Sure, but as I stated earlier, anyone can become a felon with the sheer amount of stupid laws on the books. Make the wrong modification on your car, you're a felon, things like that. Felons don't have rights, former felons at some point should.Felons lose rights. That is a known deal from the moment you are convicted.
They dont want them associating is because they dont want them coming up with new schemes to prey on the rest of us with.
Dont want to lose rights, dont be a felon. Its actually very easy. I am far from a saint, but I have stayed clear of felony convictions pretty easily.
Rights are something understood through intelligence and empathy.
Sure, but as I stated earlier, anyone can become a felon with the sheer amount of stupid laws on the books. Make the wrong modification on your car, you're a felon, things like that. Felons don't have rights, former felons at some point should.
Straight pipes for one, perfectly legal on a race vehicle, but if it is a licensed road vehicle it's a federal felony.List some of these "could make you a felon" things I could do to my car.
I have built over 30 hot rods, custom 4x4s, Jeeps of all types, Pro Street cars, race cars and yet. Still not a felon.
Oh, and I have been pulled over in many of them for too tall, too low, too loud, hood scoops, blowers sticking through the hood, and guess what. Still not a felon.
Straight pipes for one, perfectly legal on a race vehicle, but if it is a licensed road vehicle it's a federal felony.
List some of these "could make you a felon" things I could do to my car.
I have built over 30 hot rods, custom 4x4s, Jeeps of all types, Pro Street cars, race cars and yet. Still not a felon.
Oh, and I have been pulled over in many of them for too tall, too low, too loud, hood scoops, blowers sticking through the hood, and guess what. Still not a felon.
Well, well, well... [/satire] I knew a guy, who knew a guy, who had a cousin that had tinted windows on his lowrider. A cop pulled him over, thinking they might be a bit too tinted, and hdude had his car full of pot smoke and he had a kilo of cocaine in the console. Now, he's a felon and can't have a gun just because of some tinted windows. See how that works? [/satire] :lamo
Tinted windows did not make him a felon. Bing a drug user/dealer made him a felon.
I say, I spelled it out for those who seem to think there are "federal offenses" for car mods.Uh, duh! Did you not notice the satire enclosures?
Some pepole would blame his felony on tinted windows. People can bee off da hook weird. Thank goodness society knows that felons don't deserve guns.
By that I mean straight exhaust, not necessarily the pipes themselves. It is against federal law to bypass the catalytic converter on a vehicle.Really? Ran straights on my Harley for years. With fishtails.
Ran 3.5" Flowmasters on my Pro Street Monte Carlo SS with nothing more than turn downs.
Ran 49" Super Swamper IROKs on a 97 Tahoe, roof was even with a 2010 Pro Star International truck with a condo.
Pulled over on or in all of them. Funny, no fed offenses here.
Oh, and a SLP Loudmouth system with no cat on my 93 Firebird LT1 car I drive now. Very rowdy small block that sounds sweet. Probably take it out this week end and raise alittle hell with it.
Quick call the cops. Hahahahahahaha
By that I mean straight exhaust, not necessarily the pipes themselves. It is against federal law to bypass the catalytic converter on a vehicle.
Okay, to each his own. I think it's a stupid law myself but the fact is one can get nailed for that, and realistically how many people know that it is felony?Yea, really worried. Find me a private person doing time for a felony for that. Maybe, and that is a big maybe there is a shop owner somewhere that was removing them and got caught. And if he had a really crappy lawyer got fed time.
But I am really doubting it.
Another fine example of a person who committed a felony in his past and is a fine member of society now.
There are those types, but like I said earlier I worked for a short time with a guy who was on parole for a violent felony. He had to be let go because there was a prohibition on felons working in an establishment that served alcohol but he was more even tempered than many people that never went to jail, much less prison and was a good family man. He would go on and on about his wife and kids, and the first thing he would say when talking about it was "I made a stupid mistake and I'm doing everything I can to be better".Or maybe it's an example of a criminal who committed a felony in his past and has yet to be caught again.
:shrug:
There are those types, but like I said earlier I worked for a short time with a guy who was on parole for a violent felony. He had to be let go because there was a prohibition on felons working in an establishment that served alcohol but he was more even tempered than many people that never went to jail, much less prison and was a good family man. He would go on and on about his wife and kids, and the first thing he would say when talking about it was "I made a stupid mistake and I'm doing everything I can to be better".
