Other State ATF confiscates firearms from owner with expunged domestic violent conviction

[billdeserthills]

An expungement does make it so it cannot be held against you, however, even if everyone is doing their job at the various levels... it can take years for the court order to "naturally" filter through and be updated in all the enforcement databases.

If your attorney is on the ball... It's generally recommended that a copy of the order and a record update request be sent directly to the various law enforcement agencies... state and federal.

I don't know about this guy, but I could easily see where his name might have popped simply because his record hadn't been updated in one of the various databases(?)

I've had my rights restored twice now, first thing I like to do is run right out to the nearest gun store and try to buy a gun. That's when you find out if the Feds have recognized your expungement...

 

[Yarome]

Long before 1930s, the idea was that after a person served their sentence in full, they gained their rights and freedom. If they served lifetime sentences, or were executed, that was it. If pardoned, that was also it. But after the 30s, I want to say maybe 1938? There existed the idea of "once a criminal, always a criminal" and that prohibited persons class existed as a means of controlling who gets lawful access or not. Further codified in 1968 GCA, and Court Cases have repeatedly followed the same legal doctrine of "once a convicted criminal, no expectation of abiding laws".

It's unfortunate for those that choose not to reoffend, but... the "once a criminal, always a criminal" ideology didn't appear out of nowhere. I don't know what the recidivism rates where in the 1930's, but for decades, the rates for those convicted of a felony hovered between 65-70%. Or I guess if you want to look at the glass half full... only about 35-40% reoffend within the first 2 years of release.

It makes sense, to me, that restoring full 2A rights by default upon release from prison, even in the case where all terms of their sentencing have not yet been completed (IE., parole, restitution repayment, etc)... aka. "debt to society"... when it's established that the greater majority of them will reoffend isn't a great idea. Not that it will prevent anyone from reoffending, but if they do, adding the additional charge and additional prison time for illegal possession on their second go around seems "just".

It is within our law that a person can be denied certain rights. The most obvious... the right to freedom and liberty... when convicted of a crime. Everyone knows this. So... IMHO, if a person understands the potential forfeiture of rights they face if they commit a crime and they choose to do it anyway... that's on them and I feel no remorse. Actions have consequences. Some consequences can/will change a persons life forever. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Simple as that.


On the other hand! Not every type of felony should affect every denial of rights as a "one shoe fits all" solution. Further... there should be a legal mechanism in every state to have a persons case heard on a case-by-case basis, have their felony expunged and full right restored once they meet all the prerequisites.

That said too though. It should be case-by-case and on them to follow through with the process. They did the crime and if they have to jump through some hoops to restore their good name and standing in society, I think that's par for the course. If it's important enough to them to have those rights then going through the process to demonstrate their intent to not reoffend seems a legitimate requirement and is not on societies shoulders to simply hand them back automatically under "good faith" they won't reoffend.

Not every state has that mechanism and the degree to which a person can clear their name and have full rights restored varies. IMHO, that's just wrong. Everyone deserves a second chance... IF... they are willing to work for it. If so, then there should be an avenue available for them to do so.


I'll admit though that my beliefs are tinted. I don't believe that everyone that ever broke one single law actually get's caught and convicted. I believe those serving time likely built up to what they actually got convicted of, may have done much worse, repeatedly... but it simply wasn't provable. I mean... if crime didn't pay, "most of the time" then no one would commit crimes, right(?) Not everyone, but in the grand scheme of things... I believe what a person might be convicted of is likely just the tip of the iceberg and their punishment is not actually commensurate with the crimes they have actually committed.

I'll grant there are exceptions, but can we really cut a break to everyone simply because the vast minority end up paying more than they might really deserve? After all... while it is very unfortunate, it can't be denied that even those vast minorities did in fact knowingly choose to commit a crime.

Yes.. there are always exceptions, "wrong place wrong time", weaponization of the legal system, and people charged and convicted under a political agenda. The exceptions don't disprove the rule though, IMHO. Going soft on the 95%+ for the sake of the few exceptions is kind of what has led to where we are now. Catch and release, no bail arrests, legalizing crime, plea bargaining down to minor sentences for heinous crimes, etc.

Crime persists and grows when the consequences, even for minor crimes (that may lead to greater ones) are not a sufficient deterrent and the benefits continue to outweigh the risk.

[Off my soapbox]

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yes.. there are always exceptions, "wrong place wrong time", weaponization of the legal system, and people charged and convicted under a political agenda. The exceptions don't disprove the rule though, IMHO. Going soft on the 95%+ for the sake of the few exceptions is kind of what has led to where we are now. Catch and release, no bail arrests, legalizing crime, plea bargaining down to minor sentences for heinous crimes, etc.

Crime persists and grows when the consequences, even for minor crimes (that may lead to greater ones) are not a sufficient deterrent and the benefits continue to outweigh the risk.

Lets try a different tack here

If criminals do not have the legal expectation to abide by laws.. why create more (gun) laws that disportionately impacts the law abiding citizens and not increase/make severe the consequences of being convicted?

If it is expected that a convict will always offend.. then why make more gun laws that makes more people criminal by definition, while doing nothing notable about prison sentencing, bails, etc?


I think Ive said this somewhere..

Laws exists to keep legislators, judges, jailers, lawyers employed.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Watch the movie "Minority Report".

As I said earlier in post #21 ...Meh movie...Good novel....Horrible reality.
Andy

 

[sobo]

As I said earlier in post #21 ...Meh movie...Good novel....Horrible reality.
Andy

Andy, as a professional educator yourself, you surely must be aware of the rampant lack of reading comprehension among the general public, no?

Our members here are certainly not immune to this phenomenon...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Andy, as a professional educator yourself, you surely must be aware of the rampant lack of reading comprehension among the general public, no?

Our members here are certainly not immune to this phenomenon...

What...say it ain't so Joe...
Andy

 

[bentoncity]

....you surely must be aware of the rampant lack of reading comprehension among the general public, no?

Our members here are certainly not immune to this phenomenon...

Shocked...shocked I am..

Dan

 

[bcp]

I just make a tall stack of books, then my reading compression is very good for the bottom books.

Bruce

 

[billdeserthills]

What...say it ain't so Joe...
Andy

This Joe just can't remember

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG8tNEIg7lM

 

[NMCB 133]

Allen Park man sues ATF for confiscating firearms despite clean record after expungement

Jeramy Wilburn was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence 15 years ago. He had it wiped from his record, but the ATF said he could reoffend, and confiscated his guns as a result.

news.yahoo.com

 

[DunRanull]

They forgot:

• To shoot your dog.

And stomp your kitten...

 

[billdeserthills]

IMPORTANT 2A VICTORY: GUN RIGHTS RESTORED IN RESTRAINING ORDER CASE...

View: https://youtu.be/1lACbBiePsY?si=6O0b9LQ9JB0lyCsA