PDA

View Full Version : Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons



BlackSun23
07-20-2008, 05:00 AM
Opinions?


WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

So far, federal judges uniformly have agreed these restrictions are unchanged by the Supreme Court's landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"The line I'm proposing, at the home, is entirely consistent" with the Supreme Court ruling, said Chontos, a lawyer in Turtle Creek, Pa. A court hearing on the issue is scheduled for late July.

New angle of attack
The legal attacks by Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers are separate from civil lawsuits by the National Rifle Association and others challenging handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs as well as a total ban on guns in public housing units in San Francisco.

People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Denis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.

"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.

"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."

At the Justice Department, spokesman Erik Ablin said the agency's lawyers "will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all federal firearms laws and will respond to particular challenges in court."

City bans most vulnerable
Cities' outright bans on handguns probably are the most vulnerable laws following the Supreme Court ruling. Many lawyers and Second Amendment experts believe that restrictions on gun ownership in public housing also will be difficult to defend.

The question for courts will be whether the government has more power when it acts as a landlord, as it does in public housing, than in general.

"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will defend the policy as good for public safety. "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.

In the District of Columbia, the city housing authority is considering whether its prohibition on firearms in public housing can survive the court ruling, spokeswoman Dena Michaelson said.

But Volokh and some gun rights proponents said people convicted of crimes are less likely to succeed in their challenges.

"Many felons may need self defense more than you and I, but the government has extra justification for limiting that right because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy," Volokh said.

A gun for Scooter Libby?
Judges may find it harder to resolve cases in which nonviolent criminals, particularly those whose only offense happened long ago, are charged with gun possession.

"Do you think Scooter Libby should have a gun?" asked Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who says the ruling will complicate the work of the courts, prosecutors and police. He was referring to former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the CIA leak investigation.

A more plausible case for being allowed a gun might be made by someone now in his 50s or 60s who was convicted as a teenager of taking a car for a joyride, said Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights supporter and lawyer. "You might have a court look at that differently," Halbrook said.

The Supreme Court has a case on its calendar for the fall that could indicate whether the justices are inclined to expand their ruling.

In United States v. Hayes, the government is asking the court to reinstate a conviction for possession of a gun for someone previously convicted of a domestic violence crime. In 1994, Randy Hayes received a year of probation after pleading guilty to beating his wife.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because the West Virginia law Hayes violated does not specifically deal with domestic violence crimes. The question for the high court, then, is a technical one: whether the law has to include domestic violence to be used in the future to prevent someone from owning guns?

Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate will be watching closely to see whether the court's D.C. decision is relevant to the Hayes case and, if so, how.

David Hineline
07-20-2008, 08:30 AM
I have always agreed, released felons should have all rights restored. If someone is a continued threat to society then they should not be released.

latenighter
07-20-2008, 08:33 AM
So a released felon should be allowed to carry a gun? Thats crazzzy man...

Monty Ealerman
07-20-2008, 08:59 AM
Release does not mean absolution.

Mrs. Hoppes
07-20-2008, 09:03 AM
Non-violent offenders should be allowed to carry.

If a person were in prison for stealing a car and going for a joyride, then I see no reason to deny him the right to carry.

If a person were a rapist, murderer, or child molester, then continued denial is fine.

Just my unprofessional opinion.

Dinosaur32
07-20-2008, 09:41 AM
No problem in barring convicted felons from carrying..........if they violate society's rules then society has a right to demand punishment not limited to just time.

Monty Ealerman
07-20-2008, 09:44 AM
Most people that have the right to carry don't choose to do so. Why let someone who's at best irresponsible do so? If you were 19 and screwed up that badly, OK maybe if you wait 'til you're 30, and you've grown up, with 10 years of no crime, in my opinion.

VA Dutch
07-20-2008, 09:51 AM
All other opinions aside, I don't see anything about the recent (DC vs. Heller) court case that would allow a felon to all of a sudden claim they have the right to "self defense" firearms in their home. What has changed for that long-standing gun prohibition in the recent court case? Nothing that I can see.

