So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?


PDA






TechBrute
July 16, 2004, 11:12 PM
Our "Justice" system is based on rehabilitation. If someone commits a crime, they get convicted, they do their time, and they are "rehabilitated." So now they are returned to society with no right to defend their home, family, and self against people that haven't been "rehabilitated" yet.

Society is a series of laws. These laws govern who becomes a criminal and who doesn't. Based on these arbitrary writings, a 19 year old kid who steals an X-box forfeits, for the rest of his life, certain rights to defend himself and his future family. In the state of Texas, certain misdemeanors forfeit your right to carry concealed. I don't know what types of crimes class A and B misdemenors are, but they are bad enough to forfeit some of your rights to personal defense and self preservation.

On the other hand, our society plea-bargains and releases criminals so quickly, I'm not sure I'd want a convicted murderer legally carrying a gat in line behind me at the McD's. Of course, the law doesn't neccesarily affect him, anyway. He'd likely carry wether it was legal or not. Only a law-abiding "ex-criminal" would abide by the law, and then what good is the law?

Why do we criminalize carrying the gun? Why not simply criminalize only the actions that the person with the gun does?

I'm in the process of forming an opinion on this, and I'd like to hear others' views on this. I've written this is sort of a devil's advocate approach, but I'm not sure I believe one way or the other.

If you enjoyed reading about "So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PBIR
July 16, 2004, 11:35 PM
I believe that if a criminal can exhibit that they are reformed their rights should be restored without reservation once a certain amount of years has passed following their release.

I look at it this way: If a criminal can never be anything but a second-class citizen no matter what they do, what reason do they have to fly the straight and narrow once they are released? Why not go back to illegal activities if you can never have a good job or legally protect yourself and your family?

Archie
July 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
that is the way the laws are written.

Part of the idea is that those persons who have demonstrated their unwillingness to be a productive part of society (i.e., those who have committed felony crimes) are stripped of their citizenship. They cannot vote or hold public office, they may not serve in the Armed Forces (believe it or not, that was once thought an honor) and they may not own weapons.
Which, by the way, really shoots another hole in the "2nd Amendment supports the National Guard" argument.

Part of the idea is that those who have shown a predisposition to violence should be penalized the ability to commit violence. I don't think a 'thrill killer' should have a gun. Of course, I don't think a 'thrill killer' should be loose to walk the streets, either, but what the heck...

The problem is that Congress has invented a number of felonies.

Personally, I don't think a 16 year old kid who commits a single offense of 'joyriding' (sort of car theft, light) should be stripped of all his civil rights for the rest of his life. I do think he should be made to understand that other person's rights, including that of being safe in their possessions, is very important.

Martha Stewart is going into the slammer for 5 months for telling lies. I'm not really sure she should be stripped of her civil rights for that. But she needs to have the importance of morals and truthfullness emphasized.

I seem to recall that Cole Younger (of the James-Younger crime families) became a preacher in his later years. By all accounts, he was a different man than when he rode with Frank and Jesse and the others.

I'm not a real bleeding heart liberal, but I think every individual should be dealt with as an individual. And I think all individuals should be accountable for their actions.

Owning a personal weapon is a civil right. I think as a nation, we should be very liberal in the usage and promotion of civil rights.

Hypnogator
July 16, 2004, 11:46 PM
Because the only reliabile predictor of behavior is past behavior.

Those lacking the moral wherewithal to follow the law are the most likely to offend again in the future.

R.H. Lee
July 16, 2004, 11:46 PM
Because there has to be some sanction on criminal behavior, not only to provide a deterrent before the fact, but to restrict after the fact. Look, if a wild animal (bear, cougar) or even a domestic dog begins to attack people, there is a good possibility it will continue to attack people. (When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon.

PBIR
July 16, 2004, 11:50 PM
When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon

No offense, but given the sheer number of non-violent felonies in America that seems like a huge assumption.

TechBrute
July 16, 2004, 11:52 PM
When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon. Absolutely not. There are plenty of non-violent crimes that forfeit your rights. Should Kenneth Lay be denied the right to protect his family from an intruder? Should G. Gordon Liddy be denied the right to protect himself from a mugger? How about the Navy guy in NY that shot the guy standing over his daughter's crib and then was convicted of a felony?

R.H. Lee
July 16, 2004, 11:54 PM
No offense, but given the sheer number of non-violent felonies in America that seems like a huge assumption

I had murder, rape, assault, strongarm robbery, etc. in mind. OTOH, there are waaayyyy too many people in prison for simple "drug possession".

Standing Wolf
July 16, 2004, 11:55 PM
We seem to have two classes of crimes: felonies and misdemeanors, the latter of which is sometimes divided into regular and gross misdemeanors.

Clearly, there are more than two and a half or three kinds of crime, as well as a great many kinds of criminals.

R.H. Lee
July 16, 2004, 11:58 PM
There are plenty of non-violent crimes that forfeit your rights. Should Kenneth Lay be denied the right to protect his family from an intruder? Should G. Gordon Liddy be denied the right to protect himself from a mugger? How about the Navy guy in NY that shot the guy standing over his daughter's crib and then was convicted of a felony?

Good questions, but moot to society at large who mostly do not recognize the validity of proactive self defense. The overwhelming view is "Call 911, that's what the police are for." So to make a case for felons to possess firearms, you must first make a case that citizens have the right of self defense.

TimRB
July 17, 2004, 01:18 AM
"If a criminal can never be anything but a second-class citizen no matter what they do, what reason do they have to fly the straight and narrow once they are released?"

The reason is that if he deviates from the straight and narrow, we'll throw him in prison again, and probably longer this time. Felons don't give up their right to self defense, not even in prison. They just lose the right to defend themselves with firearms. I have no problem with that.

Tim

Finch
July 17, 2004, 01:46 AM
In my opinion, it comes down to what kind fo crime. I hear that is some states it's a felony if you drive 10 mph over the speed limit. This person should not be barred from owning a firearm. But if a man decides to beat his wife, then yeah, I think they should not be allowed to own a firearm. Especially if the prior crime involved a firearm. Ahh but what do I know, I'm just a kid.

Warren
July 17, 2004, 01:49 AM
Martha Stewart is going into the slammer for 5 months for telling lies. I'm not really sure she should be stripped of her civil rights for that. But she needs to have the importance of morals and truthfullness emphasized.


By a government that routinely lies? She did nothing morally or ethically wrong. She is a bad example to use.

whm1974
July 17, 2004, 01:51 AM
In my opinion, it comes down to what kind fo crime. I hear that is some states it's a felony if you drive 10 mph over the speed limit

Then every driver in that state is a unconveted felon.

-Bill

Warren
July 17, 2004, 01:56 AM
I want no controls on firearms sales at all so if that means felons of whatever srtipe get their hands on them, that is fine. We, the good people, out number them and are smarter then they are.


With equal access to weapons we, the civilized, will win out over the scum.


I want to be able to walk in to a store, not present any ID, not have a back ground check, not pass a test, not have a limit on what I buy, not have to take a class, slam down some cash and walk out with anything from a .22 to a .44 to a Sten Gun, to an MG42, to an M-79 GL, to a 60mm surplus Chinese mortar, to an RPG 7, to a case of grenades to a FA BMG, to a Gyrojet etc...with out anyone saying anything other than "Thank You! Come Again!"

That is a free country.

So dump all of this gun control crap. Every last freaking bit of it.

Hkmp5sd
July 17, 2004, 01:59 AM
If a criminal has "paid his debt to society" and has been deemed safe to release back into society, he should have his rights restored automatically. Otherwise, he should not be released from the justice system. All free people have all of the rights listed in the Constitution. There is nothing in there that allows the government to pick and choose which rights are granted to which category of citizen and which ones are denied.

Tharg
July 17, 2004, 02:06 AM
Still don't think Martha lied - think she did anything anyone on this board might do - heard a friend tell her something and went with it.

If yer buddy told ya that there was "X" (something you wanted) that was marked down WAYY low (prolly a mistake) and he bought one and you should go buy one too... would ya? Prolly - cause life is about being in the right place at the right time. Course - i'm no lawyer - and i wasn't there - so i can't say EXACTLY what happened - but that sounds like it about sums it up - friend said HEY - make some cash doing X... it didn't sound illegal and she did it. (if we are asking - OJ did it and Kobe was a victim, don't know about Peterson... rofl)

I know a person i used to date. Talked w/ her often and she was dating this guy that by all means - sounds like he was framed. He was an LEO. He owned/ran a gun range... Got charged w/ a felony - and now can't own/handle a firearm (even tho he train's other LEO's) He LOVES shooting... he even looked into moving other places. Australia was (heh- was) high on the list... in order to keep w/ what was essentially his life.

Far as i know - appeals and the like were for naught... and honestly don't KNOW that he was innocent... just from listening to the stories - sounds like it was a raw deal. All this and a bag o' chips was not a violent "crime" - more to do w/ paperwork. Yet his lively hood was basically rendered null :(

Like one poster said above - past history is/should be sufficient for a number of years. I got my first and only DWI late 1999 - trial was jan 2000... i will finally be getting to the point where i can get my CHL in Texas, even tho i took the class and stuff in 2000... i didn't realize that i was in-elligible because of the DWI. 5 years... i guess i can go ahead and get it in 2005. Should be some limiter that if you've not commited any crimes that you are eligible again to "rejoin" the rest of society since you've proven a history of living WITH society, just like you proved you weren't with society before....

J/Tharg!

Destructo6
July 17, 2004, 02:07 AM
Isn't it a "Penal System", as in punishment, not necessarily reform?
She did nothing morally or ethically wrong. She is a bad example to use.
She did lie to investigators and attempted to cover up details that both parties thought could be criminal.

Anyway, in my opinion, a felon should have all of his/her rights restored once their full sentance is served. By that, I mean that if the sentance is 20 years, then exactly 20 years from the date of sentancing, even if the felon was released much earlier. To me, that would be, "Debt paid in full."

Of course, I'd also favor reason being applied to sentancing. We can all dream.

roo_ster
July 17, 2004, 02:32 AM
Felons ought to have nearly all their liberties stripped from them:
carry a firearm
vote
etc
...until the point they have served out whatever punshment meted out by their peers & fellow citizens. Then they get 'em back. All of 'em.

If Joe T. Felon is still a danger or has not been punished enough, why the heck is he out among society? If the answer is, "We did not have enough room in the pokey so Joe served only 1/2 his sentence," then Joe regains full rights of citizenship when he is off parole.

If someone is such a danger or has committed a crime so heinous that he can never be trusted with the full measure of citizenship as a free man, he ought to have been executed or been give life in prison, no parole.

**********

My thoughts on "rehabilitation" are fairly jaded. I think imprisonment has several purposes (in order of importance):
1. Separate offender from society to protect society from him (el numero uno, all else is nice to have, but not the main reason)
2. Punish offender, sending the message that society will not allow such behavior an that there are consequnces for such behavior
3. Rehabilitation
4. Any other purpose

************

Felonies aren't what they used to be.

The law has run riot over so much of our society, I think of Law as a horde of barbarian invaders, looting and raping our liberty and ability to do as we please as long as we are not violent toward others. There are so many laws on the books and so many felonies created, that I and many others are losing respect for Law.

Martha Stewart is a terrific example. She is going to prison not for a real crime, but for having the gaul to have a different story from the perjuring federales. It really ought not to be a crime to tell the federales to pound sand.

The outlawing of new ways to pollute one's body are also a fine example of the hilarity that ensues when way too much is declared a felony. I was born in 1971 and recall the whole ramping up of the drug war. How can an honest person live through that mess and not come away shaking their head at the sheer a$$hattery and mendacity of it all?

"In the beginning there was wacky tobacky, heroin, and cocaine, and heroin was the worst of them all..."

Except...
Crack came along, which was "worse than heroin"
(You could become addicted in something like.35 seconds or even if you got too close to something you thought MIGHT be crack.)

Then...
Meth began to be cooked up, and it was "worse than crack"
(Damn skippy its worse! 'Cause, well, uh, they don't have to smuggle it into the 'states and they can buy a whole lot of the ingredients at Wal-mart.)

But...
Heroin came back, and it was "worse than meth" ...which makes "heroin worse than heroin"
(Hey! Are you makin' fun of me! You can't apply logic and the mathematical properties to the war on [some] drugs!)

Tharg
July 17, 2004, 02:37 AM
I love the drug war...

heh

if someone wants to blow thier mind away - thats thier right - so long (in my eyes) that it does not effect someone else. If yer "robbing someone to get crack money" - then all yer doing is robbing someone... which has a law already....

War on drugs is just an excuse... its the <cough> "law abiding way" to get the govt's hands in the drug money - and profit - ... i mean its like insider trading - we make it illegal - the price skyrockets - we bust the perpetrators - rake in the cash....

rofl

J/Tharg!

Majic
July 17, 2004, 02:52 AM
First your line of thinking is dated by about 40 years. At one time the person tried for a crime was judged on his/her actions. Then the smart lawyers started to look for ways to get sympathy from the juries. One easy way is to look in someone's past. Everyone has had some type of traumatic experience at one time in their life. A whole new field then opened up that could then point to these experiences and show the person somehow no longer had control over their lives. Since the person on trial could no longer be held totally accountable then the emphasis shifted to the tool the person used in the crime. The concept of removing the tool meant the person couldn't commit the crime. Human nature has been all but totally set aside because something has somehow deviated this person from life's path without any thought that the deviate is in fact the person, not some distant event.

Tharg
July 17, 2004, 03:17 AM
Don't know how this works....

A person commits a crime. Never had my gun jump from the locker and rush out and rob a store... ever.....

guess we are back to the basic gullibility of people (jurors) again =(

<sigh>

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 03:20 AM
Because the only reliabile predictor of behavior is past behavior.

You win the reason prize :)

On the other hand Compare above with:

I want no controls on firearms sales at all so if that means felons of whatever srtipe get their hands on them, that is fine. We, the good people, out number them and are smarter then they are.

and

With equal access to weapons we, the civilized, will win out over the scum.

and you will understand why many normal non gunowning, American, or even some gun owning americans, think guns owner or fellow fgun owners arte unbalanced.

WildgimmereasonoveremotionanytimeAlaska

Warren
July 17, 2004, 03:26 AM
Well, if they or you do not understand or appreciate what freedom is that is your problem.

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 03:43 AM
Well, if they or you do not understand or appreciate what freedom is that is your problem.

O well thats a rational answer:rolleyes: Sure as heck convinced me, and I got a machine gun under the bed tonight....

Wilddoyou?Alaska

Warren
July 17, 2004, 03:49 AM
Desire for freedom = being unbalanced?

Now where have we heard this before?

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 04:42 AM
I wouldnt classify your idea that anybody should be able to walk into a store and buy an RPG so as to fight the "scum" as desire for freedom, since freedom entails a reasoned, careful and mature balancing of rights and responsibilites in a sophisticated polity...

YTour idea reminds me more of teenage video games...

I think I will stay in the real world, thanks....

Wildletsjustblast"thescum"Alaska

priv8ter
July 17, 2004, 04:56 AM
I almost don't want to reply, because I hate questions like this. I am a black and white kind of guy, so I hate admiting there are shades of grey to some things.

I admit that there are different kinds of crime out there. Like Standing Wolf said, trying to devide crime into two or three catagories doesn't cut it.

There are some crimes, which are SO vile to me, that if a person commits them, I don't feel they should be able to own a gun again. I'm talking Murder, Rape(not statutory rape), and probably child molestation.

Then again, in crimes of these types, I don't think the felon should be allowed to keep breathing more than ten minutes after a Guilty Verdict is in also, so them owning a gun is not a problem.

So, if someone commits a crime, and we decide to release them back into society, I say we welcome them back into society.

greg

Tharg
July 17, 2004, 05:07 AM
Heh - if i want to own a RPG and its legal to own one....

then wouldn't the act of blowing something up i shouldn't have blown up be a crime? Already on the books crime?

You CAN buy dynomite legally.... its possible....don't know the hoops... but somehow my gf got some from someone... i was charged w/ getting rid of it.... since she didn't know the stability of the stuff... i got rid of it the boring way - since i didn't know the stability of the stuff.. <grin>

So there is one example of someone w/ some stuff that didn't just blow apart something.

Course - there are plenty of idiots... and apparently a van full of fertelizer is a bomb... so who is to say these days... rofl Ingenuity and a lack of respect for whats right will win any day over what a person can buy.

J/Tharg!

TechBrute
July 17, 2004, 08:44 AM
Ok, here's a good one...

18 year old walking hormone gets it on with 16 year old girl. Girl's parents go wiggy when they find out and have the guy prosecuted for statutory rape. RAPE!! Now the guy is a registered sex offender, appears on both city and county websites, looses the right to vote, own a gun, etc. To add insult to injury, it may have been the girl behind the whole incident.

According to WildGunControlisOKaslongasIhavemineAlaska, this kid shouldn't have his rights, so screw him.

Foreign Devil
July 17, 2004, 08:51 AM
It makes sense to prohibit someone who has committed a violent crime from owning a gun, at least for a some period of time, or maybe permanently. This could be done as part of the sentence. There's people out there who have no business owning guns.

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 09:00 AM
Are you also going to prohibit him from owning:

archery equipment
baseball bats
icepicks
kitchen knives
axes
hedge trimmers
swingblades
hammers
crescent wrenches
screwdrivers
cinder blocks
rocks
2x4's
chainsaws
nailguns
a vehicle
etc, etc, etc ad infinitum

(hands and feet might be a problem, but I'm sure you can figure out a way to legislate amputation...)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, it comes down to what kind fo crime. I hear that is some states it's a felony if you drive 10 mph over the speed limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then every driver in that state is a unconveted felon.

You'd probably be amazed at how many unconvicted felons you share breathe with, and I'm talking about the ones that would never occur to you at face value.

Grey54956
July 17, 2004, 09:32 AM
Paying your debt to society means paying your debt to society. Period.

Once you've done your time, all rights should be restored.

JohnBT
July 17, 2004, 09:57 AM
Okay, let's say for the sake of discussion that the law is changed so a person who has done his time regains all of his rights, etc.

Then they do another crime and once again do their time. Do they once again regain all of their rights, etc.?

What about the 3-time losers when they finally get out?

Does anyone really believe that jail time automatically = rehabilitation? If you do, where do you live because I want to move there to the land of milk and honey.

Meanwhile, convicted criminals lose more than just their freedom as measured in days spent in confinement. It's part of the punishment.

Another thought. Should a convicted drunk driver do his time and then get his license back immediately upon release? After all, he's rehabilitated. Right?

John

ID_shooting
July 17, 2004, 10:15 AM
This is a good topic; actually, I am quite surprised at the civilty displayed here.

Anyway:

Three senarios:

1. 20 y/o Guy gets cought up in the internet. Gets into a chat with what he thinks is a 16 y/o girl. In reality she is a 40 y/o cop posing as such. Through some suggestive language by the cop, the guy says some things that are of a sexual nature and the cops give him new bracelets for "enticing children." Was this a violent crime? Is there a victim? should he sepnd the nest 15 years in prison and give up some of his rights for the rest of his life?

2. Kid gets busted driving w/o priviliges when 17. His driving priviliges are suspended for 5 years because he couldn't keep his mouth shut in front of the judge. During the next few years, he is cought driving a few more times and his privilage suspension runs up to 25 years. During this time, not one accident, just minor traffic stuff is what keeps him being pulled over. The last one, the judge considers it a felony and lets him spend 2 years locked up. Again, who is the victim? Where is the violence? Why would he loose his right to firearm ownership, voting, and other liberties? BTW, before his prison term, he was a Marine and a Gulf War vet. Because he is now a felon, he lost most of his vet benefits too.

3. 18 y/o kid goes into the Marines, comes out of boot and inf training but has developed a loose skrew and is sent home being found unfit for the Marines. Shortly after he is home, him and his 15 y/o step sister do the nasty and she becomes pregnant. He gets a 10 year trip for molesting her. Even in the trial, she says the she was not forced and that she initiated all contact. OK, here we have a victim, but was the offence enough that he now be marked a felon?

Points to ponder for sure.

1 shows potential to commit a crime but IMO, there was no crime committed and he should not go to prison or be a felon. 2 I think is crime, just not one that he should be so severly punished for. 3 While the guy shows no moral caracter; however, since she was a willing participant and not a "blood" relative. I can not find fault in what he did legaly other than her age.

pignock
July 17, 2004, 10:26 AM
Wasn't it the Gun Control Act of 1968 that made felonies a disqualifier for gun ownership? I thought that before the 1968 GCA, it was a state decision.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with the idea if I didn't see 2nd degree murder convicts out after six years. If we'd toughen up the penalties for acts of violence and eliminate the penalties for personal pharmaceutical use, I'd be all for complete (including voting) restoration of rights.

I heard somewhere that the notorious gunman John Wesley Hardin's first act upon leaving prison was to purchase a pair of Colt Peacemakers and that he spent the remainder of his life as a trial attorney.


Keith

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 10:27 AM
Okay, let's say for the sake of discussion that the law is changed so a person who has done his time regains all of his rights, etc.

Here in TN, it wouldn't have to be changed much. Most convicted felons can appeal to have their rights fully restored after the maximum sentence has elapsed. I find this fair and reasonable.


If we'd toughen up the penalties for acts of violence and eliminate the penalties for for personal pharmaceutical use...

I don't understand the relation there, would you explain how eliminating penalties for personal pharmaceuticals factors in?

DMK
July 17, 2004, 11:22 AM
When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon. This is a common assumption and probably the major reason why convicted felons must forfeit their right to self defense.

I'll bet that if you polled NRA members, 99% would say that somebody accused of violating a tax law should not forfeit their right to self defense and 99% would say those convicted of a violent crime should. If you just asked "should somebody accused of a felony forfeit their right to self defense", most would assume the latter.


I don't know about the rest of you, but I do live in fear of inadvertantly violating some firearm or tax technicality and losing my rights. A free man should not have these worries.

J Miller
July 17, 2004, 12:09 PM
TechBrute,

Since I'm on my way to go do things I read your post and then skipped all the other responces. I hope I'm not duplicating somebodys comments.

As far as my knowlege goes, and it's spotty, there is no constitutional prohibition on ex cons possessing firearms or other weapons.
This ban on felons possessing guns started with GCA 68.

Now, in recent years more and more crimes have become felonies. A convicted felon can't own guns. And they've even added certain misdemenors as conditions to prevent ownership of guns.
Both of these trends are patently absurd.

Here is a couple examples, one vague, one specific.

If a person is such a vicious criminal that we don't want him owning guns, then what the heck is he doing out on the street? He should be locked up till he's so old he forgot why he was locked up in the first place.

My brother in an alcoholic. In California a 3'rd conviction for DUI is a felony. Several years ago while fighting a bought of stupidity he got busted a third time while walking into a rehab center. The arresting officer saw him walking on the sidwalk, recognized him as a previously arrested DUI and busted him. The qualifying factor was his car was parked just down the street.
Anyway, my brother has never commited any violent crimes, never robbed anyone, never done anyting to harm anybody but himself. Yep DUI is very bad, I'm not excusing it. But because of his 3rd coviction, he's lost his gun rights forever. Why? He is not the kind of person that we would associate with violent crimes.

It is my feelings that once a person has been released from prision, their rights should be returned. All of them. Punishing and if possible rehabilitating a person is totally useless if they can not lead a normal productive life once they leave the prison. And in todays society there is a stigma about ex-cons that prevents them from living a normal productive life.
As I said above, if a person is so bad that we fear them, then keep them in jail or execute them.

Joe

tulsamal
July 17, 2004, 12:11 PM
Let's use the example of my poor dad. He worked as a civilian for DoD (Air Force) almost his whole working life (35 years). As he passed 60, he started to think about retirement. Lot of guys in his situation had been able to retire but then come back as work as a private contracter with the same basic job but more money. Sounded like a good deal to him. But he didn't want to actually retire until the contract was all laid out. He didn't want to accidentally "really retire." But he had a slug for a boss who didn't want to take the time to fill our all the paperwork. So Dad screwed up. He basically used his job description to fill out the job description for the contract. (If he boss had done the exact same thing it would have been fine.) My dad thought this was the way everybody did it. He certainly had no "criminal intent."

He had a big retirement party and all the big brass at WPAFB came and got everybody crying about what a great asset he had been to the defense community. He retired for one month and then came back three days a week as a contracter. He did that for a little over a month before he was told to "stay home while we investigate this contract." He hasn't worked since and that's been a year and a half. After six months of increasingly high legal bills, he decided last December to plead guilty to a felony in order to bring it all to a close. (I don't know the exact charge. Something like "creating a contract to favor yourself" or something.) He thought that was going to make it all end and he could at least find another job. (He's 63 and feels like his prime "earnings years" are slipping away.) Despite the plea agreement, it is still going on with another hearing scheduled for the end of this month. They seem to have settled on Dad "paying restitution" in the amount of $12,000. This will cover everything they paid to him as well as the plane tickets they paid for during that time. (Which is fxxxing stupid anyway since the man flew to AFB's and DID the work. NOBODY is saying he took money that he didn't earn! The court officer recommended ZERO restitution but the government wouldn't accept that. It would look bad. People might start asking why they wasted all this time and money on this GS-15 retired employee!) He will be fined somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 on top of that. Plus he will be banned from ever working on any type of government related contract again. (Which is going to make it hard for him since that's what he knows how to do.) They are saying he "probably" won't go to jail but JUST be on probation for 2-3 years. Plus, let's not forget, the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees my parents ran up.

This is a man who has had one speeding ticket in his life. He's a real threat to society. But he owns a dozen or so guns that he has had since he was a teenager. He's going to have to "get rid of" all of them because he is a conviced felon now. I think that "label" of "felon" is even more painful to him than all the money.

Part of the idea is that those who have shown a predisposition to violence should be penalized the ability to commit violence. I don't think a 'thrill killer' should have a gun. Of course, I don't think a 'thrill killer' should be loose to walk the streets, either, but what the heck...

See, that's part of the problem. People hear "felon" and think "violent." Obviously my dad has never done anything violent in his whole life. He was employed every day of his life after high school. He worked full time while going to college at night since he had a wife and young son at home.

Yes, I am bitter about it and so is everybody in the whole extended family. The government has managed to make a bunch more people think that government is just "out to get them." Good job.

Gregg

Chris Rhines
July 17, 2004, 12:21 PM
Because the only reliabile predictor of behavior is past behavior. Untrue. Past performance is no predictor of future performance - my mutual fund certificates say so right on the front (albeit in very small print.) In economics there is NO reliable predictor of future action. All predictors in a complex system break down beyond a very short time horizon - elementary large number theory.

If a person is not in prison, they should be free to own the weapon of their choice.

- Chris

Warren
July 17, 2004, 04:10 PM
I never said that I'd be out hunting these scumbags.

What I mean is that with equal access to weapons, the attrition rate favors the good people.

We see this in robbery attempts where the victim is armed, most of the accounts I've read has shown that the criminal loses.

DMF
July 17, 2004, 05:54 PM
I love this question. As someone said earlier, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

The law in question is 18USC922, and for great examples of how the law is effective we only need to go as far as the federal agency tasked with enforcing it. At the ATF website they have tons of Press Releases published that detail successful felon in possession cases, and how those cases allow society to put those people back in jail while preparing to commit more violent crimes.

Here you go with some of their greatest hits:

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/061004dal_taylorsentncd.htm
"Taylor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During the course of the investigation it was determined that Taylor qualified for sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Statute for three prior robbery convictions, two in California and one in Oklahoma. Taylor had also been implicated in narcotics activity, including bartering a firearm to secure the funds for the purchase of crack cocaine."

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/060204stp_ruffinplea.pdf
"Demetrius E. Ruffin, Chicago, DOB: 09/10/1976, pleaded guilty in United States District Court, to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, on March 12, 2004. . . Ruffin told Officer Markham he had carried drugs in the hidden compartment, and that he sold drugs. According to Ruffin, he had purchased the pistol in Chicago for
$150 and that he needed it for protection from rival drug dealers. Ruffin had earlier been convicted of felony drug distribution in Chicago."

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/112602chi_springfieldfelon.htm
"Clayton Brewer, age 24, of 1052 North Fifth Street, Springfield, Illinois, was sentenced today to a term of 40 months imprisonment for possessing a firearm as a felon. . . Court records reflect Brewer was convicted on September 30, 1998, in Sangamon County for aggravated battery and unlawful use of weapons and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of three years imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections."

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf
"The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves
explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."

To see more just go to this link: Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases (http://www.atf.gov/press/press_links.htm)

Foreign Devil
July 17, 2004, 06:00 PM
Are you also going to prohibit him from owning:

archery equipment
baseball bats
icepicks

etc etc etc

How many times have we made an anti roll their eyes by using this tired old argument. Am I going to be the one who utters the unspeakable truth here? YEs, things other than guns can be used to kill people, but guns make it a lot easier. It's easier for you to defend yourself with a gun than a baseball bat most of the time(though I keep one of each handy).

When it comes to crime people do tend to be creatures of habit. Different classes of criminals have different recidivism rates - I think robbers are the highest for violent criminals and burglars have the highest overall. As a predictor of future behavior, past offending is a pretty good predictor. Those with more arrests in their past are more likely to be arrested again.

The argument that "if they're not in prison they deserve full rights" is also no good. There are many degrees of punishment short of incarceration like house arrest, probation, etc. Of course a right as important as the right to arms shouldn't be taken away for minor offenses, but if it's done as part of the sentence then due process has been met.

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 06:38 PM
18 year old walking hormone gets it on with 16 year old girl. Girl's parents go wiggy when they find out and have the guy prosecuted for statutory rape. RAPE!! Now the guy is a registered sex offender, appears on both city and county websites, looses the right to vote, own a gun, etc. To add insult to injury, it may have been the girl behind the whole incident.


My heart bleeds, he should have kept it in his pants then....

According to WildGunControlisOKaslongasIhavemineAlaska, this kid shouldn't have his rights, so screw him.

Exactly...Ive never been convicted of a gun prohibing crime and if others have, hey so waht...not my problem..

Guess if I ever do I'll spend my time whining about it.

1. 20 y/o Guy gets cought up in the internet. Gets into a chat with what he thinks is a 16 y/o girl. In reality she is a 40 y/o cop posing as such. Through some suggestive language by the cop, the guy says some things that are of a sexual nature and the cops give him new bracelets for "enticing children." Was this a violent crime? Is there a victim? should he sepnd the nest 15 years in prison and give up some of his rights for the rest of his life?

Hey if ya cant do the time, dont do the crime. If your innocenet take it to trial. If ya get convicted, stop whining.

Kid gets busted driving w/o priviliges when 17. His driving priviliges are suspended for 5 years because he couldn't keep his mouth shut in front of the judge. During the next few years, he is cought driving a few more times and his privilage suspension runs up to 25 years. During this time, not one accident, just minor traffic stuff is what keeps him being pulled over. The last one, the judge considers it a felony and lets him spend 2 years locked up. Again, who is the victim? Where is the violence? Why would he loose his right to firearm ownership, voting, and other liberties? BTW, before his prison term, he was a Marine and a Gulf War vet. Because he is now a felon, he lost most of his vet benefits too.

Again my heart bleedss. Should have kept his mouth shut in the first place.

I spent over 15 years defending criminal cases...I have seen and heard every excuse in the book...let me give you a little tip based on my little small corner of the criminal justice system...the vast majority of arresteees are really and truly guilty of something! Im sorry that some of us may have family members who have made mistakes, or even made mistakes oursleves, but until you can think of a system to weed out the scumbags from the "innocent victims" yer gonna have to suffer...

WildandthatsthatAlaska

R.H. Lee
July 17, 2004, 06:41 PM
Are you guys still whining about this? If you don't want your rights compromised, don't do the crime.

Ditto what WildAlaska sez.

Telperion
July 17, 2004, 06:44 PM
I love this question too because the greatest proponents of the GCA love to parade its greatest hits but strangely fall silent when it comes to its greatest misses. Several real-life counterpoints have been presented in this thread - do each of these individuals deserve their RKBA stripped forever? If the answer is not "yes" to each case, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that a blanket lifetime prohibition on future firearms ownership is an overly coarse solution?

TechBrute
July 17, 2004, 06:57 PM
Wild, you illustrate the single biggest problem within the gun community: indifference and apathy towards other people's rights.

Shotgunners don't care about the evil black rifles. Bullseye shooters don't care about hunting rifles. Hunters don't care about CCW.

You don't care about anyone's rights but yourself. That's your perogative, but don't expect anyone to care when your little FFL is taken away and you are sued out of existence when a gun you sold to someone is stolen and used in a crime. My heart won't bleed for you.

R.H. Lee
July 17, 2004, 07:01 PM
I love this question too because the greatest proponents of the GCA love to parade its greatest hits but strangely fall silent when it comes to its greatest misses. Several real-life counterpoints have been presented in this thread - do each of these individuals deserve their RKBA stripped forever? If the answer is not "yes" to each case, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that a blanket lifetime prohibition on future firearms ownership is an overly coarse solution?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I suspect you're talking in some detached abstract manner describing a one size fits all policy. The point is, that no convicted predator, whether they be "violent" or just "exploitive" of another human being should be allowed to legally possess firearms.

TechBrute
July 17, 2004, 07:06 PM
Riley, you've just shot an intruder you found standing over your daughter's bed. Congrats, because your DA is one of the leading proponents of Gun Control and is going to use you as a precidence. You're a working man, so you can't quite swing Johnny Cochran, and your lawyer doesn't quite cut it. Congrats again because you've just been convicted of manslaughter. You've now lost all your rights because you defended your family. I guess we won't feel sorry for you, since you shouldn't have done the crime.

R.H. Lee
July 17, 2004, 07:11 PM
Riley, you've just shot an intruder you found standing over your daughter's bed. Congrats, because your DA is one of the leading proponents of Gun Control and is going to use you as a precidence. You're a working man, so you can't quite swing Johnny Cochran, and your lawyer doesn't quite cut it. Congrats again because you've just been convicted of manslaughter. You've now lost all your rights because you defended your family. I guess we won't feel sorry for you, since you shouldn't have done the crime.

That scenario is quite a stretch, even here in California. Besides, I have "prepaid legal", so I would get representation. Under your proposal, however, I would still go to prison for awhile, lose my job and house, but I would able to be ARMED when I got out! Great, thanks.

Telperion
July 17, 2004, 07:12 PM
I am talking about the one size fits all policy (this policy is currently federal law). But I'm not being abstract, I'm asking you and others to consider the concrete, real-life individuals that have made into collateral damage. If not every of these individuals deserves the permanent loss of RKBA, will anyone step forward to admit one size indeed does not fit all?

SDC
July 17, 2004, 07:12 PM
Because violent criminals have already PROVEN that they can't be trusted; I can see an argument for non-violent felons regaining that freedom, but never a violent felon.

ducktapehero
July 17, 2004, 07:18 PM
I sometimes think that it would be better to allow some released felons to legally buy firearms if they are willing to register it with police so they can get "ballistic fingerprints" from the gun. They must also be willing to lock it in a safe when not home. There are probably other safeguards that can be implemented. That way if it is ever used in a crime then they know where to start.

I don't think laws forbidding a released felon from owning a gun has prevented many crimes. They just get their guns from different channels. Which in itself makes it more difficult to track them down than if they had used their legally bought and registered gun. Just my 2 cents.

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 08:00 PM
you illustrate the single biggest problem within the gun community: indifference and apathy towards other people's rights.

I think you're onto something here...

Hkmp5sd
July 17, 2004, 08:06 PM
with police so they can get "ballistic fingerprints" from the gun.
Ballistic fingerprinting actually working is a myth.

Destructo6
July 18, 2004, 12:04 AM
How about a concrete example?

A childhood buddy of mine, and Gulf War I vet, got into some sort of highway altercation with another driver. This other driver wouldn't be satisfied with just gestures and whatnot, so he forced my buddy to the side of the road. My buddy got out of his truck and grabbed an axe handle that was part of his work gear from the back. One hit on the driver's shoulder ended the confrontation. No broken bones and no serious injury resulted. Said buddy was convicted of felony battery, though he'd had no previous convictions.

He was sentanced to a halfway house and probation.

So, does this case merit the loss of rights forever?

I don't think it does.

DMF
July 18, 2004, 12:50 AM
D6, you described a road rage incident to a tee. That guy did not have to pull over and attack the other person with the axe handle. From what you describe he sounds like someone that could not handle his temper and CHOSE to have violent confrontation on the side of the road. VIOLENT FELON.

BTW, every felon at some time had no prior felony convictions, so I have no sympathy on that issue. Second, being a vet of DESERT STORM doesn't excuse assault and battery either, so you aren't getting any sympathy from me there either.

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 01:14 AM
Wild, you illustrate the single biggest problem within the gun community: indifference and apathy towards other people's rights.

Bull pucky...someone gets wronglfully jammed up I will work my butt off..thus Id give $$$ to Bushmaster but not to Bullseye...you can see the diff eh?

but don't expect anyone to care when your little FFL is taken away and you are sued out of existence when a gun you sold to someone is stolen and used in a crime. My heart won't bleed for you.

Nice silly rhetoric...but they dont take away "little" FFLs becasue a gun gets stolen, absent something more...and If I or any of the gang do something to deserve it hoipefully Ill be man enough not to whine about it...

WildnowwearegettingsillyAlaska

Telperion
July 18, 2004, 01:23 AM
DMF- what about the other personal cases mentioned in this thread? Martha Stewart, tulsamal's father? :confused:

Also, is past behavior an accurate predictor of future behavior indefinitely? Does its value as a predictor fade over time? A 20 year old's behavior may be a good predictor of his behavior at 21, but what about at 50? How come 18USC922 does not take this into account?

DMF
July 18, 2004, 01:34 AM
Well sorry if 18USC922 doesn't take into account the subtleties of each and every case, but the truth is felonies are all the most serious crimes. Are there non-violent felonies? Sure, but the willingness to commit serious crimes shows a reckless disregard for the law. Also, the vast majority of felons are recidivists, and therefore the very few truly reformed criminals are greatly outweighed by the repeat offenders.

As for that 20 year old who commits a crime, too bad, he knew what he did was wrong, and did it anyway, and must live with consequences of his actions. It's called accepting responsibility for your actions.

Also, please take into account that most non-violent offenders, and sadly many violent offenders, plead down to misdemeanors. So the truth is the overwhelming majority of people affected by 18USC922 are the worst criminals.

Telperion
July 18, 2004, 01:57 AM
Well sorry if 18USC922 doesn't take into account the subtleties of each and every caseSo maybe this issue of ex-cons' RKBA would best be handled as part of the sentencing process? That is where the subtleties of each case are usually worked out. Murder, rapist? No guns, forever. Caught speeding in Cali with some forgotten tracer rounds in the back of the truck? Naw, leave him alone.

DMF
July 18, 2004, 02:03 AM
The subtleties of each case can be handled quite nicely by each and every person, by NOT committing felonies. Simple way to take care of the whole problem. As I said earlier, most minor crimes are plead out to misdemeanors, and it is only the most serious offenders who are affected by prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons.

One thing I forgot to address, someone claimed our justice system was based on rehabilitation, which is not true. The idea of rehabilitating criminals is a modern concept. Our system was set up as penal system, meaning a system to punish offenders for their crimes. The idea being that hopefully the consequences would be great enough to convince people to follow the law rather than risk being caught and punished.

Telperion
July 18, 2004, 02:13 AM
Aw, now that is a bit simplistic. By tautology our crime problem would be solved if people stopped committing crimes. Do you think handling the issue as a part of sentencing would be better, or worse, than what we do now?

Take the Martha Stewart example. I'm guessing the federal prosecutor, the judge, the jury, probably even Ms. Stewart herself don't care about the issue of RKBA. Probably. Under My Bold Plan (tm), would the issue of RKBA come up as part of sentencing? Nah, they don't care... But every murderer and thug, every prosecutor will have some restriction of RKBA on his checklist at sentencing.

DMF
July 18, 2004, 02:36 AM
I don't know how I missed this before, but I'll comment now. My old agency used to handle some contract fraud cases. I worked violent crimes, but did get the basic training in fraud, and briefly assisted an agent on a fraud case.

So that brings me to tulsamal's tale of woe. Keep in mind that talsumal tells it from a perspective sympathetic to his father, and it's still obvious that there was a serious problem.
He basically used his job description to fill out the job description for the contract. (If he boss had done the exact same thing it would have been fine.) Well the boss didn't do it your dad did.

Then there is this:Plus he will be banned from ever working on any type of government related contract again. (Which is going to make it hard for him since that's what he knows how to do.) By your own statements he knows the government contract process very well after 35 years in the game at W-P AFB, which is very busy with many huge AF contracts. So he should know better then to write a contract in which he has an obvious conflict of interest.

He had a clear conflict of interest in drafting a contract himself, that would essentially guarantee that he got the contract. You claim he had no criminal intent, however in your first paragraph you provide a motive, by describing how he was apprehensive about retiring from his civil service job, unless he had a guaranteed "retirement" job.

Also, since I know a little bit about contract fraud, not a lot, but enough to see some holes in your story, and I think either you are leaving some things out, or your Dad didn't give you the whole story. There would have to be much more going on here for AFOSI or DCIS, to spend time to investigate this matter, and for the AUSA in that district, to consider prosecuting, in the case.

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 04:40 AM
Im gonna add that the criminal justice system is like one big big vacum cleaner with smaller and smaller filters...a lot of poeple get sucked up but only a very few end up in the bag...

When I was a law student, I used to work pretrial release...on weekends, there would be 1-200 arrestees...out of those maybe 5% ever got indicted for a felony, maybe 1 % convicted....

Ya got to be bad or really piss someone off to catch a non violenmt felony...hell they barely have time to prosecute all the violent ones....


WildletsbepracticalAlaska

pax
July 18, 2004, 10:42 AM
For those saying all felons deserve to have their gun rights taken away, and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime: please read the first (short) post in the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=41525

The story above simply illustrates the capricious nature of the justice system in the US these days.

Try this argument on for size:

The only people who are disarmed by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey the law.

