South Carolina PingAdd me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
Posted on 09/27/2006 11:25:22 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com
In the wake of Charleston's 17th homicide, Mayor Joe Riley is calling for warrantless searches of offenders on probation, costly investments in the criminal justice system, and changes in state laws aimed at keeping gun-using criminals behind bars.Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing a number of changes to state laws, including:
--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.
--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.
--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.
--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at charleston.net ...
Probation officers can barge into any felon's home without a warrant because felons give permission as a condition of release. At least that's how it works in Alaska.
Who says the framers thought that way? It's nothing but an urban myth that they intended on keeping everybody who wasn't fit to be armed in a prison. WHAT prisons? The ones every jurisdiction was building and staffing with the combined funds from the colossal federal, state, and local income taxes that were being collected from citizens of the late 18th century United States?
They had common sense back then, and everybody understood that convicted criminals and insane/retarded people were not to be given the same freedoms as normal people.
So much for 'shall not be infringed.'
Yeah, you're right, I hurried. But I'm so damn hacked-off at the local National Reasonable-regulation Ass and the local Grass Roots guys for sitting on their keyboards and letting these petty tyrants get away with murder (in the final analysis).
Thing about the way the clintonistas defined assault weapon.
All they need to do is invent the phrase "crime gun" is anything which shoots a bullet and instantly all those with guns are criminals subject to mandatory sentences.
Defend yourself and MERE POSESSION in the eyes of some (and most are based repeated court experiences) incompetent prosecutor and second amendment is defacto gone.
Problem is that most rights are restored to felons once your parole/probation is over in most states, firearms ownership is the only one that doesn't. Also, why should someone that is convicted of non-violent crimes, like Martha Stewart, loose their right?
I think what the poster meant, at least as I interpreted it, was that once you've done your time and paid your "debt to society" you are once again a free citizen with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities attending such status. Certainly the framers didn't intend to have some star chamber decide the fitness of each person and indefinately confine those deemed unfit. I believe you've misunderstood the comments.
Really? So you are ok with
--Prohibiting those convicted of ... any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.
Someone convicted of non-violent crimes, like Martha Stewart, should loose their right?
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
You ok with parents/grand parents not able to take their children/grand children hunting/shooting?
There was no assumption back then that "once you've paid your debt" by serving a prison term, you are automatically considered as having the same legal status as if you'd never committed the crime. They had common sense back then. They knew that people who have committed serious crimes are very likely to do so again, and they did not imagine that either the law or other individuals would deal with these people as if they had never committed a serious crimin. They also knew an insane or retarded person when they saw one and had no thought of allowing such persons to run around with guns.
The issue of how the definition of "felony" has morphed is more valid. Back then, things like having a gun when your "permit" for same had recently expired, certainly didn't constitute a felony.
Well, that last one is silly, kids should be allowed to have guns if their parents are ok with it, and 18-year olds are definitely old enough to make their own decision about guns.
The bit about criminals, though -- no, I don't care about their rights.
We always deprive convicted felons of rights by taking away their money, their vote, and their freedom. This would be one more good way to deprive them.
"We always deprive convicted felons of rights by taking away their money, their vote, and their freedom. This would be one more good way to deprive them."
Not always, but taking away of rights is also true of people that convict misdomeanors, but only when a criminal (felon or non) is in prison/jail. When they are out on parole/probation they can have money and limited freedom. So based on your statement, should non-felons also be included? You may not care about their rights now, but when you become one of them (through government passing a law or what ever reason).
I have never heard about any of that back when the founding fathers were around, proof?
long guns wouldn't be included in this law. Only hand guns and rifles that are already illegal.
Riley takes delight in being the biggest liberal in the state.
If that is the case, then the whole thing is grandstanding. Federal law already requires the purchaser of a handgun or handgun ammo to be 21. What federal law doesn't do is infringe on the possession of a handgun by persons under 21. You can't purchase but it is legal to possess under federal law. Illegal rifles applies to everyone. There are special cases of short barreled rifles that are technically illegal unless you get BATFE approval and pay the $200 NFA tax.
If this passes, you won't be able to be an armed police officer until you are over age 21.
No, not non-felons. There's a reason we classify some crimes as being more serious than others.
You and I read the same article, I'm not sure what the other fellow read. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals seems to be the theme here.
That one is 'troubling'.
You Low-Country guys can correct me if I'm wrong, being the hillbilly Up-Stater that I am, but it's my understanding that Charleston leans rather hard to the left anyway, and yankee gun grab is an apt description of this Giulianiesque move to fight crime.
--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
What is 'illegal' firearm possession? Is there a possibility that law abiding citizens will become 'criminals' under this law?
--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.
The any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail has a couple of troubling items. 1) a person sentenced to 1 year for tax evasion, or similar crimes, should not be stripped of Second Amendment right, and 2) it says 'carrying a punishment of one year or more', so does that mean that if a person is convicted of a crime that carries a one year or more penalty but is only sentenced to 60 days, for instance, he still looses his Second Amendment right?
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
This is, perhaps, the worst one. That may play in NYC or Detroit, but it doesn't make sense in the South.
--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.
This one could probably be used wrong, also. What if somebody has possession of a gun when they're arrested for possession of a prescription drug that doesn't have their name on it, such as Viagra? Is is possible that the drug arrest could be dimissed but the guy could still get 5 years for the gun?
--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.
I don't know........
--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.
I like this one.
--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.
I don't get this one. Is this saying that the word mandatory in the above laws doesn't necessarily mean mandatory and there has to be an additional law to ensure that a mandatory sentence is carried out to at least 85 percent of it's mandatory duration?
All in all I agree: yankee gun-grab.
That is in direct contradiction to your statement, because we deprive non-felons the same way.
We also deprive those that have not been convicted of anything, but have restraining orders due to divorces (which has become part of the normal paperwork) regardless of any prior instances of abuse.
We also deprive people that are deemed mentally defective, which could one day include Christians/Conservatives/Republicans/etc.
We deprive people that live next door to a school (No gun/Safe School zones) even though they are not convicted of anything.
We deprive teachers (and college students) that have never been convicted of anything.
This is not about just "felons" or "criminals" but about the 2nd amendment. If you are deemed safe enough to be released into civilian population, then you should be considered safe enough to have your rights. If you can't be trusted (which many that are released can't be), then they shouldn't release you. I would be willing to bet that the Founding Fathers would say the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.