Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Charlie T Waite

Briefing, Arguments Concluded in Two FPC and FPF-Supported Second Amendment Appeals in Third Circuit

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post

I hate to say this, but I'm opposed to convicted felons having guns!  Those like the guy who filed a false tax return should have to go through the justice system to have those rights restored!!  There are avenues!  Convicted felons, by willingly committing such crimes, whether those crimes are violent or not, have shown that they are willing to circumvent the law.

If I spend my life lawfully doing business and going by the rules of society, I am rewarded with certain rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.  When I step outside the laws and rules of society, I forfeit those rights and then I should have to go through proper channels to try to regain those rights.  Serving time for the crime only partly fulfills that obligation!!

 

At what point in the level of criminality do we draw a line where those rights are withdrawn??  We've already drawn a line where crime becomes a felony rather than a misdemeanor.  That line is blurred by certain levels where gun rights are denied in spite of the fact that the crime is a misdemeanor and in some cases, where even an acquittal doesn't restore those rights, (Spousal abuse cases resulting in acquittals still revoke gun rights in many states, even at the misdemeanor level.).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I hate to say this, but I'm opposed to convicted felons having guns!  Those like the guy who filed a false tax return should have to go through the justice system to have those rights restored!!  There are avenues!  Convicted felons, by willingly committing such crimes, whether those crimes are violent or not, have shown that they are willing to circumvent the law.

If I spend my life lawfully doing business and going by the rules of society, I am rewarded with certain rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.  When I step outside the laws and rules of society, I forfeit those rights and then I should have to go through proper channels to try to regain those rights.  Serving time for the crime only partly fulfills that obligation!!

 

At what point in the level of criminality do we draw a line where those rights are withdrawn??  We've already drawn a line where crime becomes a felony rather than a misdemeanor.  That line is blurred by certain levels where gun rights are denied in spite of the fact that the crime is a misdemeanor and in some cases, where even an acquittal doesn't restore those rights, (Spousal abuse cases resulting in acquittals still revoke gun rights in many states, even at the misdemeanor level.).

 

This only came about in recent history, just prior to WWII because of the crime wave of the 20's The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 was enacted in the hopes of reducing the crime rates by restricting firearms access to criminals.  Since then more and more laws have been enacted to further restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans (not just criminals).  Some of these laws turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  So are you now advocating the restriction of the 2nd Amendment, a God given right?  In my court I have seen many people who have made a mistake and I agree they must be punished for it. How long must this punishment last?  This is a question I have to ask myself in each case.  Laws we must have to avoid a total breakdown in society, but they must be just and tempered with compassion as well.  The more severe the crime the stricter the punishment (agreed); but who is to be the final judge of when the debt to society has been repaid in full?  For some crimes I agree that will be a lifetime.  But what about those that there for the grace of God go I crimes?  Yes it is a choice to commit a crime and everyone does.  Consider the rolling stop at a stop sign.  What if while calculating your taxes at 3 am, you accidentally put a a decimal in the wrong place and the IRS catches it, you go to court and are convicted of tax evasion.  I am not advocating for or against this effort but the justice system in many cases has failed at restoration of these rights.  There was a 75 year old man that made a mistake at age 18 (1 oz marijuana).  After his release he led an exemplary life and was highly thought of in his community. He was trying to do get his rights restored a number of years back so he could take his grandson hunting before he died.  He started the process at age 50 and died at 78 without ever having his rights restored.  How would you feel in his place?  Finally, tell me; where have any of these restrictions actually reduced crime by keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals who by their very nature ignore the laws and welcome a defenseless victim?  Finally, I have seen where when only 1 in 20+ felons in possession were referred for prosecution, were actually prosecuted; and more often than not they received probation at most.  We have enough laws on the books to put a felon in possession behind bars for the rest of their life, we also have enough firearms laws on the books to lower the crime rates by 50% were they vigorously enforced; this has been shown.  But back to the question at hand.  "Who is to be the judge of when a debt to society is paid in full?  Before answering consider that the founders gave us our Constitution and Bill of Rights because they did not trust an all powerful government.

 

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post

Charlie, 

You have some valid points, but you make the point I brought up as well.

 

The IRS and the court system give wide latitude for the simple mistake you described.  The tax evader attempting to fight his loss of rights was convicted of  defrauding the government intentionally. There’s a difference!!

 

There are avenues for the restoration of rights, as I said.  I’m okay with the way things are in this instance. A rolling stop or 5mph over the speed limit isn’t felony level stuff. It’s a weak comparison by any stretch.

 

We’ll agree to disagree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

What I was trying to do is make everyone think and reason - but the question was still not answered - "Who is to be the judge of when a debt to society is paid in full?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Charlie T Waite said:

What I was trying to do is make everyone think and reason - but the question was still not answered - "Who is to be the judge of when a debt to society is paid in full?

 

There are people and panels in place to adjudicate just that thing! You put yourself in that situation, most often of your own volition, so it is up to you to seek relief and a judge or some comity will be responsible for making that decision.  It should NEVER be some pre-determined or automatic criteria.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.