Virginia law changed BEWARE

[ATAShooter]

Alot of times in Virginia, private sellers of guns accepted a Va Voter ID between each other as ( good guy ID) reassurance that the buyer was not a convicted felon. In Va, a convicted felon couldn't vote, therefore, wouldnt have a card. Gov McAuliffe has now reinstated voting rights to all Va convicted felons. So now the old rule doesn't apply. Just wanted to let you know.

 

[X-Rap]

Yes and it was an executive action. So glad to see Gov McAuliffe so concerned that those folks voices are heard.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Why did you people elect that guy? He's a Carpet Bagger -- the first time he tried to run for Governor of Virginia, his official state of residence was New York. So next time, he just put in a change of address and claimed to be a Virginian.

No offense, but any Virginian who voted for him must have rocks in his head.

 

[blahpony]

He won by 2.5%. I sure as hell wasn't on his side.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You should have worked harder for his opponent!

 

[blahpony]

I did.

At the risk of offending some of the people here, it was a third party that got 5% of the votes that really helped the dems get the victory.

That was about as High Road as I could make it.

 

[larryh1108]

If you want a chuckle, look up the reason why he made this order.

 

[ACP]

Really? A voter ID card? Not a driver's license? Or a carry permit, if VA has one?

 

[WardenWolf]

Yup, heard about it. And hoping there's a recall election soon. I'm so disgusted that he restored the voting rights of violent criminals along with everyone else.

 

[ACP]

Most states allow convicted felons, once they have completed their sentence, to vote -- some are automatic at the end of the sentence, some have a set waiting period, and some have to apply for the right to vote.

Are you not aware of this? I wasn't surprised that McAuliffe did this -- I was surprised that he HAD to do it -- that VA didn't already have a mechanism. Shocking, actually.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.asp

 

[yugorpk]

If you serve your full sentence or a combination of parole and jail time to satisfy your sentence and the rules of your state you should have your citizenship restored. That includes right to own firearms and vote. I believe a debt to society once paid is paid forever.

 

[ACP]

VA felonies include embezzlement, repeat larcenies, animal cruelty, extortion, and arson of an unoccupied building. Oh, and shooting, stabbing and rape.

Do I want convicted felons living near me, or working with me? No. I am wary of those who have violated the social code to the point where they ended up in prison for a serious crime. Hence, I carry a firearm.

But where do you draw the line? Can ex-felons get a driver's license? A credit card? A bank account? A job? Rent an apartment? Get married? Vote? Write a will? Start a business? By a house? Buy land? Speak in public at a local town council meeting?

I've even seen THR members argue that the 2nd Amendment is so inviolate that even mentally ill people and convicted felons should not be barred from owning firearms. So, an ex-embezzler can carry a gun, but not vote? Is that it?

I think it's more complicated than some supposedly dumb, soft on crime D coddling criminals.

 

[Poper]

Most states allow convicted felons, once they have completed their sentence, to vote -- some are automatic at the end of the sentence, some have a set waiting period, and some have to apply for the right to vote.

Are you not aware of this? I wasn't surprised that McAuliffe did this -- I was surprised that he HAD to do it -- that VA didn't already have a mechanism. Shocking, actually.

What in the VA constitution give McAuliffe the authority to write, pass and enact law? The man should be recalled for usurping the power of the legislature.

It would be one thing if he got up behind his bully pulpit and railed in public speeches for the restoration of convicted felons' voting right after having served their sentences and continued berating the legislature until getting a bill passed and signing it into law. That would be one thing. But to unilaterally take it upon himself to be THE authority on this issue is wrong on too many levels. If this action is allowed to stand as lawful, then anything goes and the legislature (and the People) be damned.

JMHO, of course.

 

[Gimmered]

One of the hurdles that a felon had to clear to get their firearms rights restored in Virginia was for the Governor to restore their political rights. The Governor just did this for 200,000 felons.

 

[ACP]

So when a Republican governor does it, it's within his power, and okay, but when a Democrat does it, it's unconstitutional? Is that what you're saying?


From today's Richmond-Times Dispatch:

Previous Virginia governors have restored rights on an individual basis, but none has done it for an entire category of offenders with one pen stroke...

Gov. Mark R. Warner, a Democrat, took steps to simplify the cumbersome process, which could take years to initiate and months to complete. Kaine shortened the waiting period for those released from prison before applying for a restoration of rights.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, made prisoner re-entry and rehabilitation a priority of his administration. He reduced the processing time of restoration applications and automatically restored rights on an individual basis to nonviolent felons who had completed their sentence, probation and paid their court costs and fines, resulting in restoring the rights of more than 6,800 Virginians.
The McAuliffe administration simplified and dramatically accelerated the process, reducing the application to one page from 13 and shortening from five years to three years the time period in which a felon must wait to apply for reinstatement.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally posted by yugorpk

If you serve your full sentence or a combination of parole and jail time to satisfy your sentence and the rules of your state you should have your citizenship restored. That includes right to own firearms and vote. I believe a debt to society once paid is paid forever.

Here's a question; if a man is sentenced to a year in prison and fined $10,000, and he gets out at the end of the year, does he still have to pay the fine?

Of course! He has to fulfil the sentence -- and his debt isn't paid until then.

If the sentence includes loss of voting rights, then despite him completing his time in prison, the debt ISN'T paid.

 

[AlexanderA]

How many private (i.e., non-FFL) sellers in Virginia go to that level of due diligence? In my personal experience, some will ask for a positive ID (driver's license), and some will ask for no ID at all. They simply take my word for it that I'm a Virginia resident. None have ever asked me for proof that I am not a felon.

It's interesting to hear that there are some super-conscientious private sellers in Virginia.

 

[MAKster]

A private seller in Virginia has no obligation to verify the ID, age , possible criminal history or residency of the buyer. The only criteria under Virginia and Federal law is if the seller has reason to believe the buyer is a prohibited person. The theoretical possibility that a prohibited person could have a voter registration card is not a sufficient reason to be suspicious. Under your reasoning asking to see a drivers license would also be useless since a prohibited person probably also has a drivers license.

 

[dogtown tom]

yugorpk If you serve your full sentence or a combination of parole and jail time to satisfy your sentence and the rules of your state you should have your citizenship restored.

Even if convicted of the most heinous crime ever imagined....you don't lose your US citizenship.

That includes right to own firearms and vote.

If you can't live by society's rules, you don't get to sit at the grownups table and reap the benefits.
Criminal acts have consequences.

I believe a debt to society once paid is paid forever.

How about child molesters?
Do you think serving a prison term makes them "debt" free?
I don't.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Your points are well taken. The loss of certain rights is A PART OF THE PENALTY in some jurisdictions, and a person cannot be said to have "paid his debt" if that part of the "debt" is still outstanding.

 

[Poper]

The McAuliffe administration simplified and dramatically accelerated the process, reducing the application to one page from 13 and shortening from five years to three years the time period in which a felon must wait to apply for reinstatement.

Doesn't this constitute re-writing current law?

And I don't give a rat's ass if the guvvie is a D, R, I, L or C! It is the legislature's responsibility to write the laws. It is the Gov's (read chief executive's) responsibility to enforce them and carry them out in accordance with the intent of the legislation.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Sooo...

If convicted felons, or criminals of any stripe for that matter, are not to be trusted after having "paid their dues" (or whatever you choose to call it)...then why are they ever released back into society in the first place?

We can make the case either way for any given number of criminal acts. But what gripes me is the fact that so many things which qualify as a "felony" don't have anything to do with many of the "rights" that they can no longer enjoy as a felon.

Add to that the fact that, even though most (if not all) states have some form of redress to regain some, or all, of their rights after having paid their dues, there is no such avenue ANYWHERE for a federal felony conviction.

And remember that most, if not all, of the members here are quite quick to point out that these "rights" we speak of are not given/granted to us by law...they're rights we already have and for which we have laws to protect us from their removal (without due process).

 

[larryh1108]

If convicted felons, or criminals of any stripe for that matter, are not to be trusted after having "paid their dues" (or whatever you choose to call it)...then why are they ever released back into society in the first place?

