Skip to comments.Alleged home invasion victim arrested on gun charge(LA)
Posted on 10/23/2012 6:38:07 AM PDT by marktwain
SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) -
Shreveport Police say they arrested a homeowner who exchanged gunfire with intruders Monday night because the homeowner illegally possessed his handgun.
Rafeal Sinville, 29, was booked on one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
The arrest came after police responded about 9:35 p.m. Monday to a call of a home invasion at a home in the 2500 block of Dupont Street.
Authorities say the homeowner was inside his home, heard a knock at the door, and, when he opened it, found one man who was armed and another man trying to force their way in.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayoubuzz.com ...
A felon loses certain means to self-defense because they have demonstrated themselves to be a threat to others.
If they think they can make a case that they are not such a threat, then they have legal means to petition to reinstate their legal ability to have a firearm.
I have no problem with a felony conviction having such consequences.
I agree. Right to self defense should override that offense
Unless a person is convicted of a violent offense and at the time, having used a weapon in the commission of said crime, all others should be able to (say after a reasonable time, mayhaps 5 years of going straight) apply for permission to own a weapon.
I have a friend who is a Vietnam Vet and former Fed LEO who got caught up in a white collar crime (some 25 years ago and has not had so much as a parking ticket since) and he is frustrated at not being able to have a weapon (or even live in a home whereby someone else in his family can) to protect himself and his family.
Time to revisit (though I doubt most Pols have the nerve) the auto banning of possession of a weapon for "any" convicted felon.
“That’s right officer, I took the gun from one of the intruders and returned fire. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
Hey, I’m just a bystander here, but see sampleman’s post. They do have rights to petition to remove this restriction.
I prefer we stick with the Constitution, and the 'shall not be infringed' part.
Again, the OP spouts without reading the post thoroughly. You did acknowledge that right. Sorry.
Many people have been convicted of crimes demonstrating that they cannot be trusted with many things, such as driving, being around an ex-spouse, having deadly weapons, etc. It is a waste of money to keep them all in prison. Taking away God given rights is what criminal punishment is all about and punishment is not restricted to physical restraint.
When someone can't handle doing something without harming others, then that right can be legally taken away as a form of punishment and societal protection. Prison terms do not rehabilitate people. I very much disagree with your all or nothing approach to prison. The loss of certain rights after release is a form of parole.
As I posted before, if they don't pose a threat, let them plead their case on an individual basis.
Wow am I the only one that noticed tha the felon’s last name was “Sinville”? What a name. He didn’t even have a chance.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
The law reads that a felon cannot posses a gun....period.
There’s a very good reason for that and common sense will reveal it only to those with common sense.
With that said I think felon upon felon crime is great. It’s good that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.
Now, if we can only make criminals executed in the same horrible manner they killed their victims and in the same length of time it took them to die too.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN JAYWALKING BECOMES A FELONY?......
the pederstran has the right of way over the vehicle. He/she is seldom successful in exercising it. It takes money and usually political clout to get one’s civil rights restoted. To be successful, one has to hire a lawyer and said lawyer has to bribe politicians. Both require money.
They have forfeited the trust of their fellow citizens. Serving your prison sentence does NOT make you trustworthy. They can use lesser means to defend themselves, but their RKBA is gone and justifiably so.
There should be a way for an ex-con to get his RKBA back, but should not be easy or fast.
Are either of you willing to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and funding the required appeals for released felons? I am pretty sure most of them are not, and more than likely never will be, able to fund such an endeavor themselves.
I believe if they are safe enough to have on the street they should have full reinstatement of all rights.
There is a way. It is money, lots of it.
Upon re-reading the second amendment I still don't see where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to those the government deems trustworthy. In ract it says "shall not be infringed." This restriction is a new (Johnson era) completely unconstituitonal restriction. Those who support it are de facto supporting the concept of a "living constitution" ie. one that means nothing.
And BTW that restriction didn't really work did it?