Georgiapacking.org banner

41 - 60 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Well, I tried to catch up here, but may not have caught everything. Forgive me if this point has already been made.

I personally have little problem with allowing felons to get their full rights back. As oldschool68 pointed out, part of our justice system is "rehabilitation". And, of course, good ol' "paying your debt to society" and all that, right? So once you get out of jail, what is the justification for denying your rights? That you're still dangerous? Then you should still be in jail. Guns are dangerous? Really? Then why let anyone have them? And if the idea is really to keep dangerous objects out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, can we prevent felons from driving? Using a steak knife to cut their steaks? Drinking? Owning a claw hammer? What other rights can we limit? Free speech? Can we prevent a former felon from going to the church of his choice? Are we allowed to use cruel and unusual punishment to punish a felon for a future offense? Of course, we do prevent felons from voting, right? But then, there is no Constitutionally protected right to vote, is there?

I think you get my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
dunkel said:
Well, I tried to catch up here, but may not have caught everything. Forgive me if this point has already been made.

I personally have little problem with allowing felons to get their full rights back. As oldschool68 pointed out, part of our justice system is "rehabilitation". And, of course, good ol' "paying your debt to society" and all that, right? So once you get out of jail, what is the justification for denying your rights? That you're still dangerous? Then you should still be in jail. Guns are dangerous? Really? Then why let anyone have them? And if the idea is really to keep dangerous objects out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, can we prevent felons from driving? Using a steak knife to cut their steaks? Drinking? Owning a claw hammer? What other rights can we limit? Free speech? Can we prevent a former felon from going to the church of his choice? Are we allowed to use cruel and unusual punishment to punish a felon for a future offense? Of course, we do prevent felons from voting, right? But then, there is no Constitutionally protected right to vote, is there?

I think you get my point.
So if a preschool teach molests a little girl at school, and goes to prison and is "rehabilitated", he should be able to go teach little girls in preschool?

I hope we're on the same page.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
TippinTaco said:
dunkel said:
Well, I tried to catch up here, but may not have caught everything. Forgive me if this point has already been made.

I personally have little problem with allowing felons to get their full rights back. As oldschool68 pointed out, part of our justice system is "rehabilitation". And, of course, good ol' "paying your debt to society" and all that, right? So once you get out of jail, what is the justification for denying your rights? That you're still dangerous? Then you should still be in jail. Guns are dangerous? Really? Then why let anyone have them? And if the idea is really to keep dangerous objects out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, can we prevent felons from driving? Using a steak knife to cut their steaks? Drinking? Owning a claw hammer? What other rights can we limit? Free speech? Can we prevent a former felon from going to the church of his choice? Are we allowed to use cruel and unusual punishment to punish a felon for a future offense? Of course, we do prevent felons from voting, right? But then, there is no Constitutionally protected right to vote, is there?

I think you get my point.
So if a preschool teach molests a little girl at school, and goes to prison and is "rehabilitated", he should be able to go teach little girls in preschool?

I hope we're on the same page.
Read the bold part again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
dunkel said:
TippinTaco said:
dunkel said:
Well, I tried to catch up here, but may not have caught everything. Forgive me if this point has already been made.

I personally have little problem with allowing felons to get their full rights back. As oldschool68 pointed out, part of our justice system is "rehabilitation". And, of course, good ol' "paying your debt to society" and all that, right? So once you get out of jail, what is the justification for denying your rights? That you're still dangerous? Then you should still be in jail. Guns are dangerous? Really? Then why let anyone have them? And if the idea is really to keep dangerous objects out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, can we prevent felons from driving? Using a steak knife to cut their steaks? Drinking? Owning a claw hammer? What other rights can we limit? Free speech? Can we prevent a former felon from going to the church of his choice? Are we allowed to use cruel and unusual punishment to punish a felon for a future offense? Of course, we do prevent felons from voting, right? But then, there is no Constitutionally protected right to vote, is there?

I think you get my point.
So if a preschool teach molests a little girl at school, and goes to prison and is "rehabilitated", he should be able to go teach little girls in preschool?

I hope we're on the same page.
Read the bold part again.
I'm aware of what you typed. My point is theres A LOT of people that are "rehabilitated" but the moment they get out relapse or rush to commit the same crime again. so what book or video do you plan to use to determine who is safe to release back into public? Its a fact and known that most criminals that are in jail while taking programs and therapy often spend their spare time planning their next crime for when they get out of prison. do the research and see that most prisoners are repeat offenders.

the issue with this entire thread itself is the question is: Does Oldschools charges permit him to conceal or open carry a weapon? Logically no it doesn't. He was arrested and charged with a forcible felony, sentenced to 5 years which was reduced to 5 years on probation. First off, there was no rehabilitation as far as we know or any time spent with a psychologist to determine his ability to make rational choices. Not that its any of our business anyways. He is has now completed his 5 years of probation, cleared of charges and now able to do as he pleases. Now he wishes to conceal/carry a firearm. again I don't personally know his situation or what he did exactly or know him as a person.My opinion is based on the facts that he was charged with terroristic threats and more than 1 persons were there to witness it.

In the state of GA Terroristic Threats is a forcible felony, which I'm assuming that was he was charged with. Some here have already stated: LET HIM PURCHASE A HANDGUN AND GET A PERMIT....

Based upon his prior poor judgement, I don't think him having the ability to conceal a firearm or even own one is in the best interest of law abiding citizens.

again Oldschool I'm not basing this on your charcter, but the crime you commited. I'm just looking at it for face value as if I was looking personally at your permit request.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
grrr... there you go again. "No Adjudication of Guilt" = "No Crime committed" in the eyes of the law per georgia code. I am not a felon, nor have I committed any restrictive misdemeanor crimes.... for the purpose of the definition of conviction, it is no different than a jury trial or bench trial finding a defendant not guilty.

Again, if in your opinion you feel like I am guilty than fine... no problem. You post up as if you have statute, case law etc backing up your claims... WHICH YOU DONT.

Ultimately, my original topic can be boiled down to whether or not I will be automatically disqualified based upon the Good Moral Character portion. THAT is the ONLY disqualification that could possibly prevent me (temporarily) from obtaining a permit pursuant to statute. It is not a matter of IF I get my permit, but rather WHEN. Ultimately.. it will happen. That being said, my main goal of this post was to see if anyone else had to go to probate court and their experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
oldschool68 said:
grrr... there you go again. "No Adjudication of Guilt" = "No Crime committed" in the eyes of the law per georgia code. I am not a felon, nor have I committed any restrictive misdemeanor crimes.... for the purpose of the definition of conviction, it is no different than a jury trial or bench trial finding a defendant not guilty.

Again, if in your opinion you feel like I am guilty than fine... no problem. You post up as if you have statute, case law etc backing up your claims... WHICH YOU DONT.

Ultimately, my original topic can be boiled down to whether or not I will be automatically disqualified based upon the Good Moral Character portion. THAT is the ONLY disqualification that could possibly prevent me (temporarily) from obtaining a permit pursuant to statute. It is not a matter of IF I get my permit, but rather WHEN. Ultimately.. it will happen. That being said, my main goal of this post was to see if anyone else had to go to probate court and their experiences.
Like I said earlier man, if you can get a judge to hand you one then power to you. My whole argument was on what grounds you were obviously arrested and charged.

After looking up some legal terms and stuff I came across the obvious GA carry laws:

Notes about license exceptions:
"Convicted" means a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt by a court of competent jurisdiction or the acceptance of a plea of nolo contendere, irrespective of the pendency or availability of an appeal or an application for collateral relief.
If First Offender treatment without adjudication of guilt for possession or manufacturing or distributing drugs was obtained and successfully completed and there has been no other conviction since then and it has been more than 5 years, that person shall be eligible for a license (assuming no other exceptions apply)
That fits your situation from what I gather from other sites in the terms of your plea for Nolo/First Offender. BUT notice this part:

If First Offender treatment without adjudication of guilt for possession or manufacturing or distributing drugs was obtained and successfully completed and there has been no other conviction since then and it has been more than 5 years, that person shall be eligible for a license (assuming no other exceptions apply)
This part of the law states that the First Offender plea has the 5 year time frame for only drug related charges, your Terroristic threats isn't listed there.

