PDA

View Full Version : Convicted Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham asked to get his gun rights back


SoCal Bob
05-26-2012, 3:31 PM
Cunningham asked the Judge that sentenced him to federal prison to restore his gun rights. The response from the Judge is interesting. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/26/prison-cunningham-pleads-his-gun-rights/

NYsteveZ
05-26-2012, 3:43 PM
I think Dukes response is interesting-"I couldve disintegrated the building in half a second and now cant even own a .22".
Also, $1700 a month in rural Arkansas is nice money comparred to the PRK.

Squid
05-26-2012, 4:46 PM
Leaves me wondering "why did they really go after him?"

Personally, I think the entire "plea bargain" concept needs to be scrapped and outlawed.

Under no circumstances should the Govt be able to put someone in jail without the defense fully able to question all evidence and have a jury decide.

Skidmark
05-26-2012, 5:54 PM
Cunningham is scum, lowest of the low. Yet, while even lowly scum have rights to posses firearms in this country,
convicted felons do not. Duke should have thought things through more carefully before engaging in his shady
business with defense contractors.

Goosebrown
05-26-2012, 6:19 PM
Cunningham is scum, lowest of the low. Yet, while even lowly scum have rights to posses firearms in this country,
convicted felons do not. Duke should have thought things through more carefully before engaging in his shady
business with defense contractors.

He's a hero too Skidmark. He presumably committed crimes and is paying his price. If there isn't a way to restore rights, then there isn't but dang this is a sad story from start to end and calling him scum without acknowledging his wartime record is not fair.

GNE
05-26-2012, 6:31 PM
Shooting down communists over North Vietnam has nothing to do with moral character 30 years later.

OrenG
05-26-2012, 7:07 PM
Shooting down communists over North Vietnam has nothing to do with moral character 30 years later.

Sadly I have to agree. Look at Grey Doofus, I mean Davis. Served a few years in Vietnam as a Captain in the Army and closed down our public ranges and signed the 1999 assault weapons ban.

Ubermcoupe
05-26-2012, 7:27 PM
The law contains no exemptions for hunting and sport shooting, the judge noted. Cunningham’s only hope would be to apply to the Secretary of the Treasury for a waiver from the ban

But the judge noted that since 1992 Congress has not appropriated funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to do the background investigations for felons applying for the waiver.

“So unless Congress changes course and decides to fund ATF’s review of applications for relief,” Burns wrote, “it appears you are stuck.”

Funding issue to allow background checks aside, I didn’t know there was a felon waiver avenue through the ATF.

Stonewalker
05-26-2012, 7:38 PM
He also noted that his crime was nonviolent and he was a first-time offender.

Don't know anything about Cunningham, and I despise public servants who corrupt their charge - but I will note that this is an example of how the 68GCA felony prohibition is a punitive prohibition, not always having something to do with public safety.

Rights should never be permanently removed as a purely punitive measure.

trashman
05-26-2012, 7:46 PM
Leaves me wondering "why did they really go after him?"


Because he was dirty. I appreciate his service to our country, and by all accounts he was a heckuva pilot, but that doesn't entitle him to do what he plead guilty to while a Member of Congress.

It's a shame he went out this way, but he made some very poor ethical choices.

--Neill

Skidmark
05-26-2012, 7:52 PM
Shooting down communists over North Vietnam has nothing to do with moral character 30 years later.

Correct, sir.

Duke Cunningham is a textbook example of the corruptive influence of power.
He sold out the American taxpayer for a few dollars in his own pocket.

M. D. Van Norman
05-26-2012, 7:58 PM
Randy Cunningham still has the right to arms. He just has to break the law in order to exercise it now, but he should be used to that.

Cannon-Arms
05-26-2012, 8:18 PM
Sadly I have to agree. Look at Grey Doofus, I mean Davis. Served a few years in Vietnam as a Captain in the Army and closed down our public ranges and signed the 1999 assault weapons ban.


Shooting down communists over North Vietnam has nothing to do with moral character 30 years later.



He's a hero too Skidmark. He presumably committed crimes and is paying his price. If there isn't a way to restore rights, then there isn't but dang this is a sad story from start to end and calling him scum without acknowledging his wartime record is not fair.


