Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/30/2017 8:57:49 PM
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 8/9/2001 7:09:09 AM EDT
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-crime/2001/aug/08/512189595.html Las Vegas SUN: Appeals court overturns gun ruling August 08, 2001 Appeals court overturns gun ruling SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- A person convicted of a felony who receives an "honorable discharge" after completing probation may carry a properly registered firearm unless specifically prohibited, an appeals court has ruled. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday ruled in favor of James K. Laskie, who was arrested in Las Vegas in April 1999 and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge his previous felony conviction. In 1982 Laskie pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. After serving three years' probation, he received an honorable discharge. The order said that Laskie's plea of guilty must be changed to not guilty and the charges dismissed. The honorable discharge said Laskie was released "from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the crime of which he has been convicted." Las Vegas SUN main page Problems or questions Read our policy on privacy and cookies. Advertise on Vegas.com. All contents © 1996 - 2001 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. Nevada's Largest Website
Link Posted: 8/9/2001 7:15:05 AM EDT
this cheers me up. Getting the shaft for a trivial action 20 years ago is bullshite alphabeta121
Link Posted: 8/9/2001 7:45:29 AM EDT
So does this mean we don't need NICS anymore? thats what it's telling me. Being that it's a U.S. court of appeals not Nevada does that mean it sets federal precedent? Everyone who is not in prison needs equal rights, this goes all the way from Teddy Kennedy to the dirtiest smelliest street-person. If you're to dangerous to carry or posses a firearm you shouldn't have been let out in the first place.
Link Posted: 8/9/2001 11:00:15 AM EDT
can't say I agree. People who murder and rape have shown they are capable of maliciously taking a life or harming another. Give them their right to bear arms back merely sets them up for another killing. Now I could see them going to court to argue for the right, demonstrating their new found respect for human life, but simply serving your 5-10 years then picking up an AR again doesn't seem right. alphabeta121
Link Posted: 8/9/2001 11:05:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2001 11:12:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By alphabeta121: can't say I agree. People who murder and rape have shown they are capable of maliciously taking a life or harming another. Give them their right to bear arms back merely sets them up for another killing. Now I could see them going to court to argue for the right, demonstrating their new found respect for human life, but simply serving your 5-10 years then picking up an AR again doesn't seem right. alphabeta121
View Quote
What about "felony" tax evasion? Murderers and rapists are one thing; non-violent offenders who [for example] cheat on their taxes are another. Plus, what about the adult (40-50 years old now) who robbed a store at 19, served time, got a job, married, raised kids, and has been good since? Mike
Link Posted: 8/9/2001 11:29:37 AM EDT
non-violent offenders... 100 % rights reinstatement. The ex-armed robber, like I said, take it up with a court when they feel sufficiently "rehabbed" alphabeta121
Top Top