Civil Liberties Restoration

[Old Dog]

Prohibition only makes criminals of NON-criminals.....nothing else.

If you're speaking of making prohibited persons of convicted felons, you'd be wrong.

Prohibiting convicted felons from legal firearms ownership also gives law enforcers and the courts many more options for charging and sentencing this class of people when they're caught in possession of a firearm.

only the LAW ABIDING are going to care about legality in the first place.

While there will always be a plethora of stupid criminals, you'd be surprised how many folks engaged in criminal activities take great effort to avoid being caught in possession of firearms. Even some of the more moronic bad guys understand that being nailed as a felon-in-possession or having the firearms enhancement tacked on their charges/sentence can mean a lot of extra time ...

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

I feel that anyone who has never been convicted of a violent crime should have to fight to have their rights restored! They should never be taken away! People that commit violent crimes should be treated different. The problem lies withend the system itself! The courts have become a common place to lie! No one is ever prosecuted for perjury. And the plea bargain system is not a system that was ever fair for anyone! Just a fast track of justice, away to save money, but not to seek out justice! This is an important issue & I applaud the mod.s for letting it continue! This is something we should be doing something about, as it is a threat to our freedom & safety.

I agree that the current legal system is a very real threat to our freedoms and safety. I mostly agree with the whole post really, but I urge you to consider exactly what the government actually considers a "violent crime".

Other than an actual violent crime (which usually has ample evidence), the quickest/easiest way to illegally deprive a citizen of 2A rights is the domestic violence laws.
Those who haven't been bitten by the domestic violence scam never really think twice about it. On face value it seems like a great idea to most (who likes a wife beater)? But really it's just another (brilliant) means of separating men from their guns. The militant women's lib were courted by politicians who devised this scheme to "protect women". In reality, it's incredibly one-sided, and all that's required to be a victim of this "misdemeanor" is to simply be going through a divorce, separation, custody battle, argument, or maybe look her wrong. ( most women now are very aware of this weapon).

"Violence" is now considered, among other things, as pushing, throwing objects, bumping into, touching (yes, touching), defending yourself with physical force (grabbing and holding a woman's slapping hand), etc, etc. No actual violence is required.

BTW, there's a move now to include "making a woman FEEL threatened" to the plethora of so-called violent acts.

I'm on your side, just please take some time to discover what these laws are really intended to do, one "law" at a time.........eventually take YOUR guns.

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

If you're speaking of making prohibited persons of convicted felons, you'd be wrong.

Prohibiting convicted felons from legal firearms ownership also gives law enforcers and the courts many more options for charging and sentencing this class of people when they're caught in possession of a firearm.

While there will always be a plethora of stupid criminals, you'd be surprised how many folks engaged in criminal activities take great effort to avoid being caught in possession of firearms. Even some of the more moronic bad guys understand that being nailed as a felon-in-possession or having the firearms enhancement tacked on their charges/sentence can mean a lot of extra time ...

Your missing the point. Those who worry about illegally possessing a gun "adding time to their sentence", shouldn't be out the first place. I'll say it again, if you can't be trusted to defend your own life, then you shouldn't be in society.

And if you're illegally stripped of your 2A rights and cannot protect yourself, you are not free.

"shall not be infringed" means just that.......no "if" in there, no "unless" in there.

The founders new the government would abuse ANY infringement, and eventually use it to disarm the public.....and that's exactly what's happening. The writers weren't fools, they had plenty of bad guys back then also, and they were aware of the bad guys, but chose not to include an exemption for them. Why?.....because the threat of a bad guy with a gun is MUCH better than the threat of a totalitarian government over an unarmed public.

Think about it..........

 

[PowerG]

" "Violence" is now considered, among other things, as pushing, throwing objects, bumping into, touching (yes, touching), defending yourself with physical force (grabbing and holding a woman's slapping hand), etc, etc. No actual violence is required."

Intentionally pushing someone, bumping into, or touching (yes, touching) without their consent could all be construed as assaults, depending on the circumstances. In some jurisdictions simply making someone apprehensive of imminent physical harm is enough to constitute an assault. The reasoning behind these laws is that in most years about 1/3 of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner, and domestic assault is sometimes a precursor to more serious actions. Right or wrong, I would assume the intentions behind the laws are well placed. Try to get it expunged.

