Convicted Felon Tests 2nd Amendment

[Lady Di]

This should be an interesting case to watch.

http://www.nysun.com/article/68607

[Dan in Broken Arrow]

I am probably going to draw a little fire on this but:

I think that if a person convicted of a NON VIOLENT FELONY ONLY serves all of their time, and I don't mean parole or time for good behavior, then that person should have all rights restored upon completion of said sentence.

This would actually give those offenders a real goal to work towards and it would put much less burden on the court systems of working repeat parole offenders.

Now if it was a violent felony or drugs, then they never can get anything back . Sorry for hijacking the thread. This reply has nothing to do with that topic as he was already a convicted.

Dan

[Bill of Rights]

If so, we'll draw fire together, Dan, up to the part about drugs.
Problem there? OK, look at it this way:

A bunch of years ago, there was a movement in this country that (ostensibly) on the basis of their religion, a group of people wanted to outlaw alcohol. They came up with many more reasons, of course, among which were the effect on families, drunk drivers, bums, and many more. All of this resulted in the 18th Amendment, during which time there was still the same effect on families (due to speakeasies), the same drunk drivers, the same bums, and in addititon, now they also had an increase in organized crime as a result, bringing in the now-illegal whiskey, not to mention the moonshiners and all their crazy driving (which later evolved into NASCAR).

Take or leave the last as you like, and decide for yourself if that's a good or bad thing, :) but the rest of it is pretty clear.

Now, given that framework in which to view this, is "drug prohibition" really any different from the 14 year span between the 18th and 21st Amendments?

If all the laws attempting to control drugs went away, what would likely happen to the use of them and the criminal market surrounding them? Oh sure, we'd still have people driving stoned, and there would still be some robberies by people trying to get together enough cash (easier, since the price would drop and you could buy those things like you do any over the counter drug) to buy a "fix"-Simply, we're never going to eliminate all crime- but when the criminal market is gone, we have fewer cops having to concentrate on drugs and more to concentrate on real crimes.

Blessings,
B

[Dan in Broken Arrow]

Bill,
I wish I could just say hay lets put marijuana in a pack of 20 and tax it by 25%. The same thing done with alcohol. I do like to think of myself as a Libretarian, but I am not there yet on the drug issue.

Now if that 25% was to only be used to pay off the national debt, or even better fund education only; I could possibly say yes.

[Bill of Rights]

Well... I can see we still have a ways to go on taxation issues and on the separation of school and state, but those are subjects for other BBs.

Have a great day!

Blessings,
B

[tuna]

They still have free speech, assembly and religious choice
They still don't have to have soldiers in their home
They still are protected from warrantless search and seizure
etc, etc

In other words, like it or not - they still retain their rights, so I guess they should be allowed to own guns.

One more reason for capital punishment, seriously. I mean, if we are afraid of what they will do if allowed access to a firearm, why are they out???

While I can assure you that I don't have any sympathy in my heart for felons, by logic this is the only choice (well, two choices - execute or restore rights). Now, please give me a momtent and let me don my flame-retardant suit.

[Bill of Rights]

No grilled tuna today, sir. :lol:

Please see http://carryconcealed.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5680#5680 for my recent comments on this.

Blessings,
B

[VegasGeorge]

One more reason for capital punishment, seriously. I mean, if we are afraid of what they will do if allowed access to a firearm, why are they out???


Tuna, I've been making that same argument for a long time now. First, the classification of "felony" should be limited to violent crimes. Second, the penalty should be death. All non-felony crimes should be punishable by fines and mandatory public service work. No more incarceration at public expense. Tear down the stupid prisons. Make the non-violent criminals pay for their own punishment and rehabilitation.

[tombogan03884]

Bill,
I wish I could just say hay lets put marijuana in a pack of 20 and tax it by 25%. The same thing done with alcohol. I do like to think of myself as a Libretarian, but I am not there yet on the drug issue.

Now if that 25% was to only be used to pay off the national debt, or even better fund education only; I could possibly say yes.

Any one who advocates banning any naturally occurring substance is showing a total ignorance of history. The "war on drugs" as waged for the last 40 years is a waste of taxpayer money subsidizing a jobs program for cops, lawyers,judges, and members of the prison industry. Remember Prohibition, They wound up repealing that as it was a waste of money that only caused an increased disregard for law and order, increased corruption especially among law enforcement judges, and politicians, and made heroes out of scumbags like Al Capone. ( Just an aside but the same mentality applies to re banning abortion, they used to be done in back alley clinics or overseas resulting in high rates of infections and even deaths) Hemp is an extremely useful plant, the growing of which was once considered mandatory for National Defense. Lets say by some miracle, they eradicated ALL pot plants in America, (an impossibility as it is one of the leading cash crops in America) The govt. can't keep out a 5'8' illegal alien, how they going to stop weed coming in

[BikerRN]

It used to be a "Mark of Shame" to be a convicted felon. Not anymore, today we have people proud of how many times they been "down".

Once a felon, always a felon. There are a lot of violent felons that were convicted of lesser charges than what they really did. Nope, a felon is a felon is a felon. I don't want them to be able to vote, own guns or do much else except provide menial labor for minimum wage.

Spare me the arguement that this will create a revolving door to our prison system. It already is a revolving door. What we need are three strikes laws where conviction of a third felony gives one appeal and then the death penalty carried out. Not drag it out for years and years because "bleeding heart pansies" are afraid of hurting the poor little inmate's feelings.

3 Strikes and Your Dead sounds right to me. :D

Biker

[Bill of Rights]

I must take exception to this, Biker, as I know a young lady (19 or so) who entered a store with a friend, grabbed a bag of chips and ate them as she was walking around the store with her friend, who was shopping for a few items. On finishing the chips, she put the bag in her purse, intending to pay on the way out, but in conversation, forgot to do so. She was stopped by store security and sent to jail for a night with a felony theft charge over a 99 cent bag of chips. (the charge was changed to a misdemeanor by the magistrate, but the original charge was still a felony)

Do you truly advocate that this young lady should for the rest of her life lose the privileges of citizenship (i.e. voting) and the right to protect her own life effectively over a $1.05 (with tax) error on her part?

Violent crimes, i.e. homicide, rape, assault, battery, arson, charged as felonies, sure, that makes sense, no argument. As George pointed out, however, too many things are being made "felonies" that are not properly so.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/2c.gif
Blessings,
B

[BikerRN]

It looks like her felony was reduced to a misdemeanor anyways. :(

She screwed up, plain and simple. If she had been convicted of a felony I'll bet she would be more careful next time. Also, she still has two more "chances" under my plan before the Death Penalty would be carried out.

I stand by my statement, A felon is a felon is a felon.

Biker :)

[Bill of Rights]

She screwed up, yes. I stand by my opinion that a $1.05 "screw-up" should not relegate someone to a life of menial jobs for min. wage, nor should it take from them the privilege of citizenship inherent in the vote, let alone the ability to exercise the right to effectively protect one's life, liberty, and property.

BTW, the store in question has called police to take into custody, jail, and prosecute felony thefts.... of a nickel. True story, according to the cop who took her downtown.

Blessings,
B

[BikerRN]

So if I understand you correctly, because this is someone you are close to or know personally, $1.05 is not a felony?

Where do you draw the line? The state that you reside in has already drawn that line at $1.00. If you wish to change that, I suggest you take it up with your locally elected prostitutes, err, politicians. As far as the store, I say, Good for them! I am happy to see that someone has drawn a line in the sand in regards to what and whom it will prosecute. If you don't wish to publicly share the name, please PM me so that I may go spend money in that store. I will gladly support them.

Actions have consequences. Because this person is or was close to you is why you have taken the stance you have taken. Tell your Daughter, niece or whomever to pay better attention to what she is doing. She sounds like a "Bubblehead" and I'm not to sure I would want her voting anyways. My God man, she might vote based on feelings instead of facts.

Biker

[Lady Di]

I think there's a middle ground here, and I think good points have been made on both sides of the issue. I agree with BOR that this does NOT rise to the level of a felony offense, and the magistrate was correct in reducing the charge. This person should not be denied certain rights of citizenship because she "screwed up". We all make mistakes, and I believe in second and even third chances depending on what the mistakes are.

I also agree that it shouldn't matter how much an item costs as to whether or not someone should be prosecuted for "theft". Stealing is WRONG whether it's a nickel, a 99 cent bag of chips, or a $15 CD. The person in question says it was a "mistake", but the unfortunate thing for her is that the law doesn't make allowances for what she may have intended to do; otherwise, thousands of shoplifters could claim that they "intended" to pay for the items they took, but simply "forgot".

The fact of the matter is that she attempted to walk out of the store without paying for an item. Poor judgment was used in eating a bag of chips before it was paid for as well as concealing that empty bag in a purse, and she will now have to face the consequences of her actions. As far as her story goes, it would be more believable had she kept the empty bag in plain sight. Had she done that, it would have been less likely that she would have "forgotten" to pay for the item.

I can't say that I blame the store. They deal with petty theft on a regular basis, and when items are stolen, it affects all of us as consumers, because we pay higher prices to make up for the loss of stolen goods.

[VegasGeorge]

I have to admit that I sometimes open and eat something while shopping. But, I never put it in my pocket, or bag, or anywhere else out of plain sight. NEVER!

As a young lawyer, I recall defending two accused shoplifters.

One was a Lady who was getting on in years. She had gone into a drugstore, and selected a lipstick from a cosmetic display. She absentmindedly put it in her purse. She checked out, paying for other items, but forgetting about the lipstick. The jury acquited her, and rightfully I believe.

The other was a professor at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, CA. He had gone "shopping" at a chain hardware store. He checked out, paying for some items, but "forgetting" about the eight pounds of tools that he had put in his pockets. As his lawyer, I told him to plead guilty. He refused, and the case went to trial. I suppose that had something to do with the regularly administered security checks he had to pass in order to maintain his top security clearance at the school. Anyway, at trial, the prosecutor had all the tools in a bag. He pulled them out one by one, and stacked them up on the table in front of the jury. By the time he was finished, I had difficultly figuring out how my client had managed to get them all in is pockets in the first place. Needless to say, he was convicted. And, I made a handsome fee for many hours of needless work.

So, not everyone who walks out without paying is a thief. And, not everyone who appears to be a respectable honest citizen is not a thief. Each case like this need to be examined on its merits.

[Bill of Rights]

So if I understand you correctly, because this is someone you are close to or know personally, $1.05 is not a felony?

No. That I know her is immaterial. Most stores I know of will at least(unless the offense is flagrant, such as running out with a TV or a computer under your arm) give you the opportunity to pay for the item and at most tell you not to return on penalty of trespass. It strikes me as a waste of police resources, court time, and taxpayer dollars, not to mention curtailing the privileges of citizenship and inalienable rights (which our government has seen fit to make alienable in direct contradiction to our Constitution.

Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line where the Constitution does for jury trials in the Seventh Amendment-$20. If someone picks a flower on your lawn as they're walking down the street, are you going to arrest them for theft and prosecute (or persecute?) them to a felony conviction? To do so for trivial amounts borders on frivolity to my way of thinking.

Actions have consequences.

Agreed. The discussion does not center on this, but rather what the appropriate consequences are for the action taken.

Because this person is or was close to you is why you have taken the stance you have taken.

Again, false.

Tell your Daughter, niece or whomever to pay better attention to what she is doing.

Already done.

She sounds like a "Bubblehead" and I'm not to sure I would want her voting anyways. My God man, she might vote based on feelings instead of facts.

The insult is uncalled-for and whether you want her voting or not is immaterial. She has that right, and as a federal officer, presumably sworn in one way or another to defend the Constitution, I'm surprised to hear you so willingly disregarding that oath-or are you speaking personally, based not on anything but your feelings about the facts in question? There is no Constitutional power granted to disenfranchise a citizen solely because the basis of his or her vote might be emotional rather than factual. If there was, the majority of the country would be eliminated on Election Day.

Simply put, at 19ish, no, her views are not at all similar to mine politically. Nonetheless, I defend her right to them, even when they disagree with my own, just as I will happily defend your right to disagree with me-or my own, to disagree with you.

Blessings,
B

[VegasGeorge]

There is no Constitutional power granted to disenfranchise a citizen solely because the basis of his or her vote might be emotional rather than factual. If there was, the majority of the country would be eliminated on Election Day.

And, what a bloody shame that is! :evil:

[BikerRN]

BOR:

Any views expressed by me are my own and not those of any employer I may or may not work for.

Biker