A restraining order is not a conviction. It's a stop gap with a relatively low legal bar. There in lies the rub. I'm not at all for people convicted of domestic violence having guns. But I'm not convinced due process is fully implemented with restraining orders or red flag laws.Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
Why not? If they have served their time? Same for voting. I don't get that felons who have served their time can't vote. I guess that's changing in some places.Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
Florida had that under Rick Scott. One of his board members would ask if the release felon believed in, and worshipped God (obviously the Judeo-Christian god) and if not, no voting rights for you! In fact, Scott RARELY restored a felon's right to vote, hence the plebiscite to grant felons who served their sentences the right to vote passed by a HUGE majority--IN FLORIDA! So what did the ReThug Lege and Gov do? Refused to grant that right unless the person paid all draconian fines, court costs, etc, essentially nullifying the will of the vast majority. But that's what ReThugs do. They HATE majority rule because they lose.F4FEver wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 7:54 amWhy not? If they have served their time? Same for voting. I don't get that felons who have served their time can't vote. I guess that's changing in some places.Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
Why not on a case by case basis..along with a far more comprehensive, universal, BGC?..It 'may' prevent some violent, ignorant, unhinged people from (easily) buying a gun.
That is absolutely the problem with restraining orders and red flag laws. I’m pretty fuzzy about what constitutes a red flag in some of these laws as well.featureless wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 pmA restraining order is not a conviction. It's a stop gap with a relatively low legal bar. There in lies the rub. I'm not at all for people convicted of domestic violence having guns. But I'm not convinced due process is fully implemented with restraining orders or red flag laws.Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
This exposes an excellent question with respect to rights. Does a person who made violence upon another person, was convicted of that violence and sentenced to pay for that violence, then served that sentence--does this person retain the ability again to judge falsely about when to apply violence? If that person may judge incorrectly once again, does that person retain the right to keep and bear the arms which may inflict poorly judged violence upon others? The latest shooting at UMich was done by a felon in possession of a firearm illegally.sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:23 amThat is absolutely the problem with restraining orders and red flag laws. I’m pretty fuzzy about what constitutes a red flag in some of these laws as well.featureless wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 pmA restraining order is not a conviction. It's a stop gap with a relatively low legal bar. There in lies the rub. I'm not at all for people convicted of domestic violence having guns. But I'm not convinced due process is fully implemented with restraining orders or red flag laws.Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
Violent felons have already shown that they lack respect for others' rights to live in peace. They can get their rights back in the current system (remember they're also barred from the vote and lose some 4th Amendment protections and 1st Amendment protections), but it's up to a court to make the decision. Just because they serve time doesn't mean they're earned their rights back,CDFingers wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 10:49 amThis exposes an excellent question with respect to rights. Does a person who made violence upon another person, was convicted of that violence and sentenced to pay for that violence, then served that sentence--does this person retain the ability again to judge falsely about when to apply violence? If that person may judge incorrectly once again, does that person retain the right to keep and bear the arms which may inflict poorly judged violence upon others? The latest shooting at UMich was done by a felon in possession of a firearm illegally.sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:23 amThat is absolutely the problem with restraining orders and red flag laws. I’m pretty fuzzy about what constitutes a red flag in some of these laws as well.featureless wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 pmA restraining order is not a conviction. It's a stop gap with a relatively low legal bar. There in lies the rub. I'm not at all for people convicted of domestic violence having guns. But I'm not convinced due process is fully implemented with restraining orders or red flag laws.Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
Can a person get educated about when properly to apply violence after having served a jail sentence? What would be the criteria we would use to determine whether a person would judge properly about when to apply violence?
I know it's easy to avoid these questions by hiding behind absolutism. Yet it may very well be that absolutism is the answer, that violent people still retain the right to keep and bear arms. After all, the UMich shooter ignored felon in possession laws, so, what the heck, you know? Why do we even make laws about guns? Can rights and laws exist simultaneously?
CDFingers
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how ... ilitation.Across California, those who are released from prison have a roughly 46 percent chance of returning to prison within three years, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
But education can help significantly reduce the likelihood that someone will re-enter the prison system. Nationwide, the odds of re-entering prison are 48 percent lower for those who enter post-secondary education programs, according to analysis from the RAND corporation.
Exactly. As for our prison system, it needs an overhaul. We need away to have people serve their time for punishment, but also work toward addressing the underlying reasons they committed crimes to begin with.featureless wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:56 am I think it possible to emerge from a sentence with a renewed appreciation for life. However, our prison industrial complex is not the place that will happen for most convicts. Restoration of 2A rights to convicted violent felons is definitely problematic. However, there is nothing really stopping them from obtaining guns any way. So are we only punishing those who are able to reform with the denial? Probably.
