Businessman kills burgler.... then he is arrested for being a felon with gun

[Aguila Blanca]

I feel that there should be a legit process for someone who has been convicted to expunge the felony from his record. Should it be easy? HELL no.

BUT it should be possible.

It should not only be possible, it should be automatic.

Way back when I was in school, the theory of incarceration (as it was explained in Social Studies class) was that upon release (and completion of any parole, if applicable), a person was considered to have "paid his debt to society." If that's true, then we should not ... repeat NOT ... extend various aspects of their punishment for the remainder of their natural lives.

Once a felon has completed his term and parole, he/she should have ALL rights restored. Period. If we are not comfortable with doing that with certain individuals, then the system messed up and they should have received a longer sentence.

Let's not forget that the former president of Smith & Wesson was a convicted felon. Technically, I'm betting he violated the law probably every day at the office, unless he studiously avoided handling any of the company's products. Why wasn't he rearrested and charged?

 

[P0832177]

The law is the law, and if we do not like then change the law. If he wanted his rights restored he could have made an effort, but no he did not! So, although the shooting reads as though it is legit, but it was done by Oh Yeah a Convicted Felon!

I have no sympathy for those that think they are above the law! He knew he was committing a crime 20+ years ago, and there are long term repercussions assoicated with his choices!

 

[jsalcedo]

I have no sympathy for those that think they are above the law! He knew he was committing a crime 20+ years ago, and there are long term repercussions assoicated with his choices!

Like submitting to death at the hands of a robber?

 

[CentralTexas]

iirc, There WAS a way to petition the BATFE to regain firearm owner status as a felon. In 1994, Congress (remember that Clinton guy) forbid any funding for this program. It was challanges a couple years ago in the ourts, and congress won. I don't recall the case name, but the defendent was caught in Mexico w/ a case of ammo, and was appealling to get his FFL back, as he had broken no US law, regardless of his location.
Sounds like this guy may have been trying to pull his life back together, that's a tragedy.

It costs the DOJ about 2-3K per case to process and Clinton wouldn't allow funds to be spent on it. Guess what? GW Bush won't allow funds to be spent on it either.
CT

 

[jsalcedo]

Clinton wouldn't allow funds to be spent on it. Guess what? GW Bush won't allow funds to be spent on it either.

Giving felons their guns back would make a plump N juicy sound byte on CNN.

 

[CentralTexas]

Giving felons their guns back would make a plump N juicy sound byte on CNN.

Agreed, but I prefer to say giving felons their rightsback.
The Dems seem to want to do that so they can vote....
CT

 

[obm]

Agreed, but I prefer to say giving felons their rights back.
The Dems seem to want to do that so they can vote....
CT

how about people learn not to become felons in the first place and they won't have this problem.

 

[newfalguy101]

At least with the current information, it is tough to tell if he killed a person for the same reason he went to jail. Perry was convincted of armed robbery. The person he shot was a burglar and we don't know yet if the burglar was armed or not.

Fair enough, but I believe my point still applies.

A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.

 

[Fidel Castro]

Quote:
I wonder how long it's going to take some enterprising leftist extremist to think of redefining virtually all crimes as felonies to cut down on the number of citizens who can legally keep and bear arms.
You say that like it isn't already happening.

The government says taking away the right to bear arms is not punishment hence no ex post facto. ie. All those convicted of a certain misdemeanor prior to 1997 are now prohibited persons. A new misdemeanor in the pipe is a firearms ban for all misdemeanor sex offenses. Hey? I wonder if the will include former President Clinton in the oval office fiasco? That would be having sex, dang it wasn't sex, in a public place. I'll bet misdemeanor drugs is next then dui after that cools.....then....and......

 

[newfalguy101]

I believe the "certian misdemeaner" offense you are refering to is Domestic assualt, which I never really understood why a guy could beat the hell out of his wife and only be charged with a misdemeaner anyway.

If you are referring to something else, please feel free to elaborate.

 

[Fidel Castro]

I believe the "certian misdemeaner" offense you are refering to is Domestic assualt, which I never really understood why a guy could beat the hell out of his wife and only be charged with a misdemeaner anyway.

If you are referring to something else, please feel free to elaborate.

Yes, you get a cookie, domestic violence and it's not just '"beating the hell out of his wife"' but a multitude of other abuses such as coercion, threats, intimidation, isolation, and emotional, sexual and physical abuse.........Have you ever insulted your wife, mother, father, daughter, son, girlfriend, boyfriend?? You just may be an abuser.

Nobody was defending DV. Only that DV is a misdemeanor. Maybe they should have just made it a felony? Why did you get so emotional about it, newfalguy101?

