Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Wis. court upholds ban on felons possessing guns

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Wis. court upholds ban on felons possessing guns

    http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...ossessing-guns
    Wisconsin's ban on felons possessing firearms is constitutional and extends to all felons, including nonviolent ones, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday in a case involving a deer hunter convicted two decades ago of felony forgery.
    Decision http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/D...df&seqNo=80525

  2. #2
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    I have no problem with a felon having a gun, if they have truly paid their debt to society then that right should be restored. If they haven't paid or can't be trusted, why the heck did you turn them loose in the world for?
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    If they haven't paid or can't be trusted, why the heck did you turn them loose in the world for?
    This. Anyone who is "too dangerous" to be trusted with his natural, inherent right to armed self-defense is surely too dangerous to be out and about in the places my family goes, with access to vehicles, power tools, and yes, guns!

    Lock them up until no longer a danger, or execute them. When they are released, they should be released as full and free members of society.

    It is not healthy for a free Republic to have two classes of free citizens, allowed to exercise different levels of natural rights.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    It is not healthy for a free Republic to have two classes of free citizens, allowed to exercise different levels of natural rights.
    Like first class enFORCERS and second class citizens? I agree.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Like first class enFORCERS and second class citizens? I agree.
    That, too. Although we know that the enforcers don't consider themselves citizens, but an exalted race above and beyond the capacities of mere human beings.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  6. #6
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    The court used an argument I've never heard before. They seem to be expanding the reach of a felony:
    While Pocian did not utilize physical violence in the commission of his three felonies, he did physically take his victim’s property.
    Additionally, “most scholars of the Second Amendment agree that the right to bear arms was tied to the concept of a virtuous citizenry and that,
    accordingly, the government could disarm ‘unvirtuous citizens.’” Yancey, 621
    F.3d at 684-85.
    It sounds like the court is really stretching on this one. I hope he petitions the Supreme Court to review this decision.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    I have no problem with a felon having a gun, if they have truly paid their debt to society then that right should be restored. If they haven't paid or can't be trusted, why the heck did you turn them loose in the world for?
    My thoughts exactly.

  8. #8
    Regular Member markush's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kenosha
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    I have no problem with a felon having a gun, if they have truly paid their debt to society then that right should be restored. If they haven't paid or can't be trusted, why the heck did you turn them loose in the world for?
    That all sounds great but who gets to decide this part?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Light a Candle

    Quote Originally Posted by markush View Post
    That all sounds great but who gets to decide this part?
    Umm, perhaps a judge?


    The direct solution to the concerns expressed is to have the legislature amend the statute to exclude non-violent felonies. Even the federal government does not regard every felony as disqualifying.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643
    Some people are "felons" and apparently don't know it. Had a guy in class that "discovered" he had a "misdemeanor-felony" conviction on his record from the 80's. Turns out he didn't pay child support for more than 120 days.....he said he paid all his child support many years ago and didn't understand why this was on his record. Uh....he should have known. He said he never had a trial and was never charged. Don't know about that!

    So...know the laws and be careful what you do...or don't do.

    Link: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...tatutes/948/31

    Statute: 948.22  Failure to support.

    Snip: (2) Any person who intentionally fails for 120 or more consecutive days to provide spousal, grandchild or child support which the person knows or reasonably should know the person is legally obligated to provide is guilty of a Class I felony. A prosecutor may charge a person with multiple counts for a violation under this subsection if each count covers a period of at least 120 consecutive days and there is no overlap between periods.
    (3) Any person who intentionally fails for less than 120 consecutive days to provide spousal, grandchild or child support which the person knows or reasonably should know the person is legally obligated to provide is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran
    The court used an argument I've never heard before. They seem to be expanding the reach of a felony
    A felony is defined as any crime for which the potential punishment includes a year or more in prison.
    Doesn't matter if the person got only a $1 fine & no jail time, they're still a felon if convicted.

    most scholars of the Second Amendment agree that the right to bear arms was tied to the concept of a virtuous citizenry and that, accordingly, the government could disarm ‘unvirtuous citizens'.
    Yancey, 621 F.3d at 684-85.
    There's an argument I've never heard before. And here I thought that there was something in the Declaration that went something like "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"...
    I would swear I read that in there!

    FTFY
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    I Don't Think So

    A person does not just "discover" he has a felony conviction (there is no such thing as a "misdemeanor-felony"). Constitutional requirements include notice, an opportunity to be heard, etc., etc. If you read the entire statute, you will notice that there are multiple methods by which a delinquent can avoid a conviction including alternative means of fufilling his obligation. This guy is either a B.S. artist or a poster boy deadbeat that wants to blame everyone/thing but himself for his troubles.



    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    Some people are "felons" and apparently don't know it. Had a guy in class that "discovered" he had a "misdemeanor-felony" conviction on his record from the 80's. Turns out he didn't pay child support for more than 120 days.....he said he paid all his child support many years ago and didn't understand why this was on his record. Uh....he should have known. He said he never had a trial and was never charged. Don't know about that!

    So...know the laws and be careful what you do...or don't do.

    Link: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...tatutes/948/31

    Statute: 948.22  Failure to support.

    Snip: (2) Any person who intentionally fails for 120 or more consecutive days to provide spousal, grandchild or child support which the person knows or reasonably should know the person is legally obligated to provide is guilty of a Class I felony. A prosecutor may charge a person with multiple counts for a violation under this subsection if each count covers a period of at least 120 consecutive days and there is no overlap between periods.
    (3) Any person who intentionally fails for less than 120 consecutive days to provide spousal, grandchild or child support which the person knows or reasonably should know the person is legally obligated to provide is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    I'm Sure He Knew....How Could He "Not Know"?

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    A person does not just "discover" he has a felony conviction (there is no such thing as a "misdemeanor-felony"). Constitutional requirements include notice, an opportunity to be heard, etc., etc. If you read the entire statute, you will notice that there are multiple methods by which a delinquent can avoid a conviction including alternative means of fufilling his obligation. This guy is either a B.S. artist or a poster boy deadbeat that wants to blame everyone/thing but himself for his troubles.
    In the case of failure to pay child support you can be charged with both a misdemeanor and a felony. It is there in the statute allowing the prosecutor to apply both charges. So...it may indeed show up as a "Misdemeanor-Felony" but most likely they are individual convictions for the same offense. He was an older guy (older than me and that is OLD) so he had to know. If he had tried to purchase a gun from an FFL since the 80's he would have been denied. I have no idea why he asked the question since there is nothing anyone can do about it except perhaps him. We run into quite a few strange people. There was another guy there that asked if he could legally buy and own a firearm if he had been committed to an insane asylum. All I say is "I'm not a lawyer but I think you need one to answer those questions!"
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •