User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 8:31:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm good with it, especially since the the meaning of felon is becoming less and less meaningful as more and more things become felonies. Except in California, where things that used to be Felonies are now misdemeanors and it retroactive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 8:31:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry for the further off topic, but in regards to the gif it appears the driver is driving the wrong way on a one way street (as to the direction the parked cars on both sides of the street) indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 8:35:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
once you pay your debt to society all rights should be restored. if the felon is so dangerous give them the maximum sentence so they are not on the street. Quote HistoryQuoted:
once you pay your debt to society all rights should be restored. if the felon is so dangerous give them the maximum sentence so they are not on the street. Quoted:
Now, about that piece of shit known as the Lautenberg amendment... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 8:52:42 PM EDT
[#4]
I remember a case in Colorado a few years back where the judge ruled that an ex felon had the right to be armed for self defense.
In Nevada carrying concealed without a permit is a misdemeanor first offense and felony on second conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:00:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember being about four years old with my mother drilling it into my head to look both ways before crossing a road. They failed that big time. I don't see why people are offended by the gif. It documents a mistake, and should be used as an example. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember being about four years old with my mother drilling it into my head to look both ways before crossing a road. They failed that big time. I don't see why people are offended by the gif. It documents a mistake, and should be used as an example. The mistake is obviously driving the wrong way down the road? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:02:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CCW without a permit was a misdemeanor in California. At some point they added enhancements which upgraded it to a felony if you are a documented gang member. Later they made it a wobbler based on registration status. Misdemeanor if the handgun is registered to you. Felony if the handgun is not registered to you. The good news is CCW is easier than ever to get. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a felony of CCW without a permit in Missouri?  It is in CA, though most gun arrests are downgraded to a misdemeanor automatically by the DA's. Knives, on the other hand, are almost never downgraded. (This is per a conversation with a defense atty in ~1993, so could have changed, obviously.) CCW without a permit was a misdemeanor in California. At some point they added enhancements which upgraded it to a felony if you are a documented gang member. Later they made it a wobbler based on registration status. Misdemeanor if the handgun is registered to you. Felony if the handgun is not registered to you. The good news is CCW is easier than ever to get. Shhh, Texans like to believe they know our laws better than we do. Don't hurt his feelings telling him he is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:03:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Of course the really stupid thing here is all the guys that think felons should all get life sentences or their guns back. Neither is reality and neither should be reality, but it is a nice platitude to dribble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:06:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is my take as well. Was it you that's posted in the past how the esteemed city prosecutor doesnt really vigorously prosecute our St. Louis felons? I remember it from one of our STL PD posters and I find that interesting in light of her 300 gun toting felons a year quote in the article. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The libtards are trying to overturn the recent changes to gun laws in Missouri. Pretty sure this was done to have something to point to so they can say how wrong the new law is. Yup! That's precisely what this is. The legislature has already come out against this. This is my take as well. Was it you that's posted in the past how the esteemed city prosecutor doesnt really vigorously prosecute our St. Louis felons? I remember it from one of our STL PD posters and I find that interesting in light of her 300 gun toting felons a year quote in the article. McCulloch's father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. He will prosecute. However, he rarely takes cases himself as he's running the entire office. His Assistant PA's handle the vast majority of cases brought to the office. I've brought good cases to the PA's office and had APA's refuse to prosecute and had a Judge dismiss a gun case because "You cant take a suspect's statement as proof he committed a crime." Meaning, a confession that is both written and video taped was not acceptable to this Judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:09:10 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. We can argue all day long about the death penalty and whether or not we should go to a Turkish Prison type system where convict's food, housing, and medical cost are paid by Convict's family or it doesnt happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:09:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a felony of CCW without a permit in Missouri? It is in Florida. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:10:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is in Florida. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a felony of CCW without a permit in Missouri? It is in Florida. MO too. However, when you have a CCW, you can OC without issue also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:12:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Epic Quote HistoryQuoted:
Epic Mom of the year right there. She ducks back and let's the kids take the hit 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:15:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:27:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Good. If you're safe enough to be released back into society, then you should have the ability to protect yourself. Just because you fucked up and got caught, doesn't necessarily mean you should lose a basic right forever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:34:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:40:02 PM EDT
[#16]
I've got no problem with convicted felon's owning firearms, the problem I have is that the vast majority of convicted felon don't serve the time in prison that they should.
