should ex felons be restricted

[Fletchette]

As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.

Well, if you had read the article...you would have found out that this guy DID go to his doctor. He had a valid prescription for painkillers for his back, but he needed more because they were losing effectiveness. His doctor raised his dose several times, but then decided against raising any further out of fear of the DEA (which has been harassing doctors). So...the patient had three choices:

1) Get a different doctor - illegal. See Rush Limbaugh fighting charges of "doctor shopping".

2) Copying his valid prescription and getting it filled twice - illegal. He is doing 25 years in prison for this.

3) Live in excruicating pain.


The system totally sucks. This guy had no way out. Even if you fault him for copying his own prescription, 25 years and a felony conviction is completely unreasonable. I can't believe anyone would think it is! Where is the "victim"?!? You cannot even make the arguement that he is supporting organized crime - he bought the drugs from his pharmacy!!!

I swear, I believe some people cannot grasp the concept of a misdemeanor. They think every crime should be a felony! Personally, I think this guy should have been let off with a warning.

 

[telewinz]

The past doesn not equal the future, just because someone has done bad things does not mean they automatically will do so again.

OK, which one of my inmates do you want to move next store to you, the mentally ill child rapist (IQ 65), the mentally ill murderer (1st grade education), the born again Christian that killed his entire family with a baseball bat when he was 17 or maybe the pagan that stabbed his grandparents to death then sat down at their kitchen table and fixed himself a sandwich. None have been caught taking drugs or booze for over 15 years and they have not killed anyone while under our custody. Maybe your point of view is right, I think you should provide a "home plan" to the parole board so that the inmate of your choosing may be granted a well deserved parole. It's caring individuals as yourself that we (and inmates) need more of. After all, we all know that inmates are just unforunate (but "normal") victims of society.
Monsters only exist in a person's mind.

So...the patient had three choices:

No, maybe four like go to another doctor. Maybe the guy was becoming addicted to the pain killers and his doctor didn't want to be sued. Doctors routinely switch medication, strange that of the dozens of different pain killers available none were effective on him. Maybe not all the facts are in the story, maybe the guy has a history substance abuse. Anyhow, how did a jury of his peers convict such an "innocent" victim of the system.

 

[Fletchette]

No, maybe four like go to another doctor.

I listed that choice as number 1.

Anyhow, how did a jury of his peers convict such an "innocent" victim of the system.

Because juries are routinely told that they cannot judge the merit of the law, and can only decide if the accused violated the law. It is cases like this that exemplify the need for FIJA. In any case, the 25 year minimum sentence came as a complete surprise. I suspect the jury was expecting something much, much less.

Edit: From the article:

At least one juror has since expressed regret for the verdict. Paey today sits in his wheelchair in a Florida penitentiary.

 

[Waitone]

Because juries are routinely told that they cannot judge the merit of the law, and can only decide if the accused violated the law. It is cases like this that exemplify the need for FIJA.

At which point the concept of jury nullification takes hold contrary to what the judge says. You don't a big deal of it; you just refuse to convict someone on the basis of an unjust law.

And yes, I've been told I'll never sit on a jury.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Their release is not an aknowledgement of paying a debt to society. It is an aknowledgement that their term of incarceration is over.

If they still owe society then they shold still be in jail, you essentially advocate a system where people do not have equal rights under the law.

If you take someone's driver's license are denying the right to go places?

Driving on a govt road is not a right, as it is owned by the govt.

If you take someone's right to vote are you denying them the ability to express political opinions?

Yes, voting is the most effective way that people can express themselves politically.

Someone without rights to gun ownership can lawfully defend himself in any way he wants provided he doesnt own a gun in the process

Do I own myself?

I, therefore, have the right to defend myself.

Do I have the right to own property?

I, therefore, have the right to defend myself with my property.

What about that don't you understand?

Yet the stats are they will, something like 80% Want to take the chance?

