PDA

View Full Version : Heller spawns legal challenges by felons,they want guns for self-defense


Steyr_223
07-19-2008, 8:52 AM
Should convicted felons have the right to legally have guns for defense?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/19/national/w065527D96.DTL&tsp=1

Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, July 19, 2008

(07-19) 06:55 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

So far, federal judges uniformly have agreed these restrictions are unchanged by the Supreme Court's landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"The line I'm proposing, at the home, is entirely consistent" with the Supreme Court ruling, said Chontos, a lawyer in Turtle Creek, Pa. A court hearing on the issue is scheduled for late July.

The legal attacks by Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers are separate from civil lawsuits by the National Rifle Association and others challenging handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs as well as a total ban on guns in public housing units in San Francisco.

People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Denis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.

"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.

"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."

At the Justice Department, spokesman Erik Ablin said the agency's lawyers "will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all federal firearms laws and will respond to particular challenges in court."

Cities' outright bans on handguns probably are the most vulnerable laws following the Supreme Court ruling. Many lawyers and Second Amendment experts believe that restrictions on gun ownership in public housing also will be difficult to defend.

The question for courts will be whether the government has more power when it acts as a landlord, as it does in public housing, than in general.

"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will defend the policy as good for public safety. "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.

In the District of Columbia, the city housing authority is considering whether its prohibition on firearms in public housing can survive the court ruling, spokeswoman Dena Michaelson said.

But Volokh and some gun rights proponents said people convicted of crimes are less likely to succeed in their challenges.

"Many felons may need self defense more than you and I, but the government has extra justification for limiting that right because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy," Volokh said.

Judges may find it harder to resolve cases in which nonviolent criminals, particularly those whose only offense happened long ago, are charged with gun possession.

"Do you think Scooter Libby should have a gun?" asked Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who says the ruling will complicate the work of the courts, prosecutors and police. He was referring to former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the CIA leak investigation.

A more plausible case for being allowed a gun might be made by someone now in his 50s or 60s who was convicted as a teenager of taking a car for a joyride, said Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights supporter and lawyer. "You might have a court look at that differently," Halbrook said.

The Supreme Court has a case on its calendar for the fall that could indicate whether the justices are inclined to expand their ruling.

In United States v. Hayes, the government is asking the court to reinstate a conviction for possession of a gun for someone previously convicted of a domestic violence crime. In 1994, Randy Hayes received a year of probation after pleading guilty to beating his wife.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because the West Virginia law Hayes violated does not specifically deal with domestic violence crimes. The question for the high court, then, is a technical one: whether the law has to include domestic violence to be used in the future to prevent someone from owning guns?

Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate will be watching closely to see whether the court's D.C. decision is relevant to the Hayes case and, if so, how.

tenpercentfirearms
07-19-2008, 8:59 AM
I am mixed on this one. A right is a right. Once you serve your time, you should have your rights back, otherwise I think you ought to stay in jail. The more I think about it, the more I think I am not mixed. ex-Cons ought to have their rights back. If they commit another crime after they get out, send them back. If they use a gun to commit a crime, I see no problem with increasing their sentence in the first place.

I think the key is to punish them, then give them a chance to turn around. I don't care if they are not likely to change or it is hard for them to do. You give them the opportunity and what they do with it is up to them and they will face the consequences of their actions.

I say give the people who have served their time their freedom back. It is hardly a right if we can decide whose rights we want to restrict.

hoffmang
07-19-2008, 9:08 AM
I think felons should be required to go through a restoration process first. I would like a judge or impartial bureaucrat backed up by a judge to make a risk decision. When James Lee Malvo gets out, I don't think he should get his gun rights back. When Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, or John Ford get out, I think they should be able to get their rights back.

Hoodlums who should be denied the right are not likely to hire an attorney and fill out the paperwork...

-Gene

Knauga
07-19-2008, 9:21 AM
Rights are rights until you have proven yourself unworthy. Committing felonies is proving yourself unworthy, you have been stripped of certain rights after due process. If you show yourself worthy in the future then there is a restoration process.

jamesob
07-19-2008, 9:28 AM
some felons dont deserve to have their rights taken away. with that said i dont want any felon that has been convicted of any violent crime or or drug related crime or gang related to be able to get a gun. in my opinion crimes like a contractor operating without a licence or some b.s crime like that i dont agree with.

Stanze
07-19-2008, 9:29 AM
If they grant ex-cons their gun rights back, then the whole GCA of '68 should be abolished. It's only fair for people that committed no crime.

tenpercentfirearms
07-19-2008, 9:31 AM
I think felons should be required to go through a restoration process first. I would like a judge or impartial bureaucrat backed up by a judge to make a risk decision. When James Lee Malvo gets out, I don't think he should get his gun rights back. When Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, or John Ford get out, I think they should be able to get their rights back.

I don't think you need full automatic rifles either. I don't think you need semi-automatic handguns. I don't think anyone really needs a gun. I think this because I am scared of them.

The problem with my statement above is I am using my subjective emotions to label guns as bad. "I don't think".

Who in the hell is a judge to determine whether I have a God-given, inalienable rights? Do we want to give that power to the government? Do we want to give the government the power to decide who is dangerous and who is not?

If James Lee Malvo is released from prison, then he is no different from anyone else. He has rights like all other free men. If he is such a threat to himself or others that he shouldn't have guns, then he shouldn't be released from prison.

Rights that can be restricted by man because of man's will, are not rights at all. We all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When someone tries to rob me at gun point, they are infringing on my rights and I have a right to stop them, by depriving them of their right to life.

When a man simply possesses a gun and breaks no law, I have no right to limit his life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Yelling fire in a church and not allowing criminals to have guns in jail are reasonable restrictions for the immediate safety of others, thus protecting their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Telling an ex-con that he can't lawfully possess firearms is depriving him of his rights for no immediate benefit of public safety. If that ex-con decides to commit a crime with their firearm, they should be prosecuted and sent back to jail for even longer.

Otherwise we might as well just acknowledge that guns are so inherently dangerous in ex-criminals hands, they cannot be trusted in the general population's hands. You should acknowledge that once John Lee Malvo gets released, he wasn't spurned to kill by his own will, it was the firearms. By restricting this access to firearms, he will not kill again, thus making America a safer place to live. If we took all guns away, then no one would commit crimes.

We should also prohibit ex-cons from having knives, baseball bats, and driving cars. All in the name of public safety.

ZapThyCat
07-19-2008, 10:17 AM
The Felons that try to get a gun legally, I'm not really worried about. If they want a gun, they can get it illegally much easier, so if they are wanting to jump through hoops to use it for a legal purpose, I'm more inclined to be on their side.

That being said, I think this case might be a cop-out. This guy is using this case because he was caught red handed with an arsenal of guns that he likely didn't get legally, and quite possibly didn't care to use in self-defense...

wilit
07-19-2008, 10:17 AM
This case is bad news for all us law abiding gun owners. This case (or any support for it) is going to paint us in a worse light than we already are. It's bad enough we "won our right" to own a gun, now we want to arm gangbangers and baby-rapists? Not good fur us at all. IMO this case, if it gets any legs, will set us back 20 years in our fight in the anti-gunners eyes.

dasmi
07-19-2008, 10:24 AM
The Felons that try to get a gun legally, I'm not really worried about. If they want a gun, they can get it illegally much easier, so if they are wanting to jump through hoops to use it for a legal purpose, I'm more inclined to be on their side.

That being said, I think this case might be a cop-out. This guy is using this case because he was caught red handed with an arsenal of guns that he likely didn't get legally, and quite possibly didn't care to use in self-defense...

I agree. A felon who would actually go through the process of getting a firearm legally...well that's fine with me. A felon who wants a gun and doesn't want to go through that process, they'll get one anyway.

HowardW56
07-19-2008, 10:28 AM
I think felons should be required to go through a restoration process first. I would like a judge or impartial bureaucrat backed up by a judge to make a risk decision. When James Lee Malvo gets out, I don't think he should get his gun rights back. When Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, or John Ford get out, I think they should be able to get their rights back.

Hoodlums who should be denied the right are not likely to hire an attorney and fill out the paperwork...

-Gene

If convicted felons were to have an avenue to regain their right to posess firearsm, this sounds like a reasonable approach.

There could be some conditions regarding violent crimes, crimes resulting in injury, etc...

tenpercentfirearms
07-19-2008, 10:32 AM
If convicted felons were to have an avenue to regain their right to posess firearsm, this sounds like a reasonable approach.

There could be some conditions regarding violent crimes, crimes resulting in injury, etc...

So should we restrict the rights of free speech to those who commit crimes against free speech?

Make their sentence longer. Keep them in jail for an extra 5 years for committing a crime with a gun. When they are released, their time is over. If they are still a threat, keep them in jail.

It just makes no sense to me to claim we have inalienable rights and then turn around and restrict them because of some percieved threat to the greater public good. Isn't that what we are fighting against now?

HowardW56
07-19-2008, 10:43 AM
So should we restrict the rights of free speech to those who commit crimes against free speech?

Make their sentence longer. Keep them in jail for an extra 5 years for committing a crime with a gun. When they are released, their time is over. If they are still a threat, keep them in jail.

It just makes no sense to me to claim we have inalienable rights and then turn around and restrict them because of some percieved threat to the greater public good. Isn't that what we are fighting against now?

If you consider a violent felon, as a person who has been convicted of a violent crime or other crime resulting in injury, has already demonstrated a willingness to injure others. I see the prohibition against felons possessing as a tool to prevent recurrence...

While I agree the the blanket prohibition is overly broad, (lying to the FBI, securities violations, etc. are obviously non-violent crimes)

MrTuffPaws
07-19-2008, 10:51 AM
Good. Non-violent felons should have all of their rights given back to them once they serve their sentence.

Californio
07-19-2008, 10:55 AM
There is a plethora of felonies on the books these days. Society has to be worried about Violent Felons and has a compelling reason to do so, I think all non-violent felonies should be good to go after time served.

The question has to be asked, "How many violent felons ever rehabilitate".

We make Sexual Predators register after time served, society has a compelling reason for this, as a group they re-offend against the most precious members of our society.

The restrictions we impose should meet strict scrutiny and have an appeals process in place.

Japedo
07-19-2008, 11:18 AM
Whether you agree or disagree which or all felons should be able to legally obtain firearms. I think this part of Scalia's opinion makes it pretty clear what is going to happen.

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

buff_01
07-19-2008, 12:06 PM
I think if felons have been released back into the public, there's no good reason that they shouldn't own a gun. They deserve the right to protect themselves just the same as everyone else. Not that I think the law is going to change anytime soon.

99sparks
07-19-2008, 12:15 PM
If guns were used in a crime you should loose the privilege purchase or own gun forever. However, if a gun is not used, even if present… as in never leaves a holster, or the crime is some non violent, like gas drive off or stealing tires from Wal-Mart, then after a few crime free years, after jail, the right to own a gun should be returned.

bohoki
07-19-2008, 12:25 PM
i think a person ought to be free or incarcerated

if you are too evil to have a gun you are too bad to be free

hoffmang
07-19-2008, 12:58 PM
Wes,

The state can judge when it's appropriate to take the most fundamental right (to life) away. To say that because the line drawing isn't easy, doesn't mean that the line isn't out there.

Malvo was indiscriminately violent with a gun. In some jurisdictions he'll never be allowed to vote again - or certainly without going through a process to convince a judge that he should get that right back.

We routinely strip felons of rights. Different rights come back to differing degrees (including speech.) Note that freedom of assembly is stripped from sex offenders all the time - which is directly stripping the right that was abused.

dwtt
07-19-2008, 1:06 PM
Whether you agree or disagree which or all felons should be able to legally obtain firearms. I think this part of Scalia's opinion makes it pretty clear what is going to happen.

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

You've hit it right on the bullseye. These lawsuits are useless and will go nowhere, but the media and the Brady bunch will use them as propaganda against the 2nd Amendment and against the Heller decision. It's ironic to some that convicted felons could be helping the gun control crowd.

Guntech
07-19-2008, 1:18 PM
some felons dont deserve to have their rights taken away. with that said i dont want any felon that has been convicted of any violent crime or or drug related crime or gang related to be able to get a gun. in my opinion crimes like a contractor operating without a licence or some b.s crime like that i dont agree with.

Operating without a license isn't a felony, so your rights to bear arms would not be taken away....felons on the other hand committed a serious crime. But for example lets say(since we live in Kali and the bad guy is always innocent) that some guy breaks into someones house an has a bat or a club, so he subsequently gets shot by the homeowner, but lives :mad:. Then it goes to court and homeowner gets convicted of attempted murder(again because this is Kali so don't tell me that wouldn't happen), then homeowner gets out and no longer can own guns, and all of their guns are destroyed.

That is the only unfair situation in my opinion where the felon should get their guns back but that would never happen because the homeowner would be convicted of a violent crime with a firearm even though the homeowner was doing the right thing.

tyrist
07-19-2008, 2:03 PM
He is trying to not go back to prison by argueing this point. He is going to lose big time. I don't see how a convicted felon will get their firearm rights back in my lifetime. Besides having convicted felons in possession of weapons is going to make is really easy to amend the constitution and just remove the 2nd.

Richie Rich
07-19-2008, 2:12 PM
In a perfect world, felons should be able to own firearms.

Also in a perfect world, felons who have commited crimes that reach the level to where they should not be trusted with firearms should never be let out of prison.

Since that ain't ever gonna happen, I think there should be a clearly defined, non political pathway for felons to get their rights restored (IE, stay clean for X number of years, get your rights back). Not have it left up to the whims of some potentially anti gun judge.

Synergy
07-19-2008, 2:16 PM
WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

So Mr. Barton needs 15 firearms to protect himself under the auspice of the 2A? Did Mr. Barton or any other felon acquire their firearms by legal means, filling a 4472? By today's law, he is a twice felon that just committed a 3rd felony.

I call Bravo Sierra.

Fjold
07-19-2008, 2:20 PM
Make their sentence longer. Keep them in jail for an extra 5 years for committing a crime with a gun. When they are released, their time is over. If they are still a threat, keep them in jail.


We can't. Once their sentence is up they have to be let out, whether they are a danger to others or not.

Fantasma
07-19-2008, 2:25 PM
I am mixed on this one. A right is a right. Once you serve your time, you should have your rights back, otherwise I think you ought to stay in jail. The more I think about it, the more I think I am not mixed. ex-Cons ought to have their rights back. If they commit another crime after they get out, send them back. If they use a gun to commit a crime, I see no problem with increasing their sentence in the first place.

I think the key is to punish them, then give them a chance to turn around. I don't care if they are not likely to change or it is hard for them to do. You give them the opportunity and what they do with it is up to them and they will face the consequences of their actions.

I say give the people who have served their time their freedom back. It is hardly a right if we can decide whose rights we want to restrict.

I like this post. It is very true...

You commit a crime you pay the consequences, once you are done. You get your normal and all rights back this will make you want to redeem yourself and start all over again.

Then they wonder why there is repeated felons, in this system you get out of jail, you can't get a good job and everybody looks down upon you, then we wonder why they go out and commit the same crimes and do bad things to make money. I think its because they don't have a chance to a normal life so going to old ways is there only route of course i may be wrong. Consequences should stay in Jail only then have a chance back at a normal life. if you mess up again you get more and even worse consequences and this happens until they shape up.

HowardW56
07-19-2008, 2:33 PM
Whether you agree or disagree which or all felons should be able to legally obtain firearms. I think this part of Scalia's opinion makes it pretty clear what is going to happen.

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

But it will raise some interesting questions about Felons who have received pardons, etc...

BroncoBob
07-19-2008, 2:58 PM
This case is bad news for all us law abiding gun owners. This case (or any support for it) is going to paint us in a worse light than we already are. It's bad enough we "won our right" to own a gun, now we want to arm gangbangers and baby-rapists? Not good fur us at all. IMO this case, if it gets any legs, will set us back 20 years in our fight in the anti-gunners eyes.

I'm in total 100% agreement with you my friend.....

packnrat
07-19-2008, 2:59 PM
all should be able to own a gun...even some people who never have been in trouble with the law.

i have know some that should never be allowed to have access to anything more than a safety coated spoon.:chris:

but then they can go out and buy a gun.

.even a fellon needs to protect them selvs.:eek:

and one would be able to by said gun, law not with standing, so might as well make it legle.:confused:


:TFH:

.

GJJ
07-19-2008, 3:41 PM
The definition of a felony would surprise most people. There are a lot of crimes that fit the definition of felony that are less serious than one would think.

I agree with tenpercent. One someone has paid a JUST penalty for their crime they should be a free man.

Our current system creates a third category of people.

tyrist
07-19-2008, 3:47 PM
The definition of a felony would surprise most people. There are a lot of crimes that fit the definition of felony that are less serious than one would think.

I agree with tenpercent. One someone has paid a JUST penalty for their crime they should be a free man.

Our current system creates a third category of people.

A felony is a crime which is punishable by a year or more in state prison. Misdemeanors go to county jail for under a year. Nothing is surprising about that.

pcesar
07-19-2008, 4:43 PM
Drug dealers should be able to possess guns since they have to protect themselves from other drug dealers. They are making a living and need to be protected just like any business owner. Gang bangers need to carry guns to protect themselves since they have enemies. Murderers should be allowed to own guns after serving time and being released back into society. The murder victim has since been reborn and the family is no long mourning their death. When a rapist is let out of prison, he should be allowed to have all his right back since he already served his time and everything is all right. Who cares about the victim, rape victims forget all about the rape after a couple of years. Child molesters should also be allowed to possess guns after serving their time. They need to protect themselves from the father of one of his victims. We should also allow felons to hold office. Who better knows how to fight crime then one who has committed one.

There are some laws that are categorized as a felony, but should not be. But for people that have committed crimes against someone to be allowed the same rights as a law abiding citizen is plain ridiculous.

Telperion
07-19-2008, 4:43 PM
Who in the hell is a judge to determine whether I have a God-given, inalienable rights? Do we want to give that power to the government? Do we want to give the government the power to decide who is dangerous and who is not?

If James Lee Malvo is released from prison, then he is no different from anyone else. He has rights like all other free men. If he is such a threat to himself or others that he shouldn't have guns, then he shouldn't be released from prison.

Rights that can be restricted by man because of man's will, are not rights at all. We all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When someone tries to rob me at gun point, they are infringing on my rights and I have a right to stop them, by depriving them of their right to life.

As noted by Gene, the government certainly has the power to deny you your rights, up to and including your life, as long as you are afforded due process.

I am an advocate of applying substantive due process to the subject of felon gun prohibition, by making it an element of the sentencing process. People who commit violent crimes can be sentenced to be prohibited from gun ownership in addition to incarceration. To do so, the judge would follow sentencing guidelines that consider the facts of the case. In many types of nonviolent crimes, these facts would likely not indicate disabling a person's RKBA. I find this approach fairer than the current law that is a blanket prohibition on anyone who was convicted of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year". Since the sentence can be commuted later, it also incorporates the idea of rights restoration, but also puts the burden on the government to justify its action at the time of conviction.

MrTuffPaws
07-19-2008, 9:05 PM
A felony is a crime which is punishable by a year or more in state prison. Misdemeanors go to county jail for under a year. Nothing is surprising about that.

LOL. You need to check up with what can get you a felony. There are some stupid ***** things that can get you one.

MrTuffPaws
07-19-2008, 9:07 PM
There are some laws that are categorized as a felony, but should not be. But for people that have committed crimes against someone to be allowed the same rights as a law abiding citizen is plain ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that both you and I break laws all of the time.

cbn620
07-19-2008, 9:27 PM
I kind of agree with hoffmang here.

My own opinion is that it's pretty easy to become a felon in this country.
Punch someone in the face with a bag of weed in your pocket and you might end up a felon. From then on out should you be a second class citizen with no right to vote and no right to own a firearm?

Clearly I don't want the mentally deranged and the utmost violent of criminals out there to own guns, but the line in the sand these days is unfair to say the least. We have a system that is basically built to imprison. What are we up to now, what was it, 1 in 10 of all Americans are in the prison population? As far as official figures go, we have more prisoners in this country than do Russia and China combined.

The reason I question the authority at hand is not because I want violent people to be free to do as they please. I only point out that probably the majority of people labeled as "felons" are non-violent offenders, and that the line between our prison population and our regular population is becoming ever more blurred. Terms like "felon", "criminal" and "terrorist" are dangerous because their definitions change. More and more otherwise innocent people get labeled these things and lose fundamental rights that are supposed to be unalienable. I do not want to become one of these people as the definitions change.

M. Sage
07-19-2008, 9:41 PM
If James Lee Malvo is released from prison, then he is no different from anyone else. He has rights like all other free men. If he is such a threat to himself or others that he shouldn't have guns, then he shouldn't be released from prison.

I agree with this, mostly, but I'll say that if someone is that dangerous and bad that you can't release them from prison and trust them with the same exact liberties as the rest of the people, just put them down.

tenpercentfirearms
07-19-2008, 9:54 PM
Wes,

The state can judge when it's appropriate to take the most fundamental right (to life) away. To say that because the line drawing isn't easy, doesn't mean that the line isn't out there.

Malvo was indiscriminately violent with a gun. In some jurisdictions he'll never be allowed to vote again - or certainly without going through a process to convince a judge that he should get that right back.

We routinely strip felons of rights. Different rights come back to differing degrees (including speech.) Note that freedom of assembly is stripped from sex offenders all the time - which is directly stripping the right that was abused.

These are all statements of fact. Statements like the state currently prohibits us from buying non-safe handguns and assault weapons. That however doesn't make it right.

Stripping a sex offenders right to peaceably assemble is also wrong. If we let them out of jail, they should have their rights reinstated. I would prefer we not let them back out of jail personally, but once they are out I completely disagree with these sex offender registry laws and prohibiting them from being near parks even. What is the point in letting them out if they are just going to be stigmitized the rest of their life?

Today sex offenders and violent criminals. Tomorrow people who hunt with lead ammo. Again, you guys seem comfortable letting the government decide who can and cannot have rights, as long as you are not the target. Personally, a felons rights are just as much my rights.

We can't. Once their sentence is up they have to be let out, whether they are a danger to others or not.

I think you misunderstood. I don't mean to add on some time after they are in jail. I mean if they commit a gun crime, give them a longer sentence. Once they are done serving it, then they should have their rights restored. You should not punish criminals for the rest of their life unless it is a life sentence. The argument that a violent offender shouldn't have access to a gun is flawed. If we can't trust them with a gun once they get out, then they should not be let out. Second, they have served their time until they commit another crime, which we really don't need to give them three strikes, two is enough.

hoffmang
07-19-2008, 10:03 PM
Today sex offenders and violent criminals. Tomorrow people who hunt with lead ammo. Again, you guys seem comfortable letting the government decide who can and cannot have rights, as long as you are not the target. Personally, a felons rights are just as much my rights.


I realize I'm being extreme in interpreting your statement but then how do you lock the felon sex offender up in the first place? That your point is subject to such a wide interpretation points out that you're ducking the line drawing that has to be done.

Are you against the death penalty? A felon sentenced to death is just as much your rights. Note that it's a punishment actually in the Constitution.

-Gene

CCWFacts
07-19-2008, 10:35 PM
The definition of a felony would surprise most people. There are a lot of crimes that fit the definition of felony that are less serious than one would think.

Sure. Have you ever been so hungry you could eat a horse? If you actually did it, it would be a felony in California.

Our current system creates a third category of people.

That's exactly what the system does, and what its purpose is. It creates a class of sub-citizens who can be legally discriminated against, by the government, by employers, by educational institutions. They can't vote, can't defend themselves, can be paid less for the same work, can't go to universities. And there are millions of them, mostly for non-serious or non-violent offenses. Most are people who got their record just by not keeping their mouth shut, or not having adequate legal representation, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think felons should be required to go through a restoration process first. I would like a judge or impartial bureaucrat backed up by a judge to make a risk decision. When James Lee Malvo gets out, I don't think he should get his gun rights back. When Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, or John Ford get out, I think they should be able to get their rights back.

I agree with this. There should be some process to sort out those who are dangerous (James Lee Malvo should be in maximum security as long as he has a pulse) and those who are not dangerous (there's no reason why Martha Stewart shouldn't be able to shoot skeet on her farm).

Codelphious
07-19-2008, 11:20 PM
I think it's funny I keep reading here that "[violent] felons shouldn't have guns" as if that notion should influence public policy law. If a felon, or anyone else, wants a gun they can get it the legal way or the illegal way. The latter of which is *much* cheaper, *much* easier and in some states *much* quicker.

The plain and simple fact is laws restricting the purchase of firearms are useless.

I agree 100% with tenpercent, ex-cons should have their rights back. Making the distinction between violent felony and non-violent felony is something that should be decided upon during the conviction process, not during release.

I concede conditional releases such as probation should prohibit ex-cons from exercising certain rights until such probation period shall have lapsed.

Anyway, what's to stop the government from redefining what a "felon" is? Let's not forget the government *has* that authority.

I think if it were a felony to run a stop sign, or drive 66+ MPH on the highway you'd all look differently upon the felon exclusion.

STAGE 2
07-19-2008, 11:37 PM
In a word, no. I've never bought the "oh there are so many things that constitute a felony". I've never woke up in the morning and been worried about whether I was going to make it through the day without committing a felony. Every other rational person isn't either.

Odds are if its punishable for more than a year, you knew it was illegal. Dont sit and whine about your gun rights when you knew perfectly well that what you were doing was placing them, and many other things, in jeopardy.

If you want to own guns, then don't commit crimes. Its really that simple.

Telperion
07-19-2008, 11:47 PM
I think it's funny I keep reading here that "[violent] felons shouldn't have guns" as if that notion should influence public policy law. If a felon, or anyone else, wants a gun they can get it the legal way or the illegal way. The latter of which is *much* cheaper, *much* easier and in some states *much* quicker.

The plain and simple fact is laws restricting the purchase of firearms are useless.
For purchase, I agree. For possession - the point of these laws is to provide legal mechanism to deprive persons that have been determined untrustworthy of their guns and their liberty.


I agree 100% with tenpercent, ex-cons should have their rights back. Making the distinction between violent felony and non-violent felony is something that should be decided upon during the conviction process, not during release.

I concede conditional releases such as probation should prohibit ex-cons from exercising certain rights until such probation period shall have lapsed.

Anyway, what's to stop the government from redefining what a "felon" is? Let's not forget the government *has* that authority.

I think if it were a felony to run a stop sign, or drive 66+ MPH on the highway you'd all look differently upon the felon exclusion.

Is there anything that really distinguishes the current system from one where there is an indefinite probation period?

Like I said, apply substantive due process and make firearms possession disability an element of sentencing, and most of these concerns go away.

Meplat
07-20-2008, 12:31 AM
I've never woke up in the morning and been worried about whether I was going to make it through the day without committing a felony. .

You should have. I have a friend who was convicted for mearly defending his home. He had a step son who was over 18 and totally out of control. The kid had not lived in their home for two years. He came home for lunch and found the kid banging a girl on the living room flore. He procideded to try to evict the young man from the home. A fight insued and the father was unjustly convicted of domestic violence. Mostly because he ran out of money to pay his incompetant lawyer. Lost his business, his savings, and his right to vote or own a firearm. Just about aneything can be charged as a felony aneymore. You are at even greater risk if you own firearms. They have added so many firearm "inhancments" to California law that J-walking while in possion of a firearm is probably a felony.

Piper
07-20-2008, 12:33 AM
I think felons should be required to go through a restoration process first. I would like a judge or impartial bureaucrat backed up by a judge to make a risk decision. When James Lee Malvo gets out, I don't think he should get his gun rights back. When Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, or John Ford get out, I think they should be able to get their rights back.

Hoodlums who should be denied the right are not likely to hire an attorney and fill out the paperwork...

-Gene

I completely agree with you on this. The criteria should be, is the individual a violent felon, or someone who wrote a bad check. Also 5150's should be prevented since they were considered to be a danger to themselves or others. In fact, I have no problem with preventing a person from having a firearm, if he has been convicted of some violent misdemeanors.

pdq_wizzard
07-20-2008, 12:52 AM
I don't think you need full automatic rifles either. I don't think you need semi-automatic handguns. I don't think anyone really needs a gun. I think this because I am scared of them.

The problem with my statement above is I am using my subjective emotions to label guns as bad. "I don't think".

Who in the hell is a judge to determine whether I have a God-given, inalienable rights? Do we want to give that power to the government? Do we want to give the government the power to decide who is dangerous and who is not?

If James Lee Malvo is released from prison, then he is no different from anyone else. He has rights like all other free men. If he is such a threat to himself or others that he shouldn't have guns, then he shouldn't be released from prison.

Rights that can be restricted by man because of man's will, are not rights at all. We all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When someone tries to rob me at gun point, they are infringing on my rights and I have a right to stop them, by depriving them of their right to life.

When a man simply possesses a gun and breaks no law, I have no right to limit his life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Yelling fire in a church and not allowing criminals to have guns in jail are reasonable restrictions for the immediate safety of others, thus protecting their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Telling an ex-con that he can't lawfully possess firearms is depriving him of his rights for no immediate benefit of public safety. If that ex-con decides to commit a crime with their firearm, they should be prosecuted and sent back to jail for even longer.

Otherwise we might as well just acknowledge that guns are so inherently dangerous in ex-criminals hands, they cannot be trusted in the general population's hands. You should acknowledge that once John Lee Malvo gets released, he wasn't spurned to kill by his own will, it was the firearms. By restricting this access to firearms, he will not kill again, thus making America a safer place to live. If we took all guns away, then no one would commit crimes.

We should also prohibit ex-cons from having knives, baseball bats, and driving cars. All in the name of public safety.

as much as I don't like what you say, I have to agree :confused: ........ (to many beers and you make a valid point) :confused:(thought I don't totally agree) if you are convected of a felony you loose rights) but that just might be me

Theseus
07-20-2008, 1:08 AM
I remember that prisons actually used to give a firearm, 1 gold coin and a horse/donkey to a con as they left the system. It was considered that once they did their time, they have paid society for the crime. Why can't it be the same?

I believe felons should be able to have their rights to vote and purchase firearms. I agree that as long as the ones they buy are legally purchased. Now, if they are caught in possession of an illegal firearm. . them mercy on their soles.

CalNRA
07-20-2008, 1:17 AM
I believe felons should be able to have their rights to vote and purchase firearms. I agree that as long as the ones they buy are legally purchased. Now, if they are caught in possession of an illegal firearm. . them mercy on their soles.

i believe so too.

people make mistakes and many people who did time are hard working people once out and derserve the right to defend themselves and their families. If they are willing to buy it legally and follow all laws, denying them the right is exactly how the Brady's want to slowly make villains out of gun owners, one group at a time.

And Gene, as much as I would like to endorse your idea, the way CCWs are issued in california makes pessimistic of the actual implementation of your proposal.

tenpercentfirearms
07-20-2008, 6:46 AM
I realize I'm being extreme in interpreting your statement but then how do you lock the felon sex offender up in the first place? That your point is subject to such a wide interpretation points out that you're ducking the line drawing that has to be done.

Are you against the death penalty? A felon sentenced to death is just as much your rights. Note that it's a punishment actually in the Constitution.

-Gene

The difference is when you violate the rights of others, you must receive a punishment. A sex offender violates the rights of others, then they are punished by being sent to prison. While there, in order to maintain order and saftety of all, they rights are limited.

Once they are done serving their time, they should not continue to be punished. Having a subclass of citizens who do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us is dangerous in my opinion.

The fact remains that these people are released into society without some of their most basic freedoms and rights. And we continue to allow this to happen to a larger and larger class of people (domestic violence misdemeanor = no guns).

Criminals must serve time and part of that requires a loss of rights. That is the punishment for violating the social contract. After the criminal has served their time, their punishment should be over and the government should not have the right to limit their freedoms until they commit another crime.

I could go either way with the death penalty. Most people who get it know it is coming and they deserve it. Then again there might be some innocent people who have been put to death. That is wrong, but probably just as wrong as a innocent person serving the rest of their life in jail. So whether you are innocent and spend the rest of your life in jail or innocent and are put to death, it probably wouldn't matter much.

With that in mind, if the punishment for your serious crime warrants death, so be it. That would be the consequences of your actions.

You could just as easily argue that the consequences of small time felony is a loss of your firearms rights and right to vote for the rest of your life. I would argue that violates the 8th Amendment and also is just plain wrong. Jail is not fun and no one likes to be there. Once you let a person out, you have to give them hope they can stay out again. Reinstating their rights is a good way to do it. Once they screw up again, throw them back for even longer. They obviously can't follow the rules.

This is not an argument to be soft on criminals. This is an argument that free men and women walking around society should not belong to two different classes.

deleted by PC police
07-20-2008, 7:01 AM
It depends on the felony.... Should someone that blew up a mail box with an M80 or dry ice bomb as a kid have that held against them for the rest of their lives? Maybe not a common crime here but I knew alot of kids that did this in Utah they were just normal kids that had nothing better to do.

virulosity
07-20-2008, 7:12 AM
If our legal system actually made felonies as serious as they are supposed to be, I think that anyone that commited a felony should never get their rights back. Unfortunately, they decided to make practically everything a felony in california, so there is no distinction between someone who raped and murdered 5 people, and someone who was in possession of a night vision scope.