If the felon is inclined to obey the laws now that he's done his time, he'll obey the law and not own any guns or shoot any people.

If the felon is not inclined to obey the laws now that he has done his time, he will own guns and shoot people no matter what the law says.

So the only people who are disarmed by the ex-felon gun bans are people who are no longer a threat to the rest of us.

pax

Whatever you may think about the death penalty, it has the lowest recidivism rate of any of the ways of fighting crime. -- Thomas Sowell

DMF
July 18, 2004, 11:20 AM
Hey pax did that guy actually get indicted? If so did he actually get convicted?

As WildAlaska points out it's rare that non-violent felonies get prosecuted unless there is a VERY large amount of money involved, think Enron, or contract fraud over $100K (although AUSAs are really looking for the $1M+ cases of fraud), or there is some other aspect that makes it a high profile case.

As for the stuff about this law only disarms people inclined to follow the law that is simply not true. My first post on this thread gave examples of repeat violent offenders sent back to jail for a VERY LONG time, based on violating the prohibition on felons possessing handguns.

My favorite example is:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf
"Gregory L. McCall, 44, of Kansas City, was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge
Dean Whipple this morning to 10 years in federal prison without parole. McCall was found
guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearms by a federal jury in the U.S. District Court on
Jan. 22, 2003.

The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves
explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."

Like I said there are many more examples available here:
Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases (http://www.atf.gov/press/press_links.htm)

This law disarms recidivist criminals, with enhanced penalties for those that are determined under the law to be "career armed criminals."

Telperion
July 18, 2004, 11:33 AM
Man, sometimes getting people to answer a question on the errornet is like pulling teeth. And people don't want to yield an inch; it's like not-invented-here syndrome. I could post a slick proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus and somebody will call BS on the whole idea.

I've suggested a way to punish violent recidivists found in possession of weapons, while preventing the sob stories we've heard in this thread, and I get blown off out of hand with a vacuous statement that our crime problem would be solved if people stopped committing crimes. Bet ya we could solve the unemployment problem in this country if all those slackers would just get a job.

I'll ask again: Do you think handling the issue of ex-con's RKBA as a sentencing matter would be better, or worse, than what we do today?

PBIR
July 18, 2004, 11:38 AM
As I said earlier, most minor crimes are plead out to misdemeanors, and it is only the most serious offenders who are affected by prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons.

Based on what reviewable data?


As for the stuff about this law only disarms people inclined to follow the law that is simply not true. My first post on this thread gave examples of repeat violent offenders sent back to jail for a VERY LONG time, based on violating the prohibition on felons possessing handguns.


You read his example, but you didn't understand it. What Pax (at least as I understand it) is saying is the only felons disarmed are the ones who are now willing to follow the law after their conviction (which makes them law-abiding citizens by default). The criminals who are still willing to break the law will still be armed as they will obtain firearms thru illegal means.

Again : Many states in the US have a provision for restoration of civil rights for felons. The felons just have to prove that they are good citizens now and go thru the appeal process. Some states even do it automatically x years after the criminal sentence has expired.

pax
July 18, 2004, 11:38 AM
PBIR -- thanks. What Pax (at least as I understand it) is saying is the only felons disarmed are the ones who are now willing to follow the law after their conviction (which makes them law-abiding citizens by default). The criminals who are still willing to break the law will still be armed as they will obtain firearms thru illegal means.
That's it, exactly.

DMF -- from the URL you provided above: At the time of his initial arrest, Graves explained, an officer of the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department recovered the weapons while executing a search warrant on McCall's residence. .... The search warrant was served to seize firearms, counterfeit identification and other evidence related to credit card fraud, including merchandise obtained through a credit card scheme.
The felon you referred to is still a bad guy and has no respect for the law. When he came to the attention of the authories, it was for crimes that he was still committing (he didn't come to their attention for owning guns, but for committing crimes). It was against the law for him to own guns. He owned guns anyway because he was willing to break the law. The law didn't stop him, a bad guy, from owning guns. He went right on with his criminal career because the law meant nothing to him.

But some other basically good guy who got trimmed by a capricious justice system, or some guy who was in idiot in his youth but who learned his lesson 20 years ago and obeys the laws now -- that guy is disarmed by the law and prevented from owning firearms. He is no threat to the rest of us because the law means something to him and he respects it. Therefore, the law stops him from owning a gun.

If the goal is to punish people who use violence against other people, why not simply make it against the law for people, including felons, to use their guns to commit violence -- and leave it at that?

pax

When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken. -- Benjamin Disraeli

DMF
July 18, 2004, 11:52 AM
Based on what reviewable data? ATF has a great deal of information on Project Safe Neighborhoods, I suggest searching their site and if you don't get what you want there contact them. They are quite proud of the program and can provide data.

As for this:
What Pax (at least as I understand it) is saying is the only felons disarmed are the ones who are now willing to follow the law after their conviction (which makes them law-abiding citizens by default). The criminals who are still willing to break the law will still be armed as they will obtain firearms thru illegal means. Oh I read it and understand it, and as I pointed out Project Safe Neighborhoods (which is the program where local and state agencies, in cooperation with ATF and the US Attorney's Office, work to enforce 18USC922) is disarming the folks who don't follow the law, by putting them back in prison. Again, go to the links I provided and you will see examples of people that have no intention of following the law being disarmed.

Here are some more examples:
Some PSN Case Summaries (http://www.atf.gov/field/chicago/psnnews.htm)

sm
July 18, 2004, 12:28 PM
I'll ask again: Do you think handling the issue of ex-con's RKBA as a sentencing matter would be better, or worse, than what we do today?
I am against ANY type of gun control - period. That said , negates any need for RKBA to be a matter of sentencing.

pax presented a great point and example. Do we even know if this kid had any firearms? Kid could very well be a non-gunner, even an anti.

Here is the way I feel and look at it. Gun laws affect the honest law abiding citizen, not the criminals.

Criminals are not wired like some folks, they don't care what the law says, be it in regard to firearms, driving drunk without a DL, or making meth and selling it.

We have too many 'white collar' crimes that are felonies, some of these are committed by folks that have no interest or knowledge of firearms. Some are committed by computer geeks, they don't know what a real live girl is, much less a firearm. These folks would be hurt more if the computer was taken away moreso than a girl or a firearm. They will go out and "illegally" find a computer...before a girl or firearm.

The way I see it the gummit will find more and more ways to make things a felony, then we all get busted. It is a control matter of the people by gummit - not a gun control, RKBA matter.

So some fella gets caught up in medical bills, familiy emergency , young dumb and stupid, greed- whatever, embellezlzes monies, popped for a felony , does the time and gets out. IMO - he has every right to have a firearm to defend his home. Hell we ought to hire him to help advise how to keep the gummit from embezzling OUR monies or using using tax dollars wrong.

Even the playing field with no gun laws - period. If a lady runs to the emergency room with a kid that falls off a playset in back yard , who is a CCW and runs into the ER armed, that is a felony. She is concerned about that broken arm, crying kid, she runs in without thinking about the CCW.

The felon makes no nevermind about the law and fireams, he is wired different. He knows because the LAW says that firearms are prohibited by law and a felony if taken into a hospital that he has an easy victim.

So using the mom again. She is young and attractive, the felon likes young and attractive women, and figures a women taking a kid in the ER is going to be distracted, her awareness may be off from the usual.

The mom needs to get her cell phone, move her vehicle from emercency zone to parking lot, whatever at the hopital. With the current law she is easy prey for assault and rape. Get rid of the LAW that in this case - again - the law abiding citizen is the only one obeying and she can defend herself.

joab
July 18, 2004, 12:44 PM
Once a person has served all of his time including probation or parole and is no longer subject to the terms of his incarceration his civil rights should be fully restored.
The purpose of punishment should be to make sure the infraction does not happen again, it should not be used for revenge

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 01:56 PM
I dunno Pax from a purely psycological standpoint that kid killin pigeons would be an excellent example of someone who shouldnt own a gun... (or a car for that matter)...

The rest of your argument is IMHO, circular...

So here it is all now rehab'ed felons....Bottom line...if ya rehabilitated yerself, ask for a pardon or even better..lobby and work for an expungment law in your state...but ya see that would...TAKE TIME AND EFFORT ON YOUR PART.......

So much EASIER to let all felons just get em automatically again...even the ones who dont deserve it.

WildnowondertheantigunnerswinthelogicfightsAlaska

JohnBT
July 18, 2004, 01:57 PM
"The purpose of punishment should be to make sure the infraction does not happen again, it should not be used for revenge"

The only way to be sure would be to keep them locked up forever. :)

As things stand the loss of rights and privileges is part of the punishment.

John

PBIR
July 18, 2004, 02:57 PM
Oh I read it and understand it, and as I pointed out Project Safe Neighborhoods (which is the program where local and state agencies, in cooperation with ATF and the US Attorney's Office, work to enforce 18USC922) is disarming the folks who don't follow the law, by putting them back in prison. Again, go to the links I provided and you will see examples of people that have no intention of following the law being disarmed.

You are saying the same thing he is, but you're presenting it as proof against his point. He says the criminals that aren't rehabilitated will still get guns, just illegally. That is exactly what you are saying and exactly what the examples you provided show.

His point is what about the ones who are rehabilitated, and will follow the letter of the law.

And to repeat once again: Many states already allow rehabilitated felons to submit a motion to have their rights reinstated. Yes, that's right, felons can own firearms if their rights are fully restored.


So those of you who are against second chances are just plain outta luck when it comes to people who have learned from their mistakes in many of the States in this Country. Guess you all have never made any mistakes before.

DMF
July 18, 2004, 03:20 PM
You are saying the same thing he is, but you're presenting it as proof against his point. He says the criminals that aren't rehabilitated will still get guns, just illegally. That is exactly what you are saying and exactly what the examples you provided show. Now please pay attention because this is important to my point and maybe I haven't explained it clearly enough before:

18USC922 is a tool that allows us to put repeat offenders in jail for a long period of time, based on their demonstrated disregard for the law. Drug dealers, rapists, batterers, murderers, etc. that are caught with a gun during another minor crime, get very stiff penalties as a result of 18USC922.

Again, read the cases, the felons caught with guns, now matter what caused them to be caught initially, got very stiff penalties. I'd rather have guys like the ones in the examples I've posted get 5, 10, 15 or more years in with no possibility of parole when they repeatedly show disregard for the law, rather than get a 3 months on simple possession charge. Again, it allows us to punish repeat offenders that show a disregard for the law.

Besides your logic is severely flawed, you are saying the ones who get punished under this law are the ones inclined to break the law, so therefore we should get rid of the law. Using your logic only murderers, are likely to break the various state and federal murder statutes, so therefore we should get rid of the laws against murder.