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

I TOTALLY understand the opinions (most) everyone who's posted so far. And to a large extent, I agree (even for the ones I disagree with, I mostly see why you believe the way you do, and don't fault you for it).

BUT!!!!

The big issue here is freedom (not who deserves it or not). To those well intended here who say; "this guy should NEVER get gun rights back", or "would you want HIM to have a gun?", I ask you to simply take a second and consider one thing...the intent off the second amendment.

As I posted earlier, the founders were not idiots, nor were they ignorant of evil men in any given society. Their task was to create the freest, least restricted bastion of liberty the world had ever seen. They were firm believers that a totally free society would be the ideology to prevail without end.They studied every form of government that existed, and saw the shortcomings of every kind (democracy, in its truest form will fail, socialism will eventually fail, etc, etc.)

The more you read about the forefathers and their hope for this nation, the clearer it becomes how much they loved this country, and wanted it to endure forever. (sorry about all the platitudes, bare with me).

All throughout the constitution/bill of rights you'll find provisions, exceptions and instructions to the law makers as to how to secure this free state....They went to great lengths in fact.

So why....WHY...would this group of intelligent men, with the passion of "we pledge our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor....", overlook something like the "gaping hole" in the (very simple) second amendment? That gaping hole being the fact that obviously EVERYONE can't be trusted with arms, some can't be trusted with spoons, and they were very aware of this. Yet instead of wording it (and they were very concise) "privilege", "shall grant", "with the exception", or any number of other ways to word the 2A, the said simply that the (natural, God given) right shall NOT be infringed.

It was worded this way because of the founders innate distrust of government...the whole document is a charter negatives...things the government CAN'T do to you, against you !

These intelligent men knew very well that, under this restriction of the government, bad guys would also be armed..............but it is a far less evil than an unarmed public subject to a government capable of taking liberties.

I've said all I have to say about this (aside from maybe answering a question), but ask sincerely of those who agree with the "taking of rights", to pause and consider the intent of "shall not be infringed." YOU may very well be the next "infringed upon".......they're working hard at it every day.

God bless America!

 

[notaglockfanboy]

{There have been many young men who did very bad things, even homicide, in their younger years who have changed at the heart level, and are now loving, kind, repentant men with much to offer society. I have a family member that fits that description (homicide; drunken argument with a fellow biker, but not cold blooded murder)...he's now a converted Christian and great family man.}
So that makes it ok for him to get his rights back and carry a gun?? Sorry, but I am not buying it. He killed another human over a argument. I don't care if he is now the pope, he gave up those rights with the homicide conviction, and should deal with the lack of rights. If he wants to defend himself, tell him to buy a can of pepper spray.

 

[BSA1]

Very libertarian minded here also. I get it when you say "...not allowing them to legally own a firearm". But, the premise is wrong....it's a catch-22...only the LAW ABIDING are going to care about legality in the first place. The criminal it's just that, a criminal, and he will obtain his weapons on the street at a fraction of the price, or just steal them himself, or any number of other avenues.....but he wouldn't go the "legal" route even if it was possible, not on your life would he do that.

Be as that may that is not enough reason for me to give felons the right to legally own firearms just because they are going to do it anyway.

The best predicator of future behavior is their past behavior. A violent person is likely to repeat that pattern of behavior. Why should we allow him to legally own the tool that makes harming, maiming and killing other humans so easy?

Other than an actual violent crime (which usually has ample evidence), the quickest/easiest way to illegally deprive a citizen of 2A rights is the domestic violence laws. Those who haven't been bitten by the domestic violence scam never really think twice about it.

Domestic violence is a complex crime because of the relationships of the parties involved. Relationship break-ups and divorces often bring the worse behavior out of both parties.

However I hardly call domestic violence a scam. Certainly it is an accusation that is made during divorces. Whether it is overplayed I don’t know. Relationship break-ups and divorces often bring the worse behavior out of both parties.

I suggest your position is colored by your personal experience.

As I posted earlier, the founders were not idiots, nor were they ignorant of evil men in any given society. Their task was to create the freest, least restricted bastion of liberty the world had ever seen. They were firm believers that a totally free society would be the ideology to prevail without end.

That is simply not true. There was much disagreement among the Founders and the States about the system of Government and the rights to be extended to the citizens. Many expected George Washington would assume the position of a King of the United States and were greatly surprised when he stepped down as President.

Nor did they believe in liberty and freedom for everyone. Slavery was legal and common and Native Americans were lied too and cheated out of their property, homes and land. Women did not have the right to vote and their employment opportunities were severely limited.

There was actually little tolerance for other religions in early America.

Yet instead of wording it (and they were very concise) "privilege", "shall grant", "with the exception", or any number of other ways to word the 2A, the said simply that the (natural, God given) right shall NOT be infringed.

Actually the Second Amendment is poorly written which is why there is so much debate what the Founders Fathers meant. If they truly wanted for all citizens to have unrestricted access to guns why didn't they just say "All citizens have the right to own firearms and Congress shall not make any law infringing on that right"?

 

[krupparms]

It isn't the domestic violence that's the scam, it's the system itself! Also as to the founding father's. These men were in disagreement for along time before the Constitution was written out. But when it was, THEY ALL PUT THEIR NAMES TO IT! As to not being clear on the amendments. They knew they might not have made everything clear. That is why they put in the 9th. Amd. The writer was well aware of the argueing of the document! And so after several drafts, the 9th. Amd. was included to satisfy all points. The problem will always be. How much FREEDOM are YOU willing to LOSE to be FREE? The founding father's clearly were against the government infringing on our gun rights at all! And as they had been declared violent criminals by the British Government! I am sure they were aware that their government would face the same issue.

 

[JB357MAG]

I dont think a VIOLENT FELON should EVER have a gun again.

But a NON-VIOLENT FELON should have the ability to get his gun rights back.

In Indiana its a law that 5yrs after case is satisfied a lowest level
non violent felon can have it reduced to a misdemeanor.

Jimmy

 

[herrwalther]

But a NON-VIOLENT FELON should have the ability to get his gun rights back.

Really. How about this scenario. A parent pimps out his daughter who is say 7 years old. The girl is beaten and sexually abused by "johns" for almost a decade. In that time she develops an incurable STD that medically disqualifies her for most employment dealing with her now college degree. The parent gets a felony charge of child neglect and endangerment, a non violent felon. Did their time and has no remorse for what he did. Still think he should have a firearm?

Another non violent felon who would qualify. Charles Manson. Didn't actually kill anyone, just persuaded others to do so. Would anyone be okay with Manson walking into an FFL to get a firearm if ever got out?

 

[Pilgram]

Restoring Gun Rights to Individuals with Mental History Problems

Like felons, anyone with a history of mental illness may not possess firearms or ammo or, in most states, possess a CCW permit, without going through a restoration process. However, there was a recent court of appeals decision that held the lack of restoration process rendered the ban unconstitutional.

On Dec. 18, the 6th Circuit federal Court of Appeals (Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff) struck down the application of federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) that banned a former mental patient in Michigan from owning firearms. The 3 judge panel held that this blanket ban violated the 2nd Amendment.

The appellant had been committed to a mental institution many years ago on a suicide watch, but released and had no problems since then. There were no programs -- state or federal -- in place for him to prove that he was sufficiently rehabilitated to own a firearm (called the Relief from Federal Firearms Act Disabilities programs). The federal program was enacted by Congress but has never been funded and Michigan never established a state program, so once on the banned list, no one in Michigan could get off it.

The Court applied a 2 step Greeno analysis. A ban is constitutional under the 2nd Amendment if: (1) “the challenged law burdens conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood" and (2) if test (1) is "no" then "if the historical evidence is inconclusive or suggests that the regulated activity is not categorically unprotected—then there must be a second inquiry into the strength of the government’s justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of Second Amendment rights."

Confused yet? I understood the Court's opinion this way. Did the drafters of the 2nd Amendment intend to grant or deny the right to keep a bear arms to the mentally ill? Test (1). If the question cannot be answered by reference to historical or judicial precedent, then is the government's restriction against ownership and possession reasonable? It's pretty convoluted logic to say the least.

Here's the Court's decision -- it's 48 pages long, but worth reading if you care about 2nd Amendment rights and federal/state restrictions on those rights.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...96p-06.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

.... I understood the Court's opinion this way. Did the drafters of the 2nd Amendment intend to grant or deny the right to keep a bear arms to the mentally ill? Test (1). If the question cannot be answered by reference to historical or judicial precedent, then is the government's restriction against ownership and possession reasonable? It's pretty convoluted logic to say the least....

Not really. Apparently you don't fully understand the decision because you don't fully understand the procedural issues and the procedural stage of the case.

The case is far from over. This decision is with regard to a preliminary procedural issue. The progression of the Tyler through this point can be outlined as follows:

1. Tyler sued asking for a declaration that 18 USC 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him.
   
   
2. The trial court dismissed his lawsuit, on the motion of the government, for failure to state a claim. That ended the case.
   
   
3. So Tyler appealed. The appellate court said that Tyler did have a legal claim. That reinstated the case and allows it to now go forward.
   
   
4. So now Tyler and the government are back in the trial court to continue the litigation that was started but cut short by the trial court's initial ruling.

The fundamental issue in Tyler is the lack of a procedure in Michigan whereby a person in Tyler's situation can seek relief from the prohibition on his having a gun.

In Tyler the Sixth Circuit, says (Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department, Sixth Circuit, No. 13-1876, Slip Op at 28):

We have no trouble concluding that § 922(g)(4), which prohibits possession of firearms by individuals “adjudicated as a mental defective” or who have “been committed to a mental institution,” furthers compelling interests...

The sticking point for the Sixth Circuit was the absence, in Tyler's case, of a way for him to seek relief from that disability.

But the Sixth Circuit also said, in reinstating Tyler's suit (Slip Op at 46, emphasis added):

...Tyler’s complaint validly states a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment. The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights.[sup]43[/sup] The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual. On remand, the government may, if it chooses, file an answer to Tyler’s complaint to contest his factual allegations. If it declines to do so, the district court should enter a declaration of unconstitutionality as to § 922(g)(4)’s application to Tyler.[sup]44[/sup] We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Sixth Circuit did not find 18 USC 922(g)(4) unconstitutional. They found that the statute could not be constitutionally applied to Tyler unless he has an opportunity to contest the statute's application to him.

Since there's no other procedure for him to do so, he can sue to try and establish that he should be relieved of his firearm disability. Tyler claimed that, as a matter of fact, he is no longer a danger to himself or others. Unless the government chooses to contest that claim, and successfully shows otherwise, it would not be constitutional to apply 18 USC 922(g)(4) to bar Tyler from having a gun.

 

[Pilgram]

Pp 32-33

The procedural aspects of this case are pretty messy. Indeed, who does one sue to restore 2nd Amendment rights ... the Sheriff, the state of Michigan, the ATF?

I call your attention to pp 32-33 of the opinion where the court states ...

In this case, the regulatory scheme that Congress has created has placed Tyler in a catch-22. Tyler may not possess a firearm because he was previously committed to a mental institution. See § 922(g)(4). Tyler applied to the federal government for relief, but this was unavailing because the federal program is unfunded. Congress’s failure to fund the federal program precludes the judicial review under § 925(c) that would otherwise be available if the government denied his application on the merits. Bean, 537 U.S. at 78. Tyler could apply for relief from a federally-certified state program, but he cannot obtain relief from his state program because Michigan has not created one. If Michigan had a program, Tyler could potentially obtain relief and regain his Second Amendment right because he is not dangerous.

Under this scheme, whether Tyler may exercise his right to bear arms depends on whether his state of residence has chosen to accept the carrot of federal grant money and has implemented a relief program. His right thus would turn on whether his state has taken Congress’s inducement to cooperate with federal authorities in order to avoid losing anti-crime funding. An individual’s ability to exercise a “fundamental righ[t] necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 778, cannot turn on such a distinction. Thus, § 922(g)(4) lacks narrow tailoring as the law is applied to Tyler. The following review of the circuits’ post-Heller jurisprudence confirms this. We hold that the complaint, as alleged, states a violation of the Second Amendment.

Technically, the court to which the case is remanded might hold that there is no violation of the 2nd Amendment, and that §922(g)(4) as applied to Taylor is a valid federal statute that can legitimately deny Taylor the right to own a gun for life, but I suspect that the district court Judge will read the 48 page decision of the appellate court as a pretty clear indicator that they would unlikely uphold such a decision.

