend?? You just may be an abuser.

Nobody was defending DV. Only that DV is a misdemeanor. Maybe they should have just made it a felony? Why did you get so emotional about it, newfalguy101?

But that wasn't the thoughts Standing Wolf, Flyboy and I were presenting. Edited to spell it out; Before 1938 ex-felons could legally possess firearms. Before 1997 misdemeanor dv could legally possess firearms. ex post facto. Those convicted prior to 1997 of misdemeanor dv also lose their firearms rights without ever being told that was a consequense of their actions. They are now proposing that all misdemeanor sex offenses lose their firearms rights. ex post facto. And that will probably pass because everyone hates those scumbags. What's next??? is all we were saying..Drug offenders...DUI...how about any misdemeanor conviction????

Fidel Castro
December 28, 2005, 12:08 AM
He should have had his record expunged and regained his rights if he could. He was commiting another crime by possessing a firearm. Alot of people have stated that if convicted they would rather possess than be defenseless though. I don't think the burgler was an imminent threat that the shooter had no other option especially as a convicted felon. He's in alot of trouble. ...for what it's worth...

newfalguy101
December 28, 2005, 12:40 AM
COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make it a chocolate chip cookie pleeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:neener:

I may have read more into your post than what was there.

Maybe they SHOULD make a domestic assualt a felony, I believe most other assualts would be felonies, course I could be wrong.

As for the guy in the story, he SHOULD have ( or perhaps he DID and failed?? )tried to get his rights restored.

Right, wrong, or otherwise he was knowingly breaking the law by carrying, WHICH was a DIRECT result of HIS actions during his latter teen years.

HE chose to break the law THEN and NOW and it bit him both times.

Perhaps if he dodges this bullet, he will learn that he isnt very good at being a sneaky law-breaker ;) ;) and QUIT breaking the law :banghead: :banghead:

Joey2
December 28, 2005, 06:46 PM
As already said here he has paid his debt to socitey. His rights should be restored.

Defending yourself is a natural law which surpasses man-made law.

He should not have to patition anybody to have his natural law of self defense restored to him.

The law saw him to trustworthy enough to release back into society.

He must of been a good productive citizen for 20 yrs., running his own business.

Double Naught Spy
December 28, 2005, 07:28 PM
Fair enough, but I believe my point still applies.

A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.

Dude, former armed robber, current burglar. They are not the same thing in the least.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I get a kick out of the folks here and on other forums saying how felons should be given back their rights to guns and voting, but I never seem to see you guys working with any of the political parties to try to make this happen.

Let's see, oh yeah, felons have a real tough time forming lobbying groups to represent their wishes. I wonder why?

As already said here he has paid his debt to socitey. His rights should be restored.

Defending yourself is a natural law which surpasses man-made law.

He should not have to patition anybody to have his natural law of self defense restored to him.

The law saw him to trustworthy enough to release back into society.

He must of been a good productive citizen for 20 yrs., running his own business.

Well Joey, you see for felony convictions, part of the penalty is a permanent loss of rights to such matters as voting and gun ownership. Sometimes, these can be restored, sometimes not. However, jail time is but one aspect of the penalty that comes with being a convicted felon.

I don't know what it is you mean by natural law superceding man-made law in this case. Nothing said that he didn't have the right to self defense. He could have used a bat and sent the guy's head into left field and as a felon he can own a bat. He just can't own a gun.

And no, the law did not deem him trustworthy enough to release into society. I see where you have mixed concepts. First it was that he had paid his debt and second was that he was released because of being trustworthy. Just because you do time and are released does not mean anyone thinks you are trustworthy. Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a child molestor being released and people singing his praise for how trustworthy he is?

Perry knew the rules, knew he was a felon, and still voluntarily broke the law again but possessing a gun. I will hand it to him, for handguns, he played it right. Regardless of caliber, the possession of a gun by a felon is the same. Why mess with a .22 lr when you can have a .44 magnum? From the sounds of things, that is the best decision he made.

Joey2
December 28, 2005, 09:09 PM
Double Naught Spy,

Don't you think that this guy has a right to defend his property? This is my whole contention of this post.

This man has served his time, became a businessman, and had to defend his property.

Does he deserve anything less than what we who have not committed a felony in protecting our property or life?

He commited a big boboo, paid the price, came out and became a productive citizen.

You mentioned child molesters. These people are mentely twisted and should never see the light of day. No comparison should be made between a stick up artest and a preditor.

Model520Fan
December 28, 2005, 10:19 PM
This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. . . .

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

Worth repeating.

Chris Rhines
December 28, 2005, 11:02 PM
Perry knew the rules, knew he was a felon, and still voluntarily broke the law again but possessing a gun. And he was right to do so. In this case, the law is wrong. As usual.

This modern habit of blind, unquestioning submission to the law is really becoming repulsive.

- Chris

pax
December 28, 2005, 11:17 PM
Well Joey, you see for felony convictions, part of the penalty is a permanent loss of rights to such matters as voting and gun ownership. Sometimes, these can be restored, sometimes not. However, jail time is but one aspect of the penalty that comes with being a convicted felon.

Marko Kloos answered a similar point over on TFL last week, and did it so well that I don't think I can improve upon what he said:
... why single out the Second Amendment? Can your right to free speech, freedom of religion, or jury trial be revoked by a jury of your peers?

If you can set aside one article of the BoR via jury, all of them are fair game. Once they're out of jail, they don't lose their right to worship as they please, nor do they lose the right to not be put in double jeopardy. Singling out the Second Amendment as a "special" and "dangerous" right is both making the anti-gun point, and setting a dangerous precedent when it comes to the nature of our "inalienable" rights.

This is another issue where one ahs to see past emotion and argue from reason. Few people feel comfortable conceding a right to keep and bear arms for released felons, but if your philosophy regarding the rights enumerated in the BoR is consistent, you have to argue for that right. Everything else renders the entire Bill of Rights invalid and pointless.

....

Personally, I am not willing to invalidate the entire Bill of Rights just for the sake of appearance. Does the BoR enumerate inalienable rights or not? If yes, you have to apply that notion consistently. If not, then stop all the complaints about Feinstein, the VPC, and the Brady Bunch, since you just conceded that the majority can vote to invalidate your BoR rights.

pax

newfalguy101
December 28, 2005, 11:30 PM
Why you seem to get such a kick out of splitting hairs is a mystery to me but I will play along.

I said:

A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.

and you said:


Dude, former armed robber, current burglar. They are not the same thing in the least

So here goes: MY edit reads as follows

" Former" hold-up guy ( the guy who PULLED the trigger in the story linked to in the first post ) kills a "current" BURGLAR who may or may NOT have had or wanted to use or thought about using a weapon.

And MY original point which brought us along this fine path??

Poetic justice that He KILLED a guy for doing the same as he DID in his latter teens, you know ROBBERY, he just chose to take it to the next level and packed a weapon.

And I still wonder if he realizes how LUCKY he was to have gone to prison and NOT gotten himself killed while committing his robbery????????

Tharg
December 29, 2005, 01:14 AM
Just gonna go out on a limb here...

and I have to agree w/ some of the responses i've heard here. If the man did the crime, was caught and did the time (to include probation etc) then quit makin him out to be a criminal. At the time you let him out, quit supervising him etc... he's just like Joe American.

Ya, this Joe American has a record, which can and will be used against him/her if he/she were to perform other acts of criminality (can i make up words here? :neener: ) Which theoretically would be used to mandate longer sentences/terms of punishment.

Don't get how a "criminal" is meant to get back into being part of society if the punishment deemed proper for the crime (by society i might add) isn't enough. That would be like spankin yer kid and then tellin him he's not allowed play with his toys after he's released from grounding because he commited a "real BAD thing..." aka - stupid. If Joe American completes his "sentence" as met out by a jury/judge he/she should be able to get back to trying to fit in again and go about legal business.

Now - the rest of you are correct. As it stands, societal rules say that he shouldn't have been carrying... and thus he was breaking the law. I wonder how many of you speed to work because yer gonna be late for that meeting (or just getting to work) (or just cause you can't drive... FIFTY FIVE!!!! hehe)

I know its not a felony... but yes... its against the law. Plenty of things we consider dumb... or what not... that aren't "legal" but so long as we get away with it.... no foul right? Let he who hasn't sin throw the first....

J/Tharg!

FedGunner
December 29, 2005, 09:46 AM
This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. This guy was pretty clearly justified in shooting; his life was in jeopardy. The fact that he did something stupid a quarter-century ago has no bearing whatsoever on his right to defend himself from harm, using the most effective tools possible.

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

I'd have to disagree with you.
A "quarter century" later, he has proven he still can't follow the laws of the society that he lives in.
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
There are mechanizims in place to restore your rights as a citizen. People follow the law and do it all the time.

Sry0fcr
December 29, 2005, 10:10 AM
I can agree that once a debt to society is paid firearms rights should be restored but restricted for felons commiting violent crimes, the line should be drawn at long guns.

newfalguy101
December 29, 2005, 10:55 AM
I can agree that once a debt to society is paid firearms rights should be restored but restricted for felons commiting violent crimes, the line should be drawn at long guns.


I would guess you mean Felons should be allowed longguns but not handguns??? Not busting your chops just getting a clear idea.

As I understand it, Nebraska used to be that way, meaning a felon ,could posses longguns but nothing "concealable".

I believe they changed it to exclude ALL guns, EVEN with the other civil rights restored, which I dont think I agree with.

But, since I have not committed a felony, I am not especially worried about it.:neener: :neener:

Carl N. Brown
December 29, 2005, 12:05 PM
There used to be seven felonies: high treason, piracy, highway
robbery, murder, rape, spitting on sidewalks and jaywalking.
(No, I forgot six and seven and made those up). Today there
are so many trivial, non-violent felonies, being a felon is not
as distinctive as it used to be.

Some see a plot:

"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere,
to assume-- that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose,
pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the
assumption into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs
are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a
definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is right under the law, they
begin searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-Henry Louis Mencken

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government
has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't
enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be
a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
laws.... you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in
on guilt." --Ayn Rand


I see it as law makers and law enfocers particularly prosecutors being
on automatic "do something even if its wrong" mode, anything to
appear to be busy.

I felt safest in the period that Congress was shut down.
--------------------
edited for spellin

jsalcedo
December 29, 2005, 12:27 PM
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

There is a fish distributor who transported fish in the wrong colored mesh plastic bags. He is now a felon.

Montana:
1. It is a felony for a wife to open her husbands mail.


Indiana or Ohio. Both of these enlightened states have odd laws that prohibit male skating instructors from having sexual relations with their female students. This atrocious misdeed, called "the seduction of female students" in the ludicrous legislation, is prosecuted as a felony!

The list goes on and on.

Sry0fcr
December 29, 2005, 01:44 PM
I would guess you mean Felons should be allowed longguns but not handguns??? Not busting your chops just getting a clear idea.

As I understand it, Nebraska used to be that way, meaning a felon ,could posses longguns but nothing "concealable".

I believe they changed it to exclude ALL guns, EVEN with the other civil rights restored, which I dont think I agree with.

But, since I have not committed a felony, I am not especially worried about it.:neener: :neener:


That's be correct. My apologies for being unclear.

FedGunner
December 29, 2005, 01:45 PM
There is a fish distributor who transported fish in the wrong colored mesh plastic bags. He is now a felon.

Montana:
1. It is a felony for a wife to open her husbands mail.


Indiana or Ohio. Both of these enlightened states have odd laws that prohibit male skating instructors from having sexual relations with their female students. This atrocious misdeed, called "the seduction of female students" in the ludicrous legislation, is prosecuted as a felony!

The list goes on and on.

I get your point.

That said, become a legislator and change the law, or barring that help a legislator get elected that will change the law.

We simply can't go about our daily business ignoring any law that we don't consider valid.

Please remember that the person that is the point of discussion was convicted of a violent felony.

I was planning to go into all kinds of things that show my point. From what I've seen on this board I really don't think I need to.

PS

On that skating instructor thing...... If it was your fifteen year old daughter he seduced, you might think the offense more a capital offense rather than a felony ;)

newfalguy101
December 29, 2005, 02:10 PM
On that skating instructor thing...... If it was your fifteen year old daughter he seduced, you might think the offense more a capital offense rather than a felony ;)


Damn skippy!!!!!!!!!

azredhawk44
December 29, 2005, 02:34 PM
On that skating instructor thing...... If it was your fifteen year old daughter he seduced, you might think the offense more a capital offense rather than a felony

Why is this not already covered under statutory rape? That's already a felony.

This law above is so open ended that a 28 year old male ice skating instructor can be prosecuted for dating a 24 year old female ice skating student. (Assuming the male instructor isn't gay...he IS an ice skating instructor after all:rolleyes: )

The number of non-violent felony offenses possible out there is staggering. The punishments often do not merit the offense in most cases, too. Add on the later civil liberty losses, and you have a very unjust system.

StandOnGuard
December 30, 2005, 07:51 PM
I totally agree. If they're so damn dangerous that they shouldn't have firearms, then they shouldn't be let out to roam the public streets either.

I don't care what the crime/conviction was for or how many years ago. If the person is okay to let loose on the streets he/she is okay to let loose with all of their rights restored. Period.

Part of the problem is that we let people out who should never be let out and it creates a public mindset that criminals cannot/do not reform themselves. So the poor bastard who does some stupid thing 20+ years ago can't get a fair shake. If our country actually held to the belief that "he served his time/debt to society" and accepted that by being released he was no longer a threat, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, that goes back to my original premise that you have to keep the dangerous ones locked up. :fire:

Absolutely!

Firethorn
December 30, 2005, 08:59 PM
I feel that we have far too many 'special circumstances' laws.

I don't care that a gun was used in a crime. I care that armed robbery was commited, or burglury, or mugging, etc...

I don't care that a kid was shot in school. I simply care that he was shot.

I don't care that an assult was a 'hate crime'. An assault was commited. I hardly care about the motivation was based on skin color, religion, or sex.

The book of law shouldn't be bigger than the phone book.

tranch
January 1, 2006, 05:17 PM
Should we "pick and choose" which of these two crimes should be enforced? It's what the gun hating libs love to see, and use in their quest to remove ALL guns from ALL of us. The business owner knew, or should have know, that as a convicted felon he was NOT entitled to own a firearm. Ignorance is not a legitimate defense in ANY court. It appears that he never made any attempts to become a LEGAL gun owner, or if he did, failed, and knowingly broke the law. He took his chance and now he, too, should be proscuted for his crimes.

I'm sure the criminal charges will be the least of his worries. The civil suit that will be filed against him is what will ruin him.

EllisWyatt
January 5, 2006, 12:51 AM
We simply can't go about our daily business ignoring any law that we don't consider valid.


Sure we can. There is no moral obligation to obey an immoral law. Still, if you get caught you'd better be ready to face the consequences -- one way or another.

In fact, if you want to challenge a law on constitutional grounds, you pretty much have to be convicted under it. It's difficult to have standing, otherwise.

Kim
January 5, 2006, 01:47 AM
If I was the President I would pardon him. Absolutely.

jtward01
January 5, 2006, 02:19 AM
When my daughter was 19, young and stupid, she worked for her boyfriend, a dirtbag who was trying to start a computer sales and service business. One day she was at the office alone when UPS showed up with $5,000+ worth of computer equipment, COD. Faith called her boyfriend on his cellphone and he told her to go ahead and write a check for it and he'd pay her back. She did, and of course, he didn't. Faith had no way to cover a check that large (and neither did we) so of course it bounced and the computer supply company eventually filed a complaint with the state's attorney's office. Faith was arrested and pled no contest to a felony charge of writing a worthless check. She was placed on five years probation and also ordered to pay restitution, which she did over a period of two years. For this she lost her right to vote, to own a firearm, to hold a nursing license, a real estate sales license, a barber or beautician's license and who knows what else. It cost her more than $3000 in legal fees to have the conviction vacated and her record expunged so she could regain her rights. She's now 37, living in California and quite successful, but while on probation it was almost impossible for her to find a decent job. Under the terms of her probation she was required to tell any prospective employer of her probation status, and of course once they heard that the interview was over. She worked as a movie theater ticket seller and a Hooter's waitress. Imagine trying to support yourself, pay for college and pay off $5,000 in restitution on a waitress' salary.

There is justice in the world, however. A few years after this incident the ex-boyfriend was driving on I-4 in Florida when a giant roll of sheet steel rolled off a flatbed truck he was passing and squished him flat.

My point of all this is just to point out that people can lose their rights for minor things and the cost of having those rights restored can be staggering. Sorry for the rant.

jtward01
January 5, 2006, 02:25 AM
I feel that we have far too many 'special circumstances' laws.

I don't care that an assult was a 'hate crime'. An assault was commited. I hardly care about the motivation was based on skin color, religion, or sex.


I agree with most of what you say, but not this one. I think there is a major difference between two guys getting into an argument in a bar and one punching the other in the nose, and someone who is beaten simply because of their skin color or religion (or whatever else). The crimes are different, and the penalties should also be different.

Sindawe
May 11, 2006, 10:31 PM
Jury deems killing justified
By Kelli Esters
kesters@clarionledger.com


JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The 2006 Legislature passed a bill that expands gun owners' rights to use deadly force against someone invading their home, business or vehicle. Senate Bill 2426 was signed by Gov. Haley Barbour and goes into effect July 1.

The bill is online at http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents.


For the second time in six months, a Hinds County grand jury has declined to indict a person who killed another while defending his home or business.

In the latest case, the grand jury said Fred James Perry, 55, owner of Livingston Towing & Recovery at 3228 Medgar Evers Blvd. in Jackson, should not be prosecuted for fatally shooting suspected burglar Timothy Darby, 36, of Jackson on Dec 17.

Police did not arrest Perry in Darby's death but did charge him as a felon in possession of a firearm because of Perry's 1982 conviction for armed robbery.

But the grand jury also returned no indictment on that charge.

"We presented to the grand jury on both a felon in possession of a firearm and the homicide, and they returned a no bill (didn't indict) on both charges," Hinds County District Attorney Faye Peterson said. "Why, I don't know. We thought they might convict on the felon in possession of a handgun."

But Peterson said the grand jury may have looked at the circumstances of the case and decided not to indict on either charge.

Perry saw Darby on his lot late the night of Dec. 17 attempting to break into a vehicle, Jackson police said. Words may have been exchanged between the two before Perry fired one shot that hit Darby.

Darby was pronounced dead at the scene from a gunshot wound to the left shoulder, Hinds County Coroner Sharon Grisham-Stewart said.

A woman who identified herself as Perry's wife said Monday they did not want to comment about the fatal shooting, but then added that Jackson is a high-crime area.

"We are going to support the city officials, police and district attorney," she said. "They are working hard to do what they have to do."

In a Nov. 27 shooting, Jackson homeowner Cedric Marshall wasn't indicted in the death of Marcus D. Rawls, 23, also of Jackson.

Marshall was indicted in March on gun and possession-of-cocaine charges from an Oct. 14 arrest.

Police found Rawls dead on the porch at 464 Willaman St. at 4:36 a.m. Nov. 27. He was wearing a ski mask and gloves. He died from a gunshot wound to the head, Grisham-Stewart said.

Published reports said Marshall thought two men were trying to break into his home and shot through the door to scare away the intruders.

Police would not say at the time of the shooting if Rawls was accompanied by anyone else.

Under current Mississippi law, a citizen can legally kill someone when resisting an attempt to commit a felony upon the person or in that person's dwelling. A killing also is justified if a person thinks there is imminent danger of a felony being committed or the infliction of great personal injury upon him.

A new law passed by the 2006 Legislature expands the self-defense law to an occupied vehicle, place of business, place of employment or in the immediate premises. It goes into effect July 1.

