Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Oct 9, 2010.
http://www.witn.com/news/headlines/NC_H ... 08794.html
For instance, a convicted pedophile was able to have a gun? (non violent crime) I wonder....
State Law? I thought the prohibition for felon's possession was a federal issue...
If he is not in jail/prison he should have all the rights granted to other persons.
I was wondering that myself, and whether this ruling realy contradicted the earlier one. Reporters . . .
The feds have a law, and the state has a law. They can both prosecute seperately.
I disagree. I think once you commit a crime that is heinous enough to be a felony, the judicidial system should have the right to restore those rights in whatever manner they see fit. It's ridiculous to for us to be forced to keep someone in jail if we don't want it to be legal for someone who has been convicted of kidnapping from owning a gun.
If a crime is heinous enough to be a felony the person should be incarcerated for the remainder of their life. Rights of men are granted by God, and judges have no place to restore them.
Possession of stolen property (note, I did not say stealing it) valued at more than a defined dollar amount (different for every state usually) is a felony. Do you ever shop in pawn shops? Can you ever be absolutely sure that the used weapon you bought from "X Gun & Pawn" 5 years ago wasn't stolen a week earlier in TX and NCIC got updated afterward. There have been cases of 4473'd weapons coming back stolen on a NCIC check. Kidnapping (you're example) is a crime for which I believe the death penalty should be on the table. It is a violent crime, and in most cases involves serious injury or death of the victim.
Stolen firearms in GA are a felony, it doesn't matter the value.
Man has given themselves the ability to take away rights through the rule of law. Since we have given ourselves the authority to take away a thief's freedom for some period of time, a person who physicially injures another for some length of time, why does this authority not extend to rescind such judgement? It seems rather lopsided and nonsensical that a judge should only have power to take away god given rights. It doesn't make sense to make punishment be all or nothing.
What your advocating is either anarchy or the death penalty for every serious offense. Reality lies in the middle.
And I understand that there are certain crimes that are felonies that perhaps are not that bad, but there are many shades of grey between receiving stolen property and murder. Where would you like the line to be drawn?
Free men have rights and judges or laws cannot remove those rights. If a man needs to be prohibited from possessing a handgun the rest of his life the law should lock him in prison the rest of his life. It a man is sent to prison for 5 years his rights are suspended for 5 years. If he is sent to prison for 20 years his rights are suspended for 20 years. The law gives too much power to judges who decide if someone should be pardoned, their records expunged, or rights restored.
Government is only spposed to protect rights and rights are UNALIENABLE they can not be taken by govt. because it can not take what it didnt give....
Since when was ripping the innocence from a child not violent?
If you had ever been molested you would know just how violent it is.
Sure don't agree with that. Not by a long shot.
A service-member, discharged dishonorably, loses his/her right to vote lifelong, regardless of the reason. May not salute the flag, may not vote, and many other restrictions apply. Just throwing that into the fray, and interested in responses.
Don't the individual states determine what makes a person eligible or ineligible to vote? I don't think there is a federal law prohibiting these people from voting.
If they aren't in the military anymore, how can they be charged for saluting the flag? Please cite the law.
I know that these people are prohibited from possessing firearms by federal law.
It is rather unfair to punish these people this harshly. After all, at least they did serve. That is more than most people.
So, you don't support prisons then, because they take away rights of the people incarcerated? And you don't support the death penalty, because they deprive the person of a right to live?
Those god given rights are only unalienable so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, it is not absolute. Otherwise what you describe is an anarchy.