I was wondering how long she could keep it up...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
2ndAmendment said:
Those are the number 1 cause of firearm transfer disapprovals in Maryland, and most of the people who get rejected had no idea what they were signing up for while in court. Even worse, they've just violated the Brady law by trying to buy a gun while being a convicted felon!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Tell 'em Bruz...
The AG,Corran, of Maryland, has been trying to go back on people who were convicted of lesser offenses and trying to take their rights away if they COULD HAVE been convicted of a felony or were originally charged with a felony.
DISEASE
The AG,Corran, of Maryland, has been trying to go back on people who were convicted of lesser offenses and trying to take their rights away if they COULD HAVE been convicted of a felony or were originally charged with a felony.
DISEASE
Well Bru, I'm not sure where you get your information but in Maryland a violation of Motor Vehicle Laws is a misdemeanor unless specifically stated within the law. The section of the Transportation Article of the Maryland Code dealing with DUI/DWI is 21-902 and it makes no reference to that crime being classified as a felony. For DUI/DWI the penalty for first time offenders and some second time offenders does not result in a penalty severe enough to meet the requirements for immediate denial of a right to own or possess a firearm as defined by 18USC921.Bruzilla said:
I think were the denial is being made is along the lines of classifying those that have received DUI/DWI convictions as being mentally defective or a controlled substance user/abuser under 18USC922 (which I believe is an abuse of discreation by the state). A person denied solely on a single DUI/DWI conviction has the ability to bring action against the state under 18USC925A to include the award of reasonable attorney's fees if successful.
Thanks for clearing that up Ken.
willie
Well-Known Member
In theory, once you've paid your debt to society, all rights should be restored. The problem, as usual, is with the courts refusal to punish the very bad people. There are separate problems with mandatory sentencing but if you're back on the street in 2 years for armed robbery then you don't deserve to possess a firearm. A proper sentence of a bunch of years would be a different matter. I don't think voting rights has anything to do with the situation and once they are off parole, let them vote. Can Tawana Brawley (sp) vote? Will Martha Stewart be able to vote? Should Jane Fonda be allowed to vote? An adequate sentence for rape, murder and an armed felony would handle the firearm issue then let them vote when they drag their old butt out of jail.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
In theory, once you've paid your debt to society, all rights should be restored. The problem...........
The problem is that there is too many "gray areas" concerning each crime a human being can conceivably commit.
The legal system is so pervaded with ambiguity, so many loopholes, so many overreaching rules and statutes, that the penalty of a given crime can be argued in infinitum; ad nauseum.
Take the Miranda Law: it's meant to inform a citizen of his/her right to an attorney, plus anything they admit can be used against them in a court of law. Yet in the heat of arrest and capture, if these rights aren't administered in a timely manner, the suspect may well go free, regardless of his/her guilt.
Lawyers, in their zeal to "get their client off", knowingly give false evidence at a trial: a year or so ago, a man abducted a little girl in Sou. California, killed her and left her at a waste site. His attorney made a plea with the local law enforcement agency to reduce the charges against his client, if he showed them where the body was. The police refused to agree, and they later discovered the body from a tip, I believe.
In court, the lawyer who knew his client was guilty of murder, then offered alternative/possible scenarios to the court as to how the little girl could have met her death.
Knowing all the time his client was the murderer!
This attorney and his client should both lose their right to vote, forever!
The problem is that there is too many "gray areas" concerning each crime a human being can conceivably commit.
The legal system is so pervaded with ambiguity, so many loopholes, so many overreaching rules and statutes, that the penalty of a given crime can be argued in infinitum; ad nauseum.
Take the Miranda Law: it's meant to inform a citizen of his/her right to an attorney, plus anything they admit can be used against them in a court of law. Yet in the heat of arrest and capture, if these rights aren't administered in a timely manner, the suspect may well go free, regardless of his/her guilt.
Lawyers, in their zeal to "get their client off", knowingly give false evidence at a trial: a year or so ago, a man abducted a little girl in Sou. California, killed her and left her at a waste site. His attorney made a plea with the local law enforcement agency to reduce the charges against his client, if he showed them where the body was. The police refused to agree, and they later discovered the body from a tip, I believe.
In court, the lawyer who knew his client was guilty of murder, then offered alternative/possible scenarios to the court as to how the little girl could have met her death.
Knowing all the time his client was the murderer!
This attorney and his client should both lose their right to vote, forever!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Ken King said:
Ken, thanks as always for the info. I've gotten mine from three different gun dealers in MD, who always asked me "have you ever been convicted of a DWI/DUI? Because if you have don't bother putting in the paperwork."
What makes killing someone with a firearm worse than killing someone with a frying pan? Knife? A baseball bat? 2x4? The person is just as dead. This is one of those stupid statements that gun grabbers make. Matter of fact, I think being shot through the head with a nice clean bullet would be a lot more humane that being bludgeoned to death by a 2x4 or other blunt instrument.Penn said:
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Well, I feel I just have to answer that stupid reply as well: If someone comes at you with frying pan, a baseball bat, a knife or a 2 x 4, you still have a chance to ward off the attack, disarm that person, respond in kind, whatever.2ndAmendment said:
Since you are an expert in Martial Arts, you could most likely defend yourself and overcome your attacker, if he came at you that way, correct?
If some fool shoots you dead at 10 or 20 feet away, what chance did you have to properly defend your person? NONE!! Or are you Bruce Lee, who was known to dodge bullets?
So, argue away against that logic, my friend.
I'll take the shotgun - at least it will be over quick. 
For me it would be violent crime - period. Doesn't matter what they use or even if it results in death. Rapist? You betcha. Beats their children? Absolutely.
I figure if I would give them the death penalty for it, the least the state could do is take away their right to vote.
Penn said:
For me it would be violent crime - period. Doesn't matter what they use or even if it results in death. Rapist? You betcha. Beats their children? Absolutely.
I figure if I would give them the death penalty for it, the least the state could do is take away their right to vote.
Penn, You never seem to get it. I was making the point that it does not matter what the weapon is, if you are dead, you are dead. Vrai got it right away. I think I should just ignore you. You just anger me.
And the way you talk, what makes you think you are my friend?Penn said:
2ndAmendment said:
Exactly.
Pulling the trigger can be an instant decision not always truly thought out. There's rage, fury, and time involved when using the other instruments mentioned to kill someone, and you have to be in close contact for longer than it takes to shoot someone. So which method is actually worse?
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Penn, You never seem to get it. I was making the point that it does not matter what the weapon is, if you are dead, you are dead.
___________________________________________________________________
Lets' cut to the chase: I offered up an opinion as to what crime might make you forfeit your right to vote. You saw my vote for the top of the list of crimes that could do that.
You in turn are a gun advocate, as is your other half. Perhaps this is why you replied to my choice:
"This is one of those stupid statements that gun grabbers make."
You know that I am not a "gun grabber", never said I was. We've had numerous conversations about it in the past, and I thought we agreed or saw eye to eye on each other's opinion. I might consider restrictions on some types of firearms for public use, but your right to keep and bear arms is one issue I've never denied - not to a law abiding citizen.
In the final analysis, you are indeed dead, from which ever type of weapon that was used to kill another human being; I merely voiced an opinion of mine.
___________________________________________________________________
Lets' cut to the chase: I offered up an opinion as to what crime might make you forfeit your right to vote. You saw my vote for the top of the list of crimes that could do that.
You in turn are a gun advocate, as is your other half. Perhaps this is why you replied to my choice:
"This is one of those stupid statements that gun grabbers make."
You know that I am not a "gun grabber", never said I was. We've had numerous conversations about it in the past, and I thought we agreed or saw eye to eye on each other's opinion. I might consider restrictions on some types of firearms for public use, but your right to keep and bear arms is one issue I've never denied - not to a law abiding citizen.
In the final analysis, you are indeed dead, from which ever type of weapon that was used to kill another human being; I merely voiced an opinion of mine.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Penn said:
That's easy! I don't know what kind of assaults or attacks you've experienced, but I have been attacked and I know for sure it didn't happen by someone standing 20 feet away from me with a blunt instrument, making threatening moves and giving me time to make my move. It happened when I least espected it, and from behind. Yes, a gun gives you the advantage of not needing to sneak up on your victim, but that doesn't mean blunt object attacks provide for warning and preparation.
I would much rather face someone with a frying pan than a shotgun at 20 feet, but it's extremely unlikely that someone would be threatening me with a frying pan from 20 feet away. Your comparison isn't valid. In a more realistic threat environment, being would I rather face an attacker with a shotgun 20 feet away, or someone standing behind me with a plunt object coming at my head where I can't see it, I think I would take the gunner. I would rather trust my fates to the "Big Sky, Little Bullet" theory than to hoping the guy behind me will miss.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
You are coming up with alternative scenarios here. I made no mention of "sneaking up on someone", I was merely saying if you were to face someone with a variety of weapons noted in previous posts, a 12 guage might be a more formidable weapon to have to overcome than the others, if the opportunity exists, OK?Bruzilla said:
And no, I have not had to face an assault-type of an attack, where I worked we probably would have been bombed to a rubble!
Sharon, it's true, which ever kind of object is used, yes indeed, dead is dead.
I can't argue that fact.