Posted on 12/01/2011 7:03:19 AM PST by marktwain
I wouldn’t say that every mentally unstable individual should have a gun,
but everyone that cannot be trusted with the means to defend themselves shouldn’t be loose in our society.
In other words, if they can’t be trusted with a gun,
they can’t be trusted amongst those who can.
That is far lower than I would have expected, and it does not state how much of that percentage was gun crime vs. the usual posession of controlled substances, petty theft, public intoxication, failure to show for parole check-in appointments...
Perhaps the new gun crime stat is so low that the enemidia chooses not to report it?
Sounds like he need to get the ACLU to take his case pro-bono. They love druggies! (He doesn't have to tell them he's reformed.)
With all due respect, slight disagreement. Proper behavior gets him out on time; bad behavior adds time to sentence. Fair to all.
I'm going to look up that paragraph from Atlas Shrugged which states it that way!
That’s my point: for most practical purposes, they ARE restored by the simple fact he’s not physically incarcerated, and thus able to exercise those rights regardless of any paperwork formalities. The “free, but rights denied” notion is more a denial of reality: he’s out, so he can exercise RKBA - be it rock or Glock; any denial is just a matter of being caught transgressing the shapes of ink on paper, and that likely after the concern has become a tragic reality.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” -Atlas Shrugged
They should not be part of some blanket category called "felony" so some 19-year-old who steals a car ends up dealing with burdens at age 35 that no 19-year-old would even consider when committing to an action.
“Proper behavior gets him out on time; bad behavior adds time to sentence. Fair to all.”
Any behavior that would ‘add time’, should be severe enough to charge him with another ‘crime’ and he should be tried and sentenced just as before.
Calling the warden a ‘putz’ to his face is not a good enough reason to ‘add time’ to a sentence already predetermined by a Judge or Jury.
Committing another crime should be the only way.
Regarding that, since I see you are an attorney, can you tell me the name of some lawyer's publication that features articles about the courtroom exploits of local lawyers? I think it's a single publication, but one that has a different edition for each city.
I heard about it on the radio many years ago, before the internet. Supposedly it's a good way to find some of the best lawyers in your city. When you find yourself in need of an attorney, you're supposed to go to the library and read all the back issues. You're sure to find someone, or so said this lawyer I was listening to on the radio. It's supposed to be a good resource for people who are not in the profession and so do not know who the good lawyers are in their town.
I wrote down the name of the magazine but misplaced it long ago. (I never need a lawyer . . . knock on wood . . . but just in case, it'd be a nice thing to know once again.) Thanks!
Another thing is the ‘3 strikes rule’, of which I am only aware of in California and New York.
What makes those states feel they have the authority to add charges to someone’s crime because they are a ‘3 time loser’?
The interesting thing about New York is, you don’t even have to commit the crime that state.
If you are convicted in New York of 2 felonies, and are arrested, tried and convicted of another felony in another state, New York says they have the ‘right’ to charge you with a ‘3 strikes’ felony if you return to their state.
What they have done is essence is created a ‘crime against the state’ that should never exist.
Yes, thank you. Good idea. I did not mean to imply it was original to me. I think I first saw it reading Lysander Spooner, not Rand.
How stupid can some people be?
First, a felon is a felon because he broke the law.
Second, a felon will own a weapon or gun if he wants to regardless to the law.
Rule 1: Felons don’t obey laws......PERIOD!
Rule 2: People who think a law will stop a felon from owning a gun are stupid....PERIOD!
Pity for the felon is one of the symptoms of todays decline; the inability to exclude and sympathy for those that harm society i.e. felons. Firm Up!
Other than that, and certainly for all NON-VIOLENT felons, the answer is an unequivocal YES, but don't look to the spineless legislators (including Republi-tards) to vote to change the law any time soon.
Other than that, and certainly for all NON-VIOLENT felons, the answer is an unequivocal YES, but don't look to the spineless legislators (including Republi-tards) to vote to change the law any time soon.
I don’t have any problems with a convict getting his rights to keep and bear arms back. It shouldn’t be quick and it shouldn’t be easy, but it should be available. Say, 6 months to a year clean, and small stack of paperwork.
But if they are ever convicted of another felony (esp. a violent one, or one involving weapons) they should lose it permanently.
The policy that should be applied is: if he’s too dangerous to have a gun, then why is he loose on the street?
+1
depends on the state. in Kalifornia, it's for 'overcrowding' due to having to house all the illegals. here in MN, it's due to everyone gets probation or a slap on the wrist.
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.