Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

[kludge]

To point out the height of our INjustice system... The idea that Martha Stewart cannot own a firearm is ridiculous!

+1

No matter who you are you have a right to protect your own life.

Not all felons are violent felons. I don't know where I'd draw the line though.

Indiana law allows people who aren't violent felons to possess muzzloaders, not 100% sure whether they can possess cap and ball revolvers, but those can be purchased mail-order without an FFL.

If someone is too violent to own a firearm they should still be incarcerated!

Another +1

 

[techres]

Simply, there are two kinds of people:

Citizens
Inmates

If you are in the first class, you have the right to self defense.
If you are in the second class, you do not.

If you don't want people in the second class to have guns, then don't put them in the first class.

Seriously, if they serve their time, and are considered part of society, then they are citizens. If not, then don't let them out.

Perhaps there is a difference while on parole, but not when time has been served and sentence completed.

Keep in mind, felons are used as the perfect example of "allowed gun control" by the anti's. If they as "full citizens" cannot own XYZ, then it makes sense that you really don't have an "absolute" right to own Z (we can talk about X & Y when Z is no longer available).

God grants us the right to effective self defense. A felony conviction changes that in no way.

 

[Prometheus]

Simply, there are two kinds of people:

Citizens
Inmates

If you are in the first class, you have the right to self defense.
If you are in the second class, you do not.

If you don't want people in the second class to have guns, then don't put them in the first class.

Seriously, if they serve their time, and are considered part of society, then they are citizens. If not, then don't let them out.

BIG +1

Perhaps there is a difference while on parole, but not when time has been served and sentence completed.

IMO while on parole they are still under the authority of the DOC and haven't served there sentences. This brings up another issue of prison over crowding and if the inmates are actually serving their sentences. Thats another issue/topic however.

God grants us the right to effective self defense. A felony conviction changes that in no way.

Another big +1

 

[Coach]

Simply, there are two kinds of people:

Citizens
Inmates

If you are in the first class, you have the right to self defense.
If you are in the second class, you do not.

If you don't want people in the second class to have guns, then don't put them in the first class.

Seriously, if they serve their time, and are considered part of society, then they are citizens. If not, then don't let them out.

Perhaps there is a difference while on parole, but not when time has been served and sentence completed.

Keep in mind, felons are used as the perfect example of "allowed gun control" by the anti's. If they as "full citizens" cannot own XYZ, then it makes sense that you really don't have an "absolute" right to own Z (we can talk about X & Y when Z is no longer available).

God grants us the right to effective self defense. A felony conviction changes that in no way.

I have a big problem with the overwhelming attitude on this thread. Felons violent or not should not be considered citizens ever again. One screw up is enough if it is serious enough to be a felony. If they have a need to defend themselves fine do it without a gun. You don't like the treatment don't do the crime. Or don't get caught, or hire a better lawyer. Tough ****.

They have had their due process and they lost their citizenship status. They had their rights and then they screwed it up. Someone who has been caught doing a felonius act violent or not has done other things as bad or worse for which they did not get caught. So I have no problem stripping convicted felons of their rights as citizens for life. including Martha.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I have a big problem with the overwhelming attitude on this thread. Felons violent or not should not be considered citizens ever again. One screw up is enough if it is serious enough to be a felony. If they have a need to defend themselves fine do it without a gun. You don't like the treatment don't do the crime. Or don't get caught, or hire a better lawyer. Tough ****.

They have had their due process and they lost their citizenship status. They had their rights and then they screwed it up. Someone who has been caught doing a felonius act violent or not has done other things as bad or worse for which they did not get caught. So I have no problem stripping convicted felons of their rights as citizens for life. including Martha.

Then why ever let them out? Why REHABILITATE them? Why not just dig a mass grave and be done with it? One mess up doesn't mean that is who you are. We are all people and we all make mistakes.

 

[sanzo87]

