Posted on 11/14/2011 4:47:25 AM PST by DJ Taylor
In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr. Zettergren’s girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr. Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.
Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave. After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson’s hysterical fiancée, at gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.
It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a judge’s ruling two months before, it would probably never have happened.
For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous. Yet Mr. Zettergren’s gun rights were restored without even a hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application as long as certain basic requirements had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for safekeeping.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The problem with judges is its too hard to fire them. Here in Florida we vote for our judges. However there’s essentially no information available on which to base your vote. Information on the judges is hard to come by.
I’m not sure that this story helps your anti-judge agenda:
“under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application”
Apparently, you only read the first page of the article before you responded.
Please note that the NYT did not cite any statistic about what percent of former felons who get their gun rights restored go on to commit a subsequent gun crime. Instead they rely on a few anecdotes.
The truth is that an ex-con has to show a lot of initiative and effort to get their gun rights restored. A very large number of ex-cons do not have such initiative, nor are they willing to expend the effort. Nor pay a lawyer to represent their case before a judge.
Then add to that the conundrum: If a criminal is going to commit a crime with a gun, why should he go out of his way to get (what amounts to, these days), a legal, registered gun, when he could with less effort get an illegal gun?
If you ask an ex-con why they want their gun rights restored, the typical answer is usually an easy one. Prisons are filled with competing and violent gangs. And many of these gangs do not want to let go of their associations and enmities, even after former members or enemies, or neutrals, are released from prison.
Ex-cons are intensely aware of the advantage a gun can provide for their own self-defense against criminals. They are often relegated to poorer, high crime areas as well. And not being able to make more than a marginal living means that they are pretty well stuck there.
I have some friends (including vets) who have been convicted of (non-violent) white collar crimes, yet they too are prohibited from ever being able to own/possess a weapon.
It is high time this law was re-examined and some common sense applied: If EVERY ONE of a person's "Rights" are re-instated after they have paid their debt to society (including in most areas the right to vote) why is this the only one (and guaranteed under the Constitution) being denied?
The question is, if a persons history shows he is so dangerous he should never be allowed to have the means of self-defense, why is he not still locked up? It’s not like a career criminal or homicidal maniac has no other way to harm people than a legally owned gun.
Ping.
If it was one time and non-violent offense and the person has behaved since after a few years, having weapons rights restored on a case by case basis should be acceptable.
If He didn’t have a gun he would have gone to the kitchen , got a knife and stabbed the man to death.
People were dying for screwing other people’s wives and girlfriends long before guns were invented.
This is just more anti-gun BS.
Anyone can buy a weapon privately anyway. You don’t have to go to the gun shop and submit to a background check.
Unfortunately, it is hard to tell what a person’s future behavior will be, unless they are either clinically criminal, or have committed so many repeat offenses that they can be called a career criminal. Which is why many states have “three strikes” laws.
A good illustration of this is found in homicide. The police have long known that homicide can be subdivided between “one shot” domestic disputes, and more typical crime. The one shot murderers almost never re-offend, so after they have completed their sentence they are low risk.
I have a friend with a drug-possession conviction from over 10 years ago who has to live with a “convicted felon” label, and who would be extremely trustworthy if allowed his gun rights to be restored. The NY Times probably worked hard to find their particular example.
You might advise him to do two things, depending on the state, in addition to having his gun rights restored, he can also have his voting rights restored, and most importantly, many states now permit criminal records to be expunged. That is, as far as the state is concerned, they never committed a crime. (Their criminal record, however, will remain with the FBI, and can only be expunged by presidential pardon.)
Having one’s record expunged can be a breath of fresh air, as this means they no longer have any internal US travel restrictions, and unless they are seeking a passport or employment with the federal government, they no longer have to put on the application that they are an ex-con.
All you need to do is watch Shakespeare's "Othello," which is all about this.
He was convicted and served time for manslaughter because of that second shot.
He has been trying for 15 years to get his rights restored, with little sympathy from the judicial system.
He is a skilled electrician and runs a successful and respected business.
There is no reason he cannot be trusted, but he cannot get his rights restored.
So the moral of the story is not to expect one shot to do the job; empty the magazine before the burglar hits the floor.
That depends on the state. Here in CA it’s all transfers of firearms must go through a licensed dealer including a backgraund check and fees (about $35 per gun last time I checked). That even includes laeaving them to your kids when you die.
In GA unless you buy from a dealer there is no paperwork whatsoever.
roger that ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.