Felony Conviction 13 years ago for 3rd DWI - Will I Ever Get My Right To Carry Back?

[Tomahawk]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Banning gun possesion is for people who are violent and can't act responsibly. I'd say 13 years without screwing up excludes a man from that group and earns a second chance. If DWI is really such a horrible crime that the man shouldn't own a gun, then why would you trust him to walk down the street? If you really think he's that irresponsible and reckless, do you think he would avoid getting a gun because of your stupid law?

Is that where the line is? 13 years?

That's an odd number.

Would you put the line at 13 years or at some other number--like 12...or 10?

Where is the line for you, Thawk? And then, why is it at the number you pick? What would your rationale be?

I guess you win again, Hank. My argument has no merit. I'm just dumb. I must have pulled the number thirteen out of nowhere. Or maybe it was in the thread title....can't remember....

So.... you're going to do each one of these cases on an ad hoc basis????

Sure, Hank. If, say, you got a DWI, I'd set it to 13 days, you being my buddy and all.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Banning gun possesion is for people who are violent and can't act responsibly. I'd say 13 years without screwing up excludes a man from that group and earns a second chance. If DWI is really such a horrible crime that the man shouldn't own a gun, then why would you trust him to walk down the street? If you really think he's that irresponsible and reckless, do you think he would avoid getting a gun because of your stupid law?

Is that where the line is? 13 years?

That's an odd number.

Would you put the line at 13 years or at some other number--like 12...or 10?

Where is the line for you, Thawk? And then, why is it at the number you pick? What would your rationale be?

I guess you win again, Hank. My argument has no merit. I'm just dumb. I must have pulled the number thirteen out of nowhere. Or maybe it was in the thread title....can't remember....

So.... you're going to do each one of these cases on an ad hoc basis????

Sure, Hank. If, say, you got a DWI, I'd set it to 13 days, you being my buddy and all.

That's just it, Thawk. The details just really don't matter to you.

You're just a slave to the MGGLGB philosophy...

 

[Mini14]

imported post

If we cannot trust ex-cons with the tools of freedom, why should not they stay in prison? Voting and jury duty, that is too dangerous to be entrusted to ex-felons. Look at Nazi Germany, the ballot box lead the path to the Holocaust, not gun rights. As to jury duty, it is indeed a valid fear that ex-felons would sympathize suspects enough to let the truly guilty go.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Mini14 wrote:

If we cannot trust ex-cons with the tools of freedom, why should not they stay in prison? Voting and jury duty, that is too dangerous to be entrusted to ex-felons. Look at Nazi Germany, the ballot box lead the path to the Holocaust, not gun rights. As to jury duty, it is indeed a valid fear that ex-felons would sympathize suspects enough to let the truly guilty go.

Releasing convicts from prison is not a function of their trustworthiness with the tools of freedom. If it were, they'd be given indefinite sentences that would end when they were deemed trustworthy.

If the electorate feels that restricting the rights to carry and vote, even after sentences have been served, is not good public policy, they should change it through their legislatures or through the ballot box.

I (and, I believe, most Americans) think that denying these rights to felons is a good idea.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Mini14 wrote:

If we cannot trust ex-cons with the tools of freedom, why should not they stay in prison? Voting and jury duty, that is too dangerous to be entrusted to ex-felons. Look at Nazi Germany, the ballot box lead the path to the Holocaust, not gun rights. As to jury duty, it is indeed a valid fear that ex-felons would sympathize suspects enough to let the truly guilty go.

Releasing convicts from prison is not a function of their trustworthiness with the tools of freedom. If it were, they'd be given indefinite sentences that would end when they were deemed trustworthy.

If the electorate feels that restricting the rights to carry and vote, even after sentences have been served, is not good public policy, they should change it through their legislatures or through the ballot box.

I (and, I believe, most Americans) think that denying these rights to felons is a good idea.

Sure, but denying guns to freed felons is unenforcable, since once you are free to walk the streets you can get your hands a gun one way or the other.

It also calls into question the worth of the right to bear arms in the first place. After all, if felons can live without guns, why can't you?

 

[eye95]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Mini14 wrote:

If we cannot trust ex-cons with the tools of freedom, why should not they stay in prison? Voting and jury duty, that is too dangerous to be entrusted to ex-felons. Look at Nazi Germany, the ballot box lead the path to the Holocaust, not gun rights. As to jury duty, it is indeed a valid fear that ex-felons would sympathize suspects enough to let the truly guilty go.

Releasing convicts from prison is not a function of their trustworthiness with the tools of freedom. If it were, they'd be given indefinite sentences that would end when they were deemed trustworthy.

If the electorate feels that restricting the rights to carry and vote, even after sentences have been served, is not good public policy, they should change it through their legislatures or through the ballot box.

I (and, I believe, most Americans) think that denying these rights to felons is a good idea.

Sure, but denying guns to freed felons is unenforcable, since once you are free to walk the streets you can get your hands a gun one way or the other.

It also calls into question the worth of the right to bear arms in the first place. After all, if felons can live without guns, why can't you?

Unenforceable?? No law is completely enforceable. (Neither are any of them completely unenforceable.) So, we shouldn't have laws? That would be silly.

The standard of whether someone should have a right is not, "Can they can live without it?" If it were, we wouldn't have Freedom of Speech. Clearly, we can live without it. (I just wouldn't want to.)

Once again, it is a matter of routine that rights are abridged as a consequence of conviction of a felony. The people, usually through their State legislatures, decide which rights will be forfeit and for how long. If felons don't like it or don't think it's fair, then maybe they ought not commit felonies.

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

I hate to say it but I have to agree with the sentiment that you should never have your hands on a firearm again. I really do apologize for saying it, though, because I feel bad. I had my one and only DUI two years ago, Original Poster. I want you to know that the first DUI changed my life forever. I lost my license for a year, but that wasn't the half of it. Like these other folks have said... To drive drunk and get caught once is pretty bad. Don't act like *most people drink and drive- they don't. You had three strikes- and you're out.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Three strikes and out? To channel HankT, I have to ask, why is 3 the magic number? Because you grew up watching baseball? Is that the standard by which you deny a man's right to self defense for the rest of his life?

Perhaps it would be a better idea to examine the man's life since his last conviction a little more fully. The issue isn't "how many" times he has been convicted; when young and stupid people tend to do stupid things more in bunches.

The question should be, "are you still young and stupid and have you actually been corrected"?

Nobody on this forum knows the man well enough to make a judgement like that. But it sounds cool when you parrot politicans with that corny "3 strikes and out", "Get tough on crime" crap.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Three strikes and out? To channel HankT, I have to ask, why is 3 the magic number? Because you grew up watching baseball? Is that the standard by which you deny a man's right to self defense for the rest of his life?

Why three? It seems that that is the number the legislature chose to be the number of DUIs before it was considered a felony.

If one does not like the policy (and this is a policy, not a rights, issue), then he should campaign to change the law.

If one feels that his case is special and should be treated differently than other felons, then he should plead that case in the appropriate venue, bearing the burden of proof on himself.

 

[Hendu024]

imported post

okboomer wrote:

And isn't the stated purpose of incarceration to be rehabilitation?

Sounds to me as if rehabilitation has worked in this case. He did his time, now why should his rights not be reinstated? It looks like he has proven his ability to learn from his past mistake and has turned a positive leaf in his life.

3 DUI's are not difficult to achieve without actually being a danger to the public,it is the punishment for the offense that has been increased. Same with pot ... it used to be a misdemeanor, now it is a felony for having a roach in the ashtray.
err.. I highly doubt that.

I have also seen folks who are dead sober all the time, and yet they are a hazard behind the wheel. Much agreed. I see sober morons everyday changing lanes without blinkers like it's a rally race, blowing stop signs, etc etc, and they scare the sh*t out of me. But they passed their driving test on a good day, continually renew their license before it expires thereby bypassing a new driving test which they would probably fail.

Personally, I am more concerned by the knee-jerk emotional reaction towards want2carry than his past actions. Yes, DUI is a serious offense, but condeming someone to a life of restrictions after they have paid the price for the offense is one of the insanities of our legal system. On the other hand, our system still cannot deal with the career criminal who should be locked up after their third violent felony.

want2carry, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.htmlIn some states, you do not need a lawyer to do this. Good luck

 

[eye95]

imported post

Rehabilitation is one hoped-for outcome of imprisonment. Others include physically removing the offender from the public and punishment. Not restoring all rights upon release could be considered continuing to protect the public even though the offender is no longer removed and continuing to punish.

In any event, it is the law. If one does not like the law, one should try to change it, not just bemoan that it is being followed.

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Three strikes and out? To channel HankT, I have to ask, why is 3 the magic number? Because you grew up watching baseball? Is that the standard by which you deny a man's right to self defense for the rest of his life?

Why three? It seems that that is the number the legislature chose to be the number of DUIs before it was considered a felony.

If one does not like the policy (and this is a policy, not a rights, issue), then he should campaign to change the law.

If one feels that his case is special and should be treated differently than other felons, then he should plead that case in the appropriate venue, bearing the burden of proof on himself.

I double this.

For you, Tomahawk " But it sounds cool when you parrot politicans with that corny "3 strikes and out", "Get tough on crime" crap."

Obviously not my decision to enforce the blasphemous Three Strikes and Out rule. Don't shoot the messenger.

There's obviously an issue here- half of us believe DUI is a serious crime and will lead to the death of innocent people. The other half believes DUI is a non-offensive personal problem that can be hashed out on the inside.

Either way- one either side you stand- what IS that magic number then? How many times does one need to DUI???: before being out right limited on capability, responsibility, and function in the very public that he endangered.

It doesn't matter what the number is. 3, 5, 9, - the point is- DUI is a serious offense and has long been a felony- so nobody needs to pull out the "well they could make fast food a felony" or some shit. DUI was a felony BEFORE he drove(and was caught) drunk three times- he knew he was committing felonious acts of crime over and over and over.

Also to consider- how many times has this guy drove drunk without being caught? Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's this type of person that we worry about.

 

[zack991]

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Three strikes and out? To channel HankT, I have to ask, why is 3 the magic number? Because you grew up watching baseball? Is that the standard by which you deny a man's right to self defense for the rest of his life?

Why three? It seems that that is the number the legislature chose to be the number of DUIs before it was considered a felony.

If one does not like the policy (and this is a policy, not a rights, issue), then he should campaign to change the law.

If one feels that his case is special and should be treated differently than other felons, then he should plead that case in the appropriate venue, bearing the burden of proof on himself.

I double this.

For you, Tomahawk " But it sounds cool when you parrot politicans with that corny "3 strikes and out", "Get tough on crime" crap."

Obviously not my decision to enforce the blasphemous Three Strikes and Out rule. Don't shoot the messenger.

There's obviously an issue here- half of us believe DUI is a serious crime and will lead to the death of innocent people. The other half believes DUI is a non-offensive personal problem that can be hashed out on the inside.

Either way- one either side you stand- what IS that magic number then? How many times does one need to DUI???: before being out right limited on capability, responsibility, and function in the very public that he endangered.

It doesn't matter what the number is. 3, 5, 9, - the point is- DUI is a serious offense and has long been a felony- so nobody needs to pull out the "well they could make fast food a felony" or some @#$%. DUI was a felony BEFORE he drove(and was caught) drunk three times- he knew he was committing felonious acts of crime over and over and over.

Also to consider- how many times has this guy drove drunk without being caught? Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's this type of person that we worry about.

Agreed. The idea that 13 years have pasted makes it ok for his rights to be restored. What if instead of DUI/DWI it was rape of a child or domestic violence for example. Would most of you still be saying well it only happened three times and he has been good for the last 13 years. For most of us we do not know this man personally other then this site, so it could easily been he has not been caught in the last 13 years as well. I feel for the guy that he has lost his rights, yet he kept a pattern of irresponsibility. He needs to speak to an attorny not web attorneys. Wish him luck though.

 

[jayspapa]

imported post

Some things are privileges and some things are rights. One can and should be taken away under certain circumstances. The other should never be lost .

 

[eye95]

imported post

Rights are routinely taken away as a result of felony convictions. The most obvious is the right to liberty. The government can and does (and should) take away rights for cause after due process.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

remember this guy got three convictions for DRINKING and DRIVING,,, why does he loose his gun and voting rights,, they wernt involved in his crimes!!!
it would make more sense that his privilage to DRIVE,, and his privilage to DRINK should be the things that he is no longer allowed to do!!!

 

[eye95]

imported post

Because State law calls for the forfeiture of the right to carry and the right to vote for any felony conviction.

If you don't believe these are just punishments, work to change the law.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

Man, I KNOW I'm gonna get LIT up for this one, but I'm going to put it out there anyway.

First, I believe that want2carry should ABSOLUTELY have his rights, ALL OF THEM...restored. For the simple fact that he has paid his "debt to society". He got caught doing something illegal, was punished for it, and has moved on with his life. Period.

It is the laws and the courts that are the problem, not so much the person. This has been discussed here before. The problem is that, in some cases, criminals are let out too soon, because of weak laws, overcrowding, etc. A lot of us here always talk about "God given rights", the Constitution doesn't give us these rights, is simply guarentees that we have them, and protects them.

If a man or woman has "paid their debt", as set down by the courts for the crime they commited, why should they not have their rights, ALL of them, restored? Criminals, even some violent ones, have done their time, got out of prison, did their time on probation or parole, and gone on to live good lives, abiding by the laws, making an honest living, contributing to their comunities. So, yes, in that context, ALL of their rights, as afforded by the Constitution as a now law-abiding citizen of the United States, should be restored.

As said earlier, if the person "can't" be trusted to be a member of society....free, then why are we letting them out in the first place? That is the question. Charles Manson is still in prison because it has been deemed he CAN'T be trusted in a free society.

Most of here ALWAYS say, very adamently, that the gun, the Concealed permit, doesn't have anything to do with a persons actions in commiting a crime. The gun is simply a tool, same as the car to a drunk driver. The Framers of the Constitution were very adament that a free man has certain inalienable rights. If he is a free man, then why are his rights not restored?

Maybe this makes sence, maybe it doesn't, sometimes I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be. But that is my opinion.

Go ahead y'all.....LIGHT ME UP!!!!!

 

[eye95]

imported post

Not lighting you up, just pointing out the flaw in your logic. want2carry has not paid his debt to society. Part of that debt, according to the law, is that, in addition to his giving up his liberty for a period of time, he also give up his right to carry and his right to vote.

He paid only the part of the debt that involves giving up his liberty for a period of time. He has not yet fully paid the part about giving up his right to carry and right to vote for the rest of his life.

If you think those are unjust punishments for his crime, seek to change the law.

(Oh, BTW, as a matter of opinion, I like the fact that convicted felons give up their rights to vote and carry. I would support a law that gives them the opportunity, after many years with a sparkling clean record, to petition to get those rights back. I would expect them to bear the expense of the proceedings and to have the burden of proving that they are changed persons.)

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

(Oh, BTW, as a matter of opinion, I like the fact that convicted felons give up their rights to vote and carry. I would support a law that gives them the opportunity, after many years with a sparkling clean record, to petition to get those rights back. I would expect them to bear the expense of the proceedings and to have the burden of proving that they are changed persons.)

that was raised earlier in this very thread, and i also support a felons proving his worth, redemption, rehabilitation, and then petitioning for the restoration of rights thru the system,(at his expence)!