Liberals judges write new law - You can't have a gun if your WIFE has a felony conviction

[ShootSpeeders]

Fact is we need to end the ban on felons owning guns. Once out of prison or off parole, all constitutional rights should be restored.

New Jersey man denied permission to purchase gun due to wife s record THE GOVTSLAVES.INFO REPORT

june 23 2015
An appeals court last week upheld a previous ruling that a man could be denied a permit to purchase firearms because of his wife’s criminal history.

The two-judge panel found that the Burlington County man, whose name was withheld due to privacy restrictions, should not be granted a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, which is required under state law to buy a gun, citing that his Constitutional right to own weapons was “subject to reasonable limitations.”

The court maintained that his possession of firearms in the same home as a convicted felon would allow her access and create an unacceptable threat to public health, safety, and welfare, as reportedby the Associated Press.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

 

[WinterBorn]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Serious law???. Usually it's just a drug "crime" or something equally silly like tax evasion. You are a moron.

And besides, judges are not supposed to write laws. You want a a law that says people married to felons can't have guns, then go to the legislature. Again - you are a moron.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Why not? Do speeders and drunk drivers and red light runners who kill lose forever the right to drive a car? THINK

 

[bucs90]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

So....you're saying criminals wont follow laws.

I agree.

But you somehow think gun laws will work. Hmmmm.

 

[LOki]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Conspiracy to commit jay-walking is a felony. Smoking pot is a felony. You make a solid point regarding violent sociopaths, but you're probably committing a felony right now... felony conviction by itself is no reason to deny anyone any of their rights.

 

[ogibillm]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

So....you're saying criminals wont follow laws.

I agree.

But you somehow think gun laws will work. Hmmmm.

this may be the dumbest argument ever. by it's logic nothing should be illegal, since criminals will just do it anyway.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Serious law???. Usually it's just a drug "crime" or something equally silly like tax evasion. You are a moron.

And besides, judges are not supposed to write laws. You want a a law that says people married to felons can't have guns, then go to the legislature. Again - you are a moron.

And if it a minor felony, they can appeal to the courts for their rights to be reinstated and they often will.

If the wife can own guns then the husband/felon has access to a gun.

Want to keep owning firearms, don't commit felonies or domestic violence. It is not difficult.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Conspiracy to commit jay-walking is a felony. Smoking pot is a felony. You make a solid point regarding violent sociopaths, but you're probably committing a felony right now... felony conviction by itself is no reason to deny anyone any of their rights.

And this rights can be reinstated by the courts. All you have to do is apply/appeal.

The courts will very likely give them back if you were convicted of conspiracy to commit jay-walking.

I know several people who have had their rights reinstated by the courts.

 

[bucs90]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

So....you're saying criminals wont follow laws.

I agree.

But you somehow think gun laws will work. Hmmmm.

this may be the dumbest argument ever. by it's logic nothing should be illegal, since criminals will just do it anyway.

No. Just saying....some laws are laws criminals just wont obey. All laws arent equal.

Ban running red lights? Most of us never purposely break this...hard criminals included. Its a common sense law nearly unanimously agreed on.
Ban watching football or owning guns? Hell no. People just wont follow it.

 

[rightwinger]

If the gun is in the house it is the same thing as a felon having it

Why would anyone fight for the rights of felons to have guns?

 

[Syriusly]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Why not? Do speeders and drunk drivers and red light runners who kill lose forever the right to drive a car? THINK

Ummm yes in certain states you can lose your driver's license forever for violating state driving laws.

That said- it was not a judge who denied the man his permit- it would be the police chief in the town he resides in, affirmed upon appeal by judges.

That being said- I think that laws which permanently deny convicted felons of voting and gun ownership may be too extreme- or in this case, the latitude given to a police chief may be too extreme.

 

[WinterBorn]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Why not? Do speeders and drunk drivers and red light runners who kill lose forever the right to drive a car? THINK

Ummm yes in certain states you can lose your driver's license forever for violating state driving laws.

That said- it was not a judge who denied the man his permit- it would be the police chief in the town he resides in, affirmed upon appeal by judges.

That being said- I think that laws which permanently deny convicted felons of voting and gun ownership may be too extreme- or in this case, the latitude given to a police chief may be too extreme.

There is a process by which felons can apply to have their rights reinstated. To try and make it so their rights are reinstated automatically, upon completion of their sentence or whatever, is a very bad idea.

 

[ogibillm]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Why not? Do speeders and drunk drivers and red light runners who kill lose forever the right to drive a car? THINK

Ummm yes in certain states you can lose your driver's license forever for violating state driving laws.

That said- it was not a judge who denied the man his permit- it would be the police chief in the town he resides in, affirmed upon appeal by judges.

That being said- I think that laws which permanently deny convicted felons of voting and gun ownership may be too extreme- or in this case, the latitude given to a police chief may be too extreme.

There is a process by which felons can apply to have their rights reinstated. To try and make it so their rights are reinstated automatically, upon completion of their sentence or whatever, is a very bad idea.

i don't disagree with this, although i can definitely see the room for debate.

however, i can't see how someone could argue that a husband should be allowed to own a gun in the same house as a wife who can't. clearly she will have access, which would, i would think, put the husband in the position of supplying a gun to a felon.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Why not? Do speeders and drunk drivers and red light runners who kill lose forever the right to drive a car? THINK

Ummm yes in certain states you can lose your driver's license forever for violating state driving laws.

That said- it was not a judge who denied the man his permit- it would be the police chief in the town he resides in, affirmed upon appeal by judges.

That being said- I think that laws which permanently deny convicted felons of voting and gun ownership may be too extreme- or in this case, the latitude given to a police chief may be too extreme.

There is a process by which felons can apply to have their rights reinstated. To try and make it so their rights are reinstated automatically, upon completion of their sentence or whatever, is a very bad idea.

I agree with what you are saying, but at same time, he has a point. A police chief shouldn't have the sole authority to take away someone's rights.

 

[Syriusly]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Why not? Do speeders and drunk drivers and red light runners who kill lose forever the right to drive a car? THINK

Ummm yes in certain states you can lose your driver's license forever for violating state driving laws.

That said- it was not a judge who denied the man his permit- it would be the police chief in the town he resides in, affirmed upon appeal by judges.

That being said- I think that laws which permanently deny convicted felons of voting and gun ownership may be too extreme- or in this case, the latitude given to a police chief may be too extreme.

There is a process by which felons can apply to have their rights reinstated. To try and make it so their rights are reinstated automatically, upon completion of their sentence or whatever, is a very bad idea.

Personally- I am opposed to revocation of voting rights for felons- there is no connection with being able to vote and being a former criminal. Guns I can see the connection- but in this specific case the connections are tenuous at best- and not even for the person asking for the permit.

I have no problem with reasonable gun restrictions, but this appears to be a judgement call based upon guilt by association.

 

[LOki]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Conspiracy to commit jay-walking is a felony. Smoking pot is a felony. You make a solid point regarding violent sociopaths, but you're probably committing a felony right now... felony conviction by itself is no reason to deny anyone any of their rights.

And this rights can be reinstated by the courts. All you have to do is apply/appeal.

If felony conviction by itself is no reason to deny anyone any of their rights--permanently at least, incarceration and all--why should anyone be required to apply/appeal upon release? If this felon remains so dangerous to society, why release him?

The courts will very likely give them back if you were convicted of conspiracy to commit jay-walking.

Why should anyone be required to apply/appeal for a reinstatement of their rights upon release?

Are we seriously releasing dangerous people just because just there are laws against felons having guns?

If it is not reasonable to assert that society is safe from a criminal when he's released, why the fuck is he being released? If it is reasonable to assert that society is safe from a criminal when he's released, then why abridge any of his rights?

I know several people who have had their rights reinstated by the courts.

That's really beside the point, isn't it?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Conspiracy to commit jay-walking is a felony. Smoking pot is a felony. You make a solid point regarding violent sociopaths, but you're probably committing a felony right now... felony conviction by itself is no reason to deny anyone any of their rights.

And this rights can be reinstated by the courts. All you have to do is apply/appeal.

If felony conviction by itself is no reason to deny anyone any of their rights--permanently at least, incarceration and all--why should anyone be required to apply/appeal upon release? If this felon remains so dangerous to society, why release him?

The courts will very likely give them back if you were convicted of conspiracy to commit jay-walking.

Why should anyone be required to apply/appeal for a reinstatement of their rights upon release?

Are we seriously releasing dangerous people just because just there are laws against felons having guns?

If it is not reasonable to assert that society is safe from a criminal when he's released, why the fuck is he being released? If it is reasonable to assert that society is safe from a criminal when he's released, then why abridge any of his rights?

I know several people who have had their rights reinstated by the courts.

That's really beside the point, isn't it?

Because imprisonment isn't about "keeping society safe from criminals" it is about punishing people for their crimes.

Part of that punishment is losing certain rights even upon reentry into society.

Fundamentally it is no different than revoking a driver's license even after a person has paid all their fines on a DUI.

 

[rightwinger]

Fact is we need to end the ban on felons owning guns. Once out of prison or off parole, all constitutional rights should be restored.

[/QUOTE]

Would you have the same reaction if the guy were a speeder?