From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050619120723810-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-06 18:38:50 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:s9KdnQuYjIlDtX7WnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> nm5k(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.
>>>
>>> I haven't bought a gun for years now and don't know if that's still the
>>> case, but it was for many, many years.
>>>
>>>> Some have been able to get gun rights restored, but it's an
>>>> ordeal.
>>>
>>> So I understand. I've read that even when rights are restored by
>>> whatever government authority does that, the BATF may not allow a gun
>>> purchase and that's that (unless you're a friend of a powerful
>>> politician, probably).
>>>
>> Yes.....And the 64 dollar question is: If you were buying the gun to rob
>> a bank, would you hesitate for one second to lie when you filled out the
>> form? How many bank robbers (or murderers)do you know that are too honest
>> to tell a lie?
>
> If I were buying a gun to rob a bank, and I had a criminal record
> including felonies, I would find a source other than a registered gun
> dealer for my gun. The great majority of guns used in crimes are stolen.
> Mostly, I guess from those felons keeping their wife's gun on their side
> of the be, instead of secured in a gun safe.
>
> In California the DROS form requires a thumbprint, along with a State ID,
> either DL or Cal ID. That thumbprint and ID will auto-snitch the felon,
> and the CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) or
> good old "rapsheet" will spit out all the information that is needed.
> Now our felon would be flagged and he faces a few new legal problems, the
> least of which might be parole violation. He could also be facing an
> attempted violation of PC 12021, and depending on his priors, he could be
> facing a new felony.
>
> So if he wants a gun it will in all likelihood be stolen.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
Yes. Here in Oregon, you can buy them from individuals at flea markets
and/or garage sales. Up until a few years ago, you could buy them at gun
shows, but they stopped that a few years ago so now you still have to pass
the (phone in your name) test.

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050619132477633-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-06 18:57:08 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010050615491599097-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-06 12:26:34 -0700, nm5k(a)wt.net said:
>>>
>>>> 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..
>>>> Some have been able to get gun rights restored, but it's an
>>>> ordeal.
>>>
>>> California has a petition route Cal. PC 12021(c)(2) for peace officers
>>> to gain relief from the prohibition, but in my experience it is never
>>> granted since felony conviction (in California, and I am sure the other
>>> 49 states) usually results in disqualification to hold peace officer
>>> status.
>>>
>>> I personally know of one peace officer who was convicted of felony
>>> spousal battery, and received a suspended sentence. He lost his job
>>> because he could not legally have control of a fire arm. He had a desk
>>> job for about 8 months, and after an IA investigation and hearing, he
>>> lost his badge, and all that went with it. He has never been able to get
>>> the prohibition lifted.
>>>
>>> Also California has a provision in Cal. PC 12021(c)(3), allowing a one
>>> time petition for lifting the firearm prohibition, for those convicted
>>> of some felonies prior to January 1, 1991.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>>
>> Yes.....Isn't it wonderful how our government spins it's wheels over
>> nothing, while any maniac who really wants to commit a capital crime can
>> get all the guns (or anything else) he needs to do so? Why aren't these
>> idiots working in the Cadillac factory so I can be driving one of those
>> instead of the Japanese wonder I am driving? - Sorry.....Just another
>> thing that keeps me awake nights.......
>
> There is medication which might help you sleep.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
The only medication I would take for this kind of insomnia is living in a
libertarian society.....And that's not likely to happen very soon......It
looks like it is going to have to take another revolutionary war........

From: Frank ess on


Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-05-06 17:23:56 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
>
> However if the spouse is trained and drilled in accessing and the
> effective use of that defensive firearm, the legal problem for the
> spouse goes away. (for home defense, the sound of a shell being
> racked into a 12 gauge pump, such as a Remington 870, can get an
> intruder's attention, and out of the house very quickly, with no
> shot fired!)
> Also, when was the last time you discovered an intruder in your
> home?

My mother kept a sponge mop with a mechanical squeeze arrangement that
perfectly emulated the 12-gauge pump-sound. She never found an
intruder in her home, although she racked her mop at some strange
noises from time to time.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4be308a5$0$27760$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "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.

I agree. For example, some felons have committed violent crimes and it is
reasonable to restrict them permanently from gun ownership when they're
released from prison. Other felons have committed only non-violent crimes
and may never have threatened anyone with violence in their lives, and there
doesn't seem to be any good reason to use the same restriction against them.

>
>>
>> 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.

Quite right, budget should not be an excuse. But I do think the right to
vote or sit on a jury should not be given back too easily. As for public
office, I suppose we already have so many crooks in office I'm not sure how
much difference it would make, and I assume that varies by state anyway,
doesn't it? I believe some felons have run for office after getting out of
prison, maybe even while still in prison.


From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:npd6u55qd9evqup3mdk0v3vdunr1g8tc6s(a)4ax.com...
> 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.

I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part of the
parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should have some
bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.

>
>>>
>>> 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.

Unless your state is very unusual, I'll bet there's still an awful lot of
waste after all the cutbacks.

>
> 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 agree with that, but if the felon initiates the process the government
still has to "handle it," doesn't it?