A person deemed not guilty of any crime, under the new law, would be immune from civil liability.

Source: http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/NEWS/605090389/1002/NEWS01 Glad the Grand Jury had some sense in this case.

Matthew N. Dodd
May 11, 2006, 11:18 PM
If its an inalienable right, how can you talk about "giving felons back their rights..."

Do we really want to turn the RKBA into something that can be given (and taken away) with the stroke of a pen?

"You have the right to bear arms, but only if they are for sporting purposes, and only if you're not a felon, black, gay, a jew etc..."

Doesn't sound too inalienable to me.

Freedom and Liberty are frightening. It means you're going to have to deal with people saying things you don't agree with, doing things you don't like and bearing arms, ON YOUR BEHALF, to protect that freedom and liberty.

NineseveN
May 12, 2006, 09:38 AM
The jury did right, to all you "but he was a felon" folks, :neener:.

I love how folks like to point fingers and take the so-called high-road as if someone's life is somehow worth less than theirs because of an act they committed over 20 years ago.

People that like to put on that they've never done anything wrong or have never committed what could be construed, charged as or twisted into a felony or an offense that might somehow be punishable by removing their right to keep and bear arms are usually liars in my experience. It's easy to forget what you did when it's not on a rap sheet to be used against you, mighty convenient too.

Oh no, the felons are winning! They, *gasp* might have some rights after all, even some endowed by their creator as inalienable!!! Who would have thought it?


P.S. For those of you that like to harp on the "you can take legal routes to have rights restored" have obviously very little experience in the matter, it's not easy, it's not cheap (some folks could never afford it and money should never, ever be a barrier to liberty), it can take a very long time and in the end, it's often still up to someone else's "discretion".

If I had been in this guy's shoes, I would have done the exact same thing with no burden on my conscience. The gun-grabbers and JBT's be damned!

The tea-content of the Atlantic has fallen to near-disastrous levels.

Hawkmoon
May 12, 2006, 09:54 AM
A felon getting his (her) rights restored has a tough row to hoe. The BATFE program to restore rights after a federal conviction exists on paper but the program has not been funded for many years. Therefore, in effect the program does not exist.

And the BATFE may or may not accept a state's restoration of rights based on a state felony conviction. That's the crux of Wyoming's lawsuit against the federal government. Wyoming apparently has the chutzpah to believe that if they took away a person's rights, they can give 'em back. And the BATFE has a problem with that

That Catch-22 is huge. I would love to challenge some of those laws, but I don't particularly enjoy the prospect of being arrested under them and becoming the test case. The system is stacked against the citizens. In this FL case, the tow truck guy now cannot sue to claim the law is unconstitutional. He wasn't tried and convicted under it, so a court would rule that he has no standing. The legalistic equivalent of "no harm, no foul." It does keep the courts from getting clogged with nuisance suits, but it also makes it difficult to go after dumb laws.

Thank God for jury nullification. In this case ... it worked as it should.

Freddymac
May 12, 2006, 10:27 AM
jury nullification

gunsmith
May 12, 2006, 10:51 AM
a little of my faith has been restored.

some anal retentive nitwit prosecuter wanted to
ruin this guys life for a "crime" a quater century old.

I am willing to bet (25yrs ago) he had a shoddy public defender
who told him to just plead guilty and we will let you go.

ajax
May 12, 2006, 11:47 AM
So if a guy kidnaps a young women at gun point takes her some place and rapes her ,but doesn't kill her. He goes to jail and does his time and gets out. Some of you guys believe this man should be able to own a firearm again no questions asked because he served his time. That is what's wrong with this country ladies and gentlemen.

Hawkmoon
May 12, 2006, 12:26 PM
So if a guy kidnaps a young women at gun point takes her some place and rapes her ,but doesn't kill her. He goes to jail and does his time and gets out. Some of you guys believe this man should be able to own a firearm again no questions asked because he served his time. That is what's wrong with this country ladies and gentlemen.
No, that's not what's wrong with this country. What IS wrong with this country is a system that releases back to the streets people who should still be in prison. Back in the dark ages when I attended school, we were taught that prison time was "paying your debt to society." When you were released (and parole completed, if any), you were supposed to be a "free man" and your "debt to society" was deemed to have been paid.

