Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StarOfAfrica2 on June 24, 2005, 02:20:38 PM
-
When I first saw this, I was all for the authorities. The guy had no permit, and was barred from owning guns. Then as I got towards the end of the article, the real details of the situation start coming out and it made me wonder how many people in this country have had to give up their right to own guns (whether for protection or for collection, irrellevant) due to the way someone interprets an incident at some point in your life that goes on your permanent record? Scary. Of course, then I have to wonder after realizing the guy TOLD the cops everything he had down there, without blinking. Maybe he is nuts? lol
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C25816.html
A Roanoke County man was convicted Monday of having a machine gun among the collection of high-power firearms he kept in the basement of his Verndale Drive home.
Samuel Morris Overstreet, 47, will face up to 20 years in prison when he is sentenced later in U.S. District Court in Roanoke.
It is illegal to possess a machine gun without a permit from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Not only did Overstreet not have a permit, he was also prohibited from owning any guns after being committed to a psychiatric hospital.
An ATF spokeswoman in Washington would not say how many machine gun permits the agency has issued in Virginia. Such information is proprietary, the spokeswoman said.
After a jury was seated Monday to hear Overstreet's case, he decided at the last minute to plead guilty to possessing an unregistered machine gun and having guns after being committed to a mental institution.
In December 2003, Overstreet called police to complain about trash cans being knocked over in his Northeast County neighborhood. A short time later, an officer stopped by to talk.
After the conversation turned to Overstreet's guns, authorities obtained a search warrant and discovered what Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Bassford called a "fairly extensive" arsenal in the basement. About 7,000 rounds of ammunition were also found.
In addition to about 20 rifles, shotguns and handguns, federal agents seized the illegal machine gun and two unregistered silencers.
Overstreet told authorities that the silencers allowed him to fire his guns in his back yard without the neighbors hearing anything, Bassford said.
Defense Attorney Melvin Hill described his client as an avid gun collector who spent nearly $20,000 on his hobby. Hill said he did not think his client posed a threat.
What Overstreet actually had in his home was a kit to convert a MAK-90, a semi-automatic rifle similar to an AK-47, into a fully automatic weapon. But the law made no distinction between the kit and a converted gun.
Although the charges Overstreet pleaded guilty to carry up to 20 years in prison, both Hill and Bassford said sentencing guidelines in the case will likely call for a lesser punishment.
In 1990, Overstreet was committed to a mental hospital following a police standoff at his home. The incident began when Overstreet called WROV-FM and asked the radio station to play "Eye of the Hurricane." He told disc jockeys the song reminded him of the death of his girlfriend, and that he was thinking about killing himself.
After barricading himself in his home for several hours, Overstreet was subdued by police.
-
You are kiding right? Some guy that had a stand off with the police, threatened to kill himself and fires his guns in his back yard is finnaly dealt with and you are saing what? This is some violetion of his rights? Oh, let me guess, he needs the 7000 rounds of ammo and the mashineguns for protection or for collecting? Hopefully he does get the 20 years but I know he wont. He will be let go until the authorities are proven right by some dead bodies.
Wana deffend yourself? Whats wrong with 1 or 2 guns that you do not fire in your back yard?
-
:D
-
Originally posted by dedalos
You are kiding right? Some guy that had a stand off with the police, threatened to kill himself and fires his guns in his back yard is finnaly dealt with and you are saing what? This is some violetion of his rights? Oh, let me guess, he needs the 7000 rounds of ammo and the mashineguns for protection or for collecting? Hopefully he does get the 20 years but I know he wont. He will be let go until the authorities are proven right by some dead bodies.
Wana deffend yourself? Whats wrong with 1 or 2 guns that you do not fire in your back yard?
I didnt defend the guy per se. I was just thinking how many folks have "nervous breakdowns" or the like, and see a shrink like they should. That alone can bar you from owning weapons, if interpreted in such a manner.
Besides, this guy didnt THREATEN to kill himself, he said to a radio DJ that he was depressed and THINKING about it. It never says any cops were threatened in any way, or anyone else. No one was ever in any danger but himself.
As for the current situation, he's just plain stupid. First that he kept collecting guns when he knew he wasnt supposed to have them. Second that he would ever think to fire guns (even with a silencer) in a neighborhood like that. Third, that he would invest in an illegal conversion kit. And lastly that he would actually DISCUSS his collection with the police like they were guests at an NRA cocktail party!
So, I'm not defending him. He's an idiot. Probably deserves to go to jail too, although I dont think 20 years is realistic. If they can show he endangered anyone by shooting guns in his yard, that should be taken into consideration, but otherwise I'd say no more than a few months. What concerns me more is the thought of how easily someone else, who isnt an idiot or crazy, could lose their rights as well by earning the same labels (unjustly). I mean, theres no appeal to this is there? The questions on the forms are just bluntly (did you ever........... were you ever........ have you ever........ etc.) put references to history, not necessarily to a criminal past.
-
never ever talk to the police , they have only one job, to put everyone in jail.
-
Small point on the ammo. Case lots of .22 are 5000 rounds, 10 "cartons" of 10 50 round boxes.
The news would treat this as "5000 rounds of ammo" but it's unlikely anyone is going to take over the country, start a revolution or go on a major crime spree with a bunch of .22's.
There have been many times when, with two boys and a Dealer's License, I had at least "5000 rounds" of .22 in the safe.
I wish they'd be a bit more specific.
If he had 7000 rounds of linked .308 and a machine gun, that might perk my ears up a little. But maybe not; the whole point of having a machine gun is hosing off rounds. You can run through them pretty fast on a range with your buddies.
Ever see some guy at the range with an full-auto 9mm? 30 cases in the air at one time? Not even two clips and a box of 50 is gone.
It all depends.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I didnt defend the guy per se. I was just thinking how many folks have "nervous breakdowns" or the like, and see a shrink like they should. That alone can bar you from owning weapons, if interpreted in such a manner.
Besides, this guy didnt THREATEN to kill himself, he said to a radio DJ that he was depressed and THINKING about it. It never says any cops were threatened in any way, or anyone else. No one was ever in any danger but himself.
So, I'm not defending him. He's an idiot. Probably deserves to go to jail too, although I dont think 20 years is realistic. If they can show he endangered anyone by shooting guns in his yard, that should be taken into consideration, but otherwise I'd say no more than a few months. What concerns me more is the thought of how easily someone else, who isnt an idiot or crazy, could lose their rights as well by earning the same labels (unjustly). I mean, theres no appeal to this is there? The questions on the forms are just bluntly (did you ever........... were you ever........ have you ever........ etc.) put references to history, not necessarily to a criminal past.
This guy was involved in a police standoff.... lol He had a little more than a nervous breakdown. Exactly the kind of person I don't want owning firearms in the next state much less if he was my neighbor. Good riddance to dumb rubbish.
2)People who think about suicide and are talking about it are in a stage where they are are asking for help. It was a cry for help as much as it was a threat to commit it. But make no mistake, if you hole up in the house and refuse to come out when the cops come, then why should you have the right to own a gun? When you refuse to obey the police, when you pick and choose which laws you follow? He showed he was not responsible so he lost his right to carry. Is there really no appeal ever? Can an appeal not be applied for through the ATF or courts somehow?
-
I'm too drunk to handle another gun thread. I'll check back tomorrow! (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
-
Yes, I believe this article is a very good precident why someone who has been committed to a psychiatric hospital is not allowed to own guns. That's a very good law. Obviously he inherited the guns or acquired them before the 'instant background checks' were established in Virginia. Just owning an unlicensed silencer is a serious offense, much less having a spare and a machine gun (or parts to make one).
If memory servers, owning machine gun conversion parts was the charge the ATF used in the Waco, TX incident. The ATF must have been watching the Branch Davidians (sp?) for some time before catching that purchase. Not that the Branch Davidians were crazy per se, but a Christian church with an arsenal does fall into the 'crazy' category.