I think the key that is being missed, Is how a good man, a war hero, a man who used the nickname "Duke" and at the time I thought deservingly so in the same strain as "The Duke", was corrupted by power and money flowing to him in his second career as a professional politician.

Politicians, I trust none of them regardless of their political leanings and past life's now. I look at them through my jaundiced eye with contempt and mistrust.

Power and money corrupt, E.O.S.

His is a sad story of rise and fall with no way to redemption due too possibly his own doings, as he was a congressman when funding was pulled.

ewarmour
05-26-2012, 9:13 PM
Cunningham’s only hope would be to apply to the Secretary of the Treasury for a waiver from the ban

Huh?

k1dude
05-26-2012, 9:40 PM
Is he allowed to own a bow? If so, start bow hunting.

Cannon-Arms
05-26-2012, 9:57 PM
Huh?

I think the judge maybe old school and not kept up with changes since 9/11.

In the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the law shifted ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice.

I believe from '92 till the department change under Bush, the only person who could have possibly expedited things, due to lack of funding, was the Treasury Secretary. Now, only recourse for him is a presidential pardon.

johnny1290
05-26-2012, 10:08 PM
I used to think he was a disgrace to accept bribes. Now I know differently. They're *all* dirty beyond compare at that level.

He just didn't play ball with the anti american agenda, so they burned him.

These congresspeople have been trading stocks with inside information, legally, forever.

Baja Jones
05-26-2012, 11:01 PM
This sounds kind of sappy, in a scorched earth, take no prisoners, trust no one, political climate but Duke Cunningham was and is a nice guy and a good American. He never ever would cast a vote or influence a deal that he did not believe was in the best interest of our country. He may have not had the best discernment when it came to accepting gifts but if you know the guy you would know beyond the shadow of a doubt he was not for sale. He is no dirtier than any of my customers that accept a gift as a token of my appreciation. The man is a 100% patriot.

Code7inOaktown
05-26-2012, 11:33 PM
This sounds kind of sappy, in a scorched earth, take no prisoners, trust no one, political climate but Duke Cunningham was and is a nice guy and a good American. He never ever would cast a vote or influence a deal that he did not believe was in the best interest of our country. He may have not had the best discernment when it came to accepting gifts but if you know the guy you would know beyond the shadow of a doubt he was not for sale. He is no dirtier than any of my customers that accept a gift as a token of my appreciation. The man is a 100% patriot.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. He had a bribe menu

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1667009&page=1

"The card shows an escalating scale for bribes, starting at $140,000 and a luxury yacht for a $16 million Defense Department contract. Each additional $1 million in contract value required a $50,000 bribe. The rate dropped to $25,000 per additional million once the contract went above $20 million."

At one point in his life, he was a patriot but he eventually turned into a crook who took bribes to buy his votes.I don't think that is being a patriot.

Snoopy47
05-26-2012, 11:48 PM
I remember looking up to him as a kid because he was one of the last Aces of America.

F Him.He was as good of crook as he was pilot. His luck just ran out.

socalbowhunter
05-26-2012, 11:50 PM
Is he allowed to own a bow? If so, start bow hunting.

That's why the "Duke boys" used bows. <---- Dukes of Hazard reference.

FalconLair
05-26-2012, 11:54 PM
Under no circumstances should the Govt be able to put someone in jail without the defense fully able to question all evidence and have a jury decide.

that didn't happen, he CHOOSE to accept a plea, thus reducing his sentence and he had every right to take it to trial and let a jury decide...the ultimate decision was his

johnthomas
05-26-2012, 11:54 PM
He's a hero too Skidmark. He presumably committed crimes and is paying his price. If there isn't a way to restore rights, then there isn't but dang this is a sad story from start to end and calling him scum without acknowledging his wartime record is not fair.

Being active, former or retired military does not earn anyone a free pass to break the law. On November 28, 2005 Cunningham pleaded guilty to graft and resigned from Congress. He admitted taking "$2.4 million in bribes mostly from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.
Ultimately he pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. On March 3, 2006, Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution. Presumably committed crimes?
He was tried and convicted. .
I served this country honorably as a soldier and continue to serve her as a law abiding citizen. This scum dishonors me and everyone else that served, survived and lives decent lives.

Dutch3
05-27-2012, 6:13 AM
I think the judge maybe old school and not kept up with changes since 9/11.



I believe from '92 till the department change under Bush, the only person who could have possibly expedited things, due to lack of funding, was the Treasury Secretary. Now, only recourse for him is a presidential pardon.

What about Eric Holder? Couldn't he authorize the expenditure?

The whole thing sounds like a joke. It would be like saying, "We don't have funding to empty the trash cans at the rest areas, so we are closing the highway".

ewarmour
05-27-2012, 6:38 AM
I think the judge maybe old school and not kept up with changes since 9/11.

I believe from '92 till the department change under Bush, the only person who could have possibly expedited things, due to lack of funding, was the Treasury Secretary. Now, only recourse for him is a presidential pardon.

Ahhh. Okay.

“There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft.

Read more on Newsmax.com: '60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-stock-insider-60minutes/2011/11/13/id/417848)

There are also all sorts of forms of criminal grafts.

At least the article headline says "Gun Rights".

SPROCKET
05-27-2012, 6:43 AM
Cunningham asked the Judge that sentenced him to federal prison to restore his gun rights. The response from the Judge is interesting. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/26/prison-cunningham-pleads-his-gun-rights/

He wouldn't be in this position if he'd been more interested in retaining his rights than influence peddling. He needs to STFU and take his licks for doing something he knew was wrong.

Don'tBlink
05-27-2012, 11:24 AM
I am not to concerned about Cunningham's problems. He was apparently corrupt and should pay the same price everyone else would have to. It's all the other low life's in Washington (and Sacramento) that have not been caught yet that I'm worried about. There are most likely many others that belong in jail. :mad:

Databyter
05-27-2012, 11:30 AM
Cunningham asked the Judge that sentenced him to federal prison to restore his gun rights. The response from the Judge is interesting. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/26/prison-cunningham-pleads-his-gun-rights/

If Cunningham were to get a waver, then everybody else in the Country who does not breach the public trust should also have 0 resistance for a gun permit.

This guy might have been good once, but he dropped the ball and is an embarrassment.

Let him get pepper spray like most of the rest of us.

Pixs
05-27-2012, 12:05 PM
My feelings about him are that he was a crook, period. Anti war Americans at the time of his war service would have called him a baby killer. Different strokes for different folks. The real issue is quite different: Has a released from custody felon truly paid his debt to society? My point of view is that the judge should spell out the sentence in detail and when it is served all rights and privileges should be restored. Judges should be required to stand on their records for reelection. Just think of all the talk of accidental felon on this forum. Time to empty the prisons of people that don't need to be there. Cunningham's ability to perform the type of crimes ended a long time ago, having a gun is not going to allow him to reestablish a career as a criminal Senator again. I'm not worried about him or others like him having guns. Attempted murders deserve the same fate that murders get. But hey, what do I know.

Databyter
05-27-2012, 12:30 PM
My feelings about him are that he was a crook, period. Anti war Americans at the time of his war service would have called him a baby killer. Different strokes for different folks. The real issue is quite different: Has a released from custody felon truly paid his debt to society? My point of view is that the judge should spell out the sentence in detail and when it is served all rights and privileges should be restored. Judges should be required to stand on their records for reelection. Just think of all the talk of accidental felon on this forum. Time to empty the prisons of people that don't need to be there. Cunningham's ability to perform the type of crimes ended a long time ago, having a gun is not going to allow him to reestablish a career as a criminal Senator again. I'm not worried about him or others like him having guns. Attempted murders deserve the same fate that murders get. But hey, what do I know.

I'm not worried about him having a gun either.

But I don't like special rules for special people.

If he is exempt, then so are the rest of the population.

Personally I feel that if a felons crime was not violent, then after they have served their time INCLUDING PAROLE TIME then their rights should be restored.

For a violent crime, the rules should be more stringent.

In Cunninghams case, I could make a case for his crimes being especially heinous, and showing the type of reckless psychopathic disregard and corruption that also show disregard for the safety of fighting men and women.

When it comes to supplying soldiers with tools that work, decisions based on graft and not efficiency kill Americans and cost the taxpayer.

Any politician who breaks the public trust in such areas and to such a degree should be banned from the entire Country, muchless having a permit to carry in it.

I'd rather give guns to felons who were just stealing food for their families in non violent ways than to Cunningham.

