cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
depends what state you are in there is no statute on felonies in va
For those who think felons should never have guns...
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
jcwit
member
I doubt in the Grand Scheme of world events this whole thread will amount to much!
So many things that most of us do without even thinking are felonies, I am sure your wife has co-signed a check for deposit when you gave her a deposit ot vice versa. It only bites you in the butt when someone chooses to make a big deal out of it. Like when the lady at the bank you go to for 20 years want's to see ID and your making a deposit. I have sat down and explained this to a bank manager who looked at me with astonishment when I tried to explain that I was putting money in the bank, and not taking it out. People are just plain stupid sometimes, and there isn't a darned thinh you can do about it when it starts at the top and works it's way down.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
jcwit said:
Yeah, but look under our feet, roll up some of what you find, and there you'll find what we truly are. Grass Roots.
We grow good grass, and our legislators better ruminate on what we feed them, or we'll pass them up for those who will appreciate our greener(freer) pastures.
Woody
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Forgery is a felony. They are stupid because they didn't do it for real profit or are they stupid because they did it for so little to gain? Well, if they were dumb enough to do it for whatever reason, I am not sure of their ability to understand risk assessment and risk avoidance. A felony conviction might be a good thing for them.
zxcvbob
Member
DNS, look at the definition in post #92. The judge has already thrown out the case because the forged "document" did not meet the threshold.
danez71
Member
Heck… since you’re asking… support your claim of being a retired lawyer with your BAR #.
Well, this should be insightful.
Lets start with page 2 when you deemed them lairs and later said they were only charged. Then I directly asked in post 303 I believe "Which is it?"
So 1st, lets start with you providing support to both of your claims as they are either mutually exclusive or you have deemed them liars as fact when in actuality its your opinion. Or you can just clear it up now and say that you misrepresented your statements.
Then next, lets go to my post 195 where I busted your assertion that SuperNaut was incorrect. I would like you to provide support of your statement that his post was incorrect. Or just admit you were wrong.
You more than likely wont do any of those. So, I’ll restate:
But I’ll also add that it doesnt seem very THR to do so.
I will send you my State Bar Number by PM if you promise publicly, in open forum, not to disclose it or other personal information you may acquire looking it up.danez71 said:
Fair enough. I'll clarify my position. They have been charged with a crime that involves untruthfulness, i. e., lying. And based on what I read I believe that they did knowingly falsify those doctor notes. I agree that they have only been charged, but I believe the charges to be substantially true.danez71 said:
The Tennessee AG Opinion speaks for itself. He appears to be citing a Tennessee statute that prohibits personal importation of alcoholic beverages in excess of a certain quantity. So SuperNaut appears to be correct about Tennessee.danez71 said:
However, in post 169 SuperNaut claimed that personal importation of a case of wine would be a felony in five other States beside Tennessee. He did not back his claim up. And in post 174, cassadrasdaddy stated that SuperNaut was wrong about three of the six States mentioned in post 169. SuperNaut did not challenge cassadrasdaddy, and I have found cassadrasdaddy to be reliable and credible.
Now at the end of the day, three States (out of the six States originally claimed by SuperNaut) have been identified as prohibiting personal importation of a case of wine. But in post 165 SuperNaut said that it would be a felony in "many" States. Now of course "many" is kind of vague and subjective; but I don't see how by any stretch of the imagination three States out of 50 could be considered many.
Oh, and with regard to the parole board business. ConstitutionCowboy stated in post 312, and I challenged him to show, that "...Parole boards get it wrong all to often because they are usually forced to "release" a specific number...." The links you provide in post 321, show that California is seeking to release a bunch of prisoners, but it does not show that they are doing so through the formalities of the parole board process.
Last edited:
oneounceload
member
Sure sounds like a few felons feelings are hurt when folks don't agree with their twisted logic..................here's reality - if you're felon, I'm NOT hiring you, I DON'T want you living next door, and I sure as hell DON'T want you owning guns
Don't like that thought? Move to Mexico, Guatemala, or Canada...............
IOW, too bad, so sad...................
Don't like that thought? Move to Mexico, Guatemala, or Canada...............
IOW, too bad, so sad...................
So, because some of us don't see things exactly the same way you do then we must automatically be felons? Incredibly rude and presumptuous, don't you think?
Frankly, I don't think I'd want to live next door to you, either.
danez71
Member
1) Sure. I promise exactly that. Seriously... in open forum for all to see. I promise to the letter and to the spirit of which you wrote it. With your permission, I will only confirm that I got it to show that you lived up to your end.
2) Thank you. And for the record I agree they are more than likely guilty but I have mixed feelings as to what extent, if any, punishment should be.
3) Thank you. Exactly
4) Fair enough... Thank you.
5) Yeah.... when one lumps too much together, it makes the strays obvious.
6) True. My example was intended to collaborate and provide supporting evidence for what I believe to be the spirit of his comment. Technically though, you're correct.
Thank you again for your well intended, correct foot forward response.
BTW.... I lived in SoCA for most of my life and now currently reside in AZ. Maybe one day, while you're in AZ, I'll buy you lunch... maybe a beer too (not together) We can shoot some guns.... I'll even take you boating if youd like. IF you promise not to reveal my identity or personal info as well. Serious offer.
FourteenMiles
Member
"Sure sounds like a few felons feelings are hurt when folks don't agree with their twisted logic..................here's reality - if you're felon, I'm NOT hiring you, I DON'T want you living next door, and I sure as hell DON'T want you owning guns"
Remember this thread was started to illustrate how absurd some definitions of a felony offense are.
There is a book entitled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" by one Harvey A. Silverglate which you may be interested in.
Remember this thread was started to illustrate how absurd some definitions of a felony offense are.
There is a book entitled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" by one Harvey A. Silverglate which you may be interested in.
Excellent. I've just sent you a PM with my State Bar number. And of course you're free to confirm that I lived up to my end. I'm obliged by your cooperation.danez71 said:
ETA: BTW, you don't have to worry about disclosing my real name. I've already done that by posting the link to my article. It's the other personal information in my State Bar listing that I'd like to keep private, and I appreciate your willingness to do so.
I'd like that and may just be able to take you up on the offer. I visit Arizona from time to time. In fact I was just there, and here's a link to an article I wrote about my trip: http://ezine.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=41.danez71 said:
And I promise to keep your identity and any other personal information whatsoever confidential.
Last edited:
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
DNS, look at the definition in post #92. The judge has already thrown out the case because the forged "document" did not meet the threshold.
all that does is leave it open for them to be charged under another statute
all that does is leave it open for them to be charged under another statute
jcwit
member
Man this is dieing a slow death.
Somebody call Perry Mason and settle this.
Somebody call Perry Mason and settle this.
danez71
Member
How did you know fiddletown's real name is Perry Mason? (wink wink)
Settled.
Settled.
Story goes that one day a fellow who was a criminal defendant became critical during trial of the way his lawyer was handling things. He says to his lawyer, "Who do you think you are? Perry Mason?"
His lawyer looks him square in the eye and says, "I'm better than Perry Mason. All his clients were innocent."
His lawyer looks him square in the eye and says, "I'm better than Perry Mason. All his clients were innocent."
notbubba
Member
Why in the world hasn't this thread been locked yet???????????????
danez71
Member
I have no idea. Maybe the mods figure they gotta let one go every once in a while.
With an open mind, these threads can be useful.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
notbubba said:
Maybe because the best reasons for dismantling the unconstitutional NICS background checks on law abiding citizens is contained here. Maybe it's because the fallacy of the law prohibiting released violent felons from obtaining and using arms has been exposed here. Maybe it's because a logical and constitutional remedy has been proposed here.
No one has claimed that keeping violent felons locked up will not prevent recidivism by violent criminals, so there must be some efficacy in keeping violent criminals locked up, negating any need for the NICS and other background checks on law abiding citizens to prove they are not a violent criminal.
Woody
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Locked Yet?
Well, the mods were playing a new form of "chicken."
The first one to flinch and lock the thread loses.
However, when a thread devolves to the point where the topic has become "why isn't this closed," then it's a safe bet that it has, indeed, run its course.
It's tempting to respond to the main topic of this thread as I lose the bet, proving that I've flinched first, and close it.
However, it's considered bad form for a mod to add [post=3898592]opinion[/post] to his closing remarks. Simply [post=3650215]suffice it to say[/post] that [post=3485087]I have[/post], [post=3394319]indeed[/post], [post=3393458]expressed an opinion[/post] on similar topics in the past.
I won't bore you all by repeating them here.
This one, mercifully, is done. I guess I'll slink off to mod headquarters and accept my "flinch loser of the week" award.
Well, the mods were playing a new form of "chicken."
The first one to flinch and lock the thread loses.
However, when a thread devolves to the point where the topic has become "why isn't this closed," then it's a safe bet that it has, indeed, run its course.
It's tempting to respond to the main topic of this thread as I lose the bet, proving that I've flinched first, and close it.
However, it's considered bad form for a mod to add [post=3898592]opinion[/post] to his closing remarks. Simply [post=3650215]suffice it to say[/post] that [post=3485087]I have[/post], [post=3394319]indeed[/post], [post=3393458]expressed an opinion[/post] on similar topics in the past.
I won't bore you all by repeating them here.
This one, mercifully, is done. I guess I'll slink off to mod headquarters and accept my "flinch loser of the week" award.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
