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.

Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/17/1669159/retired-pierce-county-sheriff.html#ixzz1Miqjhq8i

gogodawgs said:

This is an interesting case...




Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/17/1669159/retired-pierce-county-sheriff.html#ixzz1Miqjhq8i

Click to expand...

That guy is the ultimate dirtbag. The case is interesting from a legal standpoint, however.

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

maclean said:

That guy is the ultimate dirtbag. The case is interesting from a legal standpoint, however.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am interested in the legal aspect...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047

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.

cbpeck said:

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

Click to expand...

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.org/html/local/gun-offender.shtml
http://radioviceonline.com/firearm-legislation-connecticut-gun-offender-registration/
http://volokh.com/2011/04/11/baltimore-convicted-gun-offender-registration-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.

cbpeck said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Difdi said:

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.

Click to expand...

cite PLEASE??

Difdi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

maclean said:

That guy is the ultimate dirtbag.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

just because he can get his rights restored at the state level does not mean he can get them restored at the federal level.

Dirt bag or not rights are supposed to be "inalienable" if he is out and walking around he should have his "rights".

M1Gunr said:

just because he can get his rights restored at the state level does not mean he can get them restored at the federal level.

Click to expand...

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.

~ This...

sudden valley gunner said:

Dirt bag or not rights are supposed to be "inalienable" if he is out and walking around he should have his "rights".

Click to expand...

+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.

:dude: Figured I'd rant a minute... Thats one topic that gets my fur fluffed.

He should be locked up for life, period.

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.

LibertyDeath said:

He should be locked up for life, period.

Click to expand...

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.

LibertyDeath said:

He should be locked up for life, period.

Click to expand...

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).

Dave_pro2a said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.