But that wasn't the thoughts Standing Wolf, Flyboy and I were presenting. Edited to spell it out; Before 1938 ex-felons could legally possess firearms. Before 1997 misdemeanor dv could legally possess firearms. ex post facto. Those convicted prior to 1997 of misdemeanor dv also lose their firearms rights without ever being told that was a consequense of their actions. They are now proposing that all misdemeanor sex offenses lose their firearms rights. ex post facto. And that will probably pass because everyone hates those scumbags. What's next??? is all we were saying..Drug offenders...DUI...how about any misdemeanor conviction????

 

[Fidel Castro]

My thoughts on the burgler killer.

He should have had his record expunged and regained his rights if he could. He was commiting another crime by possessing a firearm. Alot of people have stated that if convicted they would rather possess than be defenseless though. I don't think the burgler was an imminent threat that the shooter had no other option especially as a convicted felon. He's in alot of trouble. ...for what it's worth...

 

[newfalguy101]

COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make it a chocolate chip cookie pleeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I may have read more into your post than what was there.

Maybe they SHOULD make a domestic assualt a felony, I believe most other assualts would be felonies, course I could be wrong.

As for the guy in the story, he SHOULD have ( or perhaps he DID and failed?? )tried to get his rights restored.

Right, wrong, or otherwise he was knowingly breaking the law by carrying, WHICH was a DIRECT result of HIS actions during his latter teen years.

HE chose to break the law THEN and NOW and it bit him both times.

Perhaps if he dodges this bullet, he will learn that he isnt very good at being a sneaky law-breaker and QUIT breaking the law :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Joey2]

As already said here he has paid his debt to socitey. His rights should be restored.

Defending yourself is a natural law which surpasses man-made law.

He should not have to patition anybody to have his natural law of self defense restored to him.

The law saw him to trustworthy enough to release back into society.

He must of been a good productive citizen for 20 yrs., running his own business.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Fair enough, but I believe my point still applies.

A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.

Dude, former armed robber, current burglar. They are not the same thing in the least.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I get a kick out of the folks here and on other forums saying how felons should be given back their rights to guns and voting, but I never seem to see you guys working with any of the political parties to try to make this happen.

Let's see, oh yeah, felons have a real tough time forming lobbying groups to represent their wishes. I wonder why?

As already said here he has paid his debt to socitey. His rights should be restored.

Defending yourself is a natural law which surpasses man-made law.

He should not have to patition anybody to have his natural law of self defense restored to him.

The law saw him to trustworthy enough to release back into society.

He must of been a good productive citizen for 20 yrs., running his own business.

Well Joey, you see for felony convictions, part of the penalty is a permanent loss of rights to such matters as voting and gun ownership. Sometimes, these can be restored, sometimes not. However, jail time is but one aspect of the penalty that comes with being a convicted felon.

I don't know what it is you mean by natural law superceding man-made law in this case. Nothing said that he didn't have the right to self defense. He could have used a bat and sent the guy's head into left field and as a felon he can own a bat. He just can't own a gun.

And no, the law did not deem him trustworthy enough to release into society. I see where you have mixed concepts. First it was that he had paid his debt and second was that he was released because of being trustworthy. Just because you do time and are released does not mean anyone thinks you are trustworthy. Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a child molestor being released and people singing his praise for how trustworthy he is?

Perry knew the rules, knew he was a felon, and still voluntarily broke the law again but possessing a gun. I will hand it to him, for handguns, he played it right. Regardless of caliber, the possession of a gun by a felon is the same. Why mess with a .22 lr when you can have a .44 magnum? From the sounds of things, that is the best decision he made.

 

[Joey2]

Double Naught Spy,

Don't you think that this guy has a right to defend his property? This is my whole contention of this post.

This man has served his time, became a businessman, and had to defend his property.

Does he deserve anything less than what we who have not committed a felony in protecting our property or life?

He commited a big boboo, paid the price, came out and became a productive citizen.

You mentioned child molesters. These people are mentely twisted and should never see the light of day. No comparison should be made between a stick up artest and a preditor.

 

[Model520Fan]

This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. . . .

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

Worth repeating.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Perry knew the rules, knew he was a felon, and still voluntarily broke the law again but possessing a gun.

And he was right to do so. In this case, the law is wrong. As usual.

This modern habit of blind, unquestioning submission to the law is really becoming repulsive.

- Chris

 

[pax]

Well Joey, you see for felony convictions, part of the penalty is a permanent loss of rights to such matters as voting and gun ownership. Sometimes, these can be restored, sometimes not. However, jail time is but one aspect of the penalty that comes with being a convicted felon.

Marko Kloos answered a similar point over on TFL last week, and did it so well that I don't think I can improve upon what he said:

... why single out the Second Amendment? Can your right to free speech, freedom of religion, or jury trial be revoked by a jury of your peers?