Piper
07-20-2008, 7:41 AM
I remember that prisons actually used to give a firearm, 1 gold coin and a horse/donkey to a con as they left the system. It was considered that once they did their time, they have paid society for the crime. Why can't it be the same?

I believe felons should be able to have their rights to vote and purchase firearms. I agree that as long as the ones they buy are legally purchased. Now, if they are caught in possession of an illegal firearm. . them mercy on their soles.

Yes, you're absolutely right. But they were also executing murderers and horse thieves as well. IMO violent criminals forfeit their 2A right when they choose to attack another person without provocation.

hoffmang
07-20-2008, 8:30 AM
Wes,

The only difference between your more up to date position above and mine is on two factors.

1. Certain felony behaviors should bar someone from firearms for life with an immediate self defense exception (that already exists) just like CCW in CA. Note that the difference is that everyone is denied CCW, not just felons. If the Northridge shooters would have survived and gotten out of jail, you'd honestly support them getting their firearms rights back?

2. For all other felons, they simply should have to apply. A denial of the recovery of their rights is going to be reviewed by a court at something approaching strict scrutiny for due process. That is most certainly not the status of the CCW process currently.

Note that point 2 is going to be working its way through the court system in the coming months.

Also, this fantasy world where you lock 'em all up forever has real costs. It'd probably tack another $30B on the yearly state budget. Capital punishment isn't a panacea either - just look at the innocence project in Texas (http://ipoftexas.org/) and think about how bad it would be here. If you've ever wondered who the "Wade" in Roe v. Wade was, well, he was the Texas DA who convicted at least 9+ actually innocent men in Dallas County...

-Gene

tyrist
07-20-2008, 8:39 AM
You should have. I have a friend who was convicted for mearly defending his home. He had a step son who was over 18 and totally out of control. The kid had not lived in their home for two years. He came home for lunch and found the kid banging a girl on the living room flore. He procideded to try to evict the young man from the home. A fight insued and the father was unjustly convicted of domestic violence. Mostly because he ran out of money to pay his incompetant lawyer. Lost his business, his savings, and his right to vote or own a firearm. Just about aneything can be charged as a felony aneymore. You are at even greater risk if you own firearms. They have added so many firearm "inhancments" to California law that J-walking while in possion of a firearm is probably a felony.

This is NOT domestic violence. This story makes no sense. The only way he could have been charged with a felony is either ADW, mayhem or felony battery. Did he put the boots to the kid and cause brain damage?

tyrist
07-20-2008, 8:42 AM
If our legal system actually made felonies as serious as they are supposed to be, I think that anyone that commited a felony should never get their rights back. Unfortunately, they decided to make practically everything a felony in california, so there is no distinction between someone who raped and murdered 5 people, and someone who was in possession of a night vision scope.

Night vision scope is a misdemeanor not a felony.

tenpercentfirearms
07-20-2008, 9:22 AM
Wes,

The only difference between your more up to date position above and mine is on two factors.

1. Certain felony behaviors should bar someone from firearms for life with an immediate self defense exception (that already exists) just like CCW in CA. Note that the difference is that everyone is denied CCW, not just felons. If the Northridge shooters would have survived and gotten out of jail, you'd honestly support them getting their firearms rights back?

Yes I would. If they spent their 10 to 20 to 30 years in jail and were released, they should be released with the same rights as everyone else. If they go on a bank robbing spree again, then put them back in for their next 30 years or double it if you want. The point is they are innocent until proven guilty. The current system assumes they are guilty and that when around guns, they will be spurned to kill or contiue their ways. The theory is if we keep them away from guns, they will be good citizens. I would make the same argument for guns in general. If they are too dangerous for ex-cons to have, then maybe non-law enforcement shouldn't have them either.

2. For all other felons, they simply should have to apply. A denial of the recovery of their rights is going to be reviewed by a court at something approaching strict scrutiny for due process. That is most certainly not the status of the CCW process currently.

Note that point 2 is going to be working its way through the court system in the coming months. This is an interesting thought. If they want them back, have them apply. It doesn't sound so bad on the surface as they still have the option. However, having to apply to exercise your rights? Why not just let them have them? I guess we still have to apply for a CCW and that doesn't bother me much, but that is because I can get one. What does a felon do when the judge says no for their own personal reasons?

Also, this fantasy world where you lock 'em all up forever has real costs. It'd probably tack another $30B on the yearly state budget. Capital punishment isn't a panacea either - just look at the innocence project in Texas (http://ipoftexas.org/) and think about how bad it would be here. If you've ever wondered who the "Wade" in Roe v. Wade was, well, he was the Texas DA who convicted at least 9+ actually innocent men in Dallas County...

-GeneIt is no fantasy where you lock people up forever. We do it right now. Locking bad people up forever is money well spent if you ask me. There are certain costs we have to forgoe to keep society safe and in order. Locking up murderers and the like for a long, long time is fine by me. If we kill them in 20-30 years through the death penalty that is fine too.

I am not advocating that we start increasing time to existing crimes. I am advocating that if we are going to trust a criminal to be released and put him back into the general population, then he/she ought to have their rights back. If they can't be trusted, then why in the hell did we let them out in the first place? Since we are releasing them, let them go back to being free Americans. They served their sentence.

CitaDeL
07-20-2008, 9:51 AM
I havent read all the responses to this story, so I may be reiterating what has already been said.

Rights being taken away is a usurpation- a theft even if it is done under the color of law. If we read the 2A, it states that right of the people shall not be infringed. It doesnt make any exclusions to any set of circumstances or conditions.

So even when a person is convicted of a felony, taking their ability to defend themselves is wrong... just as it would be to forbid them freedom of speech, the right to peacably assemble or to worship the god if their chosing.

It may be in the State's best interests to disarm a certain person to pre-empt any future bad deeds, but history bears out that such people find themselves in circumstances where they are either incarcerated again, or dead. Prohibiting these people from obtaining arms has already proven ineffective as gun control- we all know that anyone motivated to get weapons- will, regardless of the consequences promised to befall them. All the firearms prohibitions do is create another excuse to violate a felon and reinstitutionalize those who will eventually find themselves in jail again without the State's help.

hoffmang
07-20-2008, 9:54 AM
This is an interesting thought. If they want them back, have them apply. It doesn't sound so bad on the surface as they still have the option. However, having to apply to exercise your rights? Why not just let them have them? I guess we still have to apply for a CCW and that doesn't bother me much, but that is because I can get one. What does a felon do when the judge says no for their own personal reasons?


This process is very common for voting rights for example. It serves one very valid purpose. Only those felons conscientious enough to follow the process will apply. Those are the ones who should get their rights back. The self selection is going to keep the true sociopaths generally from keeping arms. Note that even violent felons already have an exigent circumstances self defense right to possess a gun.

-Gene

virulosity
07-20-2008, 10:14 AM
Night vision scope is a misdemeanor not a felony.

my mistake, but I think the point was made by someone else that it really depends on the crime.

jamesob
07-20-2008, 10:15 AM
Operating without a license isn't a felony, so your rights to bear arms would not be taken away....felons on the other hand committed a serious crime. But for example lets say(since we live in Kali and the bad guy is always innocent) that some guy breaks into someones house an has a bat or a club, so he subsequently gets shot by the homeowner, but lives :mad:. Then it goes to court and homeowner gets convicted of attempted murder(again because this is Kali so don't tell me that wouldn't happen), then homeowner gets out and no longer can own guns, and all of their guns are destroyed.

That is the only unfair situation in my opinion where the felon should get their guns back but that would never happen because the homeowner would be convicted of a violent crime with a firearm even though the homeowner was doing the right thing.
uhh. yes you can get a felony from operating without a license.it happened to a friend of mine and there are tons of storys about it on the net. http://www.cslb.ca.gov/GeneralInformation/Newsroom/PressReleases/PressReleases2003/News20031209.asp

Meplat
07-20-2008, 10:41 AM
This is NOT domestic violence. You noticed that. This story makes no sense. Sure don't, but it happened.[B] The only way he could have been charged with a felony is either ADW, mayhem or felony battery. [B]He was thretened with 1&3, fear of 8 years in the state pen forced him to plead out to the domestic violance charge. Did he put the boots to the kid and cause brain damage? NO,

They were scuffling and shouting for ten or fifteen minutes. Had a mob of people out front wondering what all the ruckus was about. It is in a good part of town. They were wresteling around on the kitchen floor. They knocked over the trashcan and the kid managed to get a cut on his arm from the lid of a bean can. When he saw the blood he ran outside screaming ďcall 911, Iíve been stabbedĒ, then proceeded to ďcollapseĒ on the lawn. The cut was less than ľĒ deep, the paramedics said he tried hard to get the hospital to admit him, but they just cleaned it up, put a bandage on it and booted his butt out.

He got a lawyer who told him if they could get a criminal conviction they could sue in civil court and he would own both his folksí houses and his dadsí business. With visions of unlimited meth dancing in his head he lied like a rug and clamed his dad stabbed him with a steak knife.

The DA bought it. They had to have the domestic violence nexus because they usually donít prosecute deadly force in defense of the home here, and an out of shape fifty something facing an 18 year old intruder in his prime would probably not be expected to refrain from the use of a weapon.

I know the family. Iíve known the kid sense he was 7 years old. I watched the wheels come off of a pretty good kid when he started hanging with the wrong crowd and doing drugs. He had been sent to Texas to live with an uncle who has straightened out some pretty confused teenagers in the past. It didnít work. He had worn out his welcome with all of his friends and family because of steeling to support his habit. This thing went down the way I explained it. The kidsí mother who loved him and still does was prepared to testify for the defense.

After over a year of posturing by the DA, and dad not backing down he had hocked his houses, his business, and drained his bank account to pay his lawyer. The lawyer then says he needs more money if dad wants to actually take this to court, and told him he would advise him to take the Daís offer to plead guilty and they would promise to only give him a year in the county lockup, otherwise they were going to throw the book at him and it would be at least 8 years in state prison. With no more money to fight and looking at 8 years he gave in.

Just imagine if something like this happened to you and you happened to have a pistol in your pocket. Ten-year mandatory enhancement.

It scares me that so many sea lawyers on this forum still think that the way laws are written has anything to do with how they are applied, and that our justice system has anything to do with justice!

tyrist
07-20-2008, 10:43 AM
uhh. yes you can get a felony from operating without a license.it happened to a friend of mine and there are tons of storys about it on the net. http://www.cslb.ca.gov/GeneralInformation/Newsroom/PressReleases/PressReleases2003/News20031209.asp

That type of contracting without a license is up there will embezzlement and fraud. The disaster part is what pushes it over the edge and rightfully so.

tyrist
07-20-2008, 10:46 AM
They were scuffling and shouting for ten or fifteen minutes. Had a mob of people out front wondering what all the ruckus was about. It is in a good part of town. They were wresteling around on the kitchen floor. They knocked over the trashcan and the kid managed to get a cut on his arm from the lid of a bean can. When he saw the blood he ran outside screaming “call 911, I’ve been stabbed”, then proceeded to “collapse” on the lawn. The cut was less than ľ” deep, the paramedics said he tried hard to get the hospital to admit him, but they just cleaned it up, put a bandage on it and booted his butt out.

He got a lawyer who told him if they could get a criminal conviction they could sue in civil court and he would own both his folks’ houses and his dads’ business. With visions of unlimited meth dancing in his head he lied like a rug and clamed his dad stabbed him with a steak knife.

The DA bought it. They had to have the domestic violence nexus because they usually don’t prosecute deadly force in defense of the home here, and an out of shape fifty something facing an 18 year old intruder in his prime would probably not be expected to refrain from the use of a weapon.

I know the family. I’ve known the kid sense he was 7 years old. I watched the wheels come off of a pretty good kid when he started hanging with the wrong crowd and doing drugs. He had been sent to Texas to live with an uncle who has straightened out some pretty confused teenagers in the past. It didn’t work. He had worn out his welcome with all of his friends and family because of steeling to support his habit. This thing went down the way I explained it. The kids’ mother who loved him and still does was prepared to testify for the defense.

After over a year of posturing by the DA, and dad not backing down he had hocked his houses, his business, and drained his bank account to pay his lawyer. The lawyer then says he needs more money if dad wants to actually take this to court, and told him he would advise him to take the Da’s offer to plead guilty and they would promise to only give him a year in the county lockup, otherwise they were going to throw the book at him and it would be at least 8 years in state prison. With no more money to fight and looking at 8 years he gave in.

Just imagine if something like this happened to you and you happened to have a pistol in your pocket. Ten-year mandatory enhancement.

It scares me that so many sea lawyers on this forum still think that the way laws are written has anything to do with how they are applied, and that our justice system has anything to do with justice!

Okay first off what state is this in. In the state of california only certain relationships qualify as domestic violence. Those relationships are dating/former dating, engaged/former engaged, married/divorce, and cohabitants. Of those relationships only married/divorce, cohab, and child in common push the offense into the felony area. So once again the story does'nt make any sense unless it occured in some other state. From what I have seen most states in the union have similiar domestic violence laws.

dustoff31
07-20-2008, 12:06 PM
Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.


PA is a three strikes state. This clown or his lawyer give a crap about gun rights. This is all about some loser trying to stay out of prison for the rest of his life.

Theseus
07-20-2008, 3:20 PM
This process is very common for voting rights for example. It serves one very valid purpose. Only those felons conscientious enough to follow the process will apply. Those are the ones who should get their rights back. The self selection is going to keep the true sociopaths generally from keeping arms. Note that even violent felons already have an exigent circumstances self defense right to possess a gun.

-Gene

But here is the problem! If he isn't allowed to possess one how can he have one ready for self defense?

The law doesn't follow the process through. The first question would be "Where did a convicted felon get the gun that he used to defend himself with since he can't legally buy one?" He will be charged and thrown back in jail for illegal possession of a firearm.

Meplat
07-20-2008, 3:25 PM
The state was CA. They were going with cohabit. I personally know the kid was not living there. But what he tells the cops and what they choose to believe are up to them. If they brow beat you into a guilty plea it really doesn’t matter much does it? I was ready to testify for him as was his wife and a lot of others. I urged him to fight it out but it was his life and you never really know till you’re looking at 8 years yourself.

Again: The letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and the application of the law are three very different things.

Again: Our justice system is not just.

A lot more depends on the gut feelings of those who run the system than any other element. Sorry but you have to learn about Santa and the Tooth Ferry sometime.

It’s like the guy who was speeding through Mississippi in the 1950s. He hit two black guys by accident. One went through his windshield and one was knocked 100 feet into a field. He’s sweating bullets when the sheriff shows up and says: Well, we can get that one for breaking and entering and the other one for leaving the sean of an accident.

Please don’t think you are safe just because the law is on your side. What is more important is to have a damn good lawyer on your side and the money to pay him generously.

FEDUPWBS
07-20-2008, 3:26 PM
This case is bad news for all us law abiding gun owners. This case (or any support for it) is going to paint us in a worse light than we already are. It's bad enough we "won our right" to own a gun, now we want to arm gangbangers and baby-rapists? Not good fur us at all. IMO this case, if it gets any legs, will set us back 20 years in our fight in the anti-gunners eyes.

Thats why it was filed.(duh)

STAGE 2
07-20-2008, 3:53 PM
You should have. I have a friend who was convicted for mearly defending his home. He had a step son who was over 18 and totally out of control. The kid had not lived in their home for two years. He came home for lunch and found the kid banging a girl on the living room flore. He procideded to try to evict the young man from the home. A fight insued and the father was unjustly convicted of domestic violence.

So the correct response would have been to call the cops once the kid refused to leave. What so hard about that? Beating on your stepson to get him to leave your home probably isn't legal. No surprise there.

Again, its not hard not to commit a felony.

Meplat
07-20-2008, 5:47 PM
[QUOTE=STAGE 2;1373896]So the correct response would have been to call the cops once the kid refused to leave. What so hard about that? Beating on your stepson to get him to leave your home probably isn't legal. No surprise there.

Isn't hindsight great. You are assuming the dad started the beating, he didn't. He was attacked in his own home by a nutjob who just happened to be his stepson. It's not easy to dile 911 when you are being whailed upon by an 18 year old. Being someones stepson does not give you the right to invade their home and assult them.

In this county the DA has refused to prosicute homeowners who have shot intruders who were fleeing. Outside the house. One was trying to get away by going over the back fense. I admit this case is baffeling. It is entirely uncaricteristic of our community.

It seems some people will invent any construct to justify the DAs actions.

