Post by: pianoman9701 on July 30, 2016, 09:53:38 AM
Post by: notsosneaky on July 30, 2016, 11:01:41 AM
But consider this; a persons right to protect themselves shouldn't be infringed even if they are " prohibited" by current laws. A convicted felon who's not in prison should have their rights restored upon release. Remember a felony is charged for much more common crimes now than in the past. Is there any data suggesting a person hauled in for a "domestic" should loose his/her right? Are they more dangerous if they're "prohibited" or do we just feel better saying that.
Free is free
Incarcerated is incarcerated
Just some more common sense for you.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 30, 2016, 11:12:12 AM
Post by: csaaphill on July 30, 2016, 12:45:03 PM
Your on the right track:yeah:
But consider this; a persons right to protect themselves shouldn't be infringed even if they are " prohibited" by current laws. A convicted felon who's not in prison should have their rights restored upon release. Remember a felony is charged for much more common crimes now than in the past. Is there any data suggesting a person hauled in for a "domestic" should loose his/her right? Are they more dangerous if they're "prohibited" or do we just feel better saying that.
Free is free
Incarcerated is incarcerated
Just some more common sense for you.
Post by: Bofire on July 30, 2016, 06:46:38 PM
Carl
Post by: hunter399 on July 30, 2016, 07:38:32 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on July 30, 2016, 08:18:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 31, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
Remember a felony is charged for much more common crimes now than in the past.I actually disagree. If your comparing 2016 vs 1930s then obviously yes. But 2016 vs 2006 or 2000 not really.
A lot of states are starting to look at Californias Prop 47 where the voters voted to make "nonviolent" felonies into misdemeanors, things like simple drug possession, possession of a stolen firearm, the majority of property crimes are now misdemeanors in California. Now as a result property and drug crimes are up in CA but hey that's another story. There are several states looking at CAs Prop 47 and looking to do similar in their state, WA is one of them.
In WA several years ago the threshold for theft and several other property crimes were increased. The majority of property crimes have a value threshold where items of lesser value are prosecuted as misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors and those of higher value as felonies. Prosecutors wanted a higher threshold. So someone who may have been convicted of a felony theft case in WA in 2000 may now only face a gross misdemeanor charge in WA in 2016.
You also need to look at the probability of a prosecutor taking the felony case. There are felonies out there that I know if I arrested someone on I'd be getting my butt chewed out by the prosecutors office. I can also say that for some misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors.
Post by: skidynastar33 on July 31, 2016, 07:52:06 PM
Post by: csaaphill on July 31, 2016, 09:35:46 PM
all gun control laws are unconstitutional anyhows. give a rats Butt what opinion the courts hold.
Post by: bigtex on July 31, 2016, 09:40:55 PM
all gun control laws are unconstitutional anyhows. give a rats Butt what opinion the courts hold.So essentially you only like the constitution when it favors you? The constitution is what gives us the court.
Post by: DaveMonti on July 31, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
It would be great if common sense was the basis for laws, but laws are not designed by anything but special interests, be it for a politicians legacy and self preservation or their funding parties.
Post by: Okanagan on July 31, 2016, 10:22:08 PM
Out of curiosity I counted the number of times the word combo "common sense" was spoken in a press conference after a shooting a few years ago: 29 times the speakers said "common sense" gun laws.
Post by: csaaphill on July 31, 2016, 11:23:57 PM
:chuckle:all gun control laws are unconstitutional anyhows. give a rats Butt what opinion the courts hold.So essentially you only like the constitution when it favors you? The constitution is what gives us the court.
I like the constitution as it was written not what Socialists or fascist have tried to interpret it.
And who appoints the Judges? and how have they ruled time and time again?