OH sorry (coach and others) the problem with your statement(s) to me is that you can get a felony charge for a lot of things that are non violent. That’s what people are not getting!!!!!!!! I’m sorry but because you were doing something stupid like DWI or DUI or god what other felony charges are there like embezzlement etc……… That are not violent crimes and do not suggest that you would use a gun or other force to commit a crime or cause harm so you did a little insider trading to make a few bucks or you were young and dumb so you thought you would do something to impress your friends or a girl(lake most of us haven’t done something dumb to impress someone ~illegal or not~) and the sad thing is most felons cant even vote to be represented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(so who the hell is standing up for them give me a ****ing break!!!!!!!!!!) The sad thing is that most people don’t give a **** about anyone but them self’s its truly sad and even more sad that people still believe that no matter what kind of life you have lived or are living that one bad deed is enough to condemn you for life. There’s an old adage it goes “one good deed can not save ones from a life of bad , but one bad one is enough to condemn him” and sadly we live in a world that has made it so true. Its truly sad because the same people that spew that crap are the same that lay down to conformity because its easier to do that than to stand up for what you know is right not what you have been programmed is right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ALL HAVE MESSED UP WE ARE ONLY HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have a big problem with the overwhelming attitude on this thread. Felons violent or not should not be considered citizens ever again. One screw up is enough if it is serious enough to be a felony. If they have a need to defend themselves fine do it without a gun. You don't like the treatment don't do the crime. Or don't get caught, or hire a better lawyer. Tough ****.

They have had their due process and they lost their citizenship status. They had their rights and then they screwed it up. Someone who has been caught doing a felonius act violent or not has done other things as bad or worse for which they did not get caught. So I have no problem stripping convicted felons of their rights as citizens for life. including Martha.

So a corrupt (or even, to be kind, "misguided") judge, an overzealous prosecutor, and a badly instructed jury should be sufficient to take away from someone what they were given by their Creator? A "felony" is just a name given by fallible humans to a specific act they've decided is a crime they want to punish. In essence, playing your home stereo where it can be heard outside because your windows are open could be (incorrectly) called a felony and if you did it, you then are denied the ability to be within the law when you defend yourself against a real criminal. You lose the privilege of voting. You lose any chance to be hired in many, if not most jobs... because some @$$hat with a title decided to call this or that act a "felony".

No. That title needs to be reserved for the most heinous of crimes; those that do harm or damage to another person or can be shown to have been intended to do so. (arson comes to mind, or attempted murder) Our legal system has gotten away from two definitions: mala prohibita and mala in se. These define, respectively, crimes that are bad because they are prohibited and crimes that are bad in and of themselves; that is, the act itself would be bad even in the absence of law. Those terms are crucial to this discussion. I know a man who plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge involving his livestock getting out through a fence he didn't keep in good repair. He always made recompense for any damage they caused, but he had a neighbor who did some research and found an old law, and because he'd already plead guilty, the old law was applied and suddenly, this man found himself branded a felon. Fortunately, he's gotten that fiasco handled and again has the lawful ability to exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship.

Be careful. The rights you seem to be comfortable stripping from others can be as quickly denied you for no better reason than that some politician decided you don't need them anymore.

Blessings,
B

 

[techres]

Felons violent or not should not be considered citizens ever again. One screw up is enough if it is serious enough to be a felony. If they have a need to defend themselves fine do it without a gun. You don't like the treatment don't do the crime. Or don't get caught, or hire a better lawyer. Tough ****.

So long as there are laws like the one in texas that makes it a felony for a woman to have 7 "marital aids" in her possession then I guess the "felony means super bad butcher" perception does not hold water.

We pass laws to make minor crimes major, then we release major criminals into society but do not really make them citizens again. Neither of these actions make much sense.

Again, I am good with two classes: citizens and inmates. Parolees are still inmates so restrictions apply. But citizens are citizens. Without the absolute clarity of that point, any "right" can be taken from other citizens like you and me.

 

[Coach]

Then why ever let them out? Why REHABILITATE them? Why not just dig a mass grave and be done with it? One mess up doesn't mean that is who you are. We are all people and we all make mistakes.

Don't let them out. I never said let them out. A violent crime or embezzlement is a choice. Choose not to do it or take the punishment no rights forever. Anything I have said here or else where is a far cry from mass graves, and that statement was horse ****. Completely void of logic and way out of line.

How many examples are there of people who have killed someone and served less than ten years? There are lots and those people should never get out, and if they do they should never have rights again. Felon DUI might not be violent but it is only luck that someone else did not die or get injured.

Perhaps there are many things that are felonies that should not be felonies, but I stand by what I said earlier. I don't want felons owning guns, voting holding public office and probably many other things. I think we over do it on laws, and need to calm down and just enforce the ones we have.

White collar crime is still crime. It hurts people even though it does not leave bruises and dead bodies directly. If you come home and some guy is carrying out your gun safe what are you going to do? But if he steals your pension or public funds with a computer or a spread sheet or fancy accounting that is different. ********.

Our rights are for free people with morals and scruples not an excuse to be a complete jackass and criminal. With these rights come responsibilities. My rights end where yours begin. Criminals have crossed that line.

When have any one of us doing something wrong and not known it was wrong? Never.

 

[Coach]

We pass laws to make minor crimes major, then we release major criminals into society but do not really make them citizens again. Neither of these actions make much sense.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!



Again, I am good with two classes: citizens and inmates. Parolees are still inmates so restrictions apply. But citizens are citizens. Without the absolute clarity of that point, any "right" can be taken from other citizens like you and me.

Your rights and my rights could be gone tomorrow if the right people decided to do it. We have a false sense of security in this country that we cannot lose our rights. It could happen and few would ever know. Randy Weaver for example was lucky to live through his experience, and his family is destroyed and it could happen to any one of us. Look at what after hurricane Katrina. It could happen any where there is a big storm or a little unrest.

Being tough on criminals; "real ones" does not make this more or less likely to happen.

 

[Coach]

So a corrupt (or even, to be kind, "misguided") judge, an overzealous prosecutor, and a badly instructed jury should be sufficient to take away from someone what they were given by their Creator?



Blessings,
B

There are appeals. Our system is not perfect, far from it. But an innocent person can fight and appeal and those wrongs can be over turned.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There are appeals. Our system is not perfect, far from it. But an innocent person can fight and appeal and those wrongs can be over turned.

You have every right to your opinion, Coach. I don't share it. No one should have to fight to get back something that the gov't had no business taking in the first place. Also, if a person takes something from you, that person will pay a penalty for it if they're caught. If gov't takes something from you, IF you manage to get it back, you might get it back "with the apologies of the court." (That is, gov't, or the functionary thereof, will pay no penalty at all.)

Case in point, Mr. Olofson of Wisconsin. I don't know if you know the case, but he had a 20 year old AR-15 which had a hammer-follow failure. He'd loaned it to someone else who had it at a range, put 800-some-odd rounds through it before it evidenced this failure. He continued shooting and put several hundred more rounds through it before it did it again. The range had a zero-tolerance policy for full-auto fire, so ATF was notified. This military veteran, currently serving in the (reserves or Nat'l Guard, I forget which) had his door breached with hydraulic tools, a no-knock warrant served on him, his belongings confiscated, and yet, when his rifle was first tested, the agent doing so reported, "not a machine gun". The agent in charge of the case said something to the effect of, "try it again with this ammo" and the malfunction did show up that time. Mr. Olofson was tried and convicted. Oddly, however, the man actually firing the bloody thing at the time not only was not tried, he was not charged, in fact, he was paid some undisclosed sum by ATF to testify against the man who had apparently been his friend before. Mr. Olofson is now a convicted felon.

Oh yes, we are SO much safer as a country and as a society to have a man like THAT behind bars and the people persecuting him (yes, I said persecuting, not prosecuting) out there "defending" us.

Please pardon my sarcasm; it is directed at the situation, not at you personally.

Blessings,
B

 

[Coach]

You have every right to your opinion, Coach. I don't share it. No one should have to fight to get back something that the gov't had no business taking in the first place. Also, if a person takes something from you, that person will pay a penalty for it if they're caught. If gov't takes something from you, IF you manage to get it back, you might get it back "with the apologies of the court." (That is, gov't, or the functionary thereof, will pay no penalty at all.)

Case in point, Mr. Olofson of Wisconsin. I don't know if you know the case, but he had a 20 year old AR-15 which had a hammer-follow failure. He'd loaned it to someone else who had it at a range, put 800-some-odd rounds through it before it evidenced this failure. He continued shooting and put several hundred more rounds through it before it did it again. The range had a zero-tolerance policy for full-auto fire, so ATF was notified. This military veteran, currently serving in the (reserves or Nat'l Guard, I forget which) had his door breached with hydraulic tools, a no-knock warrant served on him, his belongings confiscated, and yet, when his rifle was first tested, the agent doing so reported, "not a machine gun". The agent in charge of the case said something to the effect of, "try it again with this ammo" and the malfunction did show up that time. Mr. Olofson was tried and convicted. Oddly, however, the man actually firing the bloody thing at the time not only was not tried, he was not charged, in fact, he was paid some undisclosed sum by ATF to testify against the man who had apparently been his friend before. Mr. Olofson is now a convicted felon.

Oh yes, we are SO much safer as a country and as a society to have a man like THAT behind bars and the people persecuting him (yes, I said persecuting, not prosecuting) out there "defending" us.

Please pardon my sarcasm; it is directed at the situation, not at you personally.

Blessings,
B

If these are the facts, and indeed they may be this is wrong and needs correcting. If these are the facts there was no crime except by the government, and no warrant entrys should not happen. The Patriot Act needs to be removed.

But this case does nothing to say that convicted felons should be able to vote or own guns. Nothing. One of the prevailing opinions here is to point out the mistakes of the courts and the system. we need to work to eliminate these without a doubt. There is always an appeal process.

I had a friend, he passed away, who had a younger brother who shot and killed a roommate "accidently" in a very heated argument. I believe the man who did the killing served a grand total of seven years. I am not sure what the official charge ended up being. Seven year! That is not enough. I am just fine with that man never voting or owning firearms again. He cannot handle the responsibility. His past actions have demonstrated it, and I don't want him having a second chance. This is what I am talking about not people like this olofson.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If these are the facts, and indeed they may be this is wrong and needs correcting. If these are the facts there was no crime except by the government, and no warrant entrys should not happen. The Patriot Act needs to be removed.

But this case does nothing to say that convicted felons should be able to vote or own guns. Nothing. One of the prevailing opinions here is to point out the mistakes of the courts and the system. we need to work to eliminate these without a doubt. There is always an appeal process.

I had a friend, he passed away, who had a younger brother who shot and killed a roommate "accidently" in a very heated argument. I believe the man who did the killing served a grand total of seven years. I am not sure what the official charge ended up being. Seven year! That is not enough. I am just fine with that man never voting or owning firearms again. He cannot handle the responsibility. His past actions have demonstrated it, and I don't want him having a second chance. This is what I am talking about not people like this olofson.

I just looked up a refresher on the case. I may have been in error on the round count, but in any event, at the smallest possible number, assuming 30rd mags, he went through at least four of them prior to the malfunction. The reason I raise the issue of David Olofson's case, however, is in response to your claim that if we've done something wrong, we knew it and did it anyway. I'm saddened to read of your friend's brother's case. I don't know enough about it to say it was or was not an erroneous ruling, but I'll ask you this: Why are you wanting to lump everyone who is ever convicted of any crime some politician called a "felony" in with this one, when the only similarity is that a politician called both of them the same thing. Remember, those same politicians are the ones we often deride for pandering to whomever they're speaking at the moment.

I know you're talking about cases like what you described, but we don't write laws to address this or that case- we write laws to address generalities. It may be unlawful to, for example, drink alcohol when you're under 21, but it is wrong to steal that alcohol-or anything else. Why? Because if you're stealing it, that means you're taking something that belongs to someone else. This is where it goes back to malum prohibitum vs. malum in se: You want to lock up those who are a danger to themselves and/or society, feel free. You want to lock up and strip the rights from people forever because they broke someone's rule, I can't agree with that.

I think people can change. I think that they can learn, and given the right motivation, many will. If you remove permanently any hope for someone who's had a "felony" conviction to ever exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship again, what's his incentive to turn his life around? If because of a bad choice at 18 or even younger, if tried as an adult, someone can never ever hope to get a good job by which he can support his family, he's left with few options but to turn to crime and re-offend. If he has a chance to return to full citizenship, he just might do so. With age, many times comes wisdom.

Blessings,
B

 

[Coach]

The reason I raise the issue of David Olofson's case, however, is in response to your claim that if we've done something wrong, we knew it and did it anyway. I'm saddened to read of your friend's brother's case. I don't know enough about it to say it was or was not an erroneous ruling, but I'll ask you this: Why are you wanting to lump everyone who is ever convicted of any crime some politician called a "felony" in with this one, when the only similarity is that a politician called both of them the same thing. Remember, those same politicians are the ones we often deride for pandering to whomever they're speaking at the moment.

I know you're talking about cases like what you described, but we don't write laws to address this or that case- we write laws to address generalities. It may be unlawful to, for example, drink alcohol when you're under 21, but it is wrong to steal that alcohol-or anything else. Why? Because if you're stealing it, that means you're taking something that belongs to someone else. This is where it goes back to malum prohibitum vs. malum in se: You want to lock up those who are a danger to themselves and/or society, feel free. You want to lock up and strip the rights from people forever because they broke someone's rule, I can't agree with that.

I think people can change. I think that they can learn, and given the right motivation, many will. If you remove permanently any hope for someone who's had a "felony" conviction to ever exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship again, what's his incentive to turn his life around? If because of a bad choice at 18 or even younger, if tried as an adult, someone can never ever hope to get a good job by which he can support his family, he's left with few options but to turn to crime and re-offend. If he has a chance to return to full citizenship, he just might do so. With age, many times comes wisdom.

Blessings,
B

I would say Olofson did nothing wrong and should not have been convicted and should and perhaps is still fighting to get Justice. I certainly hope he gets it. I see you point in bringing it up.

If our legal system were to get much tougher as I would like we need to do change some things. For example, no Patriot Act, define felony more clearly and uniformly. I think you favor this Bill. But we will probably disagree with what we are willing to include. But on such cases as I described earlier I would be tough.

People can change, but my experience is that usually they don't. When it comes to serious criminals like the case I described I am not willing to see if the person has changed. Eric was old enough to know better than to point a gun at someone when he killed that man. He knew better and he did it anyway because he wanted to or because he felt he needed to do it.

The way things are now in this country a felon can get out of jail and still lead a life better than most people on this planet. No voting or guns is just too bad. It is not like they have nothing to live for in their life.

I am probably willing to be this harsh because I am a teacher and I see the same ole repeat offenders get slapped on the wrist forever and ever, and they don't learn and they don't change. But when you start talking about adults and things get more serious I am not willing to forgive and forget. Perhaps that is radical.

I am all for citzens enjoying their rights and liberties, but I want them to fulfill their responsibilities as well. Bill of Rights you seem like a good man who just is more concerned about a different part of this situation than I am. I don't think punishing criminals that deserve it endangers good, law abiding citzens right one bit. It sure does not have to endanger our rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would say Olofson did nothing wrong and should not have been convicted and should and perhaps is still fighting to get Justice. I certainly hope he gets it. I see you point in bringing it up.

If our legal system were to get much tougher as I would like we need to do change some things. For example, no Patriot Act, define felony more clearly and uniformly. I think you favor this Bill. But we will probably disagree with what we are willing to include. But on such cases as I described earlier I would be tough.

People can change, but my experience is that usually they don't. When it comes to serious criminals like the case I described I am not willing to see if the person has changed. Eric was old enough to know better than to point a gun at someone when he killed that man. He knew better and he did it anyway because he wanted to or because he felt he needed to do it.

The way things are now in this country a felon can get out of jail and still lead a life better than most people on this planet. No voting or guns is just too bad. It is not like they have nothing to live for in their life.

I am probably willing to be this harsh because I am a teacher and I see the same ole repeat offenders get slapped on the wrist forever and ever, and they don't learn and they don't change. But when you start talking about adults and things get more serious I am not willing to forgive and forget. Perhaps that is radical.

I am all for citzens enjoying their rights and liberties, but I want them to fulfill their responsibilities as well. Bill of Rights you seem like a good man who just is more concerned about a different part of this situation than I am. I don't think punishing criminals that deserve it endangers good, law abiding citzens right one bit. It sure does not have to endanger our rights.

Thanks for this very diplomatic post, Coach. You're correct that punishing criminals who deserve it does not endanger good, law-abiding citizens. The issue is where we draw the line, as you pointed out above. Malum prohibitum laws remind me an awful lot of what you tell little children when you're frustrated with the "whywhywhywhywhywhywhy" stage: "Because I said so, THAT'S why!" and we (or any adults) are by definition, not children. We're able to comprehend answers, we're able to think rationally (most of us, anyway!) and whether we understand Immanuel Kant or not, we can follow the logic of his Categorical Imperative: Do nothing that you cannot at the same time will into universal law. In other words, it's wrong to kill, rape, commit arson, assault, etc., because we can see that if everyone is doing that, soon, we will all be dead, raped, etc. I can't compare that to some of the so-called "felonies" i.e. Martha Stewart, David Olofson, and "Scooter" Libby.

Further, however, along the same "categorical imperative" line of thinking, we have to consider allowing government to continually add "crime"s, increase punishments, and the like for soon, we'll all be criminals by virtue of things that should not be addressed by government at all, certainly not by the criminal justice system.

I share some of your frustrations with the criminal element. I'm not working as one now, but I'm still certified as a paramedic. I spent over 21 years doing that job, so yes, I've seen the same "slap on the wrist" non-solution you've seen. I can't say I completely disagree with public caning or other very painful punishments for very heinous crimes. I think in a just world, those who behave unjustly would consider that there are no more "country club" prisons, just a whole lot of pain and a whole lot of hard work to be done to make recompense for the damages done. Once the debt is paid, though, they're square and on a par with everyone else. (Read The Probability Broach for an idea of how this could work) (It's available online at Big Head Press - Thoughtful Stories, Graphic Novels Online And In Print - The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel, by L. Neil Smith and Scott Bieser, or you can buy it in paperback) I think that if violent criminals knew that the likely result of their crime was either an immediate reaction by their intended victim or even by bystanders, let alone a slightly delayed one by the court system, our crime rate would quickly fall. I think that our Founders would have supported this.

Thanks for discussing this. I really enjoy things like this that stimulate thought and consideration of others' viewpoints.

Blessings,
Bill