Apparently, Registration DOES Lead to Confiscation

^^^^ I call bull. A crook looking to smash a window doesn't do it with the loudest thing that will more than likely only leave a hole.

I also bet, those doing these things are already prohibited so how well has your 'rules' worked?

sudden valley gunner said:

^^^^ I call bull. A crook looking to smash a window doesn't do it with the loudest thing that will more than likely only leave a hole.

I also bet, those doing these things are already prohibited so how well has your 'rules' worked?

Click to expand...

? I meant property damage in general. Not someone purposefully smashing a window.

As in more calls for shots fired then calls for bat smashings. Make sense?

How well are your rules working?

Oops I missed these responses, so I'll respond now.

OC for ME said:

How about those rare criminals that decline early release so as to have their full time served and who "owe nothing to the state/society" at the end of their sentence? Should they be punished further?

Click to expand...

What I am saying would require a rework of the current system. But in short, anything that is deemed worthy (such as a felony) would have mandatory probation that couldn't be gotten out of in regards to restoring their rights. The point is that you have to prove that you're a functioning member of society, something that can't be proven before or right after release as it takes some time to prove.

Jack House said:

If you're on probation, then you haven't been released from custody.

Click to expand...

This might be semantics, but I would disagree. I consider it being in their "custody" only when the person is in their facilities and doesn't have the freedom to leave (so this would include in-house treatment places where you're not allowed to leave to X criteria has been met). With probation the person is at their own place and could leave the area, go off and commit crimes, and generally speaking has relatively little oversight compared to someone truly in custody. Yes the person on probation has to report in to a probation officer, and the officer should be checking up on them at their domicile, but that is far different from the person in prison who can't get a job, is fed, housed, etc and is under supervision 24/7.

77zach said:

Honestly I have no problem with violent felons being barred gun ownership if they are released. <snip>

Click to expand...

Then you don't think having a gun is a right.

Just think about it.

You'll come to this realization.

(Not talking about probationary release which is an agreement ~ an inmate can say "no, I don't like the terms of custodial release" and stay in custody)

davidmcbeth said:

So I guess it depends on the definition of the term "criminal"...those who have paid their debt to society should return as full members.

Click to expand...

. . . . .paid their debt to society . . . .?" My tail! I don't think so. The debt ain't "paid" til it is PAID IN FULL! That means repaying actual dollars for ALL damages they caused, and paying for the hurt etc. done to the victims. Sitting on your tail in a cell watching tv and studying for a law degree isn't paying anything to those who were hurt, including the taxpayer for all the expensive room and board they cost us! I reject this phrase as foolish rhetoric, and I wish more people would question how did they actually "pay" anything. All they did was be punished, not paying of any real debt they owe to the victims. I say screw them and their claim to "rights" restoration until they actually make the victims "whole" as they were before the crime. Am I the only one who is not fooled by this phrase?

Old Virginia Joe said:

. . . . .paid their debt to society . . . .?" My tail! I don't think so. The debt ain't "paid" til it is PAID IN FULL! That means repaying actual dollars for ALL damages they caused, and paying for the hurt etc. done to the victims. Sitting on your tail in a cell watching tv and studying for a law degree isn't paying anything to those who were hurt, including the taxpayer for all the expensive room and board they cost us! I reject this phrase as foolish rhetoric, and I wish more people would question how did they actually "pay" anything. All they did was be punished, not paying of any real debt they owe to the victims. I say screw them and their claim to "rights" restoration until they actually make the victims "whole" as they were before the crime. Am I the only one who is not fooled by this phrase?

Click to expand...

Well said. Agreed

Old Virginia Joe said:

. . . . .paid their debt to society . . . .?" My tail! I don't think so. The debt ain't "paid" til it is PAID IN FULL! That means repaying actual dollars for ALL damages they caused, and paying for the hurt etc. done to the victims. Sitting on your tail in a cell watching tv and studying for a law degree isn't paying anything to those who were hurt, including the taxpayer for all the expensive room and board they cost us! I reject this phrase as foolish rhetoric, and I wish more people would question how did they actually "pay" anything. All they did was be punished, not paying of any real debt they owe to the victims. I say screw them and their claim to "rights" restoration until they actually make the victims "whole" as they were before the crime. Am I the only one who is not fooled by this phrase?