Agg assault with a firearm or armed robbery should net you a 20 year sentence....not 12 months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:43:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gonna have to disagree............. I'm gonna have to disagree with you. A right is a right. Period! IF someone can't be trusted with a gun, put them in prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:43:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gonna have to disagree............. Not me, if the joker can't be trusted with a firearm he has no business in the public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:45:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
McCulloch's father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. He will prosecute. However, he rarely takes cases himself as he's running the entire office. His Assistant PA's handle the vast majority of cases brought to the office. I've brought good cases to the PA's office and had APA's refuse to prosecute and had a Judge dismiss a gun case because "You cant take a suspect's statement as proof he committed a crime." Meaning, a confession that is both written and video taped was not acceptable to this Judge. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The libtards are trying to overturn the recent changes to gun laws in Missouri. Pretty sure this was done to have something to point to so they can say how wrong the new law is. Yup! That's precisely what this is. The legislature has already come out against this. This is my take as well. Was it you that's posted in the past how the esteemed city prosecutor doesnt really vigorously prosecute our St. Louis felons? I remember it from one of our STL PD posters and I find that interesting in light of her 300 gun toting felons a year quote in the article. McCulloch's father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. He will prosecute. However, he rarely takes cases himself as he's running the entire office. His Assistant PA's handle the vast majority of cases brought to the office. I've brought good cases to the PA's office and had APA's refuse to prosecute and had a Judge dismiss a gun case because "You cant take a suspect's statement as proof he committed a crime." Meaning, a confession that is both written and video taped was not acceptable to this Judge. I was referring to Jennifer Joyce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:47:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? You're applying the logic of a gun-free zone to a person. It still doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:48:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a felony of CCW without a permit in Missouri? Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a felony of CCW without a permit in Missouri? Our laws have not caught up to our Constitution yet, this ruling will go a long way to fixing that. It now reads: Right to Keep and Bear Arms: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:49:35 PM EDT
[#22]
I'm okay with this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:49:52 PM EDT
[#23]
good.
also carrying a concealed weapon is not a "violent felony" so i have no idea what the discussion above is about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 9:57:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? So what is violent about carrying a concealed weapon? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:03:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder if that means the feds will take up the case? They should not be able to ideally. It is within a State's right to rule on its own Constitution as to the right to bear arms and any restrictions on such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:07:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Good.
Now undo the rest of the racist 1968 GCA |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:10:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? That guy is not a violent felon. He was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. a permit he was likely refused because CA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:11:25 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They should not be able to ideally. It is within a State's right to rule on its own Constitution as to the right to bear arms and any restrictions on such. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wonder if that means the feds will take up the case? They should not be able to ideally. It is within a State's right to rule on its own Constitution as to the right to bear arms and any restrictions on such. States do not have a "right" to violate the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:17:03 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:18:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
States do not have a "right" to violate the Bill of Rights. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder if that means the feds will take up the case? They should not be able to ideally. It is within a State's right to rule on its own Constitution as to the right to bear arms and any restrictions on such. States do not have a "right" to violate the Bill of Rights. LOL, who said anything about that? Almost every state has a Bill of Rights of their own, and in it a Right to Bear Arms. They can rule on such. I don't even believe in Fed LE except where it is very limited in scope, they should definitely not be able to Federally charge a person for something that is legal in said state. For most of us, this would guarantee more firearm freedoms....of course you could go on trusting the Feds with this responsibility instead. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:23:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup! That's precisely what this is. The legislature has already come out against this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The libtards are trying to overturn the recent changes to gun laws in Missouri. Pretty sure this was done to have something to point to so they can say how wrong the new law is. Yup! That's precisely what this is. The legislature has already come out against this. It isn't a new "law." It's a change to the Missouri constitution to restrict the power of the Missouri state government (including the legislature). Fuck the legislature if they don't like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:26:39 PM EDT
[#32]
That's an interesting take.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:39:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? Again... if a violent criminal is going to harm me or my family, then he shouldn't be allowed out of prison. If he is deemed worthy of reintegrating with society, then his rights should be no different than mine. Are you afraid that legally purchasing a firearm would make someone more prone to violent behavior? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:46:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? Federally speaking, which part of the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to deny rights to "free" people? You could argue that disarming people for the purpose of putting them in a prison for other crimes is "necessary and proper" to carry out the defined constitutional mandate inherent in those laws the person broke. But so far as I can find, it is nowhere given to the Federal government to ban the possession of items based on societal risk. We as gun owners royally fucked up by conceding that authority without a fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:52:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, who said anything about that? Almost every state has a Bill of Rights of their own, and in it a Right to Bear Arms. They can rule on such. I don't even believe in Fed LE except where it is very limited in scope, they should definitely not be able to Federally charge a person for something that is legal in said state. For most of us, this would guarantee more firearm freedoms....of course you could go on trusting the Feds with this responsibility instead. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wonder if that means the feds will take up the case? They should not be able to ideally. It is within a State's right to rule on its own Constitution as to the right to bear arms and any restrictions on such. States do not have a "right" to violate the Bill of Rights. LOL, who said anything about that? Almost every state has a Bill of Rights of their own, and in it a Right to Bear Arms. They can rule on such. I don't even believe in Fed LE except where it is very limited in scope, they should definitely not be able to Federally charge a person for something that is legal in said state. For most of us, this would guarantee more firearm freedoms....of course you could go on trusting the Feds with this responsibility instead. Maybe I misread your post, but that's what it seems like you were saying with the part in red. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:03:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? 
