Free: Contests & Raffles.
By marrying and living with a convicted felon, she should not and does not give up HER constitutional rights. She obviously takes on higher obligation of responsibility."she could have a tazer" guess who some of you folks are sounding like now?
Thanks Smossy!
Quote from: yorketransport on October 04, 2013, 09:58:55 PMI had a discussion about this with my Father in Law a few weeks back. In my mind, every action taken is a choice and every action has a consequence. In this scenario the felon made the decision to commit the crime. Then the wife made the decision to stay with the felon.So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.Andrew very good answer , choices where made. I don't want any felon living near me to have a gun , what's one more poor choice ( maybe a bullet headed towards and innocent victim ). There are exceptions I'm sure but do we want more government to figure it out and police it ? (not me). It seems to me like these folks just want a gun in the house for some reason. there are plenty of forms of protection other than fire arms . what about a tazzer , alarm , dog. motion lights , billy clubs ex. really if she wants a firearm it sounds like she can have one just not in the house that her felon husband resides in . no reason she cant store them elsewhere.
I had a discussion about this with my Father in Law a few weeks back. In my mind, every action taken is a choice and every action has a consequence. In this scenario the felon made the decision to commit the crime. Then the wife made the decision to stay with the felon.So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.Andrew
Quote from: coachcw on October 05, 2013, 11:09:52 AMQuote from: yorketransport on October 04, 2013, 09:58:55 PMI had a discussion about this with my Father in Law a few weeks back. In my mind, every action taken is a choice and every action has a consequence. In this scenario the felon made the decision to commit the crime. Then the wife made the decision to stay with the felon.So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.Andrew very good answer , choices where made. I don't want any felon living near me to have a gun , what's one more poor choice ( maybe a bullet headed towards and innocent victim ). There are exceptions I'm sure but do we want more government to figure it out and police it ? (not me). It seems to me like these folks just want a gun in the house for some reason. there are plenty of forms of protection other than fire arms . what about a tazzer , alarm , dog. motion lights , billy clubs ex. really if she wants a firearm it sounds like she can have one just not in the house that her felon husband resides in . no reason she cant store them elsewhere.This country at times seems to just give out felonies like candy. Here is an interesting story about a man being charged with a felony for releasing hot air balloons for his girlfriend. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks If this was this guy's only felony, I don't think having him next door and armed would be a big deal.
I was told by my friend that to trespass, and have a pocket knife in Florida was considered ARMED TRESSPASS a felony....whether you know where you are at , or not. I have not confirmed this, but that was enough for me.
810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.-- (1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance. (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention by such person, if done in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, shall not render such person criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention. (3) As used in this section, the term "person authorized" means any owner or lessee, or his or her agent, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner or lessee, or his or her agent, to communicate an order to depart the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare.
This country at times seems to just give out felonies like candy. Here is an interesting story about a man being charged with a felony for releasing hot air balloons for his girlfriend. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks If this was this guy's only felony, I don't think having him next door and armed would be a big deal.
Quote from: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 11:43:26 AMI was told by my friend that to trespass, and have a pocket knife in Florida was considered ARMED TRESSPASS a felony....whether you know where you are at , or not. I have not confirmed this, but that was enough for me.Quote810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.-- (1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance. (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention by such person, if done in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, shall not render such person criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention. (3) As used in this section, the term "person authorized" means any owner or lessee, or his or her agent, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner or lessee, or his or her agent, to communicate an order to depart the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare. A pencil or hammer could be a dangerous weapon. It is all in intent, and your pen knife argument is specious
Florida law defines a " '[w]eapon' " to "mea[n] any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife." §790.001(13). Florida has excepted the " 'common pocketknife' " from its weapons statute since 1901, and the relevant language has remained unchanged since that time. See 833 So. 2d, at 743.
So sorry, your pocket knife is not a dangerous weaponQuote Florida law defines a " '[w]eapon' " to "mea[n] any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife." §790.001(13). Florida has excepted the " 'common pocketknife' " from its weapons statute since 1901, and the relevant language has remained unchanged since that time. See 833 So. 2d, at 743.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-8636
The Florida Supreme Court also rejected Bunkley's claim. It held that the L. B. decision did not apply retroactively. Under Florida law, only "jurisprudential upheavals" will be applied retroactively.
Finally in the last paragraph it lists a female judge that said she would have reversed that conviction....but it did not say she did???
Justice Pariente, joined by Chief Justice Anstead, dissented.
Because she thought the L. B. decision "correctly stated the law at the time Bunkley's conviction became final," she would have vacated Bunkley's conviction.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 09:51:02 AMQuote from: CAMPMEAT on October 04, 2013, 09:47:32 AMDoesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: CAMPMEAT on October 04, 2013, 09:47:32 AMDoesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.