Author Topic: Guns for felons? (Read 10499 times)

Casull · « **Reply #150 on:** October 01, 2011, 06:41:15 PM »

Quote

The Declaratiopn of Independence, our founding document, says that our "Rights" are unalienable. Do you know what unalienable means?

Not sure why you're dredging this up now, but yes I do know what "unalienable" means. Do you know what the Declaration of Independence actually says? I doubt it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Hmmmm, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". You do understand that these three unalienable rights are, or can be, taken for violating the law, don't you? So, do you really think that the Founders envisioned allowing someone to lose lose their Liberty, or even their Life, but somehow someone committing a felony should not have his 2nd Amendment rights touched? Seriously, do you not understand something so simple as this? Sheeeesh. I give up.

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #151 on:** October 03, 2011, 01:55:16 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on August 09, 2011, 10:58:48 AM

Quote from: rickyp on August 09, 2011, 10:50:25 AM
The point to all this is that not all felonies are the same and not everyone that is charged with them are true harden crinmals
of those that try to get their rights restored, how many succeed?
as you said earlier, it should be a case by case basis, but I haven't heard how many get one or both restored.
Dyer county Tenn. actually elected a convicted felon for sheriff. he was a real lowlife.

I think you better check and verify this. IIRC most, if not all jurisdictions will not allow a convicted felon to serve in the position of a law enforcement officer. If your state law prohibits this, the election of the "convicted felon" could easily be overturned. If the board of elections refuses, then you should contact your state A.G.'s office.

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #152 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:05:58 PM »

Quote from: Hooker on August 09, 2011, 04:29:05 PM

All laws are for the law abiding people, criminals have no need for them.
I'm amazed at all the champions of liberty on here that want to make others go through life as second class citizens.
You see felonies, hate crimes , domestic violence, murder, speeding, jay walking, .... All have one thing in common they are committed by criminals.
But wait I was only doing 5 over the speed limit!! Makes no difference you broke the law your a criminal it's a choice you made and that charge of being a speeder is now going to follow you all the days of your life.

Pat

First of all, most cops won't even bother you for going 5mph over the speed limit. The cop that does that is being a horses rear end. To pass his speed estimation qualification, he usually has a plus or minus error margin of 5mph, so that 5 mph would be well within his error margin.
Second a speeding ticket is only a violation, which is punishable by a fine, not jail time. It doesn't even rate as a misdemeanor.
Thirdly, the charge disappears from your record, 3 years after the conviction, so it isn't "going to follow you all the days of your life".

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #153 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:19:40 PM »

Quote from: LabRat2k3 on August 11, 2011, 10:54:06 PM

Casull, I have a question for you. Just what is it that you do? You have been very vague about it. If you are a lawyer, judge, court reporter, baliff, or the guy who empties the trash at the courthouse just say so. At first I thought you were a police officer from the way you were talking. Later however you say you enteract with LEO's daily. So how is your experiance first hand if you are hearing about it from the LEO's?

I can figure it out easily. You just have to have experience in the situation that Casull works in. I respect his right not to provide exactly what he does for a living. Won't you? I assure you based on his knowledge, he isn't "the guy who empties the trash at the courthouse".

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #154 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:28:06 PM »

Quote from: mechanic on August 14, 2011, 02:32:04 PM

Don't know about other states, or even other areas of this one, but here in this co. the sheriff doe's not consider the ML an offense. I admit to ignorance of the law, but I know that locally it's ok.

Anyone who would consider this should consult a lawyer of course.

In the same light, a bow or anything else could be considered a "deadly weapon", and given the law's ability to make a situation what they want it to be, I would verify this as well.....

Ben

FWIW, In NYS, a muzzle loader isn't considered a firearm, until it's loaded, then it becomes a firearm, which a felon isn't allowed to own.

Casull · « **Reply #155 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:38:23 PM »

Thanks, OSR.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #156 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:54:29 PM »

Quote from: OldSchoolRanger on October 03, 2011, 01:55:16 PM

Quote from: BUGEYE on August 09, 2011, 10:58:48 AM
Quote from: rickyp on August 09, 2011, 10:50:25 AM
The point to all this is that not all felonies are the same and not everyone that is charged with them are true harden crinmals
of those that try to get their rights restored, how many succeed?
as you said earlier, it should be a case by case basis, but I haven't heard how many get one or both restored.
Dyer county Tenn. actually elected a convicted felon for sheriff. he was a real lowlife.
I think you better check and verify this. IIRC most, if not all jurisdictions will not allow a convicted felon to serve in the position of a law enforcement officer. If your state law prohibits this, the election of the "convicted felon" could easily be overturned. If the board of elections refuses, then you should contact your state A.G.'s office.