Meplat
05-27-2012, 1:12 PM
Is he allowed to own a bow? If so, start bow hunting.

Duke is 70, I’m 65, and due to arthritis I no longer have the ability to put in the hours of practice needed to be proficient with a bow of more than maybe 30 lb. I can draw a 60lb bow once, or maybe even three times in a row, but the repetitions needed for true skill and competence, no way.

Meplat
05-27-2012, 1:21 PM
I used to think he was a disgrace to accept bribes. Now I know differently. They're *all* dirty beyond compare at that level.

He just didn't play ball with the anti american agenda, so they burned him.

These congresspeople have been trading stocks with inside information, legally, forever.

Can you say cattle futures? Or whitewater? These people don’t get rich on their government salaries.

BrokerB
05-27-2012, 2:18 PM
whats that phrase..

absolute power corrupts?

I'm sure the millions you stole can buy you a gun ...maybe put it in your mouth and save us Tax payers the money your Tri-care is going to suck dry each year as your health care needs sky rocket.

Its really only decent thing to do now, but we can see you left decency back with your wingman.

So much corruption and so little time

rugershooter
05-27-2012, 2:25 PM
He committed crimes and paid the price for them. Once his punishment is over he should be a free man, which means full restoration of ALL rights.

Skidmark
05-27-2012, 2:29 PM
He committed crimes and paid the price for them. Once his punishment is over he should be a free man, which means full restoration of ALL rights.

That's not how it works with Felony convictions in these United States. Part of his "punishment" is removal of right to firearms.

j.hors
05-27-2012, 2:39 PM
$1700 a month and is broke... I made just a little more then that on active duty. And here when minimum wage is $8 an hour, full time work (40 hours a week) is only $1367 before tax. I have a hard time feeling sorry for his financial situation.

Cannon-Arms
05-27-2012, 2:45 PM
I do want to say, I do believe in redemption. First timer, non violent young mistake type, yes, give the a second chance.

I am particularly torn with what he did. He, as all politicians are, are in a place of public trust, our lives in there hands in a sense. Not only that, he's older and assumed wiser. I really feel all polititions should be held to a high, more transparent standard. Drug test, open communications of public dealings things of that sort. People like him, I do not feel sorry for. It's the idiot young first timers who are now caught up in a life of misery due to the branding of "FELON", no recourse for forgiveness.

eltee
05-27-2012, 7:17 PM
My viewpoint is that he may have a better chance at restoration of (gun) rights than most. He is well known, he knows the judicial system and, like most politicians, knows people in high places who owe him or he has something on them. He knows a lot of D.C. folks by first name. Sure, publicly any elected official will shun him but he has more access than most felons. If he can facilitate a process that restores his gun rights, it opens a door for the rest of the world. His status as a veteran, politician, having an otherwise clean record and having committed of a non-violent, white collar crime all help.

I hate what he did out of greed, but maybe he can do some good for the gun community.

kcbrown
05-27-2012, 7:46 PM
My viewpoint is that he may have a better chance at restoration of (gun) rights than most. He is well known, he knows the judicial system and, like most politicians, knows people in high places who owe him or he has something on them. He knows a lot of D.C. folks by first name. Sure, publicly any elected official will shun him but he has more access than most felons. If he can facilitate a process that restores his gun rights, it opens a door for the rest of the world. His status as a veteran, politician, having an otherwise clean record and having committed of a non-violent, white collar crime all help.


It is for that very reason that his success in restoring his gun rights does not open a door for the rest of the world. He will be succeeding because of who he is and who he knows, and nothing else. No mere mortal will be able to take advantage of whatever path he forges.



I hate what he did out of greed, but maybe he can do some good for the gun community.

I doubt it.

