Pennsylvania lawsuit tests high court's ruling that lifts D.C. gun ban

[Siobhra]

The bottom line on the arming or not is it is being imposed like a blanket or a one size fits all. Each case should go before a judge in the most least restrictive manoir possible. If I did not get the Pardon I got I would still be counted as a felon. Plead guilty to petty offenses under threat of being "outed" many years ago is a danger to you how? Gays often plead guilty to things they did not do when told by the police that they will tell their families, employers, etc about their being gay. The poor faced with a very costly legal fight would plead out rather than fight.
A life long loss of life is a very heavy sentence for a petty slip up. The punishment should FIT the crime.

[Philadelphia]

To throw another issue into the mix, consider that possession of a bb gun in NJ without a FOID card can turn you into a prohibited person, barred from owning guns for life.

As The Drew points out, there are criminals and there are felons and they're not always the same thing.

A gangbanging drug dealer with a string of drug dealing and agg assault gun convictions likely should not be able to walk into gun shops and buy plenty as as his gang's armorer (although such a person will be able to buy as many guns as they like illegally). A person caught with a gun driving thorough a public school campus without realizing the gravity of what they are doing could fall into the same category. There's lots of in between too. Present law makes few distinctions.

As many point out, it would make a lot more sense for a judge to make a specific finding, based on the facts and circumstances of the individual before him/her, as to what rights are lost and for how long and under what conditions they may be restored. If nothing else, the promise of restoration of rights could actually provide some additional motivation for a felon to reform and walk the straight and narrow going forward.

[chesire17201]

Originally Posted by jfrommbg

And one of the reasons I am leaving this forum. If I am the only person on here that thinks arming felons is crazy then this isn't the place for me. Later.

If I can't win ...then I don't wanna play.....

[ham385]

Originally Posted by Penguini66

Call me crazy but I wouldn't want a convicted felon that I wouldn't trust with a gun to be living in my neighborhood. Point being, if they are that much of a danger to society, leave them in jail. If they are truly "reformed" or have "learned their lesson" or have "paid their debt to society", then they should have ALL of their rights restored upon release.

IMHO, this is the fundamental flaw in the system. They let people out of jail that they obviously don't trust with a gun. But we all know they can and will just go an buy a gun on the black market. So should we let them out in the first place?

If we don't trust somebody with a gun, should we also not trust them with a butcher knife? Should felons not be allowed to buy butcher knives? Or baseball bats, etc...

I think the whole penal system needs an overhaul. Instead of general population and lockdown, there should be levels.

Say there were 7 levels, i.e. segregated populations within a prison that have no contact with one another. Level 7 being very bad people, level 1 being a calm, sedate place with rehabilitated persons. Depending on your sentence and crime, you start at an appropriate level. After enough time to evaluate your behavior, you are moved up or down through the system, and re-evaluated periodically.

If your sentence is 5yrs min before parole eligibility, and you make it to level 1 in the first year, you remain there until eligible for parole. If your sentence is 2 years, but you are on level 5, you stay in prison until you make it to level 1 and manage to stay there for at least a year.

When level 7 fills up, we just take the worst of the bunch and execute them. No stays, no appeals, etc. Their sentence doesn't even have to be a death sentence. They got their ass put into prison and managed to get to and stay at level 7, screw em. When any other level fills up, we take the worst of the bunch in that level and move them to the next level up.

Kinda like filling an ice cube tray. So simple it's genius! The worst criminals just go away*poof*, the prisons never are overpopulated, not to mention even the densest knuckleheads might think twice.

Obviously there would need to be a lot more to it (checks and balances to prevent abuse of authority, re-education programs, etc), but in a nutshell, that's my idea for solving the crime problem. And as we all know, if we fix that, we also fix a lot of other things.

[pex]

Originally Posted by ham385

Obviously there would need to be a lot more to it (checks and balances to prevent abuse of authority, re-education programs, etc), but in a nutshell, that's my idea for solving the crime problem. And as we all know, if we fix that, we also fix a lot of other things.

I had wondered what level was going to be 're-education camps'.

Who do you think are the worst enemies of the state? Murders or the seditious? How easy do you think it would be for the recalcitrant (for example, people in there for petty crimes who probably don't deserve to be there, or people innocent altogether) to make it to the upper echelon?

[ham385]

Originally Posted by pex

I had wondered what level was going to be 're-education camps'.

Who do you think are the worst enemies of the state? Murders or the seditious? How easy do you think it would be for the recalcitrant (for example, people in there for petty crimes who probably don't deserve to be there, or people innocent altogether) to make it to the upper echelon?

I think you may have misinterpreted me. When speaking of re-education, I'm talking about job training, learning skills - not brainwashing.

You're talking about camps as if I'm a Nazi. I'm talking about segregating the prison population, people who are incarcerated because they committed a crime, to
A. put the most violent class of prisonor with other like minded individuals instead of putting them with 16yr old kids who stole a car to go joyriding and dentists who commited insurance fraud.
B. provide a reward for good behaviour.
C. provide levels of punishment that correspond to behaviour.
D. stop prison overcrowding
E. turn incarceration into more of a deterrant.
F. stop releasing prisoners when they obviously aren't safe.

I didn't attempt to address harsh sentences for petty crimes or false imprisonment, but I don't think this would be any worse for them. As I said, depending on the crime, their sentence would include an initial level. i.e. commit fraud, go to level 2. I think my idea would be much safer for them instead of the current system where they are put into general population with gangs, rapists, murderers, etc. Not saying these classes wouldn't also be in level 2, but they would have had to have earned it by acting civil for some time.

I admit, the whole execution thing is a little harsh, but so is robbing and shooting a mom and dad in front of their kid. Maybe you disagree with death penalties, fine, that's your opinion. I happen to agree with them and think we should be more liberal with their use. If someone has shown themself to repeatedly prey on others, I see no reason to keep them alive. On the other hand, if someone makes a mistake, I do believe they should be given a 2nd chance, however, I think it should come in increments, not San Quenton today and free tomorrow.

[Penguini66]

Originally Posted by ham385

I think the whole penal system needs an overhaul. Instead of general population and lockdown, there should be levels.

Say there were 7 levels, i.e. segregated populations within a prison that have no contact with one another. Level 7 being very bad people, level 1 being a calm, sedate place with rehabilitated persons. Depending on your sentence and crime, you start at an appropriate level. After enough time to evaluate your behavior, you are moved up or down through the system, and re-evaluated periodically.

If your sentence is 5yrs min before parole eligibility, and you make it to level 1 in the first year, you remain there until eligible for parole. If your sentence is 2 years, but you are on level 5, you stay in prison until you make it to level 1 and manage to stay there for at least a year.

When level 7 fills up, we just take the worst of the bunch and execute them. No stays, no appeals, etc. Their sentence doesn't even have to be a death sentence. They got their ass put into prison and managed to get to and stay at level 7, screw em. When any other level fills up, we take the worst of the bunch in that level and move them to the next level up.

Kinda like filling an ice cube tray. So simple it's genius! The worst criminals just go away*poof*, the prisons never are overpopulated, not to mention even the densest knuckleheads might think twice.

Obviously there would need to be a lot more to it (checks and balances to prevent abuse of authority, re-education programs, etc), but in a nutshell, that's my idea for solving the crime problem. And as we all know, if we fix that, we also fix a lot of other things.

Hey, I like your idea.

I'd also say that the different levels should have different levels of service

Level 1 has ping-pong and pool tables. As well as cable tv and good food. Access to the library, exercise yard, etc...

Level 7, you're locked into a 6x6 cinder block cell with no windows, a 4' ceiling and once a day a plate of mush is slid through the feeding slot. At that point you lose your right to medical attention because it is assumed that if you die it would be for the benefit of society.

You figure out the levels in between.

[deputy]

The mayor and police chief of DC couldn't give a rats ass about your safety or your gun rights. What it all comes down to in the end is feel good legislation to stop gun violence at the responsible person's hand. You can't control the criminal's go after the law abiding citizen's. This rhetoric my friends will never change.

[pex]

Originally Posted by Penguini66

Level 1 has ping-pong and pool tables. As well as cable tv and good food. Access to the library, exercise yard, etc...

I have no doubt in my mind you stole this idea from somewhere else...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7496375.stm

Level 7, you're locked into a 6x6 cinder block cell with no windows, a 4' ceiling and once a day a plate of mush is slid through the feeding slot. At that point you lose your right to medical attention because it is assumed that if you die it would be for the benefit of society.

We teach torture is wrong. Then we teach torture is right. Should we wonder where moral corruptness spawns?

[paul]

God help me, I'm on the dirty scumbags side.

I would also defend the KKK, as long as they limited their racism to rhetoric. Sticks and stones.

But I tell you what, the minute they would start trying to roust minorities out of their homes or try physical intimidation I'd be the first one out there to meet them with a shotgun, and this is from a guy who's grandpa did that very thing in Texas. Course, he used rocksalt, I think I'd go with the more modern beanbag rounds.

That being said, if you are going to take someones rights away for a crime, it should be made a part of sentencing and written into the penal code. That would make a little more sense, and is something I think even anti gun folks could grasp. "You are sentenced you to 11 years in prison, with the possibility of parole after 6 and a RTKBA ban for 10 years after your release from prison or parole"

The minute you start limiting everyones rights because of scumbags actions instead of just punishing the scumbags you're on the wrong track. And the minute you take away a right forever from all scumbags, regardless of degree of their villainy or the length of their reform, well that's wrong too.