Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 07:44:44 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 01, 2017, 07:59:17 AM
Post by: arees on May 01, 2017, 08:00:06 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2017, 08:16:11 AM
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 08:24:56 AM
Now for someone who committed a violent crime against someone (murder, attempted murder, serious assault/assault with intent, rape, kidnapping, sexual assault, molestation, etc.) then ABSOLUTELY they should be kept away from firearms. Just my opinion. :tup:
Post by: Stein on May 01, 2017, 08:40:16 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2017, 08:53:00 AM
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 09:46:57 AM
People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
:yeah:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 01, 2017, 09:52:59 AM
Not an easy question to answer for me but I voted yes. Where I hesitate is where any mental health issues exist or hard drug use/addiction - meth, coke, heroin, etc.
:yeah:
Voting rights in WA are restored once sentence is complete including financial obligations, IIRC. Gun rights should be similarly restored. There are other mechanisms to address mental health issues, if only people/states would use them, and it is already unlawful, federally, for those addicted/using to controlled substances to possess firearms.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 01, 2017, 10:54:38 AM
:yeah:People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
:yeah:
Post by: Bofire on May 01, 2017, 10:55:49 AM
Carl
Post by: Rainier10 on May 01, 2017, 11:07:00 AM
:) https://www.washingtongunrightslawyerblog.com/2013/05/03/washington-state-law-makes-restoration-of-gun-rights-possible-for-many-with-a-history-of-felony-or-misdemeanor-convictions/I actually know a guy that did this. It was a little complex if he met all the requirements but he actually did and got a judgement from the courts saying that his rights were restored.
Carl
I think that was a prime example of a guy making a mistake years ago and after getting on the right track getting his rights back.
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 11:17:09 AM
:) https://www.washingtongunrightslawyerblog.com/2013/05/03/washington-state-law-makes-restoration-of-gun-rights-possible-for-many-with-a-history-of-felony-or-misdemeanor-convictions/I actually know a guy that did this. It was a little complex if he met all the requirements but he actually did and got a judgement from the courts saying that his rights were restored.
Carl
I think that was a prime example of a guy making a mistake years ago and after getting on the right track getting his rights back.
EVERY State should allow this. I'm originally from Texas, and there is NO WAY to get your firearm rights back in Texas if you're a felon. You would need a Governor's Pardon as well as a Pardon from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles -- both pretty much impossible to get. And the thing is that Texas is an extremely conservative/Red State, so you would think that in such a Conservative State this would be an option for white collar/non-violent ex-felons... but NO DICE.
They aren't kidding when they say "Don't Mess With Texas"
Post by: Rainier10 on May 01, 2017, 11:26:01 AM
It surprises me that it is possible in Washington and is not possible in Texas.:) https://www.washingtongunrightslawyerblog.com/2013/05/03/washington-state-law-makes-restoration-of-gun-rights-possible-for-many-with-a-history-of-felony-or-misdemeanor-convictions/I actually know a guy that did this. It was a little complex if he met all the requirements but he actually did and got a judgement from the courts saying that his rights were restored.
Carl
I think that was a prime example of a guy making a mistake years ago and after getting on the right track getting his rights back.
EVERY State should allow this. I'm originally from Texas, and there is NO WAY to get your firearm rights back in Texas if you're a felon. You would need a Governor's Pardon as well as a Pardon from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles -- both pretty much impossible to get. And the thing is that Texas is an extremely conservative/Red State, so you would think that in such a Conservative State this would be an option for white collar/non-violent ex-felons... but NO DICE.
They aren't kidding when they say "Don't Mess With Texas"
It should be allowed in all states. I still agree with Bobcat's reply that once your time is served or whatever your rights should be restored.
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
It surprises me that it is possible in Washington and is not possible in Texas.:) https://www.washingtongunrightslawyerblog.com/2013/05/03/washington-state-law-makes-restoration-of-gun-rights-possible-for-many-with-a-history-of-felony-or-misdemeanor-convictions/I actually know a guy that did this. It was a little complex if he met all the requirements but he actually did and got a judgement from the courts saying that his rights were restored.
Carl
I think that was a prime example of a guy making a mistake years ago and after getting on the right track getting his rights back.
EVERY State should allow this. I'm originally from Texas, and there is NO WAY to get your firearm rights back in Texas if you're a felon. You would need a Governor's Pardon as well as a Pardon from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles -- both pretty much impossible to get. And the thing is that Texas is an extremely conservative/Red State, so you would think that in such a Conservative State this would be an option for white collar/non-violent ex-felons... but NO DICE.
They aren't kidding when they say "Don't Mess With Texas"
It should be allowed in all states. I still agree with Bobcat's reply that once your time is served or whatever your rights should be restored.
Totally agree with you. Draconian Laws and rules such as these in Texas are among some of the reasons I left and came to Washington. It is tyranny, plain and simple. Almost *anything* in Texas = FELONY = you will never have 2nd Amendment rights again = you'll never be able to hunt or protect yourself and your family in your own home. Let's say you are pulled over by a cop and someone in your car is found to have a felony amount of drugs in their pocket. BAM! Everyone in that car is now a felon in Texas because of a legal concept there called "Guilt By Proximity". It is ridiculous!
Every State should follow Washington State's lead.
Post by: jordanramos_79 on May 01, 2017, 12:02:20 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 01, 2017, 05:00:00 PM
Every State should follow Washington State's lead.You mean the liberal lead? Because that's why WA's laws are why they are...Liberals
Post by: bigtex on May 01, 2017, 05:03:26 PM
Personally, I'm a solid YES, 2nd Amendment rights should be returned for non-violent, non-gun related felonies. I have a major problem with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment rights for life for something like writing a hot check for $200 bucks (felony theft by check) or something stupid like putting a fake registration/inspection tag on their vehicle or boat to save a few bucks (felony fraud).Actually the two crimes you listed are not felonies in WA.
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 05:47:22 PM
Every State should follow Washington State's lead.You mean the liberal lead? Because that's why WA's laws are why they are...Liberals
No, that's not what I meant, but thanks. What I meant is that every State should follow WA's lead in allowing a system through their courts to allow individuals to seek relief for the restoration of firearm rights.
Post by: bigtex on May 01, 2017, 05:49:07 PM
And that occurs in WA because of liberals...Every State should follow Washington State's lead.You mean the liberal lead? Because that's why WA's laws are why they are...Liberals
No, that's not what I meant, but thanks. What I meant is that every State should follow WA's lead in allowing a system through their courts to allow individuals to seek relief for the restoration of firearm rights.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 05:52:33 PM
Personally, I'm a solid YES, 2nd Amendment rights should be returned for non-violent, non-gun related felonies. I have a major problem with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment rights for life for something like writing a hot check for $200 bucks (felony theft by check) or something stupid like putting a fake registration/inspection tag on their vehicle or boat to save a few bucks (felony fraud).Actually the two crimes you listed are not felonies in WA.
My point of reference is from Texas, as I'm a Texan recently moved to Washington, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Any felony where (A) no one was harmed and no violence was used, and (B) no firearm was used at all, should not result in (C) the permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights. It is illogical.
Are you going to assert an opinion or an argument for or against the subject of discussion here instead of arguing what is or isn't a felony offense in X versus Y State when those were largely hypothetical points to begin with?
Post by: Bofire on May 01, 2017, 05:53:55 PM
Carl
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 05:56:04 PM
And that occurs in WA because of liberals...Every State should follow Washington State's lead.You mean the liberal lead? Because that's why WA's laws are why they are...Liberals
No, that's not what I meant, but thanks. What I meant is that every State should follow WA's lead in allowing a system through their courts to allow individuals to seek relief for the restoration of firearm rights.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
So why does Washington (a largely Blue/Liberal State) allow for the restoration of firearm rights while Texas (an overwhelmingly Red/Conservative State) does not?
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 06:02:26 PM
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047 first passed in 1994, who was in office then? Liberal or Conservative.??
Carl
I truly don't know who was in office in WA then. I hope you can help me to understand who was? I mean this was a State law, right? Not federal. I'm still new to WA so help me out here...
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on May 01, 2017, 06:07:35 PM
Except when you get on the wrong side of the law.
Then you have a bunch of Draconian Justice.
This gives you a Governor like that *censored* that has now finageled his way to Secretary of Energy.
Hell, that Stupid SOB wouldn't be elected dog catcher anywhere else.
This is why we pass dumb laws, because we have dumb polititions.
The Donald will fix it as soon as he is re-election.
Yeah, right.
Rob.
Post by: SCRUBS on May 01, 2017, 06:09:33 PM
People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in:yeah:
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 06:18:58 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 01, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Mike Lowry, a Democrat who happened to die earlier today.http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047 first passed in 1994, who was in office then? Liberal or Conservative.??I truly don't know who was in office in WA then. I hope you can help me to understand who was? I mean this was a State law, right? Not federal. I'm still new to WA so help me out here...
Carl
In fact the bill was requested by Lowry and other Democrats as part of the Violence Reduction Program bill which had very little Republican support.
Post by: bigtex on May 01, 2017, 06:23:33 PM
I think it's pretty simple, conservative states hammer criminals. Police have more power in conservative states, crimes and penalties are stiffer in conservative states. There's a reason why you don't want to get caught committing a crime in conservative states. Want to commit a crime? Move to a liberal state.So why does Washington (a largely Blue/Liberal State) allow for the restoration of firearm rights while Texas (an overwhelmingly Red/Conservative State) does not?And that occurs in WA because of liberals...No, that's not what I meant, but thanks. What I meant is that every State should follow WA's lead in allowing a system through their courts to allow individuals to seek relief for the restoration of firearm rights.Every State should follow Washington State's lead.You mean the liberal lead? Because that's why WA's laws are why they are...Liberals
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
In WA every year the legislature turns some crimes into infractions (tickets) just like how California made serious property crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies. Yet now the property crime rate in CA is skyrocketing.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 01, 2017, 06:25:23 PM
Post by: bishop311 on May 01, 2017, 06:26:01 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 01, 2017, 06:26:36 PM
Your statement didn't seem hypothetical to me, seemed more like a fact you were trying to pass.My point of reference is from Texas, as I'm a Texan recently moved to Washington, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Any felony where (A) no one was harmed and no violence was used, and (B) no firearm was used at all, should not result in (C) the permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights. It is illogical.Personally, I'm a solid YES, 2nd Amendment rights should be returned for non-violent, non-gun related felonies. I have a major problem with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment rights for life for something like writing a hot check for $200 bucks (felony theft by check) or something stupid like putting a fake registration/inspection tag on their vehicle or boat to save a few bucks (felony fraud).Actually the two crimes you listed are not felonies in WA.
Are you going to assert an opinion or an argument for or against the subject of discussion here instead of arguing what is or isn't a felony offense in X versus Y State when those were largely hypothetical points to begin with?
My opinion is simple, want to keep your guns? Don't commit a felony.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 01, 2017, 06:32:46 PM
The so called goal posts of where the line for felony is seems to be changing, which I think fits in to the topic. What felonies out there do you think don't warrant loss of gun rights? Tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, embezzlement?Your statement didn't seem hypothetical to me, seemed more like a fact you were trying to pass.My point of reference is from Texas, as I'm a Texan recently moved to Washington, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Any felony where (A) no one was harmed and no violence was used, and (B) no firearm was used at all, should not result in (C) the permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights. It is illogical.Personally, I'm a solid YES, 2nd Amendment rights should be returned for non-violent, non-gun related felonies. I have a major problem with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment rights for life for something like writing a hot check for $200 bucks (felony theft by check) or something stupid like putting a fake registration/inspection tag on their vehicle or boat to save a few bucks (felony fraud).Actually the two crimes you listed are not felonies in WA.
Are you going to assert an opinion or an argument for or against the subject of discussion here instead of arguing what is or isn't a felony offense in X versus Y State when those were largely hypothetical points to begin with?
My opinion is simple, want to keep your guns? Don't commit a felony.
Post by: Mudman on May 01, 2017, 07:25:05 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 01, 2017, 09:54:09 PM
Mike Lowry, a Democrat who happened to die earlier today.http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047 first passed in 1994, who was in office then? Liberal or Conservative.??I truly don't know who was in office in WA then. I hope you can help me to understand who was? I mean this was a State law, right? Not federal. I'm still new to WA so help me out here...
Carl
In fact the bill was requested by Lowry and other Democrats as part of the Violence Reduction Program bill which had very little Republican support.
Funny you should mention liberals and lack of republican support. Because the 1994 Law, ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2319, was signed into law by a Dem Governor, Mike Lowry, was passed by an overwhelming dem majority House and Senate, and was largely in the nature of a gun control bill (for the portions affecting firearms) during the Clinton years and the nationwide gun control push.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1993-94/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2319-S2.SL.pdf?cite=1994%20sp.s.%20c%207%20%C2%A7%20404.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Washington#Governors_of_the_State_of_Washington
http://leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/2016/HousePoliticalDivision.pdf
http://leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/2016/SenatePolDiv1979-2016.pdf
Notable in that gun control law, ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2319, of 1994, the felon restoration rights - to the extent that there are any relevant provisions - are tweaks to existing law, and they appear to be more, not less onerous, until tweaked again in 1996 by a more Republican House and Senate.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1995-96/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2420-S.SL.pdf?cite=1996%20c%20295%20%C2%A7%202.
Interestingly, noting that we have not had a Republican governor since Spellman, 1981-1985, it was then in 1983 that the first mention of felon voting rights restoration was mentioned that I could find (WRT the words, "pardon," "anullment," "rehabilitation," etc.).
http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1983c232.pdf?cite=1983%20c%20232%20%C2%A7%202;
Most of the subsequent tweaks have been in the nature of specifying procedure and adding offenses to the "serious offense" list, from my quick reading, with one exception being in 1996 when the three/five year distinction was added.
For reference, here are the portions of the RCW we are discussing.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040
Quote
(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.
(4)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2) of this section, a person convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offense prohibiting the possession of a firearm under this section other than murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, indecent liberties, arson, assault, kidnapping, extortion, burglary, or violations with respect to controlled substances under RCW 69.50.401 and 69.50.410, who received a probationary sentence under RCW 9.95.200, and who received a dismissal of the charge under RCW 9.95.240, shall not be precluded from possession of a firearm as a result of the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, if a person is prohibited from possession of a firearm under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and has not previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sex offense prohibiting firearm ownership under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and/or any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or with a maximum sentence of at least twenty years, or both, the individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored:
(i) Under RCW 9.41.047; and/or
(ii)(A) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525; or
(B) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a nonfelony offense, after three or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525 and the individual has completed all conditions of the sentence.
(b) An individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored under (a) of this subsection (4) only at:
(i) The court of record that ordered the petitioner's prohibition on possession of a firearm; or
(ii) The superior court in the county in which the petitioner resides.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010
Quote
(21) "Serious offense" means any of the following felonies or a felony attempt to commit any of the following felonies, as now existing or hereafter amended:
(a) Any crime of violence;
(b) Any felony violation of the uniform controlled substances act, chapter 69.50 RCW, that is classified as a class B felony or that has a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years;
(c) Child molestation in the second degree;
(d) Incest when committed against a child under age fourteen;
(e) Indecent liberties;
(f) Leading organized crime;
(g) Promoting prostitution in the first degree;
(h) Rape in the third degree;
(i) Drive-by shooting;
(j) Sexual exploitation;
(k) Vehicular assault, when caused by the operation or driving of a vehicle by a person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or by the operation or driving of a vehicle in a reckless manner;
(l) Vehicular homicide, when proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug as defined by RCW 46.61.502, or by the operation of any vehicle in a reckless manner;
(m) Any other class B felony offense with a finding of sexual motivation, as "sexual motivation" is defined under RCW 9.94A.030;
(n) Any other felony with a deadly weapon verdict under RCW 9.94A.825;
(o) Any felony offense in effect at any time prior to June 6, 1996, that is comparable to a serious offense, or any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a felony classified as a serious offense; or
(p) Any felony conviction under RCW 9.41.115.
That last one is a two-time I-594 conviction. Second look at that Texas bashing?
Post by: bishop311 on May 02, 2017, 04:23:00 AM
The so called goal posts of where the line for felony is seems to be changing, which I think fits in to the topic. What felonies out there do you think don't warrant loss of gun rights? Tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, embezzlement?
Sounds to me like he's solid, across-the-board NO 2nd Amendment rights for convicted felons, regardless of the offense.
I've many problems with that concept, not least among them is that this is exactly how the gun control nutters get started. By defining a single "lower class" group of people who lose their 2nd Amendment rights, the concept of stripping people of their Constitutional rights is normalized in the minds of the general public. First it's ex-felons, then it's Veterans who are struggling with duty-related emotional issues, then it'll be people who owe back taxes, etc. I don't put ANYTHING past the 2A haters anymore.
Second look at that Texas bashing?
Are you trying to use all of the stupid things that Democrats in WA have done to lessen or diminish the significance all of the stupid things that Republicans in Texas have done? Stupid doesn't have a political affiliation -- there's plenty to go around. I'll happily bash Texas all day long for the idiotic legislation that Republicans have pushed through.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 02, 2017, 05:45:43 AM
Post by: blackdog on May 02, 2017, 06:45:13 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on May 02, 2017, 07:14:50 PM
:yeah::yeah:People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
:yeah:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 02, 2017, 08:17:24 PM
HB 2319 is the bill that removed the requirement that you be 14 or older to hunt unsupervised.
They recycle bill numbers.
Post by: blackdog on May 02, 2017, 10:15:07 PM
Post by: blackdog on May 02, 2017, 10:19:04 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 03, 2017, 05:44:21 AM
Post by: fish vacuum on May 06, 2017, 04:40:34 PM
In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison
It doesn't work that way and never will.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 06, 2017, 04:42:53 PM
solid yes.
Post by: fish vacuum on May 06, 2017, 10:42:47 PM
As it is today a person can kill another and still be able to get their gun rights back,Because they must be rehabilitated to get out of prison.
solid yes.
Huh?
Post by: Oh Mah on May 06, 2017, 10:51:20 PM
Post by: Mudman on May 07, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 07, 2017, 09:10:12 AM
No firearms
No voting rights
I would also add owning property and access to all government services.
Post by: Mudman on May 07, 2017, 09:22:10 AM
NeverMan, that would cause more problems. Might as well execute them. If people cant get back on the right track it is a drain on society. Either get it right or go to prison. We all should want them to get it right for everyones benefit.
No firearms
No voting rights
I would also add owning property and access to all government services.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 07, 2017, 09:33:37 AM
NeverMan, that would cause more problems. Might as well execute them. If people cant get back on the right track it is a drain on society. Either get it right or go to prison. We all should want them to get it right for everyones benefit.
No firearms
No voting rights
I would also add owning property and access to all government services.
How about getting it right BEFORE committing the felony?
Post by: Oh Mah on May 07, 2017, 11:41:24 AM
A technicality maybe but I would love to see an example of its occurrence. And I don't mean some vehicle or accidental manslaughter case. :twocents:I think these would be the only ones that would meet the qualifications,I wouldn't think murder could but who knows?Maybe a minor after serving?
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2017, 12:32:57 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 12:34:18 PM
Never
No firearms
No voting rights
I would also add owning property and access to all government services.
Sounds like you're setting yourself up for stripping yourself of firearms, voting rights, owning property and access to government services when the government cooks up some BS "felony" to convict you with. The easiest way to destroy someone is to create a felony with which to charge them, and your opinion makes that very, very easy.
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
They don't, they get let out very early or do no time at all. This quandary is impossible to answer because there's so many things broken before we ever ask if felons should have a gun or not.
*if* felons did their full allotment of time
and
*if* they weren't paroled
and
*if* other mitigating factors aren't involved
and
*if* the felony committed is non-violent
and
*if* all reparations are paid criminally and civilly
well that will never happen
vote no
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 07, 2017, 12:50:49 PM
Never
No firearms
No voting rights
I would also add owning property and access to all government services.
Sounds like you're setting yourself up for stripping yourself of firearms, voting rights, owning property and access to government services when the government cooks up some BS "felony" to convict you with. The easiest way to destroy someone is to create a felony with which to charge them, and your opinion makes that very, very easy.
Prison is full of innocent people, right?
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 01:03:39 PM
Quote
Prison is full of innocent people, right?
If you don't think that innocent people are convicted of felonies in every single state, then you're a special kind of stupid.
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 01:05:28 PM
QuotePrison is full of innocent people, right?
If you don't think that innocent people are convicted of felonies in every single state, then you're a special kind of stupid.
They are, it's proven. However no system is perfect. These are collateral damages. Fortunately the numbers are very small.
This argument has no merit or basis for consideration.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 07, 2017, 01:11:25 PM
QuotePrison is full of innocent people, right?
If you don't think that innocent people are convicted of felonies in every single state, then you're a special kind of stupid.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Or is English a second language for you?
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 01:18:01 PM
Quote
Fortunately the numbers are very small.
Prove it. How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?
Quote
This argument has no merit or basis for consideration.
Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.
Quote
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Or is English a second language for you?
I assure you, jay.sharkbait, I read your post perfectly well. What about my statement confuses you? You're the one who wants to pass Jim Crow laws, e.g. no second amendment rights, no voting rights, no right to own property and no access to government services. Frankly In light of your statement regarding this, I think you're the one with serious intellectual issues.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 07, 2017, 01:25:24 PM
QuoteFortunately the numbers are very small.
Prove it. How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?QuoteThis argument has no merit or basis for consideration.
Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.QuoteYour reading comprehension is lacking. Or is English a second language for you?
I assure you, jay.sharkbait, I read your post perfectly well. What about my statement confuses you? You're the one who wants to pass Jim Crow laws, e.g. no second amendment rights, no voting rights, no right to own property and no access to government services. Frankly In light of your statement regarding this, I think you're the one with serious intellectual issues.
Bringing new definitions to the term "full of" are we?
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 01:30:35 PM
Post by: Mudman on May 07, 2017, 01:32:14 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 07, 2017, 01:35:24 PM
Follow the bouncing dot, now. You wrote, "Prison is full of innocent people, right?" to which I replied, "If you don't think that innocent people are convicted of felonies in every single state, then you're a special kind of stupid." When did I say that prison "is full" of innocent people? You actually wrote that, and are now asserting that I am trying to redefine "full of". Nice try, though.
You still don't get it....
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 01:43:25 PM
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
You sound like you're an expert in Communications, kind of like this guy:
Post by: bobcat on May 07, 2017, 01:51:37 PM
People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to commit crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.
They don't, they get let out very early or do no time at all. This quandary is impossible to answer because there's so many things broken before we ever ask if felons should have a gun or not.
*if* felons did their full allotment of time
and
*if* they weren't paroled
and
*if* other mitigating factors aren't involved
and
*if* the felony committed is non-violent
and
*if* all reparations are paid criminally and civilly
well that will never happen
vote no
Yes, I realize people who are dangerous ARE let out of prison, when they probably should not be. But still, my other point is valid. That these people will get guns regardless of whether a piece of paper says they cannot possess firearms or not. If they get out of prison and decide to continue a life of crime, they WILL have guns. So again, IMO, prohibiting a person from possessing firearms will only prevent them from participating in legal activities like hunting. To me that's not right. Maybe this person NEEDS hunting as a way to turn his life around a become and productive member of society. Why take that away from them?
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 01:57:32 PM
Yes, I realize people who are dangerous ARE let out of prison, when they probably should not be. But still, my other point is valid. That these people will get guns regardless of whether a piece of paper says they cannot possess firearms or not. If they get out of prison and decide to continue a life of crime, they WILL have guns. So again, IMO, prohibiting a person from possessing firearms will only prevent them from participating in legal activities like hunting. To me that's not right. Maybe this person NEEDS hunting as a way to turn his life around a become a productive member of society. Why take that away from them?
EXACTLY :yeah: and very well said.
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 02:26:52 PM
QuoteFortunately the numbers are very small.
Prove it. How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?QuoteThis argument has no merit or basis for consideration.
Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.
This argument has no merit because once a person has found to be wrongly convicted all their rights are restored then begins the civil liability case for wrongful imprisonment. I'm all for finding people wrongly convicted and I support advances in technology (DNA for example being used to clear some rape and murder cases) being used to find these people wrongly convicted.
On the flip side how many people commit felonies and are dismissed? If anything we need to focus on people getting away with felonies, their future victims are collateral damage too.
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 02:34:59 PM
Yes, I realize people who are dangerous ARE let out of prison, when they probably should not be. But still, my other point is valid. That these people will get guns regardless of whether a piece of paper says they cannot possess firearms or not. If they get out of prison and decide to continue a life of crime, they WILL have guns. So again, IMO, prohibiting a person from possessing firearms will only prevent them from participating in legal activities like hunting. To me that's not right. Maybe this person NEEDS hunting as a way to turn his life around a become a productive member of society. Why take that away from them?
EXACTLY :yeah: and very well said.
You're argument is "they're going to get them anyways, so why make it illegal?" isn't very convincing. I appreciate the positivity of hunting, but I'm dubious that the vast majority of ex-cons will find themselves back in jail if they cannot go hunting...
If a convict is let out of jail early on parole due to over crowding, gets himself a gun, gets pulled over for speeding on his way to rob a convenience store, goes back to jail for possessing a gun then I'm happy.
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 02:36:05 PM
QuoteFortunately the numbers are very small.
Prove it. How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?QuoteThis argument has no merit or basis for consideration.
Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.
This argument has no merit because once a person has found to be wrongly convicted all their rights are restored then begins the civil liability case for wrongful imprisonment. I'm all for finding people wrongly convicted and I support advances in technology (DNA for example being used to clear some rape and murder cases) being used to find these people wrongly convicted.
On the flip side how many people commit felonies and are dismissed? If anything we need to focus on people getting away with felonies, their future victims are collateral damage too.
My argument absolutely DOES have merit because (A) those who are found to be wrongly convicted and consequently released are usually those who had a DNA evidence introduced in their trials and (B) it is systemic problem and has been for a long time: "In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000."
Reference 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html?utm_term=.e52f61ecb02d
Reference 2: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4d1ac1226ca240319c3ac656ae1b246f/report-doj-fbi-acknowledge-flawed-testimony-unit
And (C) what about people convicted without any DNA evidence to later prove their wrongful conviction?
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 02:50:56 PM
Must I repeat myself? Wrongfully convicted people already have their rights reinstated. They are allowed to have a gun/s.
Your argument that we should give all felons back gun rights because some of them *might* have been wrongfully convicted is a strawman and not relevant to this debate.
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 03:03:58 PM
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 03:07:07 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 03:32:30 PM
If you still wish to go off in the weeds with your strawman you've limited the scope of that argument even further by latching on to old methods of forensic hair analysis methods as being faulty - and applying that to only non-violent felons.
It's still irrelevant, and you've shown it to have an even narrower scope by limiting it to only non-violent felons, which typically don't involve a rape kit.
and besides all that wrongfully convicted felons (violent or non-violent) still get their rights fully restored.....
Post by: bishop311 on May 07, 2017, 03:42:08 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 03:48:36 PM
It's still irrelevant in your opinion, you mean. While I disagree with every fiber your argument, your welcome to it. I remain steady in my opinion that our Government is too fast and lose with stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights for flimsy reasons that are dubious in cases. Once you introduce the concept of stripping people of their Constitutional rights, it's a slippery slope into the netherworld.
You do realize that "stripping people of their constitutional rights" was written in the Constitution itself, right in the Bill of Rights. We've been on this slippery slope to the netherworld since 1791 :chuckle:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Loss of Liberty due to a felony was a founding principle in our constitution.
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2017, 03:55:23 PM
Oh quit it with your facts!It's still irrelevant in your opinion, you mean. While I disagree with every fiber your argument, your welcome to it. I remain steady in my opinion that our Government is too fast and lose with stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights for flimsy reasons that are dubious in cases. Once you introduce the concept of stripping people of their Constitutional rights, it's a slippery slope into the netherworld.
You do realize that "stripping people of their constitutional rights" was written in the Constitution itself, right in the Bill of Rights. We've been on this slippery slope to the netherworld since 1791 I guess :chuckle:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Loss of Liberty due to a felony was a founding principle in our constitution.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: fish vacuum on May 07, 2017, 04:18:47 PM
huh,yes that's right.if if if they meet the requirements of that state.
This part is true?
Because they must be rehabilitated to get out of prison.
Please share what you know about the rehabilitation requirements for being released.
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2017, 04:59:16 PM
Most felony crimes are drugs.Not true.
In WA there are about 40 different drug related laws, about 25 of them are felonies. There are 15 hunting and fishing crimes in WA that are felonies. When you start looking at all the other crimes, such as rape, murder, assault, guns, etc. You see that drugs are nowhere near the majority of felony crimes.
Post by: Bofire on May 07, 2017, 05:05:42 PM
Carl
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2017, 05:08:07 PM
:) Does he mean? of felony convictions are most of them for drugs? I think that's what he means. I have read of astronomical numbers of people in jail/prison for drugs.If so then I can see that. There really aren't that many felony drug crimes on the books. Its just that drugs laws are the most commonly violated felony, thus are a big portion of the prison population.
Carl
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2017, 05:41:58 PM
If you look at the people actually incarcerated the biggest share of inmates is for violent crimes by far.
If a person commits a non violent property crime (tweaker robbing garages) and doesn't go to jail for more than a day or two, doesn't make full reparations, have they paid their due to society? Why should they have all their rights reestablished?
I don't even want to think about some political push to reestablish rights until people are actually punished for their crimes and they make full restitution to the victims. That isn't happening.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on May 07, 2017, 06:56:55 PM
Post by: Bofire on May 07, 2017, 07:07:10 PM
2013, 54% violent, men 50 % drugs, women 56% drugs.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf
Carl
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2017, 07:07:14 PM
The supreme court has reinterpreted the constitution to mean the opposite of what it actually says though.In your opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: fish vacuum on May 07, 2017, 07:46:38 PM
Post by: Mudman on May 07, 2017, 08:55:38 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on May 07, 2017, 09:11:11 PM
If you don't think people can be rehabilitated then you should be against any form of imprisonment.You should be advocating for life in prison for 1 felony or death.
If they cant be rehabilitated then you feel they should never ever get out of prison.
there is no other way to put your feelings in words.
TO ALL THAT VOTE NO.................... :peep: FLAME ON
Post by: KFhunter on May 08, 2017, 08:12:09 AM
Post by: Bofire on May 08, 2017, 08:18:33 AM
Carl
Post by: fish vacuum on May 08, 2017, 05:19:50 PM
Post by: Mudman on May 08, 2017, 06:45:26 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on May 08, 2017, 06:49:58 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on May 08, 2017, 09:08:03 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on May 08, 2017, 09:11:42 PM
Wasn't the tread about felons and not ex-cons????Ummm...ok.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 08, 2017, 09:15:31 PM
Wasn't the tread about felons and not ex-cons????I'm sorry but :o
Next thing you know,They will push to have people that are just dumb to loose their gun rights.
Post by: Mudman on May 08, 2017, 10:33:50 PM
Wasn't it one of you claiming most felons are guilty of drug crimes?That is my point... The most felony crimes were drugs. And many felony crimes do not result in prison thus not ex-cons. That was the point I was making in comparing the stats presented. With so many crimes being upgraded to felony status all of a sudden they determine that the perps are not dangerous to put in prison. Another point on gun control/confiscation. Imagine if DUI went felony status(which it will someday) and we sent em all to prison? Wow we better start building 4x's more prisons. Heck I find it statistically probable many on huntwa would not be on here or hunting. You see it can happen to all of us at some point, most everyone has driven when they shouldn't of. So go lay your guns down and don't be a hypocrite. One poster thinks home ownership shouldn't be allowed too! We must keep open minds and perspectives and not get emotional and group murder with check fraud, or drug addiction, or messing with Squatch! :chuckle: I really see it as a liberal gun grab and voting base building exercise which people are ignorant enough to blindly support in their righteous hypocricy.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 08, 2017, 10:57:24 PM
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 04:08:34 AM
That is my point... The most felony crimes were drugs. And many felony crimes do not result in prison thus not ex-cons. That was the point I was making in comparing the stats presented. With so many crimes being upgraded to felony status all of a sudden they determine that the perps are not dangerous to put in prison. Another point on gun control/confiscation. Imagine if DUI went felony status(which it will someday) and we sent em all to prison? Wow we better start building 4x's more prisons. Heck I find it statistically probable many on huntwa would not be on here or hunting. You see it can happen to all of us at some point, most everyone has driven when they shouldn't of. So go lay your guns down and don't be a hypocrite. One poster thinks home ownership shouldn't be allowed too! We must keep open minds and perspectives and not get emotional and group murder with check fraud, or drug addiction, or messing with Squatch! :chuckle: I really see it as a liberal gun grab and voting base building exercise which people are ignorant enough to blindly support in their righteous hypocricy.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 04:13:28 AM
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 04:31:09 AM
The current method is fine but plenty of room for improvement, let them petition the court to reinstate their 2A rights, at least they'll somewhat of a review to see if they deserve to have them back, to see if they've paid their debt to society.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 09, 2017, 04:35:11 AM
And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So you ask for people's thoughts and opinions and then get all upset when they don't agree with yours?
Lol
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 05:24:28 AM
Quote
So you ask for people's thoughts and opinions and then get all upset when they don't agree with yours?
What is with you and straw man arguments? It's like your addicted to them or are incapable of knowing that you're doing it consistently. I didn't say I was upset that someone didn't agree with my opinions. I said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Quote
The current method is fine but plenty of room for improvement, let them petition the court to reinstate their 2A rights, at least they'll somewhat of a review to see if they deserve to have them back, to see if they've paid their debt to society.
That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability. So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for. In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 09, 2017, 05:31:59 AM
QuoteSo you ask for people's thoughts and opinions and then get all upset when they don't agree with yours?
What is with you and straw man arguments? It's like your addicted to them or are incapable of knowing that you're doing it consistently. I didn't say I was upset that someone didn't agree with my opinions. I said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.QuoteThe current method is fine but plenty of room for improvement, let them petition the court to reinstate their 2A rights, at least they'll somewhat of a review to see if they deserve to have them back, to see if they've paid their debt to society.
That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability. So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for. In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.
You are part of the problem...... you are incapable of having a dialogue with people who disagree with your agenda and your only response is to attack.
The left and anti gun lobby love people like you.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 05:38:15 AM
Quote
You are part of the problem...... you are incapable of having a dialogue with people who disagree with your agenda and your only response is to attack.
Oh how very predictable. The guy who consistently uses straw man arguments to counter in debates accuses others of being incapable of having a dialogue. Do I need to remind you again what a straw man argument is?
Quote
The left and anti gun lobby love people like you.
The hypocrisy here is Level: PRO
You are basically advocating for gun control over a certain group of people, yet apparently the anti gun lobby likes people like me?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 09, 2017, 05:41:51 AM
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 05:49:53 AM
My work here is done........
And now off to your regular, full-time job.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 06:20:32 AM
QuoteI said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.
That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.
Quote
That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability. So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for. In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.
You should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 06:40:26 AM
QuoteI said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.
That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.QuoteThat is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability. So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for. In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.
You should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.
I didn't agree with what you said, I merely pointed out that Felons (or ex-felons, technically) are already supposed to be able to follow a legal procedure to regain their 2A right through petitioning the ATF. I further pointed out that Chuck Schumer, an anti-gun Democrat, has blocked the ATF via wording in the Omnibus. None of that is agreeing with what you said, namely:
Quote
The current method is fine
The current method is NOT fine, because the ATF is not being allowed to process relief applications. I solidly stand behind my YES vote as surely as you stand behind your NO vote.
Post by: yorketransport on May 09, 2017, 06:51:30 AM
And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 09, 2017, 06:55:27 AM
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Good question.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 07:02:53 AM
And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
1. This poll asked specifically about 2nd Amendment Rights, not the right to live in close proximity to an elementary school.
2. This poll specifically addressed non-violent felonies.
3. The term "child predator" is used to describe those who have raped and/or molested a child or children, which is a violent crime.
4. No, in my opinion, child predators should be kept away from children at all costs -- but then again, being around a child or children is not a right specifically enshrined in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, so there is no concept of "repaying their debts to society" in order to regain a Constitutional Right -- one that doesn't even exist.
5. Further, I don't believe that people who committed violent felonies such as assault with intent, murder, kidnapping, rape, molestation, et cetera should be allowed to possess firearms, because they've proven that they have a propensity for committing violent acts against another person.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 09, 2017, 07:34:31 AM
this is how liberal law makers get what they want in a bill,ask for something that everyone is afraid to say no to.The answer would be yes if they did their time and waited there time after release with no new infractions for say 30 years :chuckle: but never take rights away for ever for any reason.And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 09:44:27 AM
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Good question.
It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing. Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 09:47:54 AM
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Good question.
It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing. Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.
The only one squirming here is you -- squirming to legitimize your opinion, which you shouldn't have to do if you feel secure in your opinion. You've voted in the poll and have made very clear your thinking. While you're more than welcome to your opinion, you're very much in the minority looking at the poll results.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 09:49:04 AM
this is how liberal law makers get what they want in a bill,ask for something that everyone is afraid to say no to.The answer would be yes if they did their time and waited there time after release with no new infractions for say 30 years :chuckle: but never take rights away for ever for any reason.And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Incarceration isn't a loss of a rights? and "no new infractions for 30 years" is different than not allowing someone to purchase, own or possess firearms how? Seems to be the same thing.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 10:02:06 AM
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Good question.
It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing. Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.
The only one squirming here is you -- squirming to legitimize your opinion, which you shouldn't have to do if you feel secure in your opinion. You've voted in the poll and have made very clear your thinking. While you're more than welcome to your opinion, you're very much in the minority looking at the poll results.
Ook, nice attempt at a dodge, and the answer to the second question? In maroon above
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 10:16:18 AM
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Good question.
It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing. Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.
The only one squirming here is you -- squirming to legitimize your opinion, which you shouldn't have to do if you feel secure in your opinion. You've voted in the poll and have made very clear your thinking. While you're more than welcome to your opinion, you're very much in the minority looking at the poll results.
Ook, nice attempt at a dodge, and the answer to the second question? In maroon above
How long are you going to keep squirming? Do you feel THAT threatened that your own opinion was not accepted by the vast majority of people who answered the poll? And do you honestly think I'm avoiding answering the question, as if I'm embarrassed by it? Puh-lease, son. You'll have to do much better than that. If it isn't a violent felony as I've said before multiple times, then people should not continue to be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights after they've fully discharged from their sentence. Child molesting, rape, etc. ARE violent crimes -- it's assault, plain and simple, and even more disturbing because it was done to a child. Watching child pornography, as disgusting and truly reprehensible as it is, is not a violent crime. Nice try though!
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 10:22:01 AM
Now that convicted child porn trafficker can move in next to a school and be armed with guns and cameras.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 09, 2017, 10:24:18 AM
Just a friendly word of advice.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 10:32:42 AM
Thanks for answering the question: Would you be OK with child porn traffickers and voyeurs moving in next to a kiddie day care or school yard? - and your answer is yes, yes you would. I think it sheds light on your thinking and now I understand why you would allow any and all felons to own guns.
Now that convicted child porn trafficker can move in next to a school and be armed with guns and cameras.
If that isn't stretching logic well beyond the point of no return, then I don't know what is. Try to put ALL the words into my mouth you want to -- it doesn't make what you are saying in your colossally idiotic post true in the least bit. In my opinion, non-violent ex-criminals, after discharging from their sentence, should receive their 2nd Amendment right back (Enter KFhunter's twisted logic) ERGO child porn traffickers and voyeurs should be allowed to move in next to kiddie day care and schools, armed with cameras and guns. But where your logic falls flat on its butt is that there are already numerous laws aimed at protecting children and child care facilities from ex-felons who committed crimes of child molestation and child pornography as well as distribution of child pornography. They vary slightly from State to State, but *every* State has them and they are extremely harsh from what I have read -- offenders are not allowed to move without notifying authorities and are not allowed within X distance of a school, playground or daycare. Again, nice try but no cigar.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 10:44:27 AM
As for my logic being flawed it is not, numerous laws prevent non-violent felons from owning guns as you point out, the same logic applies to all non-violent felons such as child porn traffickers; after all a sexual registry isn't much different than a ban on owning guns. If a pervert has paid his due to society, ERGO served his time and fully discharged from his crime - why then should he have to continue to be on a sexual registry? Why shouldn't he be able to move anywhere he wants? (going by your logic)
If you were truly sound in your logic it would apply to this scenario and 1000's of others I could dream up that would elicit the same emotional response.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 10:56:00 AM
Your post is very emotional, logic and emotion don't mix well.
As for my logic being flawed it is not, numerous laws prevent non-violent felons from owning guns as you point out, the same logic applies to all non-violent felons such as child porn traffickers; after all a sexual registry isn't much different than a ban on owning guns. If a pervert has paid his due to society, ERGO served his time and fully discharged from his crime - why then should he have to continue to be on a sexual registry? Why shouldn't he be able to move anywhere he wants? (going by your logic)
If you were truly sound in your logic it would apply to this scenario and 1000's of others I could dream up that would elicit the same emotional diatribe as you're currently expulsing.
I'm sorry, but your logic is very much flawed. People who have committed said horrible crimes against children and have been convicted have proven that they cannot be trusted around children, and it is for that reason the law prevents them from moving to a new address without registering and also prevents them from being within X distance of a school, playground or daycare. LIKEWISE, I have said that violent felons including violent felons who committed crimes with a firearm should NOT be allowed to own, use or purchase a firearm because they have displayed a propensity for violence, and hence cannot be trusted with firearms. The fallacy is yours.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 09, 2017, 11:02:18 AM
You raise an excellent point, KFhunter, that not all non-violent felonies are or should be treated the same. I would default to restoration unless there is a showing of need, protected by due process, to continue to disenfranchise the "rehabilitated" offender in those instances.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 11:13:42 AM
Quote
Child porn traffickers (possession and distribution) and voyeurs ETC are classified as non-violent crimes, they would be prohibited to own a gun -which you would like to change- but in your hypocrisy you would ask that they continue to be subject to punitive measures dictating where they live, how they travel and subject them to a registry even though they've paid their dues to society and fully discharged from their crimes.
"Child porn traffickers (possession and distribution) and voyeurs ETC" have been proven to be a potential threat to children -- obviously, there's some sick sexual attraction to kids. They absolutely should be kept away from children. If you would like to call that hypocritical of me, then I'm very much OK with that. Likewise, violent criminals and especially violent criminals who used a firearm in the commission of their crime, should not be able to possess, use or own a firearm in my opinion.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 11:44:11 AM
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 11:54:09 AM
TAKE AWAY THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ANYWAYS!!! FOR LIFE!!! YEEEAAAARGH!!!
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 09, 2017, 12:28:50 PM
Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics. Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct.
Just a friendly word of advice.
Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 12:36:30 PM
Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics. Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct.
Just a friendly word of advice.
Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!
Sorry bud. I apologize.
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 01:02:12 PM
Quote
Heck, did they actually harm another human being? ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.
Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.
Your whole premise is based on flawed logic that say's the 2nd amendment is somehow more important than the other amendments, in the case of sexual registries to continue this example, a multitude of other rights falling under multiple amendments is being withheld or denied that individual.
Why do you place the 2nd amendment higher in value than other rights being denied a person whose served their time?
Quote
"obviously, there's some sick sexual attraction to kids. They absolutely should be kept away from children"
This same statement would apply to many other types of criminals convicted of various non-violent crimes:
"obviously that person is addicted to heroin/meth/opioids, they absolutely should be kept away from guns"
Like I said, 1000's of example of non-violent crime examples can be listed.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 01:26:13 PM
"obviously that person is addicted to heroin/meth/opioids, they absolutely should be kept away from
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2017, 01:37:43 PM
QuoteHeck, did they actually harm another human being? ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.
Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.
All I can say in regards to Bishop's statement is WOW. KF is correct. For some reason I have a feeling if you (Bishop) had a daughter who was then shown in some type of kiddy porn film you wouldn't say that your daughter wasn't harmed as a result of that video/photo.
Many people want child molesters dead, you (Bishop) want them to have guns :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 01:39:12 PM
Obviously you won't be dissuaded from your 2A dogma, nor will I have my mind changed as the statistics are well in my favor.
If you really care about the 2nd amendment as I do, then you'd do everything you could to insure that we keep the 2nd amendment as it is and not loose ground by arming criminals.
Do some research on recividism rates. Pay special attention to non-violent offenders who go back to jail with a violent crime.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=44
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 01:44:12 PM
QuoteHeck, did they actually harm another human being? ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.
Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.
All I can say in regards to Bishop's statement is WOW. KF is correct. For some reason I have a feeling if you (Bishop) had a daughter who was then shown in some type of kiddy porn film you wouldn't say that your daughter wasn't harmed as a result of that video/photo.
Many people want child molesters dead, you (Bishop) want them to have guns :dunno:
It's just pride getting in the way of intelligence. I don't believe bishop311 wants to arm perverts, but he was caught in a logic trap and was unwilling to admit defeat.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 01:46:31 PM
Quote
Obviously you won't be dissuaded from your 2A dogma, nor will I have my mind changed as the statistics are well in my favor.
Didn't I say something along those same lines hours ago? Yet you still tried to push your opinion and sway me?
Post by: KFhunter on May 09, 2017, 01:51:41 PM
Post by: yorketransport on May 09, 2017, 03:40:25 PM
And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
1. This poll asked specifically about 2nd Amendment Rights, not the right to live in close proximity to an elementary school.
2. This poll specifically addressed non-violeDid they commit a violent crime? Did they commit a gun crime? Heck, did they actually harm another human being? ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.
TAKE AWAY THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ANYWAYS!!! FOR LIFE!!! YEEEAAAARGH!!!
Wow, that statement is a little unsettling.
Post by: Mudman on May 09, 2017, 03:51:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2017, 04:45:35 PM
Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 09, 2017, 04:49:22 PM
Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics. Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct.
Just a friendly word of advice.
Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!
Sorry bud. I apologize.
I was kidding
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 09, 2017, 04:51:27 PM
So, then the examples used aren't rehabilitated. They just had a time out and are now free to continue preying on society. Basically saying prison in its current form doesn't work.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2017, 04:59:39 PM
I didn't say I would never hire them. But 6 months down the road in a related field (if I owned a car shop and the applicant was just released for auto theft) I wouldn't.So, then the examples used aren't rehabilitated. They just had a time out and are now free to continue preying on society. Basically saying prison in its current form doesn't work.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Obviously time helps, but you have to prove you've been rehabilitated! You cant just walk out of Walla Walla after a year sentence and say hallelujah I am now the best citizen in the US! You'll have to prove it to me!
And in some cases prison doesn't work. There's a reason there's the three strikes law. You have individuals who just cant not stay out of trouble no matter how much rehab and treatment we give them.
Post by: bishop311 on May 09, 2017, 05:09:00 PM
Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics. Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct.
Just a friendly word of advice.
Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!
Sorry bud. I apologize.
I was kidding
Oh, don't I know it. Bud. Pal. Champ. Friend-o.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 09, 2017, 05:54:53 PM
umm its different because 30 years is not for ever. :bash: 20 10 makes no diff to me but for life no.the mere fact that they are only discussing the 2nd. and not other rights like voting says it all.this is how liberal law makers get what they want in a bill,ask for something that everyone is afraid to say no to.The answer would be yes if they did their time and waited there time after release with no new infractions for say 30 years :chuckle: but never take rights away for ever for any reason.And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:
Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)
No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)
The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights. It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.
:bdid:
So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.
Incarceration isn't a loss of a rights? and "no new infractions for 30 years" is different than not allowing someone to purchase, own or possess firearms how? Seems to be the same thing.
Post by: fish vacuum on May 09, 2017, 05:57:34 PM
If we don't like that then why are we letting some of them back out? Lock em up longer then. Do a better job at rehab and re-intro to society at release then.
It's not a perfect world.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 09, 2017, 05:58:24 PM
obviously you need to reread the votes it is clearly not a vote for auto reinstate upon release.QuoteI said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.
That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.QuoteThat is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability. So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for. In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.
You should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 09, 2017, 05:59:58 PM
The current law is fine it was just being road blocked by the previous administration.QuoteI said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.
That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.QuoteThat is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability. So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for. In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.
