Fed. gun law takes down drug thug killer

[Kevatc]

You forget about the base principle of intent - was she opeining it because she had to pay the bills. or was it an accident or was it so she could open up numerous credit cards for the purpose of fruadulently using her husbands name. I dont know of any court in the land that would convict a wife of opening her hsubands mail if the husband did not press charges. Try again.

James Ruby

I agree. It may be a felony to open your spouses mail but to compare that to letting a convicted killer (who killed another human being with a gun) have a gun again is ridiculous on its face and utterly stupid at its core. Again, if it's OK for a convicted killer to possess a gun after serving time then it should be OK to let a pedophile supervise kiddies at the day care.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Wow

 

[iusmc2002]

I agree. It may be a felony to open your spouses mail but to compare that to letting a convicted killer (who killed another human being with a gun) have a gun again is ridiculous on its face and utterly stupid at its core. Again, if it's OK for a convicted killer to possess a gun after serving time then it should be OK to let a pedophile supervise kiddies at the day care.

And up until this point, those opposing dman have been unequivically "A felon is a felon. Period. End of arguement". Now, you're trying to quantify which felonies should be able to be prosecuted. She did it, period. She's a felon. No gun for her!

As for the pedophile, if the law put him in jail, then let him out, and there was no stipulation to his sentencing that he should never again be allowed to work with children, he's good to go. Sorry to say that, as disgusting as it is, but that's his right. Also the right of the employer to refuse allowing him to work. So everyone's rights are A OK.

As for the "too-light-sentences nowadays", if you stop putting people in federal bang-you-in-the-butt prison for something as stupid as selling an ounce of pot, then there would be more room and more money available to keep these sick, child-banging bubblegums locked up. Better yet, just kill them. But if they've served their sentence, as handed down by an elected judge and prosecuted by an elected AG, then why can't they have a life?

I believe that dman's WHOLE premise is that if something as f'n stupid as pot wasn't illegal, then this wouldn't even be a story because no one would have felt the need to steal from the other, thereby creating this mess. If you think pot is bad for you, but drink or smoke cigarettes, you're an f'n hypocrite

 

[mortre]

And up until this point, those opposing dman have been unequivically "A felon is a felon. Period. End of arguement". Now, you're trying to quantify which felonies should be able to be prosecuted. She did it, period. She's a felon. No gun for her!

Might do better to link a RCW that spells out opening your spouses mail is a felony in MT. Federally it is not always a crime.

It's fine to open without some form of ill intent, and as long as it has already been delivered to the person it was addressed to.

18 USC 1702

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[deen_ad]

Might do better to link a RCW that spells out opening your spouses mail is a felony in MT. Federally it is not always a crime.

It's fine to open without some form of ill intent, and as long as it has already been delivered to the person it was addressed to.

18 USC 1702

But, if you open it after it was delivered to your mailbox, but BEFORE the DW saw it wouldn't that be illegal?

My step daughter (new deceased) used to live with us and intercepted mail to us that involved her insurance and car that we cosigned on. We never got the notices of no insurance or missed payments! What a mess.

 

[Stomper]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........


C'mon guys, put some bacon on it.

 

[billyinfinity]

Tactical Bacon?

 

[Swedish K]

Petty theft with any prior theft, burglary, or robbery conviction is a felony in most states - in CA its P.C. 666. so if you ever got popped for a misdemeanor theft related charge and you decide to do a dine and dash or steal food to survive (weak argument with all of the food kitchens, food stamps, etc.) and get caught you get a felony conviction and may do time in prison for it. It was amazing to me just how many parolees ended up back in prison on a P.C. 666 charge - a felony strike and usually another year back inside.
What most people don't grasp is that the civil rights movement pushed the feds to require states to go to a DSL (determinate sentence length) from an ISL (indeterminate sentence length) for most charges. Before mandating that states set minimum and maximum sentence lengths for crimes the board of prison terms and the parole board used to have hearings to determine if the convict was fit to return to society before release on virtually all cases. In some cases they would release a convicted murderer early depending on the situation and their behavior while in prison. In other cases a person convicted of assault and battery who is a problem child while in prison and assaulted staff or inmates and had a violent history might end up serving 15 to 30 years. Of course that was back when guards got to know the inmates and evaluations of the individual by staff had a lot more to do with the process. Now under the DSL system most inmates serve between 50% and 70% of the sentence and are paroled in many cases without any say by the parole board. The exception is the few cases that are still ISL - sentences that are say 15 years to life.

