Discussion in 'Legal' started by chicharrones, Jan 27, 2012.
Oh, but Froto Joe, sadly some want SO BAD for you to believe otherwise:
felonies can be easy to obtain. Next door neighbor kid suffers depression, alcoholism. He was so drunk he turned into my driveway instead of his parents. I heard the siren and sprang up to see what was going on. I see an officer with gun drawn screaming at a vehicle saying get out of the car and lay on the ground. Next the officer grabs the kid and pulls him out of the car with the seat belt still on. Not an easy task. Kid falls on the ground and the cop spins him around. Kids arm hits the cop as the cop rolls the kid over. and suddenly it is aggravated assault. A felony. Give up your gun rights forever. The kid was so drunk that he was barely awake and could not stand up. I helped pick him up and put him in the back of the police car. BAC =.29% unconscious-almost lethal. The kid deserves whatever happens for the DUI, for fleeing and eluding, running stop signs etc., (personally, I hate drunks) However, there is no possible way that kid took a swing at the cop, nor did he kick the cop as stated in the police report. Just the alcohol content in the system shows he could not have intentionally hit the cop.
The kid has been dean's list all through college. Does he deserve a felony conviction for assaulting an officer?
This is a matter of state law. Don't confuse the federal transfer laws with the felon-in-possession statutes.
Only thanks to procedural barriers and budget restrictions. Everyone posting here, I guarantee, has committed multiple potential felonies. You cannot live and breath in the US without doing so, particularly if you're carrying a firearm. Heck get too close to a school with one and you've committed a federal felony instantly. Of course most are never discovered or prosecuted. If they were all Americans over age 18 would be in prison.
One problem that I can see is that a person who has been convicted of a "soft felony" is now faced without the means to defend their life if threatened with deadly force, even in their own home.
Then the soft felony can in effect result in a death sentence for them or for their family members who are in their care.
There are plenty of examples of people who have been convicted of a felony crime in jury trials who have been totally innocent. The reasons for a wrong decision can't always be pinpointed. They could be due to prejudice of one form or another, inadequate legal representation, poor judicial rulings or even an inept jury.
Many Americans wonder how all felons can be grouped together with such a broad stroke of the brush when there are such clear fundamental differences in the nature of various felonies.
Perhaps that's why the Federal government doesn't prohibit the ownership of muzzle loaders for felons. Meanwhile there's a lack of protections at the state level, and the trend shows that the remnants of whatever protections that do exist are being eroded for arbitrary enough reasons to where the resulting effect is considered to be cruel and unusual.
The decision not to include antique firearms within the federal definition was not the product of some grand-justice-delusion. Rather, it was a product of the legislature believing that those implements were not likely to be used as weapons- they were items that were expected to be obsolete and more of historical curios than anything else. That was the reasoning that prompted Congress to catagorically exempt muzzle loaders from the National Firearms Act decades after it was enacted. Even though felons were not federally prohibited from possessing antique cartridge firearms, it was (effectively) illegal for them to procure or possess the ammunition to actually use them- including the components. When modern muzzle loaders were developed in the 1990s, there WAS an executive effort to treat those weapons like firearms, an effort that was hindered by legal technicality. Still, the existing law mitigates their ability to use them as (most) effective weapons (substitute powders, 209 primers, and the bullets in most sabots are ammunition and thus prohibited). And, there is also basis for federal laws regulating the possession and use of explosive by convicted felons could be enforced against felons who possess the powder necessary to actually use a muzzle loader. With the increasing use and technological development of modern muzzleloaders, states are increasingly making their own prohibitors more stringent (e.g. As of tomorrow, felons and serious misdomeanants will be prohibited from possessing muzzle loaders in NYS, and recently a Florida appeals court rejected the ignition exemplars in their state antique firearms definition from broadly encompassing all muzzle loaders, though the appellant did manage to win that case).
Holy cow, this is an example of how "easy" it is to get convicted? A drunk driving, depressed, alcoholic kid who has a physical altercation with law enforcement? He's got an un-just "soft" felony?
I have no problem with his new firearms ban for his felony resulting from his drunk and physical altercation with police.
Not to mention, he was driving completely drunk. EVEN THAT is a potential problem, he may not have even needed said altercation:
"Whether the DUI is considered a felony or a misdemeanor and the severity of the penalty depends on many factors, including the number of offenses, the level of blood alcohol registered in the breath test, and if others are injured in an accident with the DUI offender."
I don't think this was a very good example. JMO
Of course, if this was their concern, the simplest solution would be to not get involved in a "soft felony". But that would require responsibility, judgement, and forethought, something they clearly demonstrate a "lack of". Perhaps the "lack of" is the point.
I guess that in the eyes of some folks, we must all be either a bunch of red blooded American gun nuts or too fundamentally conservative about our 2A rights, or even better yet both, and proud of it too!
Except, there's more in that same constitution that LEGALLY ALLOWS the removal of that 2A right through due process. So in the end, statements like this are simply arguing to support 1 amendment and ignore the rest of the document. I like the whole document.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
seems clear to me and non revokable, first felons all felons are equal, than certain misdemeanors eve though they should completely gone after 7 years they can buy you a life time ban.
we need a law banning the potential criminal from getting guns, all we need is a committee to interview anyone wishing to buy one and they can decide if you can have one or not. Than we will all be safe!
No criminal that can’t own a gun would never find a way to get one and use it in his crime because that would be wrong.
and we all know there are no guns on the street, oh except the ones from fast and furious
I have been sleeping alot better knowing that guy is no longer driving around with that musket in his car!
Someone mentioned earlier that there are way's to have your rights restored. There are 2, a Presidential pardon and a restoration of rights by the BATF. The 1st, requires so much detail about your life from the time your sentence is up (minimum time to present the request for pardon is 7 years I believe), that most people can't remember or find all the minutea necessary(or afford the campaign contribution expected for such a boon). And the 2nd, well, Congress hasn't alloted funding for that process by the BATF since 1996. This info comes from my brother, who forever besmirched the family name by posessing somewhat less that an oz of marijuana in the late 70's. I would suggest that convicted felons who want firearm protection, get elected to Congress and be issued a bodyguard or two (tongue planted firmly in cheek for that statement).
I could say the same since I did previously mention the cruel and unusual effect which is subject to interpretation, don't you think?
If enough of us think that the system is broken, then statements like the one above only means that the others would actually prefer for us to believe that it shouldn't be fixed.
That would be defeatist. Some of us folks here on THR truely believe that our ideal is something worth fighting for in the long run. You know the Sons of Liberty type of thing that goes back to the founding fathers. There's the constant evolution of legal theory where rights expand and contract, and Americans can control that through the political process and developing ideology. The movement will grow as the state becomes increasingly more oppressive to an ever growing number of decent, hard-working Americans.
Then the pendulum will eventually swing the other way again as more inclined folks become better educated about state affairs and become activists.
You need to keep reading the rest of the amendments.
Or, you can simply hit that search button above and search THR. This topic has been done to death. You are incorrect, the constitution allows for the removal of felons 2A rights via due process.
Please, use the search button and look. It's really been discussed so many times.
Uh..you can say anything you want I suppose, it's your keyboard. I don't know how it applies to my point.
What is 'the system'? The Constitution? There's a mechanism to change it, sure.
What is 'the ideal' exactly, I missed it. That felons should not lose 2A rights via due process?
'The movement'? I thought we were talking about 2A rights and felons?
We seem like a pretty educated society. But I'll play it safe and watch out for that pendulum, thanks
To be fair to the nevada supreme court, their job is to interpret state law, and they did. The man from the little info in the article took on the wrong fight. One he should have never plead guilty in the first place, he should have taken it to a jury then appealed if he lost. two a felony possession case is a wobbler felony meaning it could have been treated as a misdemeanor depending on the DA, and after you finish your probation if you keep your nose clean, you can go back to the court and either have the case dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor, you don’t want a expungement as that would not be recognized by the feds, but he was not violating federal law, so even that might of help him in this case.
I think, if you check the federal regulations, that although a felon prohibited from firearms can legally possess an antique firearm or replica thereof...., the same regulations that stop a felon from having a modern firearm also prohibit possession of ammunition and components which includes black powder and substitutes. So a felon can own a wall hanger in some states, but can't use the thing.
I don't like the fact that a guy who got convicted of stealing cars when 18, and hasn't been arrested since..., cleaned up his act, can't take his kid hunting 30 years later when he's 48..., even if he only has a BP rifle, but I don't know a good answer as to how we address that situation.
The politicians answer is to put the person into prison which costs the state more money to incarcerate him, to take away his job and the means of support for his family, which could mean giving them welfare benefits, which can also mean that they'll need to move into more affordable housing, and the government can pay for their medical needs, food and everything else as if they were in prison too.
Then we can pay to build more prisons to ease overcrowding, more salaries for more guards and prison psychiatrists and administrators, and for all of the supplies, and for more probation & parole officers and half-way houses, job assistance, and for all of their future needs until the guy gets back on his feet and is able to support his family again.
That way we can have higher welfare costs and more bureaucracy and raises and benefits for all of the state employees because after all bureaucracies are a big business.
Now don't we all feel much safer and more enriched as a society knowing that these felons can be put back in jail while state and Federal deficits skyrocket?
All of those muzzle loaders in the hands of convicted felons are just like a crime wave waiting to happen. Maybe the police shouldn't even need to apply for warrants to search the homes of ex-cons. Maybe they should just be allowed to bust right in anytime of the night or day and search their homes for any kind of contraband. After all, what do them ex-con's need any of them there fancy civil rights for? Maybe the police could even attach GPS units on to their cars and follow them around until they can be caught doing anything illegal that can be used to put them back into jail again and again. Maybe they're taking bets on the Super Bowl which really needs to be stopped. Plus we really need to keep those prisons full up to capacity and beyond. Our society and state legislatures have so many lawyers with families to support have any of them go hungry. There must be some creative ways to round up some business for all of those poor, underemployed criminal lawyers.
I based that post off misrepresented material online. I assume that FFL newsletter article that you posted is correct- if so, it appears that the information that I relied upon was incorrect.
My rationale for describing substitute black powder products as a regulated ammunition component draws from manufacturer information (for several-such products), which provide information about how to use those products for the making fixed/ centerfire-cartridges.
My post was was not intended to offer legal advice or opinion or engage-in any activity that requires a law license. I hope that nobody interpreted it to be advice. I was attempting to (academically) illustrate the legislative branch's motivation (or maybe lack of motivation) for choosing not to regulate certain implements. Think political analysis.
I think you know that everything on here is the movement and the ideal. I don't think felons should have firearms, I just know how it goes on here. It's like watching Glenn Beck, it starts out with one thing and ends a hypothetical national crisis.
I looked into this when I was trying to figure out how to pass down a shotgun to a convicted felon, (non-violent - forgery/larceny).
TX law will allow then to own a long gun in their home for HD after 5yrs of completion of their time (sentence, parole, probation, etc.).
However, it doesn't trump Federal Law nor does it allow you to have/transport the weapon anywhere outside of the home.
Soooo I will more than likely be stuck with this ugly worthless shotgun till some of the deceased great grand kids get old enough for me to give to them..
So does that mean that you think that muzzle loaders should only be transferred through an FFL dealer instead of through the mail directly to the consumer like it is now in most states?
Well, one thing for sure. This kinda thing could never happen to us here, it's only the "bad guys" this happens to. So we don't have to worry.
Kinda like that little clause they added to the National Defense Authorization Act this year, who cares if they can't be denied due process even if they are American Citizens, they will only do that to the "bad guys"
Me, I don't trust the Feds or the state to much to make all the decisions without checks and balances. And yes, I said Hitler would be proud. It was tounge in cheek, but we are getting a lot closer to 1938 Germany than I like to see.
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" - Thomas Jefferson
I love it, that's so accurate!
But my point is simply, THR is a community of gun enthusiasts who don't agree on everything, so how can you say blanket statements about a 'THR movements' or 'THR ideals'? Because SOME people agree with something your saying?
Who appointed you guys to speak for all of us at THR?
Isn't that like trying to argue that you should de-criminalize rape because it's so expensive and hard to prove with all that witness and DNA stuff.
Separate names with a comma.