https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020 >should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020 >>should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after >>guilty pleas last year.
A pardon restores freedoms that you lost upon being convicted (e.g.:
releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or >harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the >conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
driver's license.
Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
where it becomes inconvenient to them.
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:42:14 -0600, !Jones <x@y.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the >>>governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained >>>national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020 >>>should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after >>>guilty pleas last year.
A pardon restores freedoms that you lost upon being convicted (e.g.: >>releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your >>criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or >>harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long >>argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person >>later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the >>conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a >>driver's license.
Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
where it becomes inconvenient to them.
They weren't "waving" any guns. All their rights should be restored,
and the judge should be tarred and feathered.
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
On 1/2/2023 6:42 AM, !Jones wrote:
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:15:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2023 6:42 AM, !Jones wrote:
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
One could argue such; however, if you will read carefully, you will
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.
For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.
On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.
Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
On 1/2/2023 6:30 PM, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:15:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns JustThere is no material difference to the people between losing their
Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2023 6:42 AM, !Jones wrote:
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
One could argue such; however, if you will read carefully, you will
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.
For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.
On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law
mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.
Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
rights through legislative vs. judicial action.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 93:46:30 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,205 |
| Messages: | 5,334,294 |