• 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.

Cops enter home W/O Warrant; seize guns -- conviction REVERSED

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I don't understand the problem, if a felon has done his time, there is no reason to keep him from owning weapons unless .....

Gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

1 - make it so felons lose RKBA
2 - make more and more crimes a felony
3 - people who care about RKBA spend time/energy avoiding becoming felons instead of living/promoting RKBA
4 - PROFIT!

stay safe.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I don't understand the problem, if a felon has done his time, there is no reason to keep him from owning weapons unless he is dangerous.

If he is dangerous, why is he out of jail?

The easier we accept the govt restricting rights, the easier it is for them to restrict our rights.

IMO you can't defend only the rights that you like, you have to defend all of them if you are a true champion of liberty.
Exactly!

If a person is too dangerous to be walking around with a gun, then he is too dangerous to be walking around WITHOUT a gun!

Short. Simple. True.

The liberals are all over restoration of voting rights, I submit that an undeserved vote is FAR more dangerous than undeserved possession of a gun.

TFred
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
FENIX i would suggest you thicken up your skin. we do debate things on here. just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you should take your ball and go home

back to OT. i would assume that even though his conviction of posstion of firearms by a felon was over turned, they would not have given his guns back. i wonder if he could have turned them over to a person able to own them , or did the state destroy them
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
FENIX i would suggest you thicken up your skin. we do debate things on here. just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you should take your ball and go home

back to OT. i would assume that even though his conviction of posstion of firearms by a felon was over turned, they would not have given his guns back. i wonder if he could have turned them over to a person able to own them , or did the state destroy them

I would imagine they will destroy them, I wonder if they were by chance antique firearms in which case they were legal and should be returned to him.

We have a case here where a man accident buried his daughter and niece with a backhoe. For some reason the police thought this was PC to confiscate his firearms in a illegal search of his home. They also found a pot plant, big deal. While it is awful what happened and if he is negligent he should be charged, but so far he has not been convicted of a crime and his rights were abridged.
 
Last edited:

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
I do agree with WW, just because you are a felon you should have the same rights as any other citizen, if you have done your time

but i am a bit confused, what crime did he commit? the court ruled in his favor.

The problem is not that he is an EX! felon, the problem is that he is a father who wanted some more 'face time' with his daughter.

This required permission from the government for enhanced visitation privileges. Pursuant to their authority, Social Services precipitated this incident with a unannounced visit of the home for a so-called "home study" analysis:

The JDR district court ordered the Lynchburg Department of Social Services (DSS) to conduct a “home study” of Ross and to report its findings to the court. See App. at 42. The order authorized an unannounced visit, but did not authorize the DSS social worker to enter Ross’s residence against his will.

But wait, there's more:
Prior to conducting the home study, the DSS social worker determined that Ross was a “convicted felon,”1 id. at 19, and suspected him of distributing marijuana. The social worker also obtained from an undisclosed source a photo of Ross holding what appeared to be an SKS rifle. Another photo showed Ross and one of his children together holding the same rifle.

That right there probably prejudiced social services. As we have seen recently elsewhere (like NJ) God help you if you share your weapons with your own children.

Social Services can often be a problem where your natural rights are concerned.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

1 - make it so felons lose RKBA
2 - make more and more crimes a felony
3 - people who care about RKBA spend time/energy avoiding becoming felons instead of living/promoting RKBA
4 - PROFIT!

stay safe.

+1

Don't forget voting rights, which is the other primary form of power we have over our government. Actually, voting comes before guns in that regard.

Make everybody a felon, and the government can do whatever it wants.

Or, less conspiratorially, "felonize" everyone who does something (has guns, smokes pot, or whatever), and POOF!, the majority of people who care about that something enough to vote against its prohibition are disenfranchised, unrepresented, and unable to vote against their incarceration.

This way yesterday's majority can impose itself on a future majority which may oppose the laws of the past.

Why was this done? Because God forbid those [insert generational youthful anti-establishment culture here] ever grow up. Originally it was hippies. Today, it's libertarian-minded young adults.
 
Last edited:

HearseGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
172
Location
VA
I absolutely agree that once a felon for a non violent crime has paid their debt to society etc, their right to vote, own firearms etc should absolutely be restored. A very dear friend of mine who had a little bit of pot umpteen years ago loves guns and is a big pro gun guy, but still can't legally own a firearm.

However, until this dumb law is overturned somehow, felons still shouldn't have guns. It really hurts all of us especially in this day and time. Its just more ammo for "see there you go another felon with a gun. That's why we need universal BG checks on every purchase and a pistol permit and a waiting period and a registration system" yata yata you get the point.

Breaking laws isnt the way to overturn them. You can't disregard them because you think their silly.

Absolutely only my $.02
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Virginia's 'Home Study' Manual

It's a "Home Approval" Guide. See what it says about weapons:
1.5.4.5.3 Weapons

Possession of any weapons, including firearms, in the home shall comply with federal and state laws and local ordinances. The provider shall store any firearms and other weapons (e.g., BB guns, air guns, sling shots, etc.) in a locked closet or cabinet, with the activated safety mechanisms. Ammunition shall be stored in a separate and locked area. The key or combination to the locked closet or cabinet shall be maintained out of the reach of all children in the home.

Basically, Lock-Up-Your-Safety. It's for the kids.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I absolutely agree that once a felon for a non violent crime has paid their debt to society etc, their right to vote, own firearms etc should absolutely be restored. A very dear friend of mine who had a little bit of pot umpteen years ago loves guns and is a big pro gun guy, but still can't legally own a firearm.

However, until this dumb law is overturned somehow, felons still shouldn't have guns. It really hurts all of us especially in this day and time. Its just more ammo for "see there you go another felon with a gun. That's why we need universal BG checks on every purchase and a pistol permit and a waiting period and a registration system" yata yata you get the point.

Breaking laws isnt the way to overturn them. You can't disregard them because you think their silly.

Absolutely only my $.02

Unless it is against Virginia law your friend can own antique firearms.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
"That we should obey laws whether good or bad is a new-fangled notion. There was no such thing in former days. The people disregarded those laws they did not like and suffered the penalties for their breach."

-Mahatma Gandhi
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
He was in possession of firearms, that was the whole problem; They entered without a warrant, Found the guns, then he was arrested. Hence the overturn of his original conviction.

That a felon was in possession of firearms wasn't "the whole problem". The initial "problem" was the Fourth Ammendment violation by the police, which led to the discovery of the firearms.


Fourth Ammendment = US Constitution

Firearms possession by a felon = a 'lesser law' (for lack of a better term at the moment...) then the Constitution.

A violation of a 'lesser law' should not trump the Constitution. Period.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
An interesting question just came to mind.

In 1791, and in what ever year the Virginia Constitution was originally written...

How many convicted felons ever actually got OUT of jail?

If you murdered someone, I suppose they would just hang you. Is it not possible that the authors never considered that anyone would ever have to deal with restoration of rights to a convicted felon?

TFred
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
An interesting question just came to mind.

In 1791, and in what ever year the Virginia Constitution was originally written...

How many convicted felons ever actually got OUT of jail?

If you murdered someone, I suppose they would just hang you. Is it not possible that the authors never considered that anyone would ever have to deal with restoration of rights to a convicted felon?

TFred

Did the word felon exist in 1791?
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
There has a drastic shift in crime classification and punishment toward the end of the 19th century. The number of capital offenses was drastically cut. Cattle rustlers can breathe easy now.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Felon:
late 13c., from Old French felon "evil-doer, scoundrel, traitor, rebel, the Devil" (9c.), from Medieval Latin fellonem (nominative fello) "evil-doer," of uncertain origin, perhaps from Frankish *fillo, *filljo "person who whips or beats, scourger" (cf. Old High German fillen "to whip"); or from Latin fel "gall, poison," on the notion of "one full of bitterness."

Another theory (advanced by Professor R. Atkinson of Dublin) traces it to Latin fellare "to suck" (see fecund), which had an obscene secondary meaning in classical Latin (well-known to readers of Martial and Catullus), which would make a felon etymologically a "cock-sucker." OED inclines toward the "gall" explanation, but finds Atkinson's "most plausible" of the others.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=felon
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
What I want to know is, what happened to the guy's guns? Just because he's not allowed to be in possession doesn't mean he's not allowed to have ownership, and can allow anyone who is eligible to be in possession to take charge of 'em. That guy may need to file a motion.
 
Top