'Be allowed to own a firearm'? What kind of nanny state bullshit is that? You're looking at this from the completely wrong point of view. What right do you have to restrict theirs, except such confinement as allowed by law? How do you plan on effecting such restrictions once those oh-so-dangerous felons are freed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:05:12 PM EDT
[#37]
The judge chose poorly.
Every state has a process for felons to get their 2A rights back. It's lengthy for a reason and should be adhered to. I'm just waiting for when a judge does the same thing for voting. Illegals voting will be a drop in the bucket compared to millions of newly minted ex-felon voters.....All voting Dem. I'll bet you misguided people that are in love with ex-cons will change your fucking tune then. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:15:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The judge chose poorly. Every state has a process for felons to get their 2A rights back. It's lengthy for a reason and should be adhered to. I'm just waiting for when a judge does the same thing for voting. Illegals voting will be a drop in the bucket compared to millions of newly minted ex-felon voters.....All voting Dem. I'll bet you misguided people that are in love with ex-cons will change your fucking tune then. Quote HistoryQuoted: The judge chose poorly. Every state has a process for felons to get their 2A rights back. It's lengthy for a reason and should be adhered to. I'm just waiting for when a judge does the same thing for voting. Illegals voting will be a drop in the bucket compared to millions of newly minted ex-felon voters.....All voting Dem. I'll bet you misguided people that are in love with ex-cons will change your fucking tune then. Fuck that he judged correctly. Again in Missouri... Right to Keep and Bear Arms That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction CCW without a permit is hardly a violent felony and is soon to be perfectly legal here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:32:46 PM EDT
[#39]
The way I read the article was that Robinson was already a felon when he got the CC charge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:38:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The way I read the article was that Robinson was already a felon when he got the CC charge. Quote HistoryQuoted: The way I read the article was that Robinson was already a felon when he got the CC charge. The 55-year-old has a prior conviction on a felony charge of unlawful use of a weapon, for carrying a concealed weapon in 2003, and served time in prison. The judge tossed his recent felon-in-possession charge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:40:18 PM EDT
[#41]
If "carrying a concealed weapon in 2003" is his only felony and it is now legal then I would have to agree with the judge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:43:14 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
once you pay your debt to society all rights should be restored. if the felon is so dangerous give them the maximum sentence so they are not on the street. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:51:13 PM EDT
[#43]
9th Circuit ruled in favor of felons in US V. Gomez, its a narrow ruling, but it gives some latitude to the subject.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:59:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gonna have to disagree............. Well then, <ahem> ... IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAW, CHANGE THE LAW!!! ...or whatever's usually shouted at us commoners who take issue with the inexorably expanding net of laws, regulations, permits, and edicts which is our government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 12:25:18 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
'Be allowed to own a firearm'? What kind of nanny state bullshit is that? You're looking at this from the completely wrong point of view. What right do you have to restrict theirs, except such confinement as allowed by law? How do you plan on effecting such restrictions once those oh-so-dangerous felons are freed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different?
