FBI background checks - keeping scum from guns.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SomeKid

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
1,544
Location
FL
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/18/D8H2ND3O6.html

Check out what made him realize he needed a pardon.

Court-martialed a half-century ago over $50, George Anderson Glenn was among 11 people pardoned Tuesday by President Bush.

Glenn was a 19-year-old Army private when he accepted the money to ride herd on a shipment of goods destined for the black market in South Korea.

"It's sort of like a big stone been taken off my shoulders," Glenn, now 69, said in a telephone interview from his home in Alexandria, Ala., after he received word he had been pardoned.

Bush has issued 82 pardons and sentence commutations during 63 months in office, mainly to allow people who committed relatively minor offenses and served their sentences long ago to clear their names.

Despite the court-martial in 1956, Glenn served 20 years in the Army. He retired in 1977 as a sergeant after spending time in Vietnam, then worked at nearby Fort McClellan as a civilian. Glenn said he handled classified material in that job.

He thought his name had been cleared because of his long military and civilian service. But when he went to renew a permit for his gun a few years ago, an FBI records check turned up the court-martial.

Glenn asked for the pardon three years ago, after telling his children about his mistake, he said.

Others granted pardons Tuesday were:

_Patrick Harold Ackerman, Salem, Ore., filing false statements. Sentenced May 5, 1980, to six months imprisonment, five years probation and a $5,000 fine.

_Karen Marie Edmonson, Roseville, Minn., distribution of methamphetamine. Sentenced April 19, 1978, to 18 months in prison and three years special parole.

_Anthony Americo Franchi, Weston, Mass., income tax evasion. Sentenced February 9, 1983, to two years probation, community service and a $20,000 fine.

_Timothy Mark Freudenthal, Wautoma, Wis., conspiracy to introduce imported merchandise into commerce of the United States. Sentenced March 11, 1985, to one year of probation.

_Mark Reuben Hale, Henderson, Texas, savings and loan fraud. Sentenced July 10, 1991, to three years in prison.

_Kenneth Ward Hill, Falkner, Miss., attempted tax evasion. Sentenced June 4, 1992, to two years probation and a $20,000 fine.

_Margaret Ann Leggett, Hot Springs, Ark., conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false claims for income tax refunds. Sentenced May 8, 1981, to three months in prison, 33 months probation.

_Elke Margarethe Mikaelian, Roswell, N.M., misprision (concealment) of a felony. Sentenced Aug. 6, 1993, to three years probation.

_Karl Bruce Weber, Pensacola, Fla., possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Sentenced Dec. 5, 1985, to four months imprisonment, three years special parole, five years probation.

_Carl Manar White, Indianola, Okla., conspiracy to defraud the United States and Pittsburg County, Okla., by tax evasion and mail fraud. Sentenced July 27, 1983, to two years in prison.

Yah, that guy sure did need denied. He was such an awful awful person.

:rolleyes:

And people wonder at times why I say the background checks are more than just an inconvenience.
 
I'm wondering what your point is. The man committed a felony (the court martial was over the shipment of goods that went to the black market, not the 50 bucks he took for the job). One's name is not automatically "cleared" based on continuing to serve on active duty or in the civil service. But, the background check correctly detected a felony conviction on the man's record, and the man still got pardoned. The system worked.

What's the problem? You don't believe his crime was serious? Those of us who also served long careers in the military won't have any sympathy for this guy. This person could have, probably should have, applied shortly after conviction to the military court of appeals, or later in his career or after retirement to the service board for correction of his military records ...

The fact that he didn't do anything in regard to his record until the FBI background check noted the conviction doesn't mean that FBI background checks wrongly prevent deserving citizens from buying guns or obtaining firearms licenses.
 
im with old dog on this one, i dont see what the big deal is? but this is just one reason why people who have been convicted of felonies should have their gun rights restored to them if they have served their time and paid their debt to society.
 
Old Dog, of course his crime was serious.

The sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Denying people the right to defend their homes, however, should reflect the threat they really pose to others. There are people who are insane, and there are people who have clearly shown themselves to be prone to criminal violence. I have no particular problem with saying that they can't have firearms.

I see no reason to believe that any of the people listed posed a threat to anyone. Nor do I see any reason to believe that many "felons" pose a threat to anyone. Too many crimes are felonies. Far too many. Every time there's a political point to score, our legislators create new felonies.

No "drug crime" by itself should EVER be a felony, for example.
 
Last edited:
So when one of us rips off a mattress tag ,,,

Life long loss of rights after time has been served leaves a very bad in the mouth of anyone that loves the constitution.
 
ArmedBear noted:
Denying people the right to defend their homes, however, should reflect the threat they really pose to others. There are people who are insane, and there are people who have clearly shown themselves to be prone to criminal violence. I have no particular problem with saying that they can't have firearms.

I see no reason to believe that any of the people listed posed a threat to anyone. Nor do I see any reason to believe that many "felons" pose a threat to anyone. Too many crimes are felonies. Far too many. Every time there's a political point to score, our legislators create new felonies.
And I agree with this. I'm all for those convicted of non-violent felonies to have an accessible avenue to petition for quick restoration of their right to own firearms.

No "drug crime" by itself should EVER be a felony, for example.
And here's where we part ways. I submit that if you had extensive experience working in the criminal justice system -- or saw your own family destroyed by, say, meth addiction and its addicts' descent into other criminal enterprises, your views on this might evolve a bit ...

Let me see whether I've got this straight, eh? 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 illegal aliens get free citizenship, but only a handful of American citizens get pardons?
Yeah, this is pretty sad. But what's also interesting is that so few American citizens even bother to apply for pardons.
 
Stealing from fellow Soldiers, has never seriously hurt anyone and certainly not caused any deaths. Soldiers on the DMZ never lost feet when their boots were pilfered. No one on the DMZ ever lost a finger, to frost bite, because there gloves were stolen. No Platoons were ever left shorthanded because sick soldiers couldn't get the medicine they needed.

Profits from black market goods rarely end up in the hands of the enemy. Those profits are never used to fund military, terrorist, or IO campaigns. Black market goods have never been used by our enemies against our own troops and our allies' troops.

Oh wait, we were talking about silly little crimes that never harmed another soul.
 
I appreciate the little things.

"keeping scum from guns."

rather than "keeping guns from scum."
 
Pcf the systems so bent you cant prosecute and punish the man properly, and instead of straitening it out weve bent it even more just to make it work.
That wont end well...

If you accept the "he might have supported a terrorist" explaination, you could jail almost every criminal in the US on terror charges. Terrorists play the black market just like every other form of organized crime.

I submit that if you had extensive experience working in the criminal justice system -- or saw your own family destroyed by, say, meth addiction and its addicts' descent into other criminal enterprises, your views on this might evolve a bit ...

The other day they caught a drug dealer who sold cocaine to two addicts, both of which overdosed on the drug and died. They want to try him for murder.
...Now maybe Ive got a jaded view here, but his crime was selling drugs. Its not his fault that two people, who also broke the law in buying these drugs, whent and killed themselves.

When you remove personal responsobility from the mix, things get screwy.

Theres now a guy on my TV set screaming about the ill effects of McDonalds on the black community. No, he's not going to scream at my fellow negros for not eating properly home cooked meals and gorging themselves on fast/cheap food. Hes going to look for a law to attack the burger joint for its comestibles, because its the cooks fault we are all fat!

Yea, makes perfect sense...

Personaly I dont think trade crimes are worthy of the death penalty or extremely long stints in jail.
If thats the case, their not exactly felonys.
 
I think its just as much a shame we give people jail time for tax evasion...what a waste of money to jail non-violent people. But I think that about alot of things we give people jail time for too.

Let the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for nothing; a man condemned to public works still serves the country, and is a living lesson.

So its not really hanged in this case, but he certainly does not serve the country.
 
fellonius attempt

Since the law vary from state to state; in your state, is it illegal for a convicted felon to even make application to purchase a firearm. That is, considering that some error somewhere might be made, and this felon could end up purchasing a weapon?

This is tangent to the thread, but I suppose it has connection with it.
 
pardons

Is it up to the prez to pardon federal crimes and up to the gov'ner to pardon state crimes? Or can the prez issue a pardon for a state crime?
 
I can see how this might cause some confusion. The guy was court-martialed and allowed to stay in the Army. While working at a Brigade headquarters, I was privy to the goings on of a number of cm's and not one of the soldiers tried and convicted was allowed to remain in the Army. Dishonorable discharges for the lot of em. My point is that, maybe because he was allowed to stay in the Army long enough to retire, he might have thought his record was expunged or something. I can understand that, in a way.
 
Soybomb wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for nothing; a man condemned to public works still serves the country, and is a living lesson.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a problem with allowing the courts to sentence people to labor. It tempts the government into creating itself a pool of slave labor, for sale to the highest bidder. Think of the old chain gangs, and how many blacks were railroaded into years of unpaid service.
 
The other day they caught a drug dealer who sold cocaine to two addicts, both of which overdosed on the drug and died. They want to try him for murder.
...Now maybe Ive got a jaded view here, but his crime was selling drugs. Its not his fault that two people, who also broke the law in buying these drugs, whent and killed themselves.
Huh? You're kidding, right? Of course, no self-respecting illicit drug entrepeneur would ever believe people could die simply from partaking of his product ...
When you remove personal responsobility from the mix, things get screwy.
So a dealer, who knows that his actions are illegal, is not responsible for what happens to the people who buy, and use, his illegal, often toxic, product? All righty, then ...
 
Are you only "scum" when you get caught? Lots of people are guilty of a number of offenses from minor to major. It would seem that many are guided only by the probability of detection. My main concern is that lots of young people do stupid things and become very different people as they mature. With some visibly admirable record after a mistake, they may deserve some consideration. Then again, some are rotten to the core. Some need killin'.

I think this felony curse is way overblown in too many cases. In fact the classification of some offenses as felonies is ridiculous by comparison to more heinous crimes. Why should a person focus on getting their act together if damned for life? Shoot me now.
 
Last edited:
Another thing to keep in mind is that the president only needs to be involved in federal pardons. My friend's wife pulled a nutter for a while and got herself busted for a Class C felony a while back. They just finished the paperwork and process of getting her records expunged so he can own firearms again.

No muss and little fuss...
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
So a dealer, who knows that his actions are illegal, is not responsible for what happens to the people who buy, and use, his illegal, often toxic, product? All righty, then ...

If I drink a gallon of bleach and die, is K-mart responsable for "murder"?
He sold them something illegal but they stuffed it up their own noses. Do you think both victems were somehow unaware that drugs can be dangerous?
Was it labled "powdered sugar, snort two tablespoons up nose"?
Its a problem for us in the gun world too. If a man sells you a perfectly good pistol for self defense, and you use it, the law says he is not responsable for your actions.
You'd have to show the weapon was somehow made defective by the dealers actions, assuming he even made the drugs and was not just retailing.

Unless you want to do like other nations and start hanging smugglers and black market dealers, it dosnt seem to fit the defenition of felony very well.
 
Unless you want to do like other nations and start hanging smugglers and black market dealers,

'Sounds like a good idea.

I didn't like your comparison to guns, because drugs serve only one purpose, and it isn't good.
 
Sigh. Uh, okay, Maxwell. If you choose to go on believing that there's no difference between a legal product, that was sold retail in a legal fashion, being used in a manner for which the product is not intended, and an illegal substance, that is sold illegally (and even being used in the manner for which intended) ... you just may somehow be missing the whole "criminal act" thing ...

Back to the original thread:
My main concern is that lots of young people do stupid things and become very different people as they mature. With some visibly admirable record after a mistake, they may desere some consideration.
And the system is set up to provide recourse for this consideration. There is a process for having records expunged, restoration of firearms and voting rights after felony convictions, and outright pardons by state governors and the President.

It appears that most people in these situations do not use the process to have their rights restored. Could it be that many, after being convicted of a felony (or felonies) simply find it easier to live out the rest of their lives obtaining and owning their firearms illegally, and just don't care to participate in the electoral system?

Yes, it does seem that in most cases, the system requires one to obtain legal assistance to pursue the restoration of certain rights post-conviction. This is typically expensive, and one presumes that the information on how to go through the process is not always easily obtainable for your average low-income convicted felon. So, it should be that each state (and the federal system) should provide a low-cost (or no-fee), user-friendly process for certain rehabilitated felons to petition for restoration of their normal rights.
 
drugs serve only one purpose, and it isn't good.

Many people claim the same thing about guns...
Really its the addicts business what he's using them for, so long as he understands I dont pay a red dime for his self abuse.

I believe that criminals should be held accountable for their own actions. If that man only sold these people the drugs, his crime was dealing. If they choked down enough of an illegal substance to fry their brains, its their own fault for commiting suicide.

you just may somehow be missing the whole "criminal act" thing ...

Am I?
Your linking one criminal act indirectly with another just to enforce the law more harshly than we intended. Letting the justice system selectively construct its own rules and penalties is never a good thing.

You can create a story to link alot of crimes with murder and terrorism. It dosnt mean the man who commited the original act was guilty of either.
 
If I buy a big bottle of booze from the liquor store and down the whole thing and then die of alcohol poisoning, is the store owner guilty of murder?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top