DMF
July 18, 2004, 03:21 PM
The rest of your argument is IMHO, circular...

So here it is all now rehab'ed felons....Bottom line...if ya rehabilitated yerself, ask for a pardon or even better..lobby and work for an expungment law in your state...but ya see that would...TAKE TIME AND EFFORT ON YOUR PART.......

So much EASIER to let all felons just get em automatically again...even the ones who dont deserve it.

WildnowondertheantigunnerswinthelogicfightsAlaskaAbsolutely correct.

DMF
July 18, 2004, 03:23 PM
"The purpose of punishment should be to make sure the infraction does not happen again, it should not be used for revenge"

The only way to be sure would be to keep them locked up forever.

As things stand the loss of rights and privileges is part of the punishment.

John Also completely correct.

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 03:27 PM
And to repeat once again: Many states already allow rehabilitated felons to submit a motion to have their rights reinstated. Yes, that's right, felons can own firearms if their rights are fully restored

So..no one disagrees with that...no one so far that i recall...

The principle that once you do your time your rights are automatically restored is what we are fighting over...

Ya'll made a "mistake" in the past..OK, go petition for restoration of your rights...OK by me.


WildthatsaneasyoneAlaska

PBIR
July 18, 2004, 03:31 PM
Besides your logic is severely flawed, you are saying the ones who get punished under this law are the ones inclined to break the law, so therefore we should get rid of the law...

No sir, it is your inference that is flawed. I never said get rid of the law, I said that demonstrably rehabilitated convicts should have their rights restored to them after a period of time. Now if you are saying that you agree with that statement we have been arguing over a misunderstanding, but it comes across to me at least that you are against any restoration.

tulsamal
July 18, 2004, 06:29 PM
By your own statements he knows the government contract process very well after 35 years in the game at W-P AFB, which is very busy with many huge AF contracts. So he should know better then to write a contract in which he has an obvious conflict of interest.

He had a clear conflict of interest in drafting a contract himself, that would essentially guarantee that he got the contract. You claim he had no criminal intent, however in your first paragraph you provide a motive, by describing how he was apprehensive about retiring from his civil service job, unless he had a guaranteed "retirement" job.

Also, since I know a little bit about contract fraud, not a lot, but enough to see some holes in your story, and I think either you are leaving some things out, or your Dad didn't give you the whole story. There would have to be much more going on here for AFOSI or DCIS, to spend time to investigate this matter, and for the AUSA in that district, to consider prosecuting, in the case.

My Dad worked FOR the government but he wasn't a specialist in contracts or anything. He went around managing the installation of Tempest level video conferencing rooms at AFB's all over the world. (Including on Air Force One.) I'm not saying he didn't have any idea what he was doing was against the rules. But I've talked to others in the Federal government and more at the State level and they all look at me with their mouths open and say some variety of, "but everybody does that!" I know, I know, that's no defense. Dad screwed up and he would tell you that himself. He should have been more a stickler for the rules. But he was eligible to retire and he wanted to get the ball rolling on the contract. He let the slowness of the process frustrate him to the point where he just did it himself. As you said, he wrote a contract that virtually only he was qualified to accept.

This also seems to me to be a long way from "defrauding" the government since, in the final analysis, he actually was doing the job. He was doing it as a contractor and getting more per hour but the government wasn't having to pay all the things an employer pays a full-time permanent employee. No one has ever said the contract was for too much money or that Dad wasn't doing a perfectly good job. It was just the process of getting the job that got him in trouble.

When the investigation started, they told him to stay home until it was finished. Months went by. Finally Dad realized he needed a lawyer. In retrospect, he didn't get a very good one. If he had had the money to get some genius with lots of experience, this would have all ended a lot better for him a long time ago. For a while Mom and Dad weren't that concerned because they thought it would eventually all be dismissed. Later they thought he might get reprimanded and have to pay a fine. Even later he started to think he was going to lose the contract and the ability to work. Then finally the government decided he needed to pay restitution for all the work that he already did and for the flights he took to do the jobs.

I think a lot of people in the family were confused by the prosecution. I KNOW my Dad was. He finally decided that they were using him to get somebody bigger but he couldn't figure out who that might be. And then, when nobody bigger developed, the prosecuter couldn't just walk away without charging Dad. It seems like the prosecuter is trying to get a conviction and big sentence on this just to advance his personal career.

My Dad's defense lawyer was talking to him about this last year and said something like this: "The sentencing guidelines for this crime go from x to y. The judge will try to determine how serious the breach of law was. Let's say it is a continuum from 1 to 100. 1 is virtually nil while 100 is really odious. On that scale, you are about a 2!" So my Dad kept thinking it was going to be settled and be over. He finally even agreed to plead guilty to a felony just to get it over with. He wouldn't do that again if he could go back in time because it didn't stop. They told him it could take a year for a trial if he didn't plead guilty but it's been 8 months already since then!

Believe me, I understand that it seems unlikely that the government would be going after my Dad for this but it's happening. He never had anything bad on his work history. He had the highest possible security rating (well beyond Top Secret). Actually he told me once he thought that might be part of the issue. That his security level was supposed to be above reproach. So they wanted to make an example of him.

All this aside, back to the thread!! The question was, "did somebody in this situation DESERVE to lose their right to own firearms?" It's hard to see a "threat of violence" in what my dad did. It's hard to see how making him give up guns he's owned since the 1950's is somehow part of an appropriate sentence.

I think the family is a little disillusioned by the whole process. It seems like the government can decide to go after you for whatever reason and there isn't much you can do about it. You retain lawyers and they slowly drain your finances. Somebody who just retired can't really afford to spend several thousand dollars every month while nothing really seems to be happening. The government can just keep dragging it out. They can refuse to accept the recommendations of the court officials. (Which is what happened when the court PO recommended zero restitution. She didn't see why Dad should have to give back money for work he DID do.) It's like they hold all the cards and all you can do is watch your personal reputation slowly dissolve along with any money you thought you had put away for the future. I think the "convicted felon" label and loss of reputation is the worst for my Dad. He's one of those people who would die inside before failing to keep a promise or something. I can look at him now and see how much older he suddenly looks. The government has managed to age my Dad 5-10 years in only 2 so we all appreciate that. But that's all part of the hell of it. You lose your reputation. You lose your ability to work. You lose a heck of a lot of money to your own lawyers. You get all the stress you could ever want. And yet none of that is even part of the sentencing! My parents are going to be making "easy monthly payments" on the fine and restitution for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, that's fair.

Gregg

tulsamal
July 18, 2004, 06:33 PM
I just found a press release from the government about this whole thing. I remember my dad being furious about the wording because he said "the facts were wrong" on some of this.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ohs/Press/01-30-04-Day.htm

Notice that the press release was in January. (That's when he pled guilty to the felony.) Notice they say the sentencing was going to be in April. The government delayed that and then delayed it again. Now it is scheduled for the end of this month but nobody knows yet if it will actually take place!

"Swift and certain justice."

Tharg
July 18, 2004, 09:18 PM
PBIR - would like to know what states allow one to petition to get thier rights back and where one could find that info - know a person would would be highly interested in that info (the person i meantioned earlier in this thread....)

J/Tharg!

PBIR
July 18, 2004, 10:16 PM
You can start with Tennessee for one. I'll post the others up here when I dig up the magazine I read it in.

Tharg
July 18, 2004, 11:28 PM
Thanks =)

DMF
July 18, 2004, 11:50 PM
tusamal,

I know this is difficult because it's your Dad, but there are some problems here:
As you said, he wrote a contract that virtually only he was qualified to accept.

This also seems to me to be a long way from "defrauding" the government since, in the final analysis, he actually was doing the job.Sorry this is fraud, because it's supposed to be a competitive bidding process, and your father elminated the possibility of competition by tailoring the contract to fit only himself. However there must be more to the story because I know agents with AFOSI and DCIS (the two possible agencies with jurisdiction over DoD contract fraud) and the they are working bigger cases than that and would have a hard time finding an AUSA the would be willing to worry about that case, unless it's bigger than you are describing.

In addition AUSAs are busy people with plenty of case work, they do not go looking for small cases, just to put a "notch on their gun," because they are too busy with real cases where people are ripping off the government. Trust me you would be amazed at some of the stuff people get away with because the AUSAs don't have time to prosecute those cases. BTW, even if they were looking for someone bigger, prosecutors walk away from cases all the time, prosecutors didn't spend time investigating, the Special Agents with OSI or DCIS did. The prosecutor only looks for viable cases that are significant enough to warrant his time in court, too small well then he just moves on. This is especially true at bases like W-P AFB where there are huge contracts and potential for huge fraud cases.

Finally there is this:He had the highest possible security rating (well beyond Top Secret).There is nothing beyond TS, once someone has TS the rest is just what programs they have access to, but there are no additional clearances beyond TS.

Again, I know it's your Dad so it's hard to be objective, but the story you are presenting does not ring true.

TechBrute
July 18, 2004, 11:57 PM
Ok, this whole Dad contact fraud thing actually serves to illustrate some points even better. Ok, so what if he had been trying to weasle a better job for himself and got busted? He should loose the right to defend himself against human scum for the rest of his life?

Wildalaska
July 19, 2004, 12:01 AM
He should loose the right to defend himself against human scum for the rest of his life?

1. How do you define human scum?
2. How does he lose his right to defend himslef.

WildletmeknowAlaska

TechBrute
July 19, 2004, 12:05 AM
1. How do you define human scum?
2. How does he lose his right to defend himslef.


1. Murderers, rapists, etc.
2. He has been convicted of a felony and cannot own firearms. As a 60+ year old man, this severly impacts his ability to equilize himself against people that would prey on him.

Wildalaska
July 19, 2004, 02:57 AM
Murderers, rapists, etc.

Whats etc?..how about armed robbers? How about the guy that smokes the 19 year old kid that just raped his daughter and cops a plea to manslaughter? How about heroin dealers? or people dealing pot to schoolkids?

Hey somefolks think abortion is murder...hwo about the women who have abortions..

Point being is everyone has a differnt definition of scum, To me drug dealers are scum, to others on this Board, victims...so next the debate over which felons are deserving? I say...as I said before..

a. If ya cant do the time, dont do the crime.
b. If yer rehabb'ed prove it to a court..

Your burden, not mine

As a 60+ year old man, this severly impacts his ability to equilize himself against people that would prey on him.

Impacts yes, defenseless no. He can carry pepper spray. Have a bat in the house etc...


WildgiveitupitsnotconvincingAlaska

TechBrute
January 26, 2006, 09:54 AM
Absolutely not. There are plenty of non-violent crimes that forfeit your rights. Should Kenneth Lay be denied the right to protect his family from an intruder? Should G. Gordon Liddy be denied the right to protect himself from a mugger? How about the Navy guy in NY that shot the guy standing over his daughter's crib and then was convicted of a felony?
Claire Wolfe wrote an article about this is the current issue of SWAT. I thought it was a good read, probably due in part that she said was I was thinking.

Maxwell
January 26, 2006, 11:38 AM
The constitution protects the rights of citizens to bear arms...More specificly it says "the people", but thats another rant. I believe so long as the constitution applies to you, your right to bear arms applies as effectively as all the other rights do.

Ideally we should not be giving violent people a weapon, altho I think thats a bit further up the road considering the problem.
This reminds of a rant where someone mentioned a drunk driver being penalized by having to use special colored license plates to shame them... more realisticly you shouldnt be behind the wheel if you drive intoxicated so often that you need your car visibly flagged as a warning to other drivers.

If someones so violent or deranged that giving them a gun makes them a serious threat, why are they on the street to begin with?


Lets not forget theres a cost to gun control.
A dollar figure we pay out for the agencies that enforce it. Maintaining registration lists, carrying out background checks, inspecting each and every gun dealer or searching someones home with this as an exceuse all add up to a sum we taxpayers have to pay at the end of the year.

Then you have to figure what this has bought us. Gun crimes still happen, weapons are still on the street, the crime rate is as high as ever. we pay and pay with little to no results except for the enevitable harrassment when we want to get a weapon for our own needs.

Know what gun control stopped?
It stopped a homeless man from owning a pistol to protect himself from kids randomly killing people with baseball bats.
It stopped an old lady from getting a revolver to defend herself from muggers. It stopped a mother from buying a shotgun to secure her home and child from being brutalized by the nearby gangs.

Its sacrificed innocent lives to block a maniac from getting a weapon that he got anyway.

I dont like the idea of criminals getting guns, I dislike the idea of deranged people being let loose on the streets even more....but above all I feel violently ill at the thought of OUR government wasting OUR time and money when we got good cops that could well use bigger paychecks and better equipment.

No matter what you do, a gun is still going to be at the scene of the next big crime.
Lets stop trying to make the impossible happen and instead give Barny Fife some good quality body armor and the backup he needs for this job.

NineseveN
January 26, 2006, 01:33 PM
Oooh, I missed this thread on the first round...this could be a good one.


If you're well enough to be released, all of your rights should be restored (unless the Constitution or Bill of Rights already has an exception to it).

joab
January 26, 2006, 07:50 PM
I believe so long as the constitution applies to you, your right to bear arms applies as effectively as all the other rights do.The only problem with this argument is that felons constitutional rights are also forfeit

NineseveN
January 26, 2006, 09:22 PM
The only problem with this argument is that felons constitutional rights are also forfeit

Felons forfeit all Constitutional protections?

antsi
January 26, 2006, 09:58 PM
On the other hand, our society plea-bargains and releases criminals so quickly, I'm not sure I'd want a convicted murderer legally carrying a gat in line behind me at the McD's. Of course, the law doesn't neccesarily affect him, anyway. He'd likely carry wether it was legal or not. Only a law-abiding "ex-criminal" would abide by the law, and then what good is the law?
.

Under the current system, if a cop catches a habitual criminal in line at McD's with a gun, he/she can arrest the dude. Under the system you propose, he/she has to wait until he does something unpleasant with it.

I wish there was some kind of "happy medium" between the two extremes.

Some serial criminals just aren't rehabilitated, no matter what we think our system is based on. If they've demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, then I'm fine with restricting their rights.

Your example of the guy who committed a relatively minor crime many years ago and has been an upstanding citizen since is the contrary case. I think he should get his rights restored.

joab
January 26, 2006, 10:15 PM
Some serial criminals just aren't rehabilitated, no matter what we think our system is based on. If they've demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, then I'm fine with restricting their rights.Is that because restricting their rights makes them see the light and never do a bad thing again?

If they've demonstrated that they cannot be trusted then they cannot be trusted to mingle unsupervised with good citizens period.

Put them in halfway houses with strict supervision for the rest of their lives or until they can be trusted

antsi
January 26, 2006, 11:03 PM
Is that because restricting their rights makes them see the light and never do a bad thing again?

If they've demonstrated that they cannot be trusted then they cannot be trusted to mingle unsupervised with good citizens period.

Put them in halfway houses with strict supervision for the rest of their lives or until they can be trusted

Actually, if you're talking about habitual violent criminals, then I would say that's right. We do generally let them out too soon, and you're right, they can't be trusted to mingle unsupervised.

And, no, restricting their rights doesn't make them see the light. It's not meant to rehabilitate them. It's meant to punish them.

joab
January 26, 2006, 11:08 PM
The purpose of punishment should be to make sure it doesn't happen again, not revenge

Hardtarget
January 26, 2006, 11:30 PM
I didn't read all the replies on this.Still,I gotta ask...you're kiddin'...right?I read somewhere that about 80% of the crime was committed by 20% of the criminals. I don't think they rehabilitate very many of them.
Mark.

ksnecktieman
January 26, 2006, 11:49 PM
If they serve their time. release them. If they repeat offend, lock them up for longer. If they repeat again, lock them up forever, or execute them, they are not fit for society. If they will rob or kill with a gun, a regulation about their gun will have no meaning. someone is willing to risk 10 to 20 years to commit a crime? and you are going to threaten him with 90 days and a fine for illegal firearms?????

IMHO, The best way to respond to this problem is to ensure that his "targeted victim?" is armed. Remove ALL firearms restrictions, and regulations so it is easy for everyone to protect themselves.

An armed society is a polite society.... I BELIEVE that. If everyone has a gun, I will not cut you off in traffic, or steal your parking place, or cuss you for being double parked. I will not cut in line at the grocery store. I will say, yes sir, no sir, and thank you maam, as required.

Do YOU think an armed society is more polite? Are you personally more polite when you know someone is armed?

Ryder
January 26, 2006, 11:55 PM
The restriction of convicts access to weapons is identical to that of young people who have never committed a crime. Why do I suppose that is? Because this "free society" has given some among us the power to tell others what to do and those people use that power. Who said there has to be a logical reason for the law?

As an example let me tell you of a very interesting thing that happened here today.

There was a highschool shooting here recently. The shooter went on trial trial for murdering one of his classmates. Defense claims self-defense. It just ended in a mistrial today because the school administration and police witheld video evidence which could have shown a gun in the possession of the dead person. The school administration is supposedly furious. In their eyes this kid dosen't have the right to defend his life with a gun. It is so written in our laws!

If laws were all good and logical everyone of the people involved in trying to have this kid imprisoned for life would be charged. But it isn't that way, is it :) We can expect nothing of the sort. The line between what is good and evil gets drawn by a physical object, not what is in a man's heart.

antsi
January 27, 2006, 12:33 AM
The purpose of punishment should be to make sure it doesn't happen again, not revenge

Do you mean "make sure it doesn't happen again" as in, the person is rendered incapable of committing another crime? (For example, still locked up?)
In this case I agree with you.

Or do you mean "make sure it doesn't happen again" in the sense of putting violent criminals through some kind of process that renders them noncriminal?
In this case, you are fantasizing.

I do believe people can change, but the desire to change is internal and effected through means beyond the penal system's control. Those who do change represent a tiny fractional minority of serious hardcore criminals.

There is no way you can set up a government run system whereby criminals go in one end against their will and get reprocessed into law abiding citizens as they emerge. This is a fantasy. That hasn't stopped its being tried several thousand different times at great cost to the public - the non-success of which efforts is self-evident.

joab
January 27, 2006, 01:10 AM
Do you mean "make sure it doesn't happen again" as in, the person is rendered incapable of committing another crime?As in making sure it doesn't happen again.
If rehabilitation works then fine. I personally don't think it is the answer as it is practiced currently

But what is the chance that part of the recidivism rate can be attributed to the road blocks that are placed in front of felons.

For example. In my state of Florida a felon cannot be employed in the oh so sensitive field of pest control, can't work in the medical field or be a teacher. It makes no difference what the offense was.
How many of us really feel safer now that Martha Stewart can not own a gun or work on a mosquito control crew.

I honestly don't know what the answers are, I'm not a physiologist or a criminologist.
But I do believe that someone who has been deemed incapable of be fully reintroduced into society should not be reintroduced at all

joab
January 27, 2006, 01:29 AM
Who's talking about building prisons

Not all felons are violent, hell not all felons are even felons.

I mentioned halfway houses under strict supervision. They can pay for the upkeep.

Repeat violent offender that have proven themselves themselves unable to rejoin society and there fore of no use to society could be euthanized for all I care

joab
January 27, 2006, 01:59 AM
No I am not talking about prisons.
I specifically stated half-way houses which the residents can pay for.
Ifthe houses take on the appearance of prisons, so be it.
Give them some of the closing military bases, they've already got the fences up.
One more row of fencing and some off the welfare roles guards to man the dead zone. What else is needed

When it's either that or a tent city wearing pink underwear and eating prison loaf and green baloney they can make the adjustment

joab
January 27, 2006, 02:22 AM
Because exactly NOBODY is going to pay 4x as much tax, and that's what you are talking about. Those guys cost $30,000 a year each, to keep locked up. Guess you missed the part about the residents paying their own wayWhy WOULD they work, if they're never going to get out, hmm? Missed the part about tent city jails for screw ups also I seeIf you let them out to work, they'll be GONE, dude. Then you can spend another million $ (each) trying to find them. Also, I worked for a landscape company that employed about half it's labor from work release ,In the five years that I was there not one prisoner ever failed to return to lock up. I offered most of the ones that worked for me jobs after there time was up, the ones that accepted usually stayed onwhile they are locked up, their families are on welfare. Ever heard of child support, I pay it why can't theyA halfway house is not fenced. The inmates leave for the day, all day, all work days.Then build the damn fences and did you miss the part about strict supervision. Screw up and go to tent city.

Part of rehabilitation is making sure that they are not as comfortable on the inside as they are on the outside.

I was in jail once for 20 days to me it was all I needed to see that this was not the life I wanted. Others had it better in than out.
To some free rent, AC, food and TV is more than they can hope to get by making an honest wage.

Very few people would see a tent city and unflavored food as a step up.
Earning an honest wage and having something to show for your labor is a character and esteem building experience that many criminal types have never even tried.

joab
January 27, 2006, 02:25 AM
hey, where'd the guy I was debating with go.

Now y'all see why I always quote the comments I'm responding to

LAK
January 27, 2006, 06:34 AM
Because violent criminals have already PROVEN that they can't be trusted; I can see an argument for non-violent felons regaining that freedom, but never a violent felon.
Then what is the rational for releasing them from prison and turning society at large into an extension of the prison yard?

