Taking On The Felons And Firearms In Wisconsin

[mrjarrell]

Finally, a lawyer is taking on the case of a felon in possession of a firearm and is trying to make the case that restrictions against possession of firearms by felons is unConstitutional, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. About time, too. If these non-violent felons are so dangerous then they should be behind bars. If they've served their sentence then we should welcome them back and see to it that their Rights are restored. Even they should be accorded the Right to self defence. Hopefully, this guy will have his Rights fully restored and life will go on.

Lawyer challenges lifetime gun ban for felons - JSOnline

 

[femurphy77]

Non-violent, sure no problem. I hope the guy does better with his second chance.

Or he might just try armed robbery next time instead of writing hot checks.

 

[42769vette]

good for the lawyer. im suprised the nra has not tackled this issue yet

 

[Jack Ryan]

... If these non-violent felons are so dangerous then they should be behind bars. ...

Outstanding. Easiest solution I see is to just double his sentence and send him back.

 

[public servant]

Outstanding. Easiest solution I see is to just double his sentence and send him back.

I like the way this man thinks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Outstanding. Easiest solution I see is to just double his sentence and send him back.

Ummm, yeah, but the judge did not send him. Judge ordered two years probation. So, we make it four years probation? Is that country math? Multiple zero by two and then you get . . . something more than zero?

The silly lifetime prohibtion for most felonies (e.g., antitrust felonies for NYC inside traders are not disqualification) is overbroad and disproportionate a la Weatherford,especially in a Theft case (pack of gum means no guns forever?).

Of course, Indiana's SVF statute is far more limited. Good to see this stuff getting challenged. Now, it just needs to bubble up.

 

[public servant]

Ummm, yeah, but the judge did not send him. Judge ordered two years probation. So, we make it four years probation? Is that country math? Multiple zero by two and then you get . . . something more than zero?

Unfortunately we leave sentencing to judges rather than jurors.

Anything a judge orders is divided by 2. That's math by a man that wants to be re-elected.

Then for the icing on the cake they'll bring them back away from the public's eyes and do a sentencing modification. That's snake math.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ahhh, blessed, blessed snake math. Oops, I mean, how dare those lawyers follow the law! The temerity.

We can use IMPD math, it's base .19 BAC, the base unit is a "Bisard". Or, MCPA math, it's base .15 BAC, base unit, a "DePrez".

Anything a judge orders is divided by 2.

So, we divide zero by 2, or 2 by zero?

Good grief:

 

[public servant]

I'll just stick to my math...an eye for an eye.

They know the risk before committing the felonies...but they do it anyway.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Send him to jail or IDoC all you want for stealing a pizza but at some point he is coming out (max three years [7.5 if with an Habitual] on the D felony for those at home).

The lifetime prohibition of a Constitutional right for stealing a pizza is illegal and needs to be challenged.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They know the risk before committing the felonies...but they do it anyway.

They sure do commit felonies, but if you have the prosecutor to bail you out, what's the incentive not to?

 

[public servant]

Send him to jail or IDoC all you want for stealing a pizza but at some point he is coming out (max three years [7.5 if with an Habitual] on the D felony for those at home).

The lifetime prohibition of a Constitutional right for stealing a pizza is illegal and needs to be challenged.

He still has the right to bear arms...just not the little short ones. He should have thought of all this going in.

What about the "C" felonies...or the "A" and "B"?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He still has the right to bear arms...just not the little short ones.

Or the big long ones.

He should have thought of all this going in.

Bisard or Brizzi?

What about the "C" felonies...or the "A" and "B"?

I fail to see how C felony Theft should be treated any differently than a D.

There is no A or B felony Theft. Do you mean A or B felony Burglary?

I think that Burglary SBI (the A felony) is different in that with the sbi the State has a more compelling interest in denying firearms to one with that conviction as that person has shown an alleged predeliction to be violent.

 

[public servant]

Or the big long ones.



Bisard or Brizzi?



I fail to see how C felony Theft should be treated any differently than a D.

There is no A or B felony Theft. Do you A or B felony Burglary?

I think that Burglary SBI (the A felony) is different in that with the sbi the State has a more compelling interest in denying firearms to one with that conviction as that person has shown an allege predeliction to be violent.

I was referencing high felonies in general.

Actually I don't have a problem with a guy getting his rights back when he gets out of jail. I really don't.

Unless it's a violent crime.

My entire problem is that amount of time criminals are sentenced to. If you want to get tough on crime...be tough on criminals.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I was referencing high felonies in general.

Actually I don't have a problem with a guy getting his rights back when he gets out of jail. I really don't.

Unless it's a violent crime.

My entire problem is that amount of time criminals are sentenced to. If you want to get tough on crime...be tough on criminals.

I recall a discussion here once about "truth in sentencing" laws, by which if a person is sentenced to 10 years, they get out in 10 years, not five. It seems to be the pattern in IN that whatever number a person is sentenced to serve, they actually serve half of that, and with sentencing guidelines, we can't, apparently, just double the number of years of a sentence (that is, if you want them to serve 20, you should be able to sentence them to 20 and be done with it. As it is, if the guideline is 4-10, you can't sentence them to 20 to get the full ten, as I understand it.)

One argument that was raised was that that shorter term is something we have to give the convict some hope, such that they behave themselves in prison. I disagree with this concept, but my thoughts carry little if any weight as I have no LE background.

My question: Is that carrot at the end of the stick an adequate motivation, or should the practice of serving five on a ten be scrapped?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My entire problem is that amount of time criminals are sentenced to. If you want to get tough on crime...be tough on criminals.

Well, there have been modifications to Indiana's sentencing regime recently, including the 85% requirement for some sex offenses and the implementing Class I for House Arrest.

Perhaps your anger/frustration is misdirected in this case. Sentencing structures, including modifications, are policy questions best addressed at the General Assembly.

Blanket prohibitions for felons (of almost any kind) can be and should be solved by judicial action.

 

[kcw12]

Its simple. IN Jail no guns
out of jail Guns
Don't want a person to have guns Jail?

once time is served, everything should be good.

 

[Expat]

Didn't we just argue this stuff a couple weeks ago...

 

[42769vette]

Didn't we just argue this stuff a couple weeks ago...

yes we have argued this a few times, but a lawyer taking the case on brings new light to it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

good for the lawyer. im suprised the nra has not tackled this issue yet

As publicity-conscious as the NRA is, I'm not a bit surprised they haven't gotten involved in this issue. The people who believe that everyone has a right to self-defense are a tiny, tiny minority of the population.