Anyway, I figured it would not be long before somebody would want felons to have their Second Amendment rights restored. After all, look how many groups are trying to get voting rights restored for ex-cons. Jeez! I know the Democrat Party needs more people voting, but isn't it enough just to stick with dead & mentally disabled people?
:p

{Sorry, I just could not resist!}

As for the Brady Campaign (or whatever Dennis Henigan's outfit calls itself nowadays), they really do not oppose "gun violence" -- but seek to do anything possible (constitutional or otherwise) to keep ordinary citizens from owning, possessing or carrying firearms whenever possible. They hate guns more than they hate crime or criminals, for Pete's sake.
:confused:

That outfit (along with others) always opposes measures that benefit society and reduce violent crime (concealed-carry, Castle Doctrine laws, etc.), while favoring laws & ordinances that put more law-abiding people in danger by leaving them disarmed and defenseless. Duh!

ComicGuy
07-20-2008, 10:48 AM
I've never understood why convicted felons are not allowed to vote.
I've also never understood why those convicted of non-violent felonies were stripped of their second amendment rights.
Violent felons? Fark 'em.

sweetcynic
07-20-2008, 10:52 AM
Non-violent offenders should be allowed to carry.



So you have no problem with someone convicted of, say, burglary and selling meth legally carrying? Getting out of jail or getting off of parole doesn't imply the maturity and responsibility needed to responsibly own a gun. Twelve year olds are not generally incarcerated but they can't use weapons without parental consent. Many nonrecidivist ex-cons still only have the maturity of 12 yr olds. Besides, many of them would have a reduced need for self-defense if they stopped hanging out with their old friends and enemies.

Mrs. Hoppes
07-20-2008, 01:42 PM
Are they first time offenders or repeat offenders? How long since their release? Are they still on probation? If it was a drug-related crime, are they clean? For how long?

t150vsuptpr
07-20-2008, 03:54 PM
I've never understood why convicted felons are not allowed to vote.
I've also never understood why those convicted of non-violent felonies were stripped of their second amendment rights.
Violent felons? Fark 'em.
Because they have demonstrated an inability to abide by the laws, even those most basic and seriuos laws of our society. They have shown a lack of good citizenship.

I have absolutely zero problems with denying the vote and posession of firearms to convicted felons.

WC145
07-20-2008, 04:43 PM
You commit a felony, you get convicted, you lose your rights.
You want to keep 'em, don't commit crimes.
It works for the other millions of people in this country that abide by the laws.

Loren Pechtel
07-20-2008, 04:52 PM
Non-violent offenders should be allowed to carry.

If a person were in prison for stealing a car and going for a joyride, then I see no reason to deny him the right to carry.

If a person were a rapist, murderer, or child molester, then continued denial is fine.

Just my unprofessional opinion.

Is joyriding a felony in the first place?

I do somewhat agree, though--is an embezzler really a risk of violence?

IMachU
07-20-2008, 06:19 PM
Why did they embezzel in the first place? Narco addiction? Gambling addiction? Pay off La Cosa Nostra for services rendered? Yeah, embezelment should be on the list too.

Mrs. Hoppes
07-20-2008, 07:10 PM
How about rising medical costs for a terminally ill child?

Robocop007
07-20-2008, 07:31 PM
I have always agreed, released felons should have all rights restored. If someone is a continued threat to society then they should not be released.

The way the law is now in America can a convicted felon who NEVER used a firearm have a firearm in his home ONLY? In other words NO conceal and carry and never allowed to take outside.

So, can an ex-con with no firearm on his record keep a firearm ONLY at home for self-defense?

crazynova
07-20-2008, 07:46 PM
The way the law is now in America can a convicted felon who NEVER used a firearm have a firearm in his home ONLY? In other words NO conceal and carry and never allowed to take outside.

So, can an ex-con with no firearm on his record keep a firearm ONLY at home for self-defense?

The way the law is now, no felon can possess a firearm for any reason. They lose all rights when they commit a felony. I take it from your posts that you are in high school and have yet to take a government class?

bigislander72
07-20-2008, 07:48 PM
A few problems I have with prohibition on people convicted of certain crimes.

Since a felony is considered a serious crime, okay, fine. However, some states have different cutoffs for what constitutes felony. In some states MJ possesion is considered a cite only offense, in others its a serious felony. Some states allow people convicted of serious felonies the right to possess after a certain amount of time passes, but these state laws are trumped by federal law. Therefore since the feds are imposing this prohibition, it seems only fair that it be for a federally recognized felony, not some trumped up misdemeanor.

Secondly, the Lautenberg prohibition for MCDV seems really unfair since it applies to those convicted before the law was passed and for crimes that really are not deserving of loss of rights lasting a lifetime. Again I hear a lot of support for those laws on this forum. If this were extended to all misdemeanor crimes, I am sure there would be cries that "it isn't fair", "I had no idea this conviction would have this effect" ect. I wouldn't be surprised if this comes in the future and effects another wave of LEOs.

TheKansan
07-20-2008, 08:50 PM
I have always agreed, released felons should have all rights restored. If someone is a continued threat to society then they should not be released.


HELL NO!!!

There is no way I would allow that, and I'm certain I have plenty of people who are with me.

Dinosaur32
07-20-2008, 09:30 PM
So, Mrs. Hoppes, you would give a firearm to someone, who embezzled money to by medicine, a firearm so he could just walk into a bank and collect the money? I guess that does make sense....bank robbery is a faster route to the funds than embezzlement....

Mrs. Hoppes
07-20-2008, 10:02 PM
If I knew he was planning on commiting armed robbery, of course not. If he was currently embezzling, I would also turn him in.

This is about people who have done their time, have proven they are no longer a danger to society and whose crimes were non-violent. That excludes armed robbers.

t150vsuptpr
07-20-2008, 10:18 PM
This is about people who have done their time, have proven they are no longer a danger to society and whose crimes were non-violent. That excludes armed robbers.At what point did they prove that? Doing one's time doesn't purchase back the deed done, the harm done. The "time" is mearly meant as a punishment, a deterrent, and a means to removed those whom won't be deterred from society.

In no way does the serving of time assure me or most of society that that individual is somehow "better" for the experience ... unless it's that they learn to be better at crime in many cases.

itnstalln
07-20-2008, 10:24 PM
I think they should lose their right while serving their sentence, but when they are done there should be a process to restore rights. I don't think it should be mandatory either way, it doesn't allow for any discretion.

It can be case by case basis, and you can have different criteria for different rights, some can be shall reinstate and other can be may reinstate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia like this felon/sex offender should have everything reinstated IMHO

David Hineline
07-20-2008, 10:31 PM
For those of you who did not read my entire comment.

Anyone who is released into society should get thier rights back.

If someone can not be trusted in society with all thier rights, then they should not be released.

BlackSun23
07-20-2008, 10:54 PM
No problem in barring convicted felons from carrying..........if they violate society's rules then society has a right to demand punishment not limited to just time.

I completely agree, if you choose to go against societies laws and commit a felony then you need to be punished. Although I think they should have an evaluation from the courts in a set time from the incident to go over whether or not they will be given their rights back. ONLY in a case by case situation that is! If you don't want your rights taken away, don't do stupid things! The second amendment was put in place for the people who are protecting themselves from criminals. For them to say that a person who committed murder 20 years ago should now be allowed to carry a gun because he has "turned a new leaf" doesn't make a difference to me. To me that’s like saying to someone who has schizophrenia, "well you have been taking your medicine for a couple of years now and you seem to be doing alright so here is a gun so you can protect yourself at your home." I work at a psych ward right now and know that these people go back and forth, one year they will do fine and take their medicine and then the next they will all of a sudden stop taking it and go crazy again. Most convicted felons don't get out of jail and change their way of thinking and who they hang out with. They may not get picked up for something in the next year or so because they are more afraid of getting caught but they still have the same mentality. Wouldn’t you say?


Is joyriding a felony in the first place?

Joyriding is the crime of operating another person’s vehicle, including a car, bicycle, boat, or motorcycle, without permission from the owner. Many offenders commit the crime of joyriding in a reckless, dangerous, or otherwise defiant manner that poses a threat to public safety. Joyriding offenses often lead to accidents that involve personal injury or property damage. The crime of joyriding is considered a misdemeanor offense.

SgtScott31
07-20-2008, 10:56 PM
If I knew he was planning on commiting armed robbery, of course not. If he was currently embezzling, I would also turn him in.

This is about people who have done their time, have proven they are no longer a danger to society and whose crimes were non-violent. That excludes armed robbers.

The fact that 20% of the offenders commit 80% of the crime is pretty accurate. It is easy to say that someone is "rehabilitated" after doing their time, but statistics prove otherwise. Unfortunately those that commit felonies, in the long run, continue to commit felonies. They cannot be trusted, at least be trusted enough to have their "gun rights" restored.


For those of you who did not read my entire comment.

Anyone who is released into society should get thier rights back.

If someone can not be trusted in society with all thier rights, then they should not be released.

Also an easy statement to make, but not reality. The prison systems are overcrowded, understaffed, and underpaid. We cannot keep people in jail that deserve to stay there. There are plenty released back into society that would otherwise remain incarcerated if it were not for the prison/jail problems. I would say that the next best thing is to make sure they are not given easy access to weapons to continue to commit crimes or start committing worse crimes.

For the most part, most felony crimes in TN are serious crimes. There are exceptions here (i.e. altering a temporary license tag is a felony), as well with many other states. But anyone with a half-intelligent attorney can get a first-time felony dropped to a misdemeanor. Obviously homicide, rape, and other charges will stay as felonies, but I do not have any sympathy for those convicted of felony charges, because (A) they probably had their first felony reduced and had their "big chance" to "rehabilitate" themselves and "do better" and/or (B) it was a serious enough felony to result in a conviction.

NO GUNS FOR FELONS

Tucker6900
07-21-2008, 09:09 AM
Unless Im mistaken, in Michigan, if your a convicted felon, not only can you NOT own or possess any firearms, neither can your spouse, (or whoever it is that you live with).

I had a Felony in 1998. Due to law changes and an Expungment, I now have my CPL and carry concealed and open. I think if its a one time thing, depending on the nature of the crime, and after a certain amount of time has passed without any other crimes, they should be restored their rights.

SgtScott31
07-21-2008, 10:22 AM
Joyriding is the crime of operating another person’s vehicle, including a car, bicycle, boat, or motorcycle, without permission from the owner. Many offenders commit the crime of joyriding in a reckless, dangerous, or otherwise defiant manner that poses a threat to public safety. Joyriding offenses often lead to accidents that involve personal injury or property damage. The crime of joyriding is considered a misdemeanor offense.

In TN, joyriding is taking a vehicle but the violator does not intend to deprive the owner of said vehicle. There is a fine line between this and auto theft. I guess one example would be taking dad's ride without him knowing. It is a class A misdemeanor in TN.

bigislander72
07-21-2008, 06:58 PM
Joyriding is the crime of operating another person’s vehicle, including a car, bicycle, boat, or motorcycle, without permission from the owner. Many offenders commit the crime of joyriding in a reckless, dangerous, or otherwise defiant manner that poses a threat to public safety. Joyriding offenses often lead to accidents that involve personal injury or property damage. The crime of joyriding is considered a misdemeanor offense.

Unless the car belongs to someone closely related to the offender, I don't see the difference between this and felony auto theft. Seems like there is a lot of potential for unfair convictions; some get only misdemeanors, and other lose rights for life.

velobard
07-21-2008, 07:11 PM
Unless the car belongs to someone closely related to the offender, I don't see the difference between this and felony auto theft. Seems like there is a lot of potential for unfair convictions; some get only misdemeanors, and other lose rights for life.

After having my step-son visit a few weeks ago and take my car for a joyride in the middle of the night, I'm nearly mad enough to go ahead and press charges for theft. As it is, he was caught doing nearly 50 over in a residential zone and driving without a license. We sent him back home a few hours after we picked up from the PD. About the only thing stopping me is that we hope he'll manage to get into the military soon and hope that might help straighten him out, so we don't want any charges that would stand in his way.

Monty Ealerman
07-21-2008, 07:16 PM
"Auto Theft" is the crime of dispossessing another of his automobile with the intent to deprive him permanently of his rightful possession of such property. A long time ago, before joyriding statutes were in place, the most someone could get for joyriding was a trespass citation, and not unusually not even that.

It's a felony if you steal someone's car to keep it or sell it; it's a misdemeanor if you grab it to drive it around and then give it back. If you damage it in the process of grabbing it or thereafter, that could be felony, too, depending on how much damage was done. If it's charged under a joyriding statute, it will usually be a misdemeanor.

One kind of auto theft I don't want to deal with is the "crack rental" kind. Some crackhead gives up his car to the crack dealer for a day or two to get some crack, and then the crack dealer doesn't return it at the agreed time, and then the crackhead calls in an auto theft, and then the police have to look out for a PSMV that the lawyer later says was an authorized borrowing with a late return.

SgtScott31
07-21-2008, 08:21 PM
I also tend to remember that those caught riding in the vehicle but not operating it were subject to the "joyriding" charge.

t150vsuptpr
07-23-2008, 12:03 AM
For those of you who did not read my entire comment.

Anyone who is released into society should get thier rights back.

If someone can not be trusted in society with all thier rights, then they should not be released.

I read it.

I read it, saw I didn't agree, and went on......

Here they can petition the secretary of the commonwealth to restore their civil impediments, and it's discretionary as to whetherthey get them back or not.. If they do, they can vote and even run for some office. It does not restore "gun rights". I'm OK with that, as long as not automatic.

David Hineline
07-23-2008, 01:02 AM
I read it.

I read it, saw I didn't agree, and went on......

Here they can petition the secretary of the commonwealth to restore their civil impediments, and it's discretionary as to whetherthey get them back or not.. If they do, they can vote and even run for some office. It does not restore "gun rights". I'm OK with that, as long as not automatic.

I guess where we disagree then is that I think that anyone who is not trustworthy to be in society should not be in society and you think that it's ok to release people who we suspect will commit crime again and so we keep tabs on them for the rest of thier lives, hoping they are not repeat offenders but expecting them to be repeat offenders.

I would rather keep the dregs of society locked away out of our way.

PABear31
07-25-2008, 10:51 PM
Not all felons are prohibited from owning firearms. Under the federal statutes there are a specific list of offenses with definitions that prohibit gun ownership. Since not all states are uniform in their grading of crimes standards had to be established for federal enforcement. Under the Pennsylvania's crimes code section that prohibits convicted felons from posessing a firearm there is also a specific list of felonies in the statute. Many felony grade crimes are excluded.

While we are discussing crimes. Not all state have the crime of "joyriding" We have only two options in PA. It's either "Theft by Unlawful Taking" or Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle." The first is a felony the second a misdemeanor. A conviction for either one does not prohibit a person of owning a firearm after the full sentence has been served, including parole or probation.

bigislander72
07-26-2008, 01:12 AM
Not all felons are prohibited from owning firearms. Under the federal statutes there are a specific list of offenses with definitions that prohibit gun ownership. Since not all states are uniform in their grading of crimes standards had to be established for federal enforcement. Under the Pennsylvania's crimes code section that prohibits convicted felons from posessing a firearm there is also a specific list of felonies in the statute. Many felony grade crimes are excluded.

While we are discussing crimes. Not all state have the crime of "joyriding" We have only two options in PA. It's either "Theft by Unlawful Taking" or Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle." The first is a felony the second a misdemeanor. A conviction for either one does not prohibit a person of owning a firearm after the full sentence has been served, including parole or probation.

I thought that any offense that could have resulted in a sentence of one year or more resulted in lifetime prohibition. Doesn't a sentence that has parole automatically include that because it is a prison vs. jail sentence?

David Hineline
07-26-2008, 01:36 AM
The rules have tightened over the years. Not just federal felonies any more.

Any conviction that could have been imprisoned for more than a year, even if you received probation.

Any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that one cost some cops and military thier jobs as well as plain folks because back in the day it was easier to take the misdemeanor plea than to fight lawyer money in court and now they can't own guns.

Any restraining order protecting your child intimate partner or partner's child and no guns for you. Even without a conviction of any crime.

Dishonorable discharge from military and no guns. So if you commit adultery in the military and get a dishonorable discharge well no more guns for you since you cheated on your spouse.

So it's nothing like the good old days where all you had to worry about was felonies .

This all changed while you were sleeping and shooting trap guns at flying clay circles.

BlackSun23
07-26-2008, 02:21 AM
Any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that one cost some cops and military thier jobs as well as plain folks because back in the day it was easier to take the misdemeanor plea than to fight lawyer money in court and now they can't own guns.
.

The DV, are they done case by case? Or is it just general, if you get charged with one, then you’re out of luck? I know out here in CO obtaining a DV charge is some what easy. I think too easy...
Example: You and your significant other are having your routine argument on Sunday night and a remote was thrown and broken. It escalates a little more so that the neighbors can hear and the Police are called. If the Police Officer sees the broken remote after knowing there was an argument, the person who threw it is going to jail for DV.

willbird
07-26-2008, 10:18 AM
The DV, are they done case by case? Or is it just general, if you get charged with one, then you’re out of luck? I know out here in CO obtaining a DV charge is some what easy. I think too easy...
Example: You and your significant other are having your routine argument on Sunday night and a remote was thrown and broken. It escalates a little more so that the neighbors can hear and the Police are called. If the Police Officer sees the broken remote after knowing there was an argument, the person who threw it is going to jail for DV.


Well the kicker to the DV deal is that it was a "catch-all" plea for many years, it was offered up as a plea for all kinds of things that were not strictly "spouse beating" for lack of a better term.

THEN the laws changed and applied the penalty retroactively. many people who plead guilty to it would NEVER have done so if it had meant they could not own guns.

Bill

bigislander72
07-26-2008, 11:48 AM
Well the kicker to the DV deal is that it was a "catch-all" plea for many years, it was offered up as a plea for all kinds of things that were not strictly "spouse beating" for lack of a better term.

THEN the laws changed and applied the penalty retroactively. many people who plead guilty to it would NEVER have done so if it had meant they could not own guns.

Bill

The next logical step in the gun control agenda will be any misdemeanor crime, this will probably come to pass.

Oh and by the way according to the feds, the retroactive nature of the MCDV law is not a "penalty" as that would be illegal(ex-post facto punishment). According to them, they are just simply "regulating the aquisition of firearms and ammunition"!!

David Hineline
07-26-2008, 12:24 PM
The DV, are they done case by case? Or is it just general, if you get charged with one, then you’re out of luck? I know out here in CO obtaining a DV charge is some what easy. I think too easy...
Example: You and your significant other are having your routine argument on Sunday night and a remote was thrown and broken. It escalates a little more so that the neighbors can hear and the Police are called. If the Police Officer sees the broken remote after knowing there was an argument, the person who threw it is going to jail for DV.


In the case of Domestic Violence charged and arrested with DV is not convicted, and convicted is the firearm disqualifier.

In the case of court order of restraint then no conviction or charge is needed, just the order of restraint. I know little of what it takes to issue such an order, can a person with zero convictions or arrest be so restrained, I do not know.

injunwil
07-26-2008, 12:35 PM
Unless the car belongs to someone closely related to the offender, I don't see the difference between this and felony auto theft. Seems like there is a lot of potential for unfair convictions; some get only misdemeanors, and other lose rights for life.

there is NO difference, in FL. theft is theft, whether you planned on returning it or not. you take someone's car away from them, it's a felony and it should be. i think a joy riding clause is ridiculous. if you steal my car, you shouldn't be able to say "i was just borrowing it w/o permission"

as for the felons, i think ONLY crimes involving weapons should cost you your weapons rights.

as for the DV, in FL any DV conviction - no guns. any PERMANENT injunction for protection - no guns.

interesting, though, read the FSS definition of "firearm". i won't go into detail on an open forum, but any FL LEOs w/a statute book handy, check it out. you'll see what i'm saying.

velobard
07-26-2008, 12:37 PM
In the case of court order of restraint then no conviction or charge is needed, just the order of restraint. I know little of what it takes to issue such an order, can a person with zero convictions or arrest be so restrained, I do not know.

