Taking On The Felons And Firearms In Wisconsin

[42769vette]

so i was reading a little on this. is the lawyer challenging wisconsin state law or federal law.

in indiana certain felons can have guns by indiana law, but they are still breaking federal law.

 

[jdgatliff]

56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders, according to most surveys. Google it. I can't find any stats on how many serve their time and never become a repeat offender. However their are 24,008 in Indiana prisons right now. 56% of that is 13,444 and 61% is 14,644.
With these kind of stats I believe they made a choice to give up their right when they made a choice to commit a felony. Last I checked it was a choice to commit a felony, and choices comes with consequences.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I think when a crime is paid for it should be taken off their record....A kid should not have to explain something for the next 20 years if it is non violent

I believe only crimes should be felonies and when a criminal is FINALLY CAUGHT, PROSECUTED, AND CONVICTED they should pay for that crime FULLY. At least FULLY, really I'd make them pay DOUBLE just because they are a low life and probably committed a dozen before they were caught, but at the VERY least they should pay FULLY for that crime.

Second strikers SHOULD pay double the FULL cost of their crime.

Third strikers SHOULD PAY triple the cost.

Fourth timers should pay 4 times the cost and just executed when they are paid up.

None of that time off for good behaviour stupidity. Do criminals ever give their victims a time off from crime? They should get beaten and time added for the additional crimes they commit in prison. Good behaviour in prison? It's absurd. Any low life trash that can't even behave under lock and key in a fully supervised enviroment? They get a piece of candy for that? WTF? No wonder they go back to crime. They get out and don't get a reward for not doing anything and get all P'd Off.

Hey! Where's my reward for not beating any one today?

 

[rambone]

The Brady Campaign crowd will have a fit over this one!! Am I right fellas??

I will always stand against Gun Control in all forms. I don't have any delusions about criminals obeying the law anyway. Give them back their right to vote too.

Its a Bill of Rights not a Bill of Privileges.

 

[Vasili]

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.

now, sir, you should know, being british... six million times zero six million, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Look, if you want to use British math, you're going to have to use a scone or teeth reference.

Ian has four teeth (in his hand). If Alston, being the yob he is, nicks two teeth and the police swoop in, how many good teeth does Ian have?

Answer: zero good teeth

 

[MTC]

Look, if you want to use British math, you're going to have to use a scone or teeth reference.

Ian has four teeth (in his hand). If Alston, being the yob he is, nicks two teeth and the police swoop in, how many good teeth does Ian have?

Answer: zero good teeth

"As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives..." etc.
"...How many were going to St. Ives?"

 

[Eddie]

I remember reading the Weems case in law school where they found that the Cadena Temporal was cruel and unusual punishment. In a way the lifetime ban from being able to defend oneself reminds me of that punishment. A guy does something dumb at age nineteen because, well, a lot of nineteen year olds are dumb and then he is still being punished, despite having served out his sentence in full, when he is sixty years old.

Cadena temporal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[silverspoon]

....... im suprised the nra has not tackled this issue yet

Good Luck with any help from the NRA. They are huge proponents of gun ownership for NON criminals. I believe if the NRA had their way some misdemeanor offenders would also lose their right of self defense.

 

[SavageEagle]

It's really simple. If you can't trust someone to own a gun after committing a violent crime, you put them in prison. You put them in prison until they exhibit that they can be responsible, honorable human beings. You let them out, you give them their rights back. Period. However, if they commit more crimes after being let out, double their sentencing. Triple it. Turn them into lifers. If they kill someone, EXECUTE THEM.

Can we just bring back public hangings?

I'm glad someone's taking on this case. If they can't be trusted with a gun, why is the criminal out of jail at all? If they're being let out, they should have ALL their rights restored. Simple.

Good Luck with any help from the NRA. They are huge proponents of gun ownership for NON criminals. I believe if the NRA had their way some misdemeanor offenders would also lose their right of self defense.

QFT

 

[public servant]

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

Believe me Bill...my thoughts carry little weight also.

I believe that the criminal should serve the sentence they are given. The motivation for behaving in prison should be that no more criminal charges are filed while they are there. And no loss of privileges. Screw up and we'll add additional charges and take away your cable TV and deck of cards. If you get out at the end of your scheduled sentence is entirely up to you.

The only thing that should reduce a sentence in prison would be continuing your education.

This crap of, "we'll reduce your sentence by one day if you're a good boy today" is just that...crap.

Prison should be exactly what it is...prison. Not the country club it's been turned into. A person goes to prison to pay a debt to society. Not to be housed by the taxpayers in a lifestyle that is better than most of the residents had on the outside by their own choice.

Again...let me state that in general...I have little problem with someone being allowed to carry a firearm once out of jail or prison. Once you've served a fair sentence for the crimes committed.

And here comes the "but(s)"... Any felony conviction for crimes of violence or a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence should be excluded. As should, in my opinion, any felony drug conviction.

I also believe that criminal history should play into the decision to allow someone to possess firearms. Once could be a mistake. Twice is a pattern.

 

[wag1911]

I think some are under the mis-impression that a law is going to deter or prevent a violent criminal from obtaining or carrying a gun. I ask you kindly to remove the rose-colored glasses for a moment.

The American Founders had a different view and guaranteed the right as absolute. Since then it has been trampled on by the 'collectivists' who want to write their own rules (and not follow them) and today is treated as a privilege that can be taken away.

I made this argument in another thread but for some it bears repeating.

In a free nation, government does not have the authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout “fire” in a crowded theater. EVEN IF I HAVE DONE SO BEFORE.

Government is ONLY here to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me rights for fear I might misuse them again.

If you think the justice system is screwed up, and it is, then do your part to fix it. However, taking someone's rights away even after they have served their penalty is wrong. Stop using the justice system as an excuse for a reason to violate a person's civil rights. FIX THE DAMN SYSTEM instead.

 

[42769vette]

so i was reading a little on this. is the lawyer challenging wisconsin state law or federal law.

in indiana certain felons can have guns by indiana law, but they are still breaking federal law.

anyone?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Anyone what?

Bueller?

 

[Jack Ryan]

I think some are under the mis-impression that a law is going to deter or prevent a violent criminal from obtaining or carrying a gun. I ask you kindly to remove the rose-colored glasses for a moment.

It doesn't do much to stop them from committing any other crime.

May be the NRA should be working to make murder, rape, theft and the rest of the crimes criminals commit legal?

 

[42769vette]

Anyone what?

Bueller?

is he lawyer challenging wisconsin state law or federal law

 

[jdgatliff]

Just because they have served their time doesn't mean they've learned their lesson.

"Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.


A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes."
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes | San Francisco Examiner

Another study Futurity.org – Crimes escalate for convicted gun owners

The same argument could be made for pedophiles. They served the time why should we keep them away from schools and make the register their address. I sure wouldn't let one work at my kids school, daycare, or drive their bus. The reason is the same. They have proven they have no respect for the law, and as studies show they will break the law again given the chance. I love the 2nd amendment and will support any law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms. However If you commit a crime. First you know it's a crime. Second you know you will lose your second amendment right if you commit the crime, and you do it anyways. You lost your right when you committed that felony and you should not get it back.
​

 

[Bill of Rights]

Believe me Bill...my thoughts carry little weight also.

I believe that the criminal should serve the sentence they are given. The motivation for behaving in prison should be that no more criminal charges are filed while they are there. And no loss of privileges. Screw up and we'll add additional charges and take away your cable TV and deck of cards. If you get out at the end of your scheduled sentence is entirely up to you.

The only thing that should reduce a sentence in prison would be continuing your education.

This crap of, "we'll reduce your sentence by one day if you're a good boy today" is just that...crap.

Prison should be exactly what it is...prison. Not the country club it's been turned into. A person goes to prison to pay a debt to society. Not to be housed by the taxpayers in a lifestyle that is better than most of the residents had on the outside by their own choice.

Again...let me state that in general...I have little problem with someone being allowed to carry a firearm once out of jail or prison. Once you've served a fair sentence for the crimes committed.

And here comes the "but(s)"... Any felony conviction for crimes of violence or a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence should be excluded. As should, in my opinion, any felony drug conviction.

I also believe that criminal history should play into the decision to allow someone to possess firearms. Once could be a mistake. Twice is a pattern.

Thanks for the reply. Your opinions carry a little more weight because you have direct dealings with the people affected by these rulings. I only interact with them when they have "incarceritis"

I would ask this question based on your answer, though: Conviction for misdemeanor DV should bar someone from the ability to effectively defend themselves? Is the violence worse or the person more injured because of a relationship with the one who commits it? Conversely, since the definitions of DV are so broad insofar as who constitutes a family or household member AND could be read to include even siblings being siblings (pushing, shoving, etc.) or even an act not committed against a person (i.e. if someone kills a pet rat or snake or the like), can we in any degree of equality under the law or in any sense of justice take that person's ability to exercise his right of effective self defense?

Definitions posted below for those who may not be aware of what is included:

IC 34-6-2-34.5
"Domestic or family violence"
Sec. 34.5. "Domestic or family violence" means, except for an act of self-defense, the occurrence of at least one (1) of the following acts committed by a family or household member:
(1) Attempting to cause, threatening to cause, or causing physical harm to another family or household member.
(2) Placing a family or household member in fear of physical harm.
(3) Causing a family or household member to involuntarily engage in sexual activity by force, threat of force, or duress.
(4) Beating (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5(2)), torturing (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5(5)), mutilating (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5(3)), or killing a vertebrate animal without justification with the intent to threaten, intimidate, coerce, harass, or terrorize a family or household member.
For purposes of IC 34-26-5, domestic and family violence also includes stalking (as defined in IC 35-45-10-1) or a sex offense under IC 35-42-4, whether or not the stalking or sex offense is committed by a family or household member.
As added by P.L.133-2002, SEC.41. Amended by P.L.221-2003, SEC.7; P.L.171-2007, SEC.3.

IC 12-18-8-3
"Family or household member"
Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, an individual is a "family or household member" of another person if the individual:
(1) is a current or former spouse of the other person;
(2) is dating or has dated the other person;
(3) is or was engaged in a sexual relationship with the other person;
(4) is related by blood or adoption to the other person;
(5) is or was related by marriage to the other person;
(6) cohabits or formerly cohabited with the other person; or
(7) has or previously had an established legal relationship:
(A) as a guardian of the other person;
(B) as a ward of the other person;
(C) as a custodian of the other person;
(D) as a foster parent of the other person; or
(E) in a capacity with respect to the other person similar to those listed in clauses (A) through (D).
(b) As used in this chapter, an individual is a "family or household member" of both persons to whom subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), or (a)(7) applies if the individual is a minor child of one (1) of the persons.
As added by P.L.181-2003, SEC.6.

Doesn't seem right to me.

I agree with the rest of your post, IF the convict is paying for his/her own education, not taking it on the public dime.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[beararms1776]

There are 1000's of people that are victims of violent/ abusive relationships but are arrested for the abusers actions. They should consider the nature of the other party when making any decisions.

 

[golandmark@gmail.com]

I think the nra should tackle the fact that is illegal even to have a handgun in your own home in Chicago...now that is un Constitutional if u ask me