PDA

View Full Version : MI Supreme Court: Armed self defense OK for Felons


Librarian
07-30-2010, 8:42 AM
At least, the felon can invoke SD as a defense and have it taken seriously, presuming the right set of facts are presented.

Volokh (http://volokh.com/2010/07/29/self-defense-as-a-defense-against-a-charge-of-being-a-felon-in-possession-of-a-gun/) has the reference to People v Dupree (http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/04-10/139396/139396-Opinion.pdf).

The court says (I re-paragraphed it a bit)In this criminal case, we hold that the traditional common law affirmative defense of self-defense may be interposed to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f.

Defendant temporarily possessed a firearm in violation of the felon-in- possession statute but introduced evidence at trial supporting the theory that his violation was justified because he acted in self-defense. The prosecutor did not resist defendant’s argument regarding the availability of self-defense, and the trial court gave a standard self-defense jury instruction. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court also instructed
the jury regarding the momentary innocent possession defense to the charge of being a felon in possession. The jury convicted defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the common law affirmative defenses of self-defense and duress are generally available to a defendant charged with being a felon in possession if supported by sufficient evidence.1

We originally granted leave to consider whether any of the traditional common law affirmative defenses are available for a charge of felon-in-possession and, if so, whether the defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. We conclude, however, that only the common law affirmative defense of self-defense was properly raised before the trial court. Limiting our analysis to the issue preserved below, we agree with the Court of Appeals that self-defense is generally available for a felon-in- possession charge if supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant introduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he violated the felon-in- possession statute but that his violation could be justified because he honestly and reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger and that it was necessary for him to exercise force to protect himself. Therefore, we hold that self-defense is an available defense under these facts.
No references to either Heller or McDonald in the opinion. Dupree gets reconsideration on the felon in possession charge (remanded to lower court).

choprzrul
07-30-2010, 8:57 AM
Amazing how quickly the courts have embraced the 2A as a fundamental right. 2010 has been an amazing year so far. I wonder what the next 5 months will bring.

dantodd
07-30-2010, 9:02 AM
So, if felons have a right to use a firearm in self-defense why can they not possess unless the threat is immediate?

Barabas
07-30-2010, 9:02 AM
Nice! A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

shooting4life
07-30-2010, 9:03 AM
This is good to hear.

wash
07-30-2010, 9:04 AM
I hope this is a prelude to the Lautenberg amendment going down.

Glock22Fan
07-30-2010, 9:04 AM
Is this the same case where a felon got off a while back because he grabbed his g/f's mother's gun to defend the three of them from attack?

Glock22Fan
07-30-2010, 9:06 AM
So, if felons have a right to use a firearm in self-defense why can they not possess unless the threat is immediate?

Maybe a similar reason that Overturf was allowed to "have" a firearm, but not allowed to "carry" one on the public portion of property he owned?

The law can be an (insert three letter alternative name beginning with "a" for a donkey) from time to time.

(I do hate it when the "bad word" filter filters out words that aren't bad used in the context I want to use them in. This example, common name for a cat (as used in the innocuous "stop p***y footing around", things like that. When I taught at a university, they made the firewall block the word "Br**st". Really upset the researchers that were researching Br**st cancer.)

fnslpmark112
07-30-2010, 9:11 AM
This is awesome news for several reasons.

1. Felonies are a dime a dozen. You would be surprised at the small crimes that are felonies.

2. If you commit a crime. You should pay. You should be punished firmly and justly. Then, we you are set free, you should be free. You should have all your rights.

3. The gov't has been taking away our rights (non felons) for years by demanding that we (non felons) give up our rights because of all the "bad" people they have let go.

People are free or they should be in jail. No in betweens.

P.S. That means the death penalty for murders, child abusers ect...

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 9:13 AM
Believe it or not, the California Supreme Court ruled that a prohibited person may engage in armed self-defense a long time ago. Of course, it put several conditions on the circumstances in which such a person would be excepted from prosecution (e.g., the firearm came into the prohibited person's possession from another, the prohibited person cannot have put himself in that position, etc.) See People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12.

wash
07-30-2010, 9:23 AM
People are free or they should be in jail. No in betweens.
In a perfect world, there would be no criminals.

In this imperfect world, I don't think that idea is too practical.

Our actions should have repercussions and if you know that comitting a felony is going to remove your second amendment rights and you do it anyway, you deserve to lose those rights.

Of course not all felonies and in my opinion, not any misdermeanor should carry a lifetime removal of your civil rights.

There should be a lot more common sense on the punishment side of the law.

wheels
07-30-2010, 9:56 AM
This is awesome news for several reasons.

1. Felonies are a dime a dozen. You would be surprised at the small crimes that are felonies.

2. If you commit a crime. You should pay. You should be punished firmly and justly. Then, we you are set free, you should be free. You should have all your rights.

3. The gov't has been taking away our rights (non felons) for years by demanding that we (non felons) give up our rights because of all the "bad" people they have let go.

People are free or they should be in jail. No in betweens.

P.S. That means the death penalty for murders, child abusers ect...

I guess this idea is something that has been in the back on my mind. If you remove a persons ability to protect themselves forever, I think the crime should be serious enough to call for the death penalty. You have removed their right to life at that point.

Since I see our prisons as institutions of higher learning for criminals, I'd like to have a bunk in a tent in the desert for every criminal - make it painful to be a criminal - not a trip to the spa.

socal2310
07-30-2010, 10:03 AM
Is this the same case where a felon got off a while back because he grabbed his g/f's mother's gun to defend the three of them from attack?

No, the case you're referring to happened in the Los Angeles area. He was arrested, but prosecutors elected not to press charges because it was a clear case of self defense. They didn't even charge him in connection with his brief standoff with police after the incident.

Ryan

OleCuss
07-30-2010, 10:11 AM
Believe it or not, the California Supreme Court ruled that a prohibited person may engage in armed self-defense a long time ago. Of course, it put several conditions on the circumstances in which such a person would be excepted from prosecution (e.g., the firearm came into the prohibited person's possession from another, the prohibited person cannot have put himself in that position, etc.) See People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12.

Thank you for the info. 'Tis encouraging that the California courts sometimes do fairly sensible things on contentious issues.

7x57
07-30-2010, 10:59 AM
Our actions should have repercussions and if you know that comitting a felony is going to remove your second amendment rights and you do it anyway, you deserve to lose those rights.


The problem with this is that there are only two kinds of felons--those on a course back to prison, and those who wish to stay out. Unless you wish to accept the gun-banner argument that criminals will obey the law, the law has no effect on the first group. They are planning more crimes, and they won't care about the law any more than they did the first time.

So the only effect is on the second group. But what is that effect? Unless you wish to accept the gun-banner argument that guns case more crime by their mere presence, the only effect is to make staying clean more difficult. They have worse "friends" than I do, and they are much more likely to genuinely need self-defense. This is particularly true if they have some kind of family, in which case we are also making it harder for them to choose to take responsibility for that family.

Finally, we even have evidence that this is not a problem. Alaska has no felon-in-possession statute, and the feds can't and don't enforce the federal one, and we had a former AK CLE tell us that they didn't worry about felons with guns and never had a problem because of it.

So tell me--objectively, what good is this law doing again?

As a practical matter, we're going to have to throw the felons under the bus for at least a generation and keep the sane gun-rights organizations far, far away from cases with this kind of "color." That much is clear, and I'm absolutely not talking about us doing anything about this, at least in a publicly visible way. But I'm not a lawyer, I just want to know the truth. Tell me what good the law is doing besides giving us cover to be "tough on crime" without taking away the rights of the non-felons?

7x57

wash
07-30-2010, 11:16 AM
I understand your point, but the idea behind felon in posession laws is to have a fast track back to the pokey for felons that get out and still can't play nice.

It's an open and shut case for a parole violation.

Just think, if we eventually get LOC and some felon thugs start packing and intimidating people (without actually brandishing or at least nothing that can be proven), that would be a bad situation.

Any way, as a responsible (mostly) gun owner, I just won't commit any felonies and will keep my guns.

7x57
07-30-2010, 11:28 AM
I understand your point, but the idea behind felon in posession laws is to have a fast track back to the pokey for felons that get out and still can't play nice.


"Can't play nice"? That can only mean one of three things:

1. The felon did something else bad, not related to the gun. In that case, the charge needs to be for that other act, even just to preserve the integrity of the law.

2. The felon did something else that isn't a crime, but is "bad." That means you've created a discretionary enforcement situation, which is *always* a recipe for oppression. Free people don't put people at risk of arbitrary administrative choices. Make it a crime or give up trying to regulate it.

