Posted on 02/14/2014 5:58:01 AM PST by marktwain
WICHITA, Kan. -- The man who police say shot and killed a home intruder early Monday morning has been arrested.
Officers were called to the 2300 block of North Poplar shortly before 4 a.m. Monday. Officers say a 35-year-old woke up to a noise, then opened his bedroom door and saw a man inside his home. The men began fighting and shots were fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at kake.com ...
So if someone goes to jail for child molestation and serves his time, you don't think there should be restrictions on where he can live or go, or an on-line registry telling all his neighbors about his past?
I’d have to, free is free is it not?
We have far bigger problems than some recently freed prisoners voting though.
Truth be told, voting doesn’t even matter anymore, everything has progressed past that.
G. Gordon Liddy was talking about some guns he had and one of the ‘wags’ was quick to point out he was a convicted felon and couldn’t own ANY weapons...
GGL “Mrs. Liddy has an extensive collection of firearms, some of which she keeps on my side of the bed.”
Unfortunately for some it is. But should it be? I can't find a statement anywhere in my copy of the Constitution that says felons who have paid their debt to society and are not incarcerated should be denied the right to firearms.
I have no problem with it. If a person is safe enough to be released back on the streets he should bel able to defend himself with a firearm.
The practical answer is that these laws have nothing to do with preventing crime directly. If a criminal wants a gun he can get a gun. The purpose of these laws is to give the DA the ability to bring more charges and request a longer sentence AFTER the felon has committed another crime.
It is automatic in Kansas that voting right are restored after parole is over. I think they have some 5 and 10 year rules on getting gun rights back based on the types of felonies where a gun wasn't involved.
The child molester is pretty much on lifetime probation which means that criminal act has different consequences than someone who committed a crime, did the time and finished parole.
Maybe the questions should be: If someone is convicted of child molestations should he/she ever be allowed out of prison? Likewise, I don't believe anyone convicted of 1st degree murder should ever get out. After legitimate and fairly quick appellate process a conviction of 1st degree murder should result in the death penalty.
If you want to punish someone for the rest of their life, keep them in prison or kill them.
/johnny
As shown by this case. There was no way he should have been able to legally get a gun, so he got it illegally.
No, once off probation then a child molestor's "debt to society" is paid. But as long as he lives he is on a registry. He can't live within a certain distance of a school or daycare. He can't do a lot of things. He is punished for the rest of his life because he has shown he can't be trusted around kids. So why is it different for a murderer or armed robber? Having shown that they will abuse the right to own a gun by using it to commit a crime then why should they be trusted again?
You can ask that about any crime. That's not the question here. The question is when should a convicted criminal get a clean slate back? If an armed robber should get his rights back once he's out of jail then why not other criminals as well?
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand
In reality, how many of the criminal class ever bothered to vote in the first place? But, either his rights are restored or they're not restored. We shouldn't be picking and choosing which are yes and which are no.
> Still though...you should have a right to protect yourself against home intrusion.
He served time for armed robbery. What did he use the gun for when he wasn’t defending his home?
Every thug in America has a gun in their home irregardless whether its considered lawful for them to possess it or not. A guy has to even the odds against the trash out there that wants to invade his home. If he’s a past felon he really understands why he needs protection around the house. Before you even think it I’ve never been in prison or charged with anything more than traffic tickets.
No. US Constitution.
Ban on arms possession by felons is a relatively new feature of US law, 1938 Federal Firearms Act, replaced by the 1968 Gun Control Act. See Law Review Article advocating felon-prohibition in Vermont State law, and Gun Control Timeline
> Would you agree with felons who have served their time getting the ability to vote back?
Personally I think so as well as the ability to possess a firearm after they have done hard time and served a probationary period afterwards with no incidents or criminal episodes over like say a 5 year period. I know several people that have completely turned their lives around that go to our church. You would never know that they had served time to look at them now.
You are confusing punishment with prevention. You're not putting those restrictions on the child molester to "punish" him. You're putting them there to protect the kids from a sick bastard who need his ass seriously squared away.
How preventing some poor schlub who is a felon because of some bar fight he was in back in the '80s from having a modern side arm, is "protecting" anyone is beyond me. THAT is just pure, angry punishment, a finger-in-your-face "bad dog! You should have known better!" piousness.
Bah.
On the other hand, had he been a reformed law-abiding citizen and done what the law required (remain disarmed), and IF he had a wife and child, and the intruder had been a sicko -- what then, Eagles6?
The pious punishment of disarming him, had he gone along, would have resulted in God knows what horror. Sure, it's a hypothetical, but a very realistic one. Firearms protect families, too.
Pretty stupid "punishment."
I don't know. Does it? (real question)
And if it does, what acts qualified as "felonies" when it was written, as compared to what qualifies as a "felony" today?
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.