Washington State justices clarify when felons can regain gun rights

[Joe Link]

State justices clarify when felons can regain gun rights

Read More

 

[CombatMechanic]

So you need to commit another felony after the five year period of crime free to get back to having your rights revoked, interesting way to look at it.

 

[Stomper]

A misdemeanor isn't a crime worthy of losing your rights, and IMHO non-violent felonies (generally) aren't, either.

 

[CombatMechanic]

A misdemeanor isn't a crime worthy of losing your rights, and IMHO non-violent felonies (generally) aren't, either.

Disagree, plenty of crimes classified as misdemeanors, (or just pleaded down when actually felonies) are violent crimes, or sexual crimes.

Most domestic violence charges are misdemeanors. And I don't support anyone that beats on their loved ones to be considered a man, or for that matter a person worthy of their gun rights.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Disagree, plenty of crimes classified as misdemeanors, (or just pleaded down when actually felonies) are violent crimes, or sexual crimes.

Most domestic violence charges are misdemeanors. And I don't support anyone that beats on their loved ones to be considered a man, or for that matter a person worthy of their gun rights.

As I understood it, Under the current laws DV is a non-starter for getting your gun rights restored, ever.

Had the subject of the article been convicted of his crimes after 1994, he would not be eligible for having his gun rights restored.

I know a few folks that are banned for life under these laws.

I have a friend who is a single mom, she was convicted of felony assault, for slapping another girl in the face when she was in her early 20's.

She had been crime free, clean and sober and has a job counciling folks that find themselves in similar circumstances that she was in in her youth. She would like to have her gun rights restored and can't under the current state laws.

As for sexual and violent crimes being plead down, that happens, the system isn't perfect. You can't punish people without remedy because of unconvicted crimes. Creating laws for the masses based on fringe groups and statistics isn't fair.

Perfection seems to be the standard in the narrative of the anti's, it has replaced the second amendments provision for gun ownership. It is the justification for the authority the minority report mentality gun grabbers are seeking.

 

[slimmer13]

I've said it before. Anyone walking free, should have the full fledged rights of a citizen (voting, firearms etc). If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with these rights, they are too dangerous to be free.

Thinking otherwise is buying into the premise that firearms are some type of mystical talisman rather than an inanimate object, no more dangerous than a vehicle or knife.

The gun is a tool, the person is the weapon.

 

[CombatMechanic]

As I understood it, Under the current laws DV is a non-starter for getting your gun rights restored, ever.

Had the subject of the article been convicted of his crimes after 1994, he would not be eligible for having his gun rights restored.

I know a few folks that are banned for life under these laws.

I have a friend who is a single mom, she was convicted of felony assault, for slapping another girl in the face when she was in her early 20's.

She had been crime free, clean and sober and has a job counciling folks that find themselves in similar circumstances that she was in in her youth. She would like to have her gun rights restored and can't under the current state laws.

As for sexual and violent crimes being plead down, that happens, the system isn't perfect. You can't punish people without remedy because of unconvicted crimes. Creating laws for the masses based on fringe groups and statistics isn't fair.

Perfection seems to be the standard in the narrative of the anti's, it has replaced the second amendments provision for gun ownership. It is the justification for the authority the minority report mentality gun grabbers are seeking.

If the system isn't perfect, more so a reason to have safe guards so violent, or sexual offenders can't get guns. If the system worked well, we wouldn't need these rules in place. A DV can be plead to mischief, you become a violent felon you shouldn't have your gun rights ever.

 

[CombatMechanic]

I've said it before. Anyone walking free, should have the full fledged rights of a citizen (voting, firearms etc). If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with these rights, they are too dangerous to be free.

Thinking otherwise is buying into the premise that firearms are some type of mystical talisman rather than an inanimate object, no more dangerous than a vehicle or knife.

The gun is a tool, the person is the weapon.

Seems like you're ignoring the many situations in which a person is a violent and very dangerous felon but are released due to wealth, connections, or the system being biased, etc. the rules are in place to make sure injustices in our legal system which are common and many don't allow dangerous people to legally purchase weapons. Just because they plead down and got away with something doesn't make them less dangerous.

 

[CombatMechanic]

I've said it before. Anyone walking free, should have the full fledged rights of a citizen (voting, firearms etc). If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with these rights, they are too dangerous to be free.

Thinking otherwise is buying into the premise that firearms are some type of mystical talisman rather than an inanimate object, no more dangerous than a vehicle or knife.

The gun is a tool, the person is the weapon.

215 convicted killers were set free in Spitzer's first year as governor - NY Daily News

Tell me you want these people to have gun access. All convincted violent felons set free.

 

[slimmer13]

Seems like you're ignoring the many situations in which a person is a violent and very dangerous felon but are released due to wealth, connections, or the system being biased, etc. the rules are in place to make sure injustices in our legal system which are common and many don't allow dangerous people to legally purchase weapons. Just because they plead down and got away with something doesn't make them less dangerous.

So fix the system. Because a violent person is out on the streets, when they should be locked up, doesn't change the fact that they can just as easily hurt someone with a gallon of gasoline and match or a chunk of rebar, as a gun.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who wants a gun, can buy one illegally or steal one pretty easily if motivated, despite any laws in place that tells them not too.

 

[CombatMechanic]

So fix the system. Because a violent person is out on the streets, when they should be locked up, doesn't change the fact that they can just as easily hurt someone with a gallon of gasoline and match or a chunk of rebar, as a gun.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who wants a gun, can buy one illegally or steal one pretty easily if motivated, despite any laws in place that tells them not too.

But you want them to also be able to legally purchase guns as well, correct? I'm not arguing with many of your points, just the one where you support violent felons that are free deserve to have their gun rights back.

 

[slimmer13]

But you want them to also be able to legally purchase guns as well, correct?

Yes if someone is lawfully free, they should have the full rights of a free person. I can't make it much clearer. Prohibition on free individuals purchasing firearms does nothing to stop a motivated person from aquiring one or from hurting someone in another manner.

Focus on keeping dangerous people locked up instead of imaginary "feel good" laws that do nothing for public safety.

IMO having the classification of "prohibited persons" creates a lower class and stigma to individuals that makes them MORE likely to reoffend than less because they have less skin in the game.

 

[CombatMechanic]

Yes if someone is lawfully free, they should have the full rights of a free person. I can't make it much clearer. Prohibition on free individuals purchasing firearms does nothing to stop a motivated person from aquiring one or from hurting someone in another manner.

Focus on keeping dangerous people locked up instead of imaginary "feel good" laws that do nothing for public safety.

IMO having the classification of "prohibited persons" creates a lower class and stigma to individuals that makes them MORE likely to reoffend than less because they have less skin in the game.

I'll never support that with my vote. If you're a violent felon you don't get to own a gun ever again in my opinion. And I'll keep supporting legislature that assures that. They should be stigmatized, they can't be in normal society like the rest of us, and prefer violence as a way of getting what they want.

 

[Fast Eddie]

If the system isn't perfect, more so a reason to have safe guards so violent, or sexual offenders can't get guns. If the system worked well, we wouldn't need these rules in place. A DV can be plead to mischief, you become a violent felon you shouldn't have your gun rights ever.

Legislation designed to punish people for things they didn't do is immoral.

As for violent felons, the current laws on the books in WA agrees with you. In most cases, I agree with you.

Seems like you're ignoring the many situations in which a person is a violent and very dangerous felon but are released due to wealth, connections, or the system being biased, etc. the rules are in place to make sure injustices in our legal system which are common and many don't allow dangerous people to legally purchase weapons. Just because they plead down and got away with something doesn't make them less dangerous.

Conversely, people who can't afford attorneys, can be accused and convicted of crimes that border on entrapment, it's enticing for law enforcement and the DA, because it makes it look like they are doing their job. Low hanging fruit, so to speak.

The imperfections cut both ways.

 

[CombatMechanic]

Legislation designed to punish people for things they didn't do is immoral.

As for violent felons, the current laws on the books in WA agrees with you. In most cases, I agree with you.



Conversely, people who can't afford attorneys, can be accused and convicted of crimes that border on entrapment, it's enticing for law enforcement and the DA, because it makes it look like they are doing their job. Low hanging fruit, so to speak.

The imperfections cut both ways.

I agree it's not a perfect situation. Unfortunately a lot of bad people get away with stuff because they use intimidation, or threats to silence witnesses, or murder. Doesn't make them any less evil. But if they happen to be judges guilty of a violent felony by a jury of their peers. They had their trial, they lost. And I will always support they lose their right to bear arms. Might not be perfect, but it's safer for society in my opinion.

 

[slimmer13]

I'll never support that with my vote. If you're a violent felon you don't get to own a gun ever again in my opinion. And I'll keep supporting legislature that assures that. They should be stigmatized, they can't be in normal society like the rest of us, and prefer violence as a way of getting what they want.

And I'll support stiffer penalties for those who show a propensity for violence. You do you, I'll do me.

 

[CombatMechanic]

And I'll support stiffer penalties for those who show a propensity for violence. You do you, I'll do me.

That's a give in.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I agree it's not a perfect situation. Unfortunately a lot of bad people get away with stuff because they use intimidation, or threats to silence witnesses, or murder. Doesn't make them any less evil. But if they happen to be judges guilty of a violent felony by a jury of their peers. They had their trial, they lost. And I will always support they lose their right to bear arms. Might not be perfect, but it's safer for society in my opinion.

I agree that all of these injustices exist in the world. I think we deal with them better than any other country in the world. When we don't take away the liberty of people as a way to control them, it's the in the spirit of our founding fathers intentions for the success of this country. The Ninth circuit court of appeals just recognized this.

I'm curious, are there experiences or observations in your own life that influence your point of view?

 

[CombatMechanic]

I agree that all of these injustices exist in the world. I think we deal with them better than any other country in the world. When we don't take away the liberty of people as a way to control them, it's the in the spirit of our founding fathers intentions for the success of this country. The Ninth circuit court of appeals just recognized this.

I'm curious, are there experiences or observations in your own life that influence your point of view?

Definitely, I've had to deal with some bad folk, some got away with more than they should, some hurt my family, so I'm not above admitting I have a bias due to those experiences. I've seen the injustices, and seen good people get hurt due to them.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Definitely, I've had to deal with some bad folk, some got away with more than they should, some hurt my family, so I'm not above admitting I have a bias due to those experiences. I've seen the injustices, and seen good people get hurt due to them.

I'm not trying to goad you into admitting bias, I had a feeling that you had some experiences that made you passionate about your views. I find rather than ridiculing people for differences in opinions, it helps to respect how they come by their point of view. It leads to more meaningful dialogue.