Governor McDonnell publishes procedure to restore rights of Felons

imported post

MK wrote:

A person who sold someone a joint when they were 19 shouldn't lose their right to defend themselves for the rest of their lives. Its absurd.

There needs to be some discretion applied.

Click to expand...

No one is taking away anyone's right to defend themselves, its just a limitation on the tools that you can use to do that.

imported post

MK wrote:

If someone committed a felony that involved an act of violence against another, they should lose their right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

if they can't be trusted in public with a firearm, they shouldn't be trusted in public at all.

imported post

nova wrote:

MK wrote:

If someone committed a felony that involved an act of violence against another, they should lose their right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

if they can't be trusted in public with a firearm, they shouldn't be trusted in public at all.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, even if GTA, was a misdemeanor,but still had some serious jail time, the lesson would be learned just as it would with GTA being a felony with the same amount of jail time.

Also, if we treated misdemeanors with more seriousness, meaning lengthy jail time, and community service, misdemeanors would be less appealing to commit. I think punishing crime is important, but like you said, if a person can't be trusted in public with a firearm, then why are they even released?

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

dbc3804 wrote:

I believe that when he is released from jail or has served his parole time, all rights should be automaticaly restored. Hasn't he done his time and paid for his crime? If he is still a menace to society, why release him? If his crime was so horrible that he can never be trusted, he should have received the death penality.

Click to expand...

I think that if you knowingly commit a crime that is a felony, that you should understand that there are lifelong, lasting reprecussions for your actions. People need to understand the consequences of their actions and live with those consequences. If that means no voting, no notary and no guns, so be it. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

Click to expand...

One problem there Pro, and that if you do not abuse a right why should you lose it in the first place. If I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater do I lose my right to free speech? Well so if I even abuse that right and do not lose it how much more so my 2A rights if I have not abused them? My right to self defense, to defend those I love and even strangers.

It's wrong to take away someones rights without warrant. I can see a reason to take away voting rights but NOT the right to self defense if I have not abused that right by way of violence or using a firearm in the commission of a crime. But I dare say the vast majority of felonies have nothing to do with such....

imported post

double tap...

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

MK wrote:

A person who sold someone a joint when they were 19 shouldn't lose their right to defend themselves for the rest of their lives. Its absurd.

There needs to be some discretion applied.

Click to expand...

No one is taking away anyone's right to defend themselves, its just a limitation on the tools that you can use to do that.

Click to expand...

As Sean Connery's character Jim Malone said in the "Untouchables", "Isn't it just like a Wap to bring a knife to a gun fight" :^). It IS taking away your right to defend yourself with the most efficient means possible. Or should an 80 year old felon take on a 25 year old thug with a kitchen knife? If your reasoning is valid then it applies just as much to you as the felon. It's no biggie taking away your 2A rights, afterall you can still defend yourself by other means.

If you don't abuse a right it should not be taken from you, period.

imported post

ok some what on topic somewhat not my soon to be ex will be getting released soo and she has a felony while she is here before she can move to Oregon. Can I have my pistol in the house on me person with her around?

From what I have gathered if I leave it at home like when I go to work since I don't like dealing with the stupid boots a** MP's on base I just have to have it locked up and can't have the keys accessible to her. Is that correct? I have asked her lawyer who is the most worthless thing but he said he had no clue what the law is regarding that. Thanks for any info. If I could I would just send her straight to Oregon but yeah.

On a side not I hate the divorce law in this state with how I have to be separated for a year before I can finalize. GRRRRRR. Ok I'm done now.



Semper Fi

imported post

If someone has already demonstrated a propensity to commit a violent felony, I don't see any problem with denying them the right to carry weapons. Why should society allow an armed robber or a rapist to carry weapons in public? They've already shown themselves to be a dangerous or deadly threat. As far as the idea that if they aren't trusted to carry a weapon, they shouldn't be trusted to be in public period, sure that's a valid point but that's not how our punishment of criminals exactly works in this country. Many violent offenders are going to do their time and be released back into the community.

If someone commits a non-violent crime such as shoplifting or a victimless crime such as selling marijuana or prostitution, I think there should be a strong consideration as to continue to respect their right to carry weapons.

imported post

The loss of rights comes from the time when the sentence for a felony ceased to be death by hanging. One of the consequences for the conviction was reversion of all land owned by the felon to the crown, which is the main reason that suicide was declared to be a felony. When people who'd been convicted of being a pickpocket, for example, were punished by imprisonment, rather than hanging (all felonies were capital offenses), the legal fiction of "civil death" was created. The convict was still alive physically, but retained no rights as a living person.

imported post

user wrote:

The loss of rights comes from the time when the sentence for a felony ceased to be death by hanging. One of the consequences for the conviction was reversion of all land owned by the felon to the crown, which is the main reason that suicide was declared to be a felony. When people who'd been convicted of being a pickpocket, for example, were punished by imprisonment, rather than hanging (all felonies were capital offenses), the legal fiction of "civil death" was created. The convict was still alive physically, but retained no rights as a living person.

Click to expand...

Do you have any links to this history? I'd like to read some more on the topic.

imported post

Sorry, I don't. My personal reading in that area wasdone a long time ago, and I'm sure I've pieced together a number of different sources. My bachelor's degree is in History, so when in law school, I liked to figure out the background to things - it's a lot easier to understand things in context. I shouldn't think it'd be too hard to find that kind of stuff, though. Christiansburg isn't too far from Regent Law School, if I recall correctly, they should have a fairly well-stocked library, and an internet search engine may give you enough to know what to look for. There's probably some of that stuff in some or all of these:

History of Nature and Equity from Ancient Law by Henry Maine

History of the Common Law of England by Matthew Hale:

The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes

imported post

gotsig wrote:

ok some what on topic somewhat not my soon to be ex will be getting released soo and she has a felony while she is here before she can move to Oregon. Can I have my pistol in the house on me person with her around?

From what I have gathered if I leave it at home like when I go to work since I don't like dealing with the stupid boots a** MP's on base I just have to have it locked up and can't have the keys accessible to her. Is that correct? I have asked her lawyer who is the most worthless thing but he said he had no clue what the law is regarding that. Thanks for any info. If I could I would just send her straight to Oregon but yeah.

On a side not I hate the divorce law in this state with how I have to be separated for a year before I can finalize. GRRRRRR. Ok I'm done now.



Semper Fi

Click to expand...

You are letting your soon to be ex wife live with you? Forget the felony and that she was incarcerated, any ex wife living with you should not have access to a firearm.... you may end up on the news.

Also, as imagined, I am against felons possessing weapons. The recidivism rate is too high to pretend that felons won't commit felonies after release. Violent or not, it's pretty easy not to commit a felony and be put in prison (at least I have found it easy). Yes, of course there are those crazy laws out there on the books from when this country first started, but those laws aren't enforced. A class to let 17 year olds know what is felony behavior vs misdemeanor behavior? Really? Do we really need to spend money and time for that? Isn't that common sense? I think it would be the duty of 18 year olds to understand the world they are now entering as adults by taking responsibility and reading up themselves if they don't understand.

A little off topic but correlates to previous posts on this thread.... what about sex offender's having to register? I guess those who posted about restoring all firearms rights would also fight for the rights of sex offenders and against registering as one.

imported post

The punishment and restrictions should fit the crime. Felony or not if you are abusing weapons then you should not have access to them. If you are on felony tax evasion then the gun thing is pointless but access to helping people do taxes would be a good restriction. Child molesters can't work with children.

I always thought it was funny to have different levels of crimes. Misdemeanors, felonies etc. Just have proper punishments for the crimes themselves in the first place.

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

gotsig wrote:

ok some what on topic somewhat not my soon to be ex will be getting released soo and she has a felony while she is here before she can move to Oregon. Can I have my pistol in the house on me person with her around?

From what I have gathered if I leave it at home like when I go to work since I don't like dealing with the stupid boots a** MP's on base I just have to have it locked up and can't have the keys accessible to her. Is that correct? I have asked her lawyer who is the most worthless thing but he said he had no clue what the law is regarding that. Thanks for any info. If I could I would just send her straight to Oregon but yeah.

On a side not I hate the divorce law in this state with how I have to be separated for a year before I can finalize. GRRRRRR. Ok I'm done now.



Semper Fi

Click to expand...

You are letting your soon to be ex wife live with you? Forget the felony and that she was incarcerated, any ex wife living with you should not have access to a firearm.... you may end up on the news.

Also, as imagined, I am against felons possessing weapons. The recidivism rate is too high to pretend that felons won't commit felonies after release. Violent or not, it's pretty easy not to commit a felony and be put in prison (at least I have found it easy). Yes, of course there are those crazy laws out there on the books from when this country first started, but those laws aren't enforced. A class to let 17 year olds know what is felony behavior vs misdemeanor behavior? Really? Do we really need to spend money and time for that? Isn't that common sense? I think it would be the duty of 18 year olds to understand the world they are now entering as adults by taking responsibility and reading up themselves if they don't understand.

A little off topic but correlates to previous posts on this thread.... what about sex offender's having to register? I guess those who posted about restoring all firearms rights would also fight for the rights of sex offenders and against registering as one.

Click to expand...

I'm of the belief that if a person has served their time, when they're released from prison, they should have all their rights back, since they served their time. People shouldn't be let out early either, or why even have sentences to begin with? Same with sex offenders. If they did their time, they should have their rights back.

*My point is I don't like dangerous people being released into the public at all. Make sentences longer and stop early releases then you don't need to worry about a violent criminal and repeat offenses.

5th amendment states "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" so in my opinion, the court ordered sentence should be where a person's loss of rights ends. Do your time, then welcome back to society as a full citizen.

We shouldn't need to worry about violent criminals in public, with or without guns. I agree violent felons should not have guns. They shouldn't be in pubic at all if they can't be trusted with firearms

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

gotsig wrote:

ok some what on topic somewhat not my soon to be ex will be getting released soo and she has a felony while she is here before she can move to Oregon. Can I have my pistol in the house on me person with her around?

From what I have gathered if I leave it at home like when I go to work since I don't like dealing with the stupid boots a** MP's on base I just have to have it locked up and can't have the keys accessible to her. Is that correct? I have asked her lawyer who is the most worthless thing but he said he had no clue what the law is regarding that. Thanks for any info. If I could I would just send her straight to Oregon but yeah.

On a side not I hate the divorce law in this state with how I have to be separated for a year before I can finalize. GRRRRRR. Ok I'm done now.



Semper Fi

Click to expand...

You are letting your soon to be ex wife live with you? Forget the felony and that she was incarcerated, any ex wife living with you should not have access to a firearm.... you may end up on the news.

Also, as imagined, I am against felons possessing weapons. The recidivism rate is too high to pretend that felons won't commit felonies after release. Violent or not, it's pretty easy not to commit a felony and be put in prison (at least I have found it easy). Yes, of course there are those crazy laws out there on the books from when this country first started, but those laws aren't enforced. A class to let 17 year olds know what is felony behavior vs misdemeanor behavior? Really? Do we really need to spend money and time for that? Isn't that common sense? I think it would be the duty of 18 year olds to understand the world they are now entering as adults by taking responsibility and reading up themselves if they don't understand.

A little off topic but correlates to previous posts on this thread.... what about sex offender's having to register? I guess those who posted about restoring all firearms rights would also fight for the rights of sex offenders and against registering as one.

Click to expand...

Although an argument could be made for 2A rights for sex offenders since their acts of violence did not involve a weapon it still was an act of violence against the person. As I stated before non-violent felons should not have the rights they did not abuse taken from them.

imported post

Nova, I do agree with you for the most part. I would only argue that the sex offender registry and felony firearms restriction is a continuation to their punishment. A lot of sex offenders don't register for life, the length of how long they register as a sex offender is determined by law/judge.

I agree that sentences are tougher. You would be surprised at the violent criminal record some people possess and how little time they served. Their record only comes into question once they really hurt/kill someone. It's a shame, and very frustrating on the LEO side putting in a lot of work/time and seeing people virtually get let off.

I understand that someone may be caught up in a felony larceny which may not be violent but still restricts them from possessing a gun. However, I believe that possessing, carrying a firearm carries a lot of responsibility. I discredit someone who commits a serious crime, violent or not, with the ability to make good decisions.

I would not be against a term for felons to live crime free and have all rights/privileges restored for those non violent crimes. 10 years completely misdemeanor/felony free? One chance only. Just a thought.

Neplusultra,

Not all sex offenders committed violent acts on a person. Possessing child pornography for example.

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Neplusultra,

Not all sex offenders committed violent acts on a person. Possessing child pornography for example.

Click to expand...

Good point.

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

For a felon who has lost the right, getting it back would be a privilege, based upon their continued good behavior and observance of the law.

Click to expand...

Rights don't work this way.

Even when a prisoner may be unable to exercise his right due to his actions having put him in jail, where the exercise of some rights is a practical impossibility (the same way an astronaut may not exercise his right to sleep with his wife once his actions have put him beyond our atmosphere), he still retains the right in principle.

Just the same as the astronaut may once again enjoy his rights when he returns to Earth.

But one may never "lose" a right which is his by virtue of his being human. No punishment may strip a man of his humanity. That is a power beyond any government, which have no control over basic biological realities.

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Nova, I do agree with you for the most part. I would only argue that the sex offender registry and felony firearms restriction is a continuation to their punishment.

Click to expand...

Yeah just thinking again now, it is part of the sentence that includes parole. Not the same as completing the sentence and returning to society like I posted before.

imported post

Baby steps, people. Baby steps.

McDonnell came in, broke the door down, and wee-wee'd in the Antis' Kool-Aid.

He's pissed off a lot of people, and catching a bit of flak. Did anyone ever stop to think for a minute he might be letting the heat die down just a bit?

Remember, the Antis chipped away at our rights bit by bit over many decades. You can't get everything back at once.

Have some damn patience, ya mooks! :quirky