Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons...

[stalebiscuit]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Isolation makes people crazy, stalebiscuit. Crazy people are dangerous.

The death penalty is a separate subject. It can't even be dealt with in the same discussion as whether keeping even more people in prison for even longer is good or bad for society. And it comes to that, I'm afraid we've already reached the point of having locked up so many people that in many groups being a jailbird is just considered a normal fact of life, instead of a badge of shame.

I don't think you can call a judicial system that locks up more people than any other on Earth 'weak.' Misguided maybe, but not weak.

I think we need to sharply focus our attention, and go back to locking fewer people up. Find some other way to deal with petty offenders, and make fewer things illegal. Then, maybe we'll have room to keep the dangerous ones locked up like they should be.

prison make people crazy, and another thing, anyhow who kills someone is crazy, you are crazy if you cannot control violent impulses

if you get pissed and assault someone in a severe manner, you are crazy, you are not able to control yourself or your actions

every violent criminal is crazy, do not use that as a defense to excuse their actions

and further more, i know crime is caused by social factors such as poverty, population density, ethnic makeup, or whatever

but the best way to handle it is to control the criminal element, you know the crazy SOB's who commit crime

and the best way to do that other than beating them into shape is by locking them up so they cant hurt anyone else

[Ghost]

Just to be the crazy sounding one on this thread....What happened to "an eye for an eye"? If there was a law in place that stated without exception if you are to steal someone else's property above, let's say, a $500 dollar value limit, you lose one hand. If you use a gun of any kind in a robbery you are shot with that gun! If you kill someone and are convicted, you die!!! No appeals or loop holes or last minute pardons. Old Testament style judgement. Our society has gotten soft and it seems everyone has an excuse for everything these days. Oh, it's my parents fault for not loving me enough, or it's McDonald's fault for not telling me my coffee is hot, or it's Dr. Phils fault......blah, blah, blah.

Honestly, if you know that you are going to have you hand chopped off for stealing someone's property, don't you think you are less likely to commit that crime in the first place? I know I would.

My .02 cents on the felons with guns. I have seen too many times, those so called "rehabilitated" felons commit another crime. However, I think that some consideration should be given to the circumstance of the felony committed and the individual's past history of conduct, including their juvenile record.

Again just my .02 cents. Thanks for the time to listen to my opinion.

[SwedeSteve]

I agree, in spirit, with most of what Troy has said. Our judicial system needs a complete revamp.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by stalebiscuit

prison make people crazy, and another thing, anyhow who kills someone is crazy, you are crazy if you cannot control violent impulses

if you get pissed and assault someone in a severe manner, you are crazy, you are not able to control yourself or your actions

every violent criminal is crazy, do not use that as a defense to excuse their actions

and further more, i know crime is caused by social factors such as poverty, population density, ethnic makeup, or whatever

but the best way to handle it is to control the criminal element, you know the crazy SOB's who commit crime

and the best way to do that other than beating them into shape is by locking them up so they cant hurt anyone else

You're dancing right past my main point, stalebiscuit: if we already have a higher percentage of our people locked up than any other country on earth, why don't we have the lowest crime rate? Maybe it isn't 'the weak judicial system' that's to blame.

[stalebiscuit]

Originally Posted by troy2000

You're dancing right past my main point, stalebiscuit: if we already have a higher percentage of our people locked up than any other country on earth, why don't we have the lowest crime rate? Maybe it isn't 'the weak judicial system' that's to blame.

i didnt ignore that, but since you cant do anything about the crime rate you can do your best to secure as many dangerous people as possible

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by stalebiscuit

i didnt ignore that, but since you cant do anything about the crime rate you can do your best to secure as many dangerous people as possible

You can't lock up everyone who might be a menace, stalebiscuit. I repeat: we already have a higher percentage of our population locked up than any other country on Earth. Why do so many of them have much lower crime rates anyway? We need to look into the reasons and see if there's anything there we can encourage, adopt or adapt to our own circumstances, instead of just automatically hiring more cops, appointing more judges, building more prisons...

[Cyrano]

One thing you folks are ignoring is the portion of DC vs. Heller that deals with the right of a convicted felon to own a gun. Scalia specifically excluded convicted felons from the right of the people to keep and bear arms. On page 57 of the ruling, Scalia wrote:

"... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill ..."

Or in other words, if you're a convicted felon, you cannot legally own a gun. Game over - for the moment.

I'll agree that there is reason to view felonies in differing lights, nonviolent versus violent felonies; felonies that involve the use of a gun in the process and those that don't, etc. It used to be that if you were convicted of a felony, in addition to losing your right to own a gun you also lost the right to vote, to drive a car, to serve in the military, and other such rights or privileges. That's no longer true everywhere or in all cases. As was noted, many states permit convicted felons to vote, either on completion of sentence or parole, or after they've been straight for seven years or some such. And I believe all states now will issue ex-cons driver's licenses.

But voting is a civic duty you are called on to perform only every couple of years at most. And you can't hide a car in your pocket. Firearms are different. They are the high justice, sitting in your gun case or in your concealed carry holster. Most people look at convicted felons differently from other people because there are serious trust issues there. I think that's part of the reason for that provision of the laws concerning firearms.

If you want to modify the ruling on the right of convicted felons to keep and bear arms, you're going to need a new law to establish it. Even supposing you can get such a law onto the books, I have to question whether it would survive a court challenge. I don't think its chances would be all that good.

Scalia left little wiggle room on this question in DC vs. Heller. He did not say you could not pass such a new law; his ruling simply confirmed existing laws against felons owning guns. Unfortuantely for those who want to establish shades of gray here, the precedents are all in black and white; and they all are against what you propose to do. At this time, the only way for a convicted felon to have his right to own a gun restored to him is to obtain a gubenatorial or Presidential pardon for his crimes. That washes the slate clean and restores the ex-con to all the rights, privileges and obligations of American citizenship, as if he'd never committed any crime. It might take longer to clear his name in NICS or to get the issuing authority in a state to issue a pistol permit, but with the pardon in hand it's doable.

Thing is, the average governor or President issues perhaps 150 pardons a year. Some go to cronies, e.g., Scooter Libbey. More go to people convicted of nonviolent crimes who have become pillars of the community, like businessmen. (I've heard donating big wads of cash to the incumbent's election campaign or to the national campaign fund helps your chances a lot, e.g., Marc Rich.) So the odds are against Joe Average Convicted Felon getting that pardon so he can own a gun again.

But this is America. We reinvent this country with each passing day. If you think you can get a law passed that restricts the forfeiture of Second Amendment rights to strictly violent crimes or crimes committed using a gun, go for it. Just be aware the odds against you are very, very long.

[SKS NOOB]

Originally Posted by troy2000

You can't lock up everyone who might be a menace, stalebiscuit. I repeat: we already have a higher percentage of our population locked up than any other country on Earth. Why do so many of them have much lower crime rates anyway? We need to look into the reasons and see if there's anything there we can encourage, adopt or adapt to our own circumstances, instead of just automatically hiring more cops, appointing more judges, building more prisons...

For one, The conditions in most prisions in other countries are WORSE than our are. Meaning prison there would have poor sanitary conditions, no real health care, etc.. They were more like mideaval prisons than the modern ones we have here in the states. You DIDN'T want to go back for obvious reasons. In Comunist China, they used to, IDK if they STILL do, bill the family for the costs of the execution. INCLUDING the cost of the bullets. My Opinion of the current prison system: It has become a home-away-from-home for criminals. NOT a place where it's a nightmare to go to. Even though it may not seem humane to some, but starting with excuting prisoners instead of letting them sit there for YEARS, like some have, would be a good start.

[Romey]

Originally Posted by troy2000

If someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, he should probably have his gun rights lifted permanently. Otherwise it should go on a case-by-case basis, just like mental-health cases, based on the question of whether the felon in question is likely to be a menace to himself and others with a gun in hand. There are a lot of non-violent people who ran afoul of the law, but are no more likely to shoot someone than anyone else.

It seems kind of silly to allow someone who has served his time to vote, which at least forty states do, but not to carry a gun. If he can't be trusted with bullets, he certainly can't be trusted with a ballot.

And screw the anti-gun crowd. If they don't have that excuse, they'll just move on to the next one anyway. You can't appease them by bending over backwards in an attempt not to offend them.

you said it all Troy

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by SKS NOOB

For one, The conditions in most prisions in other countries are WORSE than our are. Meaning prison there would have poor sanitary conditions, no real health care, etc.. They were more like mideaval prisons than the modern ones we have here in the states. You DIDN'T want to go back for obvious reasons. In Comunist China, they used to, IDK if they STILL do, bill the family for the costs of the execution. INCLUDING the cost of the bullets. My Opinion of the current prison system: It has become a home-away-from-home for criminals. NOT a place where it's a nightmare to go to. Even though it may not seem humane to some, but starting with excuting prisoners instead of letting them sit there for YEARS, like some have, would be a good start.

Yes, there are countries with horrific prison systems. But those aren't generally the ones with the lowest crime rates. And many other countries have less abusive prison conditions than we do, and still have lower crime rates.

If abusive prison conditions deter crime, explain Mexico to me.

[Seabeescotty]

I'm with you, on that one, Troy. It's kind of like a dog, treat it bad, and you'll get a bad dog. Treat it worse, and it'll get REALLY bad. I don't have the answer, but we as a people, need to come up with a system that works. Otherwise, we will continue on the long, slippery slide down hill. We have thousands of people here, who got tangled up with the system, and became felons for stupid reasons. If the crime is nonviolent, and harmed nobody, we need to rethink the punishment. We've allowed those who are professional politicians, to make up laws that just don't pass the stink test. (If it stinks, darn it, don't try to eat it!)

[SoDakHunter]

I agree with letting non-violent felons own guns after they have served thier sentence. But giving a violent convict a weapon, even if they are "Rehabilitated", would be a foolish move. Too many times they have been repeat offenders.

[SKS NOOB]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Yes, there are countries with horrific prison systems. But those aren't generally the ones with the lowest crime rates. And many other countries have less abusive prison conditions than we do, and still have lower crime rates.

If abusive prison conditions deter crime, explain Mexico to me.

Political corruption.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by SKS NOOB

Political corruption.

Political corruption doesn't explain why the horrible prisons don't stop common criminals.