mregunz
Member
forgery is forgery and especially 12 times and 2 count's of false statement's a little going on here than a 0.50 parkin ticket
I still maintain that felons should lose their rights to vote and own firearms...
...unless and until they successfully petition for the restoration of their rights.
Also, why is the 2A the only right that is revoked forever?...
um because its not?
However, school officials have insisted the real issue is student education, not the loss of daily average attendance funds.
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm still not bothered by felons not being able to legally possess guns.rainbowbob said:...I still maintain that unless a person has demonstrated an inclination to commit criminal violence, there is NO logical reason to deny them the right to own and operate a firearm...
I'll take your word for that. But then again, The Oxford English Dictionary in its definition of "felony" cites Blackstone's Commentaries (1769) for the proposition that a felony was a crime punishable by forfeiture. In any case, many crimes punishable by forfeiture or death 200 or so years ago are now punishable by incarceration.A and O said:...And to think that at the printing of the 1828 Webster Dictionary the definition of Felony was "Any Capitol Offense"...
But you were not in fact convicted. You were exonerated. The government may well have had enough evidence (i. e., probable cause) to pursue charges; but they ultimately determined that they lacked evidence to convict. You were able to successfully defend against the charges.Thingster said:....I base this on facing felony charges that were resolved about 10 months ago. I was facing felony tax evasion due to my father making transactions on an account in my name while i was still a minor. ....Had they convicted me, i would have lost voting and firearms rights for doing no more than not knowing transactions had been made on an account that I was a primary (but unable to interfere since i was a minor)...
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character...Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy...
All of which means what, exactly? Tax evasion is a serious crime. Are you suggesting that the IRS shouldn't pursue tax evasion charges when they have an apparent basis?Thingster said:Based on the what it cost, had i not been able to afford a real lawyer(which i really couldn't, but he was a friend of the family and a helluva shark for better terms), there is no chance i would have gotten out of it- quite simply.
On my own, I'd be a felon right now for no doings of my own.
How does any punishment for any crime make anyone safer? It get criminals off the street for a bit and it is a price that has to be paid for criminal behavior. Consider the loss of rights to be a surcharge.rainbowbob said:...I don't understand how restricting a non-violent offender's 2nd A rights, or any other rights, as a continuation of punishment after time served, or for character flaws, makes you or me any safer....
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character.
Are you suggesting that every criminal commits his criminal act for a worthy social purpose? Exactly how did Bernie Maddoff's huge fraud further the interests of social justice? Is someone capable of such evil and such chicanery, even if non-violent, worthy of being trusted with a gun?nyrifleman said:What flaw in a person's character does, for example, Rosa Parks' refusal to surrender her seat for a white passenger show? Or the Founding Fathers' refusal to pay British taxes?...
Why should we make it easier for them?nyrifleman said:...When have felons ever had trouble getting their hands on guns?...
But they are restored if the charges are dismissed or you are acquitted.griffudd said:Not only is your right to bear arms revoked if you are convicted of a felony, they are removed even if you are only indicted for a felony--and even for a non-violent one....
No, it is in fact nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." The "innocent until proven guilty" business is about the burden of proof at a trial on a criminal charge.griffudd said:...Nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." ...
Had they convicted me, i would have lost voting and firearms rights
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffudd
...Nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." ...
No, it is in fact nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." The "innocent until proven guilty" business is about the burden of proof at a trial on a criminal charge.
Nope, you simply don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means in the law.griffudd said:No, Fiddletown. You are wrong.
It is everything like being "guilty until proven innocent." ...
And an indictment is more than a mere accusation. It reflects a determination by a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe that you have committed a crime and will be held to answer the indictment at trial.griffudd said:...even if it was for a nonviolent (and false) accusation--which is all an indictment actually is--you're treated like a convicted felon...
And that's what happened here, although at some level of cost and inconvenience to the accused. All due to overzealous prosecution, and choosing to charge under a statute that didn't apply. Surely you recognize that the judge wouldn't have thrown the case out without going to trial if the prosecutorial actions had not been egregious.But you were not in fact convicted. You were exonerated. The government may well have had enough evidence (i. e., probable cause) to pursue charges; but they ultimately determined that they lacked evidence to convict. You were able to successfully defend against the charges.
That happens, and that's how the system is supposed to work.