If you can set aside one article of the BoR via jury, all of them are fair game. Once they're out of jail, they don't lose their right to worship as they please, nor do they lose the right to not be put in double jeopardy. Singling out the Second Amendment as a "special" and "dangerous" right is both making the anti-gun point, and setting a dangerous precedent when it comes to the nature of our "inalienable" rights.

This is another issue where one ahs to see past emotion and argue from reason. Few people feel comfortable conceding a right to keep and bear arms for released felons, but if your philosophy regarding the rights enumerated in the BoR is consistent, you have to argue for that right. Everything else renders the entire Bill of Rights invalid and pointless.

....

Personally, I am not willing to invalidate the entire Bill of Rights just for the sake of appearance. Does the BoR enumerate inalienable rights or not? If yes, you have to apply that notion consistently. If not, then stop all the complaints about Feinstein, the VPC, and the Brady Bunch, since you just conceded that the majority can vote to invalidate your BoR rights.

pax

 

[newfalguy101]

Why you seem to get such a kick out of splitting hairs is a mystery to me but I will play along.

I said:

A "former" hold-up guy kills a "current" hold-up guy.

and you said:

Dude, former armed robber, current burglar. They are not the same thing in the least

So here goes: MY edit reads as follows

" Former" hold-up guy ( the guy who PULLED the trigger in the story linked to in the first post ) kills a "current" BURGLAR who may or may NOT have had or wanted to use or thought about using a weapon.

And MY original point which brought us along this fine path??

Poetic justice that He KILLED a guy for doing the same as he DID in his latter teens, you know ROBBERY, he just chose to take it to the next level and packed a weapon.

And I still wonder if he realizes how LUCKY he was to have gone to prison and NOT gotten himself killed while committing his robbery????????

 

[Tharg]

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Just gonna go out on a limb here...

and I have to agree w/ some of the responses i've heard here. If the man did the crime, was caught and did the time (to include probation etc) then quit makin him out to be a criminal. At the time you let him out, quit supervising him etc... he's just like Joe American.

Ya, this Joe American has a record, which can and will be used against him/her if he/she were to perform other acts of criminality (can i make up words here? ) Which theoretically would be used to mandate longer sentences/terms of punishment.

Don't get how a "criminal" is meant to get back into being part of society if the punishment deemed proper for the crime (by society i might add) isn't enough. That would be like spankin yer kid and then tellin him he's not allowed play with his toys after he's released from grounding because he commited a "real BAD thing..." aka - stupid. If Joe American completes his "sentence" as met out by a jury/judge he/she should be able to get back to trying to fit in again and go about legal business.

Now - the rest of you are correct. As it stands, societal rules say that he shouldn't have been carrying... and thus he was breaking the law. I wonder how many of you speed to work because yer gonna be late for that meeting (or just getting to work) (or just cause you can't drive... FIFTY FIVE!!!! hehe)

I know its not a felony... but yes... its against the law. Plenty of things we consider dumb... or what not... that aren't "legal" but so long as we get away with it.... no foul right? Let he who hasn't sin throw the first....

J/Tharg!

 

[FedGunner]

This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. This guy was pretty clearly justified in shooting; his life was in jeopardy. The fact that he did something stupid a quarter-century ago has no bearing whatsoever on his right to defend himself from harm, using the most effective tools possible.

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

I'd have to disagree with you.
A "quarter century" later, he has proven he still can't follow the laws of the society that he lives in.
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
There are mechanizims in place to restore your rights as a citizen. People follow the law and do it all the time.

 

[Sry0fcr]

I can agree that once a debt to society is paid firearms rights should be restored but restricted for felons commiting violent crimes, the line should be drawn at long guns.

 

[newfalguy101]

I can agree that once a debt to society is paid firearms rights should be restored but restricted for felons commiting violent crimes, the line should be drawn at long guns.

I would guess you mean Felons should be allowed longguns but not handguns??? Not busting your chops just getting a clear idea.

As I understand it, Nebraska used to be that way, meaning a felon ,could posses longguns but nothing "concealable".

I believe they changed it to exclude ALL guns, EVEN with the other civil rights restored, which I dont think I agree with.

But, since I have not committed a felony, I am not especially worried about it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

how do you know you've not committed a felony?

There used to be seven felonies: high treason, piracy, highway
robbery, murder, rape, spitting on sidewalks and jaywalking.
(No, I forgot six and seven and made those up). Today there
are so many trivial, non-violent felonies, being a felon is not
as distinctive as it used to be.

Some see a plot:

"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere,
to assume-- that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose,
pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the
assumption into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs
are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a
definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is right under the law, they
begin searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-Henry Louis Mencken

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government
has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't
enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be
a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
laws.... you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in
on guilt." --Ayn Rand

I see it as law makers and law enfocers particularly prosecutors being
on automatic "do something even if its wrong" mode, anything to
appear to be busy.

I felt safest in the period that Congress was shut down.
--------------------
edited for spellin