Generally, laws are relatively easy to obey. A felony conviction just doesn't happen by accident.
Oh, but Froto Joe, sadly some want SO BAD for you to believe otherwise:
convicted of no more than having an argument with their wives.
Generally, laws are relatively easy to obey. A felony conviction just doesn't happen by accident.
convicted of no more than having an argument with their wives.
A felony conviction just doesn't happen by accident.
cskny said:Goodness. What is THR's obsession with defending convicted felons? The constitution clearly says firearms rights can be removed with due process, so it's not a constitutional problem.
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 that has not clearly evolved yet, and the trend may actually be that they are slowly eroding in a way that at least some believe to be arbitrary enough to be considered cruel and unusual.
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.
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.
cskny said:Goodness. What is THR's obsession with defending convicted felons?
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!
cskny said: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
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.
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.
The pendulum will eventually swing the other way again as more folks become better educated.
originally posted by mp510
Quote:
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.
I call B.S. on this one.
Please cite the federal statute that treats prohibited persons any differently than those who are not with regards to the possession of less than 50 lbs of black powder for personal use.
I would also like to see the statute prohibiting them from possessing bp substitutes designed for use in muzzleloading firearms, as I have seen written BATFE replies asserting the contrary. And to be perfectly clear, these were in response to that specific question posed by prohibited persons.
BATFE's publicly printed position on bp possession by such persons can be seen here in the Feb 2005 FFL Newsletter.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/news...er-2005-02.pdf
Furthermore, in my opinion, your statement appears to assert a fact of law. In my opinion, unless you are licensed to practice law in every jurisdiction reached by this forum you are practicing law without a license and therefore may be, in my opinion, guilty of a felony and probably are too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm.
See how that works?
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
I don't know what Texas law is on this subject. I'm all for civil rights for citizens. I don't think every felon or illegal alien for that matter should own a gun or have the right to vote. Funny that some in this country care more for illegal aliens, though, than they do citizens with a felony record, especially regards to the vote.
Sec. 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.
NinjaFeint said:I don't think felons should have firearms
Glenn Beck, it starts out with one thing and ends a hypothetical national crisis
I think you know that everything on here is the movement and the ideal.
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?