BATFE Restoration of 2A rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
So why cant they take 5 borderline cases they can probly win, run them through court and get these guys rights returned, then go back and sue in civil court for the money you need?

A clear violation of civil rights should be worth a few million.
If getting that is possible you can either fund more trials or penalize the government to the point where people look into changing the law.
 
Maxwell said:
So why cant they take 5 borderline cases they can probly win, run them through court and get these guys rights returned, then go back and sue in civil court for the money you need?

A clear violation of civil rights should be worth a few million.
If getting that is possible you can either fund more trials or penalize the government to the point where people look into changing the law.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf
 
Thanks PCF. This is a much large issue/obstacle than most think. About the only practacable way I can think of altering this is through lobbying and legislative efforts. I was aware of Bean, but was tyring to stick with fiscal arguments.

Edit: Maxwell, even Bean notwithstanding, there is little or no legal grounds for the recovery of costs in a civil court any more than there is grounds for the recovery of costs in defending a criminal charge which resulted in a not guilty finding, absent evidence of misconduct or malicious prosecution.
 
there is little or no legal grounds for the recovery of costs in a civil court any more than there is grounds for the recovery of costs in defending a criminal charge which resulted in a not guilty finding, absent evidence of misconduct or malicious prosecution.

At least one of these guys ox has most certainly been gored. His business was lost, correct?
The aclu has recoverd fees in civil rights cases before. Not to mention a chance for large settlements.

If Im reading this pdf correctly, this is a "we lost your paperwork" kind of answer. They havnt said yes or no its just presumed no. Then he cant sue them for not saying "no" because they havnt said anything?
Thats limbo, I dont see how anyone can call it legal.

I think if it was anything but a 2nd amendment case, the ACLU would have eaten the feds alive.
 
OVERLORD said:
So AR what your saying is that since they didn't get the prison sentence they should have or parolling due to possible over crowding and things like that we should also make another dumb a** mistake and allow them to own firearms legally. I'm really happy that your not the one making those decisions. I bet central texas wouldn't be talking that crap if it was your sister or wife or mother that was raped or murdered. I think this line of thinking should be called compounded stupidity!!

No, that's not what I am saying. Insufficient sentencing is a different subject entirely. But it doesn't matter.

The logic in my argument stands whether or not this country ever gets its act in gear regarding sufficient sentencing.

If the person is too dangerous to be on the streets and have ALL of their rights restored, then they shouldn't be released. Period. This is where your concern of insufficient sentencing comes in. And I agree with you that it is wrong to release criminals in the time served is not fitting with the crime or simply because of overcrowding.

But surely you can see the logic behind what I'm saying about criminals: either they okay to be on the streets 100% (and should therefore have their rights restored) or they are not okay to be on the streets and should therefore remain locked up.
 
Henry Bowman said:
Hopefully, you'll never fall off of that high horse. More and more things that were innocent pranks when I was a kid are felonies now. Some things that aren't even crimes in one place are felonies somewhere else.:fire:

Want to read or write books/magazines or exercise other basis human rights? Don't commit crimes. It's not that hard.

Want to buy a car? Don't ever get caught speeding in that hidden school zone

Welcome to 2006.

Blame your legislators.

Vote.
 
Maxwell said:
They are in place to help stop crimes of passion and catch criminals.
Of course they usualy dont work, but you get to cool your heels anyway.

If you want to buy a firearm you first have to prove your not a criminal, right?
The guy thats out to break the law knows he cant buy from the store. So he goes to another source. The felon who legitimatly needs a weapon for his safety also knows he cant get it legally. He will also go elsewhere.
Those Dollars go strait into the black market, with absolutly no records kept on either weapon.

You dont do much to stop one man up to no good, and you deny what should have been a legal purchase from the other. Their both re-armed... Meanwhile, your still waiting for your gun.

Whos getting punished?

Your point, as it relates to this discussion?
 
Maxwell said:
So why cant they take 5 borderline cases they can probly win, run them through court and get these guys rights returned, then go back and sue in civil court for the money you need?

A clear violation of civil rights should be worth a few million.
If getting that is possible you can either fund more trials or penalize the government to the point where people look into changing the law.

Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?
 
Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?
Yes, liberty for all.

Rights are presumptive. That is the burden of proof is on those wishing to limit rights.

Why are you so vehement about disarming everyone with a felony conviction in their past who has served the full term of any sentance and parole? Is it "zero tolerrance" thinking? Is it that all convicted felons are forever violent? Many were never violent.


Call me a libertarian (or worse), but I'd rather live in a dangerous, free society than a "safe" authoritarian one.
 
M-Rex said:
Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?