FalconLair
05-27-2012, 8:00 PM
how could you do it for him without opening up a can of worms for every other "non" violent felon to demand the same consideration...im not saying its right or wrong, just seems like the kind of thing that could reek of favortism...its just like the DV thing, or the TRO issue...some more guidelines would have to be put in place to ensure a fair forum for everyone, dont u agree?

my brother cannot possess a gun for a very stupid reason, when he was in college he kept getting parking tickets for illegal parking because he could never find a parking space at the school, so one day he decided to be dumb and put "fake plates" on his car while he was in class...well, it backfired badly for him because his car got towed away and then when he went to reclaim it they discovered the plates and he got arrested for a "felony" using fake plates lol...just some dumb crap, but he is still got it on his record

his (Duke's) crime had nothing to do with gun ownership, nothing violent about his crime whatsoever, there are just 100's of thousands of people with felony convictions for some of the most minor non violent of things...seems like you would have to rewrite the entire law concerning felons and guns, but i do agree that some felonies shouldn't warrant loss of gun ownership

kcbrown
05-27-2012, 9:13 PM
how could you do it for him without opening up a can of worms for every other "non" violent felon to demand the same consideration...im not saying its right or wrong, just seems like the kind of thing that could reek of favortism...its just like the DV thing, or the TRO issue...some more guidelines would have to be put in place to ensure a fair forum for everyone, dont u agree?


It would reek of favoritism, but that doesn't automatically mean that the end result won't be exactly that. Quite the opposite, for the most part. The problem is that the government is now so fundamentally corrupt that there is scant recourse to reduce or eliminate such favoritism. That means that not only is favoritism possible, it is to be expected, and worse, it means there really isn't much that can be done about it.

You could attempt to bring an equal protection suit, but those are apparently very hard to win.

You cannot fix a corrupt government by going through the motions which that same corrupt government has deemed allowable, for it is precisely because those motions are ineffective that it has deemed them allowable at all!



my brother cannot possess a gun for a very stupid reason, when he was in college he kept getting parking tickets for illegal parking because he could never find a parking space at the school, so one day he decided to be dumb and put "fake plates" on his car while he was in class...well, it backfired badly for him because his car got towed away and then when he went to reclaim it they discovered the plates and he got arrested for a "felony" using fake plates lol...just some dumb crap, but he is still got it on his record

his (Duke's) crime had nothing to do with gun ownership, nothing violent about his crime whatsoever, there are just 100's of thousands of people with felony convictions for some of the most minor non violent of things...seems like you would have to rewrite the entire law concerning felons and guns, but i do agree that some felonies shouldn't warrant loss of gun ownership

The problem with the whole "felons and guns" thing is this: those felons who are determined to commit further crimes with firearms will do so and the law be damned. They will not be deterred by any law. Those who are not so inclined are precisely the ones you don't even need to worry about. So the entire "no guns for felons" approach is fatally broken from the start, such that it has exactly the opposite effect from that which would actually prove beneficial to the citizenry, namely that it strips arms from those who would be responsible with them.

There is no logical way out of the above argument. If you're going to insist that the state has no business restricting RKBA from law abiding citizens because criminals ignore the law anyway, then you must acknowledge the validity of precisely the same argument as applied to those who have a criminal record and who are released into society. There appears to be a notably higher probability that a person with a past criminal history will commit further crimes when compared to those without a record, but that is irrelevant to the above argument, because the above argument is only about the effect of restrictions on those who are no longer or have never been inclined to commit crimes, and the lack of effect on those who are inclined to commit crimes.


The bottom line is that the "no guns for felons" approach is a feel good approach that has no real beneficial effect. You'll get lots of argument against that from LEOs and the like, because their logic is that they're able to get repeat criminals off the street more easily because the "no guns for felons" law gives those LEOs more reasons to arrest and DAs more reason to convict than they would otherwise have. In essence, the purpose as they see it is to "test" the individual's propensity to follow the law by creating additional laws that they must follow. But by that logic, we'd be better off making driving illegal for convicted felons, because then it would be trivial for a LEO to determine whether or not the felon in question is following the law.

FalconLair
05-27-2012, 10:19 PM
well maybe the correct way to address the issue of gun carry would be to have something in "addition" to a misdemeanor or a felony type charge...almost like the "violent felony" type charge that would solely determine whether or not you lose your right to gun ownership...certain instances of felony convictions or misdemeanors would not affect our right to still carry a firearm...i still dont quite get the DV or TRO filings which could cause your to have to lose your firearms...very arbitrary

the more i think about it the more even i can see the flaws in the way our legislators have missed the boat badly with some of these laws...this is not just a gun issue either, i believe felons also lose their right to vote, problems getting passports to travel, cant serve on a jury lol...so its more than just a gun issue when you really think about all the things that being a felon can prevent you from doing