jcwit
member
Well put BK.
For those who think felons should never have guns...
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Or, one could interpret it as unjust. Copying a DVD for a friend, or writing a fake note to get an overzealous truancy officer off your child's back, or growing a few non-approved plants in the basement for personal use, are not indications of a propensity toward criminal violence; prior convictions for rape, murder, or aggravated assault most certainly are. One does not have to invoke the mantra of "white male middle class self-interest" to advocate that the punishment actually fit the crime.
Roccobro
Member
Post delete.
Justin
Justin
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
Member
+1...........
mljdeckard
Member
I for one don't think it's a good idea to downplay the seriousness of impersonating/falsely speaking for a medical professional.
Hoxviii
Member
By wishin:
Anyone want to help me with #15? *** is a FELONY curfew and loitering violation?
Anyone want to help me with #15? *** is a FELONY curfew and loitering violation?
BK
Member
Explaining felony curfew violation & felony loitering
Think of the victims first, the criminals last.
Think of the victims first, the criminals last.
Hoxviii
Member
Yeah, not helping.
"OMGZ, they're standing in front of my gas station for the third night in a row!!11!!1!!! HALP!"
I could see it leading to OTHER things that would be deemed as felonies, but need help with how curfew or loitering directly could be a felony charge.
"OMGZ, they're standing in front of my gas station for the third night in a row!!11!!1!!! HALP!"
I could see it leading to OTHER things that would be deemed as felonies, but need help with how curfew or loitering directly could be a felony charge.
gbw
Member
OP poses a tough one.
We will always have this problem to some degree. There will never be a perfect system, just too many uncontrollable variables.
Regardless the system some cases will have an unjust result, and that's a sadness. It's wrong for the individual if they are over-charged, and for all the rest of us if they are undercharged. We should always be be making the systems better.
I prefer to err on the side of safety and caution; in general I'm OK with felons losing their rights. I would like a simple mechanism exist to petition for reinstatement, especially for non-violent acts by very young folk.
It's an individual choice. In choosing to do any crime, one has the sole responsibility to undestand that there will be consequences, and what those may be. That includes the possibly, however remote, of a completely wrong and unfair lifelong result.
If one won't accept the responsibility of their actions, or fails to learn or understand them, then maybe they're too dumb to own guns to begin with.
We will always have this problem to some degree. There will never be a perfect system, just too many uncontrollable variables.
Regardless the system some cases will have an unjust result, and that's a sadness. It's wrong for the individual if they are over-charged, and for all the rest of us if they are undercharged. We should always be be making the systems better.
I prefer to err on the side of safety and caution; in general I'm OK with felons losing their rights. I would like a simple mechanism exist to petition for reinstatement, especially for non-violent acts by very young folk.
It's an individual choice. In choosing to do any crime, one has the sole responsibility to undestand that there will be consequences, and what those may be. That includes the possibly, however remote, of a completely wrong and unfair lifelong result.
If one won't accept the responsibility of their actions, or fails to learn or understand them, then maybe they're too dumb to own guns to begin with.
Last edited:
rainbowbob
Member
Word.
Never mind that many felons have never committed a violent act in their lives. Many here seem to believe the consequences of dishonesty should include the removal of the means of self-defense.
If all liars were restricted from owning firearms, this nation would be nearly disarmed.
Here in Virginia, take a 20 year old kid, stupid and inexperienced, have him commit a non-violent offence concerning $40.00 worth of prescription pills. Charge him with 2 felonies and convict him. Lock him up for a year, then put him on 10 years supervised probation. Take his drivers license. Enter him in EVERY possible database, including the 3 credit bureaus, ( God don't forget them). Next, let him out, tell him to have a job in 7 days or go back to jail. Put him back in jail for 6 months. Tell him to have a job in 7 days. Put him back in jail for another 6 months. Go to court, even the judge finally gets his head out of his rear and says to the district attorney ''enough is enough?'' The district attorney then stands up and recommends he pull the remaining years of his probation in state prison. This is real-life justice in Virginia. Anyone falling into the criminal justice system is ruined for LIFE- LIFE for an infraction that is handled in most states in misdemeanor court. Even WITHOUT a criminal record try to find employment without a drivers license. There are three types on this type of thread- those in the know that understand, those that had no idea, and the crush 'em at any cost mentalities, usually attached to the courts or law enforcement. Restoration of rights in Va takes YEARS and THOUSANDS of dollars, with no guarantee of ANY positive results. From William & Mary to ZERO prospects in one mistake. Read and heed....
waldonbuddy
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 167
I agree tinman, I know a man who has two adopted kids. He was relating a story that happened to one of his kids found with drugs.
I won't recount the whole story, but it suffices to say this kids life is ruined.
Can you imagine trying to find a job after checking the "have you ever had a felony arrest" part of the job application. Yeah, we'll let you know, thanks for comming by.
I won't recount the whole story, but it suffices to say this kids life is ruined.
Can you imagine trying to find a job after checking the "have you ever had a felony arrest" part of the job application. Yeah, we'll let you know, thanks for comming by.
danez71
Member
IMO,
Whether or not to take away rights should not be automatic. It should be part of the sentencing process and be indivigualy addressed.
For example, maybe loose one right but allowed to be able to still vote.
Vandalism can be a felony. Maybe an anger management issue but loosing your right to vote for it?
Throwing away not complety dried paint can be a felony. Loosing your gun rights?
And this should be decided by a jury of his/her peers just like the verdict.
IMO, voting is sacred and should almost never be taken away. The country was not founded on the right to bear arms as the forefront; Democracy was.
I say this based on that the Declaration of Independence was written as an expanation of why Congress votedto declare independence from the British Empire.
Just IMO
Whether or not to take away rights should not be automatic. It should be part of the sentencing process and be indivigualy addressed.
For example, maybe loose one right but allowed to be able to still vote.
Vandalism can be a felony. Maybe an anger management issue but loosing your right to vote for it?
Throwing away not complety dried paint can be a felony. Loosing your gun rights?
And this should be decided by a jury of his/her peers just like the verdict.
IMO, voting is sacred and should almost never be taken away. The country was not founded on the right to bear arms as the forefront; Democracy was.
I say this based on that the Declaration of Independence was written as an expanation of why Congress votedto declare independence from the British Empire.
Just IMO
lobo9er
Member
we are only as free as our most...? hows that go again
Very well said BK. I'm seeing way more of the "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" mentality than I thought a forum with this many educated and well spoken individuals would show. I don't think that anyone at any time stated that forging the doctor's note was not wrong and shouldn't be illegal. People were just saying that it should not be a felony and come with all the punishment that a felony in this country brings.
Personally, I fall into the other extreme that believes once the full sentence is served, ALL the rights of a felon should be restored. I think it's unfair that felons can no longer vote even though legislation still affects them. I think it is also unfair to permanently deny someone their right to self-protection. When you go to prison, the state takes on the burden of keeping you safe, healthy, and fed. When you are released, it is once again your job to defend yourself and the government takes your ability to do so away. Felony convictions also bar you from receiving many types of student loans and de facto prohibit you from holding most jobs. Who wants to hire a felon when there are non-felon applicants? I'm not saying that the original crime was not the fault of the perpetrator, but I am saying that when the government takes away their basic fundamental rights, and their record makes it almost impossible to get a good job, these people might as well go on committing crimes, because they sure as hell aren't going to get anywhere in law abiding society.
I believe as a nation, we need to seriously rethink what we consider to be a felony, our highest of crimes.
I oppose the 1968 gun control act - which is evidently supported by many gun owners on this forum. That many gun owners here and elsewhere support gun control of all kinds should not be surprising - many gun owners support the terror gap legislation - that bans guns to people the government chooses to put on the suspected terrorist list or the no fly list - about a million or so of their fellow citizens - denied their RKBA without due process at the whim on a faceless beauracrat in a secret process.
Many have supported the 80 yr old vet in Chicago who defended himself with a handgun - by reports he did not have a current FOID card (firearm owners identification card) as required by IL law - if that was the case - then the evidence suggests that according to IL law that he is most probably guilty of felonies.
But to quote and paraphrase Franklin - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain (the illusion of) a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The balance is this - a fundamental and basic inalienable right (the right to life and the right to defend that life) forfeit for life for all violations of the legal code that the state or federal government decides to classify as felonies.
Obviously, many here see the absurdity and immorality of such a blanket law - whereas some evidently do not. Those who do not seem to generally be comfortable with judging the worth of their fellow men beyond their guilt or innocense of a specific crime or punishment for a specific crime, but to judge them catagorically in all cases as to their worthiness to live or to exercise those rights with which they were endowed by their creator including their right to life and their right to defend that life. I can only assume that they feel comfortable with permanently treating many of their fellow human beings as second class citizens and serfs for life or that an individual who fits the states current definition of felon is permanently sub-human in all cases and should thus be barred for life from basic human rights.