3. It is the possession which you regard as not playing nice, in which case everything I said before applies.


It's an open and shut case for a parole violation.

Just think, if we eventually get LOC and some felon thugs start packing and intimidating people (without actually brandishing or at least nothing that can be proven), that would be a bad situation.


You want the state to penalize for acts that can't be proven? We have a Constitution in large part precisely to prevent that, even at the cost of letting some felons go free.


Any way, as a responsible (mostly) gun owner, I just won't commit any felonies and will keep my guns.

As I said, for practical reasons we're throwing these guys under the bus. But I don't think it makes any *actual* sense nor does it do anything but provide political cover. I think we should be uncomfortable with that, even though we have to do it.

7x57

CCWFacts
07-30-2010, 11:31 AM
Believe it or not, the California Supreme Court ruled that a prohibited person may engage in armed self-defense a long time ago. Of course, it put several conditions on the circumstances in which such a person would be excepted from prosecution (e.g., the firearm came into the prohibited person's possession from another, the prohibited person cannot have put himself in that position, etc.) See People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12.

Yes, felons have a right to armed self-defense in California. It is an extremely restricted right, and it's a defense after the fact, but they do have the right in certain very narrow circumstances. If you read "How to own a gun and stay out of jail in California" they have a chapter that explains in detail. From memory, it basically needs to be an immediate threat, and the felon has to be blameless (not have done anything to create or get into the situation) and he needs to only possess the gun for the minimal possible amount of time. But read the book for a more detailed explanation of the restrictions and case law.

wash
07-30-2010, 11:46 AM
Hmm, maybe pasadena is a little too far away from LA for you to see the gangs.

It's pretty obvious who's ganged up and who's not.

So lets say a gang member comits a felony, for example, he's (or she, but lets stick to he for the example) a crack dealer.

After he gets out, if he doesn't go back to dealing, he shouldn't really need a gun. If he has enemies and needs to defend himself, he should move to Pasadena where the little old ladies won't give him any trouble, then he won't need a gun.

Both of those situations are his fault for selling crack so if he really needs a gun, he should have thought about that before becoming a crack dealer.

If you find him a week after he is released back in his hood with a gun, he willingly broke the felon in possession law along with any other crime he may or may not be up to so I see no problem sending him back to jail on a gun charge that he was guilty of.

On the other hand, if he keeps his nose clean and stays out of the gang, after some reasonable probationary period I'm not opposed to letting him restore his rights.

I am perfectly OK with throwing someone under the bus if they break the law after they knew they would get thrown under the bus if they break the law. There is no conflict there.

jdberger
07-30-2010, 11:52 AM
Felon in possession statutes are simply an extrapolation of the concept of "Civil Death".

Felons have lost their rights to full citizenship. It can be regained, but not without effort and some sort of restitution.

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2010, 12:15 PM
Yes, felons have a right to armed self-defense in California. It is an extremely restricted right, and it's a defense after the fact, but they do have the right in certain very narrow circumstances. If you read "How to own a gun and stay out of jail in California" they have a chapter that explains in detail. From memory, it basically needs to be an immediate threat, and the felon has to be blameless (not have done anything to create or get into the situation) and he needs to only possess the gun for the minimal possible amount of time. But read the book for a more detailed explanation of the restrictions and case law.

Did you seriously just tell a staff attorney for Michel and Associates to read "How to own a gun and stay out of jail" in order to get a better "explanation of the restrictions and case law"???

He could probably have written the book.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 12:21 PM
Did you seriously just tell a staff attorney for Michel and Associates to read "How to own a gun and stay out of jail" in order to get a better "explanation of the restrictions and case law"???

He could probably have written the book.

Thank you for your confidence in our abilities here at Michel & Associates, your comments are very flattering. However, I did not take it as an insult, I think he was agreeing with what I was saying and letting people know there is a more detailed explanation of what I was referring to in How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail, which is a handy little reference material, even for us attorneys. It is not possible for an attorney (except for maybe Irwin Chemerinsky, who can remember every law like a machine and then misinterpret them) to know every detail of every law, even in an area they specialize in. Any attorney who does not refer back to the law and works solely from memory is an attorney to be weary of.

