From: J. Clarke on
On 5/6/2010 3:34 PM, nm5k(a)wt.net wrote:
> On May 5, 5:29 pm, Jeff Jones<jj197109...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
>>> rights they don't have.
>>
>> Not true. You can still hunt with and own firearms. I spent a season
>> camping at a hunter's-camp one time that was owned by felons. We had an
>> interesting discussion on what kinds of firearms they are allowed. They
>> sold all sorts of fun "toys" in their tourist shop. There are only certain
>> types of firearms not allowed. The Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE. I
>> bet a black-powder burn will hurt just as bad if not more as you are dying.
>
>
> I don't think that is right, and I know that there are no distinctions
> made between different types of firearms. If you are a felon, and
> have not had the rights restored, you can't own ANY firearms.
> Period. I think anyone that is telling you otherwise is mistaken.
> Not I that I totally agree with it, but that's where it is..
> Myself, I think only violent felony offenders should lose their
> rights. I don't think it should apply to non violent felons.
> But at this time, it does.. :(
> I think they should bar violent offenders, but I think non violent
> felons should be able to have their rights restored after a
> period of time.. Say 5 years good behavior, or whatever.
> But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
> And besides, being as I'm not a felon, I can own all the guns
> I want, and I do own a few. :)

The specific wording is (cut and pasted from the US Code):

"(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 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."

As to what is, within the intent of the law, a "firearm", again cut and
pasted from the US Code:

"(3) The term �firearm� means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or
may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."
So basically if you've committed a crime that has a penalty of a year or
more in jail then you can't own or possess a "firearm"."

If these particular felons were in fact openly carrying, using, and
selling firearms without obtaining the necessary clearances from the
Secretary of the Treasury, they are likely to find themselves Randy
Weavered one day.

From: Gill Collins on
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:31:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>
wrote:

>Such term does not include an antique firearm."

If only you could learn how to comprehend what you read.

A dueling pistol or black-powder shotgun will kill you just as dead as any
other firearm.

Idiot.



From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:57:29 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"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.

1. Who is going to decide?

2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation. This
means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
presently exist.

>>
>> 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.

Of course it is. I don't know about your state, but my state is
cutting back vital services because of budget problems. Everything
from schools to the court system to emergency services is being cut
back because of budget problem.

The last thing we want to do is add a government department to review
the voting rights status of ex-felons. There is a system already in
place whereby the convicted felon can apply for reinstatement. Let
the felon initiate the process instead of making the government handle
it.

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

I think you need to think out what would be involved and relate it to
the resources and economic conditions of your own state.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 14:19:02 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"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

Yeah, right. Rangel was close to being a convicted felon himself.
He's still under investigation by the House Ethics Panel and by the
IRS. He had to give up his committee chairmanship.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: scott nalter on
On Thu, 06 May 2010 17:51:19 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:57:29 -0400, "Peter"
><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"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.
>
>1. Who is going to decide?
>
>2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
>person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation. This
>means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
>presently exist.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Of course it is. I don't know about your state, but my state is
>cutting back vital services because of budget problems. Everything
>from schools to the court system to emergency services is being cut
>back because of budget problem.
>
>The last thing we want to do is add a government department to review
>the voting rights status of ex-felons. There is a system already in
>place whereby the convicted felon can apply for reinstatement. Let
>the felon initiate the process instead of making the government handle
>it.
>
>>I think we are at the point of agreeing to disagree.
>
>I think you need to think out what would be involved and relate it to
>the resources and economic conditions of your own state.

All thanks to the greedy capitalist republicans that have undermined the
stability of the world's economy. Each and every one of them should be
tried and convicted for treason and hung by the neck until dead. You'll
have nobody but them to blame for turning the whole world an anarchistic
state.

Which is a good thing. For the first time in everyone's lives they'll
finally learn the valuable lesson that you have only yourself to depend on
to save your own sorry excuse of a life.

I can't wait!