Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wawazat" data-source="post: 3861976" data-attributes="member: 35603"><p>Obviously this is an insanely complicated course of discussion to try and capture. One that I think would be incredibly interesting to discuss at length, but difficult to do online. I do think part of the discussion involves what we consider a felony and a misdemeanor. I absolutely understand tying it to a hierarchy of available punishments as it is now, but it certainly muddies other things. </p><p></p><p>It would be worth thinking through realigning a felony with acts that make you a threat to society for life (i.e. molestation, murder, rape (not to necessarily include statutory), cases of people exposing themselves to children, committing crimes on behalf of an organized criminal group, etc., etc., etc.) In my opinion there is little to no possibility of rehabilitation. For those crimes, Im not interested in punishment, I am interested in removing the threat from society (life in prison or death penalty). That would leave a misdemeanor for crimes we would expect to be a decent chance of a single time offense of a certain impact to society. Along those lines, there would be some point in repeat offenses where what was originally a misdemeanor will now be treated as a felony.</p><p></p><p>This decision was about someone accused though and not yet found guilty. I would say if someone has been charged with a crime that is a real threat to society and we no longer trust them to have a firearm while awaiting trial, they should be held in custody until they see a judge. Then it doesnt matter if they have the right to acquire firearms as a potentially convicted felon, they wont have access to do so. The issue there then turns into however many months to even begin the court process which is ridiculous to me. </p><p></p><p>But, I also no I have no depth of knowledge of our criminal justice system to know the pinch points, bottlenecks, or opportunities for improvement but every system has them. So take it all as smoke or pick it apart, I know I have no idea what Im talking about so no offense will be taken haha.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wawazat, post: 3861976, member: 35603"] Obviously this is an insanely complicated course of discussion to try and capture. One that I think would be incredibly interesting to discuss at length, but difficult to do online. I do think part of the discussion involves what we consider a felony and a misdemeanor. I absolutely understand tying it to a hierarchy of available punishments as it is now, but it certainly muddies other things. It would be worth thinking through realigning a felony with acts that make you a threat to society for life (i.e. molestation, murder, rape (not to necessarily include statutory), cases of people exposing themselves to children, committing crimes on behalf of an organized criminal group, etc., etc., etc.) In my opinion there is little to no possibility of rehabilitation. For those crimes, Im not interested in punishment, I am interested in removing the threat from society (life in prison or death penalty). That would leave a misdemeanor for crimes we would expect to be a decent chance of a single time offense of a certain impact to society. Along those lines, there would be some point in repeat offenses where what was originally a misdemeanor will now be treated as a felony. This decision was about someone accused though and not yet found guilty. I would say if someone has been charged with a crime that is a real threat to society and we no longer trust them to have a firearm while awaiting trial, they should be held in custody until they see a judge. Then it doesnt matter if they have the right to acquire firearms as a potentially convicted felon, they wont have access to do so. The issue there then turns into however many months to even begin the court process which is ridiculous to me. But, I also no I have no depth of knowledge of our criminal justice system to know the pinch points, bottlenecks, or opportunities for improvement but every system has them. So take it all as smoke or pick it apart, I know I have no idea what Im talking about so no offense will be taken haha. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom