From: Bill Graham on

"Bill W D" <billwd971610(a)apopularisp.net> wrote in message
news:vkj4u59omc607061p4uhfob2ropb4sp9q5(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 22:01:57 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>That might work in Florida, or Virginia. In California the convicted
>>felon cannot have access to a firearm.
>
> Sure they can, and do.
>
> OH, you mean if they are going to obey all your laws, even when you're not
> around?
>
> Well that's quite different, isn't it.
>
> I don't know of too many leopards that change their spots. People that
> don't obey one law will and can just as easily not obey another. Some
> people are born free thinkers and will never obey another. Nobody is ever
> above them. And rightly so.
>
> The amount of faith that you people put into your
> written-on-paper-opinions
> (laws) is amazing, just so you can sleep better at night.
>
> Pull another child's security-blanket over your own eyes.
>
As a minor criminal said once, "Better the man catch you with it, than the
boy catch you without it." I have carried a concealed weapon illegally for
most of my adult life. I even took it to Europe with me, and carried it all
over there. I carried it all over Canada and Mexico, too. I found a hiding
place for it on my motorcycle that would have only been found by
disassembling the engine breathing system to get at it. It was the last
thing I put into my luggage when I left, and the first thing I took out of
it when I arrived. It is one of the few laws that I broke regularly and
fully believed I had the right....No....the obligation to break. And the
breaking of this law has given me the confidence to go anywhere I damn well
pleased, at any time I pleased. I would do it again in a heartbeat.
Frequently that's all it took....Just the smile of confidence on my face
when I walked through the lion's den was enough to deter anyone from messing
with me. The laws against carrying concealed weapons are easily the most
stupid, useless, and senseless liberal laws there are. These laws alone
would turn anyone with any sense at all into a conservative....:^)

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050522015797157-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-05 21:43:14 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:VdCdnVER5Ks0dHzWnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:KP2dnX6auNel9XzWnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4be14ba7$1$7706$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:846dndujn9PbRn3WnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4bdffec6$1$27720$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons
>>>>>>>> should be allowed to participate in it. <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what State are felons not permitted to marry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>> I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
>>>>>> available to all non felons......
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
>>>>> rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly
>>>>> some
>>>>> under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?
>>>>
>>>> In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.
>>>
>>> Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
>>> rights they don't have.
>>
>> G. Gordon Liddy had an interesting comment on this. He said that being a
>> convicted felon (after Watergate) he couldn't own a gun, "but my wife
>> owns a
>> gun -- and she keeps it on my side of the bed."
>
> That might work in Florida, or Virginia. In California the convicted felon
> cannot have access to a firearm.
> ...but I don't think Liddy, or Mrs. Liddy visit California packing.

How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?

Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted felon. Then
none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks there could own a gun
either? . . . I suppose if they have one of those silly laws about all
firearms being kept in a locked safe that might take care of it, but then
again it might not. Logically the key to the gun safe would have to be
locked up too, and then the key to THAT locked up, and so on ad infinitum.
"Jane, wake up! There are men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's the key
to the key to the key to the . . . "


From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050605073729560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-06 01:04:16 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>

[ . . . ]
>
> BTW, I see you responded to the P&S troll.

I did that too, inadvertently. I usually catch the Troll of a Thousand Names
within his first few words and read no further, but once in a great while he
does manage to slip through.


From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:in64u5tiqur9h2uv1u9i6ghhva04get663(a)4ax.com...


>>>
>>> I don't buy that, and I'm a liberal on social issues. The two
>>> criminals should be treated equally. The reason they committed a
>>> criminal act of this type is not relevant to them becoming a convicted
>>> felon. It may be relevant to the sentence, but not the conviction and
>>> resulting status of a convicted felon.
>>>
>>
>>I agree. I don't think I said the circumstances I outlined should be
>>considered on the question of whether a crime was comitted. But,
>>circumstances certainly should be relevant in the determination of whether
>>certain rights should be restored, which was the context of my comment.
>
> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
> felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
> another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon should
> or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.

If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why should they
not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.

>
> Most states are having trouble with the current budget in providing
> court personnel. There's no room in the budget to hire people to
> evaluate convicted felons about whether or not they get the vote,
> right to sit on a jury, or ability to run for public office.
>
I don't see budget as an excuse.

I think we are at the point of agreeing to disagree.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050519454833169-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-05 18:17:58 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010050518113982327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-05 17:59:48 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2010050517464843042-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In 20 States, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
>>>>> Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
>>>>> Mexico, N. Carolina, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, Texas, Washington, West
>>>>> Virginia, and Wisconsin, convicted felons are denied voting rights
>>>>> only while serving their sentence and parole. Once completed their
>>>>> voting rights are automatically returned by the state, without
>>>>> petition.
>>>>> Delaware extends the loss of voting right another 5 years after
>>>>> completion of sentence & parole.
>>>>
>>>> Add New York to the above list.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maine & Vermont allow convicted felons to vote. In those two states
>>>>> disenfranchisement has to be a specific part of the sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the remaining 27 states, loss of voting rights is permanent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I can speak to the situation in California. Here upon completion
>>>>> of parole there are several different petition routes to restoration
>>>>> of voting rights; a petition to the governor for recognition as a
>>>>> rehabilitated felon and restoration of rights, or a petition for a
>>>>> Gubernatorial pardon and expungement of the conviction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also in California, convicted felons cannot possess, or have access to
>>>>> firearms or ammunition even after completion of parole. Property
>>>>> rights remain intact.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't there a petition route for restoration of certain rights in the
>>>> other States, too?
>>>
>>> That I do not know. I am only familiar with the Californian situation.
>>>
>>> I know there have been challenges with felons who have moved from a
>>> state permanently denying voting rights to felons to one restoring those
>>> rights. California to Washington for example. There as far as I
>>> understand things the loss of Federal voting rights extend to the new
>>> state, until restored by the convicting state.
>>> So a background check in Washington, or NY for that matter on a felon
>>> convicted in California, would show that conviction and subsequent loss
>>> of voting rights, and restrictions regarding possession of firearms.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was asking seriously. I don't know the answer either.
>
> BTW. With regard to Federal felonies, Federal Law does not have a
> provision for expungement. Those convicted in a Federal Court may receive
> a Presidential Pardon, which does not expunge the conviction, but grants
> relief from civil "disabilities" that stem from the conviction.
>
> So that makes things tough for restoration petitioners convicted of
> Federal felonies in some states. I understand there is pending legislation
> to change some of this. A Charlie Rangel sponsored Bill H.R.623 & H.R 1529
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Act >
>


Spot on

--
Peter