The chances of Pelosi's bill surviving the Senate are very slim. It's all just posturing anyway.
We are all Sooo righteous aren't we? This thread has turned into a debate over whether a convicted felon loses his/her right to fair treatment and consideration by others..
How did you folks find out that the people or friends around you were felons?
Did it come up in casual conversation? I have given ride to town to people that needed to go shopping and never thought to ask them if they were felons. I normally carry so should I check on this for their protection as well as mine from the law?
Michael
I'm all about second chances for people who have paid their debt to society. And associating with law abiding citizens who exercise their right to keep and bear arms should not be detrimental to their freedom. But the fact of the matter is that it is what it is the law says no no for them and if I know about it I don't want to be the person that causes them to get into more legal trouble.
How did you folks find out that the people or friends around you were felons?
Did it come up in casual conversation? I have given ride to town to people that needed to go shopping and never thought to ask them if they were felons. I normally carry so should I check on this for their protection as well as mine from the law?
Michael
Now I may sound like a contrarian here, but if we were to deconstruct that sentence, I believe that statement implies that the firearm has to be accessible in the car that the felon is riding in, not simply that the felon is in the same car as a firearm. It's the "nested or's" and the understood "to have" that makes it clearer if you re-insert the infinitive back in the various clauses.
Example:
to have in his or her possession OR
(to have) under his or her immediate control, OR
(to have) in any vehicle which the person is operating, OR
(to have in any vehicle) in which the person is riding as a passenger, OR
(to have) at the residence where the convicted person resides,
Anyway, I'm not the AG, so my opinion isn't worth beans in court, but I believe that's a reasonable interpretation of the law, otherwise it's possible to come up with perverse legal results such as additional charges for a parolee riding in the back of a police car in which the police are armed, etc etc.
I found this old thread when doing some research on the topic of carrying with a felon and think that mons meg has stated what I believe to be the absolute best assessment of the statute. Having composed some language for statutes I know there is no way to make it clear for EVERYONE to understand. The SDA is a good example of a statute that should have been written without leaving out some of the "assumed" language. Someone, somewhere won't assume the same thing the original author intended. The subsequent interpretation of these laws are the ones that are dangerous. Just look at the most famous law we have, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Anyway, thanks mons meg!
[original OK Statute] A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person convicted of any felony in any court of this state or of another state or of the United States to have in his or her possession or under his or her immediate control, or in any vehicle which the person is operating, or in which the person is riding as a passenger, or at the residence where the convicted person resides, any pistol, imitation or homemade pistol, altered air or toy pistol, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun or rifle, or any other dangerous or deadly firearm.
Enter your email address to join: