A legal argument for depriving felons of gun rights

[TwitchALot]

It is part of the sentence. It is applied 'en-mass' when a crime is classifed as misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony. Felony means you have the tag 'felon' tied around your neck for the rest of your life. However, the purpose of this isn't to give you a paperwork version of a scarlet letter, it is so that additional parts of the sentence continue to apply to you FOR LIFE, even though your actual physical incarceration may end after just a few years. That's why most of the time it is called 'felony conviction' because you are getting jail time + lifetime status as a felon.

Kind of how it was part of the sentence, applied 'en-mass' when the crime was the color of your skin, and a less than High Road word means you have the tag "not so high road word" tied around your neck for the rest of your life? And so even if you were released from "servitude," you were still a "not so high road word" and those additional parts of the "sentence" continue to apply to you for LIFE, even though your servitude may end after a few years?


Hardly. If someone isn't sentenced, in a court of law, to not be able to possess firearms for a period of time for their crime, they shouldn't be punished for it, plain and simple. The deprivation of rights should only occur through the due process of law.

To all of you who think that as soon as you serve your given time, the slate should be wiped clean. Does that hold for pedophiles? Should an elementary school teacher provider who molested children be able to walk right out of jail and get a job as a playground monitor or a janitor at a day-care center? Or are we allowed to let the person out after 10 years, but still apply some restrictions to him such as 'no unsupervised interaction with children for the rest of your life'

It holds for everyone, because everyone should be equal under the law. And as I said earlier, you should be allowed to apply restrictions such as, "no unsupervised interaction with children for the rest of your life" PROVIDED that it is done through the due process of law and is a part of the sentence given. Passing a law that prohibits a certain group from doing something is hardly that, and in addition, hardly qualifies as "equal under the law," as far as I'm concerned. Laws that selectively target people for punishment shouldn't be laws at all.

If you are so concerned about a pedophile molesting children in the future, then how hard would it be for you to ask the judge for an additional sentence that includes staying away from certain areas? How hard would it be to plead your case in a court of law and administer punishment appropriately and justly, through the due process thereof?

 

[divemedic]

At any rate, we're talking about convicted felons, presumably -- the only type of felon whose firearms rights are denied.

So the only thing that separates us from felons is getting caught?

It simply is very difficult these days to get sent to prison. You really do have to be a determined criminal type to get there ...

You don't have to be sent to prison to lose your rights, you only have to be convicted of a felony. Many people convicted of felonies are never sent to prison.

 

[Guns and more]

I did look into restoring rights as I promised. Someone stated:

1 That procedure has been defunded.

and

the bureaucracy that that is supposed to process these requests is "out of business".

Later in a story from Newsmax (Quoting Newsmax is like quoting the National Enquirer) they follow up with:

Congress has told the Treasury Department in annual appropriations laws that it may not spend money to act on requests from felons who want their firearms rights restored.

That's a far stretch from "The Department of the Treasury has been defunded" or "BATF is out of business".

I did a Google search and the first story I found was:

"TALLAHASSEE — Civil rights for thousands of Florida felons, including the right to vote, will be restored without any effort on their part under a new rule approved Thursday by Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Cabinet.
Attorney General Bill McCollum cast the lone dissenting vote of the four-member group, which acted as the Board of Executive Clemency in taking up the rule at Crist's urging and making the historic change."

"Florida has been one of only three states, with Kentucky and Virginia, to require felons to apply for restoration of their rights. Some states have waiting periods, but most restore rights automatically when sentences are completed.".

I went on to the second search result: A list of how a number of the states automatically restore rights. See, they "don't spend any money on restoring rights."

Nothing about BATF, or the Treasury Department. Nothing about "defunding". Nothing about "bureaucracies out of business".
I know you were passionate in making your point, but words mean something, that's why I called "doubletalk".

I did think it was a state issue after all.

I'm done with this. I don't feel sorry for convicted felons, and I won't change anyone's mind.

But I do vote.

 

[divemedic]

That doesn't help you at the Fed level. ATF is forbidden by congress from using funds to restore rights to felons, but don't let the facts get in your way. From Law.com:

Under a federal law that was not challenged in the case, convicted felons are barred from possessing or distributing firearms. But the law also allows felons in certain circumstances to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to reinstate gun privileges.

Bean applied for reinstatement, but the ATF replied -- as it has for the last 10 years -- that Congress has specifically forbidden the ATF from expending any funds to investigate or act on such applications. Congress has enacted the spending ban every year since the Violence Policy Center in 1992 issued a report indicating that dangerous criminals were regaining their ability to own guns through the program.

Some more about those dangerous felons:

What is a felony?

Conspiracy to commit murder sure isn't, at least in Maryland.

Improperly revealing an auto accident report is a more serious felony than running a meth lab in Maryland. (15 years v. 5 years)

Writing a bad check for $501 is a felony, but $499 is just misdemeanor dandy.

Using a handgun in the commission of a crime is a misdemeanor in Maryland.

Inducing someone to commit suicide is a felony, but since its maximum sentence is 1 year, it is treated like a misdemeanor by the feds for things like felon-in-possession gun law.

And before you ask, the oral sex law is true. A misdemeanor (Maryland) with a maximum term of 10 years. (Maryland and Mississippi) Consentuality notwithstanding. Gender of receiver notwithstanding, either (yes, the word cunnilingus appears in every copy of the Maryland Annotated Code that adorns a shelf)

What is not a felony? According to the Feds:

antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices

So the Enron Execs keep their rights after stealing millions, but the guy in Maryland who wrote a $501 bad check loses his rights.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

guns and more said:

I guess I should butt out........

and

To each his own.

Now these are a couple of nuggets worth sifting for.
You just concentrate on following your own advice here and you may not turn out to be quite the waste of oxygen that you appear to be.

 

[dalepres]

I detect a common thread that if we would just do away with those evil drug laws, all would be perfect. Bullcrap. What do you think the drug dealers would do? Get jobs? Join a monastery? No, they will sell to whoever is prohibited in your plan. Should a five year old be able to legally buy cocaine? No. Then someone will try to sell it to them. Everyone stoned all the time is not the answer to anything. I think even Amsterdam is re-thinking their drug policy.

Sort of like how all of those making and selling illegal booze after the first prohibition continued selling but changed their efforts to selling alcohol to 5 year olds.

 

[rainbowbob]

Sort of like how all of those making and selling illegal booze after the first prohibition continued selling but changed their efforts to selling alcohol to 5 year olds.

Well no...but they didn't exactly get out of the crime business either.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

^Hey kid! This Bud's for you.

 

[dalepres]

Well no...but they didn't exactly get out of the crime business either.

No, they didn't. They began anti-drug campaigns and led us to the second prohibition.

 

[jaholder1971]

FWIW, I'm pretty happy about felons not being able to possess guns. Sorry, but if you commit and are convicted of a felony, you may suffer some long term adverse consequences. Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. If that bothers you, don't break the law.

+1000

Yes, there are way too many offenses that shouldn't be felonies. However that doesn't change anything.

These people decided of their free will to engage in an activity that, if caught, would result in both short term and long term consequences. Many of these restrictions aren't new, they're 40 years old this year.

Besides, almost 70 percent of felons reoffend. These people have proven they aren't ones who can make good decisions nor obey the law.

 

[jaholder1971]

There was a case in Wyoming about 20 years ago where an 18 year old kid was hitchhiking and picked up by a car full of 3 undercover narcotics cops. After they were moving down the road, the cops told the guy to either give them some cash, some dope, or get out. The kid gave them one of three joints in his posession. He got 25 years in prison. Posessing small quantities of prohibited drugs for personal use has not always been and is not always now, a misdemeanor. Many lives are ruined by it. Many people who represent no risk to the safety of society, who are not violent criminals, lose the right, and their families lose the right, to own a gun for personal protection.

A series of stupid decision got him 25 years. Sucks to be him.

Your argument sound like a really good reason to avoid weed and all the other illegal drugs out there, don't it???

 

[KiltedClaymore]

Your argument sound like a really good reason to avoid weed and all the other illegal drugs out there, don't it???

or hitchhiking. or cops.