Posted on 02/14/2014 5:58:01 AM PST by marktwain
WICHITA, Kan. -- The man who police say shot and killed a home intruder early Monday morning has been arrested.
Officers were called to the 2300 block of North Poplar shortly before 4 a.m. Monday. Officers say a 35-year-old woke up to a noise, then opened his bedroom door and saw a man inside his home. The men began fighting and shots were fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at kake.com ...
I’ve said the same thing here in Alberta. They’re not allowed to have firearms and I ask why not? I said the same logic you did there and people here think I’m nuts.
In that case, the law is an ass ...
Absolutely agreed, JRF. Mr. K, the felon PAID HIS DUES when he served his sentence. To keep punishing him after he served the punishment is BULLSH*T.
I’m going to repeat Johnny here, and say that if he was allowed to be out of prison, he should be able to own a firearm.
He’s either free or not, and if he’s free, should have the same rights as others. If he can’t be trusted, he should be locked up or shot.
The two issues are separate.
/johnny
It is LUDICROUS that this guy is still being punished for that crime by being deprived of his right to have modern firearms.
Laws such as these are tyrannical and morally wrong. Once the felon pays his debt to society, whether it's jail time or a fine or whatever, the CHRISTIAN thing to do is to restore his rights and wish him well.
Second that, especially considering some of the animals that DO get released back among us.
Just curious. Should the guy who has PAID HIS DUES also have his vote restored?
On the same principle, YES. Absolutely. I may not like it, the guy may not vote the way I would, but that's beside the point. Once a convicted criminal has paid his debt to society in jail or with fines, his rights should be restored. It is the only MORAL way to handle it.
EQUALLY moral would be to RESCIND the right to vote from able-bodied Americans who depend on taxpayer-funded government charity such as EBT cards and welfare to support themselves. When they become self-sufficient and go off the government dole, they get their vote restored.
In principle, once the debt is payed, full citizenship is restored, including the rights to vote, defense of self and property,etc. At least that’s how it should be.
Keep in mind this refers to those who have payed their debt in full— not parolees.
Get a sword.
Felons know that before committing the crimes and it is a choice they make. If caught and convicted there should be negative consequences to their lives.
Many if not most felons do not commit just one felony but continue on the path of criminality.
This law does not stop the convicted felon from getting a gun. This guy did and he stopped the bad guy. Now he has face the consequences of the free choice that he made. If he is a good guy that made one mistake a long time ago then charges may be dropped or he may find a sympathetic judge or jury.
He also had the option of applying to the governor for restoration of rights. As I said before AFAIK felons are allowed to own black powder weapons so his right to defend himself with a firearm hasn't been taken away.
Holder will be giving that right back to felons too.
I agree with you that it is immoral but I think the two issues are intertwined. Using a law as a band-aid for another undesirable aspect of government, you make it that much harder to fix the original problem. Eagles6 sees a problem with lenient sentensing. By creating laws addressing the ill affects of letting criminals out early we are now enshrining the poor sentensing practices and making them harder to fix.
First I think we have to expect the police to enforce the laws as written. It is up to the grand jury or district attorney to decide if it is worth bringing an arrested person up on changes and to use due process in making that evaluation. Then it is up to a court and jury to decide if a conviction is warranted.
To take other courses is to avoid the rule of law or due process.
I believe in Kansas, a convicted felon who has served his sentence and is not on parole, has a process where he can apply for voting rights or the elimination of legal prohibitions that remain in place for firearm ownership to be lifted or to otherwise have his conviction expunged.
We can also have efforts with state legislatures to change the laws to allow full restoration of rights to felons automatically in some or all cases. The devil in in the details.
Do we want a two time armed robber to be able to purchase and carry firearms — if so, there is a legislative path to make that happen in a republic. This idea, expressed by some on the thread, that cops should ignore law breaking due to their on-the-spot evaluation of the circumstances is a very slippery path.
And yes, a 2 time armed robber either needs to remain in prison, be executed, or have his rights restored.
/johnny
There are a LOT of formerly incarcertated people in the local slum areas I am GLAD have lost the right to own a firearm.
The constitution bans guns for felons, doesn’t it? (real question)
Would you agree with felons who have served their time getting the ability to vote back?
He served time for armed robbery. What did he use the gun for when he wasn't defending his home?
So if someone does time for murder or armed robbery then you have no problem giving them a gun once they get out? Kind of a helping them regain their old occupation?
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.