TexasCHLforum.com

SkipB wrote:Well what about the people that always obey the law, not perfect but good hard working honest citizans that have never been arrested for a felony and a person that you don't have to forgive. Should they be put in the same catagory as a felon.

That strikes me as some strange logic.

Felons who have completed their sentences can work, drive, buy property, marry, have kids, eat, etc., just like law-abiding people. In some states they can vote. But Congress capriciously denies them certain rights and privileges, like owning firearms and serving in the military.

As I said earlier, I can see the logic in the case of violent criminals, but it is far too easy to be convicted of a non-violent or victimless felony. The law has created a large class of people who are unlikely to re-offend, but whose rights are permanently limited.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Photoman wrote:Even if a convicted armed robber has been born again, he should still be prohibited from owning firearms. My opinion.

Only armed robbers, or all felons?

What social purpose is served by prohibiting, say, G. Gordon Liddy from owning firearms for life? Is he likely to lie to Congress again?

- Jim

Thank you for bringing that up Jim. I wasn't clear in my example.

I think that a person convicted of a ~violent~ felony by a jury should be prohibited from firearms possesion. I might be willing to consider some sort of limitations on that prohibition, but I can't imagine what it would be.

Well, I guess I am in the minority again. I do not see any purpose whatsoever in prohibiting any person on the streets from owning or carrying a firearm. I include convicted violent felons in this. If they have served their sentence, they should get all rights back, IMHO.

After all, if we do not trust them to vote or walk the streets carrying a firearm, why did we release them from jail? Either they are trustworthy, they have paid whatever we deemed a fair penalty, or they should still be in jail.

And to look at the flip side, if they are going to rob again, I would be willing to bet that they are not going to obey your firearms prohibition either.

srothstein wrote:After all, if we do not trust them to vote or walk the streets carrying a firearm, why did we release them from jail? Either they are trustworthy, they have paid whatever we deemed a fair penalty, or they should still be in jail.

This is one of those deep philosophical questions that require hip boots and a pitchfork.

Sentencing is somewhat capricious to begin with. Some crimes have mandatory minimum sentences. Sometimes it's up to the judge or jury based on victim impact and the offender's display of remorse or lack thereof.

Once the person is in prison, he can be released early based on good behavior or just a court order forbidding overcrowding. The latter sometimes results in violent offenders being released, while the junkies serve their mandatory sentences.

There's no guarantee that a released prisoner is reformed. He could have spent his time in prison quietly planning to assassinate the prosecutor and judge that he thinks put him there, and some have done just that.

The rate of recidivism proves that released felons often are not reformed.

Ideally, we would keep people in prison until they could demonstrate that they were reformed. But that's not how the system works, and I don't see how to get to that point.

Therefore I think some period of good behavior out of prison should be required for full restoration of rights.

- Jim

During King George's rein and before, virtually every crime was a felony; misdemeanors were as scarce as hen's teeth. Every felony was punishable by death, though some people might escape the ax or gallows, if old George was feeling generous.

In 1776, we decided this and other things needed changing so we smote old George's boys and set up our own judicial system. Most things were misdemeanors and the title felony was reserved for those offenses most folks would consider truly severe crimes.

200+ years later, we've come full circle and every two years our legislature transforms more and more misdemeanors into felonies. The latest -- assault dogs! If your dog bits someone, not kills them mind you, just bits them, you could well be facing a felony charge. Our prisons are filling faster than Baby Boomers joining the Social Security roster and we are once again facing the possibility of seeing the federal courts step in and order us to give "early release" to violent felons so we can keep the attack-dog owner and hot-check writers in prison.

Oh, by the way, let's be sure to keep an eye on our junior high school kids and so we can catch them giving a friend a hug between classes or while on school property, so we can either suspend them for 5 days (that helps their education) or send them to an alternative school so they can be transformed from a good kid to a budding thug by his fellow students.

And if all of this fails, let's pass more "civil commitment" laws so we can keep people locked up long after they have served their sentences pronounced by the judge or jury. All that due process constitutional stuff is really inconvenient.

I hope this trend scares other people as bad as it scares me! I've been a law-and-order, conservative, death penalty-supporting Republican all of my life, but at this rate, I may live long enough to become a liberal.

Chas.

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...but at this rate, I may live long enough to become a liberal.

Chas.

Charles,

I hope you live a long time, but PLEASE don't convert!!! That would be like seeing a Southern Baptist preacher on 'Dancing with the Stars'!!!

seamusTX wrote:

- Jim

Jim:
My rant wasn't directed at you!

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Jim: My rant wasn't directed at you!

I didn't think it was. My "eye popping" icon was a reaction to

... but at this rate, I may live long enough to become a liberal.

They say brevity is the soul of wit but sometimes I carry it to excess.

BTW, the root of the word liberal is the Latin liber, which means both free and book (I never figured out how that happened). Prohibiting weapons is no more liberal than prohibiting freedom of speech or religion.

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I hope this trend scares other people as bad as it scares me! I've been a law-and-order, conservative, death penalty-supporting Republican all of my life, but at this rate, I may live long enough to become a liberal.

Maybe not liberal, but libertarian at heart.

srothstein wrote:Well, I guess I am in the minority again. I do not see any purpose whatsoever in prohibiting any person on the streets from owning or carrying a firearm. I include convicted violent felons in this. If they have served their sentence, they should get all rights back, IMHO.

OK. I'll go for this. But you have to change the laws so that I can carry ~any~ firearm I want ~anywhere~ I want so that I can be properly prepared for the inevitable.

Photoman wrote:

srothstein wrote:Well, I guess I am in the minority again. I do not see any purpose whatsoever in prohibiting any person on the streets from owning or carrying a firearm. I include convicted violent felons in this. If they have served their sentence, they should get all rights back, IMHO.

OK. I'll go for this. But you have to change the laws so that I can carry ~any~ firearm I want ~anywhere~ I want so that I can be properly prepared for the inevitable.

Yep, that is my exact proposal. Repeal Chapter 46 of the Penal Code and Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the US Code.

Then enforce the same repeals of all state laws that would match our chapter 46.

IOW, I believe the Second Amendment means just what it says: "Shall not be infringed."

Keith B wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...but at this rate, I may live long enough to become a liberal.

Chas.

Charles,

I hope you live a long time, but PLEASE don't convert!!! That would be like seeing a Southern Baptist preacher on 'Dancing with the Stars'!!!

I guess no one seen Longtooth