OSR, my wife is from dyer county and knows the cribbs family well. tommys first felony was shooting sheep in missouri that belonged to a federal judge and trying to elude police. he was caught in a motel with the sheep in the room with him. they also got him for trying to destroy evidence by trying to stuff the sheep out the bathroom window.
when reelected, he was not allowed to carry a gun.

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #157 on:** October 03, 2011, 05:34:06 PM »

BUGEYE - I'm not doubting what your saying about "tommy". I was just stating how it is in most states. Is it possible that "tommy" was convicted when he was a juvenile? If so, it's a different situation, since juvenile laws apply, and most charges and convictions are "sealed".

If not, thanks for clarifying the above situation. Guess you learn something new everyday.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #158 on:** October 04, 2011, 02:41:06 AM »

OSR, when he shot the sheep, he was a deputy sheriff under his Dad sheriff john cribbs.
he was elected twice as a felon. his last felony was arson so he did some hard time for that.
he was an adult when convicted.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #159 on:** October 28, 2011, 01:13:13 PM »

Some people get a charge out of adopting a self righteous holier than thou attitude. It makes them feel high and mighty.
What did the Founders mean when they adopted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Well at the time there were not any laws prohibiting felons from possessing arms nor from holding public office. It was a given that the Right was unalienable.

Casull · « **Reply #160 on:** October 28, 2011, 01:48:00 PM »

Quote

It was a given that the Right was unalienable

More so than the Rights to Life or Liberty?

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #161 on:** October 29, 2011, 05:54:06 AM »

Say a person, who defends their home and family from robbery and is in fear of their well being, is charged with or pleas to involuntary manslaughter should they loose their rights after they have served their time? I don't believe so. "shall not be infringed" means just that. Even some of society's scumbags deserve to have the right to self defense which is God given and inalienable. I would add that IMO commiters of heineous crimes should loose their rights as a whole. Case by case study should adhere in this circumstance.

Casull · « **Reply #162 on:** October 29, 2011, 06:06:30 AM »

Quote

"shall not be infringed" means just that.

Really? Seems they can't have them while they're in prison.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #163 on:** October 31, 2011, 03:22:36 AM »

ROFL! Always makes me chuckle when folks read what isn't there. Reminds me of Chubby Checker, "lets twist again"..................

Casull · « **Reply #164 on:** October 31, 2011, 05:42:14 AM »

That's cute. Caught by your own words and then "twist".

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #165 on:** November 01, 2011, 04:11:02 AM »

How was I caught by my own words? Where, in any post, have I said, stated,suggested, or petitioned for prisoners to be armed? YOU are the one who assumed a ludacrist idea like arming prisoners is what I was talking about. I'm tired of your silly game where assumption is your motivation. Take care.

Casull · « **Reply #166 on:** November 01, 2011, 04:47:14 AM »

Quote

"shall not be infringed" means just that.

Your words. Now, were you serious, or is there room for some "infringement" (such as for prisoners)?

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #167 on:** November 01, 2011, 05:09:08 AM »

Quote from: Pat/Rick on October 29, 2011, 05:54:06 AM

I would add that IMO commiters of heineous crimes should loose their rights as a whole. Case by case study should adhere in this circumstance.

This is the end of the same post that you so willingly picked a seperate sentance from and chose to make elaborate assumptions on. Perhaps YOU lack the ability of simple comprehension and choose to read something that simply is not there.

Again, good luck on your fishing expedition. I am tired of your silly fabricated imagination, and have taken more time with you than I usually afford others. If you choose to keep the silliness alive, your playing solitaire from here on. Take care and good luck.

Casull · « **Reply #168 on:** November 01, 2011, 06:54:29 AM »

Sometimes it takes being absurd to deal with absurdity (like those on here that would allow convicted murderers to rearm after "paying their debt"). I have said several times in this thread that I believe the ban should be limited to violent felons. But, some here have attacked me for that position and stated that "shall not be infringed means just that". I'm not quoting you there, but several others. So, when you used that phrase yet again, I took it at face value and posted why that clearly can NOT be an absolute. Sorry you took it so personally and decided that a personal attack was needed in retaliation. We're probably not as far apart as you perceive, but since you determined that cheap shots were in order, then so be it. I'll make a point of not responding to any of your posts hereafter.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #169 on:** November 01, 2011, 09:00:52 AM »

the problem as I see it is, we don't keep violent felons in prison where they belong.
if you commit a violent act against another person, you should die in prison.
burglary etc. without a weapon could be restored.
as for domestic problems, if there is no more contact between parties, I can see restoration.
lots of angles to look at.