Out of curiosity, did you even read my post?
Why did you get a felony for a fist fight? And yes to your question.
Now, I have to wonder what someone who uses a screen name of a "felon" is wanting to do here? Are you proud of being a felon or something?
That's just the tip of the iceberg.I knowingly battered a police officer? I defended myself from a belligerent drunk who took a swing at me. So because he's a police officer by occupation, that precludes him from accepting the circumstances of his actions when his judgement is clouded by what was obviously too many drinks? That's an interesting perspective.
you cant own crossbows? was ny having a lot of problems with knights getting shot off their horses?illegal in my state.
you cant own crossbows? was ny having a lot of problems with knights getting shot off their horses?
Man, I don't know what to think of this thread. I can understand why you are bent out of shape about not being able to own a firearm, but there are way more felons out there who did way worse than you and I would not want them to legally own a gun. If they get one illegally, well then thats their bad. I CC 98% of the time, and if I ever had to use that gun I understand that there will be consequences. Thats just the law, right or wrong, thats the way it is.
i dont know why folks think its bad to make guns legal for all felons. do you really think they could not get there hands on a gun if they really wanted to? do you think they will say "well i was going to murder ____ but damn it im not allowed to have a gun"
i can see the argument of not allowing them to carry out in public, but not the argument that says they cant have a gun in there home for hunting or defense
No, I am saying he should not have been an idiot an commited a felony in the first place. Also, his wife or girlfriend can still have a firearm since you are talking about his family. That is unless they are a family of felons.
Nice post patriot.
Since a lot of felons keep committing crime , I say I 5-10 yr. Wait is in order to fully know if they are rehabilitated.
Good grief. Lay off the sarcasm, name-calling, confrontational tone and ignorance sir. NYFelon comes here expecting a reasonable and mature discussion of the issue at hand, and instead he gets this gem of a post (among others).
I see no reason why felons should not be restored fully to their prior level of rights before their conviction and incarceration. From a moral standpoint I can find no issue either.
Would I be comfortable with many of the felons under my supervision being restored their RKBA? No. Should that matter? No. A person's rights should NOT be contingent on my nor your comfort level.
That being said, the last time I checked, we still maintain some semblance of freedom. Do what you will, and keep your business yours
If you don't like the laws then get them changed. However, the law here is what it is and if you don't like it then don't break it.
NYFelon,
Yours is precisely the type of scenario I and others have described as the reason why the absolutist "felons should not own guns!" makes no sense. I would suggest that since you cannot apply for post-conviction relief for this, perhaps you could look into either a gubernatorial pardon or even write a letter and ask Barry Hussein for one. Democrats all seem to be proponents of the school of thought that the justice system is too strict on criminals; make that work for you. Apply for the full pardon, but don't say anything in your letter about wanting a gun permit/license/whatever. Just address it in terms of not wanting the stigma over your head anymore and tell the part about how you've changed your life as proven by years since the events for which you were convicted. Once fully pardoned, you can move on and do what you want with your life.
Good luck and
Blessings,
Bill
Since a lot of felons keep committing crime , I say I 5-10 yr. Wait is in order to fully know if they are rehabilitated.
If the intended idea behind denying the 2A rights of a free man, ex-con or not, is to keep them from using a firearm to commit violent crimes, then I would submit to you that this policy is time tested and has failed miserably.
Those intent on committing violent crimes are not walking into Joe's Gun Shop to buy a handgun. Criminals are not following the law....shocking I know They are stealing them, buying them on the street, trading drugs for them, and obtaining them through straw purchases.
Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths - check out that research on Page 40. The BATFE shows that 93% of the guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.
I'd submit to you that an ex-con intent on committing more crimes after they get out of prison, isn't going to be affected by these laws one iota.
It's a 'feel good' measure. Frankly, our system has so many 'feel good' measures made at the whim of politicians who want to 'feel' like they are actually doing something, that it is now part of the problem. In reality they are doing nothing to stop the problems at its root. Pile on the 'feel good' measures all you want, but it won't do a damn bit of good in stopping those intent on committing more crimes.
There is a certain state there which allows persons convicted of felonies their right to own firearms, barring their conviction is expunged or cleared by whatever mechanism their state uses, should they be from out of state. Time is a factor, but not a gigantic one. I've been this long without the right, and though it frustrates me, I can bear a touch longer.
.
wich state is that. as i understand it (i could easily be wrong as im no lawyer) but indiana allows certain felons to have just, however its still a viloation of federal law and will land you in the jail house.
somone speak up if im mistaken
I'm not usually a fighter, but I get up and confront him. He takes the first swing, but he's so drunk it may as well have come in the mail. So, I proceed to toss him an ass whuppin'. In the process (according to the police report) I broke his nose, and knocked out one of his teeth.
The cops are called, and I figure there really shouldn't be any trouble. After all, I'm a regular here, the guy took the first swing, and I have 7 other witnesses to corroborate my story. The cops come, start asking questions, and making a report. It's at this time, the guy whips out his shield. Turns out I just beat the snot out of an off duty NYPD officer.
I'm sorry, but I just feel I'm not getting the whole story here, and that we're setting up a straw man argument with rabbit trails about farmers' cattle getting away and what not.
We have a guy who admitted to committing a felony - assault - a violent felony.
This isn't a felony like stealing a bunch of money, taking a car, or what not - it is getting angry and getting into a fight.
I'm sorry - but I have a hard time believing that 7 people saw it go down this way, the cop was drunk, and it didn't get tossed when it was 8 against 1 at the first hearing when all your buddies showed up to testify on your behalf. 8 people say "he was drunk and threw the first punch". 1 person says "He threw the first punch."
Did you self-incriminate before the plea?
I'm struggling to see how there isn't another angle to the story.
----------------------------------------------
I think the general public is going to find it appropriate that someone who admitted they assaulted someone, broke their nose, and knocked out teeth, does not get to carry firearms like people who haven't.