Fuck off, you worthless entitlement draining faggot.
Pelosi introduces bill to give vote to all FELONS nationwide.
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Fuck off, you worthless entitlement draining faggot.
I can't hear you over the flames.
Hope you can swim, because your lifeboat is sinking to the bottom of the bay.
Reread my question about a timeline and if the conviction was non violent. For a firearm related, a violent crime or repeat offender, forget it.
That's good. One of the founding principles of this nation was "no taxation without representation." Once these people have paid their debt to society, they should have their voting rights restored. As for gun rights, I think that depends on the nature of the felony. If someone's crime was, say, embezzling money, then I don't see an issue with full gun rights being restored once the sentence has been served. However, if a person committed a violent crime, I think there's good cause to create a special exception when it comes to getting instruments that would make the person more destructive if he went back into his violent ways.
Then why are you replying?
Mason Michaels
Verified User
Ok thanks.
Indeed.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
they don't need them to vote, they need them to register......the dems have plenty of homeless people they can hire to go in and vote under their registered name.......
Another red herring lie. Felons had the right to own guns until 1934 (or was it 1968 under Johnson) when the right was taken away under a "Public Safety" argument, not a Constitutional argument. "Although Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun, the Gun Control Act expanded the prohibition to include all felony crimes. "
Under federal law (each state is going to have its own provision) felons cannot own a firearm in accordance with 18 USC Code Section 922 Unlawful Acts ... which states:
(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
While this seems pretty clear cut, there are exceptions and we just found out more as a result of a ruling in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Gregory Reyes was convicted in 2010 of backdating stock options. His prosecution was controversial because the practice of dating stock options to the lowest prices of a past quarter was used as an incentive throughout Silicon Valley to attract the best talent. Even Apple Computer got caught up in the mess but ended up with a settlement. Others, like Reyes, were not so lucky and he would be sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Reyes, long since out of prison and off of probation, wanted to purchase a handgun but, upon a background check, he was denied. The Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. It should be noted that there is no Federal procedure for restoring the civil rights of Federal felons. So how could Reyes get his right to carry a gun? He would need a Presidential pardon or he could apply to a program in the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to have his gun rights restored. That ATF program has not been funded in decades, so even if Reyes were to apply, there is no staff to process his request. So he took his case to court.
US District Judge John D. Bates (President George W. Bush appointee), ruled that not all crimes under 18 USC Code Section 922 would result in a felon losing his/her gun rights, even though the sentence was for a term exceeding one year. Judge Bates wrote "This category of crimes, however, is statutorily defined to exclude “offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.” The question then was whether Reyes' conviction fell into an exclusion. Judge Bates determined that it was left to the courts to identify which offenses fell within this “business practices” exception, so it was up to the judge to determine whether or not Reyes could have a gun.
Judge Bates' conclusion was: "While none of Reyes’s predicate convictions required the government to prove as an element of the offense direct harm to competition or consumers, the text and history of the Exchange Act generally, and an examination of each of Reyes’s predicate offenses specifically, evince that those offenses regulate business practices primarily to protect securities purchasers from economic harm. Hence, each of Reyes’s predicate offenses “pertain
Looks like Reyes can have a gun.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2018/10/05/ruling-clarifies-that-some-white-collar-felons-can-possess-a-firearm/#64725c47367a
So you are incorrect, mature masturbator, and nattering Nancy wants to restore only voting rights, not other rights.
From the OP: The bill, titled the “For the People Act,” would also mandate automatic voter registration nationwide for eligible voters that provide information to state government agencies such as the DMV.
The bill holds that “the right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.” Convicted felons who have served their sentence or are sentenced to serve “only a term of probation” would have their voting rights restored.
She also wants automatic registration. I think I know why.
I guess they need a new strategy
Remember when...
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/union-leader-tells-democrats-vote-early-vote-often
They did not, according to this:
https://www.dmv.pa.gov/Information-Centers/Laws-Regulations/Pages/DUI-Legislation.aspx
Perhaps it hasn't been updated.
Yes, in a word, if you know they are going to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in excess of the legal limit.
Establishments and their employees can face severe legal penalties if they are found negligent under such circumstances.
In fact, social hosts are also liable under Pennsylvania's liquor code.
www.pacode.com/secure/data/040/040toc.html
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you think Nancy wants to restore voting rights to people she thinks will vote Republican?.......
Bingo. California DEMOCRATS engaged in all kinds of shady election cheating with Jim Jones and the People's Temple. That's nattering Nancy's home turf.
Jones soon learned that his control over a well-organized, mixed-race army of some 8,000 dedicated followers gave him major stature with San Francisco’s liberal elite. Jones filled buses with temple members in Redwood Valley and Los Angeles and shuttled them to San Francisco. Security at polling places was lax on Election Day, and many nonresidents were able to cast their ballots for Moscone, some more than once.
https://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/jim_jones_sinister_grip_on_san_francisco/
He doesn't think.
reagansghost
eternal
He drank the Kool-aid, and so did you.
reagansghost
eternal
Irish Exit
Verified User
First, if enacted, this would not likely survive the Supreme Court. Second, in some places it could create issues as restoration of civil rights is a prerequisite to getting your gun rights back. It is not clear if this would end up keeping felons from applying under current law or accelerating felons applying for their gun rights to be restored as this would render the first step moot and taking the first step is required for the second step.
DEMOCRAT election cheating is well-documented. In Nancy's hometown. Need me to draw you a picture?
I believe it was just passed, so it may have not been updated.
Yes, I know the laws, as do most bartenders and establishments that they can be held responsible for serving visibly intoxicated patrons. But I, as a citizen, am not obligated to inform anyone. I can, however, suggest (since I don't drink) to offer them a ride home, but am not obligated to do so.