JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
17,471
Reactions
36,483
"Federal law bans people from obtaining firearms if they have been convicted of a "serious" crime that carries a potential punishment of over a year in prison. Does that violate the Second Amendment rights of a man who was convicted of DUI in 2005? Third Circuit: The conviction carried a maximum sentence of five years, so no gun for him. Dissent: We all agree that DUIs are serious, but his exact crime would lead to a federal prohibition on gun possession in only 8 of 51 jurisdictions. " [bold added]
 
According to the Dems in the House, that includes "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" :rolleyes:

No doubt the politicos want to classify things like tax evasion, DUI, criticism of political figures, "libel and slander" of Democrats, domestic violence, possession of certain goods and drugs all into "serious crimes"

Edit. All the while saying we can't afford to keep murderers, rapists, violent offenders and gang members locked up :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
We already have a process for said person to obtain their rights: expungement.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is currently drawn at any felony carrying a 1 year sentence or more.

So, a DUI counts. If this is the guy's only conviction and he's led a perfectly clean life after, he should go through the process to have his record expunged, after which he would have his gun rights fully restored.
 
Serious crime ?? That can often depend on who commits it even more than on what is committed.
As I've come to see it...
…. now-a-days, it seems that simply winning an election against the wrong person can be a "high crime".
 
We already have a process for said person to obtain their rights: expungement.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is currently drawn at any felony carrying a 1 year sentence or more.

So, a DUI counts. If this is the guy's only conviction and he's led a perfectly clean life after, he should go through the process to have his record expunged, after which he would have his gun rights fully restored.


Felony is not a requirement.

One year or more, POTENTIAL, time in the slammer does count. You don't have to get that .. you could be assigned diversion, or say community service, but so long as the potential is there ...

But, as the court case notes, only 8 out of 51 jurisdictions, would have had a potential over 1 year jail for the DUI offense. DUI, without an accident proves what? Lack of judgement. So does voting for BOZO (political opponent of your choice) Or, if you are enlightened, believing in a God can show lack of judgement.


Back to the question, what is a serious crime ?
They passed it, yet they don't know.


What should be a serious crime? Probably needs it's own thread.


I am on the side which says, once you are no longer under the control of the justice system, your rights are automatically restored - no need to go before a judge and beg forgiveness. If you should not be trusted with a gun, then you should still have a parole officer checking on you.
 
Felony is not a requirement.

One year or more, POTENTIAL, time in the slammer does count. You don't have to get that .. you could be assigned diversion, or say community service, but so long as the potential is there ...

But, as the court case notes, only 8 out of 51 jurisdictions, would have had a potential over 1 year jail for the DUI offense. DUI, without an accident proves what? Lack of judgement. So does voting for BOZO (political opponent of your choice) Or, if you are enlightened, believing in a God can show lack of judgement.


Back to the question, what is a serious crime ?
They passed it, yet they don't know.


What should be a serious crime? Probably needs it's own thread.


I am on the side which says, once you are no longer under the control of the justice system, your rights are automatically restored - no need to go before a judge and beg forgiveness. If you should not be trusted with a gun, then you should still have a parole officer checking on you.

I don't quite follow your train of thought there.

For murder? Sure, one day you may get out and yea, I don't mind if you have check ins with Uncle Sam until the day you die.

For Domestic Violence? I don't think we need to spend taxpayer dollars checking in with you after some time but, as you've shown you're a hothead that can't control his/herself...I don't think you get your gun rights back until you can prove yourself to a court and your peers.

Sure, some people learn and grow. Others go to the grave the same bastard they were born. If you have to beg God forgiveness of your sins, then you should have to beg your peers for reinstatement of your rights in society. You commit against them, you can ask forgiveness. Serving time isn't asking forgiveness, that's paying penance.

There are a whole lot of crimes, for me, that fall into the above category of not wanting to waste the taxpayer dollar but also demanding expungement for reinstatement of rights.
 
@Hueco so... what you are saying is... it's perfectly reasonable to let people return to society forever unable to regain rights??

Edit. One of the Courts, maybe SCOTUS, maybe District, or State.. stated that convicted criminals will always be a convicted criminal regardless of sentence carried out



Why not just let them rot in prison or execute them then and there if they are too dangerous to allow full Rights?

:rolleyes:

For sure we need prison reform, we also need judicial reform.

Someone wise once stated
laws serve to keep the jailers and judges employed. If there were no more laws to criminalize people, then jailers and judges would be out of jobs soon after.
 
@Hueco so... what you are saying is... it's perfectly reasonable to let people return to society forever unable to regain rights??

Edit. One of the Courts, maybe SCOTUS, maybe District, or State.. stated that convicted criminals will always be a convicted criminal regardless of sentence carried out



Why not just let them rot in prison or execute them then and there if they are too dangerous to allow full Rights?

:rolleyes:

For sure we need prison reform, we also need judicial reform.

Someone wise once stated

There are some crimes that deserve a lifetime of penance. You might serve 30 years in jail for murder but you will serve the rest of your life attempting to prove yourself to society. No, you should never get your right to a firearm back. No, you should never get your voting rights back. You stole what is most precious from someone and no matter how you've behaved since, there is no absolution in this world. Sorry, you made you bed. Enjoy the bugs.

We should allow this felon the free will to attempt to resolve themselves on their own. Out of prison, there's a world of good they can do to society if they so choose. But, no, they should not be trusted with full rights ever again.

That is an example of a crime where your rights will never be restored, though you may at some point enter society again.

And then there are crimes where your rights were never taken away.

And then there are all those in the middle. For those, your rights are stripped, but you have the opportunity to petition for them back.

--------

There are two parts to * earning * forgiveness: penance and absolution. I don't consider our current system of forced time in a cell as quite fitting the definition of penance, as it requires no work put in by the criminal...all they must do is exist and they'll go through the process. But, there are things that they can do, and more options that we should give them, in order for them to commit themselves to penance.

The second part is absolution, and that must be asked for - it is not simply given.

If you've ever slighted against someone and earned forgiveness then you've gone through this process. I am simply applying it at a societal level.
 
Last Edited:
Someone wise once stated

laws serve to keep the jailers and judges employed. If there were no more laws to criminalize people, then jailers and judges would be out of jobs soon after.

Are you for real? That isn't wise in the least. If there were no laws, no social contract, then each individual would act and react as they see fit. One vendetta after another would spring up, starting from the least offense to the highest.

Laws are nothing more than the codified social contract. No social contract, no society. If society isn't your cup of tea, there's plenty of land in Alaska where you can spend the rest of your life not having to see another person.
 
Are you for real? That isn't wise in the least. If there were no laws, no social contract, then each individual would act and react as they see fit. One vendetta after another would spring up, starting from the least offense to the highest.

Laws are nothing more than the codified social contract. No social contract, no society. If society isn't your cup of tea, there's plenty of land in Alaska where you can spend the rest of your life not having to see another person.
The point of that comment wasn't "abolish all laws" as you think it does. It simply said if no more(read new) . :rolleyes:

A lot of people seem to assume that the job of the U.S.Legislature is to create new laws but the fact is it is not so.

The job of the U.S. Legislature (Congress) are as follows;

To levy taxes

To wage war

To protect the Rights of the People

To protect U.S. interests

The rest can be left to the States and People.

Who was it that said
find me the man, I'll find the crime
?

Our legal system exist on the opposite principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Why let murderers and rapists out into society?

Why let the mentally, criminally disturbed out into society?


Edit. Another person somewhere reported that on average, an American commits 3 felonies a day

The point is that there are too many laws existing on the books
 
Last Edited:
The point of that comment wasn't "abolish all laws" as you think it does. It simply said if no more(read new) . :rolleyes:

You throw an eye roll in there but no, that's not what your quote reads. If you wanted to add context, I believe you would have. In order for "If there were no more laws to criminalize people, then jailers and judges would be out of jobs soon after." There is no scenario where this is true and laws still exist. Thus, your quote is opining for the ending of all laws, else there would still be laws, and thus, there would still be judges and jailers (and your quote would be incorrect).

So either you mean to say that there should be no laws or you are strangely attached to a junk quote that gives the impression that there should be no laws...which is it, exactly?


A lot of people seem to assume that the job of the U.S.Legislature is to create new laws but the fact is it is not so.

The job of the U.S. Legislature (Congress) are as follows;

To levy taxes

To wage war

To protect the Rights of the People

To protect U.S. interests

The rest can be left to the States and People.

Who was it that said ?

Our legal system exist on the opposite principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Why let murderers and rapists out into society?

Why let the mentally, criminally disturbed out into society?


Edit. Another person somewhere reported that on average, an American commits 3 felonies a day

The point is that there are too many laws existing on the books

I'm fairly spent on your rhetorical questions. Either make your point succinctly or not at all.

You can state that it's not Congress's job to not make new laws (especially regarding firearms) but that's hardly the issue here nor the solution. You seem pissed that our system has gone off the rails, and rightly so. But guess what, the Fed has more power than it deserves and that isn't going away anytime soon. So, until then, how about we focus on the OP, which is resolution of rights to felons?

Why let murderers and rapists out into society? Simple: forgiveness. Said people have hopefully made good on their penance and are ready to pursue absolution. That can only be done given free, completely free, will.

Do you believe that we are capable of absolution for our sins against either god or society or not? That makes a big difference in how punishment and retribution are delivered.
 
The point I am making.. we have no need of new laws, I daresay we ought to do away with maybe 75% of the existing laws except those pertaining to the main ones based on the 10 Commandments, maybe not all of the 10 Commandments mind you, but most of them.

Until massive reforms happen, we do not need to take rights away from people.

Following the Court decisions; legally there is no reason criminals of a specific type should be free.

Sure we can forgive the people, but not their deeds.

If you recall Biblical teachings, even the Apostles were imprisioned, and they submitted to rule of law.

The U.S. legal system says employers, schools, govt agencies and so on can discriminate based on criminal history..


So; if the legal system says people can continue to punish felons for their deeds, why are they even allowed to be free in the first place? It might be more humane to put them to work in a prison farm, factory, or institution until they get too old, or die?

Back to the point of this thread.

"Serious crimes".

Again, need to stop making new restrictions on who may own firearms:rolleyes:
 
What's the longest sentence you can get for a misdemeanor in each state?

Answered Jul 7 2015 · Author has 869 answers and 675.3k answer views


Most states have sentences no longer than a year. Some have no specific limit or allow considerably longer sentences for some misdemeanors.

  • Colorado allows up to 18 months
  • Iowa allows up to two years
  • Louisiana doesn't have an overall maximum.
  • Maryland has many misdemeanors punishable for longer sentences, some up to ten years
  • Massachusetts has sentences up to two and a half years
  • Michigan allows up to two years for high court misdemeanors.
  • New Jersey doesn't divide crimes into misdemeanor or felony.
  • Pennsylvania allows up to five years
  • South Carolina allows up to three years
  • Vermont allows up to two years
 
We already have a process for said person to obtain their rights: expungement.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is currently drawn at any felony carrying a 1 year sentence or more.

So, a DUI counts. If this is the guy's only conviction and he's led a perfectly clean life after, he should go through the process to have his record expunged, after which he would have his gun rights fully restored.

That's where the problem lies, at least in WA; try as hard as a person can imagine, no one can shake a DUI Gross Misdemeanor. A felon can shake felonies except for egregious class B and class A ones, DUI, fergitaboutit. It's like the clap without a cure.

Once the anointed ones close the loop and make DUI one year plus a day, it's game over.
 
Example:

"Serious Crime" when male. Apparently not when female.


Convicted of sex crimes as a man, felon no longer deemed threat because of gender change.


"The Iowa Attorney General's Office is no longer seeking the commitment of a former Midwest Christian Services student convicted of myriad sex crimes because the individual now identifies as a woman.

Court records show the state dismissed the application on Jan. 9. Attorney general spokesman Lynn Hicks wouldn't comment on the reason for the dismissal other than to say "an offender's hormone levels are an important part of substantiating an offender's likelihood of recidivism." "
 
Last Edited:
Example:

"Serious Crime" when male. Apparently not when female.


Convicted of sex crimes as a man, felon no longer deemed threat because of gender change.


"The Iowa Attorney General's Office is no longer seeking the commitment of a former Midwest Christian Services student convicted of myriad sex crimes because the individual now identifies as a woman.

Court records show the state dismissed the application on Jan. 9. Attorney general spokesman Lynn Hicks wouldn't comment on the reason for the dismissal other than to say "an offender's hormone levels are an important part of substantiating an offender's likelihood of recidivism." "

Interesting. It never occurred to me that the pussy pass would be transferable.
 
Example:

"Last year, Ashley Via Menser pleaded guilty to shoplifting $109.63 worth of merchandise from a Weis Markets in 2018, court records show. On Jan. 22, Menser was in court for sentencing, ...
But Judge Samuel A. Kline proceeded with sentencing, handing down a 10 month to seven year prison term. "



Potential 7 year term, for $100 shoplifting charge -
would have been a different charge had there been a weapon or violence.

But she can never possess a firearm again.

If this had been in SanFran, she would not have even been charged.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top