Pelosi introduces bill to give vote to all FELONS nationwide.

I "think" that legislation making that possible can be worked for. I know that flouting the existing law is not something I can condone.

Would you support it?
Don't get me wrong, if you screw up twice, that's on you. But often, some people do stupid shit early in their lives and learn from it. I did, I sure as hell wasn't gonna try to again out run the cop for running another stop sign even though the car I was driving was over twice as fast as the one I was driving when I was 20 and I know the back roads far better than the cop. I believe that is my point.
 
Legion, there may be a legal obligation I am unaware of. I was thinking in terms of the moral obligations that come with friendship.

I don't believe any moral obligations that come with friendship overrule the oath I took to uphold the law.
 
I don't believe any moral obligations that come with friendship overrule the oath I took to uphold the law.

I never took an oath to uphold the law. My decision comes from a lifelong friendship and knowledge of him being responsible. Ruining his life isn't an option for me, nor is it (or has it been) for the many others that know him. Keep in mind we live in a rural and pretty much (at least violent) crime free area.
Thanks for answering my question. Maybe I, you or dog could start a thread on this topic, I think it could be a good topic for discussion.
 
I don't believe any moral obligations that come with friendship overrule the oath I took to uphold the law.

True, they can be perceived as two competing moral obligations ... one to a friend and one to the gov't. The reality is that those in positions of gov't authority will often choose to treat friends or family differently than strangers.
 
I never took an oath to uphold the law. My decision comes from a lifelong friendship and knowledge of him being responsible. Ruining his life isn't an option for me, nor is it (or has it been) for the many others that know him. Keep in mind we live in a rural and pretty much crime free area. Thanks for answering my question. Maybe I, you or dog could start a thread on this topic, I think it could be a good topic for discussion.

You might be interested in this case:

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to opening the door for some convicted felons to challenge a federal ban on them owning firearms. The justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that uniformly denying felons whose crimes were not serious the right to own guns violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”

The case involved two Pennsylvania men who were convicted of non-violent crimes who challenged the ban. The ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, called it a threat to public safety.

The Pennsylvania men who challenged the ban, Julio Suarez of Gettysburg and Daniel Binderup of Manheim, both were convicted of non-violent misdemeanors, but the crimes carried maximum possible sentences of more than two years, falling within the definition of felony in the federal gun ban. Neither Suarez nor Binderup served jail time.

Binderup, who owns a plumbing business, pleaded guilty in 1998 of corrupting a minor after having a sexual affair with a 17-year-old female employee. Binderup was sentenced to three years of probation.

Suarez was convicted in Maryland in 1990 of carrying a gun without a permit. Suarez was given a suspended jail sentence and a year of probation.

Federal law generally prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in jail, the traditional definition of a felony. However, the law does not apply to offenses labeled as misdemeanors under state law that carry jail time of two years or less.

In 2013 and 2014, the men separately sued to escape the felon gun-possession prohibition. Emphasizing their non-violent offenses and light sentences, they argued the law violates their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 8-7 decision, held that people may challenge the ban depending on their particular criminal conviction, and found that it was unconstitutional as applied to the two men.

The Trump administration had appealed last year’s ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, calling it a threat to public safety.

Trump has strongly embraced the National Rifle Association but his administration in this case was on the same side as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The administration said in court papers the appeals court ruling would force judges to make case-by-case assessments of the risks possession by convicted felons, a job for which they are ill-suited. The administration added that too many felons whose gun ownership rights were restored for various reasons have gone on to commit violent crimes.

The Brady Center noted that the prohibition has been on the books in its current form since 1968, when Congress determined that the acquisition of firearms by people convicted of serious crimes posed a danger to public safety and to public figures.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-felons/u-s-top-court-deals-setback-to-gun-control-advocates-on-felon-ban-idUSKBN19H1KZ
 
True, they can be perceived as two competing moral obligations ... one to a friend and one to the gov't. The reality is that those in positions of gov't authority will often choose to treat friends or family differently than strangers.

There's no morality involved, Bigdog. Violating the law, or knowingly allowing others to violate the law is prima facie illegal.
 
You might be interested in this case:

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to opening the door for some convicted felons to challenge a federal ban on them owning firearms. The justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that uniformly denying felons whose crimes were not serious the right to own guns violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”

The case involved two Pennsylvania men who were convicted of non-violent crimes who challenged the ban. The ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, called it a threat to public safety.

