This is a discussion on First Time Process Serving.. and it's an ex-felon family member within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by nutz4utwo Not that it is really on topic, but if someone is granted a pardon by the appropriate executive leader (governor or ...
In some (maybe all, after all INAL) States there is a deference between Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon and Felony Pardon w/ Expungement and just plain Felony Expungement, most often done by the courts
There is also restoration of rights w/o pardon.
IMHO, all Felons, save those whose Felony is Expunged, remain Felons
BTW -- One of the few kudo that I can give Chairman Kaine was that he stood up under pressure from the left on blanket restoration of voting rights to his state’s felons.
A kudo to Gov. Tim Kaine as he leaves Richmond | Washington Examiner
A kudo to Gov. Tim Kaine as he leaves Richmond
January 17, 2010 Only one word can describe former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine’s refusal to sign an executive order giving blanket restoration of voting rights to his state’s felons.
That word would be “Bravo!”
Others don’t think so, but in this case the advice “consider the source” would apply. One of those sources is Kent Willis, the executive director of Virginia’s ACLU. According to news reports, here was Willis’ reaction:
“We are extremely disappointed that Governor Kaine did not act before leaving office. This was his chance to have Virginia join the 48 other states that have put this aspect of Jim Crow behind them. Our hope now is that Governor-elect McDonnell will embrace reform of Virginia’s shameful felon disenfranchisement law and move us forward.”
Don’t you love liberals in high dudgeon? Don’t you love their sense of values, priorities and moral outrage? Note Willis’ description of Virginia’s law: “Shameful.” Anybody out there think that Willis feels that felons should be ashamed for the crimes they’ve committed?
Anyone? Anyone? I thought not.
Willis’ pique harkens me back to the time when Maryland had this debate. Maryland legislators – the Democratic ones – were hot to deep-six the state’s procedure for restoring voting rights to felons and pass a law giving blanket restoration. (They eventually did).
Unlike Virginia, Maryland’s law disenfranchised two-time felons. To restore their voting rights, felons had to go through an appropriately lengthy process that involved their making a personal plea to the governor.
In other words, Maryland’s old law dealt with this matter on a case-by-case basis, to weed out the felons who were serious about restoring their voting rights from recidivist knuckleheads. No dice, Maryland legislators said; knuckleheads deserve representation in government, too, and should be allowed to vote.
I wrote columns supporting Maryland’s law as it was – stressing as it did things like personal responsibility and initiative. One day some guy who recognized me asked, “Do you really believe felons shouldn’t get the right to vote?”
“I really believe it’s not my problem,” I answered. The felons committed the crime; it should have been their responsibility to do anything – including groveling their way into Maryland’s governor’s mansion, if it came to that – to get their voting rights restored.
But notice the focus of the guy’s question: I was against a blanket restoration of felon voting rights, so I was the bad guy. The man who asked me the question would never dream of asking a two-time felon, “Were you really stupid enough and irresponsible enough to commit a felony twice?”
It’s pretty obvious who the liberals feel are the victims here: felons. All of them. Not just the ones in for nonviolent crimes, but the murderers, rapists, robbers and drug dealers.
Try to suggest to some of these folks so passionate about restoring voting rights to felons that the real victims are people who were murdered, raped and robbed and they’d look at you like you just beamed down from planet Weirdo.
So it is with passionate felons-as-victims fervor that Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, could say of Kaine’s decision:
“The NAACP is disappointed in Governor Kaine’s decision to not sign an executive order to restore voting rights to 300,000 formerly incarcerated people in Virginia…As a matter of fairness, opportunity and democracy, people should be allowed to vote after paying their debt to society.”
Ah yes, the old “d” word. Supporters of voting rights for felons dredge it up all the time, democracy. There’s only one problem with Jealous’ statement.
The United States of America is not a democracy; it’s a republic. And yes, there is a difference, although I suspect Jealous isn’t aware of it.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
Jealous probably feels that precisely describes what we have here in the United States. It isn’t. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says the federal government must guarantee to every state a republican form of government, not a democratic one. Here is Merriam-Webster’s definition of a republic:
“A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”
Entitled to vote, Mr. Jealous. In other words, not just any knucklehead can.
Examiner columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: A kudo to Gov. Tim Kaine as he leaves Richmond | Washington Examiner
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
As you are notifying the LEO who will serve the papers, please let them know that your BIL has threatened suicide. He may be crazy enough to want to go out in a blaze of gunfire, taking a LEO or two with him.
America: Your government is not ignoring you, it's insulting you.
The Bill of Rights: Void where prohibited by law.
I simply don't understand why you'd save $50 and put yourself in the middle of this. Just hire someone to do it, and give them an honest heads-up so that they can minimize their own risk. It's just not worth it for so little money.
Also, I had no idea it was just $40 or $50. I thought, for some reason, that process servers were a few hundred dollars or so. I'm glad you guys said it was so inexpensive.. that's what she's doing.
Crisis averted, everyone. For now, at least.
Hire a pro. to serve the papers.You do not want to go to your brother in laws house to serve papers carrying a gun. This guy sounds like a flake and things could go wrong and you might lose your permit or worse.