Felons in Kentucky

...what about all of those other law abiding citizens along the way that are effected by the growing, sale, transportation, missed taxes, distribuition, and other crimes connected with the use of marijane, how are they not victims.

Click to expand...

How are law-abiding citizens victimized by growing, selling, transporting, distributing, etc.?

As for the missed taxes...we all know the solution for that.

Persons that have not commited criminal violence should not be prohibited from owning the tools to defend themselves against criminal violence.

remember, the true felons won't obey gun laws... so the point is moot.

I would think it important to know the underlying "crime" that he was convicted for.

Was it a violent crime, a white collar crime, or some BS law that few of us would think is a legit law (you know, mere possession of high capacity magazines or certain guns, knives, brass knuckles, etc. can be a felony in parts of the nation)?

I think that non-violent X cons should have their 2A rights restored as they've paid their price.

From OP's original post

He was convicted of burglary and robbery of some bangers house.

Click to expand...

Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear..

Hope this clears it up, (after 3 pages).

I can see this both ways. First, yes a felon is prohibited from possessing, just to answer the question. Second, for 192 years it was not that way. Remember a LEO of the 1800's, some guy named Wyatt Earp, seems he was a felon in Arkansas, but later one of the most famous, and effective lawmen in history. And if you examine history you will find many like him.

On the other hand, most felons today, and robbery/burglary is and should be a felony, are recidivists. They ally themselves with others in jail, and through their "networks" stay in criminal enterprise.

BTW, to the individual who commented about "smoking marijuana" in their own home. I suggest you reread the paragraph in the form 4473 that asks, "Are you an illegal user of, or addicted to narcotics or dangerous drugs."
Smoking, and possession are still illegal federally, and a "smoker" would be committing a federal felony by answering "no."

Think that through, smoking in your home and lying about it makes you a felon for lying on the 4473, not for victimizing anyone else or even being "riskier" with your otherwise lawfully owned firearm.

You could lie on the 4473 and own a hundred guns and if you never commit a criminal or negligent act, you are no threat to public safety. How, rationally, can that felony be treated the same under the law as a convicted armed robber?

The only time anyone, alcohol drinker, prescription drug user for health reasons, illegal drug user, etc, is "riskier" is when they are actively under the influence of their drug of choice. When they are sober they are as "safe" as any non-user.

Therefore the rational, limited and precise way (hmmm, strict scrutiny-ish ain't that?) to promote public safety is therefore to not regulate broadly but simply make it unlawful to possess loaded weapons in public while intoxicated as defined by the law of that state.

Criminalize particular actions that put others at direct risk, not blanket categories of behavior.


As for recidivism rates, those are only utile if controlled for both initial felony conviction type and type of further offenses.

If you are convicted of felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime), and you recommit felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime), then your recidivism rate is irrelevent as you still aren't a risk to others.

Last time I looked at the journals the data on criminal progression from non-violent felonies to violent felonies was, at best, inconclusive. Without facts to back up the assertion that, say, a felony check kiter will use a gun in their next check kiting scheme or go from kiting checks to burglary, there's no rational basis to prevent them from owning one.

"felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime)"
In what fantasy world is using an illegal substance in your home a victimless crime? Its a crime, and it effects many people along the way from its propagation, to its distribuition, and use.
Commonly users of marijane dont realize, or see whats wrong with it.
If you are using it, thats on you, but there is no such animal as a victimless crime.
By the way 90% of convicted felons have committed multiple felonies for many years before they were convicted, the others in their long history were plea bargained down, reduced to lower charges many many times to keep them out of a felony conviction. 90% of these people have been given more chances than you and I could ever imagine, and they dont give a damn about the laws regardless.
So many start with drug sales, then work their way up to violent crimes. Many get wild ideas from other criminals about how to get away with the "big pay-off" and then try it for themselves, only they get caught really easily. Simply put most criminals are very stupid and cocky about what they do, and they get caught easy.

true felons won't obey gun laws...

Click to expand...

What is an untrue felon?

In what fantasy world is using an illegal substance in your home a victimless crime? Its a crime, and it effects many people along the way from its propagation, to its distribuition, and use.

Click to expand...

In my fantasy world, a terminal cancer patient that grows their own pot, does not sell it, does not let anyone else smoke it, who is not in posession of any weapons, does not smoke near anyone else, and doesn't leave their house while stoned is pretty victimless. For that (very unusual) instance, can anyone tell me who the victim might be? Other than the guy thats trying to get some pain relief during the process of dying that is. Can anyone tell me who that might affect? Other than the guy dying?

Now replace "cancer patient" with "some guy" and tell me who the victims are.

SHvar,

The only reason most of the current associated costs of drug use exist is because they are illegal.

Remove the illegality and 90% of the associated costs disappear.

Alcohol was legal, minimal problems.

Alcohol was criminalized, immediate creation of a black market and associated criminal activity.

Alcohol decriminalized again, immediate cesssation of the black market and associated criminal activity.

The history of drug (alcohol) prohibition is clear, criminalization is purely a blanket, imprecise morally based decision and creates more problems than it solves.

As bad as drug use is for individuals, the overall costs to society would be much lower if the associated criminal activity could be eliminated. Which, as with alcohol, would occur in a minimal amount of time.

When marijuana, opiates and cocaine were not as heavily criminalized (prior to the 20th century) the social costs were minimal. It was when moral crusaders set out to save everyone from themselves that criminals got involved and we all suffered; in violence, economics, loss of rights and the creation of ever more potent and harmful replacement drugs.

'Moral' Crucaders make handy front-men, for beurocracies anxious to exploit and impose on the vulnerability, gullibility or wan aquiescence or surrender of the public, for their own agrandizement, their own Coffers, their own power-broker-shares, and their own remourseless self-perpetuation and growth on any pretext, at any cost to others, and at everyone's expense...


One sees this demonstrated with every charter...and every letter-acronym agency...like most parasites, given time, and succour, they sicken or kill the host by overserving their own secular interests, and eventually regarding the Host grudgingly, resentfully, or even as ungrateful servant standing in it's master's way, to be conquered and enslaved and put in it's place as humble and obedient subordinate having no interestsof it's own.


The lessons of History were not unappreciated by the Founding Fathers...


And now-a-days, we are discouraged from learning, or seeing straight, with regard to these lessons, for fear of undersanding...or fear we will understand.

Well Tim, when you find one real example that follows your description word for word, and has never done otherwise you found a single example of it, until then there still are victims involved. Also to get what that person needs to grow it for themselves is breaking the laws under distribuition (a felony), and has victims at all points along the way.
Carebear, if you see it as having no problems if legal then by all means make a goal of it and make it legal, until then there are victims at every step of the process involved.
Ive never met one example of a cancer patient dieing who smokes marijane for pain relief, so until then, its just an excuse to get high, an illegal one.

Wish I had seen this thread earlier.

First, let me state unequivocally that felons in Kentucky do not have any rights automatically restored after a certain number of years, not even the right to vote. They can petition the governor for a partial restoration of rights or a full pardon but these are entirely discretionary with the governor.

For a discussion about the right of Kentucky to prohibit felons from possessing firearms, look at the case of Posey v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 170 (Ky. 2006), available at http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-...0a+180b+1cd0+1cd1+1cd2+&hc=9&req=2004-SC-0060

It includes a lot of historical discussion about English common law. There was one justice who dissented on this issue.

SHvar,

You're talking in circles.

People smoking in their homes are breaking the law because smoking in their home is illegal.

Exactly.

The important question from a criminological perspective is why is smoking in one's home illegal in the first place?

Under our system of government (and Enlightenment political theory) individuals start with the right and freedom to do pretty much whatever they want to themselves and their property.

It is only when society can show a concrete harm to the rights of other individuals (not "society" in the abstract) that society is thereby justified in placing restrictions on rights and freedoms.

There is no rational basis, given the example of other nations and our own history prior to criminalization of opiates, cocaine and marijuana, that the mere use, possession or associated sales market has any costs for any other individuals* but the users if said use, possession and marketing is not first criminalized.

Rival liquor and cigarette distributors don't have violent turf wars and (most) people don't steal to support alcohol and cigarette habits.

The history of prohibition in the US is one of moralists attempting to control individuals' (admittedly poor) choices in the search for a more "moral" society, not that there was first any documentable evidence of statistically significant impacts on other individuals.

"Society" doesn't have rights, individuals do. Barring concrete evidence that criminalization has increased public safety (in fact the opposite is true, again based on foreign and historical US Prohibition experience) for other individuals then there is no justification to continue to restrict the rights of individuals to make poor choices.






* Yes, there is an argument to be made that families of users may, repeat may, be negatively affected by their drug use, but those effects are best dealt with on an individual basis by criminalizing the actual behavior (neglect of children, assault, theft, other existing crimes, etc) rather than by general Prohibition.