I'm not saying give the guy an immediate right to own a gun again, certainly not during probation. But if a person is keeping their nose clean for a long enough time and holding down a decent job their chances of recidivism go way down, if people want a specific time to prove to society a person gets it and is falling in line with law that is fine, permanent is another story. The other thing is, when a person gets busted for a felony that doesn't have a violent component, or otherwise there isn't secondary violence(like drug gangs) I don't see a reason to prohibit them from owning a weapon. I'm not saying arm every former felon right away, but saying that permanent punishment is also not okay.Or he could have been a hot tempered adulterer who controlled himself around you.
I'm far from a gun grabber but I also don't believe we should just start handing them out to anyone. There has to be some standards and I don't think denying guns to those who commit a crime serious enough to be called a felony is exactly unreasonable. I think the simplest solution is not to become a convicted felon.
This is the problem with the "gun debate". Here and other forums. It just cant be about guns and gun ownership, it has to have all kinds of other crap dragged into it.
Like pot, gay marriage, felons, non felons etc etc.
The 2A is very clear, yet the libs wish to muddy the water. I dont see them doing it to any other amendment. Just the second.
Tells me they are just plain scared of guns, legal gun owners and wish for our government to provide protection for them 24/7. Which they cant.
I'm not saying give the guy an immediate right to own a gun again, certainly not during probation. But if a person is keeping their nose clean for a long enough time and holding down a decent job their chances of recidivism go way down, if people want a specific time to prove to society a person gets it and is falling in line with law that is fine, permanent is another story. The other thing is, when a person gets busted for a felony that doesn't have a violent component, or otherwise there isn't secondary violence(like drug gangs) I don't see a reason to prohibit them from owning a weapon. I'm not saying arm every former felon right away, but saying that permanent punishment is also not okay.
It's very hard to prove damages from pollution. You have to PROVE a direct correlation, by some expert(s), between the injury and the toxic substance, AND that the injury was not caused by something else. This is why companies sometimes choose to pollute. It's cheaper than not polluting. They know they are not likely to get hit with a large judgment making them account for the injuries they cause.Sure it is, what I'm saying is to make it a felony there should be a direct correlation to the claim of it's harm, nothing that has an unknown end result or scope of harm should be a felony by any proper legal standard. Murder has a proven effect, a dead person who wasn't legally killed(no self defense, malicious intent) and that is a proven harm and scope. With many EPA rules we call things felonies based on theory.
It depends on the statute, many felonies remove the correlation which I disagree with. They punish actions based upon theories, some things are easily proven though such as dumping chemicals like benzene, acids, etc. into a water table.It's very hard to prove damages from pollution. You have to PROVE a direct correlation, by some expert(s), between the injury and the toxic substance, AND that the injury was not caused by something else. This is why companies sometimes choose to pollute. It's cheaper than not polluting. They know they are not likely to get hit with a large judgment making them account for the injuries they cause.
It's easier in other countries, where the corporate heads are criminally charged. In two countries the past year, I believe I read that corporate officers were found guilty of murder because they had criminally done things that resulted in their company causing injury and death to citizens. I believe one corporate officer was sentenced to death.
Some "serious crimes" had no violent component. But there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in this country. Telling someone they are a permanent second class citizen to me fails the cruel test.What's not okay about it?
We're talking about arming people who have committed serious crimes.
It seems like a no-brainer to me.
Some "serious crimes" had no violent component. But there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in this country. Telling someone they are a permanent second class citizen to me fails the cruel test.
And felons have demonstrated that they lack both
No it isn't absurd at all. You have a sentence handed down from a judge, the sentence is proscribed from legal guidelines to be a minimum of x number of years in jail, not to exceed y, but z can be suspended(parole/and or probation). The sentence is served and the debt is paid, if you want to say beyond that give them five more years to keep their noses clean before all rights are restored fine, but saying "you committed a burglary at 18, thanks for keeping your nose clean for the last 30 years and becoming a tax payer but you are a former felon so you can't ____________". If you actually break it down it is silly as hell to punish people permanently.It's absurd to claim prohibiting convicted felons from owning guns is an example of cruel and unusual punishment or that it makes them a second class citizen but if that's the way you feel then should there be any standards or qualifications at all? I mean shouldn't everyone have the right to own a gun regardless of what crimes they committed, how mentally handicapped they are, etc.?
No it isn't absurd at all. You have a sentence handed down from a judge, the sentence is proscribed from legal guidelines to be a minimum of x number of years in jail, not to exceed y, but z can be suspended(parole/and or probation). The sentence is served and the debt is paid, if you want to say beyond that give them five more years to keep their noses clean before all rights are restored fine, but saying "you committed a burglary at 18, thanks for keeping your nose clean for the last 30 years and becoming a tax payer but you are a former felon so you can't ____________". If you actually break it down it is silly as hell to punish people permanently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?