It only takes an accusation to get a TRO, the accused doesn't get hearing until after the fact. False DV accusations are common in divorce situations. More than one LE or military career has been sidetracked this way.

injunwil
07-26-2008, 03:09 PM
It only takes an accusation to get a TRO, the accused doesn't get hearing until after the fact. False DV accusations are common in divorce situations. More than one LE or military career has been sidetracked this way.


this is ENTIRELY correct!

when a cops getting divorced, his wife simply has to fill out a sworn statement. he's then issued a tempory injunction for protection from domestic violence. his firearms rights are suspended. technically, he can still work, but he has to sign a weapon out when he shows up and turn it in when he leaves. if he works for a Dept. too small to accomodate this, he's S.O.L. :-( if he has a CC permit, it's gets suspended immediately.

then he goes to a hearing to see if a permanent injunction will be awarded. in the event the allegations are completely stupid/false, the temp inj is dropped, but the accuser (usually) faces no consequences. his rights are restored at that point.

then he gets to check the YES box on every LE application, where it asks "have you ever been the respondant in a DV injunction" for the rest of his career.

oh... wedded bliss

velobard
07-26-2008, 04:30 PM
Emotional abuse can be used as grounds for a TRO. You wouldn't believe (well ok, you probably would) some of the things I've seen "advocates" call emotional abuse. I remember my ex coming home from a college class and a guest lecturer told them that ALL sex is actually rape against the woman, even if they're married and she "consents". :rolleyes:

The accused does get a day in court with the hearing, but at that point he's on the defensive and the scales are already tipped against him. It also gives the accuser a leg up in custody battles, removing the accused from the house, etc. Very common tactic.

t150vsuptpr
07-27-2008, 12:51 PM
I guess where we disagree then is that I think that anyone who is not trustworthy to be in society should not be in society and you think that it's ok to release people who we suspect will commit crime again and so we keep tabs on them for the rest of thier lives, hoping they are not repeat offenders but expecting them to be repeat offenders.

I would rather keep the dregs of society locked away out of our way.What I am OK with was spelled out plain enough.

Here they can petition the secretary of the commonwealth to restore their civil impediments, and it's discretionary as to whetherthey get them back or not.. If they do, they can vote and even run for some office. It does not restore "gun rights". I'm OK with that, as long as not automatic.

I don't see that it serves society well to make every sentence handed down for any felony a "life plus a day" or "death" sentence, I for one don't believe we can afford it to start with. There are different degrees opf felony, society through it's various legislatures has defined the various degrees and punishment range for each.

Law isn't what we think it is .... it is what it is .... :rolleyes:

For the record, no "joyriding" statute here that I've seen, there is:

"Unauthorized use (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-102)". If the jury trying the case, or judge as the case may be, deems the unauthorized use a felony (value based), then all that goes with that applies.

and then there is:

"Auto larceny (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-95)" (aka: "grand larceny"). Grand larceny is allways a felony, thouigh the court can punish locally as a class 1 misdemeanor would be ... but it's still a felony conviction.

bigislander72
07-27-2008, 03:44 PM
I don't see that it serves society well to make every sentence handed down for any felony a "life plus a day" or "death" sentence, I for one don't believe we can afford it to start with. There are different degrees opf felony, society through it's various legislatures has defined the various degrees and punishment range for each.

Law isn't what we think it is .... it is what it is .... :rolleyes:


Which is why perhaps there should be various degrees of firearm prohibition, 10,15,20 years and then lifetime for the more serious offenses. As it stands there is no variance in this loss of rights once you inch over, if only slightly the "felony" marker.

texaschickeee
07-27-2008, 03:58 PM
"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.
(A) you choose to break the law, no blaming others for YOUR actions. Yu know the deal....if you choose it your willing to lose it.
(B) why in the world would we allow some one that has DV or assault charges a weapon, any weapon? I mean Tracey Thurman's husband was on probation, with a TRO on him when he stabbed her 38 times. If he had a gun at that moment instead of a knife she would not have made it.
(C) I don't care if the felony is drug, B&E or DWI all which is considered non violent....you can become violent during any of these crimes. what then, the family of the newly murdered person gets to start again playing the system to get the guns with drawn again? These people have shown themselves to be a menace and rebels at this point, if thats the case I have every reason to believe that they would be lying to get the firearm, and use it in crimaonl behaviors. they probable have already.