TexasCHLforum.com

I hope that Mr. Schrader prevails in his lawsuit.

I can understand an assault charge being a disqualification. Say, for a few years like a DWI charge takes away your license.

But 40 years ago? Obviously this guy is not the same brash 21 year old.....

Stupid, stupid law.

74novaman wrote:I can understand an assault charge being a disqualification. Say, for a few years like a DWI charge takes away your license.

But 40 years ago? Obviously this guy is not the same brash 21 year old.....

Stupid, stupid law.

Not a stupid law. Stupid interpretation of a law.

baldeagle wrote:

74novaman wrote:I can understand an assault charge being a disqualification. Say, for a few years like a DWI charge takes away your license.

But 40 years ago? Obviously this guy is not the same brash 21 year old.....

Stupid, stupid law.

Not a stupid law. Stupid interpretation of a law.

It could be both.

I thought only felony will bar firearms ownership

Beiruty wrote:I thought only felony will bar firearms ownership

Usually the definition of a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

If someone is dangerous and has been convicted of a crime, they should be locked up or deported.

Once someone has completed their sentence, I don't see any justification to deny their firearm rights, unless we also deny their rights to voting, religion, free speech, 4th/5th amendments, etc.

boba wrote:If someone is dangerous and has been convicted of a crime, they should be locked up or deported.

Once someone has completed their sentence, I don't see any justification to deny their firearm rights, unless we also deny their rights to voting, religion, free speech, 4th/5th amendments, etc.

What ever happened to the saying "They paid their debt to society"?

WildBill wrote:

boba wrote:If someone is dangerous and has been convicted of a crime, they should be locked up or deported.

Once someone has completed their sentence, I don't see any justification to deny their firearm rights, unless we also deny their rights to voting, religion, free speech, 4th/5th amendments, etc.

What ever happened to the saying "They paid their debt to society"?

Most first timers should have their rights restored when they're released.

For violent repeat offenders who are too dangerous to let back into society, keep them locked up or revoke their citizenship (or legal residency) and kick them out of the country. They should lose the right to live in America if they have multiple, sequential violent crimes. Where they live should be their problem, not their victims' and victim's families.

Should a sex offender be allowed to be a day care teacher after he served his time?
People get so caught up in the letter of the law they forget the spirit of the law, we have to many laws that attempt to stop a certain action but mange to encompass a great deal more.




If you answered yes to the first question, think about this, a man in our community is a convicted sex offender because he reached past a teenage girl to get something out of the frig in the processes his arm grazed her breast. Again the spirit of the law was not to ruin this mans life, but yet it did.

suthdj wrote:Should a sex offender be allowed to be a day care teacher after he served his time?

I believe in free markets so I think that should be up to the company running the day care.

boba wrote:

suthdj wrote:Should a sex offender be allowed to be a day care teacher after he served his time?

I believe in free markets so I think that should be up to the company running the day care.

boba wrote:

WildBill wrote:

boba wrote:If someone is dangerous and has been convicted of a crime, they should be locked up or deported.

Once someone has completed their sentence, I don't see any justification to deny their firearm rights, unless we also deny their rights to voting, religion, free speech, 4th/5th amendments, etc.

What ever happened to the saying "They paid their debt to society"?

Most first timers should have their rights restored when they're released.

For violent repeat offenders who are too dangerous to let back into society, keep them locked up or revoke their citizenship (or legal residency) and kick them out of the country. They should lose the right to live in America if they have multiple, sequential violent crimes. Where they live should be their problem, not their victims' and victim's families.

I don't buy that. How would you like it if Outer Skinjerbia started sending all their repeat offenders to the US? How about sovereignty?

We take care of our own scumbags.

Purplehood wrote:I don't buy that. How would you like it if Outer Skinjerbia started sending all their repeat offenders to the US? How about sovereignty?

Nobody said anything about sending them anywhere; just kicking them out. There's a lot of international waters out there. I'm even charitable enough to give them a 6'x6' raft.