In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Should pardoned felons have gun rights?
FrancF
Member Posts: 35,279 ✭✭✭
David Scott Blackwell has repaid his debt to society, by Georgia standards.
He served five years in prison for selling drugs. He successfully finished his probation. He was even granted a full pardon by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which would allow him to possess a gun in that state.
But should Blackwell, now living in Franklin, be able to own a gun here?
Blackwell is suing the state after being denied a gun permit in Tennessee, arguing that the Georgia pardon fully restored his rights - even the right to bear arms. It's a battle being played out in other states as well, as lawmakers in places such as Alaska and Oregon have mulled over laws to loosen firearms restrictions on felons who have had some of their rights restored.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3m26d67
He served five years in prison for selling drugs. He successfully finished his probation. He was even granted a full pardon by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which would allow him to possess a gun in that state.
But should Blackwell, now living in Franklin, be able to own a gun here?
Blackwell is suing the state after being denied a gun permit in Tennessee, arguing that the Georgia pardon fully restored his rights - even the right to bear arms. It's a battle being played out in other states as well, as lawmakers in places such as Alaska and Oregon have mulled over laws to loosen firearms restrictions on felons who have had some of their rights restored.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3m26d67
Comments
David Scott Blackwell has repaid his debt to society, by Georgia standards.
He served five years in prison for selling drugs. He successfully finished his probation. He was even granted a full pardon by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which would allow him to possess a gun in that state.
But should Blackwell, now living in Franklin, be able to own a gun here?
Blackwell is suing the state after being denied a gun permit in Tennessee, arguing that the Georgia pardon fully restored his rights - even the right to bear arms. It's a battle being played out in other states as well, as lawmakers in places such as Alaska and Oregon have mulled over laws to loosen firearms restrictions on felons who have had some of their rights restored.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3m26d67
[:(!][:(!]Lest we forget, had it NOT been for the likes of those waste of humanities Kennedy and martin "loofer" king back in '68, leading to passing that nazi/ Hitlertarian inspired GCA of same vintage; there wouldn't be this conversation for one, and I could still mail order that surplus '03 Springfield from the pages of field and stream ![V] such is the trend when we stumble down the path in goose step with idiots and liberals.....( one in the same)[:(!][:(!]
If he has met the terms of his punishment, his rights should be restored. All of them.
With or without a pardon.
So long as we as a society ignore the clear and specific wording of our founding document, citizens will be faced with intricate web of people control laws masquerading as people protection laws.
Brad Steele
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Some of you who think "they" are just like "us" might be very surprised to find out just how few pardons would be granted.
A few of "them" are very much like "us," but they are very darn few.
And, I agree, once the sentence has been served all rights are restored. If the individual is pardoned, it should be like it never happened. There must be a reason for the pardon, after the fact of his serving the sentence.
And yes, Tennessee IS one of those secret gun control states.
IMO - They aren't "Curable" nor are they "Pardonable". All convicted Child Rapists (when convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt - 100% surety of guilt) should be summarily executed. I'll provide the .45 cal JHP bullet, the delivery system and if there isn't already a long line of volunteers ahead of me, the time to administer the cure.
Back to the OP - Yes. If all aspects of the sentence have been carried out, and the person has repaid his 'debt' to society, then his 2nd Amendment rights should be restored.
It is instructive to note that this is only a Federal Document, and that individual States currently can exceed this restriction.
Expungement is a different matter, as it eliminates the record of the offense and conviction theoretically. In practice this is not always the case. I assisted a young man peripherally with an expungement, and he was denied one year after the expungement became final. He was, however, able to obtain a reference number which confirmed the full restoration of his ability to legally purchase firearms, and even allowed for him obtaining a CCL.
Obviously the right has not truly been restored, as a permission slip remains necessary.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
If he remains a danger to society, why is he not still incarcerated or made dead?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
It has been established that Pedophiles have the Highest rate of recidivism of any criminal.
IMO - They aren't "Curable" nor are they "Pardonable". All convicted Child Rapists (when convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt - 100% surety of guilt) should be summarily executed. I'll provide the .45 cal JHP bullet, the delivery system and if there isn't already a long line of volunteers ahead of me, the time to administer the cure.
Back to the OP - Yes. If all aspects of the sentence have been carried out, and the person has repaid his 'debt' to society, then his 2nd Amendment rights should be restored.
Why go to such extremes when castration is an option?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Tech141
It has been established that Pedophiles have the Highest rate of recidivism of any criminal.
IMO - They aren't "Curable" nor are they "Pardonable". All convicted Child Rapists (when convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt - 100% surety of guilt) should be summarily executed. I'll provide the .45 cal JHP bullet, the delivery system and if there isn't already a long line of volunteers ahead of me, the time to administer the cure.
Back to the OP - Yes. If all aspects of the sentence have been carried out, and the person has repaid his 'debt' to society, then his 2nd Amendment rights should be restored.
Why go to such extremes when castration is an option?
IMO - Someone who intentionally causes such harm to a child has forfeited his/her breathing rights and should be removed from the gene pool immediately.
Castration?? Well if rape/molestation was only about the sexual aspects, then your question might have more weight. However, it's not just about the physical sexual contact. There is a seriously deranged/sick/deviant mental state involved that has been shown (by some studies..............) to NOT be curable, except by the application of 225 grains of lead.
Once again, just MY opinion.
Have a Great Day!
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Tech141
It has been established that Pedophiles have the Highest rate of recidivism of any criminal.
IMO - They aren't "Curable" nor are they "Pardonable". All convicted Child Rapists (when convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt - 100% surety of guilt) should be summarily executed. I'll provide the .45 cal JHP bullet, the delivery system and if there isn't already a long line of volunteers ahead of me, the time to administer the cure.
Back to the OP - Yes. If all aspects of the sentence have been carried out, and the person has repaid his 'debt' to society, then his 2nd Amendment rights should be restored.
Why go to such extremes when castration is an option?
IMO - Someone who intentionally causes such harm to a child has forfeited his/her breathing rights and should be removed from the gene pool immediately.
Castration?? Well if rape/molestation was only about the sexual aspects, then your question might have more weight. However, it's not just about the physical sexual contact. There is a seriously deranged/sick/deviant mental state involved that has been shown (by some studies..............) to NOT be curable, except by the application of 225 grains of lead.
Once again, just MY opinion.
Have a Great Day!
Good points. You have persuaded me![:)]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Agreed, except that, IMO, the subsequent act should carry stiffer penalty.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Agreed, except that, IMO, the subsequent act should carry stiffer penalty.
Certainly.[;)] Progressive discipline.
I am merely clarifying that the act be punished as swiftly and surely as any other such act committed by any other person.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Agreed, except that, IMO, the subsequent act should carry stiffer penalty.
Certainly.[;)] Progressive discipline.
I am merely clarifying that the act be punished as swiftly and surely as any other such act committed by any other person.
Duly noted. I am just homing in on the real crux of the fears of the weak-kneed, that opine "OMG! A gun in the hand of a felon!"
This is precisely where laws such as "three strikes" need to be brought into the debate, as it may serve to assuage the fears of the aforementioned.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Agreed, except that, IMO, the subsequent act should carry stiffer penalty.
Certainly.[;)] Progressive discipline.
I am merely clarifying that the act be punished as swiftly and surely as any other such act committed by any other person.
Duly noted. I am just homing in on the real crux of the fears of the weak-kneed, that opine "OMG! A gun in the hand of a felon!"
This is precisely where laws such as "three strikes" need to be brought into the debate, as it may serve to assuage the fears of the aforementioned.
One bite out of the apple.[;)]
If a person is convicted a second time for a felony offence (certainly a persons crime) he should not be allowed to posses a weapon!
How many times must he victimize 'us' before we put some restrictions on him. If, after a second conviction of a felony he is found to be in possession of a weapon (most certainly if it was used in the commission of a crime) he should get an extra 10+ years w/o parole on top of sentence for his felony.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Agreed, except that, IMO, the subsequent act should carry stiffer penalty.
Certainly.[;)] Progressive discipline.
I am merely clarifying that the act be punished as swiftly and surely as any other such act committed by any other person.
Duly noted. I am just homing in on the real crux of the fears of the weak-kneed, that opine "OMG! A gun in the hand of a felon!"
This is precisely where laws such as "three strikes" need to be brought into the debate, as it may serve to assuage the fears of the aforementioned.
One bite out of the apple.[;)]
If a person is convicted a second time for a felony offence (certainly a persons crime) he should not be allowed to posses a weapon!
How many times must he victimize 'us' before we put some restrictions on him. If, after a second conviction of a felony he is found to be in possession of a weapon (most certainly if it was used in the commission of a crime) he should get an extra 10+ years w/o parole on top of sentence for his felony.
[xx(] personally, I'm in favor of the death penalty for the fist offense.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
2 strikes is habitual.
Habitual = The rules are simple: once you go in, you don't come out.
Ever see Escape From New York? Build the same kind of prison. No maintenance, no food, no education, no doctors, etc. other than what they have behind the walls. Just guards around the perimeter.
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored. Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
See LT we can agree on something
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored. Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
See LT we can agree on something
[;)][:)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
Are we discussing the constitutionality of a 'pedophile register' and what effect that 'register' may have on constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights?
I will repeat...once a citizen's sentence is served, all rights must be restored. Any subsequent bad-acts committed are to be punished as would be any other commission of a bad-act by any other individual.
Rather than prior restraint, prohibition, restriction, control ex-post facto prohibition and other such collectivist-government shenanigans, how about specific punishment of an individual for the commission of a specific bad-act.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Pedofiles should NEVER be returned to society.
Just my opinion. [^]
One thing I noted from LT's post, after reading it a second time, is that the non-restoration of rights is, from what I can gather, intended to be a part of the "served sentence". Thus, in the view of some, it would seem, the sentence isn't truly served until the rights are restored.
Of course the problem elephant in the room of discussion, is that the scenario of release without rights, effectively restricts the innocent.
It's some sort of sadomasochistic philosophy that the guilty is not alone in his or her culpability, but that we as a free society have played the part of enabler, and must therefore be dually punished for the bad act.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
The problem with this scenario is that we as a society have put too much faith in the police. And subsequently given up too many of our own rights to defend ourselves in the process.
Everywhere organized crime thrives there are restrictive gun laws. If the regular Joe wasn't persecuted by the police for getting violent with druggies, this scenario wouldn't even be an issue. Instead the druggies 'have rights'. They are 'protected'. They can traipse on your property, threaten you, bring their crap around to your kids. But, the police make it so YOU don't have rights. You can't protect yourself because that is a crime.
A little clue here. I've often wondered why this low-class (the druggies) is so protected. Well, I watched the History channel one day, and they presented a case of where the Brits brought Indian opium to China because it was stronger. And using that, basically made drug slaves out of the population and financially ruled the country for 100 years. Because everyone was so stoned they couldn't fight their way out of it. That makes sense to me now why the druggies are protected. It's because they are the tool that those who want to rule us use. Making their 'tools' ineffective or damaging them makes it difficult for them to be used against us.
So, I'm thinking Joe public should have done away with the druggies, no cops needed. Or, Honest cop should have shot dishonest cop in a straight up call out. Or in the back. Who cares. He's worse than a druggie, he uses his position of authority (that he doesn't really have) to perpetuate crime and profit from it.
And the people all around this? They are so damn interested in 'peace' that they won't stand up to either side.
As mentioned above, one thing you can do to a felon is "the sentence isn't served until all conditions are met. One condition may be that he never again in this country owns or possesses a firearm.
The words 'always' and 'never' should not be in your vocabulary when dealing with human beings. There are VERY FEW times when those words apply in the real world!!!![;)]
So, in the case of a pedophile returned to society, he should "always" get his rights back? I'm thinking "never". If he "ever" does regain his freedom. Same with habitually violent criminals.
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Now I've confused myself.
I want to weigh in on this but I can't decide how I would vote. Should a pedophile have rights re-instated? No. He or she should be hung. Period. Can a convicted bank robber own a gun. Nope. Defend yourself with your fists. I may be hard line on this subject but I've never crossed that line. Should they be allowed to vote? Does a man have the right to defend himself or family after attaining ill gotten moneys? I'm not comforatable with that but it is his right.
Now I've confused myself.
please explain for me the purpose in baring a bank robber from owning firearms. Is it to further punish him for his crime, somehow?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Ok, Mr. Perfect. My wife works at a credit union. The very thought of someone using a firearm to acheive what he didn't earn pisses me off. Understood?
so, making it illegal for a bank robber to own guns keeps him from using a gun while robbing banks. Gotcha.[:o)][:o)][:o)] Perhaps we should make it illegal to rob banks as well.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Yes, the completion of a sentence after conviction in court = restoration of fundamental constitutionally-enumerated rights, as to the specific topic of this thread, the RKBA.
There is no fundamental constitutionally enumerated individual right that could force a local government to hire a felon as a cop. There is nothing enumerated in the Constitution to establish the 'right' to be employed as anything.
Try again please, you are getting silly.
Are you intentionally, purposely trying to f with me? No reasonable answer should be given to that statement. I will say no. If a person has robbed a bank, they have "paid thier dues" to society, they should not be allowed to carry or vote.
F with you? No, I'm merely pointing out how preposterous and indefensible your position on this matter truly is.
I fail to see you proffer any reasoned means of preventing said bank robber from utilizing a gun in a second robbery, by merely making it illegal for him to own and carry a gun. Shall I wait for it?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
wut's proffer? we goin redneck here?
Ok, read the last part of your post. Legally owned or in posession of are two really different things
And another thing Mr. Perfect, If one chooses to cross that line? Once a criminal, always a criminal. Good thing I'm not a judge right? If you choose to cross, there is nothing to say that you won't do it again.
wut's proffer? we goin redneck here?
Ok, read the last part of your post. Legally owned or in posession of are two really different things
legally owned firearms or illegally gotten makes no difference during the bank robbery, does it? Again, I'm failing to see any argument that making firearm ownership/possession illegal is of any dissuasion to one committed to a violent act.
Thus, I must conclude you agree that it is proper to restore their rights or keep them incarcerated. Do you not?
quote:proffer-tr.v., -fered, -fer?ing, -fers.
To offer for acceptance; tender. See synonyms at offer.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/proffer#ixzz1aPkuky1b
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
For the sake of argument, I'll give in to you. Firearm ownership has nothing to do with robbing a bank. Fair? That is not the question in this post. Fair? Should a? Ah hell.. you know the question. right?
Do you not understand your own argument?
We are discussing restoration of rights, are we not?
The right to keep and bear arms is a codified right, is it not?
Were you not the one who suggested that it is proper to restrict the rights of felons from owning/possessing firearms, because for example, the felon might use a legally owned firearm in committal of a second felony (bank robbery)?
I merely asked you what might prevent the felon from using a firearm in committal of said felony whether it was legal or not to own/possess said firearm.
You, then, being unable to counter that with any reasonable argument, appear to concede that making it illegal to own a firearm does NOT prevent a felony with one.
Are you now rescinding your position on restoration of rights?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
For the sake of argument, I'll give in to you. Firearm ownership has nothing to do with robbing a bank. Fair? That is not the question in this post. Fair? Should a? Ah hell.. you know the question. right?
Do you not understand your own argument?
We are discussing restoration of rights, are we not?
The right to keep and bear arms is a codified right, is it not?
Were you not the one who suggested that it is proper to restrict the rights of felons from owning/possessing firearms, because for example, the felon might use a legally owned firearm in committal of a second felony (bank robbery)?
I merely asked you what might prevent the felon from using a firearm in committal of said felony whether it was legal or not to own/possess said firearm.
You, then, being unable to counter that with any reasonable argument, appear to concede that making it illegal to own a firearm does NOT prevent a felony with one.
Are you now rescinding your position on restoration of rights?
I stand by what I posted, even though i deleted it. Nothing will prevent a felon from obtaining a firearm or using one in a crime. I'm stating that a felon should not be able to purchase a firearm. You have lost your right. Even if said crime has been paid for.