PDA

View Full Version : State to release prisoners?


bulgron
04-03-2008, 2:00 PM
According to this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/prisoners_early_release_3) AP article:


Lawmakers from California to Kentucky are trying to save money with a drastic and potentially dangerous budget-cutting proposal: releasing tens of thousands of convicts from prison, including drug addicts, thieves and even violent criminals.

Officials acknowledge that the idea carries risks, but they say they have no choice because of huge budget gaps brought on by the slumping economy.


So if the state starts releasing convicted felons, including thieves and violent criminals, do you suppose my desire to get a CCW for general-purpose self-defense in an arguably increasingly dangerous world will gain any more traction with my local Sheriff's office?

How about if I talk about my children in my Good Cause statement? How much of a dollar value do I have to put on their lives before the county will agree that I have something valuable to protect?

:mad:

deleted by PC police
04-03-2008, 2:04 PM
This crap pisses me off. We are so close to revolution time it's not even funny. There is so much crap they can get rid of in California budget and they can start with those damned agg inspection stations on the border where they do nothing but look stupid and back up traffic for 100 miles. They always start cutting with teachers, cops or something else necessary. They never cut the fluff.

CCWFacts
04-03-2008, 2:09 PM
I fixed it:

Officials acknowledge that the idea carries risks, but they say they have no choice because of huge budget gaps brought on by out-of-control state employees union compensation, pension and health coverage packages.

SFGate has been running a series of articles on city-level compensation packages which lead to nurses making over $200k per year, that kind of thing.

As employers we are not getting value for our money, at city, county or state levels. State employees who make over $100k per year are not exploited workers and should not be in union contracts.

So if the state starts releasing convicted felons, including thieves and violent criminals, do you suppose my desire to get a CCW for general-purpose self-defense in an arguably increasingly dangerous world will gain any more traction with my local Sheriff's office?

In your (and also my) location, "good cause" has to do with VIP status and little else.

:mad:

Me too.

acolytes
04-03-2008, 2:12 PM
Release criminals so they can go out and commit crime with illegally acquired guns, so the anti's have more ammunition for tighter gun laws. Sounds like the way this country has been going so far.

Oleboy
04-03-2008, 2:27 PM
Heres the fix Obama & Clinton can donate the money they are raiseing to the poor that way they dont have to steal and some can get off of welfare. Obama raised 40 mil in march

yellowfin
04-03-2008, 2:29 PM
So assault, drug dealing, and theft are just hunky dory but carrying a sidearm to protect your life is still something that bothers them. Yes, rapists, you can go home and out on the street again but no, you sir law abiding citizen, still have your rights stolen from you by the state purely for the crime of living here. Wow, that's such a wonderful message from people who supposedly work for us, isn't it? Glad to see their priorities are in order :rolleyes:

Pvt. Cowboy
04-03-2008, 2:32 PM
Release criminals so they can go out and commit crime with illegally acquired guns, so the anti's have more ammunition for tighter gun laws....

... so they can prosecute more gun owners and put them in prison.

TO RECAP:

Violent offenders released from prison to roam the streets. Law abiding citizens rendered defenseless and sent to prison taking the place of the released criminals.

Welcome to Backwardia where bright ideas cost $14 billion a year. :TFH:

Si, Se Puede!

CCWFacts
04-03-2008, 2:35 PM
Law abiding citizens rendered defenseless and sent to prison taking the place of the released criminals.

Don't take this as advice, but: for someone who isn't a prohibited person, isn't in the process of committing a crime, and is carrying a gun which is registered, it's two misdemeanors: illegally concealed, and illegal loaded carry. These cases are almost always handled with a plea that doesn't involve any jail time. It does involve legal bills, a criminal record, and probably 10 year prohibition from possessing any firearms.

bulgron
04-03-2008, 2:42 PM
Don't take this as advice, but: for someone who isn't a prohibited person, isn't in the process of committing a crime, and is carrying a gun which is registered, it's two misdemeanors: illegally concealed, and illegal loaded carry. These cases are almost always handled with a plea that doesn't involve any jail time. It does involve legal bills, a criminal record, and probably 10 year prohibition from possessing any firearms.