Can anyone else clarify that for me please? From what I gather First Offender or not, you commited a felony crime. Even though you plea was First Offender treatment, that doesn't mean that your ability to carry a handgun will be reinstated ( at least without some lawyers and time). Just what I gather from the law itself IANAL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
I'm sure TippinTaco is a choir boy and has never said anything that could be considered a threat, or carried his gun somewhere he shouldn't, or violated any one of the millions of malum prohibitum laws on the books.

I'm sure many of the posters on this forum have committed a felony, even if completely unintentional.

Even something like a legit defensive gun usage could turn into terroristic threats or aggravated assault.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Discussion Starter #48
tippin your interpretation is incorrect. By pleading first offender your rights to keep, purchase, own, etc arms, right to vote, etc. are never taken and therefore require no "reinstatement." My rights cannot be restored simply because they were never taken away.

There is statute saying that while serving probation under First Offender you may not possess firearms. (16-11-131)

Subsection (f) of 16-11-131 further states, "Any person placed on probation as a first offender pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42 and subsequently discharged without court adjudication of guilt pursuant to Code Section 42-8-62 shall, upon such discharge, be relieved from the disabilities imposed by this Code section." <--- that means I can possess, own, purchase, etc. firearms

if 16-11-129 applied to and exempted FOA terroristic threats applicants from receiving a GWL then it would have been specified therein similarly to the 5 year waiting period detailed for VGCSA charges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,679 Posts
Good god.. After all this, dude, just go apply for the freaking permit and let us know what happened. It's not like we have a say in the matter here anyhow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
oldschool68 said:
tippin your interpretation is incorrect. By pleading first offender your rights to keep, purchase, own, etc arms, right to vote, etc. are never taken and therefore require no "reinstatement." My rights cannot be restored simply because they were never taken away.

There is statute saying that while serving probation under First Offender you may not possess firearms. (16-11-131)

Subsection (f) of 16-11-131 further states, "Any person placed on probation as a first offender pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42 and subsequently discharged without court adjudication of guilt pursuant to Code Section 42-8-62 shall, upon such discharge, be relieved from the disabilities imposed by this Code section." <--- that means I can possess, own, purchase, etc. firearms

if 16-11-129 applied to and exempted FOA terroristic threats applicants from receiving a GWL then it would have been specified therein similarly to the 5 year waiting period detailed for VGCSA charges.
10-4 let us know how it goes :righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
JeF4y said:
Good god.. After all this, dude, just go apply for the freaking permit and let us know what happened. It's not like we have a say in the matter here anyhow.
already did... just killing time with an of topic thread
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
NullMatrix said:
I'm sure TippinTaco is a choir boy and has never said anything that could be considered a threat, or carried his gun somewhere he shouldn't, or violated any one of the millions of malum prohibitum laws on the books.

I'm sure many of the posters on this forum have committed a felony, even if completely unintentional.

Even something like a legit defensive gun usage could turn into terroristic threats or aggravated assault.
I love this post!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
NullMatrix said:
I'm sure TippinTaco is a choir boy and has never said anything that could be considered a threat, or carried his gun somewhere he shouldn't, or violated any one of the millions of malum prohibitum laws on the books.

I'm sure many of the posters on this forum have committed a felony, even if completely unintentional.

Even something like a legit defensive gun usage could turn into terroristic threats or aggravated assault.
Ehh I was about to "box" with ya but decided there's no need for me to bring my self down to your level of childish. But to support your sarcastic irrelevant post, I've never committed anything close to what would be considered a felony. See I actually grew up with both parents, that taught me right from wrong. Unlike some here, before I even applied for my permit, I knew exactly where I could and couldn't carry my gun. I wasn't one of those who got all excited, jumped in my truck and drove to all my buddies house to point at my 1911 dangling from my side. Said anything as a threat? I never threatened anyone, if I had a reason to whip someones @#[email protected]# then I did it, I didn't tell you I would do it, I just did it. I find your post humorous as well, sorta reminds me of the good ole days ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Tippin, am I to understand that you support limiting basic rights for an entire class of people because statistics show that some of them might commit a crime in the future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
dunkel said:
Tippin, am I to understand that you support limiting basic rights for an entire class of people because statistics show that some of them might commit a crime in the future?
Not necessarily, but some rights should be lost when you've been convicted of serious crimes such as murder or rape. You should lose the ability to vote, the ability to own weapons and the ability to enter society as a "law abiding citizen". Honestly this shouldn't even be an issue because I'd hope they would put a bullet in the perps head. It's quite obvious that I don't sit on the same side of the fence as a lot of these hard core constitutionalists. I truly feel the moment you become an serial offender with charges that are very serious, yes you should sacrifice some of your rights.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,695 Posts
TippinTaco said:
dunkel said:
Tippin, am I to understand that you support limiting basic rights for an entire class of people because statistics show that some of them might commit a crime in the future?
Not necessarily, but some rights should be lost when you've been convicted of serious crimes such as murder or rape. You should lose the ability to vote, the ability to own weapons and the ability to enter society as a "law abiding citizen". Honestly this shouldn't even be an issue because I'd hope they would put a bullet in the perps head. It's quite obvious that I don't sit on the same side of the fence as a lot of these hard core constitutionalists. I truly feel the moment you become an serial offender with charges that are very serious, yes you should sacrifice some of your rights.
As opposed to "soft core constitutionalist"? :lol:

What if oldschool had just smiled and asked his ex-gf what the guy's name was, and she gave it to him. No verbal threats were made, but he was THINKING "I'm gonna beat his arse." He then goes and roughs up the guy and gets charged with misdemeanor battery, and pleads guilty and gets fined and 30 days in jail.

Would not his actions in this case be worse than what actually happened? And yet, because he's not a felon but only guilty of a misdemeanor, would you still be in full blown :panic: about him getting a GWL?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
TippinTaco said:
Said anything as a threat? I never threatened anyone, if I had a reason to whip someones @#[email protected]# then I did it, I didn't tell you I would do it, I just did it.
This is the problem I have with terrorist threats charge and how broadly it can be applied...

You say you would not threaten someone (felony), but simply beat their ass (midemeanor).

So which is worse? To threaten someone with bodily harm or to cause bodily harm?

It is absolutely ridiculous that the law is written this way. The only person I hurt was anybody that was sensitive to the f bomb.

Thank you for the link by the way!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
TippinTaco said:
You should lose the ability to vote, the ability to own weapons and the ability to enter society as a "law abiding citizen".
Serious question:

Why shouldn't a felon be able to vote? What state interest is being met by preventing a convicted felon from voting? Why is it dangerous to allow a felon to vote? It seems to me if a felon wants to go through all of that trouble, why not let him, its a small sign of at least some rehabilitation to me.

Also, it cuts them off from the political process. Imagine if you accidentally got busted a few years ago for having a gun in your car in the MARTA parking lot and got convicted of a felony. Once you are convicted, you can't even vote for people that will help you get such an evil law changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
TippinTaco said:
dunkel said:
Tippin, am I to understand that you support limiting basic rights for an entire class of people because statistics show that some of them might commit a crime in the future?
Not necessarily, but some rights should be lost when you've been convicted of serious crimes such as murder or rape. You should lose the ability to vote, the ability to own weapons and the ability to enter society as a "law abiding citizen". Honestly this shouldn't even be an issue because I'd hope they would put a bullet in the perps head. It's quite obvious that I don't sit on the same side of the fence as a lot of these hard core constitutionalists. I truly feel the moment you become an serial offender with charges that are very serious, yes you should sacrifice some of your rights.
If you're convicted of murder or rape, you should probably spend the rest of your short life in prison, anyway, so murderers and rapists shouldn't be an issue. The same with a "serial offender with charges that are very serious". Wait..."charges"? So you don't even care whether or not someone is actually guilty, as long as the charges themselves are serious?

Yes, it's quite obvious that you're willing to sacrifice a little liberty for some perceived security and, thus, are not one of those "hard core constitutionalists".
 
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Top