PDA

View Full Version : US v Chester and my Prohibition


Theseus
01-07-2011, 1:26 AM
So. .. Been convicted with an ongoing appeal. Regardless of the issue, should I be able to challenge the law that triggers my prohibition based on US v Chester?

This is speculation and discussion only, I have no interest in actually challenging anything more than what is currently happening unless the powers feel it useful (which I doubt).

Patrick-2
01-07-2011, 6:37 AM
If violence is involved: no guns for you.

If not...yes.

You can challenge anything. But if you are a habitually violent person I do not want you having guns. Some things are best reserved for good people.

How long should a single violent event DQ you?...I have no objective opinion. It all comes down to "it depends".

I know nothing about you or the crime for which you were convicted. But you offered yourself as a foil, so I used you as one. If your crime was being convicted for littering...oh well. For purposes of my response, you are an axe murderer.

The problem with these questions is that there are rarely pure circumstance to judge. Everything is subjective, and as such the outcome for one person will differ from that of another. In short, there is no single answer.

OleCuss
01-07-2011, 6:57 AM
If violence is involved: no guns for you.

If not...yes.

You can challenge anything. But if you are a habitually violent person I do not want you having guns. Some things are best reserved for good people.

How long should a single violent event DQ you?...I have no objective opinion. It all comes down to "it depends".

I know nothing about you or the crime for which you were convicted. But you offered yourself as a foil, so I used you as one. If your crime was being convicted for littering...oh well. For purposes of my response, you are an axe murderer.

The problem with these questions is that there are rarely pure circumstance to judge. Everything is subjective, and as such the outcome for one person will differ from that of another. In short, there is no single answer.

Nothing in the slightest violent about what Theseus did. IIRC, he got screwed over for OC in a place where a reasonable person would think the law would allow such.

That said, I don't think it is worth his pursuing the issue at this time. Chester would be persuasive but not controlling and I think that there are enough scrutiny issues plowing through the courts that he doesn't need to add to those. Still, I'd be very interested in what Gene, Brando, Bill, Gray, etc. think - they know Theseus' situation pretty well and will have very expert opinions on the matter.

Window_Seat
01-07-2011, 8:58 AM
The OPs conviction was not based on a "violent" event. It was a school zone violation that I believe was a wrong conviction.

Erik.

Spelunker
01-07-2011, 9:31 AM
It was a school zone violation on PRIVATE property. It would be nice to see that conviction go away. Fight on Theseus.

Patrick-2
01-07-2011, 9:44 AM
Since you are apparently not an axe murderer, you should not be procluded from exercising a fundamental right. Especially one where the line is apparently being drawn at "felon (or equivalent)" + "violent".

Sounds like you got a raw deal. Hope it works out, though it might be best to wait a little bit. It might take a year or so, but we'll get there.

dantodd
01-07-2011, 10:19 AM
You can challenge anything. But if you are a habitually violent person I do not want you having guns. Some things are best reserved for good people.


One of the many great things about our Constitution is that people's rights aren't regulated by what you, or I, WANT. Nor are rights reserved only for "good people."

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

Kukuforguns
01-07-2011, 10:22 AM
You absolutely should raise the issue in your appeal, unless the issue was not properly raised at trial (in which case you likely have waived the issue for purposes of your appeal). You were convicted of a misdemeanor. Your appeal is to the appellate department of the superior court, not the Court of Appeal. If you lose your appeal at this stage, that loss will not adversely impact the rights of other Californians because the appellate department's opinions have very little precedential value (none at the Court of Appeal, some with the superior court were the appellate deparment is located). On the other hand, if you win -- you get your rights back. This is a no-lose situation for Californians who believe in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the appellate department is not going to increase your situation, so there's no risk to you for raising every issue you can.

Oh, yeah, this is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, pay a lawyer for it.

Patrick-2
01-07-2011, 12:00 PM
One of the many great things about our Constitution is that people's rights aren't regulated by what you, or I, WANT. Nor are rights reserved only for "good people."

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

Except there is a long history of denial of rights for those deemed irresponsible (dangerous) with them. That's where I was going.

But your point is taken, and I agree. Not a big fan of pure democracy...kinda scary without any checks or balances. Pure Democracy results in the minority getting eviscerated by a willful majority.

Kinda like the California Constitutional Initiative/Proposition system.

Merle
01-07-2011, 12:19 PM
Curious, what is your appeal costing?

I'm of the mind that once you pay the price, all your rights are returned. If you decide to take 3 years of probation versus 60 days in county, part of the probation *could* include the loss of certain rights.

However, a blanket 10 year loss for conviction (without the ability to negotiate basically) seems wrong. It doesn't allow for any negotiations in the sentence, as you're restricted based upon the crime you're convicted of which introduces a slippery slope of penalties w/o regard to the actual crime (e.g. ALL felonies restrict rights, so just make everything and everyone a felon and you've effectively outlawed the 2A)

freonr22
01-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Since you are apparently not an axe murderer, you should not be procluded from exercising a fundamental right. Especially one where the line is apparently being drawn at "felon (or equivalent)" + "violent".

Sounds like you got a raw deal. Hope it works out, though it might be best to wait a little bit. It might take a year or so, but we'll get there.
here is theseus' case Patrick

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=142379

Wherryj
01-07-2011, 4:30 PM
If violence is involved: no guns for you.

If not...yes.

You can challenge anything. But if you are a habitually violent person I do not want you having guns. Some things are best reserved for good people.

How long should a single violent event DQ you?...I have no objective opinion. It all comes down to "it depends".

I know nothing about you or the crime for which you were convicted. But you offered yourself as a foil, so I used you as one. If your crime was being convicted for littering...oh well. For purposes of my response, you are an axe murderer.

The problem with these questions is that there are rarely pure circumstance to judge. Everything is subjective, and as such the outcome for one person will differ from that of another. In short, there is no single answer.

I take it that you are not aware of Theseus' case?

Wherryj
01-07-2011, 4:34 PM
One of the many great things about our Constitution is that people's rights aren't regulated by what you, or I, WANT. Nor are rights reserved only for "good people."

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

Unfortunately what we appear to have in the PRK is "democracy", and a democracy tainted by back-room deals and bribes for votes.

Patrick-2
01-09-2011, 5:32 AM
I take it that you are not aware of Theseus' case?

At the time, not of the details. I was aware he was not an axe-wielding murderer. But it appears he offered himself up for the full range of discussion, so I bit into it.

His case is a travesty that will hopefully be remedied. But the larger issue remains: there is a line somewhere between axe murderer and Martha Stewart. Both are felons, one is violent and the other is not (heartburn from her cookies aside). Also...misdemeanor convictions for violent behavior enter at some point.

The line is apparently being drawn at violence and the severity of it. Will a bar brawl (common in some locales and something for which I have some familiarity) be enough to restrict your rights for life? A couple of guys tossing punches? Or only if one starts kicking another brutally when someone falls to the ground?

Humans are violent creatures, so this is going to be a tough question to answer. The answer for many is going to be made on a case by case basis.

NightOwl
01-09-2011, 6:08 AM
That is exactly why the line must be drawn at "freedom" and nowhere else. If they're out in society, as opposed to incarcerated, they must have their full complements of rights.

Patrick-2
01-09-2011, 7:00 AM
That is exactly why the line must be drawn at "freedom" and nowhere else. If they're out in society, as opposed to incarcerated, they must have their full complements of rights.

Disagree, respectfully. Conditions of parole and probation can and should tell violent people to stay away from arms. I agree the best place for them is prison, but once we drop the philosophical niceties and acknowledge society is unwilling to pay that price (in real dollars), we get down to real problems and issues.

The fact is society releases people who might remain dangerous out into our world. Disagreeing with the policy doesn't change that fact. So for those who we deem provably dangerous (convicts, parolees, etc.) their "freedom" can and should be conditioned. There is a lower bar.

Don't read into this too far. We are talking about dangerous people as most on this forum would understand the term. Not litterbugs and tax scofflaws like Bloomberg would have it. I am talking people who were in real prison but who were paroled before the end of their sentence due to overcrowding and bleeding hearts. True, if they want to do harm they will get a gun. But that doesn't mean we should placate them. If they are caught with arms I want this to be excuse we need to put them back for a long time.

kcbrown
01-09-2011, 12:31 PM
Disagree, respectfully. Conditions of parole and probation can and should tell violent people to stay away from arms. I agree the best place for them is prison, but once we drop the philosophical niceties and acknowledge society is unwilling to pay that price (in real dollars), we get down to real problems and issues.


Parole and probation are not what's being referred to here.

Full release from prison after serving one's term, or completion of parole or probation, are.

We (well, some of us, at any rate) recognize that when someone is on parole or has been probated, they are still serving a sentence and as such, are not really released from the penal system.


If someone has completed their sentence and has been released as a free man into society, they should have their complete set of rights back. To do anything else grants far too much power to the state to remove the rights from the people, because it grants the state the ability to permanently strip anyone of their rights simply by defining the law in such a way that the type of person they're interested in stripping rights from will be caught in it.

"Felony" is, today, an entirely arbitrary term. It has no meaning in and of itself.


We cannot legitimately crow about how we're a nation that values liberty as long as this remains the case.

nicki
01-09-2011, 5:06 PM
Would seem to me that Thesus would have standing to challenge both school zone in that the "Sensitive Zone" should be narrowly tailored and there is no way that the current GFZ meets that.

San Diego went to great lengths to argue that UOC would allow Ed Peruta to exercise his 2nd amendment right to bear arms, yet they persecuted Thesus for doing exactly what they argued to do in Federal court.

Thesus's case to me is not only a 2nd, 9th and 14th amendment case, but a 1st amendment as well since he was a UOC advocate.

Nicki

Theseus
01-09-2011, 6:18 PM
Although there are some great comments on here, I was thinking more about how to argue, not whether.

In second thought though, I have some information that makes it helpful that it wasn't heavily discussed and debated.

For very good reasons I will not be getting into the discussion of merits in my case and such.

Hunt
01-09-2011, 9:37 PM
Curious, what is your appeal costing?

I'm of the mind that once you pay the price, all your rights are returned. If you decide to take 3 years of probation versus 60 days in county, part of the probation *could* include the loss of certain rights.

However, a blanket 10 year loss for conviction (without the ability to negotiate basically) seems wrong. It doesn't allow for any negotiations in the sentence, as you're restricted based upon the crime you're convicted of which introduces a slippery slope of penalties w/o regard to the actual crime (e.g. ALL felonies restrict rights, so just make everything and everyone a felon and you've effectively outlawed the 2A)

when Thesus case is tried in the court of morality and justice it is clearly obvious who the criminals are.

Patrick-2
01-10-2011, 4:25 AM
Parole and probation are not what's being referred to here.

Full release from prison after serving one's term, or completion of parole or probation, are.

We (well, some of us, at any rate) recognize that when someone is on parole or has been probated, they are still serving a sentence and as such, are not really released from the penal system.


If someone has completed their sentence and has been released as a free man into society, they should have their complete set of rights back. To do anything else grants far too much power to the state to remove the rights from the people, because it grants the state the ability to permanently strip anyone of their rights simply by defining the law in such a way that the type of person they're interested in stripping rights from will be caught in it.

"Felony" is, today, an entirely arbitrary term. It has no meaning in and of itself.


We cannot legitimately crow about how we're a nation that values liberty as long as this remains the case.

Agreed. But they are a small portion on the population I am concerned about.