From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ege6u51765i4lhmq93v333kstmm9qf0e9a(a)4ax.com...
> 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.

Yes indeed, Rangel probably should be in prison himself -- maybe would be if
he weren't a powerful congresscritter.

Still, the bill seems reasonable enough provided its requirements are
strictly enforced -- which is a question.


From: Peter 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.
>
>>>
>>> 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.

In NY if you've been a good boy, granting a Certificate of Relief is almost
automatic.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ege6u51765i4lhmq93v333kstmm9qf0e9a(a)4ax.com...
> 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..


Rangel's issues are not on point here. The point under discussion is that
relief from civil disabilities varies from State to State and the relief
granted to a federally convicted felon can be spotty in result, especially
if the felon moves from one state to another

--
Peter

From: Neil Harrington on
tony cooper wrote:
> 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/

I love it. Bloomberg is a jerk and so are you.

During a citizens' course at the local police department they showed a water
pistol (actually a faithful plastic copy of the Beretta Model 86) that had
been spray painted matte black, the apparent reason being to make it
suitable for use in a hold-up. Now that makes sense, a pretend-real gun.

I can't see much real point to doing the reverse, making a real gun into a
pretend-toy gun, but that evidently was not Lauer's reason for the paint
jobs anyway.

Anything that annoys Bloomberg is fine with me, whatever the motivation.


From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:YZqdnVU2Fs6DEX7WnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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.
>
>
I have an idea....Why don't we take all the cops who are presently engaged
in busting prostitutes and pot smokers and reassign them to deciding which
felons should have the right to vote and own weapons? IOW, why don't we stop
doing stupid things with our tax dollars and try doing something that smacks
of common sense for a change?