Printable View
The ONLY case where I might have a little leeway in thinking would be in a case where someone was willfully aware of a white collar crime(felony) and said nothing and is brought up on charges through finger pointing and the idea that "you had to be in on it or you would have said something".
Something like that. Not that what they did was right but because they were afraid for their job, they did not report something their superiors did.
Alaska allows certain felons to have guns. At least thats what I saw on Alaska State Troopers.
Yes, the law is the law, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddydon
However, you can't forget the the law is dynamic not static. This part is critical.
also, I don't think laws drive someone to be moral. Morals drive laws. Some will conform and others won't. And it can be moral to disobey unjust laws.
The motive to be law abiding should come from your morals rather then fear of punishment. I don't think anyone committing murder cares about it being a life sentence vs. execution.
If an action being illegal is the only thing keeping someone from taking said action, it's just a mater of time before they take it.
Don't Like felons or THIEVES :biggrin2:
H/D
It doesn't matter if it was accidental or if he purposefully did it. I know you didn't say he accidentally did it. I used that word because the way you put the scenario, it probably was an accident - just an unfortunate set of circumstances. The problem however, is that he showed a bad lack of judgment that endangered the lives of his two children. I don't want someone that lacks enough judgment to "accidentally" commit a felony to be carrying a weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslingergirl
One-time non-violent felony, paid the "dues" to society; okay. Violent or repeat offender, nope.
Many of us here may have committed a felonious act, possibly without knowing it, and just weren't caught. That "There but for the grace of God go I" thing. The second chance.
You know, I could probably agree to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
If we changed drug laws and stopped wasting the funding that the prison system already receives, they would be getting real rehabilitation. We want to lock everyone up for having a bag of weed and then complain about revolving doors, when prison is just a motel or people nobody wants to actually help.
Also most violent offender come from poverty. If the war on poverty was an actual war theyd be pumping of billions of dollars into it. Instead theyve wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a fake war on drugs.
If the.prison system and its players actually did their job, the people coming out of prison could possibly be trusted with guns. Instead theyre released to make room for 18 year old kids who smoked a little weed
That's my take on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pittypat21
We've got to ask ourselves what constitutes violent threat to others. IMO, it's either clear impending violence, clear intention to commit violence, or conviction for violence against others ... per the existing statutes. Anything else, then, it seems to me, gets really tough to claim it's worthy of forever losing one's right to effectively defend oneself via arms. In cases of non-violence, I don't really have an issue with someone retaining that right. It is, after all, a right.
I'm actually OK with this, and frankly, I don't think even "violent felons" should continue to be punished once they are released. They don't lose their freedom of speech or religion, after all.
If a person is seriously deserving of having their 2nd Amendment right removed, then they should be removed from society, as well. If they are OK to be released, it must mean they have paid their debt to society and are back to square one with their rights.
If that isn't the case, then we have a problem with our justice system that needs to be corrected.
While this is an issue that is sensitive to many, it will not get any kind of balanced consideration in the current Colorado General Assembly. The Democrats hold the Governor's office and a majority in the State House as well as in the State Senate. We will get whatever the Democratic perspective is on this issue--at least for 2013 and 2014.
Illegal activity, no matter how "white collar" is still done by untrustworthy, dishonest people. You go to prison, you loose your rights. Too bad. You had a choice. You gambled and lost. Having a gun and the permit to conceal is an important indicator or your character.
Wow, broad stroke with that brush sir...Quote:
Originally Posted by mbguy29577
I would ask when the last time you went one mile per hour over the posted speed limit was...
But i think you may be untrustworthy and dishonest...
So, nevermind.
:hand15:
If the punishment of 1 mile an hour over the speed limit is a felony (which its not... its a petty offense which is lowermthan a misdeamor) then yes. Firearms require trust. Very few felonies would make me change my mind on that. If anything, certain felonies should be misdeamors.
Rivers has some very good points. And there are states that follow similar steps. Tennessee, for example, has a process that allows convicted felons to be granted a Restoration of Citizenship. The individual must do the time for which they were sentenced, as well as waiting the maximum time that could have been imposed. For instance, say a crime carried a sentence of 3-10 years, but the person was only sentenced to the three-year-term. After doing the three years, and waiting the next seven, that person could petition for a restoration of citizenship. The individual would need to show a steady work history, clean credit history, and have at least three character witnesses stand up for them in court. Additional safeguards are built into the system. If the individual was placed on probation or parole, that individual's Probation Officer would also have to be a character witness. Furthermore, the District Attorney of the county where the crime was committed; the District Attorney of the county of the individual's residence (if different); and the Attorney General's Office would all be contacted regarding the individual's record, and whether any of the above have reservations concerning the petition.
After going through that whole process, the individual might get his/her day in court. All the testimonies would be heard...all the letters from the District Attorney(s) and Attorney General's office would be read into the record, and the judge would render his/her decision. That decision could be a flat rejection of the petition...it could be a partial restoration (voting rights but not gun rights; voting and gun rights but not public office rights, etc), or it could be a full restoration.
If an individual is willing to go through that kind of process...putting their past years, and their current record of being a law-abiding citizen to that level of scrutiny...does that not show a true repentance for a prior act, and a successful rehabilitation? IMHO, having a process where individuals can be fully integrated into society, providing there are protections (like the above) can go a long way toward reducing some of the recidivism that currently resides in our criminal justice system. It wont cure the violent repeat offenders or the "institutionals"...it's not meant for that. However, for a first offense or a low-grade offense, having that process is at least a light at the end of that particular tunnel. What an individual does with that light should show whether they have the necessary character to not only be out on the streets, but to be trusted with all of their rights being returned to them. just my .02