This is why I would never do it unless the fecal matter was truly impacting with the rotating air movement device.

Bill_in_SD
04-03-2008, 2:46 PM
Makes LAWFUL Open Carry more attractive, doesn't it.....

bulgron
04-03-2008, 2:47 PM
Makes LAWFUL Open Carry more attractive, doesn't it.....

And we can do that how, exactly?

I mean, short of moving back to the United States of America?

Hopi
04-03-2008, 2:48 PM
And we can do that how, exactly?

I mean, short of moving back to the United States of America?

There are a few active threads discussing this...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=94045&highlight=open+carry

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=93493&highlight=open+carry

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=91992&highlight=open+carry

Bill_in_SD
04-03-2008, 2:58 PM
My point being, instead of being forced to (or even entertaining) resort to UNLAWFUL concealed carry, the option to LAWFULLY Open Carry (unloaded, to meet California law) looks like a much better option.

I cannot afford to have an arrest for breaking the law on my record. Push comes to shove, the Open Carry method is much safer in the long run, from the legal perspective.

bulgron
04-03-2008, 2:59 PM
I think the open carry method is a gimmick that will just piss off the neighbors and get me a lot of attention from the local LEO. I mean, what's to keep them from busting me for disturbing the peace?

Not to mention the fact that I believe carrying an unloaded weapon around OC is an extremely dangerous thing to do.

ibanezfoo
04-03-2008, 3:02 PM
Yup... my brother-in-law works for the state "helping" the criminal kids and he said to be prepared for the flood....

-Bryan

Hopi
04-03-2008, 3:03 PM
I think the open carry method is a gimmick that will just piss off the neighbors and get me a lot of attention from the local LEO. I mean, what's to keep them from busting me for disturbing the peace?

Not to mention the fact that I believe carrying an unloaded weapon around OC is an extremely dangerous thing to do.

Have you read the discussions above? Objections/rebuttals similar to yours are covered in depth.

nobody_special
04-03-2008, 3:32 PM
My point being, instead of being forced to (or even entertaining) resort to UNLAWFUL concealed carry, the option to LAWFULLY Open Carry (unloaded, to meet California law) looks like a much better option.

Except that it's not really an option in urban areas, due to the rather generous acreage covered by the "school zone" restriction.

bulgron
04-03-2008, 3:44 PM
Except that it's not really an option in urban areas, due to the rather generous acreage covered by the "school zone" restriction.

Yes. Exactly.

One way or another, they'd find a way to screw over an average guy like me if I ever tried something like this.

CCWFacts
04-03-2008, 3:50 PM
Yes. Exactly.

One way or another, they'd find a way to screw over an average guy like me if I ever tried something like this.

Ditto. It would be hard for me to go anywhere that's not within 1,000 feet of a school that any reasonable person would be aware of in my area.

My hope right now is that Heller is going to be usable to wipe out the GC requirement of our state law. Short of that, my area is no-issue and will always be no-issue.

bulgron
04-03-2008, 3:54 PM
My hope right now is that Heller is going to be usable to wipe out the GC requirement of our state law. Short of that, my area is no-issue and will always be no-issue.

Or, plan B, force the state to allow open carry by law abiding citizens, and the safe school zone BS be damned. (Once we have that, I believe we'll see our counties' attitudes toward CCW change rapidly.)

CCWFacts
04-03-2008, 3:59 PM
Or, plan B, force the state to allow open carry by law abiding citizens, and the safe school zone BS be damned. (Once we have that, I believe we'll see our counties' attitudes toward CCW change rapidly.)

Yes, or that. If I knew that I had solid you-can't-find-anything-to-bust-me-on protection for loaded open carry, no school zone BS, I would


Apply for a CCW, with my GC being, "I need a CCW because open carry could make me a target and concealed carry is tactically superior"
Get denied. Appeal, get denied, apply to the sheriff, get denied, appeal, and get denied
Start loaded open carrying. Why not? Most people here are so unaware of the existence of firearms that they wouldn't notice, or they would think it's some kind of digital video camera

But all that is contingent on rock-solid protection from Heller. I guess we'll see pretty soon.

bulgron
04-03-2008, 4:23 PM
But all that is contingent on rock-solid protection from Heller. I guess we'll see pretty soon.

Likely that protection won't come until Son of Heller, or even Grandson of Heller, if at all.

But at least we know what our strategy will be going forward, all assuming Heller goes well. (I feel compelled to continue to say that, even though I'm quite hopeful at this time.)

CCWFacts
04-03-2008, 8:41 PM
But at least we know what our strategy will be going forward, all assuming Heller goes well. (I feel compelled to continue to say that, even though I'm quite hopeful at this time.)

Ok, here's my question. Take a look at Douglas Ray HICKMAN v. Sherman BLOCK (http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/81f3d98.html). It basically says, "Hickman doesn't have a right to a CCW because the 2A is a right of the states, not of the people."

It didn't say, "the 2A is irrelevant because it's not incorporated".

If the 2A had been found to be a right of the people, then would the Hickman v. Block ruling been different? If the answer to that is "yes" then a finding that the 2A is a right of the people (individuals) would immediately reverse the logic of Hickman, and would mean that denial of a CCW would be an injury because it results in denial of a right.

IANAL so could someone who knows more explain, what happens to Hickman's reasoning if we get a "it's an individual right" result from Heller?

thefifthspeed
04-03-2008, 8:50 PM
I don't have a problem with what they are proposing if the plan to put the funds back into the criminal justice system like being proactive with prevention. If they are just cutting to help budget problems I do have a problem. Or nation has around 50% resivdisim rate which means most of these people will just end up back in the same place and it may even cost more after we take into account the time and effort it takes to put them back through the whole process. Overall I do think that we created this problem ourselves especially with things like Prop 21 here in CA.

scootergmc
04-03-2008, 8:59 PM
This is old news (Dupe).

What ruined any chance of rehabilitation of inmates was determinate sentencing.

tyrist
04-03-2008, 11:11 PM
The funny thing about prisoner release....they release them on the street and within a couple of months we put them all back. Does'nt really save any money and instead costs the victim money in lost property, medical bills, and time.

Also as a city employee who was stated as in a profession that often makes over 100k. Yes we can easily make over 100k but that is because we are so short staffed we have to work double shifts and get paid over time. Try working a 24 hour 3 days in a row and see if you feel you are being over paid.

yellowfin
04-04-2008, 9:58 AM
Ok, here's my question. Take a look at Douglas Ray HICKMAN v. Sherman BLOCK (http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/81f3d98.html). It basically says, "Hickman doesn't have a right to a CCW because the 2A is a right of the states, not of the people."

It didn't say, "the 2A is irrelevant because it's not incorporated".

If the 2A had been found to be a right of the people, then would the Hickman v. Block ruling been different? If the answer to that is "yes" then a finding that the 2A is a right of the people (individuals) would immediately reverse the logic of Hickman, and would mean that denial of a CCW would be an injury because it results in denial of a right.

IANAL so could someone who knows more explain, what happens to Hickman's reasoning if we get a "it's an individual right" result from Heller? It basically said that the 2nd Amendment is meaningless. Let's not be unclear about that for one second. It is nothing short of a complete perversion of law. I haven't the foggiest idea as to why that wasn't appealed to the Supreme Court and the ruling beaten to an unrecognizable pulp. Heller should at very least vacate that ruling entirely. It is the Hickman decision which justifies everything the antis are doing and have done for the last 12 years--it does in fact say that the 2nd Amendment is completely and utterly inapplicable in CA.

How the people responsible for it can show their faces in daylight is a complete mystery to me. They should at very least have been dismissed and disbarred for it.