TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

montgomery wrote:

bayou wrote:What does 30.06 have to do with the discussion about felonies? If you differ in opinion with the felons not having access to guns that's ok but don't hijack the thread with a trolling comment.

Point is the same guys that want to beat the law by not doing the time are no different than those that beat the 30.06. Same mentality. . .

I'm sick of your insults and your arrogance. Wanting to provide a way for a felon to restore constitutional rights is not trying to "beat the law" as you falsely claim. It's a call to change the law. If an administrative hearing with the possibility of a state court review were to be implemented, it would not guarantee restoration of rights. If the facts did not warrant restoration, then the administrative officer and the state court would likely refuse restoration. If you truly cannot separate the concept of a sentence imposed by a court and the impact of an extra-judical legislative act, then you should consider not insulting others by making false claims about their motives.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:First I need to say that there has been a gradual creep toward a judicial system that would make King George III proud. The trend has been to elevate far too many misdemeanors to felony status. This should not have happened. I base my comments largely on this fact.

I believe:
1. Non-violent felonies should not impact civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. In the alternative, all civil rights should be automatically restored after ____ years;
2. Violent felonies should result in loss of all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, but with an administrative procedure to have all civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The citizen should have the right to appeal the administrative finding to state court;

The reason I believe a violent felon should have an avenue to restore civil rights is because there can be circumstances where a person commits a violent crime under conditions that would prompt otherwise law-abiding persons to do so. For example, a father kills his son-in-law for beating his daughter. It's murder, but the man is not likely to be a threat to others and he should have the right to seek restoration of his civil rights. If it is shown during the hearing or trial that the father has be violent at other times, then the application for restoration could/should be denied.

Chas.