Unintended Consequences? · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

Not sure if this is how New Orleans wanted this to turn out or not.

I suppose I don't personally care that much if felons can/cannot buy guns.
Some here believe in a strict adherence to the 2nd amendment, and I suppose by that logic you can't prohibit felons from having guns...

I think most people in this forum believe in some level of gun control, and abridgment of the 2nd Amendment (although they'll die before admitting it)...

Personally, I just find this kind of interesting.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_judge_rules_statut.html

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your CigarBid Forums forum account or Register a new forum account

Buckwheat
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

Good for them. I hope that they "Reap what they Sow". Just not wise on their part. Hell they're all crazy down there anyway.

paulkeck
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

victor809 wrote:

i believe strongly in gun control!!
first keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
second always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction
third never trust anyone that says the gun is unloaded check yourself
and fourth never trust a man that wants to change the 2nd ammendment to fit his beliefs

jpotts
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

victor809 wrote:

On the federal level, the fifth amendment has an allowance for felons to be prohibited from owing firearms:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

A trial in court is considered due process of law. However, this is on the federal level, and might possiblty only be applied if the person in question tries to cross state lines.

As for Louisiana, they can pass whatever gun laws they choose. They have that right. However, those laws lose their meaning once the state border is crossed.

It's quaint that because "some people" want restrictions on the second amendment, that therefore we should restrict it. Maybe one day "some people" will think it is perfectly OK to have sex with minors too, so therefore by using Victor's logic, we should allow it.

Or maybe, because Victor will immediately not agree with me on my points, this post will therefore become "gibberish."

It'd be nice, for once, Victor if you actually took an interest in things like civics and the foundations of your basic human rights. Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

paulkeck
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

jpotts wrote:

now you know thats gonna happen lol

wheelrite
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

well.
as we all know the Katricians are all on the Gov't teat,,

so they should never have guns,,

That's why 7-11 Stores get robbed,,,

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

I'm thinking I voted for this when it came up, but I'm not sure. That being sad, I'm ok with the ruling. To me it's a civil liberty issue. Should someone be imprisioned for possessing something that it perfectly legal for their neighbor to possess? I think not. On the other hand, those convicted of offenses that prohibit them from owning guns prolly are not in jail because some district attorney or judge failed to do their job.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

jpotts wrote:

Potts... there's this fundamental irony in that you've accused me of "immediately not agreeing" with you, in a post where you've tried to disagree with me... when I haven't even made a point myself. It's almost like you don't even read my posts, just scan for a hot-button and argue against it.

So, yes, I will call your post "gibberish" (at least the 2nd part of it, I have no problem with the first few sentences). Your ability to prognosticate that I would call your post gibberish is not a sign of any sort of capability on your part, it's more a symptom of 98.2% of your posts being gibberish...

cacman
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

Huh... here I thought it was a Federal law that prohibited convicted Felons (not misdemeanor) from owning any firearms (rifles, shotguns, & handguns)? Statue of limitations used to be 7yrs but was changed to 10yrs. After 10yrs you could apply, but chances of concealed carry are slim. Didn't think it was different from State to State?

paulkeck
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#10

cacman wrote:

x2 i know in texas felons cant buy or have guns

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#11

cacman wrote:

How many times have we heard that thre are 10,000 gun laws on the books and that we don't need more, but to enforce the ones already on the books? It seems there is an abundant duplicity of laws spread across multiple jurisdictions.

In this case there is a federal statute that prohibits certain convicted felons from possessing a firearm:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1).

It shall be unlawful for any person-

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

***

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Then there is the Louisiana statute that somewhat resembles this law:

§95.1. Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies

A. It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or possession of a firearm while in the possession of or during the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense in R.S. 15:541, or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state, or who has been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States or of any foreign government or country of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be one of the above-enumerated crimes, to possess a firearm or carry a concealed weapon.

B. Whoever is found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 14:27, whoever is found guilty of attempting to violate the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than seven and one-half years and fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

C. The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

D. For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, submachine gun, black powder weapon, or assault rifle which is designed to fire or is capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition or from which a shot or projectile is discharged by an explosive.

Added by Acts 1975, No. 492, §2. Amended by Acts 1980, No. 279, §1; Acts 1985, No. 947, §1; Acts 1990, No. 328, §1; Acts 1992, No. 403, §1; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 28, §1; Acts 1995, No. 987, §1; Acts 2003, No. 674, §1; Acts 2009, No. 154, §1; Acts 2009, No. 160, §1; Acts 2010, No. 815, §1; Acts 2010, No. 942, §1.

Why not scrap the Louisiana law and let local law enforcement agencies charge people with he federal statute?

The devil is in the details.

As a LEO, I'm sworn to uphold the law, including federal laws. The problem is no federal judge would accept an affidavit of probable cause from me since I'm not a federal agent. Therefore, I would arrest someone for violating he state statute. Then my agency may or may not offer the case to the federal prosecutor. If it did, the federal prosecutor may or may not choose to prosecute. The state law gives the state the ability to prosecute when he feds choose not to. In reality, very few cases that can be prosecuted at the state level make it to the federal docket.

Hope this clarifies things.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#12

States rights versus Federal rights.

At this point we can almost just eliminate states completely.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#13

At this point we can almost just eliminate states completely.

HockeyDad wrote:

Probably... starting with texas...

paulkeck
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#14

Probably... starting with texas...

victor809 wrote:

That sure as chit ain't happening !!!!

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#15

That sure as chit ain't happening !!!!

paulkeck wrote:

psh... you've already disarmed your felons... That leaves you what, 1.8% of the population still able to buy firearms?

Two drones and the state will topple to whatever the feds decide.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#16

That's what happens when you start trampling on felon's 2nd amendment rights.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#17

Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?

jpotts wrote:

[-( 🤐 🤐 🤐 🤐

EAT

MOR

CHIKIN

=d>

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#18

It'd be nice, for once, Victor if you actually took an interest in things like civics and the foundations of your basic human rights. Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?

jpotts wrote:

[-( 🤐 🤐 🤐 🤐

EAT

MOR

CHIKIN

=d>

paulkeck
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#19

psh... you've already disarmed your felons... That leaves you what, 1.8% of the population still able to buy firearms?

Two drones and the state will topple to whatever the feds decide.

victor809 wrote:

there are more guns in texas than most of the united states put together. MOLON LABE!!!

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#20

there are more guns in texas than most of the united states put together. MOLON LABE!!!

paulkeck wrote:

Get serious. When the Feds want, they will come. You will lay down and submit.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: