A felon's right to self defense

[Jermtheory]

sounds to me like he should get(should have gotten) the death penalty.

definately shouldnt have any rights what so ever.



sarcasm btw(just to be perfectly clear).

 

[mvpel]

As for filming the police, we have that same problem here in New Hampshire. Fortunately there's a case from a state supreme court somewhere that recognizes a First Amendment right to record the police. The moment any DA gets past the intimidating bluster stage and actually takes such a charge to court, it'll be game over.

 

[Al Norris]

Every one does know that the law on "felons" in possession (18 USC 922(g)) was enacted under the 1968 GCA?

Before this, unless it was specificly part of your sentencing, once you did your time, you were allowed to possess or even purchase firearms.

Gee, it's only been 40 years and most of you think it has always this way. It wasn't. Oh, there may have been some individual State laws that were similar, but by-and-large, once you were done with prison and parole/probation, you were a free man again.

The problem with 922(g) is that it really doesn't say you have to be convicted of a felony. Only that the sentence provided for more than a year in time. So it also includes many different types of misdemeanors, as long as the maximum sentence is more than a year... Say, a year and a day!

Oh! Did I forget to mention that because this isn't a "punisment," ex post facto dosen't apply. If you were convicted 90 years ago, you are a prohibited person.

Am I the only person that sees something wrong in denying what we all know is a fundamental right, to anyone who meets the criteria of 922(g)?

 

[cold dead hands]

Every one does know that the law on "felons" in possession (18 USC 922(g)) was enacted under the 1968 GCA?

Before this, unless it was specificly part of your sentencing, once you did your time, you were allowed to possess or even purchase firearms.

I knew it and I am of the firm belief that the '68 GCA needs to be repealed. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who is aware of what the'68 GCA says.

 

[jimpeel]

As Gordon Liddy used to say "My wife owns a lot of guns. She simply chooses to keep some of them on my side of the bed."

HERE is how far these laws are willing to go:

First read THIS POST and then read THIS POST

 

[bdcbbq]

As Gordon Liddy used to say "My wife owns a lot of guns. She simply chooses to keep some of them on my side of the bed."

He still says it. I heard him say it today. He also said that he occasionally does carry when he believes he needs too. He would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Which brought up a question in my mind. Why hasn't he received a pardon? I don't recall that he has ever applied and been turned down. Frankly, I don't see why he shouldn't have one. His crime was 35 years ago. I would consider him a law-abiding citizen who got caught up in the politics of the times.

Has anyone applied for, received a pardon, bought a firearm, and received a CCW? It would be interesting to know what one has to do, the process, and hassles if any.

 

[johnsonrlp]

A long time back my Father in law lost some money while working as an accountant. Ended up with a felony embezzlement conviction. He's about the nicest guy I know. Had to give up his guns (I didn't get any ). Many years later it got expunged. Turns out his boss framed him.
But even if he had done it, would that really justify him never voting or having a gun?

I don't think most violent felons should have guns. But then, they probably shouldn't be out in public either where they can baseball bat people.

 

[zxcvbob]

To get a felony conviction is no simple thing, there has to be a total and blantant disregard of the law and societal norms.

That's the way it should be, and maybe used to be. But now it is possible to accidently break a trivial law and have it be a felony.

Ever hop onto your your neighbor's unsecured wireless network to access the Internet when it showed up first in your available network list? In Michigan, that is a felony. Heck, you might not even know that your laptop automatically switched to the other network because the signal was stronger. I don't expect you to believe me, so: http://www.prophetsplace.com/blog/?p=411

I think .gov's endgame to disarm us might be to pass so many laws, *everybody* is guilty of at least one felony just because it's impossible to live your life without breaking the law.

 

[mvpel]

That plus the fact that Michigan is trying to tax itself out of a recession, plus the fact that Michigan cops kicked in Angel Shamaya's front door because he didn't submit one handguns for "inspection" (read "registration"), should be enough to persuade freedom-loving gun owners to escape the state if at all possible.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That's the way it should be, and maybe used to be. But now it is possible to accidently break a trivial law and have it be a felony.

Ever hop onto your your neighbor's unsecured wireless network to access the Internet when it showed up first in your available network list?

So what you are saying is that because it is so easy to commit the felony if you don't bother being responsible that it is therefore a trivial law? The article you cited wasn't about an accident, but about a man who knowingly and repeatedly stole internet access. The difference we are talking about is one of intent. He didn't just accidently sign on by mistake. He drove to the location repeatedly over more than a week and stole internet access from his car.

He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop’s wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network, which he said didn’t require a password.

He used the system on his lunch breaks for more than a week, and then the police showed up.

Gotta love dumb criminals.

 

[mvpel]

If I take a copy of the Hippo off of a wire rack in the foyer of my local bar, is that "stealing?" Is it "fraud?"

752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.

752.795 Prohibited conduct.
Sec. 5.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Name the fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise. Name the scheme or artifice designed to defraud or obtain money, property, or a service.

Or, since section 5 is the first-offense five-year felony, while section 4 is a misdemeanor, name the level of valid authorization he lacked or exceeded in accessing an open, unsecured WiFi network.

This is rampant prosecutorial abuse, plain and simple, and it makes me want to vomit. The prosecutor should be lobbying the legislature to fix this f---ed up law, instead of threatening peaceable productive citizens with the same amount of jail time served by the average Michigan rapist. ("So far, William has been in prison for nine years -- almost twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan.")