Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

27
Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
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.

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

28
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.

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.

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

29
F4FEver wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 7:54 am
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.

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.
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.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

30
A 3rd Circuit en banc panel hears a case tomorrow where an equivalent felon had his gun rights blocked. He was convicted of state welfare fraud of about $2500. and given probation, equivalent to a federal felony and he was blocked from buying a firearm. The district court and 3rd Circuit three judge panel found for the government, we'll see what the en banc panel does.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

31
featureless wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 pm
Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
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.
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.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

32
sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:23 am
featureless wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 pm
Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
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.
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.
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.

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
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

33
CDFingers wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 10:49 am
sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:23 am
featureless wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 pm
Jondoe541 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:37 pm Nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun.
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.
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.
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.

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
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,

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

34
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.

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

35
Yup, California has a high recidivism rate which shows things aren't working.
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.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how ... ilitation.

California has a self help page on expungement, reducing some felonies to misdemeanors. Apparently even DV convictions can be reduced.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/42537.htm
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

36
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.
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.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

37
sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:26 pm
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.
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.
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.

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.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

38
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:47 am
sikacz wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:26 pm
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.


Image

Image
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/C ... me%20from.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

43
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.

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?
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

44
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:49 am
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.

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?
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.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

46
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://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ask ... 023-03-18/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law"

50
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.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/02/fi ... -v-rahimi/

The 5th Circuit's panel decision only applies to the federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)), state laws regarding restrictions on firearms for those under a DV restraining orders, other state prohibitions or under red flag laws are still in effect.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests