Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: Court Says Wash. Felony Inmates Should Get To Vote

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    http://www.kirotv.com/politics/22142060/detail.html



    The ninth circus is at it again.

    Taken to it's ultimate end... does this mean that they cannot take away your second amendment rights also? I don't see a difference! A right is a right!





    Court Says Wash. Felony Inmates Should Get To Vote
    Posted: 1:15 pm PST January 5, 2010Updated: 2:15 pm PST January 5, 2010

    OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

    The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that state law did not violate the act, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.

    The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."

    The issues the ruling raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington state, said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., group promoting sentencing reform.

    "They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state," he said.

    A spokeswoman said state Attorney General Rob McKenna is weighing the state's next step.

    The lawsuit was filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan of Bellevue. He was serving a three-year sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla for a series of felony-theft convictions when he sued the state in 1996.

    Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs.

    The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities.

    That was a violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.

    The state contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities.

    Last year, lawmakers passed a law that allows convicted felons to reregister to vote once they're no longer on parole or probation. Previously, felons who were no longer in Washington state custody but owed court-ordered fines and restitution were not allowed to vote.

    Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.

    Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow those behind bars to cast ballots

  2. #2
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Honestly I don't thinkviolent criminal deserve 2A rights.They made a choice.Most of these people can't get jobs, I know in all my years I never hired any.So what do they do they go back to what ever it was that put them there in the first place .Great give these gangbangers legal guns when they get out I don't think so.Also make sure they can't collect welfare either .After violating others rights with no regard for anything but themselves they don't deserve it. The right to vote?What do people like that vote for more welfare,looser prison terms and so on.They aren't able to vote responsibly.Like giving immigrants and welfare people the vote is wrong.All they ever vote for is more programs to take from decent people or to give rights to illegals.Who shouldn't have rights in the first place in this country.All these people just take and take .THere should be a way to keep them in prison for ever.They made a choice its not up to us to take care of them anymore....Look at people like thae guy that shot tose 4 officers.You would give that human garbage a right to vote and a legal gun.Rights are for the lawabiding not the convicted,especially violent criminals.Someone attacks one of my daughters or rapes a childI don't care about his rights anymore.

  3. #3
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    What about the right not to be robbed, raped, shot, stabbed, disabled, or even killed?

    All Prisoners have the right not to commit a crime before prison. Just like you dont go to jail for good behavior, not you get out early for it.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    deros Guess you agree with the Brady bunch that no one should own firearms? After all, why not cherry pick the bill of rights like the Brady bunch do.





  5. #5
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    dang wrote:
    deros Guess you agree with the Brady bunch that no one should own firearms? After all, why not cherry pick the bill of rights like the Brady bunch do.
    The question is, how long does it take people to realize that no one can keep firearms out of the hands of a criminal in society? The only way possible is to keep them locked up in prison. Otherwise, they are free to buy one on the street.

    This is why everyone should be armed and ready to protect themselves and their family/friends.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    So the courts are saying...

    'black people commit a lot of crimes, but because they're black they need to vote so we don't look racist'..

    F%*%^ers
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    So the courts are saying...

    'black people commit a lot of crimes, but because they're black they need to vote so we don't look racist'..

    F%*%^ers
    This is what I read into it.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Taken to it's ultimate end... does this mean that they cannot take away your second amendment rights also? I don't see a difference! A right is a right!
    That seems logical to me. A revocation of firearms possession rights seems to be an infringement to me. It appears that the SCOTUS believes some infringements are reasonable. It appears that there are folks here that believe no infringement is reasonable. To be consistent, it would seem that those folks would have to argue for a felon's RTBA's.



  9. #9
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866

    Post imported post

    Hmmmm... does that mean that Gargoyle will need to add a campaign stop in Walla-Walla?? Shelton? That should be interesting...
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  10. #10
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I dibn't see where the bill of rights applies to mass murderers,child rapist,multiple convictons of violent crimesetc.The guy that killed tose 4 officers was a five time fellon with I think 8 charges pending.He should have had no rights ,except to remain in prison for life..Especially no rightto freedom.Once you cross the line your rights are done.That attitude is like the social justice progressive that run this country.Maybe more programs for criminals,more of your tax dollar spent on them.B.S.They deserve nothing.

    How is our fault if someone chooses not to finish school,chooses to join a gang ,chooses to hold up a convenience store and kill someone because he can't get a job.There is NO EXCUSE for that behavior.I don't care what kind of neighborhood you grow up in,or if you were beaten up by gangs ,you had no money...Not our fault.They make these choices .We have to stop feeling sorry for them.Keep them in jail forever and no they shouldn't be voting.In a sysytem they chose to attack and try to destroy with no respect for anyones rights.

    Also we should be going through all the prisons and taking all tv's radios ,gym equipment ,everything and giving it to veteran and military families .The Americans that do have rights and actually defend them.They in prison are allowed a cot and three meals and thats it.If that.


  11. #11
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    I dibn't see where the bill of rights applies to mass murderers,child rapist,multiple convictons of violent crimesetc.The guy that killed tose 4 officers was a five time fellon with I think 8 charges pending.He should have had no rights ,except to remain in prison for life..Especially no rightto freedom.Once you cross the line your rights are done.That attitude is like the social justice progressive that run this country.Maybe more programs for criminals,more of your tax dollar spent on them.B.S.They deserve nothing.

    How is our fault if someone chooses not to finish school,chooses to join a gang ,chooses to hold up a convenience store and kill someone because he can't get a job.There is NO EXCUSE for that behavior.I don't care what kind of neighborhood you grow up in,or if you were beaten up by gangs ,you had no money...Not our fault.They make these choices .We have to stop feeling sorry for them.Keep them in jail forever and no they shouldn't be voting.In a sysytem they chose to attack and try to destroy with no respect for anyones rights.

    Also we should be going through all the prisons and taking all tv's radios ,gym equipment ,everything and giving it to veteran and military families .The Americans that do have rights and actually defend them.They in prison are allowed a cot and three meals and thats it.If that.
    Like I said. You can't keep firearms out of the hands of a criminal if their rights (on paper) have been taken away. They will buy a gun on the street.

    The only thing you can do is keep them in prison. Or have more of these convicted murderers with DNA and or video evidence of them committing the crime, killed by lethal injection. Get them out of society. And save money that is wasted in prisons and jails by making simple possession of drugs legal. The war on drugs is the biggest waste of tax payer money that goes to jails and prisons.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    Like I said. You can't keep firearms out of the hands of a criminal if their rights (on paper) have been taken away. They will buy a gun on the street.

    The only thing you can do is keep them in prison. Or have more of these convicted murderers with DNA and or video evidence of them committing the crime, killed by lethal injection. Get them out of society. And save money that is wasted in prisons and jails by making simple possession of drugs legal. The war on drugs is the biggest waste of tax payer money that goes to jails and prisons.
    Agreed. I think I just read that the average time spent in prison for murderis around 10 1/2 years! Violent offenders need to serve 100% of their sentence for good behavior and if they don't have good behavior then they stay!

    And yes locking people up for drug possesion is ahuge waste of money and time!
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Edited to remove excessive sarcasm.

    If restricting gun rights worked then the individual that shot those four officers could not possibly have done so.

    You're either free or your not.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    ***removed because apparently it was "sarcasm" ***

    JIM675, you know this is online, and I can't see facial expressions right? Throw a wink face in there or something so we know you are being sarcastic, yaddamean?


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  15. #15
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Under no circumstances should we make possesion of meth ,herion ,etc.legal, it dertroys people.Dealers should also get life with out parole.

    That being said ,some kid that may have stolen a car when he was young served time and over the years lived a decent life and stayed out of trouble i think should have the chance for restoration of rights.Never for a violent criminal that has harmed someone in the commision of a crime or was jacked up on meth or something.

    As I have said many times the Bill of rights and Constitution does not mean we should have a free for all and everything should be legal.Thats nuts.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    As I have said many times the Bill of rights and Constitution does not mean we should have a free for all and everything should be legal.Thats nuts.
    is the debate over an infringement or an unreasonable infringement?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    deros No you are nuts. Where is it written that someone with a speeding ticket should have free access to a gun. For that matter where do you see ,you having a right to own a gun, after all there where no nuts that thought felons were good enough to have gun rights untill 1968.

    Why not go all the way big shot,after all there is no crime in Cuba.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    Under no circumstances should we make possesion of meth ,herion ,etc.legal, it dertroys people.Dealers should also get life with out parole.

    That being said ,some kid that may have stolen a car when he was young served time and over the years lived a decent life and stayed out of trouble i think should have the chance for restoration of rights.Never for a violent criminal that has harmed someone in the commision of a crime or was jacked up on meth or something.

    As I have said many times the Bill of rights and Constitution does not mean we should have a free for all and everything should be legal.Thats nuts.
    Two separate questions:
    Do you support the Second Amendment Foundation and, with it, Alan Gottlieb?

    Do you think any felons should be allowed to own guns? Not all, but is there some class of felon where it's "okay" and another where it's not?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  19. #19
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Honestly I do think there is potentially a felonclassthat should have a chance at restoration of rights .Someone busted on possesion perhaps and ,gets out and lives a clean life for example as long as no on got hurt. I do believe some are worthy of a second chance.I have a hard time with violent offenders.Yeah they could easily get a gun on the street but why make it easier by allowing them to just go in and buy one.I'm sorry I am not getting the logic.

    Convince me guys ,I don't understand why a felon that commits a violent crime maybe shoots someone in the commission of that crime should have the right to buy firearms ...ever. Or some poor gal beaten and raped at gunpoint .I for ex have the right to bear arms as I have never comitted a crime.As you all do as well.At the very least it should be on a case by case basis.Someone is a repeat offender I just don't see it.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    deros Admit it you have a problemwith the supreme law of the land.Try reading the fifth amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".and square that with your bigotted opinions.

    No you only want to cherry pick the bill of rights. NICE JOB PATRIOT,NOT!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    Honestly I do think there is potentially a felonclassthat should have a chance at restoration of rights .Someone busted on possesion perhaps and ,gets out and lives a clean life for example as long as no on got hurt. I do believe some are worthy of a second chance.I have a hard time with violent offenders.Yeah they could easily get a gun on the street but why make it easier by allowing them to just go in and buy one.I'm sorry I am not getting the logic.

    Convince me guys ,I don't understand why a felon that commits a violent crime maybe shoots someone in the commission of that crime should have the right to buy firearms ...ever. Or some poor gal beaten and raped at gunpoint .I for ex have the right to bear arms as I have never comitted a crime.As you all do as well.At the very least it should be on a case by case basis.Someone is a repeat offender I just don't see it.
    I was specifically trying to get you to point out that there are definite degrees of felony: violent and non. It's my opinion that the large majority of non violent felonies should not be felonies, either gross misdemeanors or another class of crime. The question regarding Gottlieb is because he is a felon with restored firearms rights, something which has largely disappeared.

    Instead of convincing you - I don't think that someone who has committed such a crime should be released back into public until such time they are okay to be citizens of the USA again. At that point, they have served their punishment, carried out their sentence, and again have the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States. This, however, requires a number of things you dislike to either be legal or much less of a punishment. It's one of the reasons I repeatedly bring up current drug laws and policy as an example of a bad idea. Those "dealers" are no worse than any alcohol or tobacco company in pushing addictive substances. The only difference is that one is a sanctioned form of activity, the other is not.

    I also disagree with your premise that the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee the right of the individual to choose what they wish to put into their body. The ninth amendment states that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. Of these rights are the right to travel, to self-determination, etc. In essence, something need not explicitly appear in the Constitution for it to be a Constitutionally protected right. As such, things should be much more of a "free for all" than you would otherwise state. That includes the right to destroy ones' self with meth, heroin, et cetera, so long as in doing so, you do not bring harm to another (parents who neglect their children, addicts who steal for more drugs, et cetera).
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  22. #22
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Not for convicted violent criminals that have already been convicted by said due process.They by their actions and choices have violently infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens and forfeit those rights.They didn't care about the rights of their victims. I am in fact a patriot. And you have done what in the service of this country?





  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    deros No, wrong again, the felon was convicted of what ever crime he did. The suspention of his right was a part of the sentence automaticly ,by an unlawful law perpetuated by an unlegal congress.When the felon was released after paying for his crime he is a free man with all rights you have,until he has due process to remove his rights. Hehas a right to keep and bear arms.

    Ohand patriot,Not . I served in the 264 trans. company,first logistic U.S. ARMY,1967-1968 as a steevadore(mostly bombs and artillery shells ) in the water in Quin yon harbor. BE SURE ,WHEN I TOOK MY OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONI MEANT IT.



  24. #24
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Very Good, 75th Rangers and 1st Cav airmobile Vietnam republic of.I also defend the Constitution.

    You do make a point! If a car shoplifter or petty thief gets out of jail yeah give him his rights back .I would say in the case ofviolent offenders and repeat offenders convicted by due process, that they never get out of jail ...ever Norhave a chance to do so.Like I said most can't get a job so they go back to crime.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    deros So don't let them out of jail!!! On the other hand the felon is released and he has the same rights as you do until the government gives him his due process and take his GOD given right to keep and bear arms.

    How would you feel if this felon is a clerk in a 7/ 11 and a bad guy comes in to rob the place and decides to rape your little girl in the back room. And just suppose the previous clerk on duty forgot to take his revolver from behind the counterat the end of his shift.

    Would you expect the felon to possibly face conviction for using the gun or run?( don't second guess me on facts or weaselaround thelittle story I manufactored) It's just to make a point.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •