TexasCHLforum.com

Judge rejects Louisiana law barring felons from owning guns

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... ning-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ever notice ...
While watching old westerns on TV, most made in the 1950s/1960s, I noticed that guys released from prison after "doing their time" wore pistols/had rifles, as if they actually had a right to protect their lives from snakes/mountain lions, others after "paying their debt to society"
weird ...

RPB wrote:Ever notice ...
While watching old westerns on TV, most made in the 1950s/1960s, I noticed that guys released from prison after "doing their time" wore pistols/had rifles, as if they actually had a right to protect their lives from snakes/mountain lions, others after "paying their debt to society"

Did you notice they hanged the really bad guys in the Westerns, and sometimes didn't bother waiting for the Sheriff?
Did you notice the ones that made it to prison did hard time, sometimes on chain gangs, and actually paid their debt to society?

Also, if you remember real life in the 1950s/1960s, you should remember the "fleeing felon rule" that cut recidivism.

Yeah but ....Rope was cheap, ... today they'd all just be released if there weren't here legally anyway ...

I used to believe that once someone server their time they had "paid their dues to society" and got all their rights restored. I don't know if I picked this up as a kid or if it were ever true but it's certainly not true now..

I do think that the right to vote should be restored but I don't know about the right to own guns to violent felons. Part of me actually thinks once you've served time you should be able to defend yourself and carry a gun but our residivism rates are terrible so the other part things were just rearming people that will be going back to jail.

We all know that if a bad guy wants a gun he's not going to get it legally but there is no use allowing them to get it legally if they have been a felon.

IIRC, Recognizing the recidivism rates are why the names changed from like Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to Dept of Criminal Justice.... perhaps to more accurately reflect truth in Dept name advertising

California still has the old type name ...that's why they say... California Deamin' (but they have a prescription in order to become mentally impaired)

Depending on the type of crime committed, I don't necessarily disagree.

We all know that the Second Amendment specifically states that felons no longer have the right to self defense or fight tyranny.

/sarcasm.

Why is it that our rights are absolute but not someone else's??

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:We all know that the Second Amendment specifically states that felons no longer have the right to self defense or fight tyranny.

/sarcasm.

Why is it that our rights are absolute but not someone else's??

If you're seriously suggesting that convicted felons have the right to keep and bear arms in prison, I don't know what to say.

If you're not, and you believe convicted felons can lose their right to keep and bear arms, we're no longer talking about principles but merely operational details.

RPB wrote:

Judge rejects Louisiana law barring felons from owning guns

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... ning-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ever notice ...
While watching old westerns on TV, most made in the 1950s/1960s, I noticed that guys released from prison after "doing their time" wore pistols/had rifles, as if they actually had a right to protect their lives from snakes/mountain lions, others after "paying their debt to society"
weird ...

“District Judge Darryl Derbigny's ruling Thursday sends the issue straight to the Louisiana Supreme Court”
The judge should be removed from office. It’s Federal law and the conviction doesn’t even have to be for a felony.

(http://www.rip.uscourts.gov/rip/supervi ... bition.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Firearm Possession Prohibition

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
$250,000 fine. Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;

This case should not have even been tried in his court. Sounds like the judge believes he can disregard laws he doesn’t agree with.

VoiceofReason wrote:The judge should be removed from office. It’s Federal law and the conviction doesn’t even have to be for a felony.

From everything that I have seen locally on this issue, it is a state statute in question, not the referenced federal one. The defendants were charged under the state crime, not as a federal offense. If this is not the case, it's been completely misrepresented in local and national media. Louisiana laws that are ruled unconstitutional (that's the Louisiana state constitution) skip directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court. On face, this judge has done nothing incorrect or reprehensible.

I do, however, question the judge's motivations. While the Louisiana statute could get rewritten to prohibit possession of firearms by violent felons, instead of all felons, and pass the same constitutional test, I suspect this ruling was done to throw the recent constitutional amendment back in the electorate's face. To claim, effectively, "Look what you have done! Now all felons can be armed!"

This thread is lacking FACTS.

Here are a few..
http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/21/louisi ... provision/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/viewart/20 ... n-gun-law-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Emphasis mine. Read the links.

Federal ban would not be affected.

By the same logic would felons in prison be permitted to have firearms.

philip964 wrote:By the same logic would felons in prison be permitted to have firearms.

Um. No.

tbrown wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:We all know that the Second Amendment specifically states that felons no longer have the right to self defense or fight tyranny.

/sarcasm.

Why is it that our rights are absolute but not someone else's??

If you're seriously suggesting that convicted felons have the right to keep and bear arms in prison, I don't know what to say.

If you're not, and you believe convicted felons can lose their right to keep and bear arms, we're no longer talking about principles but merely operational details.

Seriously, why do these ridiculous assupmtions always crop up? Did I say felons should be allowed firearms in prisons? Are you Frankie the Yankee reincarnated?

My point is that there is nothing in the constitution outlining when rights can be removed.

My opinion is that not all felons, after having served their time and repaid their debt for their crimes, should have rights restored. Some should.

For crying out loud, ILLEGAL aliens have more rights than convicted felons, and this congress and administration is trying to grant them amnesty so they can give them more.

I know several ex-convicts whom I would rather have next to me with an AR fighting tyrants than most other citizens.

Anygunanywhere

IMHO,

I believe that your right to self-defense should be reinstated if you were not convicted of a violent crime and have served all prison/parole time without any further violations.
I would consider any crimes against women or children as 'violent' as a general-rule.