Regards,
Malta
-
"Brother Koresh, WWJD?"
"Why, son, he'd take this-a-here fully-auto M-16 and he'd put a full clip into them ATF agents! He didn't say, "turn the other cheek", he said "gimme another magazine!"
-
Originally posted by Raider179
This guy was involved in a police standoff.... lol He had a little more than a nervous breakdown. Exactly the kind of person I don't want owning firearms in the next state much less if he was my neighbor. Good riddance to dumb rubbish.
2)People who think about suicide and are talking about it are in a stage where they are are asking for help. It was a cry for help as much as it was a threat to commit it. But make no mistake, if you hole up in the house and refuse to come out when the cops come, then why should you have the right to own a gun? When you refuse to obey the police, when you pick and choose which laws you follow? He showed he was not responsible so he lost his right to carry. Is there really no appeal ever? Can an appeal not be applied for through the ATF or courts somehow?
My only question on that would be to know the details of the "standoff". The radio station obviously called the police. They tracked him down somehow. Did he actually hold off the police, or did they stand outside with their thumbs up their butts because they knew he had a gun in the house? Even if he refused to come out, if he was depressed enough to think about suicide, he obviously wasnt thinking right at the time. It could have been blown out of proportion. The rest of this scenario shows me the man obviously doesnt have much good sense. I really dont see that he's done anything that shows he means anyone any harm. Do I think he should be allowed to keep guns? Probably not, but I dont know the entire situation, I just have the one report to go off of.
As to whether there's an appeal or not, from my reading of the ATF rules in the handbook I have, I'd say no. Besides, the 4473 that the dealers have to use to sell you a gun dont ask if you've been cleared. They just ask "Have you ever been treated for a mental condition..........." or "Have you ever been convicted of a crime..............". The wording on the forms doesnt allow the dealers any leeway. If he's truthful in answering the questions as they are worded, no one would ever be allowed to sell him a gun again. Period. Now this guy is a nut IMO. A mild and harmless one, mostly, but I dont think he has the sense of responsibility to own guns. But someone else who IS responsible enough can be excluded simply because of a past mistake or weak period. Like depression. Situational depression is very treatable, and should not be a bar from owning guns.
-
What was the machine gun?
Tronsky
-
He did not have an assembled machine gun:
"What Overstreet actually had in his home was a kit to convert a MAK-90, a semi-automatic rifle similar to an AK-47, into a fully automatic weapon. But the law made no distinction between the kit and a converted gun. "
The ATF makes no distinction between an assembled and a disassembled machine gun in your posession. It's an old law going back to gangster problems.
Regards,
Malta
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by stantond
Obviously he inherited the guns or acquired them before the 'instant background checks' were established in Virginia.
Background checks do not apply to "private sales". If I purchase a firearm from and individual, I am not subject to any type of back ground check. It's a private sale between the two of us.
You can walk into a gun/knife show, and purchase as many firearms as you want and not get a background check, as long as you purchase from an individual, and not a dealer.
p.s. this guys sounds a bit "off" and I don't think taking away his gun priv's was a bad thing.
-
lute... not in Kalifornia or a lot of other states..
We used to be able to buy guns from individuals without any paperwork here. Now, it has to go through a dealer and background check no matter what.
It has made it more expensive to buy a gun and more of a hassle. It has not made any difference in crime or gun crime.
I am still waiting to hear how the guy in the story harmed anyone.
If he fired the gun in the backyard he broke some ordinances and should be punished as much as the guy with the barking dog.. maybe a little more.
If he threatened the police with a gun he should be jailed.
If he had an illegal machine gun then we need to change the law.
lazs
-
See Rule #6
-
You are kidding right beet? How would what I have written be considered a troll?
Those are my beliefs. Do you feel that domestic violence should be a reason to lose your gun rights.... oh wait... you don't have any rights...
do you feel that if a woman turns you in for "abusing her" that you deserve to lose any right including gun rights...
Why not lose your drivers licence too... angry women beaters are known road ragers. let's nip it in the bud eh what old sport?
lazs
-
Lazs, don't be obtuse. You said "what beetle did would be enough to ban you from owning firearms here forever"
-
It would beet... I don't agree with it but here... what you did or didn't do is enough to get you banned here forever... It matters not if it was true or not... only that she says it happens.
How do you like that?
lazs
-
See Rule #6
-
both you guys need to get a room....its getting steamy in here :eek:
-
Lazs is right, and thats why I brought this up. Not because this numbskull really needs defending, although I still dont see where he hurt anyone. The problem is that the rules are too broad and vague. Depending on who is doing the interpreting of the rules, you can be barred from EVER owning a gun again without ever actually doing anything wrong or doing drugs or being psychotic. If someone THINKS any of those things about you, and convinces an official, you could end up losing your rights.
Case in point. Friend of mine is a painter by trade, made decent money until his ex-wife cleaned him out in their divorce. So he moves to the big city for bigger paying jobs (he has custody of their daughter and really was left with next to nothing). Lets just say he had enough guns around the house to defend it against a small army if necessary (all bought legally). Where he was living at the time, he needed them. He decided that he just wasnt cutting it as an independent contractor, so he hired on with a general that does lots of work year round and is always in need of good help. So one evening after work, they stop at a bar and have a few beers. My friend is telling some of the others about his ex-wife's antics, and how he was having a hard time raising their daughter alone. One of the job bosses tells him about this 800 number you can call for free counseling and such. Thinking its for parenting advice, my friend calls and makes an appointment with these people. The person he goes to see is actually a clinical psychologist, and while she does give him some advice to help with raising his daughter, she is evaluating him. She diagnoses him as suffering from mild situational depression (which is understandable in his circumstances), and prescribes him with some drug as a short term "boost". He never filled the prescription, heck he wont even take aspirin unless he feels like his head is about to split open. Between this point and the next, he bought or traded for maybe 4 or 5 guns (all legal, with paperwork). So the next point is his deadbeat ex-wife tracks him down, and shes out of cash and has nowhere to go. So she sponges off of him for a couple weeks before he tells her to get the **** out. She leaves, and a couple days go by. The cops come knocking on his door. She's pressing charges against him for assault. The daughter was there and can testify that the mother is full of ****, but in the meantime they have to go through an investigation. The cops search the apt. They catalog all the guns. They do a history check. Somehow (I'm guessing because it was a state run agency), the fact of his being treated at the "clinic" for depression turns up, and his prescription (the one he never filled). They looked at the guns he had obtained since being treated, and arrested him on felony gun charges for lying on his application. He didnt consider what he got as "treatment", it was just talking to someone at a clinic about his marriage and raising his daughter. He never considered himself "depressed". He thought the lady doctor was being nice by trying to give him the prescription. The state says he was treated for a mental condition and is no longer allowed to own weapons. Now, even the doctor who diagnosed him is willing to testify in court that his condition was situational, and should not bar him from owning a gun. However, lying on the application is a federal crime, and the feds havent decided if THEY are going to charge him yet. Bottom line here, the wrong judge in either court room could not only mean he never owns a gun again, but that he could go to jail when he never knowingly committed a crime.
Now somebody tell me the rules work the way they are supposed to.
-
SOA... that is the kind of nightmare I fear. I don't think beetle got my point but with what you said he might get a grasp of it.
Free men should be able to own firearms. It is their right as human beings... When you go to jail you are no longer free... when you get out.... you are a free man again.
The only people who want to make it complicated are the people who want the right taken away from everyone.... period..
lazs
-
Actually, I think the gun restrictions you face in Kalifornia are nuts, and the anti-"assault rifle" stuff is nonsense, but once you've been convicted of using a gun to facilitate a serious crime, you shouldn't be allowed to own one again. Period.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
SOA... that is the kind of nightmare I fear. I don't think beetle got my point but with what you said he might get a grasp of it.
Free men should be able to own firearms. It is their right as human beings... When you go to jail you are no longer free... when you get out.... you are a free man again.
The only people who want to make it complicated are the people who want the right taken away from everyone.... period..
lazs
The problem I see is this. We have allowed the argument to narrow down and focus on GUNS. GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is a man's basic right to determine his own destiny and live his own life. Guns can be used for self defense. Matter of fact, thats about all a handgun is good for. If I choose to arm myself because I feel threatened, that should be my right as a citizen. If it turns out I used them in such a way that I took away or infringed on the rights of another, who wasnt doing me any harm, then I should be punished. But as long as I was merely defending myself or my rights or my space or my property, thats as it should be. Whether I used a gun, or a knife, or a bow, or my bare hands. In this age of information, we have become used to specializations, and narrow focuses in order to better understand limited topics. The "jack of all trades" is becoming an anachronism now (although still necessary IMO). The problem is, like this gun issue, by narrowing the focus so much, we cannot see the forest anymore beause the trees are in the way. The opposite view is dangerous too, if balance is lost. When we allow people to focus the argument on small specific topics, we cant always defend against them properly. Focus needs to be restored to the proper level, and everything looked at in perspective.
-
See rule #4 (last time I am doing this, get over yourself)
-
SOB... that sounds good except... It can be abused...Would you like to get a drunk driving and lose your licence for life?
What is a gun crime? Did you point it at someone on your property but you were 20' further out than you thought? Did you walk into a bar forgetting that you had your concealed carry on you? Had one still in your luggage and forgot and tried to get on a plane? Old lady pissed and called the cops saying you beat her up cause she knows how much you value your firearms rights and wants to "really get you"?
Maybe you robbed a bank.. does that mean that once you have paid your dues to society you can never be trusted again with basic human rights?
Shoot out with the cops? what the hell are you doing out and breathing?
If you can't be trusted with a gun then what the hell are you doing out amoung us?
If you are truly a violent person... why did they let you out so soon?
But... If they let you out... shouldn't you have a fresh start? otherwise... whats the point?
-
I think there should be strict guidelines based in common sense (yeah, I know I'm dreaming here) on what constitutes a serious crime with a gun, and obviously the simple act of mistakenly carrying it conceled or bringing it to the airport would not be considered serious in my book. And yeah, if you rob a bank with a gun, then tough ****, that's a right you gave up for life.
If I thought that we were capable of suitably punishing crimes, then maybe I'd see things a little differently.
-
OK, Skuzzy. All cool. I love Lazs, Lazs loves me, and we both love you. What could be better?!
-
here's a little history for you
Back in europe, while America was being settled by European colonists, a peasant couldn't own a gun.
a peasent couldn't hunt on the Lord's land....
frist offence was a cut off hand
second was hanging
Here, in America, you could own a gun and hunt......
___________________________
what does that mean in today's terms?
well there are still people in VT that require and live off thier limit in hunting every year.... so that spirit continues
I've met some in TX that fish and hunt thier bellies full as well.
And some that do it more for the sport & to get out of town; catch and release.
_____________________________ ____
Remember Ignorance is no excuse? Yet there are more laws on the books than any one person can know and interpret.
The trumped up charges for Laz's freind are mud in the face of the American spirit.
Even the guy in this article is attacked for his ignorance, 20 years is rediculios! You have actual Violent offenders going away for less... I think I recall convicted rapisists getting less time......
our legal system is broke.
I'll bet this stat still holds... but was true a few years ago .... we have the higest prison rate per capita of any country on the planet. That just seems stupid to me when I see cases like this, and there are pleanty of them.
____________________________
maybe we should find obscure laws that police break and write THEM tickets :rolleyes:
-
Rule 7.
-
Rule 6.
-
SOB.. we will never get punishment that fits the crime if we think that TELLING violent criminals that we let loose "you can't have a gun" is gonna be a substitute for actualy doing something.
On the other hand... such womanly thinking leaves the door open to punishing those that are moral.
If you commit a rape... should you forfiet your noodle? a theft your hands? Voyerism your eyes? A traffic crime your licence forever? How bout a break a city ordinance lose your right to ever own property again?
Or... how bout simply punishing you with loss of income or freedom in a manner befitting the crime and your danger to society and hope you get the message or... next time you aren't given the chance to be a danger.
The three stirikes laws are infinetly better than a million parole boards and stern talking to's and all the restrictions in the world.
lazs
lazs
-
Now you're just being silly.
-
<--- I'm now picturing Beetle with a gag over his mouth going "mhhhm mhhhm mmmhhhhhmm mmhhhhh!!!!" :D
-
Beetle got pwnt in this thread.
-
Manedew,
As I'm not allowed to display a flag with Bart Simpson's initials on it, I will respond to your text in another way. I would like, respectfully and humbly, to draw your attention to the fact that I beg to differ with regard to your considered viewpoint that poaching offences in the middle ages were punishable by amputation. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant.
Beet.
<--- imagine sealing wax and ring imprint here
-
Back in europe, while America was being settled by European colonists, a peasant couldn't own a gun.
Where in Europe? They certainly could in all the European countries I can think of offhand.
a peasent couldn't hunt on the Lord's land....
Can you hunt on someone else's property without permission?
frist offence was a cut off hand
second was hanging
Again, can you say which parts of Europe? Certainly not the case in any parts of Europe I know of.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
The problem I see is this. We have allowed the argument to narrow down and focus on GUNS. GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is a man's basic right to determine his own destiny and live his own life. Guns can be used for self defense. Matter of fact, thats about all a handgun is good for. If I choose to arm myself because I feel threatened, that should be my right as a citizen. If it turns out I used them in such a way that I took away or infringed on the rights of another, who wasnt doing me any harm, then I should be punished. But as long as I was merely defending myself or my rights or my space or my property, thats as it should be. Whether I used a gun, or a knife, or a bow, or my bare hands. In this age of information, we have become used to specializations, and narrow focuses in order to better understand limited topics. The "jack of all trades" is becoming an anachronism now (although still necessary IMO). The problem is, like this gun issue, by narrowing the focus so much, we cannot see the forest anymore beause the trees are in the way. The opposite view is dangerous too, if balance is lost. When we allow people to focus the argument on small specific topics, we cant always defend against them properly. Focus needs to be restored to the proper level, and everything looked at in perspective.
Or, instead of waiting untill you get depressed again and you take your semi auto to a shopping mall and someone does get hurt, your rights as a sitizen are removed once you have pruven to be iresponcible, stupid, and unstaible. Right come with responcibilities. Wana defend yourself, get a hand gun. If you don't like the laws, change them. Until you do, deciding which law is good enough for you to obay and which isn't will put result in losing rights.
-
I suppose that I am looking at things in a very black and white way but...
How "violent" a crime warants the taking away of your rights to defend yourself forever?
Killing 10 people in your car while being drunk won't take away your licence to drive forever..
Even if a guy shot and killed someone in a bank robbery when he was 25.... Does that mean that when he is 50 or 60 he should still not be able to own a gun? Is he even the same guy?
Frank James spent 20 or so years in prison and was given his gun back when he got out... he shot no one after his release and was frequently armed..
people sometimes kill or destroy lives in several drunk driving incidents but are allways allowed to have their drivers licence back after a period of time.
lazs
-
I could see giving that right back, after a clean probationary period of like 5 years or something, I suppose. On the other hand, if you rob a bank and shoot and kill someone in the process, you shouldn't be getting out of prison anyhow...you should be put down.
The drunk driving bit is tough. If you get behind the wheel drunk, the end result isn't nearly as clear as if you point a gun at someone and shoot. But yeah, at some point you shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore. I think a three strikes rule here would be applicable.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that I am looking at things in a very black and white way but...
How "violent" a crime warants the taking away of your rights to defend yourself forever?
Killing 10 people in your car while being drunk won't take away your licence to drive forever..
Even if a guy shot and killed someone in a bank robbery when he was 25.... Does that mean that when he is 50 or 60 he should still not be able to own a gun? Is he even the same guy?
