Fast food supervisor charged in robbery

imported post

There are certain crimes which should prevent anyone from owning/carrying a firearm for life. Period. Violent crimes against people, robbery, etc. I would even extend it to lesser crimes, especially if they were committed as an adult. I don't believe in rehabilitation for the majority of felons- that's bullcrap. There is no such thing as "doing your time." You can't undo your crime with time.

I'm all for gun rights. But felons convicted of crimes against people or property do not deserve these rights.

imported post

usmc_recon wrote:

There are certain crimes which should prevent anyone from owning/carrying a firearm for life. Period. Violent crimes against people, robbery, etc. I would even extend it to lesser crimes, especially if they were committed as an adult. I don't believe in rehabilitation for the majority of felons- that's bullcrap. There is no such thing as "doing your time." You can't undo your crime with time.

I'm all for gun rights. But felons convicted of crimes against people or property do not deserve these rights.

Click to expand...

So, then, do you support:

a) locking these people up for life, and paying for it?

b) executing them all, which is also quite costly not only monetarily but politically and morally?

c) releasing them after serving their terms and letting them walk down the street, knowing that your gun ban on them won't work, any more than any gun ban has ever worked?

Also, you seem to think that once a person is convicted, they can never ever redeem themselves.

Is this consistent with a country built upona philosophy of free will, the belief that people can choose to do good or evil? Or do you believe that people are born to be criminals, and the purpose of the justice system is to out the bad apples and hold them down for life?

Again, I am not being combative. I like this discussion.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Again, I am not being combative. I like this discussion.

Click to expand...

Suuuure, you're not. That's why you chose the name Tomahawk instead of PeacePipe, too.

Make it tough on them! Make 'em explain a system that minimizes injustice andaddresses basic security issues, all in the context of socialand politcal realities. Don't let 'em wiggle around in a philosophical Ivory Tower. Its too easy on 'em. Make them put some rubber on that road.

(As I quietly sneak away for the rest of the evening.)

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Again, I am not being combative. I like this discussion.

Click to expand...

Suuuure, you're not. That's why you chose the name Tomahawk instead of PeacePipe, too.

Click to expand...

imported post

First off, as I have said, I support the elimination of all victimless "crimes." (Crimes is in quotations because I don't believe a crime without a victim is actually a crime at all.) Those would be primarily drug related, prostitution, gambling, some driving-related ones, etc. All of these have no clear and direct victim. Someone selling drugs to someone who wants drugs has no victim (except perhaps minors). Someone selling sex for money has no victim. You get the point. Once these laws are eliminated, you immediately have HUGE amounts of jailspace and tax money become available.

Then you toughen up all the punishments for crimes against people and property. I'm not proposing something ridiculous, like a lifetime sentence for shoplifting or cutting off their hand. But things like a 60-day sentence would be no longer. Maybe a first offense adult shoplifter would get 5 years. Maybe an armed robber would be 15-20 years first offense. Whatever, just basically all laws against people and property would become much more severe. This IN ITSELF becomes a deterrent.

Also, we make jails absolutely abysmal (sp?) places to stay. No more unlimited free medical care, no more lifting weights and working out, no t.v. Instead, more hard labor. Busting rocks type stuff. Reading and learning are about the only pasttimes that a criminal should have.

Can people redeem themselves? Perhaps. But only with a lot longer and tougher sentences than we are handing out now.

I don't believe that people are born good or bad. They are made that way 99% of the time. Regardless, it isn't society's job to "make things go right." It is the parents job.

Yes, criminals can get guns whether they're legal or not. That doesn't mean that criminals owning guns should be legal. That isn't sound logic. I can break into your home whether it's legal or not, but that shouldn't make burglary legal.

imported post

Well said, usmc_recon.

imported post

usmc_recon wrote:

<snip>

Yes, criminals can get guns whether they're legal or not. That doesn't mean that criminals owning guns should be legal. That isn't sound logic. I can break into your home whether it's legal or not, but that shouldn't make burglary legal.

Click to expand...

Your example isn't on point. Burglary is bad because it's burglary -- not because it's a criminal who's doing it. Burglary is bad whether it's done by a convicted felon or a guy who has never been caught.

By contrast, posessing a gun is not inherently bad. What's bad is what you do with it.

So I argue that felons who have paid for their crime should not be banned from owning a weapon. But note that I have defined what I mean by "paid for their crime."

I don't think incarceration is a good way to punish crime. There's lots of reasons. Without going into all, my point is that we can't expect our justice system to be effective until we start using corporal punishment and restitution as part of the punishment.

imported post

For my own part, I am happy with the list of "prohibited persons" as it is now. EVERY DAY, I have to deal with "gangstas" (real enough felons, whether they rose to the level of Scarface or not) coming in the shop and asking me favors, offering me bribes, attempting "straw purchases", etc to circumvent the background checks so they can go about armed with greater ease. I don't know if these are ATF plants to check for compliance or if every criminal on earth is really that supid, but I am tired of it. There is a reason for this list of prohibited people, and I agree with it. Don't commit felonies if you don't want your civil rights infringed, which they most assuredly will be, however Draconian and unjust you think it is to alienate someone's RTKBA.

-ljp

imported post

League of 1291, generally speaking you have good reasonings and philosophies, so I could agree with the general principle of what you're saying.

I did realize that my example wasn't exactly an apples for apples analogy but I was hoping that no one would pick up on it.

However, are you saying there is NO crime, of any severity, where you wouldn't ban that person for owning firearms for life? (At least legally.)

imported post

usmc_recon wrote:

However, are you saying there is NO crime, of any severity, where you wouldn't ban that person for owning firearms for life? (At least legally.)

Click to expand...

The problem is that the crime is not the problem, its the mind behind the crime.

If we categorize by the crime, we necessarily introduce some degree of flaw into whatever solutionis formulated.

I can't see many traditional offenses where the mindbehind the offense would not have hadmore lack of human decency and regard forothers than I'd be comfortable with. Even non-violent offenses such as fraud have a serious selfishness and disregard for others behind them.

In the absence of a way to reform the criminal mind, I think we're better off reforming the petition channels sothose who have changed can defend themselves.

imported post

usmc_recon wrote:

<snip>

However, are you saying there is NO crime, of any severity, where you wouldn't ban that person for owning firearms for life? (At least legally.)

Click to expand...

Well, maybe there are some; I haven't studied on this long enough to be certain. But if there are some, they'd be exceptional.

As a matter of principle I'd say that if our justice system was good in practice at punishing wrongdoing and restoring a criminal to productivity, moral worth, and good citizenship, he ought not be banned from owning weapons. I also say that our justice system ought to have that as a goal -- right now it doesn't.

As a matter of principle, if we're not safe allowing a man to own a gun (because we fear he'll do evil with it), then he'll do evil whether he has a gun or not, and we're not safe allowing him liberty in the first place.

The propensity for evil is in the man, not the gun, and that's as true for convicted felons as it is for good citizens.

imported post

I don't think there is anything wrong with stripping convicted felons of the right to own and use firearms. I don't think they need to be able to vote either. As citizens of a nation we are all bound under a common contract. When one choses to live outside of that contract they can no longer expect to enjoy the rights everyone else gets. I think crimes should have real consequences. Even if we don't make all of the consequences last forever (prison), doesn't mean we need to make none of the consequences lasting.

With that being said I think we really need to look at what we consider felony behavior. We waste a lot of time turning petty crimes into felonies. I know people who have committed felonies and only became aware of the violation after the fact.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I think he'd stand a better chance if he can show he petitioned for restoration of his rights, especially if hehas an actual denial--he can show thegov't was wrong in their denial.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's impossible to even get a denial out of the BATF. The Congressional restriction on the BATF's annual appropriations prohibits them from using any of their funding to even investigate or act in any way on petitions for relief from disabilities. The best you will get is a letter saying they cannot investigate your petition. This also means that you are unable to appeal the decision to a federal court as provided in 18 USC 925(c), since your petition has not been denied, merely ignored.

This was put to the test in United States v. Bean a few years ago. Thomas Bean was convicted and sentenced in Mexico after inadvertently having ammunition in his car while crossing the border. After being released in the U.S., he filed a petition for relief with the BATF, and got back the "non-action" notice. He petitioned a district court, which sided with him and granted relief. However, the case was taken to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the BATF's inaction did not constituted a denial, and thus the district court had no authority to grant relief.

In short, it's a catch-22. You can, but you can't.:cuss:

I too question the idea of denying felons the right to bear arms permanently, but at least having a process by which people can petition for relief (and be granted such if they are deemed no longer a threat to the public) makes things more fair. Congress' underhanded means of circumventing this statutory remedy is really slimy, IMHO.

Strictly speaking, the Attorney General still has statutory authority to decide petitions (that function was simply delegated the BATF a long time ago), but somehow I doubt you'd get very far filing a petition with the AG's office...

Fortunately, those who have been convicted still have the option of seeking pardons or otherwise getting their convictions expunged or set aside. So, there's still hope, even though the federal administrative remedy was sneakily blocked.

imported post

But it is not just felons who are being denied.
What used to be called disturbing the peace is now domestic violence, still a misdemeanor but stripping you of your rights just the same. Easier evan as with misdemeanors you do not have the same protections of an attorney or jury that you would as a felon.
Perhaps it would be best if this were allowed to sunset off the books after five or ten years.
I mean if you are squeaky clean for ten years it is not likely that you are a habitual offender.

Jefferson