Fresno Motorcyclist Pulled Over for Unsecured Dog - Check Out His Pistol!

[Flopsweat]

Not a criminal until convicted.

So what class then? I don't follow.

 

[Nosferatu]

So what class then? I don't follow.

Anyone not traditionally considered part of the "gun community" is what I was trying to convey.

I grew up in a pretty gnarly neighborhood in Oakland with what a lot of people would call thugs. They bent and fractured laws, arrested a few times, but noting violent. Those are the people I refer to mostly. They have the same rights to protection as those of us who are squeaky clean.

 

[Flopsweat]

Anyone not traditionally considered part of the "gun community" is what I was trying to convey.

I grew up in a pretty gnarly neighborhood in Oakland with what a lot of people would call thugs. They bent and fractured laws, arrested a few times, but noting violent. Those are the people I refer to mostly. They have the same rights to protection as those of us who are squeaky clean.

I didn't really read any of the posts as targeting people like that.

 

[Nosferatu]

I didn't really read any of the posts as targeting people like that.

ok

 

[cameron25]

Lol meth and shrooms, great combo

 

[GWS]

The dog turned state's evidence for a reduced sentence.

A Rat Terrier, no doubt.

 

[kmk1012]

Lol meth and shrooms, great combo

Helps the newer meth users communicate with the long time users

 

[JuglansRegia]

Not a criminal until convicted.

He is already a convicted felon and obviously up to no good again, and how many more crimes did he commit between his last release and this latest arrest?

 

[Xaevian]

obviously

You mean allegedly, of course...

 

[Nosferatu]

He is already a convicted felon and obviously up to no good again, and how many more crimes did he commit between his last release and this latest arrest?

So his constitutional rights get tossed out the window?

 

[Yarome]

Not a criminal until convicted.

He WAS a conviced felon... in possession.

On the other note:

The way I see it, that's part of the problem in our society these days. If it's the law of the land then they already know what they are risking. No one made them do whatever it is they did to pull a felony. If they CHOOSE to run the risk then stop the whining about what rights they think they should still be entited to. They knew the risk and it's meant more punitively, as a deterrent and to prevent a repeat from someone that has already demonstrated a propensity for criminal activity.

For lesser felony charges they also have the right to petition to have their charges expunged and all rights restored. Again... stop the entitled whining. If you deserve your rights then do what you need to and have them restored.

Entirely too many people think they should be entitled to not have to live with the consequences of their actions, regardless of whatever bad choices they make or who they hurt. Everything should be restored back to them freely and they shouldn't have to lift a finger to get it.

Here's an idea. Don't do the crime!

 

[Yarome]

So his constitutional rights get tossed out the window?

Exactly! He gave up some of his rights by choice. Just like the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness when he got thrown into prison the first time. (at least).

If there are no deterrents or punishments for crime then everyone would be doing it.

The bottom line, he had full freedom of choice and everything he gave up he did so voluntarity.

 

[JuglansRegia]

So his constitutional rights get tossed out the window?

Yes, especially when its a condition of your early release, which brings us to the greater issue, none of this would have happened if he was still in prison.

 

[Nosferatu]

Interesting. You learn something everyday.

 

[Nosferatu]

Exactly! He gave up some of his rights by choice. Just like the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness when he got thrown into prison the first time. (at least).

If there are no deterrents or punishments for crime then everyone would be doing it.

The bottom line, he had full freedom of choice and everything he gave up he did so voluntarity.

He served his time though. Seems to me you get let out, you should have the right to defend yourself while you're out. He did choose to break the law and I don't condemn his actions. They are stupid. But I will defend his rights.

So this is when "the law" trumps your Constitutional rights?

But when "the law" says you can't buy a certain type of firearm or accessory, that's when your Constitutional rights are infringed?

I'm not trying to jump on anyone in particular, just trying to think through where the beliefs of ones individual rights should end.

The Libertarian/Independent in me won't let that end just because someone ran afoul of the law, then served their time based on what the law says is owed, and is now a free member of society again, that their Constitutional rights should be severed forever. That to me is giving too much power to the government.

 

[Flopsweat]

He served his time though. Seems to me you get let out, you should have the right to defend yourself while you're out. He did choose to break the law and I don't condemn his actions. They are stupid. But I will defend his rights.

So this is when "the law" trumps your Constitutional rights?

But when "the law" says you can't buy a certain type of firearm or accessory, that's when your Constitutional rights are infringed?

I'm not trying to jump on anyone in particular, just trying to think through where the beliefs of ones individual rights should end.

The Libertarian/Independent in me won't let that end just because someone ran afoul of the law, then served their time based on what the law says is owed, and is now a free member of society again, that their Constitutional rights should be severed forever. That to me is giving too much power to the government.

I agree with that for the most part. This fellow in particular made it abundantly clear that he shouldn't have been let out. If you're a threat to society with a gun, you're a threat without one.

 

[Yarome]

He served his time though. Seems to me you get let out, you should have the right to defend yourself while you're out. He did choose to break the law and I don't condemn his actions. They are stupid. But I will defend his rights.

So this is when "the law" trumps your Constitutional rights?

But when "the law" says you can't buy a certain type of firearm or accessory, that's when your Constitutional rights are infringed?

I'm not trying to jump on anyone in particular, just trying to think through where the beliefs of ones individual rights should end.

The Libertarian/Independent in me won't let that end just because someone ran afoul of the law, then served their time based on what the law says is owed, and is now a free member of society again, that their Constitutional rights should be severed forever. That to me is giving too much power to the government.

Yup. It must or there is not justice. Again, it was a choice he made and no one "took" his rights from him. He chose to give up his right to freedom and all that entails. Including his right to possess a firearm to protect himself... unless he takes steps to have that right restorted... which is perfectly within his right to persue.

The difference being that our right to own a firearm is protected and if a person has comitted no act to forfeit that right, it may not be arbitrarily taken from us. BIG difference.

If you believe gun rights should not be taken from someone that commits a certain level of crime, then wouldn't that also mean that his right to freedom should also stand? Criminals should not be detained or serve time in jail because it infringes on their constitutionally protected rights of freedom, self determination and the pursuit of happiness?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Yarome]

The Libertarian/Independent in me won't let that end just because someone ran afoul of the law, then served their time based on what the law says is owed, and is now a free member of society again, that their Constitutional rights should be severed forever. That to me is giving too much power to the government.

You're thinking though that jail time is the end all, the only thing owed to society and only consequence of criminal activity. It's not. Prison time is only the most obvious part of it.

Being released from prison they are now a free member of society... but.... under conditions. Some lasting longer than others.

Even then, the deterrents are more often than not, not enough. More than half of them will reoffend... and that number is only the ones that actually get caught... again.

I think you're also ignoring that there IS a process for many of them to have their firearm rights restored. If they choose not to use it, that's not the gooberments fault.

 

[Nosferatu]

Yup. It must or there is not justice. Again, it was a choice he made and no one "took" his rights from him. He chose to give up his right to freedom and all that entails. Including his right to possess a firearm to protect himself... unless he takes steps to have that right restorted... which is perfectly within his right to persue.

The difference being that our right to own a firearm is protected and if a person has comitted no act to forfeit that right, it may not be arbitrarily taken from us. BIG difference.

Isn't the punishment of being removed from your daily life for a period of time allegedly the deterrent against committing the crime?

If not, how come more of us don't just turn to breaking the law?

I do believe his rights were taken. I don't agree that they should be lost forever after he's served his debt. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

If you believe gun rights should not be taken from someone that commits a certain level of crime, then wouldn't that also mean that his right to freedom should also stand? Criminals should not be detained or serve time in jail because it infringes on their constitutionally protected rights of freedom, self determination and the pursuit of happiness?

Is that what you're saying?

This is an obvious straw-man argument and I don't think anyone would believe that's the argument I've made. I won't respond to such attempts to distort my stance.

 

[Nosferatu]

You're thinking though that jail time is the end all, the only thing owed to society and only consequence of criminal activity. It's not. Prison time is only the most obvious part of it.

Being released from prison they are now a free member of society... but.... under conditions. Some lasting longer than others.

Doesn't matter. Constitutional rights apply to everyone.

Even then, the deterrents are more often than not, not enough. More than half of them will reoffend... and that number is only the ones that actually get caught... again.

There's many reasons for that. A lot get trapped in the system. That's a WHOLE other thread!

I think you're also ignoring that there IS a process for many of them to have their firearm rights restored. If they choose not to use it, that's not the gooberments fault.

I haven't ignored it at all. I understand there is a process. I'd argue that process shouldn't be necessary!