Frank James spent 20 or so years in prison and was given his gun back when he got out... he shot no one after his release and was frequently armed..
people sometimes kill or destroy lives in several drunk driving incidents but are allways allowed to have their drivers licence back after a period of time.
lazs
Well, maybe the drunk driving laws are not that good and need to be changed. However, killing 10 people while drunk would take several years off your life, not just the right to drive.
Personally I think this whole thing about defending yourself its just an excuse to cary a gun. But if you feel the need to have one at home for protection you should. Just feeling that need though should be rasing some flags about the place we leave.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that I am looking at things in a very black and white way but...
How "violent" a crime warants the taking away of your rights to defend yourself forever?
Killing 10 people in your car while being drunk won't take away your licence to drive forever..
Even if a guy shot and killed someone in a bank robbery when he was 25.... Does that mean that when he is 50 or 60 he should still not be able to own a gun? Is he even the same guy?
Frank James spent 20 or so years in prison and was given his gun back when he got out... he shot no one after his release and was frequently armed..
people sometimes kill or destroy lives in several drunk driving incidents but are allways allowed to have their drivers licence back after a period of time.
lazs
Maybe in Cali they aren't tough as everywhere else on DUI. Texas for example ...
Texas Gets Tough on Drunk Drivers
A Texas law stiffened the punishment for defendants with two prior felony convictions with minimum punishment increased to 25 years and maximum to life.
A 46-year-old man was sentenced to life in prison for his seventh driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction. Since 1991, the offender was convicted twice for misdemeanor DWI and four times for felony DWI.
A 35-year-old man driving with a BAC of .23 percent was charged with the murder of a five-year-old child. Due to the fact it was the offender's third DUI offense, prosecutors pursued a felony murder charge, which he was convicted of and sentenced to 55 years in prison.
http://www.madd.org/news/0,1056,7067__print,00.html
I think the difference in drunk drivers is that for the most part they arent trying to hurt anyone or steal anything, they are just trying to go somewhere. The burglar or killer or whatever kind of criminal you want to give a gun back to is different in that they were trying to steal/murder/rob/rape. Two different mentalities in those 2 types of crimes altogether. (DUI vs. Property/Person Crime) Its all about intent.
-
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store-not a governmental agency.....
-
"I could see giving that right back, after a clean probationary period of like 5 years or something, I suppose. On the other hand, if you rob a bank and shoot and kill someone in the process, you shouldn't be getting out of prison anyhow...you should be put down. "
sob... I think we do agree on that. You are restaing what I said.
But... As for the poor misguided drunk driver not knowing what he is doing.... that is absurd...everyone knows that driving drunk is much more dangerous than carrying a gun around and thousands of times more likely to result in disaster.
Texas has the right idea on that.
and yes.. the BATF should be a convienence store... there actually were lots of stores that were just that only a few decades ago right here in Kalifornia.... they no longer exist... do we have less crime and murder? Are we safer now? Are people more or less polite now?
lazs
-
Yeah, drunk driving is dangerous and stupid, and anyone should know that. I didn't compare it to carrying a gun though, I compared it to pointing a gun at someone and firing it. One is certain to cause damage and quite possibly death. The other is just a lot more likely to do so than driving sober. What's the rule in Texas on drunk driving?
-
My point was that I agree with you.. there should be some loss of right to have a gun if you commit a crime with it but... that time should probly equal about the time you spent in the slam over it... served at the same time so that when you got out in 30 years... you should have your rights restored... same for drunk driving.
lazs
-
Yeah, but rather than concurrently, I think you should have a cooling-off period after you get out, to make it clear that you're ready to play nice with the rest of society.
-
well.. my point is that if jail is to rehabilitate or even punish... either way... if it didn't do the job then it wasn't long enough.
I would abolish all parole and all early releases. You do your time... you pay your debt and you start over.
you vote, you get your gun back and you report to no one. You did your time.. we think it is safe to let you go... you are reinstated as a human.... good luck.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You did your time.. we think it is safe to let you go... you are reinstated as a human.... good luck.
