Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Restoration of the right to posses firearms case...by a retired LEO.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Restoration of the right to posses firearms case...by a retired LEO.

    This is an interesting case...

    A retired Pierce County sheriff who was convicted of possessing child pornography will ask a judge Friday to vacate the record of his conviction and restore his right to possess firearms.
    Mark Paul French, 62, pleaded guilty in July 2004 to a single felony count of possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

    Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/0...#ixzz1Miqjhq8i
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    This is an interesting case...




    Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/0...#ixzz1Miqjhq8i
    That guy is the ultimate dirtbag. The case is interesting from a legal standpoint, however.
    Squeak!

  3. #3
    Regular Member cbpeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, USA
    Posts
    407
    The article states:

    “For all purposes, including responding to questions on employment applications, an offender whose conviction has been vacated may state that the offender has never been convicted of that crime”

    This is the concern for me. I can think of situations where it might be appropriate to restore a person's rights, including the RKBA, but that doesn't mean the record should be completely erased.

    IMO, sex offenders are poorly managed by our criminal justice system. We mark them all, regardless of the severity of the crime, with the equivalent of a Scarlet A. Many are thrown in jail, and upon release have to disclose their past to their neighbors. It is appropriate treatment for many, but not for all. Some of them, perhaps like this sheriff, have an addiction that they need to, and often can, learn to overcome. Once the work has been done, so to speak, and the person's recovery is stable I think it is appropriate to consider restoring rights. That doesn't mean we forget the past, though. The record should remain.

    Just my $.02

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    That guy is the ultimate dirtbag. The case is interesting from a legal standpoint, however.
    Yes, I am interested in the legal aspect...

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    The only thing interesting imho, is that they guy can probably still use the retired National LEO Carry law. That is a travesty, but it would be a travesty regardless of if he had an expunged conviction.

    Other than that, do the crime, do the time, get off probation/parole, and they should be a full citizen again who is able to exercise all their inalienable rights.

    If they are too dangerous to be allowed to exercise all their rights, then the original sentence should have been longer... but making a permanent category of 2nd class citizen is simply immoral.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by cbpeck View Post
    IMO, sex offenders are poorly managed by our criminal justice system. We mark them all, regardless of the severity of the crime, with the equivalent of a Scarlet A. Many are thrown in jail, and upon release have to disclose their past to their neighbors. It is appropriate treatment for many, but not for all. Some of them, perhaps like this sheriff, have an addiction that they need to, and often can, learn to overcome. Once the work has been done, so to speak, and the person's recovery is stable I think it is appropriate to consider restoring rights. That doesn't mean we forget the past, though. The record should remain.

    Just my $.02

    Sex offender registration is a horrible, immoral, slippery slope. It does not protect people, it only erodes civil rights.

    Do you think there would ever be a gun crime registration scheme? Where someone convicted of a gun crime becomes as 'monitored' as a sex offender? Well there is.

    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....offender.shtml
    http://radioviceonline.com/firearm-l...-registration/
    http://volokh.com/2011/04/11/baltimo...ion-ordinance/

    Sex offenders are sooo evil they must be tracked for life. Now gun users are so evil they must be tracked for life. It's creeping incrementalism, and I really fear where it's headed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by cbpeck View Post
    IMO, sex offenders are poorly managed by our criminal justice system. We mark them all, regardless of the severity of the crime, with the equivalent of a Scarlet A.
    There was an incident a year or two ago, where a 14 year old girl (old enough for conditional consent, due to a close-in-age exemption in her state) was forcibly raped by a 13 year old boy (too young to ever consent in that state). Despite the fact that he held her down and for-real raped her, he wasn't arrested. She was, for statutory rape. After all, to forcibly rape someone, you must consent to the act, and the boy was too young to do so, yet sex occurred, therefore the victim raped the aggressor.

    I haven't heard anything more about it, but the fact a prosecutor would go so far as to press charges is absurd. If convicted of being the victim of rape, the girl would be required to register as a sex offender.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    There was an incident a year or two ago, where a 14 year old girl (old enough for conditional consent, due to a close-in-age exemption in her state) was forcibly raped by a 13 year old boy (too young to ever consent in that state). Despite the fact that he held her down and for-real raped her, he wasn't arrested. She was, for statutory rape. After all, to forcibly rape someone, you must consent to the act, and the boy was too young to do so, yet sex occurred, therefore the victim raped the aggressor.

    I haven't heard anything more about it, but the fact a prosecutor would go so far as to press charges is absurd. If convicted of being the victim of rape, the girl would be required to register as a sex offender.


    cite PLEASE??
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    therefore the victim raped the aggressor.

    I haven't heard anything more about it, but the fact a prosecutor would go so far as to press charges is absurd. If convicted of being the victim of rape, the girl would be required to register as a sex offender.
    Happened in Saudi Arabia...remember...the woman that was gang raped was convicted because she was not with a male relative.

    Fix for the situation...violent forced rape gets the offender executed. end of discussion. anything else, when the sentence has been served, it is only history.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    That guy is the ultimate dirtbag.
    In some parts of the World he might be trying to get certain body parts restored. His Gun Rights would be the least of his worries.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    This type of vacate will simply let him answer a question concerning his prior "honestly"; "No". The FBI will still have his record on file, I seriously doubt he will be afforded any retired LEO "perks".

    There's a very specific list of crimes that would disqualify a person from restoration of 2A rights, I'm surprised this one's not on the list but hey, if it's not, it's not.

    Does bad judgment about one thing mean bad judgment about everything? It all depends on what the first bad judgment is about I guess.

  12. #12
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    just because he can get his rights restored at the state level does not mean he can get them restored at the federal level.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Dirt bag or not rights are supposed to be "inalienable" if he is out and walking around he should have his "rights".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    just because he can get his rights restored at the state level does not mean he can get them restored at the federal level.
    Actually, it does.

    The Federal level is only concerned with convictions in Federal Court, or DV convictions in State court. Other than that, the Feds recognize any state process that restores rights under a State's law (provided it is not a qualified restoration iirc).

    And it's a BS travesty that the Feds defunded the process for restoration of rights on a Federal level. The path exists, they just aren't processing applications.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    ~ This...

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Dirt bag or not rights are supposed to be "inalienable" if he is out and walking around he should have his "rights".
    +1 SVG. Thats a big complaint of mine too.

    1) We have way to many laws, it is way to easy to become a criminal should the powers that be choose to make you one.

    2) If a criminal is so bad that we must monitor, track, remove rights, parole etc. then why the hell are they out of prison or even alive. We need to keep criminals either locked up or eliminated. - Due Process must apply here and be filtered through the bill of rights.

    3) If a person has committed a crime, finished the punishment, and been evaluated as safe to release, then they should have all rights restored and allowed to go about their business. - Keep Records? Yes of course, if they re-offend you will need and want that as part of an evidence package to ensure they are fairly (and correctly) judged.

    - We as a society have allowed the entire legal continuum to encompass our lives in an entirety. We must break free of this type of thinking and reject further encroachments upon our civil liberties. The legal, judicial and enforcement system has become a stand alone entity where the individual is viewed as a potential problem and must be controlled with a series of switchback loopable laws. In effect, if your not 100% sheeplized, you may be viewed as a thorn and removed. Individualism will become increasingly more difficult and more dangerous if we do not start rolling back the trend.

    - What to do? - Make it easier for local and federal government to remove and delete old laws, and insist that they do so regularly. Currently, it is easier to make a law than to remove one. In Tacoma Wa, there are still several laws regulating horses and buggies, how and when they can be parked etc. - Why? It's to hard to remove them, so they leave them on the books. - Also, Lawmakers and enforcers should be held accountable with the exact same consequence and punishments or immunities and impunities that you and me have. Humans are Humans, no matter they wear a badge, gun, or have broken a law, and must be held to an equal, and simple standard. By that i DO mean Standard... NOT Regulated ... -- The current ruling regarding police and warrantless entries is a shining example of how we are slowly sifting off the edge... yet no one seems notice.

    Figured I'd rant a minute... Thats one topic that gets my fur fluffed.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  16. #16
    Regular Member LibertyDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Inland Empire, CA
    Posts
    129
    He should be locked up for life, period.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I've notice Bat and I have educated my self on how our law is supposed to work, but to some it is just spouting nonsense.

    I recommend two real good books...

    Who killed the constitution by Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Kevin R.C. Gutzman

    and

    The Tyranny of good intentions....how prosecutors and law enforcement are trampling the constitution in the name of justice. By. Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton.

    The latter does very well in explaining how Bentham philosophies have invaded and ruined our Justice system.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
    He should be locked up for life, period.
    Seriously? He committed no act of aggression and did not harm anyone directly. He did a stupid, stupid thing, got caught, and suffered the consequences. I'm assuming he's getting some form of treatment as well. He's remained crime free since then, and previously served (I'm assuming) honorably as a deputy.

    He did the crime, did the time, there is no evidence that he's still a threat. His rights should be restored. Save the lifetime lockups for the Russians who produced the crap in the first place.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
    He should be locked up for life, period.
    Actually, it should be past tense.

    "He should have been locked up for life."

    If you hate the crimes, work to make the sentences longer. Don't create second class citizens by trying to squash their inalienable rights, or try to punish them in an ex post facto manner (ala McNeil Island).
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-19-2011 at 12:50 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Actually, it should be past tense.

    "He should have been locked up for life."

    If you hate the crimes, work to make the sentences longer. Don't create second class citizens by trying to squash their inalienable rights, or try to punish them in an ex post facto manner (ala McNeil Island).
    We the people take life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from felons by due process in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.

    He was convicted of a felony crime by due process, a condition of his conviction was not possessing a firearm unless and until that right is restored by the same due process. In particular if he took a plea, which is an agreement.

    You are absolutely correct about the ex post facto issue. He served his time, there is no amending his sentence.
    Last edited by maclean; 05-19-2011 at 02:55 PM.
    Squeak!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    He was convicted of a felony crime by due process, a condition of his conviction was not possessing a firearm unless and until that right is restored by the same due process.
    He could move to Montana and immediately have his rights restored afaik (within the state border, while a legal resident, etc).
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-19-2011 at 06:31 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    He could move to Montana and immediately have his rights restored afaik (within the state border, while a legal resident, etc).
    I'm not sure. Don't know what Montana law says.
    Squeak!

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Seems a shame/sham that a person who makes a mistake pays "his debt to society" turns his life around can than be denied his "inalienable" rights.

    Let's not forget the constitution limits the governments power to infringe not the peoples. And since the second amendment specifically says they shall not infringe, it is a bit of a stretch in my mind that the government, courts may "indefinately" take away a natural right?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Seems a shame/sham that a person who makes a mistake pays "his debt to society" turns his life around can than be denied his "inalienable" rights.

    Let's not forget the constitution limits the governments power to infringe not the peoples. And since the second amendment specifically says they shall not infringe, it is a bit of a stretch in my mind that the government, courts may "indefinately" take away a natural right?
    Due process.

    It says it right there in the document.

    Now without due process, I'm right there with you.

    The idea, BTW, goes back to a Scotsman. I'm a wee bit proud of that.

    Read Hutcheson - Jefferson stole the idea from him.
    Squeak!

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    Due process.

    It says it right there in the document.

    Now without due process, I'm right there with you.

    The idea, BTW, goes back to a Scotsman. I'm a wee bit proud of that.

    Read Hutcheson - Jefferson stole the idea from him.
    Do you mean Madison? Since he was the one that wrote that clause? I would rather read up on his reasoning for inserting this clause ( A rewritten version of the clause submitted to him by New York).

    So can a felon who has done his time be denied his free speech? His 4th amendment right? His right not to incriminate himself? etc?

    I think Madison might not agree with courts modern definition of due process and how it is often abused. ( besides it's not the courts intended purpose to define the constitution).
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •