Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, you in here for taunting is the same thing.Now we just gotta wait for Buck to call someone racist to really have a great thread!
Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
So, mixed up. If they shot a conservative..,,,what the fuck?
Doer
Well-Known Member
NO NO NO
The liberals have faked up the fear and you let that tamper your emotion. A gun is a piece of steel that can do nothing until it is picked up with a human hand.
When you take one apart and put it back together, you know how it operates. Then it is not a scary monster. I've never been afraid of guns. I was raised as an American.
if you've paid your "debt" to society as "they" see it..yes, you should be able to enjoy all the privileges of any other us citizen..vote, carry a registered gun etc; it's bullshit that you are stripped of your rights permanently..what kind of message does that send?.."oh, you're only kind of reformed"..
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Registration of guns is not a privilege. In fact, it is an infringement.
"An encroachment, as of a right or privilege."
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
no, it happens quite regularly, in california the petition is almost always granted unless the felon has had further troubles with the law or his initial crime was whatcha call "heinous"
most rapists, murderers (not manslaughterers) and aggravated assaulters have trouble getting their rights back but almost every other felon just has to keep his nose clean,
Doer
Well-Known Member
No way. I've spent the money on Lawyers. In CA, you have to have a Pardon or an espungement to legally own a gun. Getting civil rights back is nothing. It is a Federal Law, also that no Felon may own a gun. Getting civil rights restored will say nothing when they look at felony convictions and your possession of any firearm or ammo.
i believe in owning a gun responsibly..FAIL for twisting around the meaning of my post and trolling me.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
really? i dunno about that.
once your civil rights are restored you are no longer a felon, with all the rights of any non-felon, and my understanding is that this includes owning firearms.
which is also what the statute says:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921
(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include - (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
if your civil rights have been restored, then the BATF is violating the statute, and it's time to get a Better lawyer.
Doer
Well-Known Member
What do you know about better lawyers? So, why not leave off the cheap shots that make a mockery of you.
FEDERAL LAW AND GUN RESTORATION RIGHTS
The 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits convicted felons and certain other persons from possessing or receiving firearms (18 USC §§ 922(g) and 922(n)). But they may petition BATF for relief from these disabilities. BATF may grant the relief if it determines that (1) the applicant is not likely to endanger public safety and (2) granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Anyone whose application is denied may seek judicial review in federal court (18 USC § 925(c)).
Since October 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has prohibited BATF from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief submitted by individuals. BATF claims that as long as this ban remains in place, it cannot process such applications.
THE THOMAS BEAN CASE
Thomas Bean, a convicted felon, applied for reinstatement of his firearm privileges. BATF returned the application unprocessed, explaining that a provision in its annual appropriations barred it from expending funds to process applications. Bean sought relief in federal district court, on the grounds that the bureau's inaction constituted a denial within the meaning of the law and was thus subject to judicial review. BATF contended that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an actual decision by BATF was a prerequisite for judicial review and the bureau had not denied Bean's application. The district court sided with Bean and the appeals court affirmed the decision (Bean v. BATF, 253 F.3d 234 (5[SUP]th[/SUP] Cir. Tex. 2001)).
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, finding that an actual BATF decision on an application was a prerequisite for judicial review, and inaction did not amount to a denial within the meaning of the law (U.S. v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, (2002)). According to Justice Thomas, who wrote the opinion, mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction to act on an application (Id., at 76).
For purposes of the Gun Control Act, a person is not considered convicted........unless the pardon, restoration, or expungement expressly bars shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms (18 USC § 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)).
Routine in FL for drug convictions. And I am quite sure I was not talking about CA convictions, as I have none.
So, don't get too mouthy, OK?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
What do you know about better lawyers? So, why not leave off the cheap shots that make a mockery of you.
FEDERAL LAW AND GUN RESTORATION RIGHTS
The 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits convicted felons and certain other persons from possessing or receiving firearms (18 USC §§ 922(g) and 922(n)). But they may petition BATF for relief from these disabilities. BATF may grant the relief if it determines that (1) the applicant is not likely to endanger public safety and (2) granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Anyone whose application is denied may seek judicial review in federal court (18 USC § 925(c)).
Since October 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has prohibited BATF from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief submitted by individuals. BATF claims that as long as this ban remains in place, it cannot process such applications.
THE THOMAS BEAN CASE
Thomas Bean, a convicted felon, applied for reinstatement of his firearm privileges. BATF returned the application unprocessed, explaining that a provision in its annual appropriations barred it from expending funds to process applications. Bean sought relief in federal district court, on the grounds that the bureau's inaction constituted a denial within the meaning of the law and was thus subject to judicial review. BATF contended that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an actual decision by BATF was a prerequisite for judicial review and the bureau had not denied Bean's application. The district court sided with Bean and the appeals court affirmed the decision (Bean v. BATF, 253 F.3d 234 (5[SUP]th[/SUP] Cir. Tex. 2001)).
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, finding that an actual BATF decision on an application was a prerequisite for judicial review, and inaction did not amount to a denial within the meaning of the law (U.S. v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, (2002)). According to Justice Thomas, who wrote the opinion, “mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction to act on an application” (Id., at 76).
For purposes of the Gun Control Act, a person is not considered convicted........unless the pardon, restoration, or expungement expressly bars shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms (18 USC § 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)).
Routine in FL for drug convictions. And I am quite sure I was not talking about CA convictions, as I have none.
So, don't get too mouthy, OK?
the federal statute is clear, if your civil rights have been reinstated, and there is no express caveat regarding guns, you are free from the restrictions of the statute.
if the atf is not following the law, then you have a cause for action.
if your current lawyer isnt getting it done, i bet you can find one with sharper teeth.
Lurkdewitt
Well-Known Member
I wasn't taunting at all. It's just such a cliche now that I had to mention it. But what does it matter, its rare when a thread around here doesn't turn into name calling and finger pointing about who's wrong, stupid, ignorant or racist. I'm just as guilty as he is, I just do it less frequently than some.
Doer
Well-Known Member
What about the part where Congress won't fund the BATF for processing the paperwork? What about the part where FL puts restrictions, on your civil rights and you need a Pardon from the Governor of FL for a Drug Conviction? What about the ruling by SCOTUS?
the federal statute is clear, if your civil rights have been reinstated, and there is no express caveat regarding guns, you are free from the restrictions of the statute. If the atf is not following the law, then you have a cause for action.
if your current lawyer isnt getting it done, i bet you can find one with sharper teeth.
Damn son, don't you think Thomas Bean has a "good" lawyer? Lawyer with teeth? You sound a bit virgin to this. We tried.
What makes you think I am not Tom Bean?
It is the catch -22 that the IRS, EPA, and all the Exec Agencies are using on Applications. Pick and Choose. It is why we
cannot have national registry or permission, or any issuance in affirmative for guns, from government. They can sit on it.
They get to do nothing.
It is why background checks are done pre-sale. It is to force no interference with commerce. If you could go in, just buy the gun and not take it home, the Fed would never finish the background. Everyone would be happy but you.
The gun would just sit at the store, the gun sold, the money collected, but no possession. Perfectly legal, because of the Standing rule. You have to be harmed or you have no Standing in the Law, and waiting does no harm.
SCOTUS says there is a gray area of, do nothing, until the applicant drops dead. Perfectly legal. So, what mubblebread, toothless lawyer have you been listening to?
You cannot force them.. We tried. It is fucked up. They are winning on the technicalities and the dumbed down fear.Cool dog, btw. What a face, huh?
Doer
Well-Known Member
And we were going along fine until your personal taunting that is not on topic.I wasn't taunting at all. It's just such a cliche now that I had to mention it. But what does it matter, its rare when a thread around here doesn't turn into name calling and finger pointing about who's wrong, stupid, ignorant or racist. I'm just as guilty as he is, I just do it less frequently than some.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
fuckit!What about the part where Congress won't fund the BATF for processing the paperwork? What about the part where FL puts restrictions, on your civil rights and you need a Pardon from the Governor of FL for a Drug Conviction? What about the ruling by SCOTUS?
Damn son, don't you think Thomas Bean has a "good" lawyer? Lawyer with teeth? You sound a bit virgin to this. We tried.
What makes you think I am not Tom Bean?
It is the catch -22 that the IRS, EPA, and all the Exec Agencies are using on Applications. Pick and Choose. It is why we
cannot have national registry or permission, or any issuance in affirmative for guns, from government. They can sit on it.
They get to do nothing.
It is why background checks are done pre-sale. It is to force no interference with commerce. If you could go in, just buy the gun and not take it home, the Fed would never finish the background. Everyone would be happy but you.
The gun would just sit at the store, the gun sold, the money collected, but no possession. Perfectly legal, because of the Standing rule. You have to be harmed or you have no Standing in the Law, and waiting does no harm.
SCOTUS says there is a gray area of, do nothing, until the applicant drops dead. Perfectly legal. So, what mubblebread, toothless lawyer have you been listening to?
Cool dog, btw. What a face, huh?
ANARCHY ANARCHY ANARCHY!!
OMG!!!!! I <3 that dog! Gosh, he must have been very expensive with those markings..
the federal statute is clear, if your civil rights have been reinstated, and there is no express caveat regarding guns, you are free from the restrictions of the statute.
if the atf is not following the law, then you have a cause for action.
if your current lawyer isnt getting it done, i bet you can find one with sharper teeth.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yes. he costs...
YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!
shit it looks like he just ate a preschool and now he wants Moar.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Tell that to the tribal Indians who are allowed to net walleyes with speedboats instead of canoes.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I really had to do some reading on this one. I think that is true, but the violence makes the morons, also. A actual vicious cycle, unfortunately.
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=191640
Design A total of 299 urban first-grade children and their caregivers were evaluated using self-report, interview, and standardized tests.
Main Outcome Measures The child's IQ (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceRevised) and reading ability (Test of Early Reading Ability, second edition) were the outcomes of interest.
Results After controlling for confounders (child's gender, caregiver's IQ, home environment, socioeconomic status, and prenatal exposure to substance abuse) violence exposure was related to the child's IQ (P = .01) and reading ability (P = .045). Trauma-related distress accounted for additional variance in reading ability (P = .01). Using the derived regression equation to estimate effect sizes, a child experiencing both violence exposure and trauma-related distress at or above the 90th percentile would be expected to have a 7.5-point (SD, 0.5) decrement in IQ and a 9.8-point (SD, 0.66) decrement in reading achievement.
Conclusion In this study, exposure to violence and trauma-related distress in young children were associated with substantial decrements in IQ and reading achievement.
Lurkdewitt
Well-Known Member
You know what, your right. I'm going to take my personal taunting elsewhere so nobody gets off topic within your debate here.