National Unemployment Fraud = No Possession of a Firearm

[GWS]

No, I specifically mentioned malum prohibitum offenses. Theft has been bad since (or before) Moses came down from the mountain. Not defending the thief but a malum prohibitum offense like you flash hider example, if considered a felony, can get your rights stripped every bit as quick as an actual malum en se crime. And legislatures seem hell-bent on creating more of these as fast as possible.

My bad. I was only referring specifically to the the guy who was cheating the Unemployment system. You are correct about the "Because I say so" laws. They are indeed a snare to trap the honest.

 

[nammac]

Actually, they did. I was just a teenager watching in frustration. They fought it, probably more vigorously than I've seen anything since. The tide of emotion and ignorance was very strong then too.

Interesting, good information to have first hand... I was just a wee lad, not a weeing lad... Somit was a bit before I understood the goings on of the world...

 

[Talos32]

The problem with disenfranchisement and stripping felons of their rights is that when one does want to reintegrate with society they often find it impossible.

That's why some states are passing laws to make it illegal to ask or investigate whether or not someone has been convicted of a crime during the hiring process. If you can't get an honest job, you still have to eat, so what are you going to do?

 

[CRBMoA]

The problem with disenfranchisement and stripping felons of their rights is that when one does want to reintegrate with society they often find it impossible.

That's why some states are passing laws to make it illegal to ask or investigate whether or not someone has been convicted of a crime during the hiring process. If you can't get an honest job, you still have to eat, so what are you going to do?

Not commit crime???

I get it - Some of my best co-workers have done time over the years.

 

[GWS]

What I would like to see is, at least for non-violent, first time felons would be some sort of expungement of the records for public information and restoration of rights under these 2 conditions
Completion of sentence with no issues (ie Good behavior)
Staying clean and out of trouble for 2 (or 5) years after completion of sentence.
Note, I said public records. I would want a file kept so if the felon commits another crime after his rights are restored, he does his time and rights are no longer restored, ever.
I figure this way a guy who screwed up gets a second chance but if he screws up again, the hell with him.

 

[Boboclown]

If you revoke one right, revoke them all. Either its a right or privilege. I stand by rights and people should have them restored if they did their time and are now a functioning member of society.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Another felon perspective: After serving your time as a felon, commit no further crime for 5 years and you can own guns again.

Actually, that's how it's done where I live.

But, the idea that all felons should be released if they're still in prison once they hit the magic number of being 55 years old is absolutely insane.

Lots of murderers will continue to murder once out of prison because they're psychopaths....at 55 they're still relatively young.

Get a few years past 55 you'll realize 55 is still young, especially if you're a crazed killer like btk, richard speck, david berkowitz, jeffry dahmer, ted bundy, john wayne gacy, edmund kemper and on and on and on.

Think any of these turd buckets once they reach 55 they are now safe to release? That these monsters are now rehabilitated poor darlings who're are no longer a threat to society?

Really?

If so, I hope they get released in the immediate area where you live...with a mandate they must stay in your area for a couple of years minimum...see then if your bleeding heart is quickly stone cold cured...

55 years old felons who aren't murderers, but preyed on innocent people as there way of stealing a living - oh yeah, they'll now behave...in a pig's eye they will....

 

[Alexx1401]

Another felon perspective: After serving your time as a felon, commit no further crime for 5 years and you can own guns again.

Actually, that's how it's done where I live.

But, the idea that all felons should be released if they're still in prison once they hit the magic number of being 55 years old is absolutely insane.

Lots of murderers will continue to murder once out of prison because they're psychopaths....at 55 they're still relatively young.

Get a few years past 55 you'll realize 55 is still young, especially if you're a crazed killer like btk, richard speck, david berkowitz, jeffry dahmer, ted bundy, john wayne gacy, edmund kemper and on and on and on.

Think any of these turd buckets once they reach 55 they are now safe to release? That these monsters are now rehabilitated poor darlings who're are no longer a threat to society?

Really?

If so, I hope they get released in the immediate area where you live...with a mandate they must stay in your area for a couple of years minimum...see then if your bleeding heart is quickly stone cold cured...

55 years old felons who aren't murderers, but preyed on innocent people as there way of stealing a living - oh yeah, they'll now behave...in a pig's eye they will....

YEP! I am long past 55. I am sure if I was the type to be a criminal I could sure as hell do most any crime someone half my age could. I suspect at least some of the wanting to release people after a certain age is cost related. Medical costs of course start to climb considerably as these people age. Of course if they used some common sense they would not be in the money bind they are trying to keep people who need to be kept. I know here many jails will bend over backward to not take much of the "street trash" type criminals. If they accept them then they have to pay the medical bills these wastes of air run up. So a lot of kooks that really need to be in some kind of secured place just roam free to commit all kinds of crime.

 

[Massolo]

No link, just this paragraph (from a much longer source)

• Man collects unemployment benefits but is actually still working. Fraud! He's sentenced to probation but could have served a max of five years. Seventh Circuit: It does not violate the Second Amendment to prohibit him from possessing guns. His crime may not have been violent, but it was serious. And 40% of nonviolent felons are caught committing subsequent crimes (some violent)—who knows on which side of the line he'll fall?

Technically, it does violate his rights, as that "Shall not be infringed" is still in the Amendment. It was a non-violent crime, and he should not have lost his rights over it. But once infringement was allowed, it opened a Pandora's box, and they've been adding to it ever since. Now a conviction for some misdemeanors cause you to lose your rights. And if you think they'll stop, you are sadly mistaken. One day even getting a speeding ticket will cause you to lose your rights, as what could be more potentially violent that someone speeding and endangering everyone else, right?

 

[Inquisitor]

I believe that the existing prohibitions in 18 USC § 922 (quoted below) are too broad and include many people who are not, nor have they ever been, a threat to themselves or others. While it is reasonable to prevent people who are a threat to themselves and/or others from having firearms, it is unreasonable to extend that prohibition to people who have never been a threat to themselves and/or others. Federal law [18 USC § 922 – Unlawful Acts] needs to be changed such that the only prohibitions are: people who are adjudicated in a court of law to be a threat to themselves and/or others are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition. Exceptions and limitations to the adjudication rule shall be:

• Persons convicted of crimes in a criminal court are ineligible. This ineligibility ends after any incarceration is complete. This ineligibility may be extended by the court, at the time of conviction, to include any parole and/or probation sentence is complete, but these extensions can only be in cases of violent criminal convictions.
• Persons certified as a danger to themselves and/or others as a result of mental defect or incompetence either by voluntary individual certification or a court of law, are ineligible. This ineligibility ends after any commitment unless the court determines that the ineligibility extends until any supervised outpatient treatment is complete.
  
• Fugitives from justice, when charged or convicted of a violent crime are ineligible.

Revocation of US Constitutional rights, beyond what is identified herein, is separably subject to review and appeal in Federal Court.

People can lose rights by breaking the law. They can also be found legally insane and a danger to themselves and/or others through due process. We don't lose rights preemptively. We don't lose rights because of the actions of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 USC § 922 – Unlawful Acts
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner § 922 TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 212 or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
(h) It shall be unlawful for any individual, who to that individual's knowledge and while being employed for any person described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section, in the course of such employment—
(1) to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or
(2) to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

 

[Alexx1401]

I believe that the existing prohibitions in 18 USC § 922 (quoted below) are too broad and include many people who are not, nor have they ever been, a threat to themselves or others..

The big problem with any of these things is "laws" on the books, and "Rights" written in the Constitution mean squat. Some person with a black robe gets to say what they mean no matter what they say. Then when it comes to guns you have a large percentage, probably a large majority, of gun owners who do not believe in rights being inalienable. They believe that no matter what the paper says, what it really means is they are privileges. The only time this changes for most of them is when some new law effects them. Then they scream very loudly about "rights" all of a sudden. Sad but look how well it works.

 

[wired]

Ive always felt that once youve done your full time your full civil liberties should be reinstated. Voting, guns etc. Get sentenced to 10 years, do 5? Five more years of crappy living then and then automatic gun and voting right.

 

[awshoot]

Why are so many here for felons being allowed to own guns? Just to have more folks representing gun owners and the 2A? Because the 2A guarantees guns for ALL? I stand in the minority that if you CHOOSE to commit a felony and get convicted of such then you're SOL. I don't feel the least bit bad. I'm in my 40's and have NEVER been arrested or otherwise. I CHOOSE to make good decisions. Have I ever broken the law? Of course. I have gone over the speed limit, rolled through a red light and so fourth. We ALL have broken the law either willingly or unknowingly. There's a HUGE difference between that and committing a felony that results in a conviction. Chances are the convicted felon had committed many other felony crimes and just hadn't been caught yet.

And when they expand that to include misdemeanors, infractions and parking tickets? You scofflaw! ;-)

 

[blacktailbucks]

Lets see if i get your reasoning......

We are neighbors. Your dog(s) come on to my property and kill/maim my infant who is playing in my backyard. I sue you. You "win" on a "technicality". I go absolutely crazy. I grab a gun and go to your house and do a little "old west justice" myself. Your remaining family members sue me. I "win" on a "technicality" (lets say, temporary insanity). I get to continue with all my rights - especially my 2nd Amendment RIGHTS - as if nothing happened. And you'd be ok with that?

There has to be a time that you actually start losing your "rights" when you start abusing them....

The idea is that once you served your time and probation you have completed the punishment society deemed prudent, if your not fit to have
your rights restored you should still be in jail, probation, mental facility or executed. Just my opinion

 

[caarecengi]

I have long used a different analogy. Both left and right seem to have zero problems with some drunk who kills. They can get convicted multiple times. They can even maim and kill. Yet no one ever says they should be banned from driving for life. This has long left me shaking my head.
Couple decades back when I first started to have "questions" about this. Got to know a guy who worked for DOC. He said (at that time, don't know if this is still so) that while on Parole the person had no 4th rights. That he could show up at their home any time and go in and search. This of course was only while the person was on Parole. That got me thinking why? Since they were convicted why not make the loss of 4th for life? After all it's just a privilege, right?

We seem to accept the fact that 20+ people die DAILY in traffic collisions but no leftie ever advocated a nationwide 30MPH speed limit.

 

[caarecengi]

It used to be but last I heard many states no longer do that. If there are any left that still ban voting I am sure they are under attack for it. I was at Jury duty one time and we were asked if any of us were convicted felons? One guy raised his hand said yes. Was asked, said he had done time, now had the right to vote. They did not promptly kick him from the pool. He was still there for days after and taken for a few upcoming cases. I don't think he was put on a jury as I kept seeing him come back to the waiting area. Suppose no prosecutor would want him. Seems like I heard many states now just restore the voting after some time or such. I know several of the clowns running are saying they want prisoners to vote in prison.

CA wants to allow ILLEGAL ALIENS (I can't bring myself to call them "immigrants" illegal or otherwise) to Vote.
Of course, CA is a sociallist state

 

[Oohrah]

Makes perfect sense to me. The 2nd is considered by a huge number of gun owners, probably a majority, as a privilege, not a right. Very few gun owners I have ever known had a real problem with that part of GCA68. The part that once a convicted felon, no guns for life. This guy was convicted of a felony. I for a couple decades was very ambivalent about this. Did not effect me so I did not really care either. I no longer feel that way about it but I seem to be in the minority of gun owners.

 

[MannyGlocks]

They did mandate a 55 MPH max even on freeways, which was dumb as dirt...

 

[Oohrah]

We seem to accept the fact that 20+ people die DAILY in traffic collisions but no leftie ever advocated a nationwide 30MPH speed limit.

It's one of those things we screwed up on and grew complacent. It no longer has to even be violent, just a statement of implied violence " I'm going to kick your bubblegum" Bingo you are are a loser! Someone who hates you for what ever reason claimed Bring on those blue ideas
you're a nut case and have guns...gone for a year and maybe prove, hey I'm innocent. What other other screwed up law will they come up with to take your guns. Holy crap that magazine holds 11 instead of ten...bye ya, bring on your blue laws !!!! You underlings need to be under control for your own control. Ask Nancy!

 

[Ownerus]

Notice how someone convicted of drunk driving has all their cars confiscated and is forbidden to ever own or even touch a car?

Yeah, me neither.