Customer feels safer at Safeway

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

If a person has done the time, they have been punished. They should no longer have a legal status that makes it hard for them to get a job, get housing, vote, protect themselves or otherwise partcipate in the community. Probably one reason why felons keep reoffending, they are locked out of most of society. I say restore their rights upon release.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. A felony isn't some little error in judgment. It is a major NO NO and it has extra punishment attached to it. It's like in the Military, when they give you extra duty for doing something wrong, it is just an error. But when they restrict you to quarters along with the extra duty you know you've been a very bad boy because with the extra duty you have no extra time in your day but to sleep anyway.

Besides that, most felony's continue to re-offend.

Click to expand...

Very true Bear. My grandpa was the assistant warden of the monroe penitentiary and was the in charge of the honor farm. These are the good ones of the bunch and he said that the majority of them at any given time were on thier 2nd or 3rd trip.

imported post

I believe if you choose to commit a felony you absolutley should loose those rights

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, many people are convicted of felonies who did not commit them. Look at how many death row inmates have been exonerated recently via DNA evidence. People who maintained their innocence for the past 20-30 years in prison are now being set free because modern forensics proves their innocence.

Other felonies are trumped up charges. Possessing a small amount of medical marijuana with a doctor's referral for a legal condition in this state, and following all state laws with regards to this, often results in jail time and felony charges for patients when prosecutors bust them and judges disallow the medical marijuana defense in direct violation of state law. It happens all the time in Washington, I can point you to a bunch of cases.

I know a guy who, in the 1970s, was riding in a car when the driver, his friend, sold five bucks worth of pot to someone who turned out to be an undercover cop. He was charged but never convicted, as he himself had nothing to do with the drug other than being in the car. The charge itself was used to deny him a concealed carry permit in this state in the 1990s and it took a lawyer to set the idiots straight. OK, you can claim "Don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time", and that's good advice but the fact of the matter is, the guy was innocent of the charge. He wasn't selling pot. He wasn't even smoking pot. You can't deny him his constitutional rights because of something his friend did.

Incidents like this are not isolated. It's easy to label people criminals and felons and take their right away until you start to deal with the individuals on a personal level and learn the full story. Yeah, many of them are no good hoodlums. But many of them aren't. Many are legitimately victims of circumstance and overzealous prosecution and law enforcement. Ohio authorities have filed felony charges against a 15 year old girl, accusing her of producing child pornography. If convicted she will lose most of her rights in this country and be forced to register as a sex offender and effectively never have a decent job again. Her crime? She took some nude photos of herself and emailed them to some friends. The prosecutor also wants to charge the friends with possession of child pornography:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

So, you know, rant and rave all you want about these evil felons, but a hell of a lot of them are innocent.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

I would disagree. A felony isn't some little error in judgment. It is a major NO NO and it has extra punishment attached to it. It's like in the Military, when they give you extra duty for doing something wrong, it is just an error. But when they restrict you to quarters along with the extra duty you know you've been a very bad boy because with the extra duty you have no extra time in your day but to sleep anyway.

Besides that, most felony's continue to re-offend.

Click to expand...

I almost agree with Bear. But the felony is more like the court marshal and dishonorable discharge. Once done it is very hard to undo.

imported post

A felony isn't some little error in judgment.

Click to expand...

Right, like fishing from the wrong side of a bridge. A friend of mine got that one. In the county where he began fishing, it was legal. When he walked across a rickety old bridge, it was felony poaching. Same river, same fish. He plea bargained down to a criminal citation and fine. Now he has a criminal record, but at least he can still own guns.

imported post

tricityguy wrote:

A felony isn't some little error in judgment.

Click to expand...

Right, like fishing from the wrong side of a bridge. A friend of mine got that one. In the county where he began fishing, it was legal. When he walked across a rickety old bridge, it was felony poaching. Same river, same fish. He plea bargained down to a criminal citation and fine. Now he has a criminal record, but at least he can still own guns.

Click to expand...

It is the fishermans job to know the law and where and when he can fish.

imported post

tricityguy wrote:

I believe if you choose to commit a felony you absolutley should loose those rights

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, many people are convicted of felonies who did not commit them. Look at how many death row inmates have been exonerated recently via DNA evidence. People who maintained their innocence for the past 20-30 years in prison are now being set free because modern forensics proves their innocence.

Other felonies are trumped up charges. Possessing a small amount of medical marijuana with a doctor's referral for a legal condition in this state, and following all state laws with regards to this, often results in jail time and felony charges for patients when prosecutors bust them and judges disallow the medical marijuana defense in direct violation of state law. It happens all the time in Washington, I can point you to a bunch of cases.

I know a guy who, in the 1970s, was riding in a car when the driver, his friend, sold five bucks worth of pot to someone who turned out to be an undercover cop. He was charged but never convicted, as he himself had nothing to do with the drug other than being in the car. The charge itself was used to deny him a concealed carry permit in this state in the 1990s and it took a lawyer to set the idiots straight. OK, you can claim "Don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time", and that's good advice but the fact of the matter is, the guy was innocent of the charge. He wasn't selling pot. He wasn't even smoking pot. You can't deny him his constitutional rights because of something his friend did.

Incidents like this are not isolated. It's easy to label people criminals and felons and take their right away until you start to deal with the individuals on a personal level and learn the full story. Yeah, many of them are no good hoodlums. But many of them aren't. Many are legitimately victims of circumstance and overzealous prosecution and law enforcement. Ohio authorities have filed felony charges against a 15 year old girl, accusing her of producing child pornography. If convicted she will lose most of her rights in this country and be forced to register as a sex offender and effectively never have a decent job again. Her crime? She took some nude photos of herself and emailed them to some friends. The prosecutor also wants to charge the friends with possession of child pornography:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

So, you know, rant and rave all you want about these evil felons, but a hell of a lot of them are innocent.

Click to expand...

I call BS on all your stories. There are only certain approved ailments that can use the medicinal marijuana defense. Also being charged with a felony is not grounds for denying a CPL. The law is very clear on it.

Anyone who takes pictures, of themselves or not, of a minor and sends them to others should be charged with dproduction and distribution of child pornography.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

If a person has done the time, they have been punished. They should no longer have a legal status that makes it hard for them to get a job, get housing, vote, protect themselves or otherwise partcipate in the community. Probably one reason why felons keep reoffending, they are locked out of most of society. I say restore their rights upon release.

Click to expand...

In many cases felons can have their civil rights restored. They usually have to complete their sentences (including probation) and petition for restoration. In some cases they can actually apply for pardons and have their records expunged.

The reality is that they often do not complete their probation with out recomitting the same or similar crime. Consider this, many felons just don't like to follow the rules of society. They didn't before they were caught and convicted and they aren't when they are released. Those that are willing to change and re-enter society often do with little or no fanfare.

As for blanket rights restoration, sorry, not me. I feel that the convicted felons made choices and in order to get full rights restored they need to make another choice. The one where they agree to follow the rules of the society they live in.


For Washington State here is the RCW covering the "Restoration of Civil Rights". Please note that there is a provision where it is a "No Can Do" if the applicant has any pending charges in WA or other States. Seems like they don't want to "pardon" anyone that might just be back on track to going to jail. Hmm?



http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.96

imported post

It is the fishermans job to know the law and where and when he can fish.

Click to expand...

That is not the point. The point is, a man is not a dangerous felon who needs his guns taken away because, while legally fishing, he crossed a small, rickety old bridge and didn't realize he had stepped into another county. You want to fine him, I'm OK with it, but when you call him a felon and all of the badness that entails, we have a serious problem. That could have happened to any one of us. He was fishing in the same river for the same fish and had a license, just made an innocent mistake in the physical land he was standing on. His vehicle was parked on the right side, for God's sake. The game warden should have put this together and gave him a warning and he would've gone right back across that old bridge and apologized profusely. In fact, that's exactly what he did, but it was too late as the wheels of "justice" had already begun.

I call BS on all your stories.

Click to expand...

Uh huh, like I'd make this up for no reason? Read them for yourself.

Also being charged with a felony is not grounds for denying a CPL. The law is very clear on it.

Click to expand...

No shit, and that's why the guy has a CPL today. Point was, it was denied anyway in direct violation of the law and it took an attorney to force the sheriff, who was knowingly violating the law, to stop screwing around and issue the CPL. That shouldn't be the case; those who enforce laws should not be allowed to violate them with no repercussions (and, naturally, this sheriff had none, even after he lost the only consequence for his shenanigans was he had to issue the CPL. If I broke a state firearm's law I'd be jailed, so why does he escape any form of punishment?)

Anyone who takes pictures, of themselves or not, of a minor and sends them to others should be charged with dproduction and distribution of child pornography.

Click to expand...

You know, I'm sorry, I don't usually attack others and, Joe, I like most of what you have to say on this board, but you're a moron if you think a 15 year old girl ought to spend a decade or more in prison and be labeled a sex offender for the rest of her life because she took some naked pictures of herself and shared them with a couple of 15 year old guys. This case is considered an outrage and perverse abuse of justice by the vast majority of the American public and here you are defending it? Hey, when we were 15 we flipped Dad's old C-band satellite dish over to the playboy channel when he wasn't around. Maybe Dad should have spent a decade in jail for making smut available to minors, you think?

imported post

tricityguy, what the hell fishing intraction is a freakin' felony? Gross misdemeaner maybe, but felony, not gonna happen.

imported post

tricityguy, what the hell fishing intraction is a freakin' felony? Gross misdemeaner maybe, but felony, not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Beats the heck out of me, I'll have to ask him what he was charged with. I know it was some kind of poaching statute. This was at least 15 years ago. Maybe the stinkin' small town prosecutor lied to him to get a quick and easy guilty plea. My buddy was distinctly told if he didn't take the plea bargain he'd be found guilty and his firearms rights would be taken from him.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Anyone who takes pictures, of themselves or not, of a minor and sends them to others should be charged with dproduction and distribution of child pornography.

Click to expand...

You're trolling now, right? Please tell me so. Else, you're saying that 15 year olds who willingly and knowingly takes a picture of themselves and sends it to another person of the same age is a child pornographer?

By this perverse logic, if an adult (18) convinces a minor (let's say it's a state with age of consent at 18, so the minor in question is 17) to take pictures of themselves (say they've been dating for a while, and the 18 year old just turned 18 first) that not only is the 18 year old a possessor of child porn, but the 17 year old is a distributor?

Extend the ages. 15 and 24. Now it's definitely creepy, but you're saying the 15 year old should be tried as a distributor of child pornography?

imported post

tricityguy wrote:

tricityguy, what the hell fishing intraction is a freakin' felony? Gross misdemeaner maybe, but felony, not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Beats the heck out of me, I'll have to ask him what he was charged with. I know it was some kind of poaching statute. This was at least 15 years ago. Maybe the stinkin' small town prosecutor lied to him to get a quick and easy guilty plea. My buddy was distinctly told if he didn't take the plea bargain he'd be found guilty and his firearms rights would be taken from him.

Click to expand...

They still have the poaching statutes. I was just talking to a guy today that doesn't hunt or fish in Wa. because of the idiodic fish and game laws, he even mentioned this exact thing. Ok on one side of the bridge but a felony on the other.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Anyone who takes pictures, of themselves or not, of a minor and sends them to others should be charged with dproduction and distribution of child pornography.

Click to expand...

You're trolling now, right? Please tell me so. Else, you're saying that 15 year olds who willingly and knowingly takes a picture of themselves and sends it to another person of the same age is a child pornographer?

By this perverse logic, if an adult (18) convinces a minor (let's say it's a state with age of consent at 18, so the minor in question is 17) to take pictures of themselves (say they've been dating for a while, and the 18 year old just turned 18 first) that not only is the 18 year old a possessor of child porn, but the 17 year old is a distributor?

Extend the ages. 15 and 24. Now it's definitely creepy, but you're saying the 15 year old should be tried as a distributor of child pornography?

Click to expand...

Yea I am a troll with 1500 posts. and yes I think they should be charged with distribution of child pornography. If they are under 18 and they send a nude picture of themself to someone then it is distribution of child pornography. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

DEROS72 wrote:

I believe if you choose to commit a felony you absolutley should loose those rights.Most people get through life without commiting a felony and to me it is inaccusable.

Click to expand...

It is a felony to be in possession of an imported lobster that is less than a certain size. Do you really believe that is sufficient and just cause to lose your firearms rights for life?

violent felony, folks. violent felony.

Click to expand...

As the bar is lowered, more and more citizens will become "felons". This is becoming a tool for control. Those who aren't being punished have all their natural rights intact. The government needs to respect this fact.

imported post

tricityguy wrote:

Uh huh, like I'd make this up for no reason? Read them for yourself.

Click to expand...

This is the first one I clicked on. I would say 56 plants is far from medicinal use. This ay be more than most medicinal users are found with but the site is basically saying that he is innocent of the charges. I say he is a dealer using his "disease" as a defense.

[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="-1"]

Bruce Buckner had suffered from Crohn's disease for thirty years before he was arrested for growing 56 small marijuana plants in his home.

Click to expand...

[/size][/font]

imported post

RCW 69.51A allows patients to grow for themselves. It also allows anyone to be a "designated provider" for a patient. This rule exists because a great many patients are too sick to grow their own. Buckner was growing for himself and a friend, which is legal. Earlier this year a draft rule was set that defined the limits at 24 plants and 24 ounces of usable pot. As Buckner was growing for two, he could have legally possessed 48 plants and 3 pounds. He had only 1 pound, but 7 too many plants. It should be noted that, at the time of his arrest, the law did not impose any limits, it simply said "a 60 day supply." As the recent rules for such a supply are incredibly close to the supply he selected before the rules were set, it is clear he was acting in a reasonable manner.

You may not understand how much marijuana one actually gets out of a plant. This has never been my scene so I didn't, either, until I began researching medical marijuana laws for a friend with a qualifying illness who is considering it. A 4 to 6 month old plant, according to this site, will yield 1 to 4 ounces at harvest. Heavy users will smoke an ounce every few days; Buckner was using 8-10 grams per day, which is consistent with other medical users and with the amount of plants he had, considering he supplied his friend. A reasonable person who knows about this would agree that the number of plants he had was consistent with a 60 day supply for two heavy users.

Think about it: If you're only getting an average of 2.5 ounces per plant after 5 months of growth, and your consumption rate is about that much per week, you need to start a new plant every week. You would therefore have a rotating supply of about 20 plants, plus a couple extra to ensure your supply, plus a couple of male plants (that don't produce medicine) to keep the crop going. Double that to supply two and this entire operation looks pretty reasonable.

It is easy to sit here and accuse the guy of being a dealer with no knowledge of how this all works. I'd have thought 56 plants was a huge grow op, too, before I looked into it. This would be a very small time dealer and there's no way he would be supplying two medical users and "the entire city of Ocean Shores" at the same time off that harvest. A medium sized grow op would have hundreds of plants, a large one would have thousands.

It should be noted that the police had zero evidence he was sharing the crop with anyone except himself and his friend, both of whom had proper physician recommendations. The police like to say scales and "packaging material" (Also called "zip lock bags", I have boxes of them myself but that does not make me a drug dealer) prove intent, but they conveniently forget that medical users must have scales to ensure they are not producing more than is legal, and as he was legally growing for another person, some manner of air-tight packaging material would be necessary. Ten grand is cash is chump change; if the guy were selling this on the street, at a production rate of ~5-6 ounces per week he'd have $1500-$1800 a week. That's about a hundred grand a year. It is clear he did not have that kind of money.

imported post

I shop at that Safeway as well. Not usually there in the mornings but I may have to stop by for a cup of coffee. I've only OC'd there twice. Not a word from anyone. I wonder how many other OC'ers are in that area. Maybe a breakfast at the Ihop some Saturday-Sunday morning.

CB

imported post

That works for me..let me know when

imported post

Most excellent responce. As said earlier maybe one of the ladies would like to be escorted to dinner by an armed gentleman. If not or even if that was her real motive the fact that she spoke to you about it makes it apparent that people are coming around. The more they see it the more comfortable they are going to be with it until once again OC will be common place and socially acceptable. Thereby changing the publics view of guns across the board. Thank you keep up the good work

On the other how about a new topic about felons and getting their rights restored

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Anyone who takes pictures, of themselves or not, of a minor and sends them to others should be charged with dproduction and distribution of child pornography.

Click to expand...

You're trolling now, right? Please tell me so. Else, you're saying that 15 year olds who willingly and knowingly takes a picture of themselves and sends it to another person of the same age is a child pornographer?

By this perverse logic, if an adult (18) convinces a minor (let's say it's a state with age of consent at 18, so the minor in question is 17) to take pictures of themselves (say they've been dating for a while, and the 18 year old just turned 18 first) that not only is the 18 year old a possessor of child porn, but the 17 year old is a distributor?

Extend the ages. 15 and 24. Now it's definitely creepy, but you're saying the 15 year old should be tried as a distributor of child pornography?

Click to expand...

Yea I am a troll with 1500 posts. and yes I think they should be charged with distribution of child pornography. If they are under 18 and they send a nude picture of themself to someone then it is distribution of child pornography. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because everything is black and white...there are no gray areas in life. :uhoh:.

To say that a 15 year old taking a nude pic of herself and sending it to her friends is the same as some scumbag taking pics of a 15 year old and sending it to all of his scumbag buddies is the same is sheer ignorance.