GunNutz
07-30-2010, 12:23 PM
Did you seriously just tell a staff attorney for Michel and Associates to read "How to own a gun and stay out of jail" in order to get a better "explanation of the restrictions and case law"???

He could probably have written the book.

:smilielol5:

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2010, 12:24 PM
Thank you for your confidence in our abilities here at Michel & Associates, your comments are very flattering. However, I did not take it as an insult, I think he was agreeing with what I was saying and letting people know there is a more detailed explanation of what I was referring to in How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail, which is a handy little reference material, even for us attorneys. It is not possible for an attorney (except for maybe Irwin Chemerinsky, who can remember every law like a machine and then misinterpret them) to know every detail of every law, even in an area they specialize in. Any attorney who does not refer back to the law and works solely from memory is an attorney to be weary of.

I wasn't meaning to come down on him... I was just pointing out the irony. I am sure anyone could benefit form re-reading material. What was ironic to me was that he suggested the book as if you had never heard of it. :)

wash
07-30-2010, 12:29 PM
Yeah, it did sound a little like me telling Alan Gura how to comb his hair.

wildhawker
07-30-2010, 12:44 PM
Zing! :43: :rofl2:

It is not possible for an attorney (except for maybe Irwin Chemerinsky, who can remember every law like a machine and then misinterpret them) to know every detail of every law, even in an area they specialize in.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 12:44 PM
I wasn't meaning to come down on him... I was just pointing out the irony. I am sure anyone could benefit form re-reading material. What was ironic to me was that he suggested the book as if you had never heard of it. :)

I know, no worries :). Coincidentally, Chuck will be releasing a book of his own on gun law in the near future. We will keep everyone posted on its release.

CCWFacts
07-30-2010, 12:53 PM
Did you seriously just tell a staff attorney for Michel and Associates to read "How to own a gun and stay out of jail" in order to get a better "explanation of the restrictions and case law"???

Thank you for your confidence in our abilities here at Michel & Associates, your comments are very flattering. However, I did not take it as an insult, I think he was agreeing with what I was saying and letting people know there is a more detailed explanation of what I was referring to in How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail, which is a handy little reference material, even for us attorneys.

Exactly, certainly didn't direct my post to any of the well-informed attorneys here who I'm sure know this in great detail. I posted it merely as a reference for any of the non-attorneys here (like me) who might want to read a detailed, plain-English explanation of that legal area, and to also point out that Michigan isn't breaking any new ground with the general idea that felons do have a possibility of armed self defense in some extremely narrow circumstances.

wildhawker
07-30-2010, 1:19 PM
Tell him I'll buy a case, especially if he tosses in a few of his stories.

I know, no worries :). Coincidentally, Chuck will be releasing a book of his own on gun law in the near future. We will keep everyone posted on its release.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 1:23 PM
Tell him I'll buy a case, especially if he tosses in a few of his stories.

Will do, but I recall you not being such a fan of the story he related after the Nordyke en banc hearing, so I will have him leave that one out. :D

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2010, 1:28 PM
Will do, but I recall you not being such a fan of the story he related after the Nordyke en banc hearing, so I will have him leave that one out. :D

Mr. Kilmer tells good stories... maybe he could write the forward... :)

dunndeal
07-30-2010, 1:47 PM
Yeah, it did sound a little like me telling Alan Gura how to comb his hair.

I spit soda all over the keyboard with that one. :D

I love this website!

GuyW
07-30-2010, 5:38 PM
On the other hand, if he keeps his nose clean and stays out of the gang, after some reasonable probationary period I'm not opposed to letting him restore his rights.


As I understand it, in a practical sense they need a gun to protect themselves against their gang, if they don't want to be a criminal anymore.

Hypothetically, they could move a far distance away to avoid the gang - but how many ex-cons have the wherewithal to do that?

.

kcbrown
07-30-2010, 6:17 PM
Hmm, maybe pasadena is a little too far away from LA for you to see the gangs.

It's pretty obvious who's ganged up and who's not.

So lets say a gang member comits a felony, for example, he's (or she, but lets stick to he for the example) a crack dealer.

After he gets out, if he doesn't go back to dealing, he shouldn't really need a gun. If he has enemies and needs to defend himself, he should move to Pasadena where the little old ladies won't give him any trouble, then he won't need a gun.


You really should stop trotting out the very same arguments that anti-gunners use against law-abiding citizens. It doesn't work for them and it doesn't work for you, for the very same reasons.

It is not up to the state to decide whether or not a free man needs a gun. It really is that simple.

Either the convicted felon is free, or he's not. Which is it?

If he's free, he gets his gun if he wants it. If he's not, then put him back in the slammer or place him on parole!


But please stop tip-toeing around the issue just because it makes you feel better. The debate about RKBA has no room for arguments based on emotion and fear. Such is the nature of real freedom.


Isn't it better to solve the problem by bringing liberty to the people instead of by putting them in chains?

VW*Mike
07-30-2010, 6:27 PM
I agree. If they have served their time and paid their debt, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms plan and simple, once a debt is paid, its paid. People screw up and do stupid crap thats a felony, it doesn't take much as it seems. I'm sure there are plenty of people who got in a drunk bar fight, charged with felony aggravated assault that have NEVER been in trouble with the law before, or since, that now have their rights stripped. IMO they deserve a second chance. The people that are career criminals, are going to go back to jail regardless whether or not they can legally possess a firearm. If all of US could carry whenever, wherever, it may deter many on the road back to think twice.

anthonyca
07-30-2010, 6:41 PM
Felon in possession statutes are simply an extrapolation of the concept of "Civil Death".

Felons have lost their rights to full citizenship. It can be regained, but not without effort and some sort of restitution.

But a misdemeanant's rights can never be regained.

And the rights of a miste

dad
07-30-2010, 7:09 PM
If we are to regain the 2nd as a fundamental right, we must protect it by not using it as a tool against another. The felon in my view has paid his debt to society, if he was too dangerous to allow to be armed, then they are too dangerous to be released from prison.


I'm not the original poster, but I agree with it!

BillCA
07-30-2010, 10:20 PM
The OP is actually good news for 2A supporters and even for ex-felons. Even for ex-felons who haven't quite gone "straight". Every person has a right to self-defense. But in general, we limit what you can use for self-defense and how it can be used (think: claymores).

No law denies the ex-felon the right to self-defense. S/he may still defend themselves against attempts to murder them. To date, the only prohibition has been on the possession of a firearm. Of course, that is a very effective tool for self-defense, but deprivation of that one tool does not negate this right nor his ability to defend himself.

The good news about this case is that if an ex-felon resorts to the "temporary" possession of a firearm for the "singular purpose of immediate self-defense" then s/he is legally entitled to do so in the court's view.

I think it was around '77 here in San Jose that an ex-felon, visiting his brother in an apartment building heard a commotion. All three persons went to the 2nd floor walkway and looked into the parking lot where a man was beating a pregnant woman. The brother ran down to intervene and suddenly found himself attacked with a knife. The sister-in-law handed the ex-felon a .357 and he fired one round from the bottom of the staircase and dropped the attacker. He gave the gun to his wounded brother and then rendered aid to the slashed pregnant woman. SJPD arrested on the Felon-in-Possession charge. IIRC he asserted "lawful defense of another" as a defense and the trial court convicted. The appellate court overturned, ruling that "lawful self-defense" includes the defense of another. The DA didn't re-try and he was released.

At the time, many LEOs expressed disgust at the decision. My take on it was that his act was one of redemption by putting himself in danger (of prosecution) to save the lives of others. And isn't stopping crime a duty we ask of our citizens? To report it when they see it and to do what they can to prevent people from getting hurt? Why punish anyone for doing what is right?

If someone is convicted of a felony, society says that's a serious transgression against the rules we live by. The typical societial sanctions are expensive fines and deprivation of the person's freedom for a period of time. In addition, felonies can also result in the loss of certain civil rights -- to hold certain elective offices, to vote, to own arms or enter certain careers. These sanctions are known ahead of time and if these are not enough to deter, then no law will stop the crime.

However, I'd suggest we give them one chance to recover some of those rights. After serviing their first prison sentence for any felony(s)¹, including any parole, they have to conduct themselves within the law with no felony convictions for the next 5 years before their right to vote is restored and up to 6 years before their right to arms can be restored. Certain crimes may be exempt from this opportunity, however. For 2nd or 3rd felony convictions², this opportunity is not available.

If we are to regain the 2nd as a fundamental right, we must protect it by not using it as a tool against another. The felon in my view has paid his debt to society, if he was too dangerous to allow to be armed, then they are too dangerous to be released from prison.

This sounds good, but is, I think, too simplistic. By our legal system, punishments for crimes must be determinate and may not be "cruel and unusual". We cannot lock up an 18 y/o scofflaw for 50 years because he's a hard-case and refuses to express remorse over a robbery he was pushed into by friends while he was high. Especially not when we will lock up a different 18 y/o for only 3 years for a similar crime because he regrets his actions.

I think people who espouse this idea have never dealt with the hard core criminals. The ones who just don't care what the laws are or who can "game the system" to get released. We can't keep them incarcerated indefinitely but we can make each stay longer.

¹ Prosecutors should not be allowed to "segregate" charges based on one series of events into 2 trials to prevent a first-offender from obtaining the opportunity. Nor should prosecution for the same series of events in different counties be viewed as a "second strike".
² The 3rd-strike law should be invoked only violent felonies and a finite list of non-violent felonies (burglary, arson, drug trafficking). It should never be invoked over misdemeanors or administrative felonies.

pitchbaby
07-30-2010, 10:25 PM
No, the case you're referring to happened in the Los Angeles area. He was arrested, but prosecutors elected not to press charges because it was a clear case of self defense. They didn't even charge him in connection with his brief standoff with police after the incident.

Ryan

AMAZING... seems like this prosecutor got it right! The moment you said it was in LA, I had my doubts.

pitchbaby
07-30-2010, 10:31 PM
However, I'd suggest we give them one chance to recover some of those rights. After serviing their first prison sentence for any felony(s)¹, including any parole, they have to conduct themselves within the law with no felony convictions for the next 5 years before their right to vote is restored and up to 6 years before their right to arms can be restored. Certain crimes may be exempt from this opportunity, however. For 2nd or 3rd felony convictions², this opportunity is not available.


Your suggestion would require that lawmakers know what forgiveness is. These are the same people who dumped prayer out of schools. Sad, but I don't think this could ever happen if we continue as a country the way we are going.

Werewolf1021
07-30-2010, 10:47 PM
This is awesome news for several reasons.

1. Felonies are a dime a dozen. You would be surprised at the small crimes that are felonies.

2. If you commit a crime. You should pay. You should be punished firmly and justly. Then, we you are set free, you should be free. You should have all your rights.

3. The gov't has been taking away our rights (non felons) for years by demanding that we (non felons) give up our rights because of all the "bad" people they have let go.

People are free or they should be in jail. No in betweens.

P.S. That means the death penalty for murders, child abusers ect...

I agree. But it would be a hard sell to the public. It would take one cockroach (read: Brady Campaign) to go on TV claiming the NRA was giving guns to felons to become a PR nightmare and could potentially lose some public support ground.

Just look at what the media did to the Oath Keepers. Such a simple concept of "Hey, let's actually follow that Oath we took." got vilified practically overnight.

Felony reform would be the first step IMO ie getting rid of the pointless felonies that should only be misdemeanors or not crimes at all.

jdberger
07-30-2010, 10:49 PM
But a misdemeanant's rights can never be regained.

And the rights of a miste

I'd like to respon

:p

@Sean, "wary" or "weary"... or both?

jdberger
07-30-2010, 10:53 PM
The OP is actually good news for 2A supporters and even for ex-felons. Even for ex-felons who haven't quite gone "straight". Every person has a right to self-defense. But in general, we limit what you can use for self-defense and how it can be used (think: claymores).

[/SIZE]

No such animal as an "ex-felon". Either you is or you ain't.

It's like pregnancy. It's a binary proposition.

Felons who've had their rights restored are no longer felons and have full citizenship rights..

GuyW
07-30-2010, 11:02 PM
Felons who've had their rights restored are no longer felons and have full citizenship rights..

...and when they are no longer felons, they are EX-felons....

....I will admit the term is being misused, tho....
.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 11:09 PM
I'd like to respon

:p

@Sean, "wary" or "weary"... or both?

What did I put? I think I meant to say "leery" and accidentally put "wary" or "weary." My spelling has suffered a little because I have been speaking so much Spanish lately. Good thing for spellcheck and great law clerks at M&A to catch that stuff on my court filings! Thanks for catching that JD. I don't want to be known as that lawyer who puts out substandard product with typos and misspellings and ridiculous arguments, etc.

7x57
07-30-2010, 11:18 PM
I don't want to be known as that lawyer who puts out substandard product with typos and misspellings and ridiculous arguments, etc.

I'm sure Gary Gorski can always use a partner with compatible writing skills. :43:

7x57

dreslinger
07-30-2010, 11:26 PM
accidently commit a felany and lose your rights. Congress breaks laws daily and just votes themselves pay raises and keeps their jobs. Their crime affects the nation, not a small group or individual. Must be nice having the GOD complex.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 11:37 PM
I'm sure Gary Gorski can always use a partner with compatible writing skills. :43:

7x57

How ever did you draw that inference from what I was saying?

Hopi
07-30-2010, 11:40 PM
I'm sure Gary Gorski can always use a partner with compatible writing skills. :43:

7x57

Now now....play nice. GG could run off in spite and do something that might potentially hurt us.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-31-2010, 7:13 AM
I spit soda all over the keyboard with that one. :D

I love this website!


Me too!


The Raisuli

7x57
07-31-2010, 7:23 AM
How ever did you draw that inference from what I was saying?

I just don't know how I leapt to that conclusion. :D

7x57

7x57
07-31-2010, 7:25 AM
Now now....play nice. GG could run off in spite and do something that might potentially hurt us.

Gee, I'd hate to be the one to have diverted him from his current shrewd, productive defense of the Second Amendment.... :rolleyes:

7x57

7x57
07-31-2010, 7:38 AM
Felon in possession statutes are simply an extrapolation of the concept of "Civil Death".

Felons have lost their rights to full citizenship. It can be regained, but not without effort and some sort of restitution.

Just to be clear: unlike the case with so many firearms laws, I imagine the states (note I avoided commenting on the case with the feds) have the *power* to deprive felons of their full rights. What I object to is simply the theory that this particular case makes sense as a matter of *policy*.

Not everything Constitutional is sane.

7x57

7x57
07-31-2010, 8:01 AM
Hmm, maybe pasadena is a little too far away from LA for you to see the gangs.


Hmm. That sounds like the preface to half the gun-banning arguments made in the last half-century. I think Mayor Daley said almost the same thing about McDonald. The condescension doesn't improve a bad argument, either. I'm fairly adept at it myself, but it won't improve the quality of discourse. Your choice.


After he gets out, if he doesn't go back to dealing, he shouldn't really need a gun.


Anyone who believes such an insane premise really should refrain from posturing about who has the proper viewing angle. I suppose there is no point in even discussing this with you as long as you have such a naive view of what happens to criminals who attempt to get out of their former social situation.


If he has enemies and needs to defend himself, he should move to Pasadena where the little old ladies won't give him any trouble, then he won't need a gun.


Sigh. The ignorance simply piles up.

If he could afford to do that, which he probably doesn't, he'd have to move to Northwest Pasadena, which isn't South Central but still isn't particularly safe. And you can be sure his buddies will know wherever he goes, and so, if you'd understood my argument, which you clearly did not, you'd know that the local crime rate would not matter. The crime follows him.

When your old buddies drop by for old times sake and mention a job they'd like you to help with and also that they know where your little girl goes to school and it seemed so nice and peaceful when her mother picked her up yesterday, you can either cooperate with what they want you to do or you can tell them to stay away from her or else. But if you do the latter, the state not only has disarmed you but has told your buddies you'll be disarmed. Feel free to try to make it stick under those conditions.


Both of those situations are his fault for selling crack so if he really needs a gun, he should have thought about that before becoming a crack dealer.


This is so beside the point it isn't funny. We're not concerned with the people who had the foresight not to become crack dealers, because they are not a problem. We have to have policy for those that are, not pretend away the problem by saying "he should have thought of that before" just because you have no useful answer.

The idea that the state should make it harder for people to go straight without obtaining any useful public safety benefit is barking mad, but it is unclear whether you can even see that you are accepting gun-banner logic already known to be false. I don't know that I'm willing to turn it into a basic class on logic just to get you to where you can start the discussion at hand.

7x57

Librarian
07-31-2010, 8:18 AM
I don't know that I'm willing to turn it into a basic class on logic just to get you to where you can start the discussion at hand.

7x57

Nor should you.

Amazing how this thread has drifted! (Perhaps 'veered', or 'plunged, screaming, off a cliff').