Again, its not hard not to commit a felony.[/QUOT

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T

STAGE 2
07-20-2008, 6:11 PM
Isn't hindsight great. You are assuming the dad started the beating, he didn't. He was attacked in his own home by a nutjob who just happened to be his stepson. It's not easy to dile 911 when you are being whailed upon by an 18 year old. Being someones stepson does not give you the right to invade their home and assult them.

Then the guy was privileged to defend himself and then call the police. I'm sorry, but something here doesn't smell right if everything is as you said it was. If the kid said he was stabbed then there should be a knife. If not then the trashcan would have either blood on/around it. Something doesn't add up. Which is why people defending themselves from home intruders aren't charged with felonies unless something is very wrong.

Meplat
07-20-2008, 9:01 PM
Then the guy was privileged to defend himself and then call the police. I'm sorry, but something here doesn't smell right if everything is as you said it was. If the kid said he was stabbed then there should be a knife. If not then the trashcan would have either blood on/around it. Something doesn't add up. Which is why people defending themselves from home intruders aren't charged with felonies unless something is very wrong.


The real world dosen't always work like CSI. The kitchen was full of knives, none had any blood on it. Dad showed the cops the can but they didn't bother with it, he was not arested, they just took reports, asked a bunch of questions and left. I don't think the uniformed officers that responded thought anything much was going to come of it. No crime sean investigation was ever done, no evidence gathered. I don't know if the kid ever told the cops he had been stabed with a knife that first day. By the time the cops got there he was off to the hospital and I don't think the officers that responded to the sean went to the hospital and got the kids side of it.

I can tell you what triggered this. I have not brought it up because it SHOULD be errelivent. Dad is a recovering alcohilic, he has been clean and sober for 25 years. When he drank he got a little stupid. When he was 19 or 20 he was being arested for drunk in public and as they were trying to stuff him, handcuffed, into the back of a patrol car he bit one of the cops on the thumb. He had also been in a fight (not his fault) in a paintball venieu. Right here in Fresno. I was there when the paintball fight started and he did not start it, he was jumped by 3 guys. The police were called and they broke it up. That is a story in it's self. Incredibley professional police work. No one was charged with anything or aressted, but a report was filed. Granted if he had been passive his name would not be in the report, at least not in a derogitory way, but is that a reasonable expectation of some one? I was there and did not jump in to help my friend and my name is not in the report in a derogitory light. I actually had to defend myself from the same groupe of roudies and put one of them down with a right cross (after he had clubed me with his gun) earlyer, but no record was made of it. As for biting the cop on the thumb, he cop was actually quite benevolant about it and said it was probably an accident. He got off with a misdomener. Disorderly conduct or something.

Bottom line is the DA looked at this record an said: something
has to be done about this guy. The earlyer thumb biting incident was the result of alcohol abuse which he no longer does and the scuffle at the paintball club was self defense. But he can no longer vote because he is an American who does not back down. He stands his ground and defends himself and his home.

STAGE 2
07-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Well, I'm going to stick with my original assessment and say that this just doesn't pass the smell test. People don't get prosecuted based solely on a statements of a kid, especially if there was no arrest. Of course the fact that trouble seems follow your dad doesn't help either. Nor does biting police officer.

Jamez
07-20-2008, 11:21 PM
I think it depends on what the crime was. If it was a violent offense then you should lose your right. If you don't follow the laws of society, why should you be given the rewards? Regardless of if you "change your ways" we need to send a message to those who would violate our laws, once you go down that road you pay for life.

tyrist
07-21-2008, 1:06 AM
The state was CA. They were going with cohabit. I personally know the kid was not living there. But what he tells the cops and what they choose to believe are up to them. If they brow beat you into a guilty plea it really doesn’t matter much does it? I was ready to testify for him as was his wife and a lot of others. I urged him to fight it out but it was his life and you never really know till you’re looking at 8 years yourself.

Again: The letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and the application of the law are three very different things.

Again: Our justice system is not just.

A lot more depends on the gut feelings of those who run the system than any other element. Sorry but you have to learn about Santa and the Tooth Ferry sometime.

It’s like the guy who was speeding through Mississippi in the 1950s. He hit two black guys by accident. One went through his windshield and one was knocked 100 feet into a field. He’s sweating bullets when the sheriff shows up and says: Well, we can get that one for breaking and entering and the other one for leaving the sean of an accident.

Please don’t think you are safe just because the law is on your side. What is more important is to have a damn good lawyer on your side and the money to pay him generously.

So your friend was in a homosexual relationship with the step son because that is the only way you are going to get cohabitant for the 273.5 PC felony. NO wonder the wife was willing to testify against him. Your story makes no sense what so ever.I call BS.

Glock22Fan
07-21-2008, 8:02 AM
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.

Yes, yes and emphatically yes.

Meplat
07-21-2008, 8:21 AM
So your friend was in a homosexual relationship with the step son because that is the only way you are going to get cohabitant for the 273.5 PC felony. NO wonder the wife was willing to testify against him. Your story makes no sense what so ever.I call BS.

No they were just saying he was a member of the household; that he lived there.

And please, don't tell me "They can't do that", tell them.

tyrist
07-21-2008, 9:43 AM
You cannot be convicted of 273.5 PC because you hit somebody that lives in the house with you. You have to have a romatic/sexual relationship. If you lived with your brother/friend, you could beat on eachother non stop and unless one of you want to sign a private persons arrest nobody goes to jail. Your story makes no sense what so ever legally, it could not have happened the way you have explain it. In fact it is impossible, he was convicted of a different charge other than domestic violence.

Piper
07-21-2008, 10:22 AM
Night vision scope is a misdemeanor not a felony.

This is off track, but a night vision scope shouldn't even be an infraction.

PatriotnMore
07-21-2008, 10:31 AM
This is off track, but a night vision scope shouldn't even be an infraction.

I agree, but again, California legislators, and Fish and Game, and to some extent BLM, like to regulate us to the point that, gun laws, and hunting regs, and wilderness access become, complicated, expensive, and require you to expend a great deal of energy familiarizing yourself with laws to be complient; To the point that many just say screw it, and don't bother, or they take their chances on getting caught out of ignorance of the laws.

tyrist
07-21-2008, 11:52 AM
This is off track, but a night vision scope shouldn't even be an infraction.

I agree, but I don't write the laws. I don't agree with alot of the weapons laws and I have to deal with the bad guys who carry them.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Yeah, well, exercising your right to own certain firearms in CA is a felony now too. Owning a ninja star is a felony. Putting dry ice in a pepsi bottle is a felony. And God knows what other insignificant crap is a felony these days. Even telling federal agents that you're not guilty is a felony (Martha Stewart).

And yet all of on this board have managed to make it this far without being convicted of a felony. So either we are all super duper law avoiders, or its not that hard.

AJAX22
07-21-2008, 12:12 PM
And yet all of on this board have managed to make it this far without being convicted of a felony. So either we are all super duper law avoiders, or its not that hard.

Some of us have had a harder time than others *cough* BWO.....

sorensen440
07-21-2008, 12:30 PM
Not super duper law avoiders, just lucky enough not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can guarantee you that over 90% of the people on this forum would be felons if they had been under police surveillance 24/7 for the last 10 years. I'm SURE of that. Probably half the people I know from high school and college would be felons on drug charges alone, had they ever been caught. In our society, being smart about how the law works is far more important that actually obeying it. I'm sure over 50% of the US population have hidden at least some income some time in the past = Tax Evasion = Felon. The government in this country, especially in this state, has made it so that they can arrest and imprison anyone, anytime they feel like it. It's called a police state, and you'd best wake up and realize you're in one.
I agree 100%

Glock22Fan
07-21-2008, 1:08 PM
Not super duper law avoiders, just lucky enough not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can guarantee you that over 90% of the people on this forum would be felons if they had been under police surveillance 24/7 for the last 10 years. I'm SURE of that. Probably half the people I know from high school and college would be felons on drug charges alone, had they ever been caught. In our society, being smart about how the law works is far more important that actually obeying it. I'm sure over 50% of the US population have hidden at least some income some time in the past = Tax Evasion = Felon. The government in this country, especially in this state, has made it so that they can arrest and imprison anyone, anytime they feel like it. It's called a police state, and you'd best wake up and realize you're in one.

Totally agree. "Let him without sin cast the first stone."

Hopi
07-21-2008, 1:15 PM
Not super duper law avoiders, just lucky enough not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can guarantee you that over 90% of the people on this forum would be felons if they had been under police surveillance 24/7 for the last 10 years. I'm SURE of that. Probably half the people I know from high school and college would be felons on drug charges alone, had they ever been caught. In our society, being smart about how the law works is far more important that actually obeying it. I'm sure over 50% of the US population have hidden at least some income some time in the past = Tax Evasion = Felon. The government in this country, especially in this state, has made it so that they can arrest and imprison anyone, anytime they feel like it.
Blackrazor......astute and dangerously correct.


It's called a police state, and you'd best wake up and realize you're in one.

I will only add that the members of this forum, being that our majority is well-educated and gun-owning, comprise a very threatening demographic to those that seek to impose absolute rule.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 1:30 PM
Not super duper law avoiders, just lucky enough not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can guarantee you that over 90% of the people on this forum would be felons if they had been under police surveillance 24/7 for the last 10 years. I'm SURE of that.

But you've just made my point. We aren't under police surveillance 24/7. If thats what it takes to nail someone, then it must not be that hard to not be convicted of one since no one is subject to that scrutiny, ever.



Probably half the people I know from high school and college would be felons on drug charges alone, had they ever been caught. In our society, being smart about how the law works is far more important that actually obeying it. I'm sure over 50% of the US population have hidden at least some income some time in the past = Tax Evasion = Felon. The government in this country, especially in this state, has made it so that they can arrest and imprison anyone, anytime they feel like it.

But again you make my point. People smoking dope or hiding money from the government know what they are doing is illegal. They have made the choice that whatever benefit they will recieve from breaking the law is worth the risk and potential punishment if caught.

Everyone here knows that smoking dope or evading taxes is a crime. If you don't want to be convicted, dont do it. If you take your chances and get caught, the onus is on you.


It's called a police state, and you'd best wake up and realize you're in one.

With all due respect, unless you lived under the iron curtain or somewhere similar you have no idea what a police state is like. If this was, what you just posted would land you in prison. While things certianly arent perfect, we are nowhere near a police state, and stating otherwise shows a wee bit of naivety.


Some of us have had a harder time than others *cough* BWO.....

And yet he still wasn't convicted.


Totally agree. "Let him without sin cast the first stone."

Well since I've never smoked dope or fudged on my taxes can I start chucking?

hoffmang
07-21-2008, 1:35 PM
I will only add that the members of this forum, being that our majority is well-educated and gun-owning, comprise a very threatening demographic to those that seek to impose absolute rule.

There is one major problem with that point of view. If someone is capable enough to do that and desires to do that, they can make so much more headway and money in the private sector that they often loose the desire to take over the world and instead settle for their large niche.

We have the public sector an extremely vibrant private sector creates.

You can easily convince me politicians are misguided. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that they are competent.

-Gene

Meplat
07-21-2008, 1:49 PM
Totally agree. "Let him without sin cast the first stone."

I have been a shooter for 55 years. I am approaching 61. In my lifetime I have accumulated a BUNCH of firearms, accoutrements, accessories, memorabilia, and paraphernalia. A lot of which has been outlawed. I try to keep up, like getting rid of dummy grenades, folding stocks and such as they are fellonized. After a while it gets hard to keep track of, and even if you can keep up with all the laws and their true meaning, sometimes you canít keep track of your stuff. I have a thing or two that I canít find that I think would be felonies to possess now. I canít find them, but I bet the cops would if they tore apart my home.

Just because you have not been arrested yet does not mean you are not a felon; it just means you havenít been caught.

I know there a lot of young guys on here, but if you have been serious about your shooting and are over 50 you probably have a felony lurking in a closet somewhere, or in the top of your garage.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 1:57 PM
But you've just made my point. We aren't under police surveillance 24/7. If thats what it takes to nail someone, then it must not be that hard to not be convicted of one since no one is subject to that scrutiny, ever.





But again you make my point. People smoking dope or hiding money from the government know what they are doing is illegal. They have made the choice that whatever benefit they will recieve from breaking the law is worth the risk and potential punishment if caught.

Everyone here knows that smoking dope or evading taxes is a crime. If you don't want to be convicted, dont do it. If you take your chances and get caught, the onus is on you.




With all due respect, unless you lived under the iron curtain or somewhere similar you have no idea what a police state is like. If this was, what you just posted would land you in prison. While things certianly arent perfect, we are nowhere near a police state, and stating otherwise shows a wee bit of naivety.




And yet he still wasn't convicted.




Well since I've never smoked dope or fudged on my taxes can I start chucking?

The point that you are neglecting to address is that there are folks that don't believe the prohibition of drugs, nor the levy of personal income tax, are just nor valid legislation, and there are certainly too many inconsistencies within these contexts to argue so.

To maintain electability and appease contributors (read: fund raising necessary to run campaign); our representatives direct legislation that is too complicated for even them to understand (see barrel shroud lady on youtube). The laws on the books have been written to include exemptions or LEO discretionary privilege for constituents. We have inconsistent prohibitions that favor constituents. ........what have we become?

It is very hard to reconcile trust in the decisions of these 'representatives'. When laws are based on intellectual honesty and volunteered with genuine intention, perhaps that will be the time to entertain the discussion of a "3rd class of citizen" who have paid their dues to society but do not enjoy the freedoms of citizens.

If folks are too dangerous too enjoy the inalienable rights of citizens, they should be treated as such. Likewise, if a person has been rehabilitated and is fit to return to society, they should do just that and return as a citizen.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 1:59 PM
There is one major problem with that point of view. If someone is capable enough to do that and desires to do that, they can make so much more headway and money in the private sector that they often loose the desire to take over the world and instead settle for their large niche.

We have the public sector an extremely vibrant private sector creates.

You can easily convince me politicians are misguided. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that they are competent.

-Gene

Agreed in part. This is where the intersection of the private and political sectors is an important note. Haliburton and Cheney would be a recent example of competency. He seems to have mastered that ideology, profiting both politically and financially.

Meplat
07-21-2008, 2:02 PM
Well since I've never smoked dope or fudged on my taxes can I start chucking?

LOL:

Please promis me you will remember this conversation and re-evaluate it in 30 years.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 2:31 PM
The point that you are neglecting to address is that there are folks that don't believe the prohibition of drugs, nor the levy of personal income tax, are just nor valid legislation, and there are certainly too many inconsistencies within these contexts to argue so.

I don't believe in may of the gun laws, but you don't see me importing hi cap mags or modifying ARs to go FA. You are confusing people who disagree with laws and intentionally break them as a form of civil disobedience (or stupidity) with people who want to comply with the law.

The premise of my argument is that its not hard not to commit a felony. People who knowingly smoking dope, fudging income, or breaking gun laws want to break the law, thus they don't fall into the category of people who want to obey the law.

Apples and oranges.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 2:33 PM
LOL:

Please promis me you will remember this conversation and re-evaluate it in 30 years.

What difference will 30 years make. College has long since past and I've had ample opportunity to "work the numbers" in regards to my income but havent. Its just not worth it. What is going to happen in the next 30 years that hasn't already.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 2:38 PM
I don't believe in may of the gun laws, but you don't see me importing hi cap mags or modifying ARs to go FA. You are confusing people who disagree with laws and intentionally break them as a form of civil disobedience (or stupidity) with people who want to comply with the law.

The premise of my argument is that its not hard not to commit a felony. People who knowingly smoking dope, fudging income, or breaking gun laws want to break the law, thus they don't fall into the category of people who want to obey the law.

Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges or perhaps chicken or the egg.....

Felonies have been created to target activity and behavior that is currently taking place.

If yogurt was outlawed and possession was classified a felony, you would have lots of instant felons. This is tantamount to the prohibition of drugs. The liberty of citizenship does not rely on the whims of legislation.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 2:48 PM
Absolutely false statement here.

Not at all. Not even criminals under surveilance aren't being watched 24/7. Of course, those that are, are the one's actively and knowingly breaking the law so they don't count.


Well no kidding they know. That's not even the point. Some people know they are commiting felonies, other people just don't know all 10 bazillion lines of the penal code, yourself included, I might add. Did you know it is a felony in CA to own a club, a ninja star? It's a felony to put dry ice in a pepsi bottle? And do you know how many K-12 kids are committing these felonies UKNOWINGLY every day?

Yes I actually did. And did you know that places who sell such things usually have big red letters that say restricted followed by no sales to california. You don't need to pick up a copy of the penal code to figure this out.


What makes you so perfect that you claim you can start throwing stones? Even making such a comment just casts you as an over-the-top arrogant know-it-all, and if/when you get pinched, for something you did or didn't do, no one's going to step up for you. Great attitude you have there.

Never said I was perfect. Merely that I don't smoke dope or fudge on taxes, two things that are sound advise for folks that want to avoid excessive entanglements with the law.


The only reason thousands of regular people are not in prison serving felony sentences is SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. Selective enforcement is one of the most powerful tools available to the would be oppressor. First you set up a legal system so complicated that NO ONE is aware of even 10% of it. Then, you lull the sheep into a false sense of confidence by not prosecuting "good citizens", even if they break a few laws every now and then. Whenever somebody steps out of line, you throw the book at them, knowing that you'll always have something you can charge them with.

So lets see the thousands of people that have been busted for insignificant felonies. Sort of that all you have is opinion and conjecture.


Look at BWO, they came to bust him for illegal AW possession, but once they figured out they couldn't get those charges to stick, what did they do? They tried to bust him for possession of a damn ninja star.

And again I ask, was he convicted. If not, then this proves nothing. I never said LE doens't make mistakes. What I said was that its not hard to not be a felon. If anything his example proves my point. They raided his house and brought the full force of the justice system and still weren't able to convict.


Because you have lived under the iron curtain? Give me a break. No, I haven't lived in East Germany or the old Soviet Union, but I know lots of people who have, and they say this country is turning into a police state so quickly it scares them.

Well I don't know what to tell you but the 1/4 of my family that lived in russia under the iron curtain begs to differ, and the facts support their view. If you don't believe me, ask yourself what happens to people who call Bush a nazi. Then ask yourself what happened to people who did that to Khrushchev or Brezhnev and tell me we are in a police state.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 2:51 PM
Apples and oranges or perhaps chicken or the egg.....

Felonies have been created to target activity and behavior that is currently taking place.

If yogurt was outlawed and possession was classified a felony, you would have lots of instant felons. This is tantamount to the prohibition of drugs. The liberty of citizenship does not rely on the whims of legislation.

But the people who wanted to keep their guns wouldn't eat yogurt any longer. Thats the point. Those that kept on doing it would either 1) hope they would get caught or 2) do it as a act of rebelling against the law. Either way they are doing it knowing that they face the possibility of getting caught.

This isn't a discussion of the wisdom of laws, its a discussion of how to not be a felon. Its simply not that hard.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 2:53 PM
If anything his example proves my point. They raided his house and brought the full force of the justice system and still weren't able to convict.






For many, the expense and time consumption for defense is a de facto conviction. Defending ourselves against aggressive police action and 'letting the courts sort it out' is a notion that would have the BOR authors' heads spinning.....

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 2:55 PM
you're going to have your *** handed to you in a court of law, that's what's going to change. BTW Mr. Perfect, have you ever driven over the speed limit?

Really? They guy advocating not breaking the law is going to have his rear handed to him in court? That makes absolutely no sense.

As far as speeding, its not a felony. That, and I'm perfectly aware that driving over the limit is against the law since they so graciously post it every mile or so. Thus if I were to speed, I would be fully aware that I was doing it, and that it was illegal. I'm just making the value judgement that 1) either the fine isn't any big deal or 2) I don't think I'll get caught. Regardless, I'm actively making the choice to break the law.

Again, apples and oranges.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 2:56 PM
But the people who wanted to keep their guns wouldn't eat yogurt any longer. Thats the point.........

This isn't a discussion of the wisdom of laws, its a discussion of how to not be a felon. Its simply not that hard.

I suppose this is where our opinions diverge. I believe the wisdom of laws, our willingness to 'obey' them, and the common sense to avoid violating them without also violating our liberty, go hand-in-hand.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 2:57 PM
For many, the expense and time consumption for defense is a de facto conviction. Defending ourselves against aggressive police action and 'letting the courts sort it out' is a notion that would have the BOR authors' heads spinning.....

While true, thats beside the point. If being convicted was as simple as the big bad government pulling a lever as some here suggest, then there isn't any way BWO would still own firearms.

The fact that he does disproves this theory.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 3:01 PM
I suppose this is where our opinions diverge. I believe the wisdom of laws, our willingness to 'obey' them, and the common sense to avoid violating them without also violating our liberty, go hand-in-hand.

While I agree on one level, the flip side is that if you are going to actively break a law, then you should be prepared for the consequences. Someone on one of the other boards gave this as a statement in response to the guy who was recently convicted of transferring his AR that went FA. I think it sums thing up nicely...

The Big Boy Rule: Everyone is free to do as he chooses, but if one chooses to do something he knows is illegal and gets caught its time to be a big boy and take the consequences rather than whining that the law isn't fair.

Corrollary to the Big Boy Rule: Don't like the law? Don't want to take the consequences? Then don't break it, CHANGE IT! Big boys who think laws are unjust know they can do something about them. Heller proves it.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 3:05 PM
While I agree on one level, the flip side is that if you are going to actively break a law, then you should be prepared for the consequences. Someone on one of the other boards gave this as a statement in response to the guy who was recently convicted of transferring his AR that went FA. I think it sums thing up nicely...

The Big Boy Rule: Everyone is free to do as he chooses, but if one chooses to do something he knows is illegal and gets caught its time to be a big boy and take the consequences rather than whining that the law isn't fair.

Corrollary to the Big Boy Rule: Don't like the law? Don't want to take the consequences? Then don't break it, CHANGE IT! Big boys who think laws are unjust know they can do something about them. Heller proves it.

While we share a faith in our ability to change laws, the inequality dynamic is more my concern. The valve opens both ways indeed, it is just MUCH harder to direct the flow to our advantage. Thus my interest in limiting politicians' access to the valve.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 3:16 PM
While we share a faith in our ability to change laws, the inequality dynamic is more my concern. The valve opens both ways indeed, it is just MUCH harder to direct the flow to our advantage. Thus my interest in limiting politicians' access to the valve.

I agree, but again, this is a separate argument apart from the issue of how difficult it is to go through your daily life without committing a felony.

The number of people in prison in the US is around 2 million. The US population is about 304 million. That means .6% of pur population is in prison. Therefore this .6% is the starting figure for which we would use to determine your odds of being convicted of a felony without knowing it.

Now I don't know about you, but I'm fairly certian that such a number would be so small that my calculator probably couldn't even register it.

That means what I said was correct. Its not hard not to be a felon. 99% of our population is living proof.

Hopi
07-21-2008, 3:29 PM
I agree, but again, this is a separate argument apart from the issue of how difficult it is to go through your daily life without committing a felony.

The number of people in prison in the US is around 2 million. The US population is about 304 million. That means .6% of pur population is in prison. Therefore this .6% is the starting figure for which we would use to determine your odds of being convicted of a felony without knowing it.

Now I don't know about you, but I'm fairly certian that such a number would be so small that my calculator probably couldn't even register it.

That means what I said was correct. Its not hard not to be a felon. 99% of our population is living proof.

Perhaps the math works out, but my idea of liberty is not based on an understanding of math. I certainly will not capitulate an acceptance of rights-loss due to a generic felony conviction simply because I face the minor probability that i will not be convicted.

With respect to this discussion, the umbrella class of "felon" should not be barred civil and/or constitutional rights. If a crime was serious enough to warrant the forfeiture of these, then that person should be dealt with accordingly and society should be sheltered from them. I think most reasonable people can agree what constitutes a valid loss of rights, and what does not.

Tax evasion, and corporate embezzlement, while felonies, should not render a person incapable of enjoying inalienable rights.

Ledbetter
07-21-2008, 3:40 PM
It only makes sense that felons would try to screw up the Heller decision for honest folks.

Commit a felony, forfeit your rights. If you don't like it, move.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 4:01 PM
I think most reasonable people can agree what constitutes a valid loss of rights, and what does not.

I submit the fact that we are having this discussion proves otherwise.

tiki
07-21-2008, 4:16 PM
If guns were used in a crime you should loose the privilege purchase or own gun forever.

So, if you use a car in the commission of a crime, then you can't ever use a car? We give driver's licenses back to people convicted of DUI.

sloguy
07-21-2008, 4:28 PM
i believe that anyone should have the right to own a gun. if they go to jail and serve their time, they are PAID. if they are not paid in full for what they did then what the eff are they doing out of jail?

that said, repeat offenses should be delt with harshly. preferably by the intended victem who also has a gun.

Meplat
07-21-2008, 4:30 PM
What is going to happen in the next 30 years that hasn't already.

You might grow up and realize what color the sun is in this world. Then again you may not.

Your cut and dried black and white world does not exist. If you presist in your emotional need for it to exist it will come back and bite you in the butt. You cannot possibly be over 30, if you are it's worse than I thought and you have some learning issues. If you do not get help you will probably be institutionalized by the time you are 50.

I know your world is the way it should be, but it's just not. Try to think outside your comfort zone a little bit and ask yourself why so many seemingly reasonable folks have taken a position counter to yours. You don't have to give up your principles, just realize what the world is like that you are dealing with. Life will be a lot easeyer and make more sense.

MudCamper
07-21-2008, 4:32 PM
The Big Boy Rule: Everyone is free to do as he chooses, but if one chooses to do something he knows is illegal and gets caught its time to be a big boy and take the consequences

While I agree with this in principal, it oftem makes little sense in practice, and where I differ from you is that I am capable of forgiveness. I understand that a very large percentage of young men (age 16-24 approx) do a lot of stupid/selfish/irresponsible stuff, that if they get caught, it lands them with a felony conviction. But most of them eventually grow up and take on life's responsibilities. The problem is our society's "big boy consequences" include a lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms, which IMO is cruel and unusual punishment in the exreme.

Like others have stated in this thread, if a person can't be trusted with firearms, then they shouldn't be let out of the penal system in the first place. If you can trust them to return to society, then let them do so.

Matt777
07-21-2008, 4:47 PM
The Big Boy Rule: Everyone is free to do as he chooses, but if one chooses to do something he knows is illegal and gets caught its time to be a big boy and take the consequences rather than whining that the law isn't fair.


So someone who has made a 16" shotgun barrel and been convicted of a felony should lose their rights? I'm not buying it- good people break bad laws.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 4:52 PM
Wrong again Mr. holier-than-thou stone thrower. Want to take a guess at what happens if you accidentally hit someone while speeding (breaking the law)? Manslaughter (i.e. a felony).


What does that have to do with what I said? Speeding is speeding. Hitting someone is hitting someone. Two totally separate things. Furthermore, I can commit manslaughter while obeying the speed limit. Get your facts straight.


Oh man, not this $%#& again. Maybe this hasn't occured to you, but changing the law isn't just something the average person can just go out and do. Many of the worst laws in this country were brought down by people who chose to openly defy them. Sorry, but history has proven time and again that breaking unjust laws is one of the best ways to defeat unfair legislation.

Really? Heller was made possible by people breaking the law? I don't think so.


I still have yet to hear you explain to me how you KNOW you aren't committing any felonies if you don't even know 1% of the felony crimes that are on the books. And BTW I don't think handwaving statistics about made up percentages of people in prison who may or may not have known they were commiting any crime constitutes an argument.

There isn't anything made up about the statistics I gave. Don't believe me then head over to to the US DOJ. Less than 1% of people in this country are felons. An overwhelming majority of those people are rapists, murderers, burglars, drug smugglers, dealers, etc. So with less than 1% of our population incarcerated are you really going to tell me that not comitting a felony is hard? I don't think so.


So let me get this straight. Let's say they did make consumption of yogurt a felony. You'd stop eating yogurt, and get on your self righteous high horse and condemn those who contintued to eat yogurt by telling them it's their fault when they lose their gun rights??

Well:rolleyes: I'd certianly stop eating yogurt because I'd rather have my Ed Brown than my cherry yoplait. I certianly wouldn't like the law, and I'd probably speak out about it, however I wouldn't feel sorry for people who took their chances. I defer to the bigboy rule.


Congratulations, that's the worst argument put forth in the entire thread so far. So why haven't you moved out of CA, you like the gun laws here. Jeez.

Umm, I never said that.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 4:59 PM
You might grow up and realize what color the sun is in this world. Then again you may not.

Again, I'm the one telling folks not to break the law and I need to grow up? I'm also not the one writing clearly bogus examples of people being convicted of felonies.


Your cut and dried black and white world does not exist. If you presist in your emotional need for it to exist it will come back and bite you in the butt. You cannot possibly be over 30, if you are it's worse than I thought and you have some learning issues.

Where did I say the world was black and white? I said that its not hard to not be convicted of a felony. The stats prove that. Thats all. The fact that you need to create these strawman arguments and put words in my mouth is very telling.


If you do not get help you will probably be institutionalized by the time you are 50.

LOL. Ok.


I know your world is the way it should be, but it's just not. Try to think outside your comfort zone a little bit and ask yourself why so many seemingly reasonable folks have taken a position counter to yours. You don't have to give up your principles, just realize what the world is like that you are dealing with. Life will be a lot easeyer and make more sense.

So you, someone on the internet who knows nothing about me and has never met me, knows about 'my world' and better yet knows how it need to be changed. Ok then.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 5:04 PM
While I agree with this in principal, it oftem makes little sense in practice, and where I differ from you is that I am capable of forgiveness. I understand that a very large percentage of young men (age 16-24 approx) do a lot of stupid/selfish/irresponsible stuff, that if they get caught, it lands them with a felony conviction. But most of them eventually grow up and take on life's responsibilities. The problem is our society's "big boy consequences" include a lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms, which IMO is cruel and unusual punishment in the exreme.

Here's the problem. Forgiveness and safeguards aren't mutually exclusive. I can forgive the person, but at the same time ensure that they don't commit future crimes.

As far as the "youth" excuse, presumably all of us here as gunowners were 16-24 once and we didn't seem to have a problem not doing something stupid enough to land us with a felony conviction. I just don't buy the argument that we need to give people a "pass" because of their age.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 5:06 PM
So someone who has made a 16" shotgun barrel and been convicted of a felony should lose their rights? I'm not buying it- good people break bad laws.

No, stupid people break bad laws... especially when there is a system and a process set forth to challenge such laws.

I'm sorry, but in the post Heller age the excuse that "the system doesn't work" is no longer valid.

redneckshootist
07-21-2008, 7:30 PM
I would be ok with felons possessing firearms.
People can change. When I was a teenager I did a lot of stupid stuff one thing I did was sold drugs. There was a deal that went bad (not gonna get into specifics of the issue) that almost got me killed. Luckly I was never convicted of any crimes. This happened when I was 17. By the time I was 18 I had sobered up and stopped selling meth. I decided that I didnt want that life and changed compleatly. Now I follow the law to the best of my ability.
Im now 29

In my opinion I think that one of the reasons for the repeat offenders is because society puts this label on them that they are a second class citizen even after they serve thier time. I think the only people that should be barred from firearms is the people currently in jail or prison.

redneckshootist
07-21-2008, 7:34 PM
Here's the problem. Forgiveness and safeguards aren't mutually exclusive. I can forgive the person, but at the same time ensure that they don't commit future crimes.

As far as the "youth" excuse, presumably all of us here as gunowners were 16-24 once and we didn't seem to have a problem not doing something stupid enough to land us with a felony conviction. I just don't buy the argument that we need to give people a "pass" because of their age.

forgiveness means that you forget, if you dont forget you arent truely forgiving them.;)

Meplat
07-21-2008, 8:08 PM
[QUOTE=STAGE 2;1376583]Again, I'm the one telling folks not to break the law and I need to grow up? I'm also not the one writing clearly bogus examples of people being convicted of felonies.[QUOTE]

Everything I have related regarding that conviction is the truth. You have just come very close to calling me a lier. You should be more careful.

nobs11
07-21-2008, 8:29 PM
My 2c on this. I don't think convicted felons should have the right to own guns. But I believe that the laws should be changed so that we don't make everyone a felon. Only people who commit violent crimes. We are too keen as a nation to make felons out of people who make bad choices even when they do not harm others. There should be punishment but we incarcerate way too many people as felons, especially drug users with no history of violent behavior.

This includes someone who is convicted for stupidity (illegally configured firearm) and drug related offenses as long as there is no violent behavior. The law is not sacred. We, the people, make them if we believe that this is a free country.

Disclaimer: I am not a drug user and never was. My worst offense has been a speeding infraction.

STAGE 2
07-21-2008, 10:55 PM
forgiveness means that you forget, if you dont forget you arent truely forgiving them.

Thats not what forgiveness means at all. To forgive someone is to to cease to feel resentment towards them. I can do that and still be aware of your actions.


Everything I have related regarding that conviction is the truth. You have just come very close to calling me a lier. You should be more careful.

Why? Several other board members have pointed out how your story as you stated it can't possibly be true. If its not true then there's only one other alternative.


Dude. Did you even read what I said. Heller was one of the *few* people that was able to get legal standing without breaking the law.

Dude. I did. And nowhere did you say anything about Heller. Nor are you correct that breaking the law is the only way to get standing.


You need to grow up man, and realize that good people get busted for doing nothing wrong all the time in this country.

Really? People are convicted of felonies for doing nothing wrong all the time? Lets see some evidence to support that.


So, I'm still waiting to hear your reponse to this one: How can you be so sure you won't ever be convicted of a felony when you are unfamiliar with literally thousands of felonies on the books right now?

Because I don't engage in illegal activity, or questionable activity. If what you say is true, then I should know someone who is a felon, or at least have one in my family. After all it happens all the time as you suggest. Well, the only felon I know is my wifes cousin who was ripping off cars back when he was 18. So I guess thats another thing we get to add to our list. Drugs, tax evasion and now grand theft auto. Not exactly a cryptic list.


Oh, and here's another one for you: when the state decides makes it a crime to do something totally benign, e.g. it's a felony to eat a ham sandwich on Sunday, are you going to follow the law lock step, proudly showing everyone by example why you'll always be allowed to own firearms? Is there any law you wouldn't follow if breaking it meant you could be convicted of a felony? Oh wait, I forgot, you would just go out and change it, right? What a joke.

Whether I'd follow a law isn't the issue. If I did decide to break a law I'd do it with the knowledge that I was risking several of my freedoms. Again we are back to the big boy rule.

You see, the problem with most "moral crusaders" is that they aren't... until they get caught. They were nice and quiet about what they were doing until uncle sam caught them with their hand in the cookie jar. That tells me that what they care about isn't some lofty concept such as rights, but merely to save their pathetic hide.

Its the folks that do things the hard way, that work within the system, are the ones that get things done.

Theseus
07-22-2008, 2:47 AM
Here's the problem. Forgiveness and safeguards aren't mutually exclusive. I can forgive the person, but at the same time ensure that they don't commit future crimes.

As far as the "youth" excuse, presumably all of us here as gunowners were 16-24 once and we didn't seem to have a problem not doing something stupid enough to land us with a felony conviction. I just don't buy the argument that we need to give people a "pass" because of their age.

Actually I do slightly disagree. I am not sure if you are aware but more and more often we are using the "legal system" to punish youngsters for things that the community used to punish for.

Example. My step-father once sat outside a PD throwing water baloons at the patrol cars. He was caught and instead of being processed and charged we was forced to wash the entire pool of the patrol cars. . .

Eample. My uncle was young and drinking in farm country and took his truck throgh a farmers corn field destroying some of the crop. Instead of being charged and sued he was forced by his parents to work 2 summers for the farmer without pay to make it right.

We have lost the common sence community approach to prevention and replaced it with law and criminal convictions. . . So I do believe that there are many cases where someone can get convicted of a felony for just being young and stupid when it could be avoided.

nobs11
07-22-2008, 3:56 AM
These two statements don't really jive. If I'm reading you right, you think that felons should not be able to own guns, but then you say that you don't agree with the current defintion of a felon. I don't get it.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Make the definition of a felon apply to individuals who have committed violent crimes and ban them from ownership. Don't make felons out of non violent offenders, and those individuals, after having done the time should have their constitutional rights restored.

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 11:26 AM
Actually I do slightly disagree. I am not sure if you are aware but more and more often we are using the "legal system" to punish youngsters for things that the community used to punish for.

Example. My step-father once sat outside a PD throwing water baloons at the patrol cars. He was caught and instead of being processed and charged we was forced to wash the entire pool of the patrol cars. . .

Eample. My uncle was young and drinking in farm country and took his truck throgh a farmers corn field destroying some of the crop. Instead of being charged and sued he was forced by his parents to work 2 summers for the farmer without pay to make it right.

We have lost the common sence community approach to prevention and replaced it with law and criminal convictions. . . So I do believe that there are many cases where someone can get convicted of a felony for just being young and stupid when it could be avoided.

They examples you just gave are largely regional. I have no doubt there are towns today in which these things still happen. I also have no doubt ther are places in which these things would never have happened.

While I agree that times have changed and communities are not as strong as they once were, there is still a massive difference between the indiscretions of youth and a felony conviction.

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 11:47 AM
I didn't say that breaking the law is the ONLY way, I said that historically it is usually the way it's done. Get it?

I get it, but you're still not correct.



Oh OK, let's see, do you know what it means to be framed? Does that happen in your perfect world? Do you know what that means? Ever heard of the Rampart division's activities here in LA? Ever read one of the billion stories of people who were taken off death row because DNA evidence showed they weren't guilty 10, sometimes 20 years after the alleged "crime". Does this exist in your perfect world? Of course, none of this stuff would ever happen to you, right?

Sorry, but thats not what we are talking about. The question is, how many people have been convicted of a felony for doing something they though was perfectly legal. You said this happens all the time. Lets see some evidence.

And as an aside, making statements like "billions of people taken off death row" doesn't do anything for your credibility. If you've got legitimate facts, then post them. Leave the hyperbole at home.


Nice dodge. Try a real answer next time.

Its not a dodge at all, you simply don't like the answer. The bottom line is this is a value judgement. Are my percieved gains worth more than the losses I will suffer. Personally, yougurt and ham sandwiches just don't cut the mustard for me. However if there was such a law that I did deem important enough to risk my freedoms for, then I would be prepared to face the consequences should I get caught.


For the last time, how can you know whether you're engaging in illegal activity, if you don't know what activities are illegal? This is a simple question of logic, stories about the activities of your wife's cousin or anyone else are irrelevant. How can you KNOW you don't engage in illegal activity if you DON'T KNOW what's illegal?

Because 99.9% of felonies conform to the smell test. Those that don't such as your ninja stars don't require any research because the information is sitting right there on the page. You'd have to go the extra mile to break the law. Thats the point. Felonies aren't designed for people to just stumble into them. They are more serious crimes that have more serious punishment because they require effort and determination.


Ninja star possession. Muzzle brakes that may or may not be "flash suppressors". Dry ice in soda bottles. Is that cryptic enough for you?

I already addressed the above. As far as the dry ice in soda bottles, could you please cite me a case in which someone was convicted of a felony for violating this crime. I dont want anything related to bomb making or explosives, just the prosecution of someone because they put dry ice in a soda bottle.

Where firearms are concerned, anything is fair game. Firearms are a highly restricted category and vary from state to state. Therefore even though someone who owns a gun doesn't know every law of every state, they are under constructive notice that there may be severe legal consequences to their actions and therefore they have a duty to make sure what they are doing complies with the law.

Of course, this sounds incredibly onerous, but as you well know its not. People don't even have to pick up a law book. All they have to do is log onto a forum like this and they will either recieve the correct answer or be sent in the right direction.

Like I said, following the law just isn't that hard which is why 99.4% of americans lead happy crime free lives.

pcesar
07-22-2008, 1:06 PM
Felons should get all their rights back after serving their time. I would not mind having a child molester teaching at my nephewís school. You should not mind eitherís since he served his time. Iím sure this felon will no long have those feeling towards children. Can you trust that felon? A felon should be allowed to own guns, since they need protection. Maybe a felon will need that gun to go rob that store down the street. If he has a gun, he wonít have to go out and get a stolen gun. Why would we want them to go buy a stolen gun, when they can have one of their own.

I cannot believe that a lot of you would like for a convicted felon to be able to own a gun. Most criminal are going to continue to commit crimes no matter what. I agreed that there are some crimes that are considered felonies that should not be. To say that all felons should get all their right is ridiculous. I want to hear from all of you who have been victims of a crime and would like the people that committed that crime against you to be able to own guns.

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 1:14 PM
Therefore, if you lead an average life, you are rolling the dice with regards to whether you'll wind up with a felony conviction. It's all just chance.

Really? Less than 1% is just chance? People are rolling the dice? Thats disingenuous at best.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you dice it, no one is rolling anything.


Most of these people are good people, who in no way deserve to have their rights taken away by smug condescending @$%&^# who think they're better than other people.

And how exactly does a private citizen take someone's rights away.


Sure, your chances of getting caught commiting murder are higher, but that's because for the time being murders are investigated/presecuted more aggressively than some kid bringing back an M80 from Mexico. But at the end of the day they're both felons.

And smuggling fireworks into the US is illegal and common knowledge. No shock there.


The point is, if you allow .gov to take away your rights if you're convicted of a felony, and then make it so the majority of the population can most likey be charged with a felony if you try hard enough, all you've done is set the government up to take away whatever rights they want, from whomever they want, whenever they want.

Except there isn't anything to support this assertion. Your opinion doesn't count.


It's pretty obvious why people like you say the things you say. It's the typical "I've got mine" syndrome, I see it all the time. You're convinced that you'll never be a felon, because you know the law (whatever that's worth) and you "follow" it. Therefore, you offer up felons as bargaining chips to the anti-gunners, selling out their rights in the hopes that you might be able to keep your guns. In the end it's just selfishness, because deep down even you must know that not all felons are dangers to society (unless you really think that Martha Stewart shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun).

Actually, its my experience with felons as well as the law that allows me to make this commentary.

And whats more, I'm holding myself to the same standards as everyone else. As a member of society I'm just as susceptible to being prosecuted as the next guy. Therefore I don't have any more of a bargaining chip than my neighbor.

So if a guy as stupid as me can keep out of trouble, then certianly other folks can too.


OK, well you just tell me what your version of history says about how slavery was ended in this country, how segregation was ended in this country, or, for that matter, how English rule was ended in this country. No law breaking involved in any of those struggles, I suppose?

OK....14th amendment and brown v board. Breaking the law doesn't get anyone anywhere. Its the process and the system that has the power to change itself. As far as the americn revolution, I really hope you aren't arguing for open insurrection cause that might cause some folks around here to think you're a wee bit out there.



There you go just making up numbers again.

Not making up anything, though I did notice that you so artfully dodged my request for some supporting data for the 'masses' of people who were convicted for felonies when they didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Unless you can prove this your entire argument fails.


I don't care if you don't respond to anything else, but I want to see these facts. Where are the millions who have been convicted for unknowingly committing a felony.

What are you talking about? What information on what "page"? You mean the penal code?

No, I mean anywhere that sells such items. Try and buy a billy club or a blowgun online and guess what its going to say. The same little icon that sits next to 15 round mags in catalogs is going to appear next to these items as well. No penal code needed.



Oh, well I guess since I don't know anybody that's been busted for building a dry ice destructive device, I guess I just doesn't happen, huh? You know, I don't know anybody who's been convicted of murder either, so I guess that doesn't happen either, right?

You keep twisting my words to fit your argument. I didn't say "show me someone you know" I said cite me a case. Show me someone who was convicted of this. Short of that you've got nothing.



Oh right, all the average person has to do is look up everything they want to do before hand on an internet forum, are you serious? First of all, the varacity of internet chat forums isn't something I'd bet my future freedom on, and second, I don't think the average person has ever been on an internet forum.

First, its spelled veracity. Second I didn't say that internet forums were the end all be all of firearms laws. What I said was that they may have the answer or could point you in the right direction. People come onto calguns all the time asking legal questions. It may not be legal advise, but its certianly helpful given the knowledge of some members here. The point was that there are many ways OTHER than looking up the actual law yourself to determine the legality of your actions.

Finally, you've got to be kidding yourself if most people don't know what an online forum is. There are probably hundreds of firearms forums, thousands of car forums, and easily millions of forums in general.

nobs11
07-22-2008, 1:26 PM
Fair enough. But the question is, with the definition of felon being what it is right now, do you agree that felons should have their gun rights taken away?

No. But the problem is that the current definition applies to violent crimes as well, so the first step would be the fix the definition of a felony, rather than restore rights for all felons. Yes, it will affect people who have not committed violent acts until the laws are changed. But I think that we should be fighting needless felony prosecution for non violent acts including retroactively expunging felony records for non violent offenses, rather than restore firearms rights to ex-felons.

Repeat DUI offender. Lose your license to drive. Not your right to bear arms.

Break and enter. You should lose your right to bear arms.

The problem is that there is currently no way to distinguish between the two. My point is that the law should be changed so that future and former DUI offenders (in this example) should no longer be characterized as felons.

Hopi
07-22-2008, 1:39 PM
All this talk reminds me that I've been lucky and smart enough to avoid being convicted of a felony.....I need to go buy another gun, pronto!

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 2:49 PM
In that nice long post you didn't bother to address the important thing, namely...

I don't care if you don't respond to anything else, but I want to see these facts. Where are the millions who have been convicted for unknowingly committing a felony.

You didn't respond to that. When pressed on your dry ice example you stated...

Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

Its real simple. Either this issue is worth arguing or its not. Clearly you think it is given the number of responses you've given. So you can't sit here and argue points ad nauseum but when pressed for evidence say its not worth your time. It doesn't work that way.

So once again lets see some evidence that this law is actually used. I've got a book on my desk of all sorts of ridiculous laws that are still on the books and still valid. For example, in one city in Ohio its illegal to run out of gas. In Nebraska its is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

I could go on but hopefully you get the point. There are all sorts of stupid laws but they aren't enforced, and even if found out they wouldn't be enforced.

In other words, its hard to be convicted of a felony. Disagree? Then lets see some bonafides.


Sure, plenty of stupid guys can stay out of trouble, just not forever. Eventually, your number will come up. That's why several pages ago we all said we would hope you'd read this thread again in 20 years.

This is just a stupid statement. If everyone's 'number' would come up then everyone would be convicted of something at some point. Most people are never convicted of anything (ignoring traffic/parking). You keep making these ridiculous statements that fly in the face of all facts. You're just not credible.

leitung
07-22-2008, 3:01 PM
If they grant ex-cons their gun rights back, then the whole GCA of '68 should be abolished. It's only fair for people that committed no crime.

Damm right! :cool:

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 5:23 PM
Stage 2:

I grow more and more weary of this BS. I'm still waiting for your response on Martha Stewart. She's a felon, do you believe she be banned for life from owning firearms, yes or no?

If she's a felon, then she loses her gun rights. Very simple. Its no secret that insider trading is illegal.

Now back to the BS. Where is your case cite? Where are your stats showing people are unknowingly convicted of felonies.

Again, either show me some bonafides or admit that you've been blowing smoke.

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 8:27 PM
Martha Stewart is a perfect case of what I'm talking about. And she wasn't busted for insider trading, she was busted for essentially saying "I didn't do it". What she didn't know was that when talking with federal agents, when you refuse to comply with their BS, they nail you for "obstruction of justice" = felony.

But of course, in your world, Martha Stewart should never be allowed to own a firearm, because "she's a felon". And of course all felons can't be trusted with firearms.

So are you telling me that you weren't aware that lying to a federal agent isn't a crime? Are you telling me that a ceo of a major corporation wouldn't know that insider trading wouldn't be aware that their activity was illegal?

Give me a break.




Need another example? How about David Olofson, who was found guilty of illegal xfer of a machinegun when he loaned somebody his semi automatic AR-15. The ATF loaded up special ammo with pistol primers and got it to double once, and voila! Felony. He was convicted, and now his gun rights are gone. But of course, in your black and white world, he's a felon, so that's all that matters.

There are plenty of threads on Olofson and the consensus is that he messed around with his firearm. You see this wasn't his first firearm violation. So he's not exactly the posterboy for "innocence" either.

Of course most gun owners know that messing with your guns can land you in jail, so thats not any surprise either.


So we are back at the start. Again I'm going to ask you if you have any evidence to support your claim that lots of people are convicted of felonies that they had no idea were crimes.

As of right now your theory is dying a quick death .

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 9:15 PM
Let's just say it together, shall we? Martha Stewart was not guilty of insider trading. Again: Martha Stewart was NOT guilty on insider trading. Do you understand yet? What she was convicted of was "obstruction of justice", and I can guarantee you she had no idea that her conversation with the federal agents would be used to convict her of a felony.

And what did she lie about? Yup, insider trading, which is illegal. Thats why she lied. She was fully aware that it was against the law to dump her shares. So she doesn't fall into your category of people who thought they were doing something perfectly legal but were convicted.


Don't even think about trying to say that she knew lying to the feds was illegal; most people think (and they are correct) that lying to the police IS legal, it's only the feds that are covered by the obscure rule forbidding "lying". Furthermore, I have yet to hear you give me one good reason why a felon like Stewart should not be allowed to own a firearm, other than the endless repetition of "felons can't own guns". That's not a reason, that's just repeating what we all already know.

More baloney. Most people are readily aware of the fact that lying to a fed is against the law. We have people like Libby, Marion Jones and dear old martha to drive this home.


So once again, don't change the subject. Be honest, show some integrity and provide evidence for your assertion that people are convicted of felonies all the time but aren't aware that they are breaking the law. That or concede you're wrong.

