WA gun sting brings guilty pleas

[Dave Workman]

WA gun sting should have been model for Fast & Furious

Guilty pleas have already been entered by two of four Washington State men indicted earlier this year in a gun sting operation mounted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and how ATF handled this should have provided a model for their colleagues in Arizona who launched Operation Fast and Furious.


<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Misterbill]

Of course the assumption here is that there should be ANY restrictions on who buys and sells commonly available firearms. There should not be.

 

[Riot]

Of course the assumption here is that there should be ANY restrictions on who buys and sells commonly available firearms. There should not be.

You realize the intent behind dealers is to avoid giving firearms to felons, right?

Devenny allegedly sold guns to people he knew or suspected of being unable to own or possess firearms because of criminal convictions.

F- them...

 

[Misterbill]

You realize the intent behind dealers is to avoid giving firearms to felons, right?/QUOTE]

I realize it, I just don't agree with it.

I strongly object to penalizing people AFTER they have completed their sentence. We don't have two classes of citizenship in this country. If you've paid your debt, I don't care if you have a gun or not. If you are going to use it to commit a crime, it's highly unlikely that the law is going to stop you from getting one illegally.

Maybe instead of going on a ban-wagon, we could start actually keeping dangerous people in jail for longer?

Singling out firearms as so inherently bad that they need all these laws to regulate them is something the antis have pushed for so long that even pro-gun people believe it.


If someone who committed a felony at some point in the past and has finished their sentence has a gun for self-defense, how am I harmed? If he uses a gun to commit a crime, what makes you think that the law against above-board sales would have stopped him? Isn't it already a crime to rob a liquor store etc? f THAT didn't work, how is the "no guns for yoos" law going to work better?

 

[Partsproduction]

Of course the assumption here is that there should be ANY restrictions on who buys and sells commonly available firearms. There should not be.

Yes, the law of the land should literally be "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", that means no places we are required to go during a normal life should have infringements, nor during a traffic stop if no felonies have been committed. No officer in any capacity of the government and states should be able to defraud you and me of that right, period.
I also agree with what you said about former convicts, if they can't be trusted with a gun keep them locked up.

 

[Riot]

I realize it, I just don't agree with it.

I strongly object to penalizing people AFTER they have completed their sentence. We don't have two classes of citizenship in this country. If you've paid your debt, I don't care if you have a gun or not. If you are going to use it to commit a crime, it's highly unlikely that the law is going to stop you from getting one illegally.

Maybe instead of going on a ban-wagon, we could start actually keeping dangerous people in jail for longer?

Singling out firearms as so inherently bad that they need all these laws to regulate them is something the antis have pushed for so long that even pro-gun people believe it.


If someone who committed a felony at some point in the past and has finished their sentence has a gun for self-defense, how am I harmed? If he uses a gun to commit a crime, what makes you think that the law against above-board sales would have stopped him? Isn't it already a crime to rob a liquor store etc? f THAT didn't work, how is the "no guns for yoos" law going to work better?

Right, and I guess we should also get rid of the three strike laws then? After all, what is the point of permanently punishing someone who has already served their penance to society?

I guess you think that criminals can also be rehabilitated as well then?

Washington, Oregon and California (9th Court Circuit) has the most liberal justice system in the United States. Am I saying that adding more laws to the books is effective? No. Am I saying that a criminal cares how many laws he/she breaks when they make the conscience choice to victimize someone? No. But I AM glad that criminals have to use other means to buy firearms and I am glad that when they get caught with a firearm they go back to jail. Oh, and I am DOUBLE GLAD that they get to stay longer in prison if they use a weapon to commit said crime.

Oh, and I'm also glad that they can no longer register to vote.


What you fail to realize is that although he/she may have served their penance, has the victim seen justice? An individual who has been raped, or a mother than has their child lost through a heinous and senseless crime- have they actually seen justice? Can you honestly believe that a criminal has suddenly learned the error of their ways and should get everything restored? Sex offenders shouldn't have to register with their parole officers because they've "served their time"?

Give me a break!

 

[Partsproduction]

So, basically you are saying they can't ever be forgiven?

 

[mjbskwim]

So, basically you are saying they can't ever be forgiven?

On the majority ,no. Most of the guys in prison will re-offend.Some who have served still have little anger problems and owning a gun isn't the safest thing.
And where will we house all these guys? The ones who got a shortened sentence,because of over crowding.
Can we build another prison in your back yard?

I agree with reinstating a non violent felons rights as long as they have shown they are in fact,rehabilitated. (ie:,they went through a drug program or have gotten a job so they don't need to steal any more)

But most violent criminals have a problem with going right back to what they know,what they grew up doing.
What their parents or family taught them.

 

[MikeSettles]

1. If they present a continuing violent threat to law-abiding citizens (can't be rehabilitated) then they should be put out of "our" misery, either by locking them up & throwing away the key, or by killing them.

2. No violent threat, and done their penance to society (and their victims)? All rights restored.

I don't care much for Martha Stewart, but she is the perfect example of why the law is an overreach: Convicted of perjury (a felony in that jurisdiction), NOT of insider trading (as some believe). Served her time (for an essentially victimless crime). Restore her rights: Why should she NOT be allowed to arm herself for her own self-defense? (Barbara Feinstein and Charles Shumer are legally armed - and they should be charged/convicted of felony disregard of their oaths of office.)

 

[Riot]

1. If they present a continuing violent threat to law-abiding citizens (can't be rehabilitated) then they should be put out of "our" misery, either by locking them up & throwing away the key, or by killing them.

2. No violent threat, and done their penance to society (and their victims)? All rights restored.

I don't care much for Martha Stewart, but she is the perfect example of why the law is an overreach: Convicted of perjury (a felony in that jurisdiction), NOT of insider trading (as some believe). Served her time (for an essentially victimless crime). Restore her rights: Why should she NOT be allowed to arm herself for her own self-defense? (Barbara Feinstein and Charles Shumer are legally armed - and they should be charged/convicted of felony disregard of their oaths of office.)

Now THAT is another debate entirely. Misterbill stated that once the "felon" hit the streets they've automatically served their penance- he made no particular mention of their crime; thus I cannot agree that all felons should have all their rights fully restored. I can agree that if the individual doesn't have a violent offense then maybe they should have their gun rights restored. Having said that, what do you think about a felon's right to vote or serve jury?

 

[Partsproduction]

I agree with reinstating a non violent felons rights

Most violent offenders can never earn my trust, but plenty of people have been incarcerated who have never threatened anyone physically.

I remember that little gal in Texas who murdered people with a pickaxe, and went through a change from the inside out that had nothing to do with prison's effects beyond making her realize that she was in need of a total change. Even the guards said she was a different person, and there were many tears shed over her execution. She on the other hand did not try to escape death, she knew she had earned it. That was a very very rare story though, but I would let her walk behind me with a gun, or a pickaxe.

To deny people their constitutional rights can be considered to be a secondary punishment, as can confiscation of assets, something to consider.

Question, is it possible that zealous law enforcement people bull their way into areas of denial of constitutional rights that the originators never foresaw? Is it possible that "Emergencies" like war are used at times to "temporarily" deny rights that have never been gained back? Unfair taxation is not so much a constitutional issue but it sure has been an area where authorities have laid waste to the people during war and never given the freedom from their temporary ways back.

I really like Ronald Reagan's statement, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". All laws made during wartime should face a vote within five years after hostilities are finished if they are not rescinded, IMHO. I really believe that the founding fathers thought the end of a prison term would be the end of punishment, but maybe I'm wrong.
In the end the rights of non offenders should outweigh the rights of those who have a criminally violent past, because violence is a personality trait that goes back to early childhood for most people, and it is therefor hard to break free from those early traits.

 

[MikeSettles]

Sorry - wrote you a long diatribe and then lost it when Explorer went ppphhhhhtttt!

Suffice to say that in most jurisdictions, felons CAN have voting rights, etc. reinstated by petition after they have shown themselves to be no more threat to re-offend for some period. They may even have their right to firearms returned EXCEPT if they fall under Laughtenburg.

Consider that before the 1960s, rights were automatically reinstated after they served their time. And in the 1800s, ANY effort to take ANY LIMIT on 2A rights for ANYONE was viewed with repugnence by courts at all levels. My how times have changed!

 

[MikeSettles]

Most violent offenders can never earn my trust, but plenty of people have been incarcerated who have never threatened anyone physically.

I remember that little gal in Texas who murdered people with a pickaxe, and went through a change from the inside out that had nothing to do with prison's effects beyond making her realize that she was in need of a total change. Even the guards said she was a different person, and there were many tears shed over her execution. She on the other hand did not try to escape death, she knew she had earned it. That was a very very rare story though, but I would let her walk behind me with a gun, or a pickaxe.

To deny people their constitutional rights can be considered to be a secondary punishment, as can confiscation of assets, something to consider.

Question, is it possible that zealous law enforcement people bull their way into areas of denial of constitutional rights that the originators never foresaw? Is it possible that "Emergencies" like war are used at times to "temporarily" deny rights that have never been gained back? Unfair taxation is not so much a constitutional issue but it sure has been an area where authorities have laid waste to the people during war and never given the freedom from their temporary ways back.

I really like Ronald Reagan's statement, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". All laws made during wartime should face a vote within five years after hostilities are finished if they are not rescinded, IMHO. I really believe that the founding fathers thought the end of a prison term would be the end of punishment, but maybe I'm wrong.
In the end the rights of non offenders should outweigh the rights of those who have a criminally violent past, because violence is a personality trait that goes back to early childhood for most people, and it is therefor hard to break free from those early traits.

I think that anything passed into law during the heat of conflict should automatically be voided once "Victory is Declared", else the post-war vote would usually be to retain the power the government took for itself. As you said, they don't give up power easily once they've got it!

 

[Misterbill]

Sorry - wrote you a long diatribe and then lost it when Explorer went ppphhhhhtttt!

Suffice to say that in most jurisdictions, felons CAN have voting rights, etc. reinstated by petition after they have shown themselves to be no more threat to re-offend for some period. They may even have their right to firearms returned EXCEPT if they fall under Laughtenburg.

Consider that before the 1960s, rights were automatically reinstated after they served their time. And in the 1800s, ANY effort to take ANY LIMIT on 2A rights for ANYONE was viewed with repugnence by courts at all levels. My how times have changed!

ATF hasnt processed requests for relief in years.

 

[Misterbill]

Right, and I guess we should also get rid of the three strike laws then? After all, what is the point of permanently punishing someone who has already served their penance to society?

I guess you think that criminals can also be rehabilitated as well then?

Washington, Oregon and California (9th Court Circuit) has the most liberal justice system in the United States. Am I saying that adding more laws to the books is effective? No. Am I saying that a criminal cares how many laws he/she breaks when they make the conscience choice to victimize someone? No. But I AM glad that criminals have to use other means to buy firearms and I am glad that when they get caught with a firearm they go back to jail. Oh, and I am DOUBLE GLAD that they get to stay longer in prison if they use a weapon to commit said crime.

Oh, and I'm also glad that they can no longer register to vote.


What you fail to realize is that although he/she may have served their penance, has the victim seen justice? An individual who has been raped, or a mother than has their child lost through a heinous and senseless crime- have they actually seen justice? Can you honestly believe that a criminal has suddenly learned the error of their ways and should get everything restored? Sex offenders shouldn't have to register with their parole officers because they've "served their time"?

Give me a break!

If you're so dangerous you can't be trusted with a gun, why are we letting you back on the street?

And then of course there's the whole plethora of "felonies" with no victim at all. Bought a fish for your aquarium that wasn't on the approved list? Felon. Yes, this just makes me feel ever so much safer. Or, how about a DUI? In several states the penalty for first time DUI makes you a federally prohibited person forever. So we're all safer because someone who drove drunk once can't own a gun for self defense?

There's a reason we have a recidivism rate that's many times higher than most other countries. One of them is making people who've served every day of their sentence into permanent second-class citizens.

And with the ridiculously long list of "felonies" that injure no one and steal no money from anyone, trying to say all "felons" should be barred from owning a gun is just plain silly.

 

[Scott]

So, basically you are saying they can't ever be forgiven?

Would you trust a 2 time child molestor to watch your kids? Would you want a 2 time felon for armed robbery being your neighbor even though they both served their so called sentence?

I sure the **** would not. It's proven 8 out of 10 will reoffend and that is almost a given they will.

Your a trusting person where I am not and don't believe they should have guns and you can not keep them in jail for what people think they may do after their time has been served. We just have to wait until they do it again.

 

[MikeSettles]

Would you trust a 2 time child molestor to watch your kids? Would you want a 2 time felon for armed robbery being your neighbor even though they both served their so called sentence?

I sure the **** would not. It's proven 8 out of 10 will reoffend and that is almost a given they will.

Your a trusting person where I am not and don't believe they should have guns and you can not keep them in jail for what people think they may do after their time has been served. We just have to wait until they do it again.

Recognize the fact that if they want a gun, they will get a gun. Some will do it so that they can re-offend; others just so that they can defend themselves: As second-class citizens, they know that they are set up to be prey for the predators. "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!"
Besides, you are (as 1986 GCA does) lumping ALL "felons" together: See MisterBills' comment above.

 

[mjbskwim]

Yeah about that "treating them like second class citizens" BS

If you wouldn't have robbed the bank or whatever,that put you in prison,in the first place,we wouldn't be "treating you like a second class citizen" now would we?

You can go get your felony expunged.If you didn't do something real bad/violent,then you should be able to get it changed. So felons can own guns afterwards.

 

[JGRuby]

If you are a violent criminal - you do not deserve a second chance - better luck in your next life. What have they done but served a term behind bars that they did not want to in the first place, they have done nothing but detracted from society. They made the choice in the first place to break the law - they by due process have lost thier right. I do not believe in a life sentence I beleive in a death sentence. Multiple offenders should not have a three strike and your out clause - it should be three strikes and you are gone. A violent criminal should have no rights at all.
A society cannot survive with out laws and those laws must have teeth or there is no law, hence no society.
James

 

[JGRuby]

To me it sounds like the people that think felons should have guns are the felons themselves - to them I say too bad. Should not have screwed up in the first place.

James