Virginia law changed BEWARE

[larryh1108]

Chief,

The only issue I have with your post was your opening statement:

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 agree on everything else.

Why does that bother me?
Well, you answered it in your last post:

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.

This means, by your words, that someone convicted to a felony and sentenced to 6 months in prison should not ever be released because he lost his right to vote and his right to have firearms (which is part of his sentence, BTW). Now, you say that is not what you meant but that is what you said.

The part saying I was surprised a USN Chief would say this comes from my belief that you are a leader of men who knows life is not black and white. You've been there, done that and you know very well that as a member of the military you don't get to decide which orders to follow and which to blow off. It has nothing to do with left/right, up/down, D or R or any other cute phrase out there. It relates to you leading men for a long time and earning the respect you deserve.

Everything you wrote above is right on. Ruining it by opening your original post, with that ridiculous blanket statement that is wrong on so many levels, is what took me by surprise. That statement is as ridiculous as any out there when it comes to making a point yet is used by a lot of people on these boards and in real life.

 

[StrawHat]

A convicted felon, who completes his sentence and is released back into "society" is no longer considered a convicted felon by the State. He has completed his sentence. It is only if he continues in his ways that his previous conviction is considered.

Many years ago, 99% of first time offenders who were sentenced to prion and completed their sentence, never repeated. It seems to me that they should not be punished forever for making a mistake.

In many states, the right to vote is withheld merely while incarcerated, and is restored upon release. Same with 2nd Amendment rights.

Kevin

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Chief,

The only issue I have with your post was your opening statement:



We agree on everything else.

Why does that bother me?
Well, you answered it in your last post:



This means, by your words, that someone convicted to a felony and sentenced to 6 months in prison should not ever be released because he lost his right to vote and his right to have firearms (which is part of his sentence, BTW). Now, you say that is not what you meant but that is what you said.

The part saying I was surprised a USN Chief would say this comes from my belief that you are a leader of men who knows life is not black and white. You've been there, done that and you know very well that as a member of the military you don't get to decide which orders to follow and which to blow off. It has nothing to do with left/right, up/down, D or R or any other cute phrase out there. It relates to you leading men for a long time and earning the respect you deserve.

Everything you wrote above is right on. Ruining it by opening your original post, with that ridiculous blanket statement that is wrong on so many levels, is what took me by surprise. That statement is as ridiculous as any out there when it comes to making a point yet is used by a lot of people on these boards and in real life.

"My words" said no such thing, unless you take them out of context. If you had read the next two paragraphs after that quote, you should have realized this. The part you chose to quote was a clarification of what actually constitutes a a felony conviction in general, not a personal declaration that I believe such a felon should never be released.

In fact, your entire basis for your disagreement with me seems to be founded on not taking what I wrote in full context and not paying attention to my explanations when I attempt to clarify.

My opening lines in post# 22 were written the way they were to question not the issue of whether or not felons SHOULD have their rights restored, but to question why some people think their rights should NEVER be restored. If the intent is never to restore any of the rights of any felon, then why should they ever be released in the first place?

There is already a process in place to restore at least some of the rights of qualified felons in the state of Virginia, including the right to vote. Maybe it could use improvement, maybe not...but it's there and it should be followed.

 

[CountGlockula]

Sad state of affairs.

 

[Aim1]

Any chance at overturning this?

 

[villagelightsmith]

"Deliver me, Lord, from the judgement,
of the saints who have never been caught."
Hey, kicking the dog is a felony now! Think about it.

 

[LowspeedHidrag]

Most of those states that do allow felons to regain certain rights do not do so as matter of course. They require the felon to petition the court of record in a manner similar to a motion to expunge.

I see the media attention and the same degree of interest in rights restoration here and wonder if any of the talking heads have considered the population in question. They're not exactly prone to becoming involved in the political arena prior to or after their conviction. A few white collar types would avail themselves to the vote. The vast majority? Not so much. I wonder if those who can reclaim their vote in the "other Virginia" will do so. I'd be shocked if it rose above 3%.

What exactly is an "ex-felon"? Once convicted of a felony offense the accused becomes a felon and remains as such unless he is pardoned or the conviction is overturned. Once a murderer serves his time and maxes out does he become an "ex-murderer" or former murderer? Of course not. Human beings are bipeds, if one has his leg amputated does he or she cease being a biped? Are they ex-bipeds? No they're not, they're still bipeds. Ex-felon is simply a term created to try to minimize that part of the felons life. The only ex-felons are those who are pardoned.

 

[stchman]

Reason I only do face to face with CCW holders, all others go through an FFL.

 

[Aim1]

So, no one knows if there is any chance of over-turning this?

 

[dogtown tom]

Aim1 So, no one knows if there is any chance of over-turning this?

I don't live in Virginia, but I'm pretty sure your state has this group of guys called the state legislature.

 

[Delmar]

A political move, I think. Gov McAwful barely squeaked by in the last election and is trying desperately to gain more support for the next election. He has little support in western VA-all of his followers are in the big cities on or near the coast. Not to mention that lawbreakers rarely vote for conservative candidates

 

[MICHAEL T]

He only hanging around till Hillary gives him a cabinet post. Hey Gov beats unemployment check

 

[HOOfan_1]

I don't live in Virginia, but I'm pretty sure your state has this group of guys called the state legislature.

and the session is over for this year...nothing can happen until next year...and McAuliffe will veto it...and it would take a 2/3 majority to overrule him.

I am more interested in getting his ban on firearms in State buildings overturned....and getting the law which allows state employees to lock firearms in their vehicles in state parking lots.

Neither will happen until he is gone though, and if Herring succeeds him...it will be even worse.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally posted by RetiredUSNChief

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?

That argument is called the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives -- it assumes we have only two choices.

In fact, the system is quite flexible.

First of all not all persons convicted lose their right to vote -- for speeding or even DUI, you don't face a Civil Death penalty.

Secondly, if the convicts some people assume are the "victims" of this law, they can apply for restitution of rights.

Third, there are some states where convicts did NOT lose their rights, and these guys started running for local office. And since the convicts in the local prison outnumbered the citizens in the nearby town, guess what?

 

[orionengnr]

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?

Nope, it not a D or R thing. Here's what you have either overlooked or are ignoring:

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...etc.,

The key words are "on an individual basis", which implies case-by-case...and "nonviolent" which needs no further explanation.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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.

This means, by your words, that someone convicted to a felony and sentenced to 6 months in prison should not ever be released because he lost his right to vote and his right to have firearms (which is part of his sentence, BTW). Now, you say that is not what you meant but that is what you said.

No, he DIDN'T say that. He pointed out it is the CRIME, not the sentence that determines if the person convicted is a felon.

Now, we are talking about LAW, not about OPINIONS, so let's not attack each other because we don't like the LAW.

 

[Mal Cap]

The Dem still seem to be embracing the bad guys over the victims. Still a very unusual malady.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That argument is called the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives -- it assumes we have only two choices.

In fact, the system is quite flexible.

First of all not all persons convicted lose their right to vote -- for speeding or even DUI, you don't face a Civil Death penalty.

Secondly, if the convicts some people assume are the "victims" of this law, they can apply for restitution of rights.

Third, there are some states where convicts did NOT lose their rights, and these guys started running for local office. And since the convicts in the local prison outnumbered the citizens in the nearby town, guess what?

Indeed, the system is quite flexible!

As for "not all persons convicted lose their right to vote -- for speeding or even DUI, you don't face a Civil Death penalty", remember that we're talking about felony convictions, here, and what generally constitutes a "felony" isn't limited to a "Civil Death penalty" under the law.

I understand that not all convictions result in "disenfranchisement", but I'm not an attorney and don't pretend to understand the specifics of such issues, so I'll just leave it at that.

And, indeed, those who have been disenfranchised can appeal to have their right to vote restored through whatever applicable state processes are in place...if their state doesn't have some sort of automatic reinstatement in place.