Posted on 06/24/2013 5:53:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When Jesse Hovanesian applied for a pistol permit two years ago, he did not mention his criminal conviction in a case where police said he fled on foot toward his house after a traffic stop, yelling, "You can't come in here without a warrant," before the officer grabbed him at the front door and wrestled him to the ground.
When Bristol police dug a little deeper, records show, they found the unemployed 23-year-old had been a suspect in a variety of drug and larceny investigations, along with a road-rage incident in which he was accused of a slashing another driver with a knife. He was not convicted or charged in most of the cases.
But in the end, none of it mattered.
After Bristol's police chief rejected his application to carry a gun, Hovanesian appealed to the Connecticut Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, which found that the chief was a few days late in submitting a written explanation of his denial -- a deadline for which the board shows no mercy. As a result, when Hovanesian's case was called in March, the board took no testimony and voted immediately and unanimously to overturn the police chief's denial and give Hovanesian a pistol permit by default.
"I did have some complications in the past; I'm not going to deny that," Hovanesian said last week. "I had to jump through some hoops, but it all worked out and I got my permit."
In outcome, if not in speed, that is the typical result of the board's deliberations. In more than two-thirds of permit-denial cases in recent years, the board has rejected a local official's judgment that an individual cannot be trusted to carry a gun in public, a Courant examination of board records reveals.....
(Excerpt) Read more at policeone.com ...
If a person is not in prison, he should be allowed to carry a gun, I don’t care who he is.
If a person is not in prison, he should be allowed to carry a gun, I don’t care who he is.
It took me a long time to arrive at the same conclusion. I kept thinking, "Well, yeah, but what if...?" and "Yeah, but what about...?" Eventually, a little at a time, I understood freedom is always—necessarily—risky. Better too much freedom than too little, and better to regard freedom as a non-negotiable absolute than the exception-riddled remnant of freedom it's become.
Nothing here says that the subject has a felony conviction. So, yeah... he gets his permit.
I didn’t see that he had ANY convictions for anything.
I absolutely do not concur with the premise that the only restrictions that can/should be placed on a person's liberty, via due process, must involve a prison cell.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a person a 15 year prison sentence AND a lifetime restriction on their liberty. Fifteen years in prison didn't make them a better citizen, nor did it pay any debt. It just kept them away from the innocent.
There are already legal means by which a felon can regain their voting and 2A rights, let them use those. Concerning overly restrictive sentencing, that is a matter of opinion that ebbs and flows with the composition of the legislature.
The police chief dragged his feet for TWO YEARS and missed the deadline and they are bitching because he got the permit? I trust an ex-con with a gun more than any liberal or moderate politician any day.
Then you are also opposed to the War on Drugs.
The founding fathers disagree. For most of this county’s history an ex-con was given all his rights back when they were released from prison. Including the RKBA and the right to vote.
No, they totally agreed that sentencing should be up to the legislators, and when they were state legislators the penalities they put into law were generally much more severe than what we have today. The large change over time was not that we took away a felon's rights when we let them out of prison, but rather that we started letting them out of prison.
So the man that the Founders would have hanged, is now given 20 years in prison and lifetime restrictions. Which one lost more freedom?
Once he is incarcerated and freed he has paid.i cannot find where in the wording of the Second Amendment it says that people someone thinks are bad guys lose their RKBA. Please point to the clause that makes that exception to RKBA “shall not be infringed.”
Apparently, the Founders didn't think anyone would be so thick, as not to understand that individual rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, are abridged, via due process, when a person is sentenced after conviction for a crime.
A prisoner does not have the right to free speech, nor association, nor 2A rights, when they are imprisoned, something the Founders were perfectly OK with. They were also OK with branding a person for life, as an indication that they were a bad person.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were clearly not intended to be kept by felons, or the Founders wouldn't have hanged so many of them. Depriving a man of his life is certainly no less serious a penalty than depriving that same man of certain liberties.
DUE PROCESS, is the key. Releasing a person from prison does not make them freshly innocent, nor does is there any magic under the law the makes them a newly mented, trustworthy citizen.
Paid what and to whom? Did the raped victim get unraped? Did the robbed victim get their money and dignity back? Did the dead victim come back to life?
Prison pays no debt, it simply serves to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Penalties in addition to prison are part of the original sentence and serve the exact same purpose as the prison sentence, albiet with fewer restrictions on the guilty.
Frankly, there are many felons that I would never send to prison, I would instead make the work as indentured servants for a period of time.
You can make a logical case that not all felonies should include lifetime restrictions, but that is a different matter than stating that a violent rapist has paid for his crimes and should be treated as an equal of every honest citizen.
Then you are also opposed to the War on Drugs.
You've got that right, Blood of Tyrants! If some self-appointed genius is toking and driving, I want to see the law land on him like a ton of brick, because he's putting everyone else's life at risk just like a drunken driver; if he's sitting home toking and going through snack food by the bushel basket and totaling out his own brain cells, however, he's his own problem, not ours.
I've met an awful lot of self-proclaimed "freedom lovers" who loudly proclaim the feral government has no business in our gun safes, but demand the same feral government keep a close eye on the contents of everybody's pockets and lungs and veins.
Also known as spitting on the Tenth Amendment. And yes, there are many who do so.
Just defend pot somewhere else. It’s not needed
Ditto on that,,, If they can’t be trusted with a firearm, they should have never been let out of jail.The person as paid for their crime.
I agree
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.