Well, there have long been rehabilitation programs, such as work release (I did research on work release for a master's thesis 40 years ago) Basically, it has a positive effect on non-violent criminals, but little to none on violent offenders.sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:26 pmExactly. As for our prison system, it needs an overhaul. We need away to have people serve their time for punishment, but also work toward addressing the underlying reasons they committed crimes to begin with.featureless wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:56 am I think it possible to emerge from a sentence with a renewed appreciation for life. However, our prison industrial complex is not the place that will happen for most convicts. Restoration of 2A rights to convicted violent felons is definitely problematic. However, there is nothing really stopping them from obtaining guns any way. So are we only punishing those who are able to reform with the denial? Probably.
Good points YT. CA put the word "rehabilitation" in the title of the CA Dept of Corrections but with a recidivism rate of 46%, the rehabilitation part isn't working.YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:47 amWell, there have long been rehabilitation programs, such as work release (I did research on work release for a master's thesis 40 years ago) Basically, it has a positive effect on non-violent criminals, but little to none on violent offenders.sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:26 pmExactly. As for our prison system, it needs an overhaul. We need away to have people serve their time for punishment, but also work toward addressing the underlying reasons they committed crimes to begin with.featureless wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:56 am I think it possible to emerge from a sentence with a renewed appreciation for life. However, our prison industrial complex is not the place that will happen for most convicts. Restoration of 2A rights to convicted violent felons is definitely problematic. However, there is nothing really stopping them from obtaining guns any way. So are we only punishing those who are able to reform with the denial? Probably.
The fundamental problem with our 52 penal systems--50 states + DC, and the Federal govt-- is that there is NO consistent determination of what we want prisons to do and they can be contradictory:
Separation from Society
Deterrence
Punishment
Rehabilitation
The biggest deterrence is, of course, execution, yet it has been totally ineffective in preventing commission of executable crimes. In fact, most of the states with the most executions have the highest number and per capita number of capital offenses subject to execution. IOW, It does NOT deter.
Until we can reach agreement of what we want to prisons to do, and staunchly do it, we have no hope of using them to reduce crime.
Highdesert wrote:CA put the word "rehabilitation" in the title of the CA Dept of Corrections but with a recidivism rate of 46%, the rehabilitation part isn't working.
You'd need the full data set to do a deep dive and be able to filter it. Filtering the data would give a micro view, but all we know is that an ex-con between their day of parole and 3 years out committed an offense that violated their parole or conditions of release.YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:49 amHighdesert wrote:CA put the word "rehabilitation" in the title of the CA Dept of Corrections but with a recidivism rate of 46%, the rehabilitation part isn't working.
Even 40 years ago, when I was researching, there was no good consistent definition of what we want the penal system to do same as now, and I suspect still is, no good definition of "recidivism".
Measuring recidivism is like measuring progression of cancer. You have to define a time frame, not simply "rest of the subject's life" if you want to measure effectiveness of treatment/rehab protocols--same for both prisoners and cancer patients (I've worked on a lot of cancer studies, too, in my career, so I recognize the measurement issue is the same, but a different context). So you cannot simply say "does another crime" because you cannot measure that effectively until the subject dies. Even 40 years ago, if you measured recidivism by "Returns to prison in one year" vs "Is arrested in 5 years" you get markedly different results. By the first measure, the percentages were low, but by the 2nd they were about 60%.
So, without being insulting you, HD, I have no idea how Cali measure recidivism or what 46% means. Think about it. Say someone goes to prison for a violent crime, say, armed robbery, and 10 years after leaving prison is charged with driving with a revoked license (in NJ and NY that is a misdemeanor and can carry up to 1 year's imprisonment), but has not violations during that 10 years. Does that person fall into the same 46% as someone who, upon release, commits a similar crime and is convicted within a year?
See my problem?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ask ... 023-03-18/The U.S. Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow a federal law to stand that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms. In February, a three judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans declared that the ban was unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms. It was the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court ruling last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home. The Supreme Court ruling announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," and not simply advance an important government interest.
The Justice Department said it was pursuing the Supreme Court appeal on a "highly expedited schedule" so the justices could potentially take up the case before the current term ends. In its decision, the 5th Circuit panel, which was comprised of three Republican-appointed judges, threw out the guilty plea and six-year prison sentence for Zackey Rahimi, who admitted to possessing guns found in his Kennedale, Texas, home after prosecutors said he participated in five shootings in Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021. Rahimi had been under a restraining order since Feb. 2020, following his alleged assault of a former girlfriend. Neither the Justice Department, nor the federal public defender representing Rahimi immediately responded to requests for comment.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/02/fi ... -v-rahimi/On February 2, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled in United States v. Rahimi, striking down the federal law prohibiting gun possession by anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order issued after notice and a court hearing. A district judge in Texas previously held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) unconstitutional in November, in a decision we covered here, as did a district judge in Kentucky the same day that Rahimi was issued; at least one other district court has upheld the prohibition as “consistent with the longstanding and historical prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons.” The decision in Rahimi is currently the sole published circuit court opinion applying Bruen, after the Third Circuit’s panel decision in Range v. Attorney General, upholding the felon prohibitor, was vacated for rehearing en banc last month.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
