From: Neil Harrington on
Bill Graham wrote:
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> news:ALWdnWPXY8-yXH_WnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>> news:2010050522015797157-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-05 21:43:14 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>>> said:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:VdCdnVER5Ks0dHzWnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KP2dnX6auNel9XzWnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d(a)
>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4be14ba7$1$7706$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:846dndujn9PbRn3WnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4bdffec6$1$27720$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>>> 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 . . . "
> Yes.....the California law is 1. Stupid. and 2. Grossly
> unconstitutional, for a variety of reasons. The founding fathers knew

It's stupid enough; I don't know that it's unconstitutional.

> and understood that everyone has the right to protect themselves. It
> had to take a California liberal to trash that.
> I love the new governor of Arizona....She just signed a bill into law

I love her too. Wish we had more governors like her, not to mention

> that gives all citizens the right to carry weapons concealed without
> any licensing whatsoever.....It would seem that she can read and
> interpret the very plain and easy to understand English of the second
> amendment. I wonder why both she and my fifth grade teacher (Mrs.
> Hughes) can understand simple English, but the US Supreme court
> judges can't seem to be able to do it?

Easy now. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't made any all-encompassing rulings on
the Second Amendment, but what they've done in recent years has been pretty
good. They threw out the Washington D.C. handgun ban, don't forget. If we
got more justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas we'd be in good
shape. Obviously we're not going to get any more decent justices while The
Anointed One is in the White House, but the current and soon-to-be Senate
may be able to prevent any more Sotomayors.

> Neither can the leaders of the
> great state of California....:^)

The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We probably should
give California back to Mexico, which it seems to have effectively become
part of anyway. Among other benefits giving it back would much improve the
electoral college.

From: Neil Harrington on
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-05-06 17:23:56 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>> news:2010050605111770933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-06 00:58:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> 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!)

That particular and unmistakable sound has been called the North Dakota
Burglar Alarm. (By which I suppose is meant it alarms the burglar.)

> Also, when was the last time you discovered an intruder in your home?

No one disputes the usefulness of fire insurance by asking, When was the
last time your house burned down? Do they?

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 16:25:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>> wrote:
>>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:hruv1g$brq$1(a)
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:grmdne439N7Lb3_WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> 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?
> 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.
Of course, you know the real reason for this toy gun business, don't you? In
1933 John Dillinger escaped from prison by using a toy gun, or one that he
made himself by carving it out of a bar of soap or some such thing, and they
are still so mad about that that they will make toy guns illegal for the
rest of time....:^)

From: LOL! on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 21:33:06 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:

> or any instrument or device which a
>reasonable person would believe to be capable of being used as a weapon

Too funny. So this includes pens, pencils, scissors, rocks, books,
clipboards, tweezers, lighters, a sock with a battery in it, an automobile,
bottles of liquid more than 1 oz., nail-files, carton openers, camera
tripods, .... and pretty much anything not allowed on planes today.


The supreme idiocy of Californians never ceases to entertain.

You've moved to the right place Chief Wiggum, living among your own kind!


From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>

>>>> 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.

You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.
>>>> 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.

True, but any state that frees up budget by eliminating waste has
other areas that are more deserving of budget increases.

>> 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?

They only have to handle the submissions made. If he felon doesn't
submit an application, nothing has to be done. An automatic review
would require that all released felons would have to be reviewed.

Most felons don't seem to be interested in regaining their voting
rights. Less than half of the people in any state vote anyway.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida