I'm a Felon.

[CRUE CAB]

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

Felony conviction = proof to do so.

 

[Ikari]

Felony conviction = proof to do so.

No, they got the proof to incarcerate the individual for the time determined by the courts. That's not excuse for infinity punishment. In fact, if the courts give a limited punishment, then punishment is limited. They want to exert more force? They have to prove their point again in a court of law.

 

[CRUE CAB]

No, they got the proof to incarcerate the individual for the time determined by the courts. That's not excuse for infinity punishment. In fact, if the courts give a limited punishment, then punishment is limited. They want to exert more force? They have to prove their point again in a court of law.

Looks like its been upheld the way it is.
And the person in question can always go to court and get his rights restored if their state allows it. Far as I know most do.
But, still. I am not feeling any pity.

 

[Ikari]

Looks like its been upheld the way it is.
And the person in question can always go to court and get his rights restored if their state allows it. Far as I know most do.
But, still. I am not feeling any pity.

No one is looking for your pity, pity is pointless and worthless. The process is backwards, it is the State that needs to prove its case for force, not the individual. The State is limited and properly constrained government must prove the use of its force against the free exercise of rights of an individual is justified and necessary. In a free Republic anyway.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So someone who has served their time for sexually abusing a child should be allowed to become a teacher? Or a babysitter?

That depends on several things. Are you using "child" and "minor" interchangeably? A pedophile is a person who engages in sexual activities with a "child" aged 13 and under. A sex offender is someone who either engages in sex with a "minor" or some other form of non consensual sex with an adult. Thus an active pedohile is always a sex offender, but a sex offender is not always a pedophile.

States have various laws stating what constitutes a "minor" for purposes of sex offenses. The Federal government considers anyone under 18 a "minor" which allows Federal prosecution for crimes that cross state lines even if the person is of the age of consent in both states. Some states classify a "minor" as 18 even where their own state laws have a younger age of consent. Most states that do this are trying to comply with the 2007 SORNA rules for Federal funding, and identify that the sexual activity must be non-consensual and/or an abuse of authority on the part of the elder person in order to be actual violations of state law when the minor is of state age of consent.

There are also many sex offenders who were "close-in-age;" like an 19 yo and a 16 yo where the 19 yo was charged with statutory rape or some other sex offense.

So...yes some consideration should be taken when one speaks of "sexually abusing a child" as a blanket prohibition to the return of civil rights and liberties, including clean records for work.

IMO a true pedophile, a rapist, and even a person involved in true child pornogrpahy could (and should) be classified as mentally ill and diverted to indefinite sentencing at a state criminal psychiatric facility until a committee of psychiatrists determine he/she is able to be released (under supervision) back into the community. Such people would not qualify for teaching and baby-sitting jobs until and unless they were declared "cured." It is extremely unlikely, absent some breakthrough treatment worthy of a Nobel Prize that they would EVER be declared "cured."

So back to the main topic...while a mentally ill person under supervision loses certain rights and liberties as a result of his/her treatment for mental illness; someone who is NOT determined to be mentally ill could (and should) be automatically returned all his/her rights of citizenship once they have completed all the terms of their sentence.

 

[sangha]

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.

After all these years, he still doesn't recognize the seriousness of his offense, and he thinks that supports his claim of being rehabilitated

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Well I think that usually if someone has multiple felony convictions, they are doing a LONG time in prison, so owning or not owning a gun really wouldn't be an issue for them.

That is what the story is, that there was only one felony conviction. :shrug:

 

[ChrisL]

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

I'm sure there are plenty of people with only 1 felony conviction. As to whether or not a person has done something in the past and not been caught? How should I know?

 

[sangha]

Well I think that usually if someone has multiple felony convictions, they are doing a LONG time in prison,

And you think that *I'm* naive? :lamo

 

[ChrisL]

And you think that *I'm* naive? :lamo

You are.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's the thing

I have no issue with your thinking that because there was no gun, it should not be cause for restricting his right to own a gun. What I do have a problem with is the idea that it is unconstitutional to restrict his right to own a gun.

IOW, the govt does have the power to restrict the rights of criminals, even after they have served the prison time. The matter of whether their rights should be limited after release is a matter of opinion, not a constitutional matter, and therefore the proper way to resolve this matter of opinion is through the political process, which is exactly how this is HAS BEEN resolved

do you think the federal government properly has the power to make someone federally banned from every buying a gun due to state action

and remember, federal attorneys have argued that disbarment is no a punishment (which would raise ex post facto issues as well as double jeopardy in some cases)

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

But I didn't put anyone at risk. The fact that no one was hurt or even slightly threatened in the commission of my crime, as evidenced by what I was charged with vs what I was NOT charged with shows this fact. Again, you cannot charge someone for something that might happen. You can try to spin it any way that you want but the fact of the matter is that no one was hurt or threatened and as such it was not a violent crime.

 

[CRUE CAB]

But I didn't put anyone at risk. The fact that no one was hurt or even slightly threatened in the commission of my crime, as evidenced by what I was charged with vs what I was NOT charged with shows this fact. Again, you cannot charge someone for something that might happen. You can try to spin it any way that you want but the fact of the matter is that no one was hurt or threatened and as such it was not a violent crime.

You can try to spin it anyway you want.
You put yourself and others at risk.
Did you have an accomplice? Did you KNOW the building was unoccupied and no one was going to come back and walk in on you.
Did you KNOW the police would not catch you in the act?
Do you know that if the police or anyone else gets hurt for any reason, even the police shooting them. Its on you.
I believe you when you say you made amends, you did your time, you have stayed out of trouble since. Now its on you to get your rights restored.
It was on you to lose them, its on you to get them back.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You can try to spin it anyway you want.
You put yourself and others at risk.
Did you have an accomplice? Did you KNOW the building was unoccupied and no one was going to come back and walk in on you.
Did you KNOW the police would not catch you in the act?
Do you know that if the police or anyone else gets hurt for any reason, even the police shooting them. Its on you.
I believe you when you say you made amends, you did your time, you have stayed out of trouble since. Now its on you to get your rights restored.
It was on you to lose them, its on you to get them back.

None of those happened. Again, (wonder how many times I have to say this) People are not charged and punished with crimes that "MIGHT" have happened. They are charged and punished for things that DID happen. NO violence occured in my case. To say that those thing "might have happened" and therefore makes the crime a "violent" offense is nothing more than spinning and ignoring reality.

I'm not the one spinning here. All that your post does is try to make a claim for something that just plain didn't happen is just a way to try and not admit that as a non-violent felon my rights should not be permanently taken away.

Also, having your rights "restored" in the state where the crime happened does nothing to restore your federal rights as it JUST restores your state rights. The federal will still deny you those rights and the federal has no way of getting those rights restored.

 

[CRUE CAB]

None of those happened. Again, (wonder how many times I have to say this) People are not charged and punished with crimes that "MIGHT" have happened. They are charged and punished for things that DID happen. NO violence occured in my case. To say that those thing "might have happened" and therefore makes the crime a "violent" offense is nothing more than spinning and ignoring reality.

I'm not the one spinning here. All that your post does is try to make a claim for something that just plain didn't happen is just a way to try and not admit that as a non-violent felon my rights should not be permanently taken away.

Also, having your rights "restored" in the state where the crime happened does nothing to restore your federal rights as it JUST restores your state rights. The federal will still deny you those rights and the federal has no way of getting those rights restored.

I am not saying you should be punished for what may have happened. Just telling you and others what risk you opened yourself up to. And if you open yourself and others to those risks, how can we honestly feel you can be trusted with a deadly weapon.
But like I also said, that you and the other knuckle heads keep missing or ignoring is that you probably CAN or may already have had your rights restored to you.
I am still not buying the 2K to 8K price tag on that you quoted. Show us just exactly what hoops you would have to jump through or proceedings you would have to initiate to get a hearing on rights restoration.

 

[Ikari]

None of those happened. Again, (wonder how many times I have to say this) People are not charged and punished with crimes that "MIGHT" have happened. They are charged and punished for things that DID happen. NO violence occured in my case. To say that those thing "might have happened" and therefore makes the crime a "violent" offense is nothing more than spinning and ignoring reality.

I'm not the one spinning here. All that your post does is try to make a claim for something that just plain didn't happen is just a way to try and not admit that as a non-violent felon my rights should not be permanently taken away.

Also, having your rights "restored" in the state where the crime happened does nothing to restore your federal rights as it JUST restores your state rights. The federal will still deny you those rights and the federal has no way of getting those rights restored.

The problem is that there are enough folk who respond irrationally and emotionally that this basic principle is lost on them. We cannot punish an individual for what they might have done or for that which they may do. Proper punishment is restricted to only crimes you can prove the individual committed. The ideals of infinite punishment are based more in fear and punishment of possible future crime. It's a statist, big government attitude wherein proper punishment is defined through State power and ability, not on the rights and liberties of the individual.

 

[Ikari]

I am not saying you should be punished for what may have happened. Just telling you and others what risk you opened yourself up to. And if you open yourself and others to those risks, how can we honestly feel you can be trusted with a deadly weapon.
But like I also said, that you and the other knuckle heads keep missing or ignoring is that you probably CAN or may already have had your rights restored to you.
I am still not buying the 2K to 8K price tag on that you quoted. Show us just exactly what hoops you would have to jump through or proceedings you would have to initiate to get a hearing on rights restoration.

Rights are not subject to popular opinion.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Rights are not subject to popular opinion.

Shouldnt be, but you know as well as I do they are.

 

[CRUE CAB]

The problem is that there are enough folk who respond irrationally and emotionally that this basic principle is lost on them. We cannot punish an individual for what they might have done or for that which they may do. Proper punishment is restricted to only crimes you can prove the individual committed. The ideals of infinite punishment are based more in fear and punishment of possible future crime. It's a statist, big government attitude wherein proper punishment is defined through State power and ability, not on the rights and liberties of the individual.

Dang them human beings with emotions and all.:roll:

 

[sangha]

Rights are not subject to popular opinion.

They are subject to due process

 

[Ikari]

Shouldnt be, but you know as well as I do they are.

Doesn't matter, it's not right nor is it based on consistent and stable philosophy. It's like saying that murder happens so we shouldn't punish it. Doesn't matter that it happens, it's still wrong. And in terms of infinite punishment by government, shortsighted and dangerous.

 

[Ikari]

They are subject to due process

Not quite, the exercise of rights is subject to due process. There are certainly legitimate methods through which and for which government force is justly authorized. But it's limited. And there's the rub.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Doesn't matter, it's not right nor is it based on consistent and stable philosophy. It's like saying that murder happens so we shouldn't punish it. Doesn't matter that it happens, it's still wrong. And in terms of infinite punishment by government, shortsighted and dangerous.

It isnt right that as a law abiding citizen I have to get a permit to excersize my 2A rigts to bear a firearm. CCW.

 

[Ikari]

Dang them human beings with emotions and all.:roll:

It's not emotions are bad, it's just that they are not proper basis for arguments on government force against the free exercise of rights. We are emotional creatures, but we're also intelligent creatures and it is more than possible to allow our intelligence to win out.

 

[Ikari]

It isnt right that as a law abiding citizen I have to get a permit to excersize my 2A rigts to bear a firearm. CCW.

I agree. The permit is permission and you shouldn't need to ask permission to exercise a right.