IMHO (and I understand that you may disagree with me), as a practical matter they are holding that §922(g)(4) without a operational program for restoring gun rights due to the lack of federal funding or a state program, is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment. Said differently, if I were a government attorney, given this appellate court decision, I would not want to defend the denial of gun ownership based on §922(g)(4).

 

[Frank Ettin]

The procedural aspects of this case are pretty messy....

No, they aren't. This is a pretty routine appeal by a disappointed plaintiff from an adverse to him ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss at the very earliest stage of litigation. It's the sort of thing that happens a lot.

Tyler filed suit seeking a declaration that he is eligible to buy a gun. The District Court dismissed finding no legally cognizable basis upon which the relief sought could be granted. The Sixth Circuit disagreed and ruled that his complaint stated a legally cognizable claim.

Now litigation can continue. Tyler can put on evidence that he is fit to possess a gun, and the State can contest that.

....who does one sue to restore 2nd Amendment rights ... the Sheriff...

In this case, he sued the Sheriff of Henderson County because under Michigan law the Sheriff is the official who determines whether someone is qualified to possess a gun; and the Sheriff of Henderson County made the denial decision as to Tyler.

...Technically, the court to which the case is remanded might hold that there is no violation of the 2nd Amendment, and that §922(g)(4) as applied to Taylor is a valid federal statute that can legitimately deny Taylor the right to own a gun for life, but I suspect that the district court Judge will read the 48 page decision of the appellate court as a pretty clear indicator that they would unlikely uphold such a decision....

Not really. The Sixth Circuit's decision explains why Tyler gets his day in court. Now the questions will be whether Tyler can convince the trial court that he is now fit to possess a gun and whether the State can sufficiently overcome Tyler's claim (if the State decides to contest the suit).

The litigation may well be far from over. If the State does contest the suit, whichever way it goes in the trial court there's likely to be an appeal to consider the appropriate factual standard that applies.

...if I were a government attorney, given this appellate court decision, I would not want to defend the denial of gun ownership based on §922(g)(4)....

That would depend entirely on the circumstance. In Tyler's case, the State might well decide not to contest Tyler's claim or to in some way settle. There appears to be evidence that Tyler suffered only a long past, transient mental disability due to an emotionally traumatic event.

Remember that this case does not involve a claim that 18 USC 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional in all circumstances -- only that it would be unconstitutional to apply it to Tyler. That leaves open the possibility (indeed, the likelihood) that no matter how things work out for Tyler, 18 USC 922(g)(4) will remain valid and enforceable with regard to other people in different circumstances.

 

[krupparms]

What about the man who after multiple harrassments is attacked& assaulted by a crazy woman in his apartment complex. He walks away, there are multiple witnesses to the attack &assault. And she tells the police 3 different accounts! She is given a ticket for ' Offensive Contact '! Then even though the man was given an R.O. against the crazy woman . The next day a female judge gives the attacker an R.O.against the man! Suddenly he has lost his rights! No money & a D.A. who wont even charge her with the ticket! How will that man get his rights back? The man is a senior citizen & on a fixed income. How will he have his rights restored? Who would he sue? This is Backdoor gun control & is taking place everyday. How can he stop this, if no one within the justice system will act, what can he do? He did try to appeal it, but the judge said NO! Would not even allow the witnesses to testify.

 

[Frank Ettin]

What about the man...

Beats me. I'm not going to try to analyze an outlandish, fanciful hypothetical. If this actually happened to someone, he needs a good lawyer. If it's just a game, may someone somewhere would like to make it a Bar Exam question.

In any case, sometimes real life is messy and uncertain and unfair.

 

[krupparms]

This took place sometime ago, but was real. I am trying to understand how the court cases that you are discussing relate to real life. Most court cases are crazy & some outlandish. The man has no money to get leagle counsel. But why should he have to pay to get his rights back that have should not have been taken in the first place? I am not blaming you or expecting you to solve his problem! But not all of us are attorneys & I find some of the things you say hard to understand! I will just quit asking questions if its making you mad!

 

[Frank Ettin]

This took place sometime ago, but was real....

But then it's really impossible to answer questions about what happened and to analyze the legal issues without a whole lot more, very detailed and well documented information. Details matter.

...I am trying to understand how the court cases that you are discussing relate to real life. Most court cases are crazy & some outlandish. ...

They might seem that way some times, but they are "real life." As the result of what goes on, peoples lives and property are affected. But the processes can seem complex, and they are non-intuitive. Understanding what goes on and how things work can require a lot of patience, study and work.

...The man has no money to get leagle counsel. But why should he have to pay to get his rights back that have should not have been taken in the first place?....

That assumes a lot. It assumes that somehow the process didn't reach the appropriate result. You've concluded that, but I'm not going to assume that. I'd need a great deal more, documented, reliable information to be able to reach my own conclusions.

And sometimes what appears to someone with a particular perspective to be an incorrect result, really is not -- at least based on the law and the applicable facts. Sometimes people have bad results in court. When folks wind up in court someone wins and someone loses. The folks who lose, their friends and those who sympathize with them are unhappy about how things turned out.

And often the unhappy result is the correct result given the law and the facts. The court's job is to resolve disputes according to the law and the facts. Maybe some folks looking at how things turn out think the law should be changed. In general our system offers opportunities to try to do so through the political process.

And as far as being able to afford an attorney, that's a whole different issue. But not having one can be a false economy.

...But not all of us are attorneys & I find some of the things you say hard to understand!...

Yes, I understand that sometimes things I say might be difficult to understand. I do try to make my comments intelligible, but, as I've said, often the legal issues are complex and non-intuitive. And often understanding some of these issues will require a certain knowledge base.

I don't necessarily know what everyone else here already knows. And I can't always in the short time and limited space I have undertake to lay a complete foundation.

If someone really wants to learn about the law and the legal system there might be other, more appropriate, sources of information. A while ago, someone posted this question on TFL:

...Is there a trick or online resource that helps decode the legalese these are printed in, a secret magic decoder ring only law school grads have, or is it in reality a "wait for the translation" on the evening news or some other legal gun blog decoder?...

There were a number of good answers in that thread. Here is mine:

I guess part of the difficulty reading laws and court opinions comes from a need to be familiar with the context -- where "law" comes from, what it is and how the process works. It might help to think of "law", i. e., statutes enacted by legislative bodies, constitutions and charters adopted by political entities to govern the operations of those entities, and past judicial opinions, as a tool used to decide the outcome of a dispute or disagreement. So when a court writes an opinion deciding a matter in contention, it is explaining how it applied the law to the facts and circumstances in order to decide the outcome.

Another part of the difficulty is a matter of volume and practice. In law school we read a lot of cases and talk about them a lot, all under the guidance of our teachers. Dealing with the subject matter regularly and in a disciplined, rigorous way is a big help.

Some on-line sources that might help --

• scotusblog: This is a blog by lawyers and law students focusing on Supreme Court activity. In addition to following cased, one can often find articles discussion Supreme Court actions and decision. This might offer some insight in how lawyers look at these things.
  
  
• The Legal Information Institute: This is a publication of the Cornell Law School. Among other things the site includes links to other resources and a legal encyclopedia.
  
  
• Oyex: This is a publication of the Chicago-Kent College of Law. It tracks Supreme Court cases and publishes articles.
  
  
• Often if you Google a case name you will find articles by lawyers discussing the case. Sometimes reading the articles in combination with the case opinion will help clarify the decision.

 

[Sav .250]

Florida is one of three states that does not automatically restore civil rights.

Plus, you have to wait 5 years after you successfully complete your court ordered conditions to apply.

Then when you apply, it can take another 5-10 years to get some kind of resolution.

The reason for all this is the current Attorney general, said," This issue is about felons proving they have been rehabilitated before having their civil rights restored." That folks is a quote from the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

So, folks serve their time, wait 5 more years, than wait for the state to decide. Which as stated, could take another5-10 years.

More often than not the "after" punishment is more than the original sentence.

 

[Red Wind]

The reason for all this is the current Attorney general, said," This issue is about felons proving they have been rehabilitated before having their civil rights restored." That folks is a quote from the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

Florida AG Pam Bondi. Very hard boiled. I would not want her on the jury if I were in the box!