Click to expand...

The true debt they owe is wildly objective. The value of their suffering during incarceration toward the debt is as well. The truth is the system is so remarkably broken only a revolutionary overhaul can fix it.
I can't support anyone losing their right to own a firearm that has been deemed safe to walk the streets or buy gasoline or drive vehicles along side my loved ones.

Old Virginia Joe said:

. . . . .paid their debt to society . . . .?" My tail! I don't think so. The debt ain't "paid" til it is PAID IN FULL! That means repaying actual dollars for ALL damages they caused, and paying for the hurt etc. done to the victims. Sitting on your tail in a cell watching tv and studying for a law degree isn't paying anything to those who were hurt, including the taxpayer for all the expensive room and board they cost us! I reject this phrase as foolish rhetoric, and I wish more people would question how did they actually "pay" anything. All they did was be punished, not paying of any real debt they owe to the victims. I say screw them and their claim to "rights" restoration until they actually make the victims "whole" as they were before the crime. Am I the only one who is not fooled by this phrase?

Click to expand...

Are you talking civil penalties?

Aknazer said:

...What I am saying would require a rework of the current system. But in short, anything that is deemed worthy (such as a felony) would have mandatory probation that couldn't be gotten out of in regards to restoring their rights. The point is that you have to prove that you're a functioning member of society, something that can't be proven before or right after release as it takes some time to prove. ...

Click to expand...

A criminal who has served his time does not have to prove anything. If there is forced released (compulsory probation) then the state deems the criminal, by fiat, to be a "functioning member" of society and again, the criminal need to prove nothing.

If the criminal refuses forced release would there be a criminal penalty?

Anyway, it would be the very rare criminal who would refuse to be released before his time is served, essentially a moot point...at this point.

Old Virginia Joe said:

. . . . .paid their debt to society . . . .?" My tail! I don't think so. The debt ain't "paid" til it is PAID IN FULL! That means repaying actual dollars for ALL damages they caused, and paying for the hurt etc. done to the victims. Sitting on your tail in a cell watching tv and studying for a law degree isn't paying anything to those who were hurt, including the taxpayer for all the expensive room and board they cost us! I reject this phrase as foolish rhetoric, and I wish more people would question how did they actually "pay" anything. All they did was be punished, not paying of any real debt they owe to the victims. I say screw them and their claim to "rights" restoration until they actually make the victims "whole" as they were before the crime. Am I the only one who is not fooled by this phrase?

Click to expand...

Yes it drives me batty that the emphasis isn't compensation to the victims as it should be but has been hijacked by the state in payment to them instead.

Primus said:

Well said. Agreed

Click to expand...

Good you changed your mind then?

Aknazer said:

Oops I missed these responses, so I'll respond now.



What I am saying would require a rework of the current system. But in short, anything that is deemed worthy (such as a felony) would have mandatory probation that couldn't be gotten out of in regards to restoring their rights. The point is that you have to prove that you're a functioning member of society, something that can't be proven before or right after release as it takes some time to prove.



This might be semantics, but I would disagree. I consider it being in their "custody" only when the person is in their facilities and doesn't have the freedom to leave (so this would include in-house treatment places where you're not allowed to leave to X criteria has been met). With probation the person is at their own place and could leave the area, go off and commit crimes, and generally speaking has relatively little oversight compared to someone truly in custody. Yes the person on probation has to report in to a probation officer, and the officer should be checking up on them at their domicile, but that is far different from the person in prison who can't get a job, is fed, housed, etc and is under supervision 24/7.

Click to expand...

You are a member of society no matter what you do.

Who gets to decide if you are a productive member or not? Seems very socialist to me.

Old Virginia Joe said:

. . . . .paid their debt to society . . . .?" My tail! I don't think so. The debt ain't "paid" til it is PAID IN FULL! That means repaying actual dollars for ALL damages they caused, and paying for the hurt etc. done to the victims. Sitting on your tail in a cell watching tv and studying for a law degree isn't paying anything to those who were hurt, including the taxpayer for all the expensive room and board they cost us! I reject this phrase as foolish rhetoric, and I wish more people would question how did they actually "pay" anything. All they did was be punished, not paying of any real debt they owe to the victims. I say screw them and their claim to "rights" restoration until they actually make the victims "whole" as they were before the crime. Am I the only one who is not fooled by this phrase?

Click to expand...

This sentiment must be applied to the state as well. The state never repays their debt...ever.

OC for ME said:

A criminal who has served his time does not have to prove anything. If there is forced released (compulsory probation) then the state deems the criminal, by fiat, to be a "functioning member" of society and again, the criminal need to prove nothing.

If the criminal refuses forced release would there be a criminal penalty?

Anyway, it would be the very rare criminal who would refuse to be released before his time is served, essentially a moot point...at this point.

Click to expand...

Except that what I'm saying is that part of serving their time would be the probation period and it wouldn't be a part of some "early release" program. Parole would simply cut the in-house portion short. And the point of releasing them is that they "should" be rehabilitated, but until they are released there is no way to prove it. So releasing them (early or not) is their chance to prove that they're a <insert term for non-criminal here> and can be trusted with the rest of their rights. Or they fall back into being a criminal and have to go back into state custody. You could also look at the "forced probation" as their chance to prove that they're rehabilitated and not simply paying it lip service so that they can go back to their life of crime.

Of course all of this requires us to have an actual justice system instead of the current legal system that does a rather poor job of stopping people from falling back into a life of crime.

sudden valley gunner said:

You are a member of society no matter what you do.

Who gets to decide if you are a productive member or not? Seems very socialist to me.

Click to expand...

Now you're playing semantics. Call it productive, functioning, non-criminal, I don't care. The point is that if the justice system worked it would rehabilitate criminals so that they are non-criminals (use whatever word you want). With your line of thinking one could argue who is anyone to decide if one's debt has been repaid, or if any punishment fits the crime, etc. and that the sentence for any and all crimes are socialist. Thus since we're not a socialist country there shouldn't be any punishment for committing a crime, since who is anyone to define said punishment.

Of course such line of reasoning is absurd. Someone (or group of someones) has to define crimes, their punishment, and terms of release. Or we could go back to using the old outlaw term and simply have said probation the way to have one's outlaw status removed.

Aknazer said:

Except that what I'm saying is that part of serving their time would be the probation period and it wouldn't be a part of some "early release" program. Parole would simply cut the in-house portion short. And the point of releasing them is that they "should" be rehabilitated, but until they are released there is no way to prove it. So releasing them (early or not) is their chance to prove that they're a <insert term for non-criminal here> and can be trusted with the rest of their rights. Or they fall back into being a criminal and have to go back into state custody. You could also look at the "forced probation" as their chance to prove that they're rehabilitated and not simply paying it lip service so that they can go back to their life of crime.

Of course all of this requires us to have an actual justice system instead of the current legal system that does a rather poor job of stopping people from falling back into a life of crime.

Now you're playing semantics. Call it productive, functioning, non-criminal, I don't care. The point is that if the justice system worked it would rehabilitate criminals so that they are non-criminals (use whatever word you want). With your line of thinking one could argue who is anyone to decide if one's debt has been repaid, or if any punishment fits the crime, etc. and that the sentence for any and all crimes are socialist. Thus since we're not a socialist country there shouldn't be any punishment for committing a crime, since who is anyone to define said punishment.

Of course such line of reasoning is absurd. Someone (or group of someones) has to define crimes, their punishment, and terms of release. Or we could go back to using the old outlaw term and simply have said probation the way to have one's outlaw status removed.

Click to expand...

I'm attempting to not be tedious here but it seems I'll be failing on this count.

Prison is not about or, should not be about, rehabilitation. It is the state exacting its retribution for a citizen violating the laws of the state. Probation is nothing but scheme to reduce the expenditure of tax payer funds. If a criminal refuses compulsory probation what then? If a criminal does not pursue probation what then? If a criminal serves his sentence as handed down by the state why must he prove that he is rehabilitated as a condition of release?

In my view, it is not the enforcement of laws that is the problem it is the far too many BS laws that criminalize just about any activity that a citizen engages in. Cops have far too much "discretion" where the enforcement of laws are concerned. Cops have far too many exemption built into the laws that the citizenry does not enjoy. These issue will not be resolved unless individual liberty is the foundation of any law and that the state considers individual liberty before it acts. Unfortunately the state, and many of its minions, never consider individual liberty before it/they act this would remove power from the state and its minions and return it to the citizenry.

Example: That executive, riding his bicycle, out in California who was killed by a distracted (using his on-board computer) cop while driving his cruiser. No criminal charges because cops in CA are exempt from that distracted driving law if the distraction was a result of he using his computer in the course of his duties. You nor I enjoy such a exemption from the state. That cop should be in prison.

Aknazer said:

Now you're playing semantics. Call it productive, functioning, non-criminal, I don't care. The point is that if the justice system worked it would rehabilitate criminals so that they are non-criminals (use whatever word you want). With your line of thinking one could argue who is anyone to decide if one's debt has been repaid, or if any punishment fits the crime, etc. and that the sentence for any and all crimes are socialist. Thus since we're not a socialist country there shouldn't be any punishment for committing a crime, since who is anyone to define said punishment.

Of course such line of reasoning is absurd. Someone (or group of someones) has to define crimes, their punishment, and terms of release. Or we could go back to using the old outlaw term and simply have said probation the way to have one's outlaw status removed.

Click to expand...

Not quite what was being argued.

Society simply means the people. A person is a member of society no matter what their status of liberty or what crimes they are engaging in. No one can decide whether someone else is a "productive" member of society. Its a nebulous term that really makes no sense.

The justice system as it is anything but a justice system. Rehabilitation is a utopian pipe dream and a farse, and excuse for the state to override real justice and compensation to the victims of crime.

Its a misdirection and a misapplication of my statement to then compare crime and compensation to my simple statement about society.

OC for ME said:

I'm attempting to not be tedious here but it seems I'll be failing on this count.

Prison is not about or, should not be about, rehabilitation. It is the state exacting its retribution for a citizen violating the laws of the state. Probation is nothing but scheme to reduce the expenditure of tax payer funds. If a criminal refuses compulsory probation what then? If a criminal does not pursue probation what then? If a criminal serves his sentence as handed down by the state why must he prove that he is rehabilitated as a condition of release?

Click to expand...

Set aside what the system is currently. Because right now it is broken and simply a legal system. Instead view it more as the old outlaw, where he was outside of the law and thus not protected by it. This also means that the state will not honor certain rights. The compulsory probation as you want to call it would be how he would have said outlaw status removed.

In my view, it is not the enforcement of laws that is the problem it is the far too many BS laws that criminalize just about any activity that a citizen engages in. Cops have far too much "discretion" where the enforcement of laws are concerned. Cops have far too many exemption built into the laws that the citizenry does not enjoy. These issue will not be resolved unless individual liberty is the foundation of any law and that the state considers individual liberty before it acts. Unfortunately the state, and many of its minions, never consider individual liberty before it/they act this would remove power from the state and its minions and return it to the citizenry.

Click to expand...

This gets back to why the system is broken and not a justice system. But it doesn't change the fact that for certain crimes a person (imo) should have to prove that they aren't going to go back to being a criminal.

Example: That executive, riding his bicycle, out in California who was killed by a distracted (using his on-board computer) cop while driving his cruiser. No criminal charges because cops in CA are exempt from that distracted driving law if the distraction was a result of he using his computer in the course of his duties. You nor I enjoy such a exemption from the state. That cop should be in prison.

Click to expand...