You should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.
I didn't agree with what you said, I merely pointed out that Felons (or ex-felons, technically) are already supposed to be able to follow a legal procedure to regain their 2A right through petitioning the ATF. I further pointed out that Chuck Schumer, an anti-gun Democrat, has blocked the ATF via wording in the Omnibus. None of that is agreeing with what you said, namely:QuoteThe current method is fine
The current method is NOT fine, because the ATF is not being allowed to process relief applications. I solidly stand behind my YES vote as surely as you stand behind your NO vote.
Post by: Oh Mah on May 09, 2017, 06:08:18 PM
:yeah: Actually after reading your post big tex i guess i would agree to a life time ban for all child crimes such as these.i meen they are scarred for life so the criminal should lose all rights for life as well.but i meen all rights voting guns proximity to children etc etc.QuoteHeck, did they actually harm another human being? ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.
Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.
All I can say in regards to Bishop's statement is WOW. KF is correct. For some reason I have a feeling if you (Bishop) had a daughter who was then shown in some type of kiddy porn film you wouldn't say that your daughter wasn't harmed as a result of that video/photo.
Many people want child molesters dead, you (Bishop) want them to have guns :dunno:
Post by: Oh Mah on May 09, 2017, 06:11:33 PM
the system would work great if not for the liberals that want all inmates to get free college and all the comforts of homeSo, then the examples used aren't rehabilitated. They just had a time out and are now free to continue preying on society. Basically saying prison in its current form doesn't work.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Post by: Mudman on May 09, 2017, 06:34:50 PM
Oh no no no. You forget one thing-when your dad was hiring or working he didn't have a tattoo on his forehead called NO PRIVACY otherwise known as background checks which don't follow state laws or facebook, internet etc. etc. It was VERY diferent then. We have a system in place now which is new and not the same as it was and not better. In the future when DNA is used to avoid medical issues will we make the same arguments? Ya know its coming people and our children will become pariah's if they aint perfect. Restore privacy, don't hide behind false arguments. Employers don't have the right to invade privacy of others becausethey want to and feel they deserve too! I am an employer and I don't do these things.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
And if you were to apply for a job with me and didn't want me to look into your background then you can pound sand! As an employee of mine you will be representing me, so I will make sure you will represent me well. If your a felon and I don't want to hire a felon, guess what, I don't have to! If I google your name and your Facebook profile comes up with you smoking marijuana, guess what, I don't have to hire you!Oh no no no. You forget one thing-when your dad was hiring or working he didn't have a tattoo on his forehead called NO PRIVACY otherwise known as background checks which don't follow state laws or facebook, internet etc. etc. It was VERY diferent then. We have a system in place now which is new and not the same as it was and not better. In the future when DNA is used to avoid medical issues will we make the same arguments? Ya know its coming people and our children will become pariah's if they aint perfect. Restore privacy, don't hide behind false arguments. Employers don't have the right to invade privacy of others becausethey want to and feel they deserve too! I am an employer and I don't do these things.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 09, 2017, 07:44:13 PM
And if you were to apply for a job with me and didn't want me to look into your background then you can pound sand! As an employee of mine you will be representing me, so I will make sure you will represent me well. If your a felon and I don't want to hire a felon, guess what, I don't have to! If I google your name and your Facebook profile comes up with you smoking marijuana, guess what, I don't have to hire you!Oh no no no. You forget one thing-when your dad was hiring or working he didn't have a tattoo on his forehead called NO PRIVACY otherwise known as background checks which don't follow state laws or facebook, internet etc. etc. It was VERY diferent then. We have a system in place now which is new and not the same as it was and not better. In the future when DNA is used to avoid medical issues will we make the same arguments? Ya know its coming people and our children will become pariah's if they aint perfect. Restore privacy, don't hide behind false arguments. Employers don't have the right to invade privacy of others becausethey want to and feel they deserve too! I am an employer and I don't do these things.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
As an employee, I've looked into my employers and it can be an eye opener.
Post by: csaaphill on May 09, 2017, 08:55:57 PM
closed add one to the yes column, of yes they should get their rights back after sentence is served.
Post by: Mudman on May 10, 2017, 09:00:38 AM
So you break the LAW? Isnt the law 7 years or something? Each state has own laws so its confusing but Internet searches don't follow the law? There has to be limits to these things is my point. We have the right to check out employees of course but to what extent? Our rights don't trump others rights do they? Why don't we just demand their diaries too and interview friends and set up spy cameras like the CIA?And if you were to apply for a job with me and didn't want me to look into your background then you can pound sand! As an employee of mine you will be representing me, so I will make sure you will represent me well. If your a felon and I don't want to hire a felon, guess what, I don't have to! If I google your name and your Facebook profile comes up with you smoking marijuana, guess what, I don't have to hire you!Oh no no no. You forget one thing-when your dad was hiring or working he didn't have a tattoo on his forehead called NO PRIVACY otherwise known as background checks which don't follow state laws or facebook, internet etc. etc. It was VERY diferent then. We have a system in place now which is new and not the same as it was and not better. In the future when DNA is used to avoid medical issues will we make the same arguments? Ya know its coming people and our children will become pariah's if they aint perfect. Restore privacy, don't hide behind false arguments. Employers don't have the right to invade privacy of others becausethey want to and feel they deserve too! I am an employer and I don't do these things.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Post by: bigtex on May 10, 2017, 02:30:35 PM
The only law has to do with official criminal histories, not Facebook posts, tweets, web postings, etc.So you break the LAW? Isnt the law 7 years or something? Each state has own laws so its confusing but Internet searches don't follow the law? There has to be limits to these things is my point. We have the right to check out employees of course but to what extent? Our rights don't trump others rights do they? Why don't we just demand their diaries too and interview friends and set up spy cameras like the CIA?And if you were to apply for a job with me and didn't want me to look into your background then you can pound sand! As an employee of mine you will be representing me, so I will make sure you will represent me well. If your a felon and I don't want to hire a felon, guess what, I don't have to! If I google your name and your Facebook profile comes up with you smoking marijuana, guess what, I don't have to hire you!Oh no no no. You forget one thing-when your dad was hiring or working he didn't have a tattoo on his forehead called NO PRIVACY otherwise known as background checks which don't follow state laws or facebook, internet etc. etc. It was VERY diferent then. We have a system in place now which is new and not the same as it was and not better. In the future when DNA is used to avoid medical issues will we make the same arguments? Ya know its coming people and our children will become pariah's if they aint perfect. Restore privacy, don't hide behind false arguments. Employers don't have the right to invade privacy of others becausethey want to and feel they deserve too! I am an employer and I don't do these things.Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash. Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes. Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts. See my point. Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back. Thank you for time, YeeHaw! :chuckle:I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.
If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.
People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.
Each state is different, liberal states have shorter periods, conservative states have longer periods. WA being a liberal state has a shorter period and says employers can use criminal actions within the previous 10 years. Government agencies (cities, state, school districts, etc.) are generally exempt from the 10 year period in WA and have longer periods they can go back.
Post by: Bofire on May 10, 2017, 05:30:56 PM
???
Carl