Defensive Carry banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,108 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So this is another of those political ironies. It's happening in VA now, but it may happen in other states also. As you may know, Gov. McAuliffe (D) made the unprecendented move to order a blanket restoration of the rights of felons who have completed their sentences to vote, sit on juries and run for public office. The move was decried as a political stunt to provide more voters for Hillary in Nov.

But now, 43 of the states Commonwealth's Atorneys, who represent about a third of the jurisdictions in the state, have filed a protest, saying that this will make it more difficult to deny petitions for these felons to regain their gun rights. It is hard for them to argue to a circuit judge that someone who has had all their other rights restored, to not have their gun rights restored also. They have held the line so far, because the governor's order is under litigation. But if the gov's order stands, the burden of proof will shift to already overworked prosecutors to prove someone with restored rights should not get their gun rights back. The prosecutors say it will eventually become almost a rubber-stamp.

The VCDL's position is that either all rights, including gun rights, should be restored or no rights should be restored, and violent felons who are danger to society should be under some sort of custody and therefore not eligible. The governor's office is basically saying these prosecutors should just suck it up and do their jobs, it's not his problem.

No matter where you stand on this issue, you have to admit this is a huge irony for anti-gun, ultra-liberal McAuliffe and it is not likely to endear him to his liberal followers. And he is hoping to be Hillary's running mate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I don't think McAuliffe had a clear picture of Virginia and Virginians as as whole when he campaigned for office. On one hand, Yes he is a Liberal Democrat. On the other, he IS a consensus maker. He has back pedaled on the issue of Firearms recognition that was kicked off by the States Attorney and the compromise that came out is actually workable. The only remaining issue I would like to see accelerated is Georgia Reciprocity with Virginia's CCW. I am of a firm belief that there is not much intelligent life east of the Rockies and north of the Potomac River, so it would allow me to be in compliance with all of those states which matter to me (Up to New Mexico on the west.)
I think the VCDL is right. You are either a Citizen of good standing, or you are NOT. The qualifications for that citizenship are different from different people's perspectives, but we got along for over 200 years with only a few issues regarding that. (SLavery is a issue.)
I do not think McAuliffe is Hillary's first choice. He has too much integrity and would probably make a decent candidate when she is finally inedited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I'm actually ok with this especially if they weren't violent felons. The problem with our criminal justice system is that a felony lasts far longer than the actual sentence and makes it impossible to recuperate. The punishment is supposed to be the jail time, but we wind up making people into pariahs. I'm not saying it isn't deserved sometimes or that some of these people aren't violent but I would rather risk violence than deprive a man or woman their rights and the ability to recuperate/rejoin society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
And I thought Alabama politicians were bad. Ya'lls governor is a serious wank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
Hey, if a person is "Rehabilitated" and paid their debt to society they should get their rights back including guns.
If they can't be trusted with guns why the hell are they being put back into society.
Being banned from having guns have never kept a felon from having one yet.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,814 Posts
I don't think McAuliffe had a clear picture of Virginia and Virginians as as whole when he campaigned for office. On one hand, Yes he is a Liberal Democrat. On the other, he IS a consensus maker. He has back pedaled on the issue of Firearms recognition that was kicked off by the States Attorney and the compromise that came out is actually workable. The only remaining issue I would like to see accelerated is Georgia Reciprocity with Virginia's CCW. I am of a firm belief that there is not much intelligent life east of the Rockies and north of the Potomac River, so it would allow me to be in compliance with all of those states which matter to me (Up to New Mexico on the west.)
I think the VCDL is right. You are either a Citizen of good standing, or you are NOT. The qualifications for that citizenship are different from different people's perspectives, but we got along for over 200 years with only a few issues regarding that. (SLavery is a issue.)
I do not think McAuliffe is Hillary's first choice. He has too much integrity and would probably make a decent candidate when she is finally inedited.
McAuliffe is a New York Leftist fixer and fundraiser with questionable ethics. He was elected by three counties in Virginia, those packed with fellow Leftists and government dependents . His whole purpose for being is to get Shrillery elected . He's anti 2-A, anti free speech . He is pro dictatorship of the Revolution . Too bad he, like so many others like him, will share the fate of Danton.

By the way, the "Libertarian " candidate, Sarvis , supported totally with D money, took 16+ % of the vote, just enough to deny the R Candidate, Cuccenelli. Give that one some thought
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
But now, 43 of the states Commonwealth's Atorneys, who represent about a third of the jurisdictions in the state, have filed a protest, saying that this will make it more difficult to deny petitions for these felons to regain their gun rights. It is hard for them to argue to a circuit judge that someone who has had all their other rights restored, to not have their gun rights restored also. They have held the line so far, because the governor's order is under litigation. But if the gov's order stands, the burden of proof will shift to already overworked prosecutors to prove someone with restored rights should not get their gun rights back.
Won't make it tougher, necessarily.

It'll just require some justification, instead of the rubber-stamp crap that's tolerated today. Civil Rights abuse is just one of those things that has become so popular and common that it's tossed around like candy at a birthday party. Now, they'll have to justify why, if they're so non-dangerous as to be released, they're still so dangerous to be criminalized for future possession without harming another.

I'm all for the idea of full rights existing with a citizen, once a citizen on the street again.

I'm all for requiring standard of proof be presented, and for the burden of proof to be on the accusers.

I'm all for the absolute standard of due-process for future restrictions, which in point of fact the statutes covering murder, robbery and the rest already accomplish.

It's about bloody time we adhere to the constitutional rule of law, again. That'd be nice ... for a change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
I honestly don't know if I agree or disagree with restoring the rights. However, I will say you can't pick and choose. It's either all or nothing and playing games want cut it.
I feel exactly as you do. Democrats want to cherry pick rights and it drives me insane.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top