False information alleged of Trout Run man who tried to buy guns in Mansfield

[wanneroo]

I tend to be a hard ass on a lot of things, but certainly if you have only gotten in trouble one time, learned your lesson, did your time and stayed clean for a few decades then there should be a simple process to get your rights restored and record cleared.

[pennlineman]

I know it's not exactly a popular opinion here, but I do believe there should be time limits for how long you give up Constitutional rights after committing a crime. People make mistakes. People learn from them. The fact that he is being nailed for something that occurred in 1961 is beyond idiotic to me.

I agree as well. A lot of people also seem to forget that many of the crimes committed that can strip you of your rights are not violent in nature.

[SevenMilePete]

I know it's not exactly a popular opinion here, but I do believe there should be time limits for how long you give up Constitutional rights after committing a crime. People make mistakes. People learn from them. The fact that he is being nailed for something that occurred in 1961 is beyond idiotic to me.

I agree. There should be a statute of limitations. Also,
I personally think the crimes that make you are a prohibited person are ridiculous. I can see any violent crime, punishable by more than a year of prison, but some of the misdemeanor charges are just ridiculous, as are some of the DUI charges. Also, any crime while using a firearm should cause prohibition. But DUI? Marijuana possession?

[Emptymag]

I think people should refrain from calling bad life choices "mistakes".

[cdi]

I agree. Calling "bad life choices" mistakes sounds a little too soft. The implication is; I really just didn't know any better.

Perhaps, instead of "mistakes" it should be "I very deliberately committed a criminal act because I really didn't give a shit about the law and certainly never expected to be caught and prosecuted".

[knight0334]

I know it's not exactly a popular opinion here, but I do believe there should be time limits for how long you give up Constitutional rights after committing a crime. People make mistakes. People learn from them. The fact that he is being nailed for something that occurred in 1961 is beyond idiotic to me.

I agree. I can't see that many people would object to a 20 year period with a clean record as a start. That would allow for young people (notice I'm not singling out men) to make a mistake and be able to later protect their family.

As soon as you all figure a way to bring people back to life after they are executed there might be some merit in the temporary rights loss idea.

All rights can be permanently stripped from you via Due Process. It is quite constitutional, and there is no debate about it that the even the Founding Fathers supported the permanent loss of rights for felonious acts.

[ar15jules]

I know it's not exactly a popular opinion here, but I do believe there should be time limits for how long you give up Constitutional rights after committing a crime. People make mistakes. People learn from them. The fact that he is being nailed for something that occurred in 1961 is beyond idiotic to me.

Just to play Devil's advocate here, but if he had raped a child in 1961, would you let him baby sit your kids?

[Emptymag]

Just to play Devil's advocate here, but if he had raped a child in 1961, would you let him baby sit your kids?

Yes, of course. Once you've repaid your "debt to society" you should be a free man - slate wiped clean.
I mean they wouldn't let you out if you were a danger to anyone, right?

[mingomom]

As soon as you all figure a way to bring people back to life after they are executed there might be some merit in the temporary rights loss idea.

All rights can be permanently stripped from you via Due Process. It is quite constitutional, and there is no debate about it that the even the Founding Fathers supported the permanent loss of rights for felonious acts.

I have decided that in order to post here, one must be in the mood to write a thesis which clearly points out one's position on any topic, to the minute detail.

Seriously, there's a big difference between rape, rape of a child, or assault that led to serious injury (among many other serious offenses) and a DUI, pulling a knife in self-defense without actually using it, or smoking a joint. What about people who accidentally cross the state border and become "dangerous" felons? We have to be honest here and discuss not only the actual charges, the reduced charges, and what the actual event really was in the first place.

Would I let someone who had harmed a child babysit? Of course not. That's one of those NEVER leave it behind. But if we're going to be making them report their whereabouts for the rest of their lives, I suggest we do the same with murderers.

[GunLawyer001]

I have decided that in order to post here, one must be in the mood to write a thesis which clearly points out one's position on any topic, to the minute detail.

Seriously, there's a big difference between rape, rape of a child, or assault that led to serious injury (among many other serious offenses) and a DUI, pulling a knife in self-defense without actually using it, or smoking a joint. What about people who accidentally cross the state border and become "dangerous" felons? We have to be honest here and discuss not only the actual charges, the reduced charges, and what the actual event really was in the first place.

Would I let someone who had harmed a child babysit? Of course not. That's one of those NEVER leave it behind. But if we're going to be making them report their whereabouts for the rest of their lives, I suggest we do the same with murderers.

Just as a thought-experiment: Carrying a lethal weapon requires mature judgment and an understanding of your rights and obligations. If someone is arrested and convicted of shoplifting 6 times per year, every year, would it be wrong for society to conclude that his judgment and maturity are insufficient to entrust him with the power to summarily kill other citizens, to terminate the life story of somebody's husband or father or son who may cut them off in traffic or take that really good parking space?

The problem with the absolutist "everybody not in jail has the same rights" point of view (not yours, just saying) is that it results in "everybody's" rights being curtailed and infringed down to the level of the least common denominator. It would be like letting everybody drive cars, and then setting the speed limits so that the blind drivers and 5 year old kids were less likely to kill anyone.

There's a strong argument that bad people, and criminally careless people, and deeply impaired people, should forfeit their rights, but with a clear path to earning redemption. And everyone else should be able to buy M249's at Walmart.