should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[NYFelon]

Whoa there Nelly. Where have I given "varying accounts" of what happened? Unfortunately, this has devolved into a thread about me. That was never my intention, I simply wanted to give you a case as a frame of reference, it just so happened that the case was personally my own.

 

[IndianaGTI]

First for finity. If you agree that felons should be punished, the removal of their right to have guns is one of the punishments. Are you merely saying that we need to restructure sentencing laws? It is a punishment the same as incarceration only for a longer period of time.

Finity, if you disagree with the law, lobby for change or run for office. Maybe a majority of the people agree with your position that the punishment for felons is too severe because some people claim to be mistakenly convicted. I don't. If elected, you can make the punishments less lengthy.

For NYFelon. I know of at least 2 varying accounts of the event which you have told.

1. You got up in Court and swore under oath that you knowingly battered a police officer.

2. You said here that some guy battered you and you defended yourself and did not know until afterward that it was a police officer.

Those are not the same story. they vary.

 

[FutureButterBar]

Our justical system is not perfect, and never will be. We are human, we make errors. People could be thrown in jail for things they did not do. It happens. and even if they did it, there are a lot of crimes that are defined as felonies that aren't horrible crimes. a felony is a crime punishible by 1 year or more in prison. Im not saying we should give rapist and murders weapons, but there are worse people running around with guns.

 

[Bunnykid68]

All free men should be afforded the Rights guarunteed in the Constitution. Which means once one has served their time of not being a free man and are once again free they should have the same rights as others. If it is deemed they should not have these rights they should not be released.

 

[NYFelon]

I.GTI - I would suggest you go back and reread every post I have made in this thread. I, in fact, never said either of those things. The things I did say

A man took a swing at me, but did not hit me.
I beat him up
the man I fought ended up being an NYPD officer.
I was arrested.
I was indicted on assaulting an officer.
I plead guilty to assault, not assaulting an officer.
I went to jail for a year.

please point out where I said that I plead guilty to assaulting a police officer, and further, please illustrate where I said I was the victim of battery?

Thanks.

 

[finity]

First for finity. If you agree that felons should be punished, the removal of their right to have guns is one of the punishments. Are you merely saying that we need to restructure sentencing laws? It is a punishment the same as incarceration only for a longer period of time.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there some Constitutional Amendment that prohibits "cruel & unusual" punishments? Now, I'm not saying that this "punishment" rises to the level of "cruel" but I only mention it to clarify that there are limits to what punishments to which a criminal can be sentenced.

I think that, however, infringing on a persons most basic human right for the rest of their lives is very "unusual". Especially if they've been released from prison & deemed safe to walk among the rest of us as a free person again.

Do you really think that punishment is inherently reasonable for say someone who wrote too many bad checks, or carried to much of a certain type of weed on them (but other weeds are just fine...)?

For NYFelon. I know of at least 2 varying accounts of the event which you have told.

1. You got up in Court and swore under oath that you knowingly battered a police officer.

2. You said here that some guy battered you and you defended yourself and did not know until afterward that it was a police officer.

Those are not the same story. they vary.

Dude (I assume...), now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

 

[public servant]

All right, so what option do you see that he had, according to the information he's provided us about his case?

As I see it, he could either:

• Plead "Not Guilty" in a courtroom of a county with a 97% conviction rate with a possibility of up to 25 years in jail.
• Plead "Guilty" with a guarantee of one year and a felony conviction.

There is another option...

• Don't commit violent crimes.
• Move out of a county that takes being tough on crime seriously.

Then of course there's always that wacky option of..

• Personal responsibility.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Neither does the Constitution prohibit the deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to men who aren't blonde. Nor does it prohibit these things to men who are not six feet tall or taller."
I defy you to come up with even one instance where any of the founders found legitimate the denial of arms to any free man.

The Constitution does prohibit deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against men who are or are not blond and regardless of height. It prohibits bills of attainder, which is a law against a certain class of people. Which is why prohibiting felons from owning firearms after their time is served is against the Constitution in at least 2 ways. The other is the 2nd amendment.

While I don't particularly agree with it in the case of non-violent felonies...except felony drug convictions... I look at it as merely an extension of the sentencing.

Except it is not merely an extension of sentencing. It prohibits all felons from owning firearms regardless of the crime and court ordered sentence. I would have less of a problem with it if it was a condition of sentencing. If a judge after a person was found guilty prohibited a person from bearing arms is one thing, a law that states that no felon can bear arms is a totally different animal.

You seem to be having trouble understanding. The constitution does prohibit the deprivation of life liberty and happiness to blind people. But the constitution does not prohibit punishment of criminals.

The deprivation of your rights is the result of your admission to a felony. You contracted for that punishment.

Correct in that the Constitution does not prohibit punishment of criminals, but it does prohibit Bills of Attainder. Which is what banning all felons from keeping and bearing arms is.

His punishment was a year in lockup, after which he was freed. He is a free man, and as such should have all rights and privileges accorded to a free man. Including the right to keep an bear arms.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There is another option...

• Don't commit violent crimes.
• Move out of a county that takes being tough on crime seriously.

Then of course there's always that wacky option of..

• Personal responsibility.

Public, you know from my posts and from a few PMs that I'm big on personal responsibility. I agree with it. From reading his posts and for the sake of discussion presuming that NYFs details as related are accurate, it doesn't sound to me like he committed a violent crime... he defended himself from someone who did. It just so happens that in that county, a law officer has complete immunity in the eyes of his fellow officers, even when he's blatantly in the wrong.
Lastly, the thing about moving out of the county... If you were not a LEO, would you know your prosecutor's office's conviction rate? I'm a fairly intelligent and knowledgeable man, but that's not a detail of which I've made myself aware. I don't need to, because I don't commit violent crimes and I do exercise personal responsibility.