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 10:09 PM
I would tell your for the... what, FOURTH time, that she was NOT GUILTY of insider trading, but you just aren't getting it. I've got better things to do. Good luck, you're going to need it.

She was convicted of obstruction and making false statements to federal agents. I'm fully aware of that. However what you are refusing to acknowledge is that her false statements were made because she didn't want to come clean about her insider trading, also an illegal activity.

Either way, she was fully aware that what she was doing was illegal, otherwise she wouldn't have lied about it... get it?


So with that out of the way, do you have any actual stats or evidence or can I lump you into the ever increasing group of folks one the internet who talk a good game but don't have anything to support what they say.

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 10:22 PM
Just a note of clarification that makes what you said about Martha a bit misleading. Martha was convicted of saying that she didn't do it to her shareholders and thus defrauding them - even though she was not convicted of insider trading or making a false statement to a federal official.

It's a massively troubling conviction that basically means public company CEO's don't have first or fifth amendment rights.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2740

-Gene

STAGE 2
07-22-2008, 10:49 PM
Martha was convicted of saying that she didn't do it to her shareholders and thus defrauding them - even though she was not convicted of insider trading or making a false statement to a federal official.

Martha was convicted of making a false statement to a federal official.

BigBamBoo
07-23-2008, 7:17 AM
.....................

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 10:06 AM
Martha was convicted of making a false statement to a federal official.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mstewart/usmspb10606opn.pdf

You are correct. She was charged and not convicted on the public statement issue at Count 9 of the indictment.

It doesn't change that its amazingly dumb public policy. As you know, if you can't convict on the crime and you have to convict on the false statement, you didn't have a good case.

The Stewart point stands however that non serious felonies shouldn't be lifetime bars. I think we'd both agree that the onus should be on the convicted to go get their rights restored.

A final note having been in one of these arguments that's going nowhere and wishing I'd heeded the same advice - can you both take 24 hours before returning to the argument?

-Gene

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 10:30 AM
Right. And she, like many others out there, had no idea that a conversation with federal agents is held to a higher standard than a conversation with anyone else, including state police. Lying to federal agents is what she got busted for, that and NOTHING else. End of story.

Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. You cant sit there and tell me that the average person would think there wasn't anything wrong with lying to a federal agent. I'd go so far as to say that most people are NOT aware that its not a crime to lie to the police.

Either way, the point is that if you are lying to an LEO, regardless of who they are, you are doing something illegal. If you weren't, you wouldn't have any reason to lie.


You asked for an example, and I gave you one.

No, I asked for evidence supporting your statement that masses of people are convicted for doing something that they think it perfectly fine. Even if your example with Martha was valid, which it wasn't, thats one person.

I'm sorry, but one person doesn't constitute "masses" nor does it support the argument that 'it happens all the time'.



Predictably, you just went on spouting the same old same old. But thankfully, I'm not here to convince you; I just want to make sure that anyone else who reads what you have said will see through it, and that's good enough for me. You don't want to listen, you just want to preach about how it's OK to take guns away from all felons because you know you'll never be one... all this despite the fact that you have no knowledge of literally thousands of activities that can land you a felony conviction. Go ahead and give me one good reason why Martha Stewart should not be allowed to own a firearm, and please, justify it with something other than "well, she's a felon".

I'm finished with you.

Translated: I can't support my statement so I'll substitute it with this diatribe and duck out.

Thats ok I didn't expect anything more.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 10:40 AM
It doesn't change that its amazingly dumb public policy. As you know, if you can't convict on the crime and you have to convict on the false statement, you didn't have a good case.

Well, thats not always the case. Proving the false statement is far easier to sell to a jury than getting into securities law. Not always, but sometimes, the decision is made to avoid the complicated issue when there is a far more simple crime that carries the same or similar punishment. I dont know if that happened here but its a possibility. I do know several USA's that have done this.

Something like the Libby incident, I agree as the prosecutor knew the source of the leak prior to interviewing libby and its still questionable whether a crime actually happened. Here, however, the dumping of the shares was a separate an independent action and it was prettty clear what happened and why. Granted there was no conviction, but both you and I know why Martha did what she did.


The Stewart point stands however that non serious felonies shouldn't be lifetime bars. I think we'd both agree that the onus should be on the convicted to go get their rights restored.

But thats the problem I have. Martha was fully aware that dumping her shares was a no no. Folks that are convicted of a felony are aware that what they are doing is illegal. These people are consciously committing these crimes. So I really have a hard time with the "poor me I need my guns back".

If you value your firearms, then don't be a felon. The choice is completely theirs.


A final note having been in one of these arguments that's going nowhere and wishing I'd heeded the same advice - can you both take 24 hours before returning to the argument?

I would had my simple question been answered. I just really detest BS.

AEC1
07-23-2008, 10:45 AM
It is possable for a felon to get his rights back, same as the voting right, if I am not mistaken there are a few on this board that have done it, the big question is what crimes were you convicted of, and how long ago was it?

BigBamBoo
07-23-2008, 10:49 AM
...................

USN CHIEF
07-23-2008, 11:03 AM
Well I was convicted of a felony (two actually) back in 1990.....did my time...paid a large fine ($17,000 +)...and then got it all expunged a few years ago and now have my gun rights back.

The statement that someone who gets busted for being young and stupid will then again later in life do it again is just lame.

I am NOT that person today that I was when I was 19 years old....I have bought two house...started a few businesses....gotten married...and lots more.

It is sad that you hold yourself so high above anyone who ever did something dumb...and got caught.

Common sense does not seem to be the order of the day in the legal system now days. You can become a felon for just about anything now days....my wife works with the court system and believe me...there are hundreds of people a year just here in my town who get convicted on BS charges that 10 years ago or in another state would not have.

So....hope you don't get to put out...but this is one ex thug who owns and shoots....and will continue to do so....legally.

Peace,Stan

Stan, I am glad that you got everything worked out for you and your family.
I honestly don't believe that all felonies should prohibit people from owning firearms that is just an absurd and stupid law. Prime example with the Martha Stewart thing, that is just absurd if you believe that the way the law is written is o.k and that she should not be entitled to own a gun for the rest of her life because she committed a felony. You should just go and join the brady campaign to take guns from dangerous "Felons".
I do believe that people deserve a second chance and most times they do recover and become model citizens like Stan.

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 11:08 AM
It has been almost 30 yrs since my dad got out of jail from his felony conviction; he has not been convicted of any crime since then, yet he still cannot vote or own guns. Good thing mom can...

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 11:30 AM
Stage 2,

There's a reason nobody here agrees with you. This argument is over. Don't you have better things to do? I know I do. See ya.


Really? I don't see anyone here coming to your aid stating that people are unknowingly convicted of felonies all the time.

I do agree that this argument is over however. Actually it never even started because you refused to provide any evidence for your ridiculous assertions.

AEC1
07-23-2008, 11:48 AM
In my opinion the right to vote that is lost is 100 times more important, then you cant even vote for those that can change the other issues such as firearms etc...

AEC1
07-23-2008, 11:51 AM
Really? I don't see anyone here coming to your aid stating that people are unknowingly convicted of felonies all the time.

I do agree that this argument is over however. Actually it never even started because you refused to provide any evidence for your ridiculous assertions.


I got his six... I know of 3 others that have been convicted of "felonies" that should not have lost thier gun rights. Duke Cunningham comes to mind. How does a politician who sucumbed to financial temptation posr a threat by owning a gun? he doesnt, what he did is a felony and should be, it was a terrible misuse of the publics trust, however he should still be able to protect himself and his familiy should the need arrise (when he gets out that is...)

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 11:54 AM
I don't care if the felony was a violent crime involving a firearm. Once your 'debt to society' is paid, that's it. Prohibited persons who are intent on continuing to be violent will have no problem getting firearms, so why make it illegal for the ex-cons that just want to keep themselves and their family safe?

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 12:03 PM
Really? I don't see anyone here coming to your aid . . . .


Can't be bothered to waste my breath. Some people see only in black and white, and ignore the shades of grey.

The older I get, the more I realize that shades of grey are all that there are.

BigBamBoo
07-23-2008, 12:09 PM
.................

BigBamBoo
07-23-2008, 12:11 PM
....................

pcesar
07-23-2008, 12:18 PM
I don't care if the felony was a violent crime involving a firearm. Once your 'debt to society' is paid, that's it. Prohibited persons who are intent on continuing to be violent will have no problem getting firearms, so why make it illegal for the ex-cons that just want to keep themselves and their family safe?


What about debt to the victim? Debt to society is when someone commits a crime that does not specifically affect someone. What about when someone is a rape victim. Should that criminal be allowed to own guns when he supposedly paid his debt? Hell no, there is no way that someone can pay their debt to a victim like this. Child molesters, robbers, rapist, murderers and others violent criminals cannot pay their debt. If you believe they can, you have never been a victim.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 12:40 PM
I got his six... I know of 3 others that have been convicted of "felonies" that should not have lost thier gun rights. Duke Cunningham comes to mind. How does a politician who sucumbed to financial temptation posr a threat by owning a gun? he doesnt, what he did is a felony and should be, it was a terrible misuse of the publics trust, however he should still be able to protect himself and his familiy should the need arrise (when he gets out that is...)

Then you haven't been paying attention. The question isn't whether non violent felons should have their gun rights back. The question is are there in fact people who are convicted of felonies for doing things they thought were perfectly legal. Cunningham was fully aware that his actions were illegal. Thus he isn't an example.

Blackrazor says there are droves of people who have been convicted of felonies by doing things they thought were legal. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever of this. Not one.


Amen.

Amen to what? How about an amen to the fact that you couldn't provide me with a cite to anyone who has evern been convicted of putting dry ice in a soda bottle. How about the fact that you haven't shown me masses of people that have been convicted of unknowingly committing felonies.

Right now I'm thinking it would be a religious miracle if you could provide any evidence for your argument

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 12:41 PM
Can't be bothered to waste my breath. Some people see only in black and white, and ignore the shades of grey.

The older I get, the more I realize that shades of grey are all that there are.

To steal a quote, not black and white, but right and wrong.

Hopi
07-23-2008, 12:52 PM
To steal a quote, not black and white, but right and wrong.

Curiously, related to 'right and wrong', is following laws 'right' and/or disobeying them 'wrong'? Is it that simple? Is that what i understand from your last post?

Is the decision implied above a question of morality, personal interest, or civic duty?

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 12:55 PM
To steal a quote, not black and white, but right and wrong.

Angels and demons. Most of us are somewhere in between the two. Nobody is totally God-like, and nobody is totally satanic. Shades of grey.

And the original argument wasn't whether anyone had been convicted for putting dry ice in a bottle, but whether most of us had, at some time or other, done something we shouldn't have done and whether such activity should bar us from firearm ownership for life. Again, I say, shades of grey.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 12:56 PM
Curiously, related to 'right and wrong', is following laws 'right' and/or disobeying them 'wrong'? Is it that simple? Is that what i understand from your last post?

Is the decision implied above a question of morality, personal interest, or civic duty?

While it is beyond the scope of this discussion, largely yes following the laws is "right" at least while there is a viable process for challenging them and having them repealed. Thats why as gun owners, we are going throught the courts instead of sawing off our barrels and tweaking our rifles.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 1:02 PM
Angels and demons. Most of us are somewhere in between the two. Nobody is totally God-like, and nobody is totally satanic. Shades of grey.

But you don't need to be god-like to avoid run ins with the law. And i strongly disagree with the latter assertion that nobody is totally satanic. 5 minutes on the nightly news disproves this assertion.



And the original argument wasn't whether anyone had been convicted for putting dry ice in a bottle, but whether most of us had, at some time or other, done something we shouldn't have done and whether such activity should bar us from firearm ownership for life. Again, I say, shades of grey.

But what you shouldn't have done was your choice. You did it knowing that you were placing your freedoms in jeopardy. That apparently wasn't enough of a justification to stop.

Therefore I can only conclude that someone who went ahead and committed the felony didn't really value their rights (which is more than just firearms). So if you didn't care about them then, why should I think you care about them now.

Everyone complains when something has been taken away. However what you did when you had them tells me loads more than the whining you are doing now that you don't.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 2:46 PM
Stage 2, this has gone on so long, I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely asking you to provide some support for your statement that there are many people who are convicted of felonies for doing something they thought was legal.

Its a really simple question, and your refusal to either A) answer it or B) admit you don't have any support displays your dishonesty.

Step up to the plate and lets see some integrity.

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 3:08 PM
I have a friend who regularly drives around his home state of Utah with a loaded revolver in his truck. Perfectly legal. He's a mature adult, member of his church, law-abiding family man.

He came on a trip out here, and didn't realize he should do anything different. He was horrified when I told him that he was committing a felony. It never occurred to him that California didn't allow this.

He was lucky, he didn't get caught. Had he been stopped and some cop saw the revolver he might well have been jailed and lost his rights to vote and to own guns forever. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Personally, I think that a warning would be sufficient, but according to Stage 2, nobody ever commits a felony without being fully aware of the consequences. B.S. I say.

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 3:28 PM
I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely asking you to provide some support for your statement that there are many people who are convicted of felonies for doing something they thought was legal.


18 year old female performing oral sex on a 17 year old male. Convictions are rare, but it is a felony.

Don Kate's example - not mine: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gun_rights_for_felons__120908.htm

-Gene

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 3:30 PM
He came on a trip out here, and didn't realize he should do anything different. He was horrified when I told him that he was committing a felony. It never occurred to him that California didn't allow this.

Then I'd say he's woefully ignorant of the law. Firearms are highly restricted items, especially when crossing state lines. Doubly so when coming to a nazi state like california.

No one would find it shocking that different states have different laws regarding firearms. Thats why we have so many "can I bring this here" threads and thats why people check the applicable laws before travelling with their guns. No surprise here.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 3:34 PM
18 year old female performing oral sex on a 17 year old male. Convictions are rare, but it is a felony.

Are you trying to make the case that the illegality of an adult performing sexual acts with a minor is something largely unknown? Do you really want to use that as your cornerstone?

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 3:37 PM
Good example, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

So according to you, the fact that a state like california has very restrictive gun laws is both surprising and difficult to know.

I'm beginning to understand why you think avoiding a conviction is difficult.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 3:41 PM
BWa ha ha ha! This just keeps getting better all the time. You've been literally flooded with examples, and you just keep up with the denial. Why don't you just quit while you're ahead. An 18 yr old should know that having sex with her 17 yr old boyfriend, even if they are only two weeks apart in age, should know that such an act is a felony?!!? LOL!

So just for the record, you weren't aware that having sex with a minor was illegal? You've never heard the old joke "I swear she was 18". You are really that sheltered?

So I guess we can add statutory rape to the list of "secret" felonies that you believe are sneaking up on people.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 3:56 PM
Hey man, I'm just trying to keep a tally here. So we have tax evasion, bomb making, travelling interstate with firearms, and now statutory rape.

Anything else you want to add to the list of things that you are surprised are illegal?

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 4:12 PM
Oh yes, I don't know if Stage 2 ever goes to Arizona, but I understand that it is illegal to lick toads there. From the surprised reactions I've seen when I've passed this tidbit of information onto people, very few Californians know this.

Can you imagine Stage 2 phoning the Az police, "Excuse me, when I visit, are there any laws I should know about concerning licking toads? Anything else I should know about how your laws differ from ours?"

Come off it.

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 4:20 PM
No no, don't discourage him, this is getting better all the time!

Well, there is that aspect of it.

How can anyone reach maturity while thinking that he, and every other right-thinking person, never ever (knowingly or unknowingly) puts a foot out of line and never, ever, crosses state lines without memorizing the laws over there.

He can't be for real.

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 4:34 PM
So according to you, the fact that a state like california has very restrictive gun laws is both surprising and difficult to know.

I'm beginning to understand why you think avoiding a conviction is difficult.

Actually, my friends in Utah think that I'm joking. They find it next to impossible to believe the mess we're in over here. They told me to try phoning the local sheriff's office and reporting "Man with gun." They said I'd be laughed out of town.

And no, I never said avoiding a conviction is difficult, I just said that many, if not most, of us have done something that might have gotten us into trouble at some time in our life.

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 6:36 PM
So just for the record, you weren't aware that having sex with a minor was illegal? You've never heard the old joke "I swear she was 18". You are really that sheltered?

The majority of states of a sliding age window for such things so that when two persons under 20 and the youngest is over 16 have any variety of sex, its not a crime. It's a quirk under CA law as most types of sex in CA has that sliding window.

Are you going to defend making oral sex between 17 and 18 year olds a felony when two 17 year olds or two 18 year olds performing the same act haven't committed a crime?

