ATF raid in Parker City - Ludco Gun Shop

[Lucas156]

It doesn't really matter, but there are only so many implication that can be made from what you said. None of them make a lot of sense.

I think it makes perfect sense. If a criminal is not rehabilitated then is he not still a criminal when he is let out in the real world? And if he is truly rehabilitated then why aren't all his rights restored?

 

[PatriotPride]

Statements like this makes me wonder which way some people want it. Others sound more like borderline Soverign citizens. There is critisism of (managers) of BATF on letting guns go to build a case. (which is justifed) Then they make an arrest on someone that needed to be arrested and are critized again. Which is it!!!! As far as morally wrong it dosen't matter it was against the law. Bending it to your favor is not neccessarily make it "Morally Right" either.

You say "Sovereign Citizen" like it's a bad thing.

 

[modelflyer2003]

BUZZ! Sorry. You can only plead the 5th if you are guilty.

Not true. A person pleads the 5th before and during the trial at which time he has not been found guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land.

 

[PatriotPride]

What I am saying there Lucas is, if you are breaking the law isn't that morally wrong?? Like others I personally might not agree with some laws but I follow them because what kind or moral person discards whichever laws they do not like. Just because you follow the rules dosn't make you a sheeple. Thats why I made the Soverign citizen comparison. Some people sound more like they have SC mentality.

You're not examining the other side of the coin. What if the law in question is morally wrong? I can thing of several cases in a Book that I have read (whose discussion is prohibited here) where the law required an immoral act. In that case, you are not acting immorally by disobeying that law. It's something for you to think about.

So consequences for committing a felony should be prison or nothing? If you think about it really hard, the logic behind that doesn't really make sense. Too dangerous to own a firearm and too dangerous to get a job at Subway are two different things. You're essentially arguing that in the case of one who has committed a felony, freedom should be an all or nothing thing. Why? Are you familiar with the prison system?

Yes. If a crime is deemed a felony, then it should be prison time. Not probation, not solely restitution, PRISON TIME. When that person has served their time, the rights that have been GUARANTEED to them should be restored upon their release. The only exception should be if that person used a firearm in the commission of their crime. I see it differing little from a Driver's License being permanently revoked for DUI.

And yes, I am intimately familiar with Indiana's prison system. Take it for what it is---an informed opinion.

 

[jayhawk]

I think it makes perfect sense. If a criminal is not rehabilitated then is he not still a criminal when he is let out in the real world? And if he is truly rehabilitated then why aren't all his rights restored?

The real world is not black and white. There is no system for determining if someone is 100% criminal or 100% rehabilitated. I would imagine that is why we have classes of crime (such as a felony) that are deemed by society to be serious enough that they carry lifetime penalties.

 

[jayhawk]

Yes. If a crime is deemed a felony, then it should be prison time. Not probation, not solely restitution, PRISON TIME. When that person has served their time, the rights that have been GUARANTEED to them should be restored upon their release. The only exception should be if that person used a firearm in the commission of their crime. I see it differing little from a Driver's License being permanently revoked for DUI.

And yes, I am intimately familiar with Indiana's prison system. Take it for what it is---an informed opinion.

Why must the penalty be solely prison time? Why is it okay to take away someone's rights (for committing a crime) and put them in prison and not okay to take away rights after they have been released from prison? Prison is a penalty, it is not a magical place where all the "criminals" are. Denying the right to own a firearm is a penalty. Do you see the connection? Is the issue that one penalty may or may not be temporary, while the other is typically permanent?

 

[Lucas156]

@jayhawk So do you think a driver's License being permanently revoked for DUI (which is a felony correct me if I'm wrong) is good reason for a person to not have their second amendment rights restored after punishment?

Also, is this one of the problems of our society? We are not hard enough on criminals that they learn their lesson? Or the prison system is just a money laundering scheme instead of a place to punish and rehabilitate criminals as it should be?

 

[thompal]

What I am saying there Lucas is, if you are breaking the law isn't that morally wrong??

Laws and morals are often entirely unrelated.

Imagine that you hear a ruckus in the street, and realize that a woman is being raped. You grab your handgun and go to her aid. Let's also, for the purpose of argument, say that you don't have your LTCH.

Is what you did "moral?" I would say so.

Is what you did "illegal?" Yes, you left your property carrying your handgun and you don't have government permission to do that.

Like others I personally might not agree with some laws but I follow them because what kind or moral person discards whichever laws they do not like. Just because you follow the rules dosn't make you a sheeple.

I would say that a person who BLINDLY follows rules is a person who DEFINES "sheeple." People in other countries routinely have turned in fellow citizens and family members for various crimes against the state or for being of the wrong ethnic or religious group. Was it "moral" to do so?" Hardly. Was it "LEGAL?" Of course. Keep in mind that the SS merely enforced German laws. The KGB enforced Soviet laws. Since you claim that following laws is always moral, does that mean that the SS and KGB were enforcers of morality?

Thats why I made the Soverign citizen comparison. Some people sound more like they have SC mentality.

The sovereign citizens don't have any trouble with laws. They merely claim that THEY are immune from any laws and try to prove it with wordplay, frivolous court filings, while hiding behind a cloak of religion.
One of their prime motivations is personal profit.

 

[jayhawk]

A DUI may or may not be a felony depending on the state and circumstances. I don't necessarily agree with every felony DUI conviction. I wouldn't necessarily agree that every felon "deserves" to have certain rights revoked. However, there are a lot of things I don't agree with. It doesn't mean that those things are inherently wrong because I feel the "should" be some other way.

But anyway, just as a matter of conversation, what percentage of people would you guess are rehabilitated by a stay in prison?

Anyways...I'm going to bed. Keep it real.

 

[Lucas156]

Why is it okay to take away someone's rights (for committing a crime) and put them in prison and not okay to take away rights after they have been released from prison?

Couple of reasons

1. the government now has the ability to limit your rights and determine if you are fit to exercise them therefore making them privileges
2.They were put in prison to not be able to do anything let alone exercise their rights. They should be let out when they have the ability to exercise their rights responsibly.

Back in the old days if someone committed murder we strung em up. Maybe we should go back to that. If the death sentence doesn't fit the crime then you get your rights restored after punishment.

 

[in625shooter]

You say "Sovereign Citizen" like it's a bad thing.

I deal with Sovereign Citizens in my line of work. Sovereign Citizens are one of the biggest threats to the United States. For those that don't know these are the people that don't follow or believe any kind of law applies to them, pay any taxes and often times have false or fictitious DL's and vehicle registrations. Then try to file liens on personal property of any kind of person wether you are a goverment official or Joe public. I've got nothing for them!

 

[Lucas156]

But anyway, just as a matter of conversation, what percentage of people would you guess are rehabilitated by a stay in prison?

I would guess a pretty low percentage are rehabilitated. I believe it may be in part because our prison system isn't set up to rehabilitate them.

Anyways...I'm going to bed. Keep it real.

Alright thanks for debatin'

 

[thompal]

Call me crazy but I don't want someone who was convicted of a crime involving a gun to be allowed to go buy another one.

Ahh, but it doesn't say "crime involving a gun." It says "convicted felon." That felony could be a TAX violation. It could be DUI. It could be a white collar crime. It could be because you got caught growing pot for yourself.

None of those crimes shows that the criminal is inherently dangerous. In my mind, there is a difference between someone who avoids paying taxes (or makes a paperwork mistake on his return), a rapist/murderer, and a pot grower. In the eyes of the law, they are identical (except there are mandatory federal sentences for pot crimes).

 

[thompal]

The answer is that society has deemed that the released felon is not a threat to society if the felon does not own a firearm

Alright. And if the felony he was convicted of was tax evasion, how does his ownership of a firearm determine if he is a threat to society?

I'm glad to hear that you are familiar with the word "irrelevant" because this is a good use of that word.

Yes, I am familiar with the word irrelevant.

 

[thompal]

Not true. A person pleads the 5th before and during the trial at which time he has not been found guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land.

Buuuz! Better look up case law on that. The courts have said basically that the 5th says you don't have to testify against yourself when it would incriminate you. If you are innocent, then your testimony would not incriminate you. Only if you are guilty would your testimony incriminate you.

 

[thompal]

I deal with Sovereign Citizens in my line of work. Sovereign Citizens are one of the biggest threats to the United States. For those that don't know these are the people that don't follow or believe any kind of law applies to them, pay any taxes and often times have false or fictitious DL's and vehicle registrations. Then try to file liens on personal property of any kind of person wether you are a goverment official or Joe public. I've got nothing for them!

Let me guess: you're a court clerk?

The sovereign citizens usually file some oddball paper with the court, and then take their paper, with the clerk has stamped, and use that as "proof" that it is legitimate.

I don't believe that they are "one of the biggest threats to the United States," but other than that, I agree with your description of them.

 

[Lucas156]

I honestly have no idea what in625shooter is talking about

 

[in625shooter]

Let me guess: you're a court clerk?

The sovereign citizens usually file some oddball paper with the court, and then take their paper, with the clerk has stamped, and use that as "proof" that it is legitimate.

I don't believe that they are "one of the biggest threats to the United States," but other than that, I agree with your description of them.

No I'm not a clerk. I work for a Federal agency and do have arrest powers so I'll just leave it at that! I don't need to get drug into any investigation here.

 

[PatriotPride]

No I'm not a clerk. I work for a Federal agency and do have arrest powers so I'll just leave it at that! I don't need to get drug into any investigation here.

Of course of course. The Office of Arrest Ninjas. I'm familiar with it. It's good to know that posting here will get us "drug into an investigation".

 

[STEEL CORE]

3-5 years Fed time for a 1st time offender (straight sentence) + loss of business, loss of inventory, handling claims to be filed by those who's guns he cannot return right now, lawyers fees, Parole down the road with NO guns nothing/ no firearms forever as a convicted Felon (If he is convicted/innocent till then) Fed Gov has a 95% conviction rate folks, most charged do take a plea however. His co worker/staffer must have been interrogated and more than likely (I am just speculating) made an offer to spill the beans for the prosecution, and not get caught up in the mess as an accomplish. I do feel sorry for the gentleman and I have never met or done business with him/them. Health problems/Legal problems................hoo boy, poor dude.

Do like seeing all the agents in matching Khaki SWAT pants, our tax dollars at work on ATF apparel.

On a side note, it seems the Dealer/Owner had many FFL Violations, red flags went up by ATF, and in this case it seems they had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to conduct an investigation, and make an arrest.

May God have mercy on his soul.