Convicted Felon Tests 2A


Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Thought you'd find this interesting...

NY Sun Article

"The inmate, Damon Lucky, isn't law-abiding. Nor did the gun he was convicted of possessing stay in his home. Still, Lucky decided to "see how far we can ride this pony," his lawyer, Harry Batchelder Jr., said, referring to the federal judiciary's apparent willingness to examine gun control laws critically.

So this month, Mr. Batchelder, asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to answer "yes" to a question that makes many staunch gun owners uneasy: Does the Second Amendment give convicted felons the right to carry handguns?
"
 

joeren

New member
Good Point

This is what I've worried about since the SCOTUS agreed to review Heller. What will happen when/if they uphold the overturn of the DC ban and affirm what everyone on this sight already believes about the 2nd amendment? Without a doubt the courts will be filled with cases from felons convicted on gun charges. A concern is that the justices may be worried about this as well and deliver an opinion that we would not like. I just hope that they do the right thing.

Joe
 

Puppy

New member
I could be wrong but I am not the least concerned. One thing I think, or at least hope, we would all agree with is the right to protect ourselves individually and collectively.

Yes that certainly includes the second amendment but I claim that society also has the right to defend itself from mad dogs, escaped Tigers and gun toting felons by whatever method it takes.

That includes keeping guns out of the hands of people who have proved to do people harm.

Having said that I have no problem with someone who committed a felony, but stays clean for decades being given a chance again.,,, after careful evaluation.
 

ecocks

New member
2 cents

Unfortunately, my belief is that at the time of framing the 2A they did not anticipate that we would begin catching and imprisoning so many crminals. I stress this is only my belief, but I think they would be a bit surprised at the situation of our corrections and judicial system. Overcrowding was a fact even in those days but they were a bit less concerned with whether the poor, misunderstood criminal had access to a library, TV set, phones, Internet, newspapers, conjugal visits, etc. They seemed to have figured that the prisoners would actually have to still produce something for society - agricultural work, making gravel or something similar. Released criminals were not forbidden to own a gun since anyone that they felt could not be trusted with one was either not released from prison or received the death penalty.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Lucky's latest arrest came in 2004 after police pulled over the truck he was driving and found a handgun in his waistband.
Prosecutors say Lucky's criminal record dates back to May 1992, when, at age 19, he shot a man. Then, in September of that year, police found him in possession of two handguns and a small amount of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to six years and released after four and a half.
This guy sounds like a thug - a perfect example of why law-abiding people carry guns to begin with.
 

NDS

New member
...did not anticipate that we would begin catching and imprisoning so many crminals...less concerned with whether the poor, misunderstood criminal had access...anyone that they felt could not be trusted with one was either not released from prison or received the death penalty.

And I think that's the whole point about where our society has gone wrong. The Founders didn't think our government would ever micromanage lives the way it is done now. If you truly own yourself, why can't you poison yourself with drugs if you choose? Who cares if you engage in a lifestyle that exposes you to STDs, it's your problem? Truly violent criminals should be locked away or suffer the ultimate penalty. Not so much to punish or deter, but to make society safer from such people.

If someone has served their sentence, they should be accepted back into society as a full member. A 'life sentence' of losing civil rights-forced to register for a list-etc is insane. If they need to be on a list and supervised, they should not be in public. We do not live in a sane society...:eek:
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
And I think that's the whole point about where our society has gone wrong. The Founders didn't think our government would ever micromanage lives the way it is done now. If you truly own yourself, why can't you poison yourself with drugs if you choose? Who cares if you engage in a lifestyle that exposes you to STDs, it's your problem? Truly violent criminals should be locked away or suffer the ultimate penalty. Not so much to punish or deter, but to make society safer from such people.

If someone has served their sentence, they should be accepted back into society as a full member. A 'life sentence' of losing civil rights-forced to register for a list-etc is insane. If they need to be on a list and supervised, they should not be in public. We do not live in a sane society...:eek:
That's true, but for practical purposes, the rest of us should not suffer because our legal system is too lax. We might not be able to lock them away forever, but we definitely don't need them armed (although they often are, anyway).

I'd say we could lift the blanket ban on felons owning guns, and just apply it to those who have committed a crime with guns, or possibly committed a violent crime. They've shown that they're unable to handle a weapon and/or their impulsiveness in a responsible way, and that type of mistake is a forfeiture for life.
 

ecocks

New member
To be clear

that was the point I wanted to make. I have no problem with a person who has served their sentence having a gun as long as they have really paid their debt and set out to become a responsible citizen. However, as much as I hate to "infringe" the right, I do agree that we need some sort of mechanism to remove the right for those that are a danger to themselves and others. This raises a problem by needing some sort of "test" or "evaluation" by some "competent authority." That means definitions for all those terms and a bureaucracy of some sort to administer them. What do you do with people who are truly mentally incompetent to handle a firearm? Not psychopaths, but ones who simply do not understand the responsibility? We cannot institutionalize everyone who doesn't understand what a gun can do. How can a gun store owner tell someone like that at a glance? And criminals? Probably most of us are in favor of criminals paying their debt after a mistake and then being returned into society but the judicial and corrections systems are incredibly screwed up, the recidivism rate is simply too high to make me comfortable. Everyone has the right to vote and you can lose that with most felony convictions (or at least you used to). Maybe we take it away on conviction and establish a process to get it back? I don't know the answer but it is an interesting question.
 

kwo51

New member
Apply this to driving a car.At what point does the person permit to drive get taken away?He may drive again anyway with permit or not.If caught katty bar the door. Right to drive was given when proven responsable.
 

ishi

New member
This has to be seen from an emotionally detached, purely constitutional perspective. There was a thread on this very subject a few months ago (see A Constitutional Question).

What people really fear about these challenges, is that it exposes the fraud known as the Criminal Justice System. Time and time again, anything that exposes the ineffectiveness and incompetence of our current system of laws will be construed as the actual problem.

God forbid anyone point out the flawed logic of releasing people into society who we know to be dangerous.

What we need is consistent policy - either find a real way to rehabilitate violent offenders or THROW AWAY THE KEY. If we stop putting nonviolent drug offenders in prison we will actually have the room to do this.

Releasing people as half-citizens is not the answer. Putting proved violent offenders in prison forever is. And by the way kwo51, the analogy of the driver's license fails here, because we have no Constitutional right to drive.

The Constitution must come before everything else. Otherwise, we have nothing.
 
Last edited:

Brainchild

New member
I don't claim to have all the answers,either.I don't even claim to have alot of them.But I do agree with you,Ishi.The Constitution must come before everything else and be what it was meant to be in the beginning,before Congress and other members of government forgot it was;the supreme law of the land.
 
I agree with ecocks statement:
I have no problem with a person who has served their sentence having a gun as long as they have really paid their debt and set out to become a responsible citizen. However, ...

We have that mechanism now. But the BATFE/Att'y Gen refuses to use it.

A convicted person can apply to have rights restored. But the BATFE/Att'y Gen has not processed any applications for many years, citing a lack of funding.

THAT, in itself, is an injustice. You can safely bet there are many people out there that have, at some early point in life, been convicted of a (non violent)felony, paid their debt to society and have lived good, honest, law abiding lives for a lustrum, decade, or even a score.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Link Removed

Authorities said a recently released Florida prison inmate who may be intent on harming correction officers at the prison where he was held is being sought after he did not register with probation officers in St. Johns County.
Investigators learned Jones, who was last seen in St. Johns County, left there for Jacksonville and possibly to Tennessee to acquire firearms and was planning to return to the prison in Perry, possibly to harm particular corrections officers, according to the Sheriff's Office.

Jones' criminal history includes convictions for violent crimes involving weapons. The crimes occurred primarily in Polk County and other states, authorities said.
This sounds exactly like the kind of guy you want to release so he can walk the streets. :rolleyes: It's the mishandling of people like this that causes guns to get such a bad name. This is not the fault of the corrections officers, police, or even judges on the local level, though; they can only do so much. The mindless drug policy is decided on a national level in Washington. This guy is running around loose because we have to lock up potheads.
 

ecocks

New member
It is always difficult

to understand intent in typewritten words. That is why I tried to make it clear that the current rate of recividity (sp?) gives no confidence that this (rehabilitation and trying to return to being a responsible citizen) is actually being done.

Now, while I fully favor the truth of the old statement about giving up liberty for TEMPORARY safety, I am also against known violent offenders being allowed unlimited access to weapons in a day when this is so widespread that it cannot be considered a short-term state of affairs. Unfortunately, this is also part of my view on terrorism. I know that thought is unpopular among many on this board but think about that qualification, "temporary." I don't see this situation as temporary, instead I think violence and terrorism is irrevocably part of the future. Without watching sales, reasonably structured profiling, the use of technology for some form(s) of monitoring and some extraordinary powers for intelligence/enforcement agencies, we are going to watch the toll mount to a level we cannot comprehend. It isn't just property, it's peoples lives.

There are all kinds of scenarios we can play games with, some are humorous like in "Guarding Tess" when a SS agent shoots off a prisoner's toe to find where a kidnap victim is hidden. Some are dramatic like we often see Jack doing in "24." It's funny or reasonable until you realize you are laughing at or agreeing with a portrayal of torture and suspension of due process. Would you kill, maim or torture someone who had your child hidden in a hole in the ground with limited air? Think hard about your answer. Remember those pictures of the people killed and injured in the WTC. How angry were you? What if you could have shot a guy's ear off to have stopped it, would you have done so? If waterboarding would have given the names of the 19 attackers 4 hours before the planes were boarding, would you think it was a reasonable interrogation tool?

RKBA is going to be very important, maybe even critical, to our safety and survival but all things evolve in the details. Remember that in those days, many businessmen owned cannons, they did not envision a difference between military and personal weapons. Yet most of us agree that an individual should not be allowed a crew-served weapon. Evolution.

sigh...here we go...
 
Last edited:

ishi

New member
You give some pretty compelling utilitarian arguments for restrictions on the 2nd amendment. The important question is, how do you want to do that? There are two ways to legally amend the constitution, and I hope that those methods are in the minds of people who want to limit 2A. Simple legislation and executive decisions are not legal ways to go about it.

to understand intent in typewritten words. That is why I tried to make it clear that the current rate of recividity (sp?) gives no confidence that this (rehabilitation and trying to return to being a responsible citizen) is actually being done.

Now, while I fully favor the truth of the old statement about giving up liberty for TEMPORARY safety, I am also against known violent offenders being allowed unlimited access to weapons in a day when this is so widespread that it cannot be considered a short-term state of affairs. Unfortunately, this is also part of my view on terrorism. I know that thought is unpopular among many on this board but think about that qualification, "temporary." I don't see this situation as temporary, instead I think violence and terrorism is irrevocably part of the future. Without watching sales, reasonably structured profiling, the use of technology for some form(s) of monitoring and some extraordinary powers for intelligence/enforcement agencies, we are going to watch the toll mount to a level we cannot comprehend. It isn't just property, it's peoples lives.

There are all kinds of scenarios we can play games with, some are humorous like in "Guarding Tess" when a SS agent shoots off a prisoner's toe to find where a kidnap victim is hidden. Some are dramatic like we often see Jack doing in "24." It's funny or reasonable until you realize you are laughing at or agreeing with a portrayal of torture and suspension of due process. Would you kill, maim or torture someone who had your child hidden in a hole in the ground with limited air? Think hard about your answer. Remember those pictures of the people killed and injured in the WTC. How angry were you? What if you could have shot a guy's ear off to have stopped it, would you have done so? If waterboarding would have given the names of the 19 attackers 4 hours before the planes were boarding, would you think it was a reasonable interrogation tool?

RKBA is going to be very important, maybe even critical, to our safety and survival but all things evolve in the details. Remember that in those days, many businessmen owned cannons, they did not envision a difference between military and personal weapons. Yet most of us agree that an individual should not be allowed a crew-served weapon. Evolution.

sigh...here we go...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,432
Messages
623,585
Members
74,268
Latest member
zyvaaprilia
Top