That said, I think under the old system you were less likely to be released if you were a serious threat to society compared to now. Maybe back then it would have been reasonable to allow released felons to have firearms, under the current system I have serious doubts. If you look at enough rap sheets for a few dozen inmates you start to see that it is uncommon to find a convict in prison that had a clean sheet before they made it to the joint. A consistent pattern of criminal activity since they were 18 (youth files are usually sealed) is common. Taking all of this into account I don't have much faith in allowing convicted felons to own firearms or the other common restrictions - especially those who have committed violent felonies.

 

[mortre]

But, if you open it after it was delivered to your mailbox, but BEFORE the DW saw it wouldn't that be illegal?

My step daughter (new deceased) used to live with us and intercepted mail to us that involved her insurance and car that we cosigned on. We never got the notices of no insurance or missed payments! What a mess.

Don't know, I will let someone else argue the definition of delivered. I separate the mail and hand anything that belongs to the wife to her. Felony or not it's a huge invasion of privacy to open someones else's mail without explicit permission.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I'm just glad not all gun owners are so eager to take that right away from others.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

I would like to point out that if more individuals chose not to use drugs then there would be less druggies in prison.

James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

I would like to point out that if more individuals chose not to use drugs then there would be less druggies in prison.

James Ruby

Cause and effect FAIL

In other news, if fewer people chose to drive cars there would be fewer car accidents on the road.

 

[JGRuby]

You may not like my opinion but sure cant prove it wrong and yes if less people drove cars there would be less car accidents.

You dont break the law you dont become a criminal you dont go to jail - how hard can that be.
No one says you have to like the laws only that you have to obey them until they are no longer laws or you move out of thier jurisdiction. Choose not to obey them and you get to explain to the judge why you thought you were better than the rest of society. Good luck on that.

James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

You may not like my opinion but sure cant prove it wrong and yes if less people drove cars there would be less car accidents.

You dont break the law you dont become a criminal you dont go to jail - how hard can that be.
No one says you have to like the laws only that you have to obey them until they are no longer laws or you move out of thier jurisdiction. Choose not to obey them and you get to explain to the judge why you thought you were better than the rest of society. Good luck on that.

James Ruby

Sick of your blind worshiping of the law, read this and be educated: The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

Sick of your blind worshiping of the law, read this and be educated: The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

How about the law according to state, fedral and US regulations. Really dont care what Bastiat has to say or think. I dont like many of the laws but that doesnt give me the right to ignore them. You choose to only like the laws that benefit you - how can that be considered patriotic?


James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

How about the law according to state, fedral and US regulations. Really dont care what Bastiat has to say or think. I dont like many of the laws but that doesnt give me the right to ignore them. You choose to only like the laws that benefit you - how can that be considered patriotic?


James Ruby

Actually, "consent of the governed" explicitly gives you that right to judge the law and do as you see fit. On the other hand, if you're one of those "social contract" dirtbags, then keep kowtowing to the state. Just don't call it patriotism.

I am amused by your answer though. Reminds me of Jane Fonda stating that she doesn't read books she disagrees with because they make her feel uncomfortable. Nothing like an echo chamber to keep your mind sharp.

 

[JGRuby]

Actually, "consent of the governed" explicitly gives you that right to judge the law and do as you see fit.

On the other hand, if you're one of those "social contract" dirtbags, then keep kowtowing to the state. Just don't call it patriotism.

"Using thinking similar to that of English philosopher John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and legal authority.This was expressed, among other places, The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence[4] and in the Virginia Bill of Rights, especially Section 6, quoted below:

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."[5]
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed


Guess what it doesnt work - good luck on your own little utopia as that is the only place that you will find any type of majority in common with your thinking. In short even our founding fathers knew that " the consent of the governed" would not work. In short elected officials can make laws.

Good Luck.

James Ruby

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.