• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wis. court upholds ban on felons possessing guns

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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.
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
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.
 

markush

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
172
Location
Kenosha
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?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Light a Candle

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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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/statutes/statutes/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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
davegran said:
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!

rcawdor57 said:
FTFY
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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.



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/statutes/statutes/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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I'm Sure He Knew....How Could He "Not Know"?

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!"
 
Top