"Rifleman"s comments in post #18 sum it up quite succinctly.
Posted on 04/30/2003 5:45:41 AM PDT by CFW
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In the society of the future EVERYONE will be a convicted felon, including you.
I very curious about the details here. He is 43 and has two burglary convictions.
When did these burglaries occur and under what circumstances?
The story conveniently omits all details that would establish context- does he have a job? A family? What other encounter has he had with the law?
If the answer to these questions suggest a positive change of life then it is a mistake to allow a Prosecutor to intimidate you into a plea bargain.
An established possibility would be the jury would nullify both the charges and the law.
Of course, conservative lawyers on the level of competence of the ACLU are virtually non-existent so such an outcome is still only a possibility.
Best regards,
In many places. Those rights innure to us as long as we follow a set of civil codes, called laws. Break them, and you lose rights reserved for the lawful.
Not that I don't think it's ridiculous putting a man behind bars for 15 years for carrying a gun on his own property - felon or no felon.
I'd say keeping me safe from this guy has been about the same cost to me directly as the thieves who stole my 401K money. Would the New York cops start arresting anyone from Wallstreet who goes hunting?
Right where it says that he can't vote, either. Also, more generally, the emphasis on "in his own property" is a faulty argument. If the government can regulate what two consenting adults can do in their bedroom, then surely the government can regulate what an adult can shoot at in his backyard, right?
Yup, he's just the kind of guy who needs to have free speech.
Yup, he's just the kind of guy who needs to have freedom of worship, etc, etc.
He either paid his debt to society or he didn't. If he did, then he should have all the rights of a free man. If not, he should still be in jail.
The "right to vote" is not part of the Bill Of Rights.
There is a difference between limited organizational rights (like voting) and unalienable natural rights (like posessing arms). The former is limited to people of certain age, citizenship, location, and procedures - and until the Constitution was amended, even limited to sex. The latter is defined as an unalienable natural right, recognized with the explicit phrase "...shall not be infringed" - the only limit is where exercising the right violates someone else's rights.
The "felons lose the right to vote too" argument is a falacy.
In the past the idea was you did a crime, paid for it, and were given another chance. If you are convicted today, you lose your right to defend yourself (or hunt) forever.
To me, it's just another little angle in the campaign to disarm all of us... One by one.
"Rifleman"s comments in post #18 sum it up quite succinctly.
Right here:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
He received due process. Therefore, it is Constitutional to forbid him from owning a gun, and to jail him if he takes possession of one.
And this guy should have known this. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
OTOH, I could see the Executive authority of this state giving this guy a pardon at some point. While what he did was stupid and against the law, the act he was engaged in was otherwise lawful (I'm presuming here that he wasn't in violation of any other laws) and he hurt no one but himself.
How so? For pleading guilty instead of going to trial? Was it the lawyers advice or did he just decide for himself to plead guilty, and what would have been the likely sentance for a conviction if the 15 years was already legislated as being mandatory anyway?
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.