NC Supreme Court restores felon's gun rights

[hogdaddy]

Violent Felons For having guns Period

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[itschuck]

The hypothetical was based loosely on this case,

Wilson v. State of Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The hypothetical could have been a boy scout discovering a fossil in a federal national park and taking it home.

The point is that dependent on the actual case some felons should be able to have their full rights restored. Also that there are laws on the books that defy common sense and could land any one of us in court branded as a felon.

[SelfDefense]

The hypothetical could have been a boy scout discovering a fossil in a federal national park and taking it home.

It could be but it doesn't support your case. There is no Federal law that prevents removal of fossils. In 1996, a bill called the Fossil Preservation Act was submitted in the House but it never made it through committee. Even that bill applied only civil monetary penalites.

Also that there are laws on the books that defy common sense and could land any one of us in court branded as a felon.

Nonsense. It is very easy to avoid being a felon. I have never been arrested. Have you?

[socal2310]

As I have said before and will say again. There is no debt to society, there is a debt to victims. If the debt to the victim cannot be repaid: rape, murder etc. they ought to be executed, the others ought to be indentured until they are able to purchase their release by paying restitution.


Ryan

[DaveH]

No one accidentally commits a felony.

Might want to check the laws in your State.

For example here in Virginia don't get stopped with a pair of bolt cutter in your vehicle:

LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-94

§ 18.2-94. Possession of burglarious tools, etc.

If any person have in his possession any tools, implements or outfit, with intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny, upon conviction thereof he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. The possession of such burglarious tools, implements or outfit by any person other than a licensed dealer, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny.

This statute has been used against a OCer, who had no idea he was in possession of burglarious tools (a bolt cutter) -- when the LEO, who had a problem with OCing, could find nothing else to write him on.

BTW -- Cooler heads did prevail, ultimately, and he was not convicted. But he had a rough go of it for a time and it did cost him a lawyer's fee, etc.

Or how about the The Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378)

This Act provides authority to the Secretary of the Interior to designate injurious wildlife and ensure the humane treatment of wildlife shipped to the United States. Further, it prohibits the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, or purchase of fish and wildlife taken or possessed in violation of State, Federal, Indian tribal, and foreign laws. [Emphasis added]

....

Criminal penalties fall into two categories. For a felony offense, a maximum $250,000 fine per individual and $500,000 per organization, and/or up to 5 years imprisonment for each violation of the Act can be assessed. A misdemeanor offense carries a maximum $100,000 fine per individual and $200,000 per organization, and/or up to 1 year imprisonment.

Do you know the source of that fish you bought at the local store? You know that it wasn't actually caught inside the territorial waters of some foreign country or otherwise in violation of some foreign law?

How about that lobster? You know it was the legal length in the State where it was caught? It does vary from State to State.

I know of folk convicted in Maryland for having brought into Maryland a fish legally caught in Virginia.

You ever take a buddy hunting? You sure that he never had one too many squirrels, birds, etc; or hadn't shot too close to the road or a occupied dwelling, etc; before you transported him and his game home?

You ever take a buddy fishing? Ever check his tackle box to be sure all his lures are legal before driving home with the fish?

I have read that there are over 10,000 federally crimes on the books and I suspect that many of those crimes can be committed w/o knowledge of them being a crime.

[Mardet65]

As I have said before and will say again. There is no debt to society, there is a debt to victims. If the debt to the victim cannot be repaid: rape, murder etc. they ought to be executed, the others ought to be indentured until they are able to purchase their release by paying restitution.


Ryan

I think I'd vote for that!

[SelfDefense]

Might want to check the laws in your State.

I have, thank you. I am in no danger of accidentally committing a felony. The notion is ridiculous.

For example here in Virginia don't get stopped with a pair of bolt cutter in your vehicle:

"If any person have in his possession any tools, implements or outfit, with intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny"

Don't get stopped with a bolt cutter with intent to commit robbery. Not too confusing, is it? If you do have bolt cutters with intent to commit a robbery you should be thrown in jail and never have the right to own a firearm.

I know of folk convicted in Maryland for having brought into Maryland a fish legally caught in Virginia.

Is that a felony in Maryland?

I have read that there are over 10,000 federally crimes on the books and I suspect that many of those crimes can be committed w/o knowledge of them being a crime.

Ignorance of the law is no defense. Everyone is responsible for knowing the laws of their state.

[DaveH]

"If any person have in his possession any tools, implements or outfit, with intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny"

Don't get stopped with a bolt cutter with intent to commit robbery. Not too confusing, is it?

Read the whole quote, including:

§ 18.2-94. Possession of burglarious tools, etc.

....
The possession of such burglarious tools, implements or outfit by any person other than a licensed dealer, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny. [Emphasis added]

Ignorance of the law is no defense. Everyone is responsible for knowing the laws of their state.

I didn't say ignorance was a defense. I just equated "ignorance of the law" to "accidental" committing a felony. Neither of which would constitute a defense, IMHO.

Please quite mis-quoting me and partially quoting me to make your straw-man arguments.

Also, please don't keep implying things (such as me saying/thinking that ignorance of the law is a defense, when I did not do so) in your replies.

[SelfDefense]

Read the whole quote, including:

I did read the entire law you posted. I quoted the relevant part. Are you sure you understand what prima facie evidence is?

I didn't say ignorance was a defense. I just equated "ignorance of the law" to "accidental" committing a felony. Neither of which would constitute a defense, IMHO.

Exactly. If ignorance of the law leads you to commit a felony then you must make responsibility for the consequences. What if I don't know bank robbery is a felony. If I ob a nak should I later have my rights restored because I didn't know?

Please quite mis-quoting me and partially quoting me to make your straw-man arguments.

I didn't misquote you. Are you sure you know what a strawman argument is?

Also, please don't keep implying things (such as me saying/thinking that ignorance of the law is a
defense, when I did not do so) in your replies.

I didn't do that either. My point, and you apparently agree, is that ignorance of the law and accidental is pretty much equivalent. Neither holds any importance in punishment of felonies.

Also, please stop accusing me of things I do not write, such as misquoting you, when I did not do so.

Thanks.

[stanislaskasava]

As I have said before and will say again. There is no debt to society, there is a debt to victims. If the debt to the victim cannot be repaid: rape, murder etc. they ought to be executed, the others ought to be indentured until they are able to purchase their release by paying restitution.

I think we agree here. If the felon in question can't ever again be trusted with all of his rights, then we should execute him. If we simply enforce harsher sentences on criminals (including execution), then the issue becomes quite an easy matter to sort out:

1. We take away your weapons when you go to jail.

2. If you never leave jail, you never get your weapons back.

3. If we decide that we want you to return to society, then we let you live as a free man, with all the rights of free men.

The debate only exists because we have been weak in our punishment of criminals. If we can't trust you with a gun, then why should we trust you at all? If you are a 'crime waiting to happen', then why did we release you? Our collective incomprehension of this logic enables us to be repetitively victimized by career criminals.

You could rob a bank with a finger in your pocket or the word 'bomb' written on a deposit slip. You could assault or murder someone with any number of implements. Shockingly, a felon could even buy or steal a gun -- a law does not stop him. It is the felon that we should focus on, not the gun.

When we downsize the concept of a right into a privilege, everyone loses, except the felon. He doesn't mind being let out early, because he's back in business. He doesn't mind losing his privilege, because he doesn't ask permission. We pay the price, so we can enjoy the pleasure of their company. Ironic, eh?

[Knapper]

I'm split on the issue. Violent felons should not get them unless they prove good behavior outside of jail for at least 5 years after their release date. Non violent felons should have their rights restored once they are released.

+1.. kind of.

I think that after 5 years of appropriate behavior in society they should be able to appeal to a panel that decides if his 4th amendment rights should be restored, not just automatically let him purchase and or carry.

Non violent felons should also have a period of time, what if the non-violent felony was selling false carry permits, or selling ammo, guns, or laundering money for a violent gang, drug cartel or terror group?

Jess

[mcp1810]

Regarding the fish in Maryland case....
Several years ago Maryland had a moratorium on Rock fish. Virginia didn't. It was perfectly legal to catch the fish in Virginia but simple possession of one in Maryland was a felony. In fact there was a sea food shop in Kensington Maryland that was seized over a couple of Rock that they bought from a Virginia based distributor. So if you caught one in Virginia and the tide was coming in and you drifted across that magic line out there in the bay, you just became a felon.

Also, the difference in Maryland between misdemeanor theft and felony theft can be two cents. They might have changed the dollar value but it used to be theft under three hundred dollars was a misdemeanor and theft over was a felony. So if you stole an i-phone or an x-box on Monday it could be a felony and the same theft (after they announce the price cut) on Tuesday would be a misdemeanor. Or if you shoplifted the same item at Sears it would be a felony but Walmart could be a misdemeanor.

[Faitmaker]

As I have said before and will say again. There is no debt to society, there is a debt to victims. If the debt to the victim cannot be repaid: rape, murder etc. they ought to be executed, the others ought to be indentured until they are able to purchase their release by paying restitution.Ryan

Because nobody has every been falsely accused or unable to prove their innocence. Tough crowd. How many stories about people let go after years of jail time served only to be found they were innocent? How many go unproven? The trouble with absolutes is they will absolutely get you into trouble.

I noticed a number of people give no allowance to the felonies that were non-violent, white collar crimes. No allowance for the guy caught up in something, guilty, because he didn't know what was going down. He should have known better. I'm not even talking, at this point, about the felons who really did a crime.

What was the story about the guy who went to jail because he lent his car to someone who murdered someone? I just read about it but can't remember the case so can't find a link. Someone here must know about that one.

How about the people falsely accused of rape because the girl didn't want her father to know about the relationship? Can't find that link either. 18 year old boy is still in prison I believe.

If you don't believe it can happen, read some stories.
The Innocence Project - Home

Mistakes happen but people here apparently don't believe they can. Someone here said "nobody accidentally commits a felony". Aside from the above link, have you seen the video from the law professor about not talking to the police? I believe someone here already mentioned the Lacey law.

Aside from those guilty of felonies of really violent law, we give no lee-way to those felons who brought back a bony fish from Honduras which is only illegal in Honduras, excluding the Lacey law, which only makes it illegal in the U.S. because it is illegal in a foreign country. Wow. Tough crowd.

And let's not forget that we have unalienable or unsurrenderable rights that are being taken away. And people here are advocating that while moaning about their rights being taken away. Some might even make the argument that it is cruel and unusual punishment or the punishment does not fit the crime.

You all of course must make decisions that fit your conscience. As I've said before, I am still dealing with this issue in my own head. I can agree that it doesn't make sense to allow violent ex-criminals to be allowed to carry firearms, vote, serve an office (even if other criminals can serve simply because they were never tried for their crimes). I still have not been able to resolve how we can say we have the authority to do that and don't have the authority to do it to law-abiding citizens when I see nothing in the Constitution that differentiates between the two. I am open to enlightenment from those willing to discuss though. I am not open to those willing to smack me over the head with a hammer to make their point. You know who you are.

[ccw9mm]

Just a thought.

The trouble with absolutes is they will absolutely get you into trouble.

Mistakes happen but people here apparently don't believe they can.

The original statement is good advice. Broad strokes paint many with the wrong color.

There aren't "people" here. There are individuals, each of whom have independent views and who come to discuss things at the watering hole. Some will write what they write and have the views they do, but that's independent from the writings and views of others.

Aside from those guilty of felonies of really violent law, we give no lee-way to those felons who brought back a bony fish from Honduras ...

"We" don't speak with one voice, since "we" aren't here. The folks supporting that view did so. The other individuals who didn't express a view cannot be assumed to have a certain opinion merely by being here.

[DaveH]

"We" don't speak with one voice, since "we" aren't here. The folks supporting that view did so. The other individuals who didn't express a view cannot be assumed to have a certain opinion merely by being here.

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Well said!

In addition, there are some polls on this list where the % of the posts expressing one side of the issue is far out of line with the % the one-member-one-vote results in the poll.