The Pennsylvania men who challenged the ban, Julio Suarez of Gettysburg and Daniel Binderup of Manheim, both were convicted of non-violent misdemeanors, but the crimes carried maximum possible sentences of more than two years, falling within the definition of felony in the federal gun ban. Neither Suarez nor Binderup served jail time.

Binderup, who owns a plumbing business, pleaded guilty in 1998 of corrupting a minor after having a sexual affair with a 17-year-old female employee. Binderup was sentenced to three years of probation.

Suarez was convicted in Maryland in 1990 of carrying a gun without a permit. Suarez was given a suspended jail sentence and a year of probation.

Federal law generally prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in jail, the traditional definition of a felony. However, the law does not apply to offenses labeled as misdemeanors under state law that carry jail time of two years or less.

In 2013 and 2014, the men separately sued to escape the felon gun-possession prohibition. Emphasizing their non-violent offenses and light sentences, they argued the law violates their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 8-7 decision, held that people may challenge the ban depending on their particular criminal conviction, and found that it was unconstitutional as applied to the two men.

The Trump administration had appealed last year’s ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, calling it a threat to public safety.

Trump has strongly embraced the National Rifle Association but his administration in this case was on the same side as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The administration said in court papers the appeals court ruling would force judges to make case-by-case assessments of the risks possession by convicted felons, a job for which they are ill-suited. The administration added that too many felons whose gun ownership rights were restored for various reasons have gone on to commit violent crimes.

The Brady Center noted that the prohibition has been on the books in its current form since 1968, when Congress determined that the acquisition of firearms by people convicted of serious crimes posed a danger to public safety and to public figures.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-felons/u-s-top-court-deals-setback-to-gun-control-advocates-on-felon-ban-idUSKBN19H1KZ

I disagree with Trump in this case, each case is different and not every convicted felon is, or ever will become violent.
I guess, contrary to some liberals here, I don't "worship" Trump, although I did vote for him. But then, there are instances
I both agreed and disagreed with the individuals I have voted for over the years.
Thanks for the link.
 
Just a question dog...
Back just after I graduated from HS, a friend/classmate was "set up" (by an asshole who was busted for DUI) and sold a 1/4 lb. of weed (a felony) to an informant. He did a stint in prison and after his release he got a job at a service station, married, had 2 kids and ultimately bought his own auto repair shop (which he still operates today). Other than maybe a speeding ticket or two, hasn't been arrested for anything since.
My question is, should that be held against him for the remainder of his life? Should I turn him in for owning a few guns he inherited from his father?

Myself, back when I was 20, I got busted for eluding a police officer (back then it wasn't a felony, today it is). I've had 2 minor traffic violations since (running a stop sign and speeding). If it was a felony back then, I probably couldn't have landed 1 or 2 of the good jobs I've had, become a very successful hunter, firearms instructor or bought the military rifles I used in hi-power rifle competitions.

My point is, not all felons are violent or repeat offenders, many do learn from their mistakes and become productive citizens. Do you think there should be a "time line" where someone can prove their "worth" to regain their rights? Myself, I think they should.

How do you separate ex-felons who deserve full rights,and those who always will be dangerous with fire arms!
 
felons are an important part of the demmycrat base.......

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. "
 
Last edited:
I disagree with Trump in this case, each case is different and not every convicted felon is, or ever will become violent.
I guess, contrary to some liberals here, I don't "worship" Trump, although I did vote for him. But then, there are instances
I both agreed and disagreed with the individuals I have voted for over the years.
Thanks for the link.

This is RB60 floating a lifeboat.

BURN IT.
 
There's no morality involved, Bigdog. Violating the law, or knowingly allowing others to violate the law is prima facie illegal.

On another, but loosely related subject to your statement, PA. dropped their DUI laws to .05. That is equal to about 2 beers. Am I morally obligated to report someone I shoot pool with if they leave after consuming 3 or 4 beers?
See the "can of worms" with your above statement?
 
There's no morality involved, Bigdog. Violating the law, or knowingly allowing others to violate the law is prima facie illegal.

I would argue that the law is a set of moral values (or taboos) backed by gov't authority.
 
Back
Top