Because our government has gone too far and made things that shouldn't even be crimes into serious crimes (ie felonies).

You are taking the simplistic view that anyone with a felony conviction is a bad/dangerous person who deserves to have their rights revoked and society is better off for them being disarmed.

I believe there are many (thousands? tens of thousands?) of people who deserve to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights but who have had them denied because they where convicted of some non-crime that the state calls a felony.


What we have to gain by arming these "criminals" is that another decent person who is armed makes it just that much more difficult for real criminals to ply their trade with impunity.


You seem to refuse to make the distinction between serious, violent felons and those convicted of non-crime felonies (like making a mistake on a federal form or engaging in oral sex with their wife or one of the thousands of stupid laws on the books). You also seem to refuse to make the distinction between the law and justice. If injustice is codified into the law you seem to be perfectly happy...I guess as long as slavery or genocide are neatly codified into law than they are perfectly moral and ethical in your world.

I still contend that you have likely done something in your life that had you been caught and convicted of you would be a felon ... I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of the population of this country have done something that could result in a felony conviction so I guess its "tough cookies ... shouldn't have got caught" for those who have been convicted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know ... ignorance of the law is no excuse ... etc. But I bet you can't name for me absolutely every offense where you live that could/would be considered a felony. Even though you're a cop I bet you can't ... and its that over complexity that the statists use against the people.

If indeed our legal system only recognized real felonies I'd agree with you 100%. I have no problem with forever revoking the right to keep and bear arms to someone who robs, rapes, murders, etc, but I have a hard time believing that someone who has been convicted of some sort of procedural and/or nonviolent felony shouldn't have the right to have their rights restored, nor that the #1 gun rights organization should support those people.


Why are YOU so vehement about disarming your fellow citizens over minor offenses?
 
M-Rex said:
Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?

Please read Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922.g

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
-to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Back on subject again......
It appears that if the prohibition is removed from the budget that the BATF would have to start adjudicating petitions of relief. If that's the case then funding is incumbent on the BATF. Getting that line removed wouldn't be difficult especially if done by a rider or in conference committee. Unfortunately that's a double edge sword. The only solutions that would survive more than one year is enacting legislation that would forbid Congress from withholding funds. Or try to take it to court under admendments I, II, IV, V, VI, VIII. Legislation is a better bet.
 
Henry Bowman said:
Yes, liberty for all.

Rights are presumptive. That is the burden of proof is on those wishing to limit rights.

Why are you so vehement about disarming everyone with a felony conviction in their past who has served the full term of any sentance and parole? Is it "zero tolerrance" thinking? Is it that all convicted felons are forever violent? Many were never violent.


Call me a libertarian (or worse), but I'd rather live in a dangerous, free society than a "safe" authoritarian one.

I can only hope that neither you, nor your family, are the victims of a felonious ex-con.
 
Zundfolge said:
Because our government has gone too far and made things that shouldn't even be crimes into serious crimes (ie felonies).

You are taking the simplistic view that anyone with a felony conviction is a bad/dangerous person who deserves to have their rights revoked and society is better off for them being disarmed.

I believe there are many (thousands? tens of thousands?) of people who deserve to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights but who have had them denied because they where convicted of some non-crime that the state calls a felony.


What we have to gain by arming these "criminals" is that another decent person who is armed makes it just that much more difficult for real criminals to ply their trade with impunity.


You seem to refuse to make the distinction between serious, violent felons and those convicted of non-crime felonies (like making a mistake on a federal form or engaging in oral sex with their wife or one of the thousands of stupid laws on the books). You also seem to refuse to make the distinction between the law and justice. If injustice is codified into the law you seem to be perfectly happy...I guess as long as slavery or genocide are neatly codified into law than they are perfectly moral and ethical in your world.

I still contend that you have likely done something in your life that had you been caught and convicted of you would be a felon ... I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of the population of this country have done something that could result in a felony conviction so I guess its "tough cookies ... shouldn't have got caught" for those who have been convicted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know ... ignorance of the law is no excuse ... etc. But I bet you can't name for me absolutely every offense where you live that could/would be considered a felony. Even though you're a cop I bet you can't ... and its that over complexity that the statists use against the people.

If indeed our legal system only recognized real felonies I'd agree with you 100%. I have no problem with forever revoking the right to keep and bear arms to someone who robs, rapes, murders, etc, but I have a hard time believing that someone who has been convicted of some sort of procedural and/or nonviolent felony shouldn't have the right to have their rights restored, nor that the #1 gun rights organization should support those people.


Why are YOU so vehement about disarming your fellow citizens over minor offenses?

Oh, I don't want mere citizens disarmed. Unfortunately, the representatives that you (general, not specific) elected have created the law the way it is.

Bottom line: Want guns? Don't do crimes.

It's not that hard.
 
I've got no dog in this fight, but M-Rex, that is the weakest rebuttal I've seen on this forum in quite some time.
 
Bottom line: Want guns? Don't do crimes.

It's not that hard.

Actually, it is.
If your accused of a crime, but not convited, you just lost your right to bear arms. You didnt have to do anything.

If you call the batf to get it back, you get a busy signal.
If you sue to get an answer from the batf, you get a judge telling you that no answer means he cant give you an answer, therefore you have no choice but to wait for the batf... forever?
You didnt do a crime, but your certainly doing time.

In light of that, who would you say has been more disarmed by our laws: The criminals who currently control our streets or the citizens who cant afford this legal tail chasing?

How about this. Instead of me having to prove that full and free ownership would be the best thing for America, I think its your turn to prove that a prohibition can (or ever has) worked for anyone.
 
Tecumseh said:
<Really foolish idea removed by Art>

But its nice to know that you believe the system works. So when a cop breaks the law during their investigation its ok?


Never. Have lost partners over searches and practices that cross the line.
 
beerslurpy said:
Every state has a process for restoring rights for state given felonies, even really serious ones that would have been called felonies in the old days.

Unless you are referring to pardons (harder to find than hen's teeth), many states do not have any such law. Certainly they don't have a politically-neutral administrative process (which ATF's pre-Democrats process was)

IIRC Arizona is one of the once a felon, always a felon state, for example.
 
Maxwell said:
Actually, it is.
If your accused of a crime, but not convited, you just lost your right to bear arms. You didnt have to do anything.

If you call the batf to get it back, you get a busy signal.
If you sue to get an answer from the batf, you get a judge telling you that no answer means he cant give you an answer, therefore you have no choice but to wait for the batf... forever?
You didnt do a crime, but your certainly doing time.

In light of that, who would you say has been more disarmed by our laws: The criminals who currently control our streets or the citizens who cant afford this legal tail chasing?

How about this. Instead of me having to prove that full and free ownership would be the best thing for America, I think its your turn to prove that a prohibition can (or ever has) worked for anyone.

Interesting. I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted. I still have all my firearms. I guess I must be an anomoly.

It doesn't seem that hard to me.
 
M-Rex said:
Interesting. I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted. I still have all my firearms. I guess I must be an anomoly.

It doesn't seem that hard to me.
A classmate in college from a few years ago was accused of arson when his car caught fire and badly damaged his apartment garage. The police and fire department thought it was suspicious and arrested him. Turns out that the old battery charger he was using (It was winter and his battery would not hold a charge.) shorted out and caused the fire. I have not talked to him since that class ended and I have no idea if he can buy a gun or not. But he was arrested and accused of arson, then the fire department finaly found that it was the charger that caused the fire and charges where dropped.
 
CentralTexas said:
I'm pretty sure if they are, it wouldn't be by a felon who had his gun owning rights restored.
CT

That is debatable. If it were me, I wouldn't be my life on that.

However, I have drifted off-topic again. At Mr. Roberts request, I'm going to throttle back a bit and hopefully, the topic will move back to it's original direction.
 
I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted.

I guess you dont think it can happen to you... an odd view to have around these parts.
If you were in these peoples shoes, you would want more than a judgement summised as "Thats not my department".

Skewed the right way what the batf is doing isint too far removed from extortion. Their holding people hostage until their fees are paid.
I just dont see how that can stand.

Im watching known terrorists and murderers go free befor an innocent man can get his record clear... I think these guys just got the wrong kind of lawyers.
 
The matter of depriving people of their rights - for whatever reason(s) - is and should remain with Congress and the Judiciary. The people who rubber stamped the concept of a Federal tax collection agency having control of this function ought to be in prison themselves.
---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org
 
The real reason behind smoking bans are anti-smoking zealots and attempts to reduce health care cost. They are usually enacted under the guise of protection for employee and children's health.

Lawful Protection in Commerce in Arms Act, was passed as tort reform. It wasn't about firearms, it was about getting out of control trial lawyers under control. Normally hands off on 2A issues or anti 2A, Business periodicals supported the act.

Thinking outside of the box.

Any ideas on how to bring up the issue, federal firearms disability relief, without mentioning the second admendment or felons?

1st admendment issues? Congress through use of Budget Authority, has used the law to to stop the people from petitioning the government for a redress of greivances. Could this fall under 1A?

Homeland security? Police officers and Service members who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, are fired/discharged, it's a needless loss of manpower and skills? A court could adjudicate a petition and determine the accused's fitness to remain employed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top