Timothy Harper arrested..... finally! Idiot.

[Pstmstr]

Allow me to elaborate a bit on this one. Generally speaking, one doesn't get a felony charge on hot checks until they have been arrested, charged, and convicted of a number of instances of passing a hot check. I'd have to look it up again, but I don't think one can get a felony charge otherwise except by perhaps writing a hot check for a very large amount.

In my years of working with criminal records in Oklahoma, I don't recall seeing very many felony cases of hot checks. On the other hand, there were LOTS of felony charges of DUI and Possession of Controlled Drugs that were charged as felonies after having been convicted of misdemeanor counts of the same charges.

But all those other times weren’t their fault either. We just need to be more understanding of people committing felonies until they’ve had at least 10. After 10 we can start blaming the offender and spank their hands. Maybe timeout in the corner if it was using a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You don't seem to understand that the full term of punishment for the crime committed includes the prohibition of firearms. Now, if you don't think that is right, your recourse id s to work to change that law. Until then, that is the consequence of the crime committed, and the individual agreed to those conditions by knowingly committing that crime, knowing the full extent of the penalties associated with that crime. You and I didn't force them to commit a crime, they chose to do so. Yes, I'm okay with the current law.

Even if a person is aware of the law and the consequences of violating the law, a person cannot relinquish a right any more than one can be taken from that person. Not only is the law as it stands unconstitutional, it is antithetical to a basic human right.

When government forbids a person to keep and bear arms, it isn't about punishment. It is about control. It's about control that can only be viably enforced in prison or an institution. Setting someone free and telling them they can no longer keep and bear arms is counting on trust that said individual has been proven not to have. The only answer for someone adjudicated as being untrustworthy, for any individual not executed, is to kept that person in prison or an institution until it can be proven they are no longer a danger to society.

I am not okay with the current law. Too many dangerous people have been released into society just to save money.

Woody

 

[Tanis143]

Even if a person is aware of the law and the consequences of violating the law, a person cannot relinquish a right any more than one can be taken from that person. Not only is the law as it stands unconstitutional, it is antithetical to a basic human right.

When government forbids a person to keep and bear arms, it isn't about punishment. It is about control. It's about control that can only be viably enforced in prison or an institution. Setting someone free and telling them they can no longer keep and bear arms is counting on trust that said individual has been proven not to have. The only answer for someone adjudicated as being untrustworthy, for any individual not executed, is to kept that person in prison or an institution until it can be proven they are no longer a danger to society.

I am not okay with the current law. Too many dangerous people have been released into society just to save money.

Woody

Therein lies the rub. How can you prove they are no longer a danger to society? Honest answer, you can't until they are on the outside for a quite a while. Its impossible to do so beforehand. So, based on your belief everyone who is locked up for crimes against humanity should just rot in jail until they die. Thats an astronomical amount of people.

As for restricting or removing a right? Yes, that can be done. It shouldn't be done lightly, and it should only happen in a court of law. Is that system perfect? Hell no, but its the best solution out there. Why? It prevents environments like Iran and North Korea where the state can pass laws that if you worship one god over another you can be put to death. Speak badly about the country's leader? Death. So yes, at many times our justice system is flawed but I will still take it over every other system that has been implemented.

And finally, yes, a felon who wants a firearm will get one. But to say that is cause just to let them have them is like saying because people will drive drunk regardless we should just allow drunk driving. If anything it gives law enforcement a way to show that person is still willing to break the law and put them back in jail before they cause harm to someone.

I get your point, and to a degree I agree with it. Its just not practical or possible to do. What we have right now is the next best thing. The one thing I would change is is to institute a period where a felon can show he is willing to live within the law and be a productive member of society and all rights should be restored. There have been many people who have been convicted of violent crimes who truly have turned over a new leaf in prison and have shown they deserve a second chance. The only way they have to do that is to beg for clemency from the governor of the state he/she was prosecuted in. That happens about as often as Haley's comet graces our sky.

 

[dennishoddy]

So, you’re ok with the government taking away a right forever, even after the person who committed the crime has completed the full term of incarceration and paid any required restitution?

It’s really ok to have to pay for a crime for the rest of your life, even if a life sentence in prison isn’t a potential penalty for the crime?

I'm in this boat. There are zillions of non violent felons that spent their time, paid their restitution, and have gone on to live model lives raising families and contributing to society because they learned the lesson that incarceration is supposed to provide.
It's not right that they cannot provide safety and security for themselves and their family.

 

[CHenry]

Oh, the irony is thick...

No your skull is thick

 

[CHenry]

Um, yeah. Because a dangerous criminal with a baseball bat is able to kill me with one swing 10 feet away from me...

That has to be the most absurd argument I've read yet, not to mention pure fantasy. It is not the firearm that I and others have a problem with, its the fact the criminal has one after being convicted for the same or similar crimes.

Tim McVeigh didn't use a bat or a gun.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Love how when someone presents an argument that runs counter to some people's ideals, they start with the insults. I have 0 fear of firearms. None. Zip. Zilch. What I fear is what criminals do when they get their hands on them. Yes, a felon can get a firearm if they try hard enough. Does that mean I want it to be easier for them to do so? Hell no! And if I had children who were not old enough to carry a firearm themselves, guess who would be with them in public? Me, and my firearm.

Non-violent felons can have their 2A rights restored. Its a process, yes, but it has and can be done. Violent offenders should never have those rights restored. And there is nothing you can say that would change my mind on that. First off, how can you prove someone would no longer be a threat? We still do not have the technology to read a person's mind, so there is no way to prove one way or the other. So we either keep every single criminal locked up for life or we release them but have restrictions like no firearms.

If you feel certain crimes should not be felonies, petition your local, state and federal reps and let them know. Until such time the saying "Do the crime, do the time" holds true.

You and I agree on many things but not on all of this.

You mentioned that a felon can get a firearm if they try hard enough. (I don't think it's all that hard.) That right there makes the case for not releasing any adjudicated violent felon from a prison or institution until it can be proven they are not a threat to society. As you have mentioned, we do not have the technology to read a person's mind so there is no way to prove they are not a threat to society. Sucks to be them. If, some day, it can be proven they are not a threat, or have their mind inculcated with a conscience, then release them. Until then, being convicted of a violent crime, if not executed, it's a life sentence.

I don't think it would be a problem if Martha Stewart kept and bore arms. I can see forbidding her to work on the stock market (It's not a protected right), but not forbidding her to keep and bear arms. She shouldn't even have to petition the government to have her Right to Keep and Bear Arms 'restored'.

YMMV.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If you feel certain crimes should not be felonies, petition your local, state and federal reps and let them know. Until such time the saying "Do the crime, do the time" holds true.

Petitioning local, state, and federal reps is a hit and mostly miss proposition. If they don't agree with your stance on things, it is best to replace them at the next election. Regardless, "Do the crime, do the time" will always hold true!

Woody

 

[Tanis143]

You and I agree on many things but not on all of this.

I agree with the part about non-violent felons being able to have access to firearms once their parole is finished. As for the rest, well your ideals are not practical as there would be a very large (even more than we have today) amount of people on life sentences. Who is going to pay for that? The state can barely afford the prison system we have today. Not to mention a life sentence for armed robbery would probably be considered cruel or unusual punishment.

The point is people know there are consequences to committing crimes. So far the only crime I have ever committed was driving with an expired tag. Why? Because for one I have no desire to commit crimes and I have no desire to pay the punishment for those crimes.

 

[SMS]

Just an update on this one...Harper's case has been continued until July 7th due to "health concerns".