I'm a Felon.

[ChrisL]

Ah yes, stick up for a felon. And we wonder why crimnals just keep being criminals.
This has nothing to do with American culture, open borders or anything else. Its about people who have proven themselves to be a non trust worth member of our society.
He should have worried about protecting his family before becoming a felon.
Heck why dont you blame Obamacare while you are at it or the fact that we have police at all.
No where in my posts am I for "big government" but I am for keeping a leash on felons untill they prove in court that they are no longer a threat.

No citizens don't have to prove anything to you. Good God! The burden of proof should be on the government to PROVE that a person is still a threat and should not have his rights restored. And in that case, that person should probably still be locked up.

 

[CRUE CAB]

No citizens don't have to prove anything to you. Good God! The burden of proof should be on the government to PROVE that a person is still a threat and should not have his rights restored. And in that case, that person should probably still be locked up.

Then they can go to court and let the G prove it, and if they cant. Reinstate their rights. Its pretty simple really if you think about it.
But I think his Idaho rights are all good, as I stated in another post. Which I am sure you ignored. He is 5 years past any punishment and according to him remained arrest free.
But if you are going to ask me to have sympathy? Forget it. Never happen.

 

[ChrisL]

Then they can go to court and let the G prove it, and if they cant. Reinstate their rights. Its pretty simple really if you think about it.
But I think his Idaho rights are all good, as I stated in another post. Which I am sure you ignored. He is 5 years past any punishment and according to him remained arrest free.
But if you are going to ask me to have sympathy? Forget it. Never happen.

It isn't about sympathy, which I've stated multiple times now. It's about thinking logically and not allowing our government to just take away rights from a person, WITHOUT due process.

 

[CRUE CAB]

It isn't about sympathy, which I've stated multiple times now. It's about thinking logically and not allowing our government to just take away rights from a person, WITHOUT due process.

Being convicted is due process. The state and the federal G have the right to keep whatever leash they feel needed on felons for a reason.
And other than here, I dont see a national surge in demand for felons to be given their gun rights back.

 

[ChrisL]

Being convicted is due process. The state and the federal G have the right to keep whatever leash they feel needed on felons for a reason.
And other than here, I dont see a national surge in demand for felons to be given their gun rights back.

Yes you are convicted and sentenced. Once you've served your sentence, the government should not have the right to treat you as a 2nd class citizen. If they think you cannot be trusted with your rights, then you should still be in jail.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Yes you are convicted and sentenced. Once you've served your sentence, the government should not have the right to treat you as a 2nd class citizen. If they think you cannot be trusted with your rights, then you should still be in jail.

Other than the fact that you are just repeating yourself, I agree. They should be locked up much longer than they are.

 

[ChrisL]

Other than the fact that you are just repeating yourself, I agree. They should be locked up much longer than they are.

Point being that rights are not a privilege to be granted or removed at the whim of a government. They are endowed by our creator, the right to defense of self and property included. Just because a person screwed up in the past, doesn't mean the government has a right to hold that over their heads for an indeterminate length of time "just because."

I don't think nonviolent crimes should even be considered a felony. Only violent crimes should be felonies. If a person uses his gun in commission of a violent crime, then I would agree with his 2nd amendment right being suspended or revoked completely depending upon the circumstances. But for the government to come in and relinquish a person of their rights for a relatively minor crime is beyond encroachment IMO.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Point being that rights are not a privilege to be granted or removed at the whim of a government. They are endowed by our creator, the right to defense of self and property included. Just because a person screwed up in the past, doesn't mean the government has a right to hold that over their heads for an indeterminate length of time "just because."

I don't think nonviolent crimes should even be considered a felony. Only violent crimes should be felonies. If a person uses his gun in commission of a violent crime, then I would agree with his 2nd amendment right being suspended or revoked completely depending upon the circumstances. But for the government to come in and relinquish a person of their rights for a relatively minor crime is beyond encroachment IMO.

So just let them keep stealing, but keep it a misdemeanor? Many thefts have risen to the felony level because people just kept committing "petty" crimes.
So they were enhanced to felonies.
Just dont be a felon. Its really really easy.

 

[ChrisL]

So just let them keep stealing, but keep it a misdemeanor? Many thefts have risen to the felony level because people just kept committing "petty" crimes.
So they were enhanced to felonies.
Just dont be a felon. Its really really easy.

We are talking about one incident here. According to the OP, this was the only crime, which probably should have been a basic B and E charge and not a felony to begin with. There is nothing in the OP that states this was a pattern of behavior, but that it was a ONE-TIME incident, a mistake made during his youth more than likely.

 

[sangha]

How do you learn a lesson without a reward?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

 

[CRUE CAB]

We are talking about one incident here. According to the OP, this was the only crime, which probably should have been a basic B and E charge and not a felony to begin with. There is nothing in the OP that states this was a pattern of behavior, but that it was a ONE-TIME incident, a mistake made during his youth more than likely.

One incident? So?
We are just going round and round. Like I said he can get his rights back more than likely. Just have to jump through a hoop or two.
Seems worth it if he really wants his rights back.

 

[ChrisL]

One incident? So?
We are just going round and round. Like I said he can get his rights back more than likely. Just have to jump through a hoop or two.
Seems worth it if he really wants his rights back.

"More than likely" and having to fight the government for your 2nd amendment right is not good enough. Your rights should be reinstated in full once you have served out your sentencing. The government should never have the power to deny a citizen his or her rights because of a past indiscretion that had nothing to do with guns.

Now, if a person actually used a firearm during the commission of his crime, I could completely understand suspending or revoking his 2nd amendment right, but this is just not the case. That is why it's arbitrary.

It's as ridiculous as if a person stole a candy bar and lost his right to vote because of it.

 

[CRUE CAB]

"More than likely" and having to fight the government for your 2nd amendment right is not good enough. Your rights should be reinstated in full once you have served out your sentencing. The government should never have the power to deny a citizen his or her rights because of a past indiscretion that had nothing to do with guns.

Now, if a person actually used a firearm during the commission of his crime, I could completely understand suspending or revoking his 2nd amendment right, but this is just not the case. That is why it's arbitrary.

It's as ridiculous as if a person stole a candy bar and lost his right to vote because of it.

Okie dokie.

 

[ChrisL]

Okie dokie.

:shock: I'm skeptical about your agreement. That was TOO easy.

 

[CRUE CAB]

:shock: I'm skeptical about your agreement. That was TOO easy.

72 pages worth is easy? We just have to come to the conclusion that we are not anywhere near in agreement on this.
You wont be swayed, I wont be swayed.
I dont know what else to say. I have brought personal experience as well as professional experience in to the debate and have been told it is worthless.
I think the stats on repeat offenders is quite clear.
Mine is not a call for bigger government, more government in our lives. Just do the crimes, and its on you to deal with the consequences. Not society's.

 

[ChrisL]

72 pages worth is easy? We just have to come to the conclusion that we are not anywhere near in agreement on this.
You wont be swayed, I wont be swayed.
I dont know what else to say. I have brought personal experience as well as professional experience in to the debate and have been told it is worthless.
I think the stats on repeat offenders is quite clear.
Mine is not a call for bigger government, more government in our lives. Just do the crimes, and its on you to deal with the consequences. Not society's.

I understand your point for repeat offenders, but we are talking about a person who claims that was a one-time occurrence.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The "OP" , you, left the door open for violence to happen. I hate what ifs, but what if you were stopped by the property owner and in an attempt to get away, pushed them down and harmed them?
Maybe they would have been an older person and wouldnt take much to harm or kill them.
Take your exemplary record since to a lawyer, work on getting your rights back. Dont just think society as a whole is going to be ok with you "just getting them back" because.

As I have said before, our justice system was not designed to punish someone for "what ifs" or what "might" happen. It was designed to punish for what DID happen. If it was designed for what "might" have happened then you could charge someone with Murder 1 for an accident.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I understand your point for repeat offenders, but we are talking about a person who claims that was a one-time occurrence.

And he got caught, but for one? Was that the first time, or the 5th?

 

[CRUE CAB]

As I have said before, our justice system was not designed to punish someone for "what ifs" or what "might" happen. It was designed to punish for what DID happen. If it was designed for what "might" have happened then you could charge someone with Murder 1 for an accident.

You fail to see what CAN happen and how things can spin out of control while in the commision of a crime. And the courts are starting to recognize that as well.
You put yourself and others at risk.

 

[ChrisL]

And he got caught, but for one? Was that the first time, or the 5th?

How should I know? I'm going strictly by the OP which states that he had ONE felony that happened years ago when he was younger.

 

[CRUE CAB]

How should I know? I'm going strictly by the OP which states that he had ONE felony that happened years ago when he was younger.

From experience, most people dont get popped on their first B&E. Dont be so naive. By the time they are doing them, they usually have graduated up from other petty thefts.

 

[Ikari]

"More than likely" and having to fight the government for your 2nd amendment right is not good enough. Your rights should be reinstated in full once you have served out your sentencing. The government should never have the power to deny a citizen his or her rights because of a past indiscretion that had nothing to do with guns.

Now, if a person actually used a firearm during the commission of his crime, I could completely understand suspending or revoking his 2nd amendment right, but this is just not the case. That is why it's arbitrary.

It's as ridiculous as if a person stole a candy bar and lost his right to vote because of it.

100%. It is the duty and responsibility of the government to prove its case to enact its force. They got that when they sentence someone to jail, but that sentence ends and thus their force must end. After probation is completed, that's the end of government force...just government force. I'll give the government opportunity to extend its force against the individual, but they do not get it free of charge. They must present new evidence every maybe 3 years max that the individual is still a threat and committing violent acts in order to legitimize their force against the individual. If the government cannot prove the individual is still a threat, then they can no longer apply force against their rights. That's it, and that's all in line with the ideals and consequences of a free Republic.

Some folk want to mess their pants and run to government to save them from all the boogiemen in the world. Others are willing to live by the repercussions of freedom.

 

[Ikari]

From experience, most people dont get popped on their first B&E. Dont be so naive. By the time they are doing them, they usually have graduated up from other petty thefts.

Supposition and assumption are not legitimate arguments for government force.

 

[CRUE CAB]

100%. It is the duty and responsibility of the government to prove its case to enact its force. They got that when they sentence someone to jail, but that sentence ends and thus their force must end. After probation is completed, that's the end of government force...just government force. I'll give the government opportunity to extend its force against the individual, but they do not get it free of charge. They must present new evidence every maybe 3 years max that the individual is still a threat and committing violent acts in order to legitimize their force against the individual. If the government cannot prove the individual is still a threat, then they can no longer apply force against their rights. That's it, and that's all in line with the ideals and consequences of a free Republic.

Some folk want to mess their pants and run to government to save them from all the boogiemen in the world. Others are willing to live by the repercussions of freedom.

Part of said force is to lose certain rights for a limited or unlimited time.
I didnt even bother reading the rest, its just going in circles.

 

[Ikari]

Part of said force is to lose certain rights for a limited or unlimited time.
I didnt even bother reading the rest, its just going in circles.

No, government force is in fact limited in a free Republic. It cannot infinitely punish an individual without the necessary proof to do so.