You should really check this guy out http://castle2016.com/
He's one of the one Running for President. and go to GOA's web site. Eye Opening. better yet here
http://www.gunowners.org/ go ask them what they support and they will tell you the same as I said.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2016, 07:41:13 AM
Post by: hunter399 on August 01, 2016, 08:38:51 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2016, 10:43:29 AM
Post by: csaaphill on August 01, 2016, 09:28:31 PM
Most of you seem to missed the point of my post. The term "common sense gun laws" is thrown around with the most restrictive new gun law proposals. Personally, I hate the term. I find it to be an oxymoron. In addition, we're not going to get any existing laws repealed, like those prohibiting felons or domestic abuse cases. I'm not validating or supporting any unjust laws. I'm pointing out to the non-gun crowd that we have laws in place which ostensibly, were passed in the interest of public safety and yet, are not being enforced. My point is to get people thinking "if they're not enforcing existing laws to make us safer, laws which penalize dangerous people for trying to buy guns, what's the sense in passing new laws, and why would the government seek to do so? What is the government's real purpose?" When debating someone, you use their own words against them to turn the discussion. That's all that's going on here.yeah man sorry No on common sense laws either that's how they get it. :tup: But I since it's already unconstitutional don't really want them enforcing laws that are already there. Repeal and reform how things are done instead of just enforce things that shouldn't be there anyways, or go for more as you say either.
Post by: csaaphill on August 01, 2016, 09:40:56 PM
I disagree. I think the government wants to ban certain guns because they want to control the population as they become more corrupt and wield more power. They've already shown that criminals aren't their emphasis. That's the reasons for my suggested legislation. They say it's for public safety. Fine. Prove it. Go after the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens.:yeah:
this isn't here for nothing
Post by: bigtex on August 02, 2016, 07:42:53 PM
I'm pointing out to the non-gun crowd that we have laws in place which ostensibly, were passed in the interest of public safety and yet, are not being enforced.While I have many stories of this a good one just happened to a USFS LEO friend of mine in NE California.
USFS gets a report of a squatter on USFS lands with a trailer and an "attachment" built on. USFS LEO and some SO Deputies roll up to find a trailer with a wooden added on "attachment" with about 125 marijuana plants planted into the ground, the guy had a rifle and a handgun. Oops he's also a felon.
So at minimum you have felon in possession of a firearm, drug user in possession of a firearm, and cultivation of marijuana right? So USFS LEO calls the US Attorney's Office (federal prosecutor). They look it over for a few days and give the LEO a call.....
"We're declining prosecution, call the state prosecutor...."
Why did they decline? Well his felony conviction was for a felony DUI not something 'violent', and it's not like he had A LOT of guns, and for the MJ charge eh that's not that many plants! Yet nowhere in federal law does it say only felons convicted of a violent felony can't possess firearms, or that the felon must have A LOT of guns, or that you have to plant so many plants to be charged. The law simply says if your a felon you cant have a gun, if your a drug user you cant have a gun, and its illegal to plant marijuana on federal lands.
And this brings us to the issue of underfunded and understaffed prosecutor offices. The same federal prosecutors office that my USFS LEO friend is in also handles places like Stockton, Sacramento, and Bakersfield...hello drug trafficking and gang violence capitals of California. And that is the same issue we have with prosecuting poaching offenses in WA, the same prosecutor you want to handle your big game trafficking case has the local PD in their office with a drive-by gang shooting case, hmm I wonder which one they'll take..
If we actually funded prosecutors offices like we should we wouldn't have people saying "just enforce the current laws" because they would have the staffing to do so!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 02, 2016, 07:48:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 02, 2016, 07:53:43 PM
BigTex, on the form 4473 it mentions which felonies prohibit firearms, or more accurately which ones don't.Under federal law ANY felony (felony = possibility of over a year in lockup) prohibits firearms, unless the conviction has been pardoned/expunged/etc. This is listed on the 4473.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
The prosecutor in the case I mentioned told the officer he had a good case for all charges, it just didn't meet their prosecuting "standard" (ie wasn't big enough)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 02, 2016, 08:01:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 02, 2016, 08:04:59 PM
Form revision? Used to have some listed, like anti-trust violations, embezzlement, unfair trade, mail and wire fraud(?), etc. Actual felonies that were exempt, no expungement/pardon necessary.Not sure. But I don't remember the federal law changing. There be some court case precedent behind it (law said all felonies, court said no money crimes don't matter, higher up court then overruled several years later...maybe?)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 02, 2016, 08:07:52 PM