For those who think felons should never have guns...

[guntech59]

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

I think this about covers it.

I think that once a person serves their time, all rights should be restored.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i had 2 felonies as a young man only one stuck. i regularly counsel other offenders and the ones that want to work work. in my case i was hired twice before i even finished my sentence.
do you have some experience, as opposed to imagination, that indicates differently?

there was a tax credit in [place that allowed a company that hired a felon to deduct 1/2 of their salary as a credit. companies paid a 1000 dollar bonus to managers who hired felons. been that way since 77

http://archive.gao.gov/d21t9/143200.pdf

of course the type of crime does matter as well as how well you present and how long ago it was. i'm pretty candid and oddly only twice has it been an issue. once was walmart and the other with geico. i can't get a license to sell insurance in all 50 states without filing a bunch of extra paperwork and some still might not license me even with that. i've worked in secure installations and was cleared to go to party's at some pretty interesting places.

a felony can limit you but largely thats up to you

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

First, I don't concede that abiding by the Constitution necessarily leads to the result you outline. Second, the chances of the result you suggest actually coming to pass in real life are vanishingly small. So can you suggest anything that might be meaningful in the real world?

I don't know how it can be misconstrued that keeping violent criminals locked up will not lead to less crime. The end result is obvious. It's about as foregone a conclusion as you can get short of executing all of them. Abiding by the Constitution is the means to that end.

In that real world that you admit we're in It's obvious that releasing violent criminals and trusting to their obedience to the law to remain disarmed or to merely remain harmless certainly isn't working! What I propose is the most meaningful real-world solution, it's constitutional, and at least one complete feral(federal) bureaucracy(the NICS) can be eliminated.

I realize that being a lawyer biases your view in this matter. Keeping the status quo is job security for your brethren. That's OK as far as your biases are concerned, but for me and the rest of us, I'll continue to espouse how it should be and continue to dissent on how it is. There is nothing unconstitutional in how it should be.

Woody

 

[9mmepiphany]

posted by Agostini
So, now you’re being disingenuous, 9mm, is that your principle or you usually misconstrue simple facts?

i'm very familar with the drug trade, have been in on drug buys, made the arrest and testified at the trials. what i'm pointing out is that as a point of law, they aren't violent crimes...the actions are no different than selling/possessing stolen property.

what i'm pointing out is that to say that people should be able to possess guns if convicted of non-violent felonies is overly simplistic.

how about my other examples like auto theft, burglary, fraud, embezzlement...should they be able to possess firearms after "do they time"? i think conviction of these crimes rightfully should give up their firearms rights

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

in my reality knowing its 5 years in the country keeps many a felon from rearming. and that helps quite a few of em avoid trouble. again i am letting reality restrict my ability to see the larger philosophical picture

 

[rainbowbob]

...examples like auto theft, burglary, fraud, embezzlement...should they be able to possess firearms after "do they time"? i think conviction of these crimes rightfully should give up their firearms rights...

To what purpose?

Public safety?

Additional punishment?

Deterrence?

If the purpose of restricting the 2A rights of law-breakers is punishment and/or deterrence against the commission of crimes - as opposed to the furtherance of public safety - then it would make just as much sense to arbitrarily restrict their 1A rights as punishment/deterrence.

On the other hand, if the purpose is the furtherance of public safety - it makes no sense to restrict the 2A rights of those that have shown no predilection for violence.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

jail/prison can be for some folks like a fraternity gone wild. you meet newe folks broaden your horizons. get inspired to make career changes. for some of the misguided boys they end up with a new circle of friends once they get out. neither their interests nor societies are best served by allowing them to rearm too easily. now i know this doesn't fit in with the imaginary world that some fantasize about but again i am limited and severely constrained by my experience with actual felons and their actual lives.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You mean like any kind of agriculture? Any kind of manufacturing? Any service industry that requires seasonal labor? When you require the advice of lawyer to live your daily life something is very very wrong with your society....

Nonetheless, in the real world if one intends to engage in business, make a will or settle a living trust for his heirs, buy and operate rental property, make certain types of investments, etc., he would be well advised to (1) thoroughly educate himself in the applicable law; and (2) maintain a relationship with a qualified lawyer with whom to consult. If you think that all means that there's something very wrong with society, so be it. But that is still the case, and ignoring such precautions can leave one in a horrible situation in so many ways.

Suit yourself, but I've seen many examples of folks in trouble running to a lawyer and spending a lot of money to reach a less than satisfactory resolution of a problem they could easily have avoided if they paid attention earlier on.

...The Constitution 2A says "shall not be infringed". Are we now back to interpreting the 2A?...

Don't get too excited about the "shall not be infringed" business. It's well settled constitutional law that constitutionally protected rights can be subject to limited regulation. The permissible scope of regulation will be sorted out over the next several years in all the post Heller litigation. But don't count on all gun control being tossed out.

...If you were defending a client, would you just tell the judge "Your Honor, I'm not going to defend my client because he has a past record for the crime he is now being charged with based on past dealings, officers are usually more trust worthy and so in my judgement call Ive disregarded clients alibi."...

I am not defending a client here, so there's no reason for me to act as if I were. But when I am engaged in providing professional services with regard to some matter, in planning my approach I indeed must make judgments about the credibility of my client and of witnesses and of other characters in our little drama; and I must make tactical and strategic decisions based on those judgments. Those are, however, private contemplations, and there would be no reason for me to discuss such matters with the judge.

I don't know how it can be misconstrued that keeping violent criminals locked up will not lead to less crime. The end result is obvious. It's about as foregone a conclusion as you can get short of executing all of them. Abiding by the Constitution is the means to that end...

I am in favor of keeping criminals locked up, and doing so would probably be constitutional (subject to consideration under the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition). But nothing in the Constitution requires that we do keep criminals locked up, so extending terms of incarceration does not follow from abiding by the Constitution. Thus questions regarding the length of prison sentences the public, and taxpayers, will tolerate are political and not constitutional.

...What I propose is the most meaningful real-world solution, it's constitutional, and at least one complete feral(federal) bureaucracy(the NICS) can be eliminated....

You're free to try. I don't think you'll get anywhere.

...I realize that being a lawyer biases your view in this matter. Keeping the status quo is job security for your brethren....

Why would I care about their job security? I'm retired. Those of my colleagues who are competent and qualified will do just fine however the rules might change. Those who are not are a blight on my profession anyway.

...I'll continue to espouse how it should be and continue to dissent on how it is. There is nothing unconstitutional in how it should be...

That of course is your prerogative. However, it doesn't mean that

[1] How you think things should be is achievable; or

[2] How you think things should be is right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I was out shooting all day until about 5 minutes ago, I'm sad to see that no-one else did the same.

No reason to be sad on my account. I was at a barbecue at my in-laws today. Went shooting last Friday. And the week before last I was in Arizona helping out at a Massad Ayoob class. Life is good.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If the purpose of restricting the 2A rights of law-breakers is punishment and/or deterrence against the commission of crimes - as opposed to the furtherance of public safety - then it would make just as much sense to arbitrarily restrict their 1A rights as punishment/deterrence.

yes it does

 

[notbubba]

WOW

This pro-criminal thread has gone on for 10 pages :banghead:

 

[Agostini]

9mmepiphany

i think conviction of these crimes rightfully should give up their firearms rights

Sir, I'm sure I comprehend your position on this issue.

Everybody in drug-business has blood in their hands. Denying that fact is beyond simplistic!

What you seem to totally miss is the fact that our Second Amendment rights are far more important than a stolen vehicle.

[Yeah, I really think that stealing someone's car should get you 20 years behind bars. The same applies to burglary, fraud, embezzlement, and most crimes. Madoff should hang.
I intensely dislike criminals and those who aid and abet them be released almost immediately. I don't even dare to write how I think drug dealers should be dealt with on the spot.]

We've been selling our rights for nothing.

Now that - this is critical - most of us have been declared terrorists (or potential ones) by our government, the question of Second Amendment and other God-given rights have become even more important. Those 'guarding' our Constitution and laws have become crooks. We cannot, unfortunately, trust them or the laws they've created or interpret anymore.

Millions of Americans displayed their stance by purchasing millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition just in case.

And I'm a guy with one parking ticket in his 'criminal record.'

Yes, you commit a non-violent 'felony' (the simplistic laws need a lot of tweaking) and do your time, you'd' be able to enter the society with all the restored rights of free men.

Violent criminals should never be free wo/men again.

I'm happy that we finally figured out our differences.

Stay safe and all the best.

 

[Beaux Nehr]

My guess is that the prosecution is equating the forgery of a doctor's note with the forgery of a drug prescription -- real bad juju.

Totally different crime, and totally different people would be investigating it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Cassandrasdaddy,

but again i am limited and severely constrained by my experience with actual felons and their actual lives.

I can't help but remember the man that my father hired straight out of Michigan City (high security) prison in Indiana. He did his job, went home and tended his plants (the house was a perk of the job.) I was warned on three separate occasions by an LEO never to be alone with the man and Dad was told, by the same LEO, that once a felon always a felon.

The high point was when he was actually arrested for a robbery committed in Remington. The sheriff assured Dad the evidence could not be disputed. Only problem was when the robbery happened the hired man was helping Dad and the vet birth a calf and the description didn't match height or weight. That experience makes me wonder if the recidivism is due to the violence of the felon or the laziness of law enforcement.

 

[danez71]

Don't get too excited about the "shall not be infringed" business. It's well settled constitutional law that constitutionally protected rights can be subject to limited regulation. The permissible scope of regulation will be sorted out over the next several years in all the post Heller litigation. But don't count on all gun control being tossed out.

I am not defending a client here, so there's no reason for me to act as if I were. But when I am engaged in providing professional services with regard to some matter, in planning my approach I indeed must make judgments about the credibility of my client and of witnesses and of other characters in our little drama; and I must make tactical and strategic decisions based on those judgments. Those are, however, private contemplations, and there would be no reason for me to discuss such matters with the judge.

So, if 2A is subject to limited regulation, why take that right away with no end date? That seems more like infringing than regulating. Why not take those rights rights a way in a prescribed way in the form of part of probation?

Ok, so now we've determined that while you're debating your case on the net you dont give the same considerations as debating your case in a court even though you dont really know the people in either example.

Then why do you keep referencing "in real life" in your net debate?
(I dont really expect an answer, only to recognize. You'll be more effective IMO on the net.)

(Off topice a little fiddletown - I didnt mean my last post to sound like a rant against you. If it came across that way, I apologize. I take have taken notice that you still have never conceeded to SuperNaut post having validity even when present with proof.)

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

The high point was when he was actually arrested for a robbery committed in Remington. The sheriff assured Dad the evidence could not be disputed. Only problem was when the robbery happened the hired man was helping Dad and the vet birth a calf and the description didn't match height or weight. That experience makes me wonder if the recidivism is due to the violence of the felon or the laziness of law enforcement.
__________________

i hope that was a charge he beat

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

don't get me wrong i believe that felons can change i just think restoration of gun rights is way down the list of things that help that. and that in fact might get in the way in the early stages.i also think that having to work to regain all your rights best serves both the felon and society. you had em once you gave em away. want em back? show me earn em back or sit on the porch with the lil girls and small dogs

 

[Officers'Wife]

i hope that was a charge he beat

Yes, it never made it past the grand jury. But the story of his arrest was on page 1 of the county seat newspaper. The story of the failure to indict on page 7 of an 8 page daily. The op-ed on page 3 decried his being released on a 'technicality.' Needless to say... it was an election year.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So, if 2A is subject to limited regulation, why take that right away with no end date?...

You misunderstand. What I mean by limited regulation is that some gun control laws will stand. It will become a question of what standard of scrutiny applies: rational basis; intermediate scrutiny; or strict scrutiny. Thus far, strict scrutiny has a been used to test regulation of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The prohibited persons provisions of the GCA of 1968 will, in my opinion, most likely survive a challenge, even under strict scrutiny. There was dicta in Heller to that effect.

...Ok, so now we've determined that while you're debating your case on the net you dont give the same considerations as debating your case in a court even though you dont really know the people in either example....

I have no idea what you mean by this, and what goes on in court is subject to a whole range of rules and procedures that apply to both sides.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i knew a guy in fairfax in the early 80's who was charged with bank robbery. he went to court no lawyer i think the commonwealths attorney thought he was just gonna roll over. he only said one thing .
"your honor on the date of that robbery i was already incarcerated and if these gentlemen had done their job they would know that." you coulda heard a pin drop then the judge told the commonwealth and the 2 detectives he expected to see them in chambers when they broke for lunch. commonwealths girl was off her game the rest of the morning

 

[Officers'Wife]

"your honor on the date of that robbery i was already incarcerated and if these gentlemen had done their job they would know that."

Again, I often wonder whether the horrendous recidivism rates are actual criminal enterprise or LEO and DA laziness. In this case it would appear the commonwealth jumped the gun on the recidivism.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

WOW

This pro-criminal thread has gone on for 10 pages

How does keeping criminals locked up until they can be trusted with arms equate to "pro-criminal"?

This is a pro-rights thread.

Woody

 

[waldonbuddy]

cassandrasdaddy said, "i had 2 felonies as a young man only one stuck. i regularly counsel other offenders and the ones that want to work work. in my case i was hired twice before i even finished my sentence.
do you have some experience, as opposed to imagination, that indicates differently?"

Well, my father was a felon {bar fight} until he died. My grand parents helped him start his own business, otherwise he worked at a few places until they found out he had a record. My cousin who had a degree in mathmatics, then got on drugs, got a felony arrest, couldn't find a job after his release until his father {an architect} got him a job on one of his work-sites as a laborer.

I also have two friends I went to school with have sons that were felons {drug related}, so I think I know a little about the subject.

cassandrasdaddy said, "there was a tax credit in [place that allowed a company that hired a felon to deduct 1/2 of their salary as a credit. companies paid a 1000 dollar bonus to managers who hired felons. been that way since 77"

I don't know what race you are, but the above statement sounds a lot like some type of affirmative action. All of those above in my statement were white males which might explain why they had a hard time finding a job along with their record.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

the targeted job tax credit was not race specific it gave the credits as outlined

 

[mack]

United States v. Skoien enbanc rehearing which deals with the consitutionalty of the Lautenberg amendment that bars individuals convicted of misdemeanor DV from exercising their RKBA for life is interesting - as some of the judges in orals questioned the constitutionality of the federal law that bans all felons from their RKBA as having little relationship to a legitimate or compellling interest of the state to restrict an individual right in the case of all felonies.

Interesting if this is so blatantly an unwinnable fight that some judges are at least open to questioning the constitutionallity of the blanket felon ban.