Is a "law" that makes them "criminals" if they possess a firearm etc going to stop them from possessing firearms or committing violent acts if they intend to anyway?

What incentive is there for these people to be productive and not commit any further crimes if they are going to be third class citizens when they have served their sentences passed down as punishment by a court? Bearing in mind that most criminals are rarely planning on "getting caught" - so the idea of "going back to prison" is certainly not going to be a significant overall deterrent here. Very long prison sentences and hard labor might deter some first and second offenders though.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

antsi
January 27, 2006, 01:52 PM
Is a "law" that makes them "criminals" if they possess a firearm etc going to stop them from possessing firearms or committing violent acts if they intend to anyway?


Again, nobody believes this will actually stop them from acquiring a gun or committing a crime with it if they so decide. What it does allow is that if a known habitual violent criminal is caught with a gun, you can go ahead and throw them back in the slam instead of having to wait around until they shoot someone.

The way I see it, a person who has committed multiple violent crimes has tarnished their presumption of innocence. If a law-abiding citizen is carrying a firearm, it is reasonable to assume they are just carrying it for self-defense or other legitimate purposes. If a known habitual violent felon is carrying a firearm, presuming they intend to abide by the law is not supported - in fact there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

I'll give you an example: would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your kids? Why not? Surely, if they've served their criminal sentence, don't they deserve a second chance? If you go on treating them like second class citizens, they have less incentive to change their ways, right?

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 03:27 PM
I'll give you an example: would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your kids? Why not? Surely, if they've served their criminal sentence, don't they deserve a second chance? If you go on treating them like second class citizens, they have less incentive to change their ways, right?

Wow, great point. You've just ended the argument for me! :)















Oh, wait, darn...um, I knew we were forgetting something. I don't seem to recall a constitutional right to babysit. :neener:

ksnecktieman
January 27, 2006, 06:55 PM
Antsi? I think you are dealing with that problem at the wrong place and time.

"If a known habitual violent criminal" is out of prison, the system has already failed. Either keep him locked up, or execute him. The thirty grand per year to keep him in prison is cheaper than the paperwork, and restrictions on everyone's "right to keep and bear arms". If you will not trust him with a gun, keep him locked up until you can. If he has to die of old age before you can trust him, so be it.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 07:46 PM
Antsi? I think you are dealing with that problem at the wrong place and time.

"If a known habitual violent criminal" is out of prison, the system has already failed. Either keep him locked up, or execute him. The thirty grand per year to keep him in prison is cheaper than the paperwork, and restrictions on everyone's "right to keep and bear arms". If you will not trust him with a gun, keep him locked up until you can. If he has to die of old age before you can trust him, so be it.

Exactly.

fellow14
January 27, 2006, 08:01 PM
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....

Seems pretty simple to me.

LAK
January 28, 2006, 01:10 AM
Again, nobody believes this will actually stop them from acquiring a gun or committing a crime with it if they so decide.
Well, some are led to believe it is so, but generally it is not. It is a fraudlent arguement from so-called "anti gun" politicians who know better. So the immediate question is - why have they introduced and supported "controls" using blatant lies. What are their real motives. ;)
What it does allow is that if a known habitual violent criminal is caught with a gun, you can go ahead and throw them back in the slam instead of having to wait around until they shoot someone.
This is a very weak arguement; especially when one examines the numbers in total who are actually "thrown back in jail" just because they were unlucky enough to get frisked with a firearm. And when they do get "thrown back" - for awhile - it is obvious these people do not care. Which indicates that this is not any logical and rational course, let along even close to a solution. The real issue is, if they are "known habitual violent criminals", they should be incarcerated or under some other 24 hour supervision for a very lengthy period second time around. Anything else simply turns the whole country into an extension of the prison yard. And the second time arounders wouldn't be as common if prison meant hard labor. This is not something that can treated as a separate issue because the two are inextricably connected.

We know what the so-called "liberals" say about that, but the so-called "conservatives" have a duty to do what is right in these regards when they have the upper hand in the seats. Not go along with "controls" that create a prison yard with a population of 280 million people.
The way I see it, a person who has committed multiple violent crimes has tarnished their presumption of innocence. If a law-abiding citizen is carrying a firearm, it is reasonable to assume they are just carrying it for self-defense or other legitimate purposes. If a known habitual violent felon is carrying a firearm, presuming they intend to abide by the law is not supported - in fact there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
So everyone is treated as one of "tarnished" while they have free reign - there are a whole string of issues connected with this.
I'll give you an example: would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your kids? Why not? Surely, if they've served their criminal sentence, don't they deserve a second chance? If you go on treating them like second class citizens, they have less incentive to change their ways, right?
No is the obvious answer. But while they roam freely, what is to stop them from zeroing in on your children anyway? What should the government have done about these people to begin with?
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

antsi
January 28, 2006, 01:41 AM
The real issue is, if they are "known habitual violent criminals", they should be incarcerated or under some other 24 hour supervision for a very lengthy period second time around. Anything else simply turns the whole country into an extension of the prison yard. And the second time arounders wouldn't be as common if prison meant hard labor. This is not something that can treated as a separate issue because the two are inextricably connected.

-snip-

No is the obvious answer. But while they roam freely, what is to stop them from zeroing in on your children anyway? What should the government have done about these people to begin with?


Hey, no argument from me.

We were discussing 'should habitual violent criminals have their firearms rights restored upon release from the penal system?' I already agreed that petty criminals and nonviolent criminals and so on should have a mechanism to restore their rights, so there's no disagreement there.

All I was left with an objection to was restoring the firearms rights of released violent criminals.

You come back with, "They never should have been let out of prison in the first place."

To which I fully agree. I just didn't know that option was on the table.

antsi
January 28, 2006, 01:50 AM
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....

Seems pretty simple to me.

So, you're in the act of shooting up a day care. You're killing off little kids, right left and center. If the authorities come in and tackle you and take your guns away, is that an infringement of your second ammendment rights?

NineseveN
January 28, 2006, 02:00 AM
So, you're in the act of shooting up a day care. You're killing off little kids, right left and center. If the authorities come in and tackle you and take your guns away, is that an infringement of your second ammendment rights?

Are you serious? That's not a very compelling argument...

LAK
January 28, 2006, 09:40 AM
Hey, no argument from me.

We were discussing 'should habitual violent criminals have their firearms rights restored upon release from the penal system?' I already agreed that petty criminals and nonviolent criminals and so on should have a mechanism to restore their rights, so there's no disagreement there.

All I was left with an objection to was restoring the firearms rights of released violent criminals.

You come back with, "They never should have been let out of prison in the first place."

To which I fully agree. I just didn't know that option was on the table.
Well; some of them should never be let out. But IMO not every person convicted once of a robbery or other felony is somehow genetically or mentally different from anyone else and therefore a permanent danger.

But speaking strictly of "habitual offenders" we are speaking of people who are; at least in as much as their "habit" is not dependent on the low risk of doing a full 20 years hard labor. Rather, they get some perverse enjoyment or suffer from some other mental aberration.

Amidst the general subject of the Peoples' rights to keep and bear arms, Tench Coxe described it as " ... the birth-right of an American ... ".

When you deprive a citizen of his right to do so - you deprive him or her of the right to self defense as well. The safety of an incarcerated (or otherwise in custody) person is the moral and legal duty and responsibility of the custodial authority. Once they are set free, they must have the right to defend themselves.

And I think that "the horror of a large number of dangerous people running around with guns" has been historically debunked anyway. Both as we have seen with "the wild west" for example and modern day gangland. In times and jurisdictions when every free person could arm themselves, the "horror" has not occurred. It is in the places where everyone can not that the horrors truly begin.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

RealGun
January 28, 2006, 10:21 AM
I'm in the process of forming an opinion on this, and I'd like to hear others' views on this. I've written this is sort of a devil's advocate approach, but I'm not sure I believe one way or the other.

What would change if criminals were officially "allowed to have guns"? Not much I suspect, but having the rule in place makes people feel better. They are also not going to have their brain explode if confronted with the need for aggressive capital punishment and more prisons:uhoh:

antsi
January 28, 2006, 12:11 PM
Are you serious? That's not a very compelling argument...

Hey, I'm asking. I hear folks saying that the second ammendment is absolute; as in, no infringements of a person's gun rights ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.

So, I'm proposing a scenario where a reasonable person might think it is justifiable to deprive someone of their firearm. You tell me: is it justifiable to disarm the day-care shooter? If yes, then the second ammendment is not absolute, and there are some exceptions. If you really want to maintain that the second ammendment is absolute, you'll have to respect the second ammendment rights of the day-care shooter.

NineseveN
January 28, 2006, 01:23 PM
Hey, I'm asking. I hear folks saying that the second ammendment is absolute; as in, no infringements of a person's gun rights ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.

So, I'm proposing a scenario where a reasonable person might think it is justifiable to deprive someone of their firearm. You tell me: is it justifiable to disarm the day-care shooter? If yes, then the second ammendment is not absolute, and there are some exceptions. If you really want to maintain that the second ammendment is absolute, you'll have to respect the second ammendment rights of the day-care shooter.

First: While committing a crime or being incarcertaed of a crime, you forfeit your rights (except those rights specifically granted to you in the process of an arrest and incarceration - i.e. Miranda, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment)...breaking the law with a firearm is abusing your freedom, not exercising it. There is a huge difference, I hope you're not serious enough to require one to spell the differences out for you.

antsi
January 28, 2006, 02:09 PM
First: While committing a crime or being incarcertaed of a crime, you forfeit your rights (except those rights specifically granted to you in the process of an arrest and incarceration - i.e. Miranda, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment)...breaking the law with a firearm is abusing your freedom, not exercising it. There is a huge difference, I hope you're not serious enough to require one to spell the differences out for you.

No, actually I agree with you here. Behaving criminally is legitimately associated with deprivation of rights.

This is contrary to the views of those who believe that the Second Ammendment is absolute and can never be infringed under any circumstances.

ksnecktieman
January 28, 2006, 02:21 PM
I believe the second ammendment is absolute. But, when someone is in prison for a crime there are lots of absolute rights that he can not excercise. Privacy rights, firearms rights, voting rights. When he is released, IF he is released I think he should have all of his rights back.

As far as your scenario of the day care shooter? I do not think he should be released from prison without the right to own a gun. What I DO think is that he should be executed within ninety days.

joab
January 28, 2006, 07:54 PM
This is contrary to the views of those who believe that the Second Ammendment is absolute and can never be infringed under any circumstances.The second amendment is no more sacred than the rest. They all can be taken away with due process

If you enjoyed reading about "So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!