The fact that the cop should be in prison doesn't change the fact that X criminal who was released after being in prison for several years has done nothing to prove that he can be fully trusted on the outside.

sudden valley gunner said:

Not quite what was being argued.

Society simply means the people. A person is a member of society no matter what their status of liberty or what crimes they are engaging in. No one can decide whether someone else is a "productive" member of society. Its a nebulous term that really makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Which is why I said for you to use whatever word you want for a non-criminal.

The justice system as it is anything but a justice system. Rehabilitation is a utopian pipe dream and a farse, and excuse for the state to override real justice and compensation to the victims of crime.

Click to expand...

Which is why I called it a legal system and not a justice system. As far as rehabilitation, the point is for the person to be able to be a non-criminal in society. I'm not talking about making him a lawyer (really shouldn't we be saying attorney since they're the ones who get paid) or a doctor or anything like that. But if the person can't be trusted to not go back to committing crimes then they shouldn't be released; and that is as far as rehabilitation should go. This also doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay real compensation for their crimes, the two don't have to be exclusive.

Its a misdirection and a misapplication of my statement to then compare crime and compensation to my simple statement about society.

Click to expand...

Then by all means please explain yourself better. Because you are the one that called it socialist, but that argument could be applied to the punishment of any crime. You committed X crime, here is Y punishment. That punishment includes A in-house time, B compensation to the victims (or their families), and C out-patient time (for a lack of a better term). Once A is completed you are given back D freedoms, and once C is completed you get the rest.

I don't see this as being any more socialist than current punishments, unless you think having someone serve out-patient prison time (yes I know these terms don't exactly go together, but I don't know of any other term besides probation to describe this) for certain crimes is socialist. At which point I again ask you to please explain how this is socialist but other punishments aren't.

Aknazer said:

Set aside what the system is currently. Because right now it is broken and simply a legal system. Instead view it more as the old outlaw, where he was outside of the law and thus not protected by it. This also means that the state will not honor certain rights. The compulsory probation as you want to call it would be how he would have said outlaw status removed.

This gets back to why the system is broken and not a justice system. But it doesn't change the fact that for certain crimes a person (imo) should have to prove that they aren't going to go back to being a criminal.

The fact that the cop should be in prison doesn't change the fact that X criminal who was released after being in prison for several years has done nothing to prove that he can be fully trusted on the outside. ...

Click to expand...

The drift into the too many BS laws and cop exemptions, with attending example, really has nothing to do with the op nor the current point we are discussing, please accept my apologies.

If it truly is your opinion that a criminal must prove that he will not commit a crime after release then some could demand that you prove that you will not commit a crime with your gun...daily.

The bottom line is that probation proves nothing and is a privilege, a promise not to commit crimes.

Serving the entire sentence means that the criminal must prove nothing and should not be required to prove anything. All of his rights must be restored without condition and if then commits a crime then hold him to account for that crime.

TJ once opined that he would rather suffer the inconveniences attending too much liberty...rather than too little degree of it.

I called the statement of until they can be proved to be a " productive member of society" socialistic. That's it. I think I explained why very well pretty succinctly.

OC for ME said:

The drift into the too many BS laws and cop exemptions, with attending example, really has nothing to do with the op nor the current point we are discussing, please accept my apologies.

If it truly is your opinion that a criminal must prove that he will not commit a crime after release then some could demand that you prove that you will not commit a crime with your gun...daily.

The bottom line is that probation proves nothing and is a privilege, a promise not to commit crimes.

Serving the entire sentence means that the criminal must prove nothing and should not be required to prove anything. All of his rights must be restored without condition and if then commits a crime then hold him to account for that crime.

TJ once opined that he would rather suffer the inconveniences attending too much liberty...rather than too little degree of it.

Click to expand...

+1 Those that favor limiting felons access to firearms have a little bit of anti in them; they will claim no and give their well thought out reasons but, still, its an anti position but also one in which pro-2nd folks will say have nothing to do with the RKBA.

They justify their reasoning with the viewpoint that these felons have demonstrated that they are too dangerous to own firearms; a similar argument made by antis of any gun owner.