If the details he's provided are indeed accurate, I do not agree that he should have had to take responsibility for someone else's crime. He did have to do so... and he took, from what he said, (IIRC) three days shy of a full year behind bars to do it. I don't know him and I don't know what he said or did at the time, but I haven't heard him complain about that time at all (other than to state the obvious, that it wasn't a lot of fun.) What I've heard him raise as an issue and a problem is not the year behind bars but rather the fact that in addition to that year in jail, he was given a life sentence of helplessness because of that crime he didn't commit.

I agree that those who commit violent crimes against others should be punished for their crimes. I think that paying remuneration of damages should be a part of that, where possible. I don't think a life sentence is appropriate and I don't think free (or freed) men should be treated as if they can never be trusted ever again... certainly not when so many things can lead to that Scarlet Letter "F" being branded onto your forehead.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

W We exchange some words, the guy takes a swing at me. He's drunk, the punch is slow, I side step it, and hit him a couple of times. His nose popped almost immediately. He's still standing up, so I hit him a few more times, and he goes to the floor.

Without being there, I'd say the bolded part is what screwed you. He swung and you retaliated. Which is fine, but from your description, he was not posing a threat to you after you hit him the first couple of times. You do have a right to defend yourself, but from how you worded it, the second series of strikes was not defensive. I'm not saying you were wrong in doing so, just that it may have been unlawful.

 

[ruger7722]

if someone tries to hurt you,you should disable that person until your hands ,teeth or whatever are sore.i dont try to hurt anyone,but i will fight until i cant any longer.even when i am scared,i am not running.i have let someone hold my gun many times to fight a fair fight.i love to fisticuff,even if i lose.stress reducer.like shooting a monster buck.i am too old for this,because i lose even when i win.

 

[ATM]

...i have let someone hold my gun many times to fight a fair fight.

Noble


...but your tactics suck.

 

[iChokePeople]

if someone tries to hurt you,you should disable that person until your hands ,teeth or whatever are sore.i dont try to hurt anyone,but i will fight until i cant any longer.even when i am scared,i am not running.i have let someone hold my gun many times to fight a fair fight.i love to fisticuff,even if i lose.stress reducer.like shooting a monster buck.i am too old for this,because i lose even when i win.

I hope you're just phrasing this really poorly, or we're going to have another debate over whether you should be allowed to ever own that handgun again, having 'disable[d] that person until'... which will not likely be perceived as using reasonable force to defend yourself if it goes to court.

If you love fighting that much, and I can certainly understand that, I'd like to suggest joining a gym where you can do that with like-minded people who are there voluntarily, where you won't end up in jail for it.

 

[jeremy]

if someone tries to hurt you,you should disable that person until your hands ,teeth or whatever are sore.i dont try to hurt anyone,but i will fight until i cant any longer.even when i am scared,i am not running.i have let someone hold my gun many times to fight a fair fight.i love to fisticuff,even if i lose.stress reducer.like shooting a monster buck.i am too old for this,because i lose even when i win.

Huh...

I come from a different School of thought than you. I come from the School of thought that I am not in the fight to Win, I am in the Fight to Live. Therefore I am going to do as much harm to you in as short time as is possible. My goal is to hurt you so bad even your good friends do not want to **** with me...

 

[IndianaGTI]

Correct in that the Constitution does not prohibit punishment of criminals, but it does prohibit Bills of Attainder. Which is what banning all felons from keeping and bearing arms is.

His punishment was a year in lockup, after which he was freed. He is a free man, and as such should have all rights and privileges accorded to a free man. Including the right to keep an bear arms.

Great discussion Timjoebillybob. I can tell your response was well thought out and not based on some personal prejudice. However, I respectfully disagree.

His debt to society is not paid until all the punishments associated with the crime are completed. In this case, they are not.

A Bill of Attainder is legislatively treats a group like as a criminal without a trial. It is done legislatively not judicially. In this case, the group had their right to trial and either was convicted by a jury of their peers or chose to accept their punishment.

 

[balorg]

An individual who has served his/her time should have their rights completely restored upon release. Their inabilty to pocess firearms is a clear violation of their second amendment rights.

 

[finity]

In this case, they are not.

...or ever will be.

Therein lies the problem.

That's not a personal prejudice. That is a fact. A fact that is just plain wrong (as in 'immoral').

 

[IndianaGTI]

OK, balorg, finity and the rest of you who think punishment ends and all rights should be restored when you are released from prison, do you also believe that child molesters should be able to live next to preschools without registering? I mean, if they are released from prison, your position seems to be that they have paid their debt to society so they should be treated like everyone else.

 

[jeremy]

OK, balorg, finity and the rest of you who think punishment ends and all rights should be restored when you are released from prison, do you also believe that child molesters should be able to live next to preschools without registering? I mean, if they are released from prison, your position seems to be that they have paid their debt to society so they should be treated like everyone else.

Actually, Yes I do...
I have a HUGE issue with Lists...

AS long as they have been either Released, Paroled, or Pardoned...

 

[Kurr]

Where does it say you have a Right to Live Where You want?

You may try to attain that in pursuit of your happiness but you are not entitled to a Natural Right to live where you wish. Therefore I feel no Right would be violated.

You do however have a Natural Right to self defence as is re-affirmed in our Federal and State Constituions and going back to the Magna Carta.

Once released, I have to say all restored.