When someone is a repeat offender that is something called and "aggrivating circumstance" which means they will get a much stiffer sentence than someone who is on trial for their first time. It seems the real issue is that violent criminals get let out of jail far too early.

Not me, thanks. If your world ignores things like likelihood of an event and chances of anything occurring or re-occurring then you need a reality check because the rest of humanity operates on just those principles.

Suppose some kid comes from a family of criminals and lowlifes, should we just get right to the chase and throw him in jail from the start because the odds overwhelmingly favor that he will be a criminal?

Why do you think someone with multiple speeding tickets pays more for car insurance than someone with no speeding tickets?

Poor analogy, no one has a right to insurance because it must be voluntarily by another.

Ignoring the obvious: his body belonged to him but the drugs belonged to the pharmacy and the right of prescribing them belonged to the doctor

Did he steal the pharmacy's drugs or was he simply consuming the drugs he bought?

 

[45-auto]

Wow!

Lots of hypotheticals here. Guys in wheelchairs with nasty addictions. Guys who can't buy car insurance at any reasonable price.

For me it's simple: the government does a lousy job of keeping felons from having guns. A fact that's proven in dozens of gas station robberies daily.

The effort simply proliferates useless -and unconstitutional- agencies like the BATF.

Anyway, the important item is not whether a felon has a gun or not. Seems like they can always get one. It's what they do with the gun that matters.

Punish behavior. Don't legislate against mere possession. The government has NO business legislating on the issue of gun possession. That's what the second amendment says.

 

[telewinz]

Because juries are routinely told that they cannot judge the merit of the law, and can only decide if the accused violated the law. It is cases like this that exemplify the need for FIJA. In any case, the 25 year minimum sentence came as a complete surprise. I suspect the jury was expecting something much, much less.

BS! I served on a jury and all of us ignored the judge's instructions and voted our conscience, no problem.

At least one juror has since expressed regret for the verdict

With or without a juror's regret (common feeling) the guy was still guilty!

1) Get a different doctor - illegal. See Rush Limbaugh fighting charges of "doctor shopping".

It's not illegal to shop for multiple doctors and has never been illegal. I have four right now, an eye doctor, VA doctor, a family doctor, and a plastic surgeon. Rush admitted he was addicted and was seeking drugs from other doctors (and his house maid) to feed his addiction.

 

[Firethorn]

For the guy in the wheelchair, Richard Paey, it was a little different. He moved, and was no longer in contact with his old doctor. He could not find a new doctor willing to take him on, due to the fed's crackdown on pain meds. He is in extreme pain due to injuries sustained in a car accident, botched surgery, and multiple sclerosis. He didn't double fill his prescriptions from a doctor he could find, he filled using his old doctor's forms.

Unable to find a local physician who was comfortable taking him on as a patient, Paey used undated prescription forms from Nurkiewicz's office to obtain painkillers in Florida. Paey says Nurkiewicz authorized these prescriptions, which the doctor (who could face legal trouble of his own) denies.

Apparently they found a doctor for him in prison who went a step further...

Today, as he sits in jail in his wheelchair, a subdermal pump delivers a steady, programmed dose of morphine to his spine.

If only he could have found a doctor willing to suggest that outside!
And as for the jury finding him guilty, the juror also mentioned that the foreman assured them that all Richard would get would be probation... They felt a slap on the hand more appropriate for forging a prescription for personal use than 25 years in the pen (which they didn't know about).

 

[The Rabbi]

Their release is not an aknowledgement of paying a debt to society. It is an aknowledgement that their term of incarceration is over.
If they still owe society then they shold still be in jail, you essentially advocate a system where people do not have equal rights under the law.

You have contradicted yourself. If the law is that convicted felon cannot own a gun then how is it not having equal rights under the law to say he cannot have one? Michael Milliken went to jail for securities fraud. He got out of jail. He still cannot and never will be able to work in the securities industry again. "Pursuit of happiness" is a much more inalienable right than gun ownership and yet the government has (wisely) barred him for life.
By your logic everyone anywhere anytime has the "right" to own and carry a gun. That would apply to people in prison. That would apply to pre-schoolers. That would apply to people with limited mental capacity. Why dont you lobby for Hinkley to gain gun rights? Your view of the Second Amendment is ahistorical, logically flawed, and downright absurd.

 

[The Rabbi]

The system totally sucks. This guy had no way out. Even if you fault him for copying his own prescription, 25 years and a felony conviction is completely unreasonable. I can't believe anyone would think it is! Where is the "victim"?!? You cannot even make the arguement that he is supporting organized crime - he bought the drugs from his pharmacy!!!

Well, I asked my older brother, who is a palliative care specialist and soon to relocate to Lexington KY about this. Here is his response after reading the article:

The answer is to have chronic pain patients treated by a legitimate (emphasis on that word) specialist with appropriate training (someone like me). As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for treatment, response to treatment, and regular follow up, a physician need not fear the DEA

So there you have it. Did he knowingly violate the law? Yes. Is he guilty? Yes. Does that make it fair? I dunno. But he obviously had other options.

 

[Finch]

Depends opn the felony. If your a felon because you went to fast on the highway, then no, you shouldn't be barred from gun ownership, but if you made the ill decision to use a gun in the commision of a felony, then yes, say bye bye to your RKBA.

 

[Fletchette]

So there you have it. Did he knowingly violate the law? Yes. Is he guilty? Yes. Does that make it fair? I dunno. But he obviously had other options.

My arguement is that, even if he did violate the law, this is such a minor infraction that he should be charged with a misdemeanor. I think (my honest opinion) that a 25 year felony charge for this is very excessive.

 

[The Rabbi]

And how old were you the first time your mom told you "life isnt always fair" ? I agree it seems excessive given the circumstances as far as we know. The villain would seem to be the mandatory sentencing guidelines. If I had an easy solution to that I'd be running for office.

 

[telewinz]

My arguement is that, even if he did violate the law, this is such a minor infraction that he should be charged with a misdemeanor.

And how many counts was he charged with? I don't think it's minor at all AND HE KNEW HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW!

The answer is to have chronic pain patients treated by a legitimate (emphasis on that word) specialist with appropriate training (someone like me). As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for treatment, response to treatment, and regular follow up, a physician need not fear the DEA

Now that sounds like an accurate statement to me.

 

[Firethorn]

<i>Unable to find a local physician who was comfortable taking him on as a patient</i>

Again, due to whatever factors(though the fed's witchhunt for overprescribing doctors seems to be a factor), he was unable to find a doctor willing to take him on.

The answer is to have chronic pain patients treated by a legitimate (emphasis on that word) specialist with appropriate training (someone like me). As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for treatment, response to treatment, and regular follow up, a physician need not fear the DEA

Was such a specialist available in his area? Was that one taking on new patients?

"As long as there is clear documentation as to the reason for the purchase, response to purchase, and regular follow up, a FFL need not fear the ATF"

But from what I've heard, the FFL's here on the board dread a FFL visit. What if you're accused of making a straw sale?

 

[why_me]

republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul Texas says

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051704.htm

When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.

Dr. Cecil Knox of Virginia is one recent victim of federal authorities, who cannot abide physicians using their own judgment when prescribing pain medication. Dr. Knox faces federal criminal charges for prescribing legal pain drugs, and tragically has been forced to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending himself. Virginia state authorities have neither charged him with a crime nor revoked his medical license, yet the federal government- which constitutionally has no authority to usurp state drug laws- perversely seeks to imprison Dr. Knox for life!

Even if Dr. Knox is acquitted of all charges, his life will never be the same. His professional reputation and clientele cannot be easily restored, and the enormous legal bills cannot be easily repaid. So whether federal prosecutors obtain a conviction of Dr. Knox or not, the message sent to other doctors is chillingly clear: prescribe the wrong drugs and we will destroy you. The end result is that doctors become afraid to prescribe pain medication, no matter how appropriate for a patient. The judgment of doctors has been replaced by the judgment of federal drug warriors.

Those who support the war on drugs may well change their views if one day they find themselves experiencing serious pain because of an accident or old age. By creating an atmosphere that regards all powerful pain medication as suspect, the drug warriors have forced countless Americans to live degraded, bedridden lives. Even elderly deathbed patients sometimes are denied adequate pain relief from reluctant doctors and nurses. It’s one thing to support a faraway drug campaign in Colombia or Afghanistan, but it’s quite another to watch a loved one suffering acute pain that could be treated. A sane, compassionate society views advances in medical science- particularly advances that relieve great suffering- as heroic. Instead, our barbaric drug war treats pain patients the same way it treats street junkies.

Doctors are not slaves, and they will not continue practicing medicine forever if the federal government insists on monitoring, harassing, fining, and even jailing them. Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment, nor should they be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.

My thoughts
My grandfather until the last week of his life Didnt even get morphine. He died of colon cancer. This is a moment where i want to really get pissed off at some of the flippant remarks made here. You cannot say how much pain another person feels.

 

[Fletchette]

And how many counts was he charged with? I don't think it's minor at all AND HE KNEW HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW!

I am curious, Telewinz, what type of crime do you think warrants a misdemeanor?

 

[Bemidjiblade]

sigh

I guess sometimes taking the High Road means saying what is unpopular because you believe that it is both important and right:

I hear three major arguments about not allowing felons to possess firearms.
1] You've proven that you're untrustworty, and people don't change so you can never be trusted with firearms again.
2] The only reason that people are released on probation or parole is because there are no room for them in the jails/prisons.
3] Felons can get firearms anyway, because they aren't restricted enough, and they're just going to offend again anyway.

This is why I find these arguments unconvincing:
1] People can and do change. People who have changed from immoral to moral lifestyles are not merely the stuff of legend, they tend to be major contributors to the society we all share. St. Patrick, St. Augustine, King David, Henry V, these are only the famous people I can mention. Each of them committed acts that could be considered felonies in modern times, and each of them went on to help shape western civilization as we know it.
2] I have looked and looked. I can find no legal or documented basis to state that the "only" or even the primary reason that felons are released into community. I and others like me are sentenced to probation, because the judge did not feel that our offences merited sending us to prison unless there were further problems. "This can NEVER happen again" was how the judge who sentenced me put it. If you can demonstrate with official documentation or judicial review that the purpose for probation is a lack fo space et cetera, I am willing to reconsider. I've looked and so far I haven't found any. What I HAVE found on the US DOJ website about the criteria used to end probation/parole conditions early is about adjustment to society, NOT punishment.
3] I'm sorry, but if you're going to be making assertions that all offenders of one type or another reoffend, then I would like to see the proof. I did HOURS of research. I've seen an 80% rearrest rate in 3 years, but that doesn't mean a whole lot to me, since my own PO can put me in jail for up to 4 days at her own disgression, and I've known her to do so with other cases when she feels someone isn't taking things seriously enough. This would contribute to your 80% statistics, and has absolutely nothing to do with new wrongdoing. The fact is that the government websites of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States all point to an average re-conviction (NEW criminal activity) rate of about 40%.

So... because I believe that persons can change. Because I can believe probation and parole are about regaining place and trust in society, and becauase I believe that felons have at least a fifty-fifty chance of learning how to be productive members of society...

I believe that felons should be able to petition on a case by case basis for restoration of the right to keep and bear arms. All OTHER rights are returned at the end of probation/parole, and I don't see how this is any different.

Finally, as to the "felons can just defend themselves without firearms"... This is the first and maybe the biggest case of hypocracy that I've EVER encountered on THR. Isn't one of the main premises of this site that an unarmed man is not able to defend himself or his family against an armed opponent.

A friend of mine from the police academy and I spent HOURS one day trying every concievable martial arts response to an armed assailant, and the short answer always goes like this: If the person who is holding the fiearm is not both a complete fool and incredibly careless, you're dead meat. So, saying that a felon can just defend himself in a fashion that you state is unacceptable for you and yours, this is tantamount to saying that a felon's life is worth less than your own.

 

[Bemidjiblade]

oh yes...

one more thing...

We're talking about felons regaining a right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't the very fact that a felon would be willing to go through the thousands of dollars in court costs and time to regain their rights the legal and socially acceptable way count for something?

After all, how many times have members of this site argued that 'gun control' laws are ineffective because most criminal acts are committed with illegally owned fiearms?

No offense, but it sounds like most of you have a huge double standard about this one.

 

[Glock Glockler]

You have contradicted yourself. If the law is that convicted felon cannot own a gun then how is it not having equal rights under the law to say he cannot have one?

You see, it's called a bad law, much like the plenty of unconstitutional gun control laws we have that allow LEOs, who are civilians just like me, to have all sorts of neat weapons that I cant. Some are more equal than others.

The felon who is released from jail, does he have to pay less in taxes than the rest of us? He certainly is getting less from the govt, as he cannot protect himself to the degree as everyone else can? You also never answered my questions from before, does he have a right to property?

By your logic everyone anywhere anytime has the "right" to own and carry a gun. That would apply to people in prison

When people are in prison they are stipped of their rights as they have violated the rights of another, which is why they are there in the first place. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, so since you will not allow him to defend himself when he gets out of prison are you going to provide additional police protection for him?

That would apply to pre-schoolers

Nice try, but they do not have full rights like an adult, whish is also why a legally binding contact with a 3 year old is invalid. Better luck next time.

 

[telewinz]

If you can demonstrate with official documentation or judicial review that the purpose for probation is a lack fo space et cetera, I am willing to reconsider.

"I was told that due to over crowding, I can NOT take away good time (parole) unless an inmate rapes or attacks a staff member" instructions given to and told to me by prison magistrate! With an 80% return rate, doesn't that indicate that most inmates have NOT changed? And why does the public blame the parole board when they take your advise?

Those who support the war on drugs may well change their views if one day they find themselves experiencing serious pain because of an accident or old age.

Well, my sister in law died of cancer 2 years ago and received all the pain killers she needed (morphine), WHILE at home and in the hospital. I recently was severely injuried by an attack by an inmate, I received all the pain killers I needed (morphine) while at home and in the hospital, didn't even have to ask. So personal experience enters into my beliefs.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand,

In most cases, cons and ex-cons do very poorly in taking personal responsibility for their actions. If they DO CHANGE , in many states they can request to have gun ownership restored.

I am curious, Telewinz, what type of crime do you think warrants a misdemeanor?

Why make the issue more complex with personal opinion? My feelings aren't important but the facts and stats are. There are mainly only two reasons why a drug offender is prosecuted; A large amount of drugs are involved or the person has a past criminal record and they can finally nail him with a criminal act and get him off the streets. They do this in the interest of public safety which is what they are paid to do and what the vast majority of the public (including me) wants them to do. MONSTERS DO EXIST! KEEP THEM BEHIND BARS!

"Sucker punched" by inmate

I have never seen so much blood, I thought you were dead

Lets see...broken nose, broken cheek bone, torn retina, and concussion. And you really what this guy to have access to a gun when he gets out? If not him, how are you going to pick and choose which inmate with any certainty? No disrespect intended, but someone sounds somewhat naive in their values/judgement.

 

[Glock Glockler]

telewinz,

"Sucker punched" by inmate

Ok, charge him with that crime and add another decade or 2 to his sentence. What is so hard about that?

And you really what this guy to have access to a gun when he gets out?

I would expect a statement like that from the Brady bunch. Do you really think that having a law is going to prevent someone like him from getting a gun? He will get it anyway, the only thing you will do is prevent ex-felons who want to straighten themselves out from obtaining a firearms. Great path you have him on now, so if we wants to protect himself he has to go back to being a lawbreaker.

No disrespect intended, but someone sounds somewhat naive in their values/judgement

If you think that just trying to limit someones access to firearms after they get out of prison will do the job you are sorely mistaken. There are many issues at work that create the culture of people in prison such as the welfare system, the tax system, minimum wage laws, the education system, the war on some drugs, and a host of other stuff. Although I dont mind discussing this subject you must eventually address the cause if you want to be effective.

 

[The Rabbi]

When people are in prison they are stipped of their rights as they have violated the rights of another, which is why they are there in the first place.

So you're saying that people in prison have no right to practice their religion, no right of free speech, etc etc? You have contradicted yourself yet again. Obviously rights are not an all or none proposition.

I would expect a statement like that from the Brady bunch. Do you really think that having a law is going to prevent someone like him from getting a gun? He will get it anyway,

By that logic nothing should be illegal, nothing should be restricted from anyone. Heck, just call a toll-free number and have the item delivered at government expense next-day express. Obviously laws restricting items do restrict them from some people. The fact that they dont work 100% doesnt mean they dont work at all. Yes, a person determined to get a gun will likely get one. The key word is "determined." Most people lack sufficient determination.

 

[Glock Glockler]

So you're saying that people in prison have no right to practice their religion, no right of free speech, etc etc? You have contradicted yourself yet again. Obviously rights are not an all or none proposition.

No contradiction here, if they claim that their religion requires them to gather in large groups for a long time to pray that can easily be a threat to guard security and also pose a risk to them escaping, so the prison can restrict that. They might claim the religion requires them to keep chicken bones on them, but those can easily be sharpened and used as a weapon, so the prision can restrict that. They might claim they have a right to free speech, but if one of the Aryan nation guy wants to get up and make a speech about how they will kill all the mudpeople in the upcomming race war, that might very well be inflammitory and lead to a big fight/riot in the prison, so they can restrict that as well.

By that logic nothing should be illegal, nothing should be restricted from anyone.

Incorrect yet again. Something should be illegal when the act infringes on someone's rights. I don't infringe on anyone's rights if I own a full-auto belt fed machinegun, and an anti doesnt have a right to "feel" safe, so that should not be illegal, however, if I start taking shots at his house the law should come down on me with full force.

Heck, just call a toll-free number and have the item delivered at government expense next-day express.

No, thanks. They can pay for it themselves, there is no reason for the govt to pick up the tab on private transactions. I dont do socialism.

Obviously laws restricting items do restrict them from some people. The fact that they dont work 100% doesnt mean they dont work at all

Brilliant, so let's definately trample on the rights of the well meaning people because we might prevent a potential bad guy from getting one.

 

[telewinz]

I would expect a statement like that from the Brady bunch. Do you really think that having a law is going to prevent someone like him from getting a gun? He will get it anyway, the only thing you will do is prevent ex-felons who want to straighten themselves out from obtaining a firearms. Great path you have him on now, so if we wants to protect himself he has to go back to being a lawbreaker.

No but when they are caught (and they will be) the justice system can do more than fine them with a parking ticket!

If you think that just trying to limit someones access to firearms after they get out of prison will do the job you are sorely mistaken. There are many issues at work that create the culture of people in prison such as the welfare system, the tax system, minimum wage laws, the education system, the war on some drugs, and a host of other stuff. Although I dont mind discussing this subject you must eventually address the cause if you want to be effective.

Increase taxes a great deal and we will have all the welfare systems you desire to fix the problem(s). We have not and the public has no desire to do so! Therefore we must deal with reality and the present system with the resources we are given. You have no idea what evil is do you? Evil exists only in story books and newspaper articles, right?