If the debt to society was paid, why should the supposedly "free man" be deprived of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to self defense?

If you don't think he is safe enough to be allowed the means to defend himself and his family, why are you okay with his being released from prison?

NineseveN
May 12, 2006, 01:51 PM
So if a guy kidnaps a young women at gun point takes her some place and rapes her ,but doesn't kill her. He goes to jail and does his time and gets out. Some of you guys believe this man should be able to own a firearm again no questions asked because he served his time. That is what's wrong with this country ladies and gentlemen.

Hawkmoon nailed the part about the fact that these kinds of criminals should not be let back into society so easily, but another thing I want to expand on, or more to the point, rant about is that some of you people have no clue, none whatsoever as to what freedom and liberty really is.


Freedom means free, a free people cannot be ruled, they must rule themselves. This means that under the right system of democracy, the government actually works for us, it serves us; the farmer, the painter, even the homeless person. The government exists to provide for us the services we deem necessary and to perform the duties within the scope that we allow them, no more, no less.

Liberty means that people are going to say things you might not like, but they're free to say it any way. It means people are going to do things you may not approve of, but so long as they're not causing any actual damage to any other person, they're free to do such things. Liberty means folks are going to practice faiths that may be in direct conflict with your own personal and religious beliefs, but they're free to worship their creator as they see fit, or even no creator at all so long as no one is damaged in the process. Liberty means that you make judgment and pass sentences on crimes when they happen and you do not impose restrictions on the liberty of another free person in order to avoid crime; a crime not committed is not a crime. Liberty means that as a free society, we enact laws to govern the punishment for a given crime, not to be cruel or unusual and that any sentence imposed serves to force the culpable to pay their debt to the people for breaking the trust that a free society requires in order to operate under liberty. Liberty means you take your lumps when you have to no matter how much safer an alternative is or would be if that alternative so much as approaches the hindering of the liberty of another free person.

Freedom and liberty means that you err on the side of the individual, not on the side of restriction. This means that yes, some aspects of our system will be exploited by nefarious individuals and that in some cases, we may need to force ourselves to allow rapists and murderers exercise their own freedom despite their payment of debts to society going unfulfilled because the punishment simply does not begin to atone for the crime. In such cases, our society may need to change the laws to set the punishment more in accordance with the severity of the crime, it also means that when a punishment is set, once that sentence has been served, the punished is free to reenter society and live under that warm, comfy blanket of liberty so long as they abide the rules that we, as a free people have set, no matter how detestable this may be to our sensibilities. Freedom and liberty means that the onus is on society to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that we do not, under any circumstance, restrict the freedom and liberty of any person not incarcerated in accordance with their crimes because we, as a society failed to adequately punish them.

Those that would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. There is noting sterile about freedom, liberty is wild and it cannot be tamed, and that means that sometimes it will rise up and snap at us when we get careless, reckless or lazy, but we must accept that because the only alternative is accepted servitude.


Some of you need to think real hard on this, the gallows that you're demanding be built and satisfied will be the ones that the rope around your neck is nailed to in the end.

AndyC
May 12, 2006, 02:49 PM
She's now 37, living in California and quite successful, but while on probation it was almost impossible for her to find a decent job. Under the terms of her probation she was required to tell any prospective employer of her probation status, and of course once they heard that the interview was over. She worked as a movie theater ticket seller and a Hooter's waitress. Imagine trying to support yourself, pay for college and pay off $5,000 in restitution on a waitress' salary.
I take my hat off to her - that must have been absolutely horrific to have gone through :fire:

CSA 357
May 12, 2006, 10:26 PM
at one time i lived in jackson, and in the part of town that this happened he would have been a damn fool not to have a gun! *csa*

If you enjoyed reading about "Businessman kills burgler.... then he is arrested for being a felon with gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!