Actually I know from experience you will not answer the facts or hypotheticals you don't like. Note that the manual says thats a bad way to handle a judge...

-Gene

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 6:50 PM
What about debt to the victim? Debt to society is when someone commits a crime that does not specifically affect someone. What about when someone is a rape victim. Should that criminal be allowed to own guns when he supposedly paid his debt? Hell no, there is no way that someone can pay their debt to a victim like this. Child molesters, robbers, rapist, murderers and others violent criminals cannot pay their debt. If you believe they can, you have never been a victim.

The same argument could be made for releasing them from prison in the first place. Their debt to victim is not paid, yet we're talking about letting them loose on the streets. Why pick and choose what part of the punishment remains? I say it should be all or nothing.

I agree that there are certain burdens that cannot ever be repaid, and for that reason I think certain offenses should never permit release of the offender. However, those offenses where the debt can be repaid should allow for full restoration of rights upon payment of the debt to society. The tricky part is where to draw the line.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 7:39 PM
Oh yes, I don't know if Stage 2 ever goes to Arizona, but I understand that it is illegal to lick toads there. From the surprised reactions I've seen when I've passed this tidbit of information onto people, very few Californians know this.

And I already gave examples of ridiculous laws that are on the books, valid, but never enforced. So unless A) licking toads is a felony and B) people are actually prosecuted for it, your example has no bearing on this conversation.


Let's see, here in CA, if some kids put dry ice in a coke bottle, that's not fun, that's BOMB MAKING!!!

Lets see the statute. I'm willing to bet that simply putting dry ice in a soda can isn't illegal. I'm willing to bet that there is an intent component for making a bomb. Of course there's also it issue of people actually being prosecuted for it.

Do you have any cites? Should I hold my breath?


Oh, well I'm sure if he did travel out of state, he would be sure to go on every chat forum possible first, to help get some direction on the legality of each and every activity he planned on participating in. After all, that's what all reasonable people do.

I tell you what. Any gun owner who travels with his firearms and doesn't look up the applicable laws of the state he is traveling to is both stupid and negligent. Its no secret that firearms are a highly regulated item. So if you're going to go galavanting around the union with your hog leg, then you'd better make sure its legal.

Of course who am I to point out common sense measures:rolleyes:



Oh, well I'm sure if he did travel out of state, he would be sure to go on every chat forum possible first, to help get some direction on the legality of each and every activity he planned on participating in. After all, that's what all reasonable people do.

So all the people traveling to cali or who are planning to move here that post questions on calguns about what they can bring are stupid? They should just come here with their bushmasters and 15 round mags and claim ignorance when caught?

Asking questions about thing you do is bad? Thats what you seem to be saying.


And no, I never said avoiding a conviction is difficult, I just said that many, if not most, of us have done something that might have gotten us into trouble at some time in our life.

But others here have. The argument has been made that people are convicted of felonies all the time for doing things they thought were legal. So far thats been proven false.

I dont doubt that people have done stupid things at one point or another. However there is a world of difference between doing stupid things and being convicted of a felony. The very fact that 99% of us on this board aren't felons sort of proves that.


Are you going to defend making oral sex between 17 and 18 year olds a felony when two 17 year olds or two 18 year olds performing the same act haven't committed a crime?

Whether I think making sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old a felony is a good thing isn't the issue. The issue is that its common knowledge that messing around with a minor as an adult will land you in trouble.

Thats the entire point. A person doesn't need to be able to cite the section of the penal code and know the law verbatim. They merely need to know what things probably aren't a good idea and what areas they should exercise some due dilligence and research further. In other words, the smell test.

Messing around with a minor doesn't pass the smell test by a long shot.



Actually I know from experience you will not answer the facts or hypotheticals you don't like. Note that the manual says thats a bad way to handle a judge...

I'll answer any hypothetical you like Gene. If you're stuck on the sex issue, no I don't think that some senior in high school should be a felon because he was in the back seat of his car with his girl friend after the game. The law should distinguish between a predator and a boyfriend.

However that doesn't have anything to do with the issue of people being blindsided by the law. Breaking a law because you disagree with it, or because you don't think you'll get caught is totally different than not knowing your actions are illegal.

As far as dealing with the judge, the courtroom spit and polish comes with my fee, so y'all are getting what you've paid for.

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 7:46 PM
Whether I think making sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old a felony is a good thing isn't the issue.

But that is the issue. Tonight quite a few people will commit a felony in California. Granted that most of them will not get caught, but...

And that smell test you were talking about? Making oral sex between 17 and 18 year olds a felony doesn't pass it either.

-Gene

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 7:47 PM
As far as dealing with the judge, the courtroom spit and polish comes with my fee, so y'all are getting what you've paid for.

PM me your address so I can send you a bill because listening sure isn't free...

-Gene

ke6guj
07-23-2008, 7:55 PM
Lets see the statute. I'm willing to bet that simply putting dry ice in a soda can isn't illegal. I'm willing to bet that there is an intent component for making a bomb. Of course there's also it issue of people actually being prosecuted for it.

Just posting the statute, don't know about the enforcement of it.

12301. (a) The term "destructive device," as used in this chapter, shall include any of the following weapons:
(6) Any sealed device containing dry ice (CO2) or other chemically reactive substances assembled for the purpose of causing an explosion by a chemical reaction.

redneckshootist
07-23-2008, 7:58 PM
here you go stage2 dry ice bomb
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060404-1536-bn04bombs.html

redneckshootist
07-23-2008, 8:00 PM
and another
http://cbs5.com/crime/dry.ice.bombs.2.739776.html

redneckshootist
07-23-2008, 8:02 PM
one more
http://www.freelancenews.com/news/246453-police-blotter-dry-ice-bomb-injures-girl

all three were found with a google search

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 8:06 PM
But that is the issue. Tonight quite a few people will commit a felony in California. Granted that most of them will not get caught, but...

And that smell test you were talking about? Making oral sex between 17 and 18 year olds a felony doesn't pass it either.

-Gene

But that is the issue. You cant sit there and tell me that most men aren't aware of statutory rape. You just can't. As I said before, its such common knowledge that its a running joke.

And you also addressed the other issue, namely that people aren't being hauled into court and convicted of felonies because of messing around. The only thing that comes to mind is that kid in georgia who's serving 10 years for getting some from his girlfriend.

Law enforcement doesn't go around trying to break up high high school relationships with all of the rapists, drug dealers and murderers out there.

Again the assertion was that this "happens all the time". If you and I are going to be honest, this does NOT happen all the time. It happens rarely, if ever.

Of course, if we step back for a little bit and use some common sense, this should be painfully clear. If it was the case that people were convicted of obscure felonies all the time, they couldn't, by definition be obscure. They would be common knowledge because people would be regularly prosecuted.

The reason things like dry ice in bottles and toad licking aren't common knowledge is that they aren't used. And that brings us to the other issue. Police and DA's are people too. They aren't walking rolodexes of the law as has been shown here time and again. They have a hard enough time keeping track of regularly used laws, much less these abberations.

In other words, licking a toad in AZ in front of a cop is going to get you a wierd look. Nothing else.


PM me your address so I can send you a bill because listening sure isn't free...

Well I'm certianly not twisting your leg to click on the thread so you're going to have to own that one.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 8:09 PM
here you go stage2 dry ice bomb
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060404-1536-bn04bombs.html

Exactly my point, which is why I said...

I'm willing to bet that there is an intent component for making a bomb.

The statute confirms that as it states...

assembled for the purpose of causing an explosion by a chemical reaction.

So truthfully, the crime ISN'T placing dry ice in a soda bottle. The crime is making a bomb, which should be painfully obvious to everyone here that it is an illegal activity.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 8:17 PM
Stage 2,

You know how to tell when you've lost an argument? When everybody disagrees with you. This is just a guess, but it might have something to do with your over-the-top, black and white, "I know the law, and anyone who doesn't is stupid" attitude you keep trying to ram down everyone's throat. Didn't anyone tell you that's not how to make friends? You might want to consider just letting this go, before you make things ever worse for yourself. This is starting to get painful to watch (although, like a trainwreck, I just can't seem to look away!).


Sorry, but again, when the facts come forward you are continually proven wrong.

You stated that merely putting dry ice in a soda bottle is illegal. As we can see here, thats not the case. Till 2 minutes ago I had never seen that statute, yet using some common sense, I was able to reason that there was something more than putting dry ice in a bottle.

I suppose that you are now going to argue that most people don't know that making bombs and setting them off is against the law.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 8:21 PM
LOL! He keep on trying! You have to give him that! Hey Stage 2, tell me, just how can you put dry ice in a soda bottle and NOT make a bomb, huh?

You've never made smoke from dry ice?


ummm, sorry, wrong again! "Dry ice bombs" are actually legal in most other states.

Don't change the subject. Your words were...

Putting dry ice in a pepsi bottle is a felony.

Thats not remotely correct. What is illegal is to make a bomb using dry ice. I can stick dry ice in bottles all day long and be perfectly fine. I can even have an accident and still be ok. The state would need to prove that I intentionally tried to make the bottle explode.

You keep changing the scope of the argument to suit your needs because you can't support what you say. You were wrong on this, and you are wrong when you say people are convicted of felonies all the time doing things they thought were legal.

Again we come back to the issue of honesty and integrity. You don't seem to have any.

redneckshootist
07-23-2008, 8:22 PM
Sorry, but again, when the facts come forward you are continually proven wrong.

You stated that merely putting dry ice in a soda bottle is illegal. As we can see here, thats not the case. Till 2 minutes ago I had never seen that statute, yet using some common sense, I was able to reason that there was something more than putting dry ice in a bottle.

I suppose that you are now going to argue that most people don't know that making bombs and setting them off is against the law.

Ive made these things many times and up untill a few months ago I didnt know it was illegal since there is no chemical reaction. your right though you cant just put dry ice in a bottle and expect it to explode you have to put the cap on too :rolleyes: but thats it. It explodes cause of pressure when the ice melts.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 8:26 PM
Ive made these things many times and up untill a few months ago I didnt know it was illegal since there is no chemical reaction. your right though you cant just put dry ice in a bottle and expect it to explode you have to put the cap on too :rolleyes: but thats it. It explodes cause of pressure when the ice melts.

So let me ask an obvious question. Would you think that you might be breaking a law by building one of these and leaving it to explode at someone elses house like the kids in your article did?

Also do you think that the police are going door to door asking whether you have any dry ice in bottles or if you have set them off on your property?

redneckshootist
07-23-2008, 8:37 PM
So let me ask an obvious question. Would you think that you might be breaking a law by building one of these and leaving it to explode at someone elses house like the kids in your article did?

I havent made one in years (since I was a teen) but at the time when I was making them nobody was hurt nothing was damaged except the bottle, so no I didnt think it was illegal.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 8:42 PM
I havent made one in years (since I was a teen) but at the time when I was making them nobody was hurt nothing was damaged except the bottle, so no I didnt think it was illegal.

You didn't answer my question. If you did what these kids did (setting off a bomb at one of your teachers houses) do you think that you might get in trouble.

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 8:44 PM
But that is the issue. You cant sit there and tell me that most men aren't aware of statutory rape. You just can't. As I said before, its such common knowledge that its a running joke.


You're deaf or blind as the case may be. I specifically told you that 18 year old men and especially 18 year old women don't expect to be guilty of a felony for performing oral sex on a 17 year old.

I've now said that twice. Will you require a third time to relent after having a specific example pointed out to you?

Me and Don Kates. Morons. :rolleyes:

-Gene

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 8:45 PM
Hey, they made a dry ice bomb on MythBusters.

Wonder where that was filmed, as I believe they are Los Angeles based (at least, several of the locations I can identify are local).

Maybe they should be arrested! Caught on film no less!

I've also seen official film of cars being exploded (fertilizer and diesel fuel) by the Sheriff's department (for training explosives investigators). Don't remember seeing an exemption for that in the laws.

redneckshootist
07-23-2008, 8:49 PM
You didn't answer my question. If you did what these kids did (setting off a bomb at one of your teachers houses) do you think that you might get in trouble.
I would have thought it would have been a vandalism charge not making destructive devise. Those kids werent charged with vandalism. They were charge with making a bomb.

Glock22Fan
07-23-2008, 8:57 PM
I havent made one in years (since I was a teen) but at the time when I was making them nobody was hurt nothing was damaged except the bottle, so no I didnt think it was illegal.

When I was a teen (in a different continent) we used to make percussion explosive out of sugar and another readily available oxydizing compound. We used to trap it between two bolts in a nut and then throw it into the street (suburban neighborhood).

I stopped after I shot a 6" by 1/2" bolt high over the top of my two story house (found it later in the back yard); I realized how badly that would have hurt if it had hit someone. Up to that point, it was a fun experiment. No idea if it was legal, but in hindsight I doubt it.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 9:48 PM
You're deaf or blind as the case may be. I specifically told you that 18 year old men and especially 18 year old women don't expect to be guilty of a felony for performing oral sex on a 17 year old.

Well I disagree with that statement Gene. I think kids are aware. I just think that they don't believe that they will be caught. We used to joke about it in high school, especially with guys that were dating juniors or sophmores. So aware isnt the issue.

The issue is enforcement. And by your own admission, people just aren't convicted under this statute very much, if at all. Certianly not enough to constitute "all the time" which was the original contention.

STAGE 2
07-23-2008, 9:49 PM
Hey, they made a dry ice bomb on MythBusters.

Wonder where that was filmed, as I believe they are Los Angeles based (at least, several of the locations I can identify are local).

Maybe they should be arrested! Caught on film no less!

I've also seen official film of cars being exploded (fertilizer and diesel fuel) by the Sheriff's department (for training explosives investigators). Don't remember seeing an exemption for that in the laws.

There are always exemptions for film studios and TV shows. If you watch mythbusters they actually tell you this right on the show.

CA_Libertarian
07-24-2008, 11:42 AM
Before we were married, my wife and I dated during high school. She thought I was joking when I told her she was committing a felony by having sex with me (she is less than 9 months older than me, and at the time I was 17 and she was 18). She was truly shocked when she finally figured out it wasn't a joke.

Luckily the 'authorities' never found out (and luckily it being a 'felony' didn't deter her).

tyrist
07-24-2008, 5:25 PM
You can take a bottle, load it with dry ice and wrap tape with nails around it. Now you have a legitamate bomb.

Meplat
07-24-2008, 6:30 PM
Oh yes, I don't know if Stage 2 ever goes to Arizona, but I understand that it is illegal to lick toads there. From the surprised reactions I've seen when I've passed this tidbit of information onto people..........




Wait a minute!! I think youíre onto something here! Stage two is a toad licker! He has all the symptoms. He doesnít know itís illegal! And the toad excretions cause people to loose all touch with reality!!!!! I canít believe I didnít figure it out before! :eek:

STAGE 2
07-24-2008, 6:44 PM
Wait a minute!! I think youíre onto something here! Stage two is a toad licker! He has all the symptoms. He doesnít know itís illegal! And the toad excretions cause people to loose all touch with reality!!!!! I canít believe I didnít figure it out before! :eek:

I see your maturity matches your honesty.

STAGE 2
07-24-2008, 6:45 PM
You can take a bottle, load it with dry ice and wrap tape with nails around it. Now you have a legitamate bomb.

Or you can skip the nails and just use a glass bottle.

AEC1
07-24-2008, 7:09 PM
I will now unsubscribe, Stage 2 you argue worse then my 9 year old...

Meplat
07-25-2008, 7:13 AM
I see your maturity matches your honesty.


A t least I tried to incorporate a little levity into the discussion.

You called me lire; I thinking I had at least one cheep shop coming.

Buy the way when BlackRazor backed you into a corner a while back all you could do was critisize his spelling. Spelling critique is the last refuge of immature zealots when their point is rapidly disintegrating around them.

STAGE 2
07-25-2008, 10:35 AM
A t least I tried to incorporate a little levity into the discussion.

You called me lire; I thinking I had at least one cheep shop coming.

Buy the way when BlackRazor backed you into a corner a while back all you could do was critisize his spelling. Spelling critique is the last refuge of immature zealots when their point is rapidly disintegrating around them.

Must... restrain... self... from... correcting... spelling....

As far as being backed into a corner, one has to make a valid point. That has yet to happen.

Meplat
07-25-2008, 10:19 PM
Must... restrain... self... from... correcting... spelling....



LOL!!!!!!!! I have been on the road all week working 14+ hr. Days. It was late and I butchered that badly. At least you are trying. It will get easier.

Meplat
07-25-2008, 10:29 PM
I think I will give up on this train wreck. No one is going to convince Two Stage. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it waists your time and it annoys the pig. The really tragic thing is that he is only the tip of the iceberg. Too many people think like this.:p