From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050621330636579-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-06 20:50:11 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>>
>> "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?
>
> BTW. The standard California conditions of parole with regard to weapons
> are:
>
> "5. WEAPONS: You shall not own, use, have access to, or have under your
> control:
> (a) any type of firearm or instrument or device which a reasonable person
> would believe to be capable of being used as a firearm or any ammunition
> which could be used in a firearm:
> (b) any weapon as defined in state or federal statutes or listed in
> California Penal Code Section 12020 or any instrument or device which a
> reasonable person would believe to be capable of being used as a weapon as
> defined in Penal Code Section 12020;
> (c) any knife with a blade longer than two inches, except kitchen knives
> which must be kept in your residence and knives related to your employment
> which may be used and carried only in connection with your employment;
> or (d) a crossbow of any kind."

Great, that will sure put a stop to all these crossbow murders.

Actually, we did have one right here in my small city (which has very, very
few murders of any kind) several years ago. A woman put a bolt into her
husband's head while he was sleeping. I assume the crossbow she used was
his, since I don't think most women have much interest in that type of
weapon.


From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>
> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>
>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee do you
>> object to?
>
> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in favor of
> discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was of course
> overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of that court, which
> is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>
> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her own. She
> has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own political
> agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it stands. She made a
> joke of it on at least one occasion.


That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision, which
was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that existed at the
time of her decision. That decision doesn't make her a racist. We will have
to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision that ,
race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having said that, my
comment only applies if the hiring tests are not skewed. e.g. if an
"intelligence" test included a ;question on the meaning of "pants on the
ground" it would be skewed.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:t_qdnWhr5LiusXnWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010050621330636579-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-05-06 20:50:11 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "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?
>>
>> BTW. The standard California conditions of parole with regard to weapons
>> are:
>>
>> "5. WEAPONS: You shall not own, use, have access to, or have under your
>> control:
>> (a) any type of firearm or instrument or device which a reasonable person
>> would believe to be capable of being used as a firearm or any ammunition
>> which could be used in a firearm:
>> (b) any weapon as defined in state or federal statutes or listed in
>> California Penal Code Section 12020 or any instrument or device which a
>> reasonable person would believe to be capable of being used as a weapon
>> as defined in Penal Code Section 12020;
>> (c) any knife with a blade longer than two inches, except kitchen knives
>> which must be kept in your residence and knives related to your
>> employment which may be used and carried only in connection with your
>> employment;
>> or (d) a crossbow of any kind."
>
> Great, that will sure put a stop to all these crossbow murders.
>
> Actually, we did have one right here in my small city (which has very,
> very few murders of any kind) several years ago. A woman put a bolt into
> her husband's head while he was sleeping. I assume the crossbow she used
> was his, since I don't think most women have much interest in that type of
> weapon.


A power hammer would have the same effect. Indeed, something similar is used
in slaughter houses.

--
Peter

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VcudneKJ7fsjOH7WnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:8dqdna1Y_8XUB37WnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

>>
>> In New England gun laws vary a lot from one little state to the next.
>> Massachusetts and Rhode Island are very tough about guns, Connecticut has
>> been getting tough, the other three states are generally pretty relaxed.
>>
> IIRC, in New York City, you couldn't even own a gun in your own home
> during the years I lived there....(from 1935 to 1952) Judging from how
> liberal they are there, I doubt if the law has changed at all......Bernie
> Goetz doesn't even live there anymore.....

When I was a kid on Long Island (1930 to 1945) most of the kids I knew had
guns in their homes, sometimes many guns. Whether they were legal or not I
don't know, but if not it didn't matter much as there was none of the
anti-gun hysteria we've had since the '60s.

In those days there was still the big Bannerman's store in NYC. Are you
familiar with Bannerman's? They sold all sorts of arms, armor, ammunition,
uniforms, etc., picked up from the battlefields of the world or bought cheap
from governments that were upgrading their equipment and selling off their
old stuff. Bannerman's had a huge catalog and all sorts of stuff in the
store, and a lot more on Bannerman's private island in the Hudson. They had
everything from suits of armor and lances to sabers, cannon and Gatling
guns. And a great deal of Civil War equipment.

A friend of mine (about 15 at the time) went in to the city and at
Bannerman's bought a Joslyn single-shot carbine, a Civil War weapon that
took the same .56 rimfire cartridges as the Spencer repeating carbine of the
period. He also bought an original pack of seven cartridges (that was the
magazine capacity of the Spencer). We took the Joslyn out to a nearby
meadows to try it out. The 80-year-old cartridges still went off with a
satisfying boom and cloud of black-powder smoke, and hit the old sign he'd
picked as a target about 100 yards away. Gun and cartridges had only cost
him a few dollars. Of course he had to carry them home via subway and then
the L.I.R.R. -- nobody cared about such things in those days; high school
and college students on rifle teams in the city used to carry their target
rifles on the subway.

Alas, I guess we will never see such days again. It was a much better and
more innocent time.


From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050708481825228-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 08:18:58 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:

>> A power hammer would have the same effect. Indeed, something similar is
>> used in slaughter houses.
>
> Aah! The "No Country for Old Men" system.
>
> Anyway the "...or any instrument which a reasonable person would believe
> to be capable of being used as a weapon as defined in Penal Code 12020;"
> should cover any hammer, baseball bat, golf club, hockey stick, ski pole,
> etc. Given what an inmate learns with regard to fabricating weapons while
> in prison, a pencil could fall into that category.


Wonder if a statute written so broadly is really enforceable. It seems to me
that your ordinance would prohibit parolees from working in the construction
industry. In NYC enacted an ordinance that as so broadly written the women
in Central Park would have been prohibited from knitting. The ordinance was
quickly determined to be Unconstitutional.
My Leatherman has a blade longer than 2".

--
Peter