Know any felon's that have lost their gun rights?

[Karma]

Good lord. We sure have a lot of choir boys on here. I am guessing there are very few people here, or anywhere for that matter, that haven't broken the law in some way in their past. Likely many of you drove while under the influence and other things, but didn't get caught. There is a big difference between the original list of felonies, and what's included today. Yes, there are people who should lose that right after being convicted of murder etc. but there are probably many people here could be a felon under slightly different circumstances under current definitions.

 

[chariot13]

The law sir, obey the law. There are rules set up in the forms of laws. This conversation would not be happening if the laws were followed.

I dont obey anything except myself, it just so happens that the law happens to think much like me at times, not vice versa.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Fair or unfair, they are what they are. Too many people sat with their thumbs up their butts. But idiots that drink and drive three times to hit felony, it is three strikes and they are now out. I don't care if he doesn't have alcohol for the rest of his life, he has proven he is irresponsible and is prone to not just a momentary lapse in judgement, but multiples. I can say this because I am not emotionally attached as you are, he broke the law, proved he had bad judgement, thankfully he didn't kill anyone with his reckless judgement. However who is to say that he gets this all behind him and has another "lapse" this time not only is he driving drunk, but also armed. If I were gambling, I don't like the odds. I view this as a bad investment. He should spend his time and energy reaching out to others to ensure they don't make the same mistake he made, three times over. However he is showing very self-entitled behaviors in complaining about his punishment.

I mean if he thinks it is unfair, then he can go and talk to some kids who lost their parents due to someone driving drunk and explain how unfair it is he can't own a gun, and he should be able to. When they ask him if they can have their mommy and daddy back and it isn't fair they are dead we can see if he has any conscious at all. Sorry but your friend can find my definition of sympathy in the dictionary between sh** and syphilis.

That may be your opinion and your judgement on the matter, but it does nothing to help me figure out what his options are for getting the felony expunged off his record. Do you have any recommendations since thats what the thread was about? Also the average DWI fatality the driver blows a .17. The requirement for DWI is .08, hence people are classed with drunks who cause fatal accidents even if the amount of alcohol in their system is significantly below .17 even though there is empirical scientific evidence that your driving is profoundly worse and more dangerous at .17 than it is at .08 or .09.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Good lord. We sure have a lot of choir boys on here. I am guessing there are very few people here, or anywhere for that matter, that haven't broken the law in some way in their past. Likely many of you drove while under the influence and other things, but didn't get caught. There is a big difference between the original list of felonies, and what's included today. Yes, there are people who should lose that right after being convicted of murder etc. but there are probably many people here could be a felon under slightly different circumstances under current definitions.

Not a choir boy, I just think that personal responsibility means you accept the consequences of your actions.

 

[chariot13]

Not a choir boy, I just think that personal responsibility means you accept the consequences of your actions.

Personal responsibility means you are responsible for the actions you do to another when you force them to accept 'your' consequences for their actions.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

[Kelzebubba]

That may be your opinion and your judgement on the matter, but it does nothing to help me figure out what his options are for getting the felony expunged off his record. Do you have any recommendations since thats what the thread was about?

Find a lawyer on par with Saul Goodman. He isn't going to be able to do it alone. However I do not condone the actions he took. A one time offense, an accident, but three, I am sorry, but you are being an enabler.

So I ask, are you willing to go to jail for him if he gets a DUI again ever in the course of his life? If the answer is no, then you should not be assisting him with this. If your answer is yes, then you have high faith in him and your friend is lucky to have a friend like you. I know of no one I would ever do that for.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Personal responsibility means you are responsible for the actions you do to another when you force them to accept 'your' consequences for their actions.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

So since I have never driven under the influence your statement means what to me? I always was the DD with my friends, and on rare occasion one of them would volunteer like once every 2-3 months and they would buy my drinks all night long. Fortunate for them I was a lightweight so they got off cheaply. I had more fun sober than drunk at bars anyways.

 

[chariot13]

So since I have never driven under the influence your statement means what to me?

You miss the point of personal responsibility, either that or you're purposely acting stoopid. As if you won't also be forced one day to accept the 'consquences' for the actions you did to another, for when you forced your own consequences upon that other. You can keep dreaming i suppose.

 

[JimmyS1985]

In my states, selling 7 grams of marijuana, which can be as little as $30 worth of the stuff, is a felony punishable by 5-15 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Despite these harsh penalties we still get marijuana in Missouri.

Lets examine the crime with very harsh consequences. Number one, its victimless. Usually a marijuana sale is between two consenting adults, one that wants the stuff and one that wants money. Number two, its non-violent. Yes there are drug deals that go bad, but usually its not over $30 of marijuana, more like $3,000 worth.
Number three, lets say the average cost to incarcerate someone for a year is $35,000, it actually has a broad range but thats roughly in the middle. The tax payer might recoup $20,000 of it in the fine, IF the offender can pay it (most likely not) but otherwise has to spend $175,000 in an attempt to harshly penalize someone for the behavior. For that much money, as a tax payer, I would look elsewhere to get more bang for the buck, or not even make the act a crime at all.

You want to talk too high spending, too much government waste, and too high taxes, there is a lot we can cut out from our Criminal Justice system if we took a less "Lock em up and throw away the key" approach to victimless and non-violent offenses. Prison costs are increasing every year, as our super long sentences approach to crimes such as drugs, means we now house very old people in our prison's and part of housing someone in prison is to take care of their medical costs. Naturally very old people cost a lot more tax payer money to take care of inside prison, than to free them early.

 

[Kelzebubba]

You miss the point of personal responsibility, either that or you are pusposely acting stoopid. As if you won't also be forced one day to accept the 'consquences' for the actions you did while forcing your own consequences upon another. you can keep dreaming i suppose.

I have accepted consequences of my actions. I had two children out of wedlock with a woman I am still very deeply in love with. Unfortunately she loves money more than me or her children. I have full custody of the children, and even though she is supposed to pay child support, it is nominal when it does come in. I was denied money on college grants because "I was a man" and could "run off and abandon my kids" when I was the sole guardian of them. Did I whine or complain about my circumstances because I made a bad decision; no. I got two jobs, and worked my rear off. Now my kids are a bit older and wiser, but yes, I understand consequences very well. As far as being stupid, at least I can spell good sir. I chose not to drink and drive because I was aware of the consequences of getting caught. So don't preach consequences, and learn to spell.

 

[chariot13]

I have accepted consequences of my actions. I had two children out of wedlock with a woman I am still very deeply in love with. Unfortunately she loves money more than me or her children. I have full custody of the children, and even though she is supposed to pay child support, it is nominal when it does come in. I was denied money on college grants because "I was a man" and could "run off and abandon my kids" when I was the sole guardian of them. Did I whine or complain about my circumstances because I made a bad decision; no. I got two jobs, and worked my rear off. Now my kids are a bit older and wiser, but yes, I understand consequences very well. As far as being stupid, at least I can spell good sir. I chose not to drink and drive because I was aware of the consequences of getting caught. So don't preach consequences, and learn to spell.

Again you're missing the point. You're always trying to play the victim & using what society or some past society deemed right or wrong. I'm not gonna comment any further because you obviously don't get it or want to act like you don't get it.

 

[Kelzebubba]

In my states, selling 7 grams of marijuana, which can be as little as $30 worth of the stuff, is a felony punishable by 5-15 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Despite these harsh penalties we still get marijuana in Missouri.

Lets examine the crime with very harsh consequences. Number one, its victimless. Usually a marijuana sale is between two consenting adults, one that wants the stuff and one that wants money. Number two, its non-violent. Yes there are drug deals that go bad, but usually its not over $30 of marijuana, more like $3,000 worth.
Number three, lets say the average cost to incarcerate someone for a year is $35,000, it actually has a broad range but thats roughly in the middle. The tax payer might recoup $20,000 of it in the fine, IF the offender can pay it (most likely not) but otherwise has to spend $175,000 in an attempt to harshly penalize someone for the behavior. For that much money, as a tax payer, I would look elsewhere to get more bang for the buck, or not even make the act a crime at all.

You want to talk too high spending, too much government waste, and too high taxes, there is a lot we can cut out from our Criminal Justice system if we took a less "Lock em up and throw away the key" approach to victimless and non-violent offenses.

1. Is it against the law?
2. Is it a felony?
3. Do you engage in unlawful activity?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I want drugs legalized very much. I would enjoy seeing the prices driven down and making the cartels poor bums, and then stepping over all the self-entitled druggies that would OD. I believe it would be Darwinism at work. I want it really bad. However it is against the law. So therefore I would not do it because by breaking the law with a felony I can look forward to ...

1. Loss of rights
2. Matter of public record
3. Loss of income

Therefore I do not do it.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Well would you sell your house to punish someone for the crime? Because it costs $175,000 of tax payer dollars to incarcerate someone for 5 years over the offense. How much money do you want to spend on the offender in an attempt to rehabilitate and punish them? Id agree with you if the country didn't have an obscene amount of prisoners already incarcerated, however America has either the most evil population in the country, or we lock people up in jail over willy nilly offenses.

 

[PX4WA]

Personal responsibility means you are responsible for the actions you do to another when you force them to accept 'your' consequences for their actions.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

This is what is wrong with America today... It's never your fault.. The system caused it or somebody elses laws caused it...

Grow up... Your friend knew the laws when he did his crime... He decided to violate them... Now it's our fault he has to face consequences?...

Your friend played with his future.. He lost a right as a result... What happens to him and his family is on him alone... Nobody forced him to get 3 DUI's.

 

[chariot13]

This is what is wrong with America today... It's never your fault.. The system caused it or somebody elses laws caused it...

Grow up... Your friend knew the laws when he did his crime... He decided to violate them... Now it's our fault he has to face consequences?...

Your friend played with his future.. He lost a right as a result... What happens to him and his family is on him alone... Nobody forced him to get 3 DUI's.

The only one that is refusing to accept responsibility for its own actions, is what you call "The system", you like to imagine you're void of responsibility outside of your own definitions. Exactly like a 'criminal'. Btw i have no idea who this guy the OP is talking about. He is not my friend anymore or less than you are.

 

[PX4WA]

He is your friend since you are defending his actions... And definitely you and I will never be friends... We live in different worlds... In mine, my actions have consequences...

In yours, a sorry is good enough to get a clean slate...

I'm bowing out of this post and we agree to disagree..

 

[JimmyS1985]

It just seems unrelated, the punishment vs the crime. Guy has a history of bubblegumty driving so they take his firearm rights away and voting rights. That would be like if someone did an armed robbery so they charged him with a sex offense.

I'd like to see a study that said bad drivers are entirely irresponsible in all areas, not just in driving or prone to committing mass shootings or murders with guns. I've known people who were terrible at driving and they never drove drunk, nor risked getting a felony over their terrible driving. I knew a guy who would never check his sideview mirrors or look around him prior to changing lanes, good way to totally side swipe someone and cause a major accident, yet he would never get any type of felony over the terrible driving he did.

For now though, it seems entirely unrelated to each other, currently his crime would also be classified as "non-violent" so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to deny a firearm from a non-violent offender other than a loose argument in which he has been irresponsible in his past with objects who's primary purpose is transportation, so he can't be trusted now.

The fact of the matter is, there are A LOT more crimes that now qualify as felonies as opposed to earlier years in this country, hence we got 3 million people in prison and jails, and millions on probation and parole. Crime hasn't gone up, punishments for crime's have gotten harsher is all, hence a lot more people are now felon's where if they lived in the 1960's what they do now might not of even been considered a crime at all, let alone one that requires incarceration or classification as a felon.

A good book on the problems in our criminal justice system that my friend has found himself tangled in, is called "Imprisoning communities", I own the book, might take a look at it again tonight.

One problem with our criminal justice system, say if you incarcerate a child's parent. Using deterrence theory, logic would tell the kid to never make the same mistake as his parents, since his family has been negatively impacted by having a parent in jail. Statistically though, kids with parents in jail and prison are MUCH more likely themselves to wind up in prison or jail later in life. So incarceration is a problem that has no end in and of itself if it creates generations of family members who wind up getting locked up.

 

[kibs45]

Whether or not "the system/the man/Government/etc." and the rules it plays by is "fair/justifiable/should be changed/etc." is not really what is being discussed. Accepting responsibility for your actions is different than whether or not the "punishment/consequence" fit the "crime".

Example:
When a person speeds, is caught, and issued a ticket, it is unconsequential what your opinion about the speed limit is at that moment. The consequence at that moment is the ticket. You can argue all you want about whether the speed limit is correct/reasonable/whatever but by disobeying the posted limit you have by default said that you accept the consequence at that moment (ticket).

I may not like it, you may not like it, but until you, me, and whoever else get the system changed it doesn't matter. Where you draw the line, and the methods used to change that line are of personal discretion, but again fall under the premise of "What consequences am I will to accept?".

 

[JGRuby]

The only one that is refusing to accept responsibility for its own actions, is what you call "The system", you like to imagine you're void of responsibility outside of your own definitions. Exactly like a 'criminal'. Btw i have no idea who this guy the OP is talking about. He is not my friend anymore or less than you are.

Sorry - you break the law you pay the consequences - dont like the laws change it or leave.
The decision is for you to make wether you accept it or not.
There is no further discussion needed.

James Ruby

 

[Redcap]

Sorry - you break the law you pay the consequences - dont like the laws change it or leave.
The decision is for you to make wether you accept it or not.
There is no further discussion needed.

James Ruby

No matter how hard you squeeze, you aren't going to get blood out of a turnip.