Marijuana.com

vaya

Comparing bankrobbers and Marijuana smokers is like comparing apples and oranges...

__________________
I Wish For Peace Between The Races Someday We Shall All Be One
Coming To The Surface There's Fire All Around But This Is An Illusion

 

Niteshift

I don't like making that comparison either............but I didn't take it there. I asked about other non-violent felons.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Conine

Personally, I was never a fan of taking away anyone's right to vote in the first place. I don't see what purpose it serves. Not after their sentence is finished, anyway.

At least with the firearms I can see where can be an issue of public safety... not that a determined felon can't get one.

__________________
Freedom is the right to choose the habits that bind you.
Posting Guidelines

Niteshift

Just to play devils advocate.............

Which makes more sense to keep away from guns: A guy with a felony conviction for tax evasion or a guy with 3 midemeanor convictions for battery (beating someone up)?

Conine

I don't think you'll have too much of a debate on that one.

So why divide the line at misdemeanor/felony.... for simplicity's sake?

Looking at your point logically, the question becomes this - should the restriction be removed from non-violent felons, or added to violent misde- (what do you call a person convicted of a misdemeanor anyway?) people convicted of violent misdemeanors? Or both?

If I had to take a stab at changing policy, I would think that nothing will change, because letting non-violent felons have firearms would be seen as a death sentence for a politician, and the NRA would likely stand in the way of cutting off those misdemeanor people (I can say those, I'm not one yet)

 

Niteshift

Here is the problem..........

Who is going to determine this on a case by case basis, because that would be the only true test.

Example: If I push you, that is battery in this state. Even if you don't step back an inch because there was so little force.

If I punch you 12 times, break your nose, bust your lip and knock you out, it's still a misdemeanor battery.

So do we start just calling all batteries violent crimes? Or will we have to look at each case individually?

Now, here's where it gets trickier.............judges personal biases. If a judge is anit-gun, can he say your pushing was violent, but another judge say it's not?


Do you see where this all starts going? It becomes a big mess.

So yes, simplicity was where the cut-off became a felony......and in my state, just like most others, you can become a felon for some really weird stuff (stealing a fire extinguisher for example).

Nothing is ever as simple as we'd like it to be.

Conine

You hit it on the head when you said all judges are different, so if you go case by case, you wind up with comparisons of people who did relatively small things getting banned, while people who you may think are a straight up menace don't get banned.

"Next on Montel: This guy bumped into a woman and had his gun rights revoked. This man killed three people and owns a gun collection."

So yeah, I guess it's for simplicity's sake.

Niteshift

Conine,

I don't know if you caught the discussion we had about judges in this thread, but you might like reading it:
http://cheaptalk.marijuana.com/420/s...threadid=11650

AnarchistBarbie

I do understand dis-enfranchisement for some crimes... but I don't understand, necessarily, the crimes for which we currently disenfranchise someone. It makes sense that someone convicted of treason would be disenfranchised... it makes sense that a murderer [serial killers or mass murderers especially] might be disenfranchised... but wouldn't it also make sense to disenfranchise someone who specifically and willfully defrauded the government? [contractor fraud, benefits fraud...]

It doesn't make sense to disenfranchise someone for getting in a fight, or smoking a little weed, or even for having sex with someone they perhaps ought not have.

__________________
Life has no dress code.

Niteshift

"but wouldn't it also make sense to disenfranchise someone who specifically and willfully defrauded the government? [contractor fraud, benefits fraud...]"

Those are felonies already.

"or even for having sex with someone they perhaps ought not have."

That one I might have to disagree on. I know what I'm thinking, but I'm not sure what you have in mind. I don;t have a big problem with taking rights from a 50 year old guy that is having sex with 10 year old girls etc.