Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
There are a lot of closet gun grabbers on this board. In for a penny, in for a pound...
Man who accidentally shot himself gets over 8 years in prison
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
Derby FALs said:
They're in the closet?
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Not really in our eyes.
dojpros1998
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 32
MIke
Any defendant who commits a federal crime since the mid 80's does 85% of his time, minimum. Therefore a 96 month sentence(8 years) should keep him in the pen for about 7 years. He wont do three and change like he might of if it had been a state case.
Any defendant who commits a federal crime since the mid 80's does 85% of his time, minimum. Therefore a 96 month sentence(8 years) should keep him in the pen for about 7 years. He wont do three and change like he might of if it had been a state case.
Fletchette
Member
Great. So the U.S. taxpayers get to spend a quart-million dollars to keep him from hurting himself. You'd think the Feds would have something better to do (hint: seal the border!).
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
From the thread title, I thought perhaps they made being stupid and/or careless illegal.
Aguila Blanca
Member
I'm going to sign up with those who feel that felons should have their rights restored upon completion of their sentence. Not upon "release," if release is parole, because the parole period is part of the sentence. But once the whole deal is done -- why should they continue to be punished?
In this case, the burglary conviction was 1986. That's almost 20 years ago. It's ridiculous that 20 years later he can't even TOUCH a firearm.
How about the guy who was president of Smith & Wesson? Y'all must remember -- he resigned not too long ago when it came out he was a convicted felon. You gonna expect me to believe that the man was PRESIDENT of one of the largest firearms manufacturing companies in the world and he never touched a gun? Get serious. But there's been no hue and cry that I know of to throw him back in the slammer.
Double standard (surprise!).
In this case, the burglary conviction was 1986. That's almost 20 years ago. It's ridiculous that 20 years later he can't even TOUCH a firearm.
How about the guy who was president of Smith & Wesson? Y'all must remember -- he resigned not too long ago when it came out he was a convicted felon. You gonna expect me to believe that the man was PRESIDENT of one of the largest firearms manufacturing companies in the world and he never touched a gun? Get serious. But there's been no hue and cry that I know of to throw him back in the slammer.
Double standard (surprise!).
JohnBT
Member
"There are a lot of closet gun grabbers on this board."
And a lot of people who side with the crooks. Makes for interesting discussions, doesn't it?
John
P.S. - "So, this was his second felony conviction." Actually, the article says burglary CONVICTIONS. I did a little searching, but didn't come up with any additional info on his crime spree.
And a lot of people who side with the crooks. Makes for interesting discussions, doesn't it?
John
P.S. - "So, this was his second felony conviction." Actually, the article says burglary CONVICTIONS. I did a little searching, but didn't come up with any additional info on his crime spree.
Ive seen people do more stupid things than this story when it comes to handling firearms. I wonder what kind of snake it was?
Im all for punishment, murders should be executed, rapists..castrated. I think this guy got punished by his own stupidity and is very lucky to even have a hand left or use of his hand at all. Im not siding with crooks in this but think in this particular story, under those circumstances, the punishment needs a second look.
meanwhile, the good people of the state that charged him get to pay for his room and board for the next bunch of years and we can talk about prison overcrowding some more and the revolving door for violant felons...while at the same time we import labor from the boarder and export jobs.
just my .02 cents opinion..not that its worth anything
Im all for punishment, murders should be executed, rapists..castrated. I think this guy got punished by his own stupidity and is very lucky to even have a hand left or use of his hand at all. Im not siding with crooks in this but think in this particular story, under those circumstances, the punishment needs a second look.
meanwhile, the good people of the state that charged him get to pay for his room and board for the next bunch of years and we can talk about prison overcrowding some more and the revolving door for violant felons...while at the same time we import labor from the boarder and export jobs.
just my .02 cents opinion..not that its worth anything
El Rojo
Member
I could be wrong, but I am thinking this guy might have had other things going for him that made the cops want to put him away. Is that right to convict him on an unrelated charge? Maybe or maybe not.
We can complain about criminals not getting their rights back, but until we actually do something about it, we all know the rules. If a felon has a gun, he or she knows they are taking a risk of going back to prison if they are caught with one. I am not too sympathetic at this point.
We can complain about criminals not getting their rights back, but until we actually do something about it, we all know the rules. If a felon has a gun, he or she knows they are taking a risk of going back to prison if they are caught with one. I am not too sympathetic at this point.
cropcirclewalker
member
I think it would be instructive for at least one of these self righteous, tax eating, law and order types to come on here and post exactly where in the text of the second amendment it says an ex convict's rights to keep and bear arms may be infringed.
Maybe it's in the same place where ex convicts are prohibited from practicing their faith (or lack of it) or perhaps where they are prohibited from speaking freely.
Somebody please just point out it's location in the constitution.
Yes, Virginia, there are gun grabbers on this forum.
Maybe it's in the same place where ex convicts are prohibited from practicing their faith (or lack of it) or perhaps where they are prohibited from speaking freely.
Somebody please just point out it's location in the constitution.
Yes, Virginia, there are gun grabbers on this forum.
JohnBT
Member
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They ain't people, they is crooks.
You know, there are many members here who work to change the laws they don't agree with and it's hard work, and sometimes expensive work, that doesn't leave much time or energy for foot stomping and sloganeering-style tirades.
John
They ain't people, they is crooks.
You know, there are many members here who work to change the laws they don't agree with and it's hard work, and sometimes expensive work, that doesn't leave much time or energy for foot stomping and sloganeering-style tirades.
John
Old Dog
Member
“Gun grabbers?†No. Realists. Yes. Even Thomas Jefferson, the man so often quoted on these very pages (especially in so many peoples’ signature lines), was well aware that the protection of societal laws and the rights of an individual could be, and should be, forfeited upon the occasion of that individual being found morally irredeemable. In fact, the punishments for lawbreakers in the days of our founding fathers, even for lesser transgressions, were far, far harsher than our present courts could ever come up with. Perhaps we should return to concept of banishment or exile. Of course, we all know that these days, once someone has been convicted of a felony and incarcerated for a suitable length of time, that person will never, ever re-offend, right?
But then, I’m sure that most of you would feel comfortable immediately restoring gun rights to the man who raped your daughter, or the serial armed robber, the serial child abuser, the talented housebreaker with a hundred home burglaries under his belt, the bank robber, the person who swindles the life savings from ten or twenty senior citizens, the man with multiple drunk driving convictions whose last one came after a crash wiping out a father, mother and two young children … After all, once they’re released from their time behind bars, they shouldn’t have to prove that they’re contributing members of society, worth of full protections under our laws and hence, eligible for the same civil rights enjoyed by the rest of law-abiding America.
How ‘bout some more thoughts from T.J?
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
"Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:456, Papers 15:393
"Society [has] a right to erase from the roll of its members any one who rendered his own existence inconsistent with theirs; to withdraw from him the protection of their laws, and to remove him from among them by exile, or even by death if necessary."--Thomas Jefferson to L. H. Girardin, 1815. ME 14:277
cropcirclewalker
member
Un beknownst to Mr. JBT, I think he really stated the position of .gov, which is
Unless, of course, it's a "Youthful Indiscretion" like DWI.
The mission of .gov is to make everybody a criminal to make them more easily controllable. It's too bad that so many .gov minions don't know this and think that they are really patriotical and like that.
Mr. Dog did a fine job of quoting Mr. Jefferson. Yes, TJ was a great guy and I am unaware of anything he said of which I would be in disagreement, but he wasn't GOD.
Further, even though the quotes that Mr. Dog provided sound good, I do not see where they apply to a person who has served their time. I am probably wrong, I have been wrong before, but IIRC, back in Texas in yon days of yore, when a person got out of prison, he would be given a suit of clothes, a horse and a shotgun. I guess times change.
Mr. Jefferson was absolutely correct when he said (I paraphrase) that we have been endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable right, some of which include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What is given to us by God cannot be taken away from us by common mortals. (Even though they do)
If there is a heaven and if they make it that far, those mortals will get to 'splain it to Ole St. Peter. I wonder if the "I don't make the laws, I only enforce them" defense, sometimes known as the "I wass chust followink orderrs" defense will work up there.
Liberty is not the right to do anything that has been allowed by law.
My request for the article and section of the constitution stands.
A person who has "paid his debt to society" will never be considered "People" again.
Unless, of course, it's a "Youthful Indiscretion" like DWI.
The mission of .gov is to make everybody a criminal to make them more easily controllable. It's too bad that so many .gov minions don't know this and think that they are really patriotical and like that.
Mr. Dog did a fine job of quoting Mr. Jefferson. Yes, TJ was a great guy and I am unaware of anything he said of which I would be in disagreement, but he wasn't GOD.
Further, even though the quotes that Mr. Dog provided sound good, I do not see where they apply to a person who has served their time. I am probably wrong, I have been wrong before, but IIRC, back in Texas in yon days of yore, when a person got out of prison, he would be given a suit of clothes, a horse and a shotgun. I guess times change.
Mr. Jefferson was absolutely correct when he said (I paraphrase) that we have been endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable right, some of which include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What is given to us by God cannot be taken away from us by common mortals. (Even though they do)
If there is a heaven and if they make it that far, those mortals will get to 'splain it to Ole St. Peter. I wonder if the "I don't make the laws, I only enforce them" defense, sometimes known as the "I wass chust followink orderrs" defense will work up there.
Liberty is not the right to do anything that has been allowed by law.
My request for the article and section of the constitution stands.
JohnBT
Member
"They ain't people, they is crooks."
And having broken the social contract they have no right to make claims upon it.
A person who has 'paid his debt to society' is not simply one who has 'done his time' and/or completed his probation. He also needs to have repaid his victim or victims, apologized sincerely, and begun contributing something useful to society. I find it sadly humorous that anyone would claim that a convicted criminal has 'paid' anything simply by being incarcerated against his will.
John
And having broken the social contract they have no right to make claims upon it.
A person who has 'paid his debt to society' is not simply one who has 'done his time' and/or completed his probation. He also needs to have repaid his victim or victims, apologized sincerely, and begun contributing something useful to society. I find it sadly humorous that anyone would claim that a convicted criminal has 'paid' anything simply by being incarcerated against his will.
John
duckslayer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 497
Amen to that. The criminal is not the only one who is punished for his crimes...obviously his victims suffer needlessly, but society also has the burden of funding the enormous cost of punishing said criminal. Those of you who feel that once they are released from prison they should get all their rights back, including firearms, I'm sorry, but I disagree. Once they chose to prey upon a contributing member of our society, they forfeited their rights to live as a peaceful citizen. I do think there should exist a practical way to petition for restoration of rights after some time period, but they should not be given back automatically.
cropcirclewalker
member
Love? Forgiveness? Atonement?
I guess I stumbled into a nest of those who haven't heard about Christian Ethics.
I couldn't say anything worse about you self righteous types than you are saying about yourselves. My bad.
I guess I stumbled into a nest of those who haven't heard about Christian Ethics.
I couldn't say anything worse about you self righteous types than you are saying about yourselves. My bad.
Bear Gulch
Member
Felons who have had their records cleaned through expungement should be eligible to own arms.
ksnecktieman
Member
OLD DOG? I will answer you, I think I am the most extreme second amendment hawk on this board so I feel well qualified. I say YES, if you release them from prison they should have their rights restored,,,, ALL of them. That is an easy point of view for someone that believes in punishing criminals.
I think the "three strikes rule" (get convicted of three felonies, and stay in prison for life) is very lenient, even if it is really "life" and not some predetermined number of years. If any of the felonies were fatal to someone, or especially vicious there is no need to wait after the first one.
I think that capital punishment is a great way to deal with career criminals. I think that their execution should happen within six months of being convicted, and sentenced. I think their execution should be televised on TV during prime time, or done publicly in the town square. An execution will guarantee that one criminal will not repeat his crime. IF it is publicized, it will keep others from thinking they can escape punishment, and doing the same crime.
If you eat meat you are responsible for the death of an animal, whether you pay someone to butcher it for you, or do it yourself.
If you want to walk the streets free of fear, criminals will have to be punished, whether you pay the police to do it, or do it yourself. I say that if you have armed yourself for self protection that you support capital punishment. (Or do you just support capital punishment when the crime was against you?)
I think the "three strikes rule" (get convicted of three felonies, and stay in prison for life) is very lenient, even if it is really "life" and not some predetermined number of years. If any of the felonies were fatal to someone, or especially vicious there is no need to wait after the first one.
I think that capital punishment is a great way to deal with career criminals. I think that their execution should happen within six months of being convicted, and sentenced. I think their execution should be televised on TV during prime time, or done publicly in the town square. An execution will guarantee that one criminal will not repeat his crime. IF it is publicized, it will keep others from thinking they can escape punishment, and doing the same crime.
If you eat meat you are responsible for the death of an animal, whether you pay someone to butcher it for you, or do it yourself.
If you want to walk the streets free of fear, criminals will have to be punished, whether you pay the police to do it, or do it yourself. I say that if you have armed yourself for self protection that you support capital punishment. (Or do you just support capital punishment when the crime was against you?)
p35
Member
90% of felon-in-possession cases get prosecuted in State court. Why did the Feds pick on this maroon? They usually only jump into cases that will get them positive publicity!
beerslurpy
member
Posession simpliciter + federal crime = not compute. Hopefully the supreme court will be revisiting this shortly.
Lets visit my imaginary world where things are fair:
The guy shouldnt be in jail for merely posessing a gun. Crimes are bad ACTS perpetrated agaisnt OTHER parties. Shooting yourself in the hand isnt a crime because its YOUR hand. You have the right to do with it as you wish. Posessing something with no intent to harm another party isnt a crime because owning property should NEVER EVER be a crime, even if someone else thinks it is immoral. It is the bad intent, the mens rea, that makes a crime in the absence of actual harm.
Without mens rea or actual tort, where is the ????ing crime?
Lets visit my imaginary world where things are fair:
The guy shouldnt be in jail for merely posessing a gun. Crimes are bad ACTS perpetrated agaisnt OTHER parties. Shooting yourself in the hand isnt a crime because its YOUR hand. You have the right to do with it as you wish. Posessing something with no intent to harm another party isnt a crime because owning property should NEVER EVER be a crime, even if someone else thinks it is immoral. It is the bad intent, the mens rea, that makes a crime in the absence of actual harm.
Without mens rea or actual tort, where is the ????ing crime?
Aguila Blanca
Member
Does anyone know what the definition of "possession" is in the context of this law? Does touching, or holding, or even firing one shot from, a gun constitute "possession"?
I am reminded of a quote attributed to none other than G. Gordon Liddy that seems to bear on this:
"As a convicted felon, I am prohibited from owning firearms. However, Mrs. Liddy has a fine collection, some of which reside on my side of the bed."
Dunno if that's a true quotation, but it seems similar to this case. The gun was not the guy's, it was his son's. Does the fact that one member of a household is an ex-felon mean that everyone in the house is prohibited from "possessing" a firearm? Where does it say that in any law?
beerslurpy
member
It depends how rich you are. Gordon Liddy can get away with things that John Stewart couldnt.
Gordon Liddy probably doesnt go to the range much.
Gordon Liddy probably doesnt go to the range much.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
I heard him say that. May have been on the Tonight Show.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