'Be allowed to own a firearm'? What kind of nanny state bullshit is that? You're looking at this from the completely wrong point of view. What right do you have to restrict theirs, except such confinement as allowed by law? How do you plan on effecting such restrictions once those oh-so-dangerous felons are freed? Simple, when you let a felon out of prison, you're allowing them their freedom back. However, it's well known that forfeiting certain rights/privileges are a common permanent penalty for those convicted of a felony. Ergo, for a felon it really is whether they're allowed it or not. For a non-felon, it's different. Double standard? Maybe so. But it's because of voluntary behavior. Removal of certain privileges/rights is a long-standing penalty for certain crimes, and I don't see a problem with denying people who have a history of criminal violence the legal access to firearms. ETA: and as someone already posted, in CA it's not a felony to CCW without a permit. It's 2 misdemeanors: one for carrying a loaded handgun, one for carrying a concealed handgun without permit. The latter can be a felony if the handgun isn't registered to the defendant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 12:31:19 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? Did said convicts serve their sentences? Have they completed parole, if applicable? Have their probationary periods expired? If the answers to these questions are "yes", then the answer to your questions is "yes". Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. One who has fulfilled all incarceration, parole, and probationary requirements should be as free as you or me. I think that's a pretty simple concept and claiming otherwise is effectively paying lip-service to liberty, at least in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 12:37:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simple, when you let a felon out of prison, you're allowing them their freedom back. However, it's well known that forfeiting certain rights/privileges are a common permanent penalty for those convicted of a felony. Ergo, for a felon it really is whether they're allowed it or not. For a non-felon, it's different. Double standard? Maybe so. But it's because of voluntary behavior. Removal of certain privileges/rights is a long-standing penalty for certain crimes, and I don't see a problem with denying people who have a history of criminal violence the legal access to firearms. ETA: and as someone already posted, in CA it's not a felony to CCW without a permit. It's 2 misdemeanors: one for carrying a loaded handgun, one for carrying a concealed handgun without permit. The latter can be a felony if the handgun isn't registered to the defendant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<<<SNIPPED>>>
'Be allowed to own a firearm'? What kind of nanny state bullshit is that? You're looking at this from the completely wrong point of view. What right do you have to restrict theirs, except such confinement as allowed by law? How do you plan on effecting such restrictions once those oh-so-dangerous felons are freed? Ergo, for a felon it really is whether they're allowed it or not. For a non-felon, it's different. Double standard? Maybe so. But it's because of voluntary behavior. Removal of certain privileges/rights is a long-standing penalty for certain crimes, and I don't see a problem with denying people who have a history of criminal violence the legal access to firearms. ETA: and as someone already posted, in CA it's not a felony to CCW without a permit. It's 2 misdemeanors: one for carrying a loaded handgun, one for carrying a concealed handgun without permit. The latter can be a felony if the handgun isn't registered to the defendant. They have their freedom back, except they don't. Forfeiting doesn't really mean them forfeiting their rights, even though that's what I called it... it means I want to continue to restrict their rights. I want to deny legal access to firearms to those with a history of violent criminal behavior, because I hope they'll be the ones to follow the law. I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I edited to add that we aren't even talking about someone with a history of violent behavior, just someone that the state thought shouldn't have a firearm. Gebus, you people make me sick. And if that's not bad enough, it's not like the government couldn't trample all over his other rights... and with him lacking the means to do anything about it. Besides, you people still haven't proposed one thing that'd be even remotely effective at infringing felons' rights (except those felons that want to follow the law... who aren't the problem anyways) but leave everyone else's rights completely alone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 2:11:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm gonna have to disagree with you. A right is a right. Period! IF someone can't be trusted with a gun, put them in prison. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gonna have to disagree............. I'm gonna have to disagree with you. A right is a right. Period! IF someone can't be trusted with a gun, put them in prison. Name one state where violent felons ALL get Life Without Parole? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 2:14:45 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That guy is not a violent felon. He was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. a permit he was likely refused because CA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody. If you can't be trusted with your rights then you shouldn't have been released and if you shouldn't have been released then you should have been shot or hung before serving time. No sense in warehousing people who can't be a member of society. Violent felons should not have gun rights restored. I cant believe I have to answer this.... But here goes: If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others. Should a convicted rapist be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted murder be allowed to own a firearm? Should a convicted kidnapper be allowed to own a firearm? Should someone who has been convicted of assault 1st be allowed to own a firearm? This is my rationale for stating that. Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms. We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different? That guy is not a violent felon. He was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. a permit he was likely refused because CA. Since when is St. Louis, Missouri in California. I can understand being to lazy to go back and read the original post in a 30 page thread, but a page and a half thread and? Or did you sleep through Geography as well as Civics? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 2:24:58 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was referring to Jennifer Joyce. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The libtards are trying to overturn the recent changes to gun laws in Missouri. Pretty sure this was done to have something to point to so they can say how wrong the new law is. Yup! That's precisely what this is. The legislature has already come out against this. This is my take as well. Was it you that's posted in the past how the esteemed city prosecutor doesnt really vigorously prosecute our St. Louis felons? I remember it from one of our STL PD posters and I find that interesting in light of her 300 gun toting felons a year quote in the article. McCulloch's father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. He will prosecute. However, he rarely takes cases himself as he's running the entire office. His Assistant PA's handle the vast majority of cases brought to the office. I've brought good cases to the PA's office and had APA's refuse to prosecute and had a Judge dismiss a gun case because "You cant take a suspect's statement as proof he committed a crime." Meaning, a confession that is both written and video taped was not acceptable to this Judge. I was referring to Jennifer Joyce. I work in the County, not the City. And Fuck Jennifer Joyce. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
