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 into 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!

From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 16:25:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
wrote:

>
>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:hruv1g$brq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:grmdne439N7Lb3_WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> I must be missing something here. What on earth is the evil and unlawful
>>> thing about a firearm being colored bright green or bright orange?
>>> (Bright pink would be OK, I suppose?)
>>
>> Toy guns are marked with orange and green plastic, such as a thick orange
>> band around the end of the barrel, so police know the gun is a toy and not
>> to mistakenly fire on someone who is holding a toy. If real weapons were
>> colored like that, the police would then think a real weapon is a toy.
>
>Ah! Now that reminds me of something:
>
>Several years ago a little girl, I think about seven or eight, was expelled
>or suspended for bringing a water pistol to school. I believe this was in
>Chicago but am not sure. There was a video clip of the miscreant on TV, and
>I remember her, near tears, saying "It was just a squirt gun," in obvious
>puzzlement as to why she was being punished in this way.
>
>The principal or some other school official was interviewed about it, and
>explained that the punishment was called for because the other children
>might have mistaken it for a real gun and become traumatized, and the school
>had to act to prevent blah blah blah blah.
>
>Then they showed a shot of the offending weapon. It was a little water
>pistol made of orange TRANSLUCENT plastic with some green plastic parts. No
>one but a monumentally stupid, officious pecksniff of a bureaucrat could
>possibly have imagined it something that could have been "mistaken for a
>real gun."
>
>But yes, I guess that actually is the explanation for the orange and green
>business.
>

You really can be an idiot at times. Do a Google search for "colored
guns". Real guns that look like toy water pistols are for sale.
Would you know these were real?

http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/03/23/the-bloomberg-collection-real-guns-painted-to-look-like-toys/


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nm5k on
On May 6, 3:38 pm, "Neil Harrington" <ne...(a)home.com> wrote:
> n...(a)wt.net wrote:
> > On May 5, 7:46 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> >> Also in California, convicted felons cannot possess, or have access
> >> to firearms or ammunition even after completion of parole.
>
> > Far as I know, that applies to all 50 states. It's a federal thang..
>
> Yep. Every time I bought a handgun at a dealer's, one of the forms I had to
> fill out was a federal one asking among several other things if I'd ever
> been convicted of a felony. All the questions on that form had to be
> answered "No" or the dealer couldn't make the sale.
>

Now they usually do the deal on the phone. That's what they
did the last time I bought a new pistol, which was in 2007 or so..
You fill out the form, and then they call it in over the phone.
It depends how busy they are, but sometimes they can get the
"proceed" in one shot on the phone. But they can also need
more time and put a "hold" on it, and you have to wait.
In my case, they put me on a "hold", and I had to go home
and wait. But they called me back first thing the next morning
and said it was cleared, and I could come get it. It was kind
of late in the evening when I bought it...
I hear a lot of people get temporary holds for any number
of reasons. They can be busy, or you might have something
on your record that makes them want to do a double check.







From: Bill Graham 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:
>
>>
>> "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...
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>>
>> Proving you have access can be rather difficult.....Just because your
>> wife owns a gun doesn't mean you have access to it. Have you ever tried
>> to find something your wife has stashed in her dresser drawers somewhere?
>> It is far easier to wait until she comes home and ask her to get it for
>> you....:^)
>
> Well, Neil writes that Liddy's remark was, "...but my wife owns a gun --
> and she keeps it on my side of the bed."
>
> I don't think there is any doubt that his access to Mrs. Liddy's weapon
> had been arranged.
>
> In California the most common occurrence of violations of Cal Penal Code
> 12021, are when an officer, or parole officer responds to the subject's
> home, for whatever reason, discovers the weapon.
>
> Unless his wife has that weapon secured in a gun safe to which the subject
> does not have access (simple to say, not easy to prove) she is subject to
> a violation of PC 12021(g) facilitating access to a weapon, a misdemeanor.
>
> PC 12021(c)(3) allows for any person subject to the prohibition for a
> conviction prior to January 1, 1991 to petition the Court *once* fro
> relief from the prohibition.
>
> Now PC 12021.1 gets a little more specific when it comes to possession of
> concealable weapons. Conviction of one of the listed violent felonies
> results in application of this section. This does not mean the subject has
> been caught carrying a concealed weapon. It states; "...any person who has
> been previously convicted of any of the offenses listed in subdivision (b)
> and who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her control
> any firearm is guilty of a felony."
>
> It can get complicated.
>
> BTW, I see you responded to the P&S troll.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>

Point taken....What do you think of Arizona's new Governor declaring that
the second amendment gives all citizens in good standing the right to carry
a concealed weapon without any licensing whatsoever? She has recently signed
such a bill into Arizona law. She is a governor after my own
heart........:^)

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050605111770933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-06 00:58:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>
>>>
>> Having been through the pot-smoking 60's, I know several convicted felons
>> who can't own guns.....And most of them have wives who do own them, and
>> keep them on their husband's side of the bed.
>
> ...and in California, at least, they have put their wives in jeopardy of a
> misdemeanor conviction.
> Cal. PC 12021(g)
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
That's certainly true, but it is also true that you are a lot better off
with a dead intruder on your bedroom floor and facing a misdemeanor
conviction, than you are with your dead husband on the floor, and facing a
funeral........I don't make the laws, but I sure as hell have to live with
them.