In their view a man who did nothing for his fellow beings - who shared or helped not one fellow human being in need of help - who was bitter and hateful to everyone he met and who within legal limits made it his job to make the people in his personal and professional life as miserable as possible and treated everyone he met as demeaningly as possible - somehow deserves the RKBA but a veteran who won the congressional medal of honor saving the lives of his fellow soldiers - who risked his life as a firefighter to save lives - who gave his money, time, and heart to his fellow men though out his life - but then one day discovers his wife cheating on him and gets intoxicated out of character and then when taunted by his wife's lover who shows up where he is drinking - slugs him in the mouth and is arrested and convicted of felony assault - should never ever be allowed or trusted to own a firearm for life.
One might claim the above is an extreme example - but it reflects that law as it stands today - a law that does not discriminate at all but imposes a life time disability for all felons - violent or not - reformed or not - worthy or not.
The law as it stands is garbage - it is gun control that does nothing to make anyone safer - it does nothing to effectively prevent those inclined to do evil from doing evil and deprives only those inclined from doing right from doing so - it is immoral and idiotic.
Many have supported the 80 yr old vet in Chicago who defended himself with a handgun - by reports he did not have a current FOID card (firearm owners identification card) as required by IL law - if that was the case - then the evidence suggests that according to IL law that he is most probably guilty of felonies.
But to quote and paraphrase Franklin - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain (the illusion of) a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The balance is this - a fundamental and basic inalienable right (the right to life and the right to defend that life) forfeit for life for all violations of the legal code that the state or federal government decides to classify as felonies.
Obviously, many here see the absurdity and immorality of such a blanket law - whereas some evidently do not. Those who do not seem to generally be comfortable with judging the worth of their fellow men beyond their guilt or innocense of a specific crime or punishment for a specific crime, but to judge them catagorically in all cases as to their worthiness to live or to exercise those rights with which they were endowed by their creator including their right to life and their right to defend that life. I can only assume that they feel comfortable with permanently treating many of their fellow human beings as second class citizens and serfs for life or that an individual who fits the states current definition of felon is permanently sub-human in all cases and should thus be barred for life from basic human rights.
In their view a man who did nothing for his fellow beings - who shared or helped not one fellow human being in need of help - who was bitter and hateful to everyone he met and who within legal limits made it his job to make the people in his personal and professional life as miserable as possible and treated everyone he met as demeaningly as possible - somehow deserves the RKBA but a veteran who won the congressional medal of honor saving the lives of his fellow soldiers - who risked his life as a firefighter to save lives - who gave his money, time, and heart to his fellow men though out his life - but then one day discovers his wife cheating on him and gets intoxicated out of character and then when taunted by his wife's lover who shows up where he is drinking - slugs him in the mouth and is arrested and convicted of felony assault - should never ever be allowed or trusted to own a firearm for life.
One might claim the above is an extreme example - but it reflects that law as it stands today - a law that does not discriminate at all but imposes a life time disability for all felons - violent or not - reformed or not - worthy or not.
The law as it stands is garbage - it is gun control that does nothing to make anyone safer - it does nothing to effectively prevent those inclined to do evil from doing evil and deprives only those inclined from doing right from doing so - it is immoral and idiotic.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
That is not an option in many states. In some a felony is permanent, there is no recourse.
what states is that not an option? va is considered a bad state as far as rights restoration. and its not that hard to do here. most never try which is more a reflection on them than the system
what states is that not an option? va is considered a bad state as far as rights restoration. and its not that hard to do here. most never try which is more a reflection on them than the system
mack,
Nice speech, but the GCA of 1968 is what it is, and I seriously doubt that the prohibited person provisions are likely to change. I doubt that any easing of those rules is politically viable, and I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would find that they satisfy strict scrutiny, if that is even the test that will be applied to regulations of 2nd Amendment rights. If anyone thinks otherwise, he can write letters to legislators, write letters to newspapers and otherwise exercise his First Amendment rights to try to get things changed. And if he wants to try the courts, they are open for business.
Personally, I prefer to focus on the fights we have a chance of winning. If we get a favorable result in MacDonald, we will have the opportunity to push back on a lot draconian state laws now limiting the RKBA by law abiding persons. I see that as the first order of business and the place to commit our limited resources. So I'm not going to gnash my teeth, rend my garments and pour ashes on my head because a convicted felon can't have a gun.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why people ought to know and understand what the law is, control their passions, appetites and impulses, and generally abide by the law. The possibility of losing the right to have a gun is only one of those reasons.
Nice speech, but the GCA of 1968 is what it is, and I seriously doubt that the prohibited person provisions are likely to change. I doubt that any easing of those rules is politically viable, and I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would find that they satisfy strict scrutiny, if that is even the test that will be applied to regulations of 2nd Amendment rights. If anyone thinks otherwise, he can write letters to legislators, write letters to newspapers and otherwise exercise his First Amendment rights to try to get things changed. And if he wants to try the courts, they are open for business.
Personally, I prefer to focus on the fights we have a chance of winning. If we get a favorable result in MacDonald, we will have the opportunity to push back on a lot draconian state laws now limiting the RKBA by law abiding persons. I see that as the first order of business and the place to commit our limited resources. So I'm not going to gnash my teeth, rend my garments and pour ashes on my head because a convicted felon can't have a gun.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why people ought to know and understand what the law is, control their passions, appetites and impulses, and generally abide by the law. The possibility of losing the right to have a gun is only one of those reasons.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
Quote:
Quote:
What are the most common felonies committed in the US? A list of the 20 most common felonies in the US.
(1) Drug abuse violations 1,841,182
(2) Driving while Intoxicated 1,427,494 (aka Felony DUI)
(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft 1,172,762
(5) Assault 1,305,693
(6) Disorderly conduct 709,105
(7) Liquor laws 633,654
(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.
(9) Drunkenness 589,402
(10) Aggravated assault 433,945
(11) Burglary 303,853
(12) Vandalism 291,575
(13) Fraud 252,873
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession) 188,891
(15) Curfew and loitering 143,002
(16) Robbery 126,715
(17) Offenses against family and children 122,812
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession) 122,061
(19) Motor vehicle theft 118,231
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting 103,448
wishin you got a source for that list?
Quote:
What are the most common felonies committed in the US? A list of the 20 most common felonies in the US.
(1) Drug abuse violations 1,841,182
(2) Driving while Intoxicated 1,427,494 (aka Felony DUI)
(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft 1,172,762
(5) Assault 1,305,693
(6) Disorderly conduct 709,105
(7) Liquor laws 633,654
(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.
(9) Drunkenness 589,402
(10) Aggravated assault 433,945
(11) Burglary 303,853
(12) Vandalism 291,575
(13) Fraud 252,873
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession) 188,891
(15) Curfew and loitering 143,002
(16) Robbery 126,715
(17) Offenses against family and children 122,812
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession) 122,061
(19) Motor vehicle theft 118,231
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting 103,448
wishin you got a source for that list?
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
tinman? your story is not congruent with my experiences with the courts in va. and i spend a lotta time dealing with folks in the system still. i suspect at the very least some things are being left out
rainbowbob
Member
That would be a fair assessment of nearly ALL gun control laws.
Does that imply you would be willing to focus on THIS fight if you thought it was winnable?
I guess not.
oneounceload
member
There ARE other means besides a gun, so that is a moot point.
What's the old line? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time?" If you are irresponsible in your behavior that you commit felonious crimes, then a gun is not in your future..............too bad if you are young and immature - there's WAY too much info here on the net to claim that reason anymore
A ridiculous question since it assumes a state of affairs the probability of which is vanishingly small. I don't see any point to wasting time on such a speculative and doubtful hypothetical.rainbowbob said:
You're of course free to interpret those sound bites thus. But let's not forget what I wrote back in post 94.rainbowbob said:
I would support the implementation and operation of a functional and reasonable process whereby a convicted felon could seek restoration of gun rights. That may be doable. But I consider it a lower priority at this point when compared with some of the other post McDonald matters sure to be coming.fiddletown said:
Straight Shooter
Member
Given enough scrutiny, the number of those who have committed felonies (knowingly or not), would be very high.
"There but for the grace of God, go I"
"There but for the grace of God, go I"
Last edited:
I've seen a whole lot of speculation along those lines in threads like this, but I've never seen any evidence to support it.Straight Shooter said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
