• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

When guns become a fetish.

corndog67 said:
I have a non-violent , non prison felony conviction. You mean, you think that some on that has a violence related misdemeanor, should still be allowed firearms? I don't agree with that at all.
Click to expand...

you are aware that touching your wife in an argument is domestic violence, right?
she has no say in charges being filed, it is up to the DA and only the DA.
 
Antarius said:
Yes, but you're a convicted felon and thus shouldn't be voting, right? Or is it just certain felonies? I don't really know ....
Click to expand...

this stuff is such crap. a felony should be a serious crime, a massive risk to public safety, and a very long jail sentence, and limited rights for the rest of your life.


now assembling a few plastic pieces together is a felony. carrying a cane can be a felony.
 
just my opinion, but this guy who committed the crime is no different than those who goes into a mass shooting spree...

it's not about a gun fetish although one was used...just an angry lost individual sick of the world and everyone in it ...

rest in peace to the victim ....my condolences to him that he was caught in another guy's rage...
 
the donald said:
this stuff is such crap. a felony should be a serious crime, a massive risk to public safety, and a very long jail sentence, and limited rights for the rest of your life.


now assembling a few plastic pieces together is a felony. carrying a cane can be a felony.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Antarius said:
Yes, but you're a convicted felon and thus shouldn't be voting, right? Or is it just certain felonies? I don't really know ....
Click to expand...

Rights are typically restored by default for first time offenses, on completion of sentence/probation/whatever. (Except for firearm rights, those you have to petition for.)

The way felony disenfranchisement works never made much sense to me. The concept was around by the time of our founding, but in those days felonies were actually serious crimes.

I don't have a problem barring the violent, or any truly serious/heinous crime, but pretty much everything is a felony these days. Note that there are criminal penalties for violating sections of the Clean Air Act, say.
 
Like spraying a hairspray canister different than it was designed to be?
 
Antarius said:
Like spraying a hairspray canister different than it was designed to be?
Click to expand...

Sure, if it's got the wrong propellant and you did it intentionally.

Or, say, removing a state mandated pollution control device. (Think: potentially aftermarket parts without a CARB EO.)
 
AquaNet. Haha!

What was that ridiculously "hard" setting hairspray that everyone had in the late 80's and early 90's? It was a blue can.... Rave or some shit?
 
Antarius said:
AquaNet. Haha!

What was that ridiculously "hard" setting hairspray that everyone had in the late 80's and early 90's? It was a blue can.... Rave or some shit?
Click to expand...

Surely it must have been banned by now, whatever it was.
 
Antarius said:
The prohibited persons list SHOULD be retroactive. As in, if someone commits a serious crime they look through the registration list as you are now prohibited from owning any guns, and they confiscate them.

The problem is the never ending increasing list of "serious crimes", which as in Ant's case - aren't serious at all. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...
I think different definitions of retroactive are being used.

If the prohibited persons list has to do with possession, no retroactivity is needed - you get put on the list for the crime, so you can't own it anymore.

What happened is that someone was convicted of a crime that wasn't on the list, so they got to keep their guns. Then, the list of crimes was amended to include what they were convicted of, and that was done retroactively - not just to new convicts.

It seems to me like if they can add crimes to the list that they're increasing the penalty after the crime (aka retroactively increasing the penalty), which is something I'm opposed to. Once you're sentenced, as long as you obey the terms (probation etc) it shouldn't get worse.
 
Junkie said:
I think different definitions of retroactive are being used.

If the prohibited persons list has to do with possession, no retroactivity is needed - you get put on the list for the crime, so you can't own it anymore.

What happened is that someone was convicted of a crime that wasn't on the list, so they got to keep their guns. Then, the list of crimes was amended to include what they were convicted of, and that was done retroactively - not just to new convicts.

It seems to me like if they can add crimes to the list that they're increasing the penalty after the crime (aka retroactively increasing the penalty), which is something I'm opposed to. Once you're sentenced, as long as you obey the terms (probation etc) it shouldn't get worse.
Click to expand...

Article 1, section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Click to expand...
and section 10
No state shall [...]pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law
Click to expand...
. It seems like a pretty clear ex post facto violation.
 
Junkie said:
I think different definitions of retroactive are being used.

If the prohibited persons list has to do with possession, no retroactivity is needed - you get put on the list for the crime, so you can't own it anymore.

What happened is that someone was convicted of a crime that wasn't on the list, so they got to keep their guns. Then, the list of crimes was amended to include what they were convicted of, and that was done retroactively - not just to new convicts.

It seems to me like if they can add crimes to the list that they're increasing the penalty after the crime (aka retroactively increasing the penalty), which is something I'm opposed to. Once you're sentenced, as long as you obey the terms (probation etc) it shouldn't get worse.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I agree 100%. It shouldn't be legal to do this. That's not how other punnishments are handled. You are normally only subject to the punishments subscribed at the time the offense was committed. That's why Charles Manson can't be put to death. He was convicted in the period of time that California had outlawed the death penalty. Say an innocent person is facing some felony charge that they did not commit. They believe they can win their case by jury trial but their lawyer convinces them to take the plea deal to a misdemeanor. Then, down the road, the government is now imposing retroactive firearms restrictions for the given misdemeanor offense that weren't in effect at the time of the conviction. Had they been in place that might have been enough reason for our scenario subject to fight the charges rather than take the plea deal. It is total bullshit.

Edit: @ CABilly that's it! I didn't think that was legal.
 
bojangle said:
I didn't mean any as in every misdemeanor. Just certain ones, but the list keeps growing. Like Roman said, the latest attempt is to ban firearms for a misdemeanor DUI conviction. WTF does getting a DUI have to do with violence or 2A rights? Answer: absofuckinlutely nothing! My opinion is that no misdemeanor should ever result in losing firearm rights...even violent misdemeanors. I'm Ok with felonies though. Felony = State or Federal Prison time (or at least it used to).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

sanjuro said:
I don't have a criminal record. I am able to buy a registered gun.

You were able to to get a bunch of lawyers to get your guns back.

Seems like the system works for me. Does it work great? When does it ever?
Click to expand...

So you would like a private citizen to be dragged through courts and spend thousands of his hard earned money just so that he gets to have his constitutionally given rights back?
 
Junkie said:
What happened is that someone was convicted of a crime that wasn't on the list, so they got to keep their guns. Then, the list of crimes was amended to include what they were convicted of, and that was done retroactively - not just to new convicts.

It seems to me like if they can add crimes to the list that they're increasing the penalty after the crime (aka retroactively increasing the penalty), which is something I'm opposed to. Once you're sentenced, as long as you obey the terms (probation etc) it shouldn't get worse.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, didn't look at it that way. Totally agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top