Soooo, they should just stay in jail because they can't vote or own a firearm?
Yeah, that makes sense. Let's poll the current prisoners and ask if they'd rather stay in jail or lose some rights they used to have but lost because they committed a felony but can get out of jail. Hmmmm, let me guess how that vore would go.

Seriously, I did not expect this statement from a retired USN Chief.

Remember, as part of the punishment, the ex-con loses some of his rights. It's part of the penalty for deciding to commit a felony. I'd rather see a lot of felonies reclassified so the man who completes his debt to society can get his rights back. I said some current felonies. Any conviction of a violent nature or includes a weapons charge should stand as it is now but there are many crimes that are non-violent and not worthy of stripping rights forever. However, when people decide to take a criminal path they are also deciding to put their rights on the line. Their rights are not taken away, they throw them away themselves.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That wasn't my point, larryh1108.

First of all, the concept of "justice" in the first place does not revolve around asking convicted prisoners what to pick between two punishments.

Second of all, you're own closing paragraph, where you said "Any conviction of a violent nature or includes a weapons charge should stand as it is now but there are many crimes that are non-violent and not worthy of stripping rights forever", seems to dovetail pretty much exactly with what I posted, starting with "We can make the case either way for any given number of criminal acts. But what gripes me is the fact that so many things which qualify as a "felony" don't have anything to do with many of the "rights" that they can no longer enjoy as a felon."


So your comment about how you "did not expect this statement from a retired USN Chief" does not seem to be very much warranted.


But to back the truck up a bit here and clarify something, since my Chiefliness seems to be in question here, I'm not some kind of "touchy-feely", "everybody's-woes-are-caused-by-society", or "the-punishment-doesn't-deter-the-crime" kinda guy. Not at all.

But I will happily point out and discuss how many ways our criminal justice system flat out sucks.


In general, if a criminal is not ever to be trusted, then why are they ever let out in the first place? Yes, we're responsible for our actions, and we should be held accountable as such. But when we levy extensive punishments for long terms (such as for life), then what we end up doing is exacerbating the problem. A criminal who can't get a job, for example, is GOING to figure out how to make his living somehow.

Now, I can see how someone like you might take that as meaning I'm some kinda namby-pamby, left-wing, fruitcake who sees rainbows and unicorns everywhere I look. Far from it. But even if I were, that wouldn't change the fact that we allow things like this to happen in far too many instances where it shouldn't.


What is a "felony"? In the U.S., it's essentially any crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year.

NOTE: That's any crime PUNISHABLE by imprisonment for more than one year. Not any conviction with a SENTENCE of more than one year. So, if you go to court for a crime which carries a maximum of 18 months imprisonment and you're sentenced to 6 months...you're a felon.


While I can readily agree that felons convicted of violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, assault, etc.) should lose their right to keep and bear arms, how many non-violent crimes are there with imprisonment terms greater than one year? Why should a person with a felony prostitution conviction be prohibited their RKBA, for example? Or felony gambling? Or felony tax fraud?


And why is it that states, for the most part anyway, have processes by which some convicted felons can petition to have some, or all, of their rights restored but the federal government does not?


That said, do I appreciate what Governor McAuliffe's done? Not at all, because his state already has a process in place to affect restoration of certain rights and he deliberately circumvented the entire process, which is supposed to involve specific review of each case.

His was a blanket restoration that restored the right to vote to all convicted felons, regardless of the crime(s) for which they were convicted, provided they served their sentence, to include completion of any parole or probation condition.

Regardless of how he paints that picture, it comes out as a purely political move on a grand scale, meant to influence voting strategy within the state of Virginia. Given that there are about 5.1 million registered voters in VA and that about 70% of these actually turned out to vote in the presidential election years, he's single handedly shifted the voting demographics by up to 6%. (14%, for non-presidential election years, which have about a 29% turnout).

And he is intending to further influence this on a monthly basis, with more such orders. So those numbers will continue to grow.


Here are a few links on the subject of various rights restoration:

https://solutions.virginia.gov/RestorationOfRights

http://johnpierceesq.com/gun-rights-restoration/

 

[Aim1]

Can they overturn this?