3 ms·

And I have yet to hear of felons rights being restored that includes their rights to bear arms.

Gibbon1 7y ago
I saw a retrospective on California's death row inmates whose sentences were commuted when the death penalty was overturned. California's maximum penalty was 25 to life. Most of the two dozen death row inmates were eventually paroled. One of them moved to Montana or some such and refused to be interviewed. But the local Sheriff agreed to say a few things. One of which was the guy owned a deer rifle but agreed with the Sheriff that it was best not to bring it into town.
kls 7y ago
I live in FL my uncle killed two men for robbing him and sodomizing his wife in front of him, in his house. He later hunted them down and killed them fairly brutally. He was convicted of 2nd degree murder and served 12 years. His gun right where restored two years ago. He has been out for a while now and has proven that he is not a danger to society, just people who rape his wife. They do get restored if you can prove that you represent no increased danger to society by said right being restored.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  That’s pretty insane. Hunting people down and killing them is the definition of danger to society.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > Hunting people down and killing them is the definition of danger to society. There is no danger to "society" here—only to violent criminals who are themselves a danger to innocent civilians. The insane part is that he was punished with 12 years in prison for doing society a favor.
    - kls 7y ago
      To be honest the logical and rational side of me says 12 years was the appropriate sentence. The emotional side that has a connection to him and my aunt say those guys got what was coming to them. He got the 12 years for aggravating circumstances. It was pretty brutal, he severed the things that you would use for said rape, taped them into their mouth and chained them to heavy objects and threw them into the ocean alive. He is certainly no saint, but knowing him, he would not just go out and look to commit such an act. He is actually a pretty mellow and loving guy, but he is no bullshit when it comes to his wife or his son or daughter. The thing is FL is a really weird state and people don't realize that we where one of the last continental US frontiers and really did not become much more than disconnected remote outposts until Flagler built the railroad down the east coat which was completed in 1912, Miami did not see a boom until the 1950's and much of the rest of the state you would not be able to tell from the 1800's until the 1970's. When you get outside of South Florida, Tampa and Orlando you end up in towns that are more like what people think when they think of some small town in nowhere Texas or Alaska, so there is a lot of if you don't cause a problem there wont be a problem type mentality (I mean belive it or not we still have parts of Florida where segregation is alive and well https://journaltimes.com/news/national/blacks-whites-live-with-segregation-in-north-florida-town/article_4012549a-5440-58fe-8479-43295109f9d4.html https://journaltimes.com/news/national/blacks-whites-live-wi...). The judge was an old school Floridian and saw it for what it was, basically don't rape the guys wife and you won't get killed. I remember at the hearing he has a lawyer that lost his shit, because the judge asked him why he wanted a gun, and he told the judge well you honor, I figured out after the fact that if I had, had a gun at the time I would have saved myself 12 years of my life because it would have been self defense. I want a gun so the next time someone tries to rape my wife, I can deal with it then and there. Instead of stewing about until I retaliate in pure anger. He sited his fear of his wife being raped again as a need for self defense and said to the judge I think I have a valid concern for self defense there since I know it can happen and have experienced it first hand. The judge asked him if he regretted or was remorseful for what had transpired, and again he was honest and told him no, that every day he looks at his kids he remembers how their mother was brutalized and he never wanted to be helpless in that situation again. That he realized his actions after the fact was that of a man torn up with rage and vengeance and that that rage and vengeance was still in him and that some days he wished they where still alive so that he could kill them again when he is having flashbacks and cannot get rid of them, but that he would have certainly acted in self defense back then had he been armed and in the future if the same event occurred he would defend himself and his family then and there and thus it would be a justifiable homicide. He said in his current circumstances with little children, he would not have taken the course of action that he did but that he would still feel the same way. That he was OK with having to pay his debt to society but it would be too high of a price to pay now having children. The only person that was more surprised than me that his rights where restored, was probably his lawyer. I think the judge appreciated his honestly as he was being truthful, short of harming his family, he has no desire to kill.
  - kls 7y ago
    Judge felt there where mitigating factors in the fact that he witnessed his wife being raped, the judge felt that in the absence of another individual raping his wife he did not have a higher inclination to kill than the average citizen thus his gun rights should be restored. See my comment below, the judge felt that the mitigating circumstances, counterweighed the aggravating circumstances that got him a larger sentence and thus he had paid his debt and owed no more to society, thus his right should be restored.
rauhl 7y ago
I think that it’s possible in many states, but very difficult. That seems fair. Personally, I think that it should be possible but difficult for felons to earn back the right to vote. Not as difficult as earning back the right to bear arms, but more than just completing their sentences. Still, it’s up to each state to set its own rules for these things.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Why do you think regaining the right to vote should be more difficult, and for that matter, lost at all? In my opinion, loss of the right to bear arms only makes sense for violent offenders. Im not sure what the argument is for the loss of the right to vote is. Is it simply punitive? A deterrent?
  - rauhl 7y ago
    I think it’s punitive. Felonies are (or should be) truly serious crimes, the worst of the worst — if a crime doesn’t warrant permanently branding someone as outside the norms of civil society, then it shouldn’t be a felony. There should of course also be a process for truly repentant and changes felons to earn back their privileges, but it shouldn’t be easy. I think that there’s a good argument that we have too many felonies which aren’t actually truly vile crimes. But I also don’t believe that Robert Hansen, John Gotti or the Unabomber should be voting.

I saw a retrospective on California's death row inmates whose sentences were commuted when the death penalty was overturned. California's maximum penalty was 25 to life. Most of the two dozen death row inmates were eventually paroled. One of them moved to Montana or some such and refused to be interviewed. But the local Sheriff agreed to say a few things. One of which was the guy owned a deer rifle but agreed with the Sheriff that it was best not to bring it into town.

kls 7y ago

I live in FL my uncle killed two men for robbing him and sodomizing his wife in front of him, in his house. He later hunted them down and killed them fairly brutally. He was convicted of 2nd degree murder and served 12 years. His gun right where restored two years ago. He has been out for a while now and has proven that he is not a danger to society, just people who rape his wife. They do get restored if you can prove that you represent no increased danger to society by said right being restored.

Spooky23 7y ago
That’s pretty insane. Hunting people down and killing them is the definition of danger to society.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > Hunting people down and killing them is the definition of danger to society. There is no danger to "society" here—only to violent criminals who are themselves a danger to innocent civilians. The insane part is that he was punished with 12 years in prison for doing society a favor.
  - kls 7y ago
    To be honest the logical and rational side of me says 12 years was the appropriate sentence. The emotional side that has a connection to him and my aunt say those guys got what was coming to them. He got the 12 years for aggravating circumstances. It was pretty brutal, he severed the things that you would use for said rape, taped them into their mouth and chained them to heavy objects and threw them into the ocean alive. He is certainly no saint, but knowing him, he would not just go out and look to commit such an act. He is actually a pretty mellow and loving guy, but he is no bullshit when it comes to his wife or his son or daughter. The thing is FL is a really weird state and people don't realize that we where one of the last continental US frontiers and really did not become much more than disconnected remote outposts until Flagler built the railroad down the east coat which was completed in 1912, Miami did not see a boom until the 1950's and much of the rest of the state you would not be able to tell from the 1800's until the 1970's. When you get outside of South Florida, Tampa and Orlando you end up in towns that are more like what people think when they think of some small town in nowhere Texas or Alaska, so there is a lot of if you don't cause a problem there wont be a problem type mentality (I mean belive it or not we still have parts of Florida where segregation is alive and well https://journaltimes.com/news/national/blacks-whites-live-with-segregation-in-north-florida-town/article_4012549a-5440-58fe-8479-43295109f9d4.html https://journaltimes.com/news/national/blacks-whites-live-wi...). The judge was an old school Floridian and saw it for what it was, basically don't rape the guys wife and you won't get killed. I remember at the hearing he has a lawyer that lost his shit, because the judge asked him why he wanted a gun, and he told the judge well you honor, I figured out after the fact that if I had, had a gun at the time I would have saved myself 12 years of my life because it would have been self defense. I want a gun so the next time someone tries to rape my wife, I can deal with it then and there. Instead of stewing about until I retaliate in pure anger. He sited his fear of his wife being raped again as a need for self defense and said to the judge I think I have a valid concern for self defense there since I know it can happen and have experienced it first hand. The judge asked him if he regretted or was remorseful for what had transpired, and again he was honest and told him no, that every day he looks at his kids he remembers how their mother was brutalized and he never wanted to be helpless in that situation again. That he realized his actions after the fact was that of a man torn up with rage and vengeance and that that rage and vengeance was still in him and that some days he wished they where still alive so that he could kill them again when he is having flashbacks and cannot get rid of them, but that he would have certainly acted in self defense back then had he been armed and in the future if the same event occurred he would defend himself and his family then and there and thus it would be a justifiable homicide. He said in his current circumstances with little children, he would not have taken the course of action that he did but that he would still feel the same way. That he was OK with having to pay his debt to society but it would be too high of a price to pay now having children. The only person that was more surprised than me that his rights where restored, was probably his lawyer. I think the judge appreciated his honestly as he was being truthful, short of harming his family, he has no desire to kill.
- kls 7y ago
  Judge felt there where mitigating factors in the fact that he witnessed his wife being raped, the judge felt that in the absence of another individual raping his wife he did not have a higher inclination to kill than the average citizen thus his gun rights should be restored. See my comment below, the judge felt that the mitigating circumstances, counterweighed the aggravating circumstances that got him a larger sentence and thus he had paid his debt and owed no more to society, thus his right should be restored.

rauhl 7y ago

I think that it’s possible in many states, but very difficult. That seems fair. Personally, I think that it should be possible but difficult for felons to earn back the right to vote. Not as difficult as earning back the right to bear arms, but more than just completing their sentences. Still, it’s up to each state to set its own rules for these things.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
Why do you think regaining the right to vote should be more difficult, and for that matter, lost at all? In my opinion, loss of the right to bear arms only makes sense for violent offenders. Im not sure what the argument is for the loss of the right to vote is. Is it simply punitive? A deterrent?
- rauhl 7y ago
  I think it’s punitive. Felonies are (or should be) truly serious crimes, the worst of the worst — if a crime doesn’t warrant permanently branding someone as outside the norms of civil society, then it shouldn’t be a felony. There should of course also be a process for truly repentant and changes felons to earn back their privileges, but it shouldn’t be easy. I think that there’s a good argument that we have too many felonies which aren’t actually truly vile crimes. But I also don’t believe that Robert Hansen, John Gotti or the Unabomber should be voting.