The problem with that is that it is a known fact that more than half of prisoners released reoffend within 2 years. Well that's the UK rate anyway.
- Editorial about British prisons here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DKDWWWQ0NU1TJQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/06/27/dl2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/06/27/ixoplead.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=69627).
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. my point is that if jail is to rehabilitate or even punish... either way... if it didn't do the job then it wasn't long enough.
I would abolish all parole and all early releases. You do your time... you pay your debt and you start over.
you vote, you get your gun back and you report to no one. You did your time.. we think it is safe to let you go... you are reinstated as a human.... good luck.
lazs
You are half way correct. Jails are there to punish but they do not reform. Most of the times, you come out worst than you went in. On top of that, after comming out, your records indicate that you have been in jail making it almost impossible to get a decent job. Since you have not been reformed, you have no money or job, chances are you will be doing what to support what ever habits you had before or developed while in jail?
So, you do your time but just because you are released, your debt is not paid. We don't think it is safe to let you go. You are just safer than the next aplicant. So, you are let out of the cell, but my no means you are done paing. In anycase, we need to be able to deffend ourselfs from them, not they from us. So, we should be able to have guns, not them.
-
dedalos - I tend to agree with you. There was a movie I saw - I think it had Charles Bronson in the lead role) about a prisoner who was released on parole, subject to about 6 conditions of parole. Through no fault of his own, he found himself breaking every one of them just to survive. As you said, he couldn't get a job, had no money etc.
-
I think the very fact that there are so many restriction on a person on parole makes it harder for them to join the rank and file.
This was not allways the case and people realized that people change over the years. Seems the more restrictions we put on people getting out early and the shorter the sentances... the worse things get not...... better.
We have plenty of protection from people who would abuse the right to bear arms.... we can hunt em down and jail em or kill em.
Those who would normally have to resort to illegal (acording to their parole) means, would not be breaking the law to arm themselves in their own defense. We wouldn't be artificialy making criminals of them and they would know that abusing their rights would not pay...
If they couldn't or wouldn't figure that out we would then imprison or kill them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think the very fact that there are so many restriction on a person on parole makes it harder for them to join the rank and file.
This was not allways the case and people realized that people change over the years. Seems the more restrictions we put on people getting out early and the shorter the sentances... the worse things get not...... better.
We have plenty of protection from people who would abuse the right to bear arms.... we can hunt em down and jail em or kill em.
Those who would normally have to resort to illegal (acording to their parole) means, would not be breaking the law to arm themselves in their own defense. We wouldn't be artificialy making criminals of them and they would know that abusing their rights would not pay...
If they couldn't or wouldn't figure that out we would then imprison or kill them.
lazs
Lazs,
You like having guns. Thats fine. That does not mean someone on parole should have one. People don't change. Rights come with responcibilities. If you have been responcible no one has taken your right to deffend yourself with a gun. The way you describe the situation is like the guy is doomed because he cannot cary a gun to deffend himself. Deffend from what? Its only an excuse to carry one.
My father in law is a cop in Chicago. 18th district (thats Cabrini Green). He works plain clothes night shift for about 25 years now. According to him, he has fired his gun during work hours twice. I am pretty sure someone on parole could survive without one.
As far as chasing people after they abuse the right, well, its kind of too late dont you think? Why wait till someone gets hurt again? They have proven not to be safe. And maybe, if they dont have the right to have one, you may not have to use yours in self deffence (which I am sure happens a lot :D )
-
I do not want people on parole to have a gun.
I do not want people to be able to be out amoung us "on parole".
I do not want a person who has his wife or girfriend say he hit her to lose the right to arm himself or his drivers licence or his right to vote or right to free speech.
It is really very simple. I don't want people with criminal intent out amoung us. When we catch em we shoul punish em... the rehabilitation is time and/or death.
I am not so naive that I think telling a hardened criminal that we will let him out but he must obey even more rules than the ones he ignored to get in prison in the first place.... is gonna work. I don't think he is gonna obey the no guns for you law if he really wants one anyway.
lazs