TexasCHLforum.com

A man a few miles from where I live, shoot 2 armed robbers in self defense. He is now in jail for having a gun because he had a drug conviction and served time. Kind of messed up. What are your opinions?

http://www.valleycentral.com/m/news/story?id=965083" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have stated this before and will here again; if you are able to live free in the world, you should be allowed to protect yourself. There is no way society can stop former felons from purchasing firearms, all we can do is prosecute them if they disobey the laws regarding firearm ownership and they are caught. As the people most often looked over in modern society I believe they are having a disservice done to them, and because of their former lifestyle and connections they are more prone to being targeted by active criminals. If we cannot trust these men and women with firearms why are they not in jail?

I would support baring persons currently on parole or probation from firearm ownership, but once those hurdles are passed they should be reinstated as free citizens. I would even go so far as to bar them from obtaining a CHL (but still allow car carry.) If they continue their felonious ways then lock them up for a very long, long time.

I know several folks who cannot legally own firearms but they are no more a threat to society than anyone else I know. They have put their past behind them as much as they can and lead prosperous and moral lives. But if they are attacked they cannot defend themselves or their families as well as you or I can. And that is a shame as some have beautiful and happy families very much worth protecting.

No article popping up. I can say many home invasion "robbery's" are drug rip offs. Both the shooter and accomplice have drug history. Could that be the case here? Then an accomplice "tampering" with evidence? This will be an interesting investigation.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story ... nFOBHBjtCQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds pretty clearcut that the felon was in possession prior to the self defense incident.

If a felon is defending himself and in the middle of a gunfight retrieves a firearm dropped by someone else, and then uses that firearm in legitimate self defense, he won't have troubles over picking up the firearm in exigent circumstances.

However, if it is his own gun that he clearly possessed prior to the life threatening emergency, he could very easily be found clear of the wrongful death, justified as self defense, but still be guilty of illegal firearm possession.

That is a variation of what happened to Bernie Goetz, the "subway vigilante" who shot 4 assailants in self defense in NYC back in the '80's. He was found innocent in the shootings but guilty of illegal possession of a handgun.

Something in this story stinks. Drug deal gone bad? My first thought.
The majority of offenders become "repeat offenders" so I have no
problem with felons not being able to own guns. You give up that right
when you rob, you deal, you rape, you steal and get convicted.

Several sources with data but the rate % remains about the same.
http://nij.gov/topics/corrections/recid ... elcome.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's not enough info in this article to even begin making a judgement. I won't comment on the circumstances in this, however, a convicted felon in Texas may have a firearm at home for defense beginning five years after serving their full prison term or completion of parole and are no longer under the supervision of TDCJ. A felon may possess a black powder firearm made before 1899 or a replica as they are not considered firearms in Texas. Federal law prohibits a felon from possessing a firearms, but that requires a Federal charge.

Sorry, but a felon loses, or ought to lose, the civil rights that law abiding citizens enjoy. The right to vote, possess firearms and more.

Felonies used to carry the death penalty long ago. That may be a bit stiff, considering how many convictions are erroneous.

Many years ago, a lawyer of my acquaintance, whose son was on the Little League team with my kids, was elected President of the San Diego Bar Association, a pretty respectable honor. Within a few weeks of his taking office (at the Bar Dinner in December), he was arrested and charged with multiple counts of receiving stolen property. He was a "fence." He immediately resigned, and was eventually disbarred and sent to jail. Some years ago to my surprise, he is back practicing law!

I'm sorry but this drives me nuts. He is a convicted felon, for crying out loud and should not be allowed to resume practice like it never even happened. He has forfeited his "right" to that status. He can earn a living doing something else. No honors, no privileges, sack cloth and ashes for felons!

Don't want to lose those rights and privileges? Don't do any felonies! How hard is it? As astonishing as it may seem, quite a few people go through their entire lives without even a traffic ticket. They pay their taxes, don't cheat others, live quiet constructive lives, never coming to the attention to law enforcement or needing to.

It seems to me that it is a major deterrent to unlawful activity, to realize you will pass through a veil never to be lifted, no matter what.

JALLEN wrote:Sorry, but a felon loses, or ought to lose, the civil rights that law abiding citizens enjoy. The right to vote, possess firearms and more.

Felonies used to carry the death penalty long ago. That may be a bit stiff, considering how many convictions are erroneous.

Interesting opinion. You think that there are some number of erroneous convictions. I think that if you're young and poor, it's often in your best interest to plea to a crime. In both cases, assuming the result is a felony conviction, you lose the right to vote, possess firearms, and usually hold meaningful employment for the rest of your life. It's that last one that's a bit of a bear. And I'm with you - if you're a felon rightly convicted, perhaps you deserve what you got.. And will get for the rest of your life.

I just see too many DA's playing with charges... Some people - probably the vast minority, get a raw deal that sticks with them for life. I guess that's the cost of punishing the ones that did deserve it.


Yea, I don't have a solution.

cb1000rider wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Sorry, but a felon loses, or ought to lose, the civil rights that law abiding citizens enjoy. The right to vote, possess firearms and more.

Felonies used to carry the death penalty long ago. That may be a bit stiff, considering how many convictions are erroneous.

Interesting opinion. You think that there are some number of erroneous convictions. I think that if you're young and poor, it's often in your best interest to plea to a crime. In both cases, assuming the result is a felony conviction, you lose the right to vote, possess firearms, and usually hold meaningful employment for the rest of your life. It's that last one that's a bit of a bear. And I'm with you - if you're a felon rightly convicted, perhaps you deserve what you got.. And will get for the rest of your life.

I just see too many DA's playing with charges... Some people - probably the vast minority, get a raw deal that sticks with them for life. I guess that's the cost of punishing the ones that did deserve it.


Yea, I don't have a solution.

I favor the view of Churchill:

never give in, never give in, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

I cannot accept the idea of pleading guilty unless I am. Of course, I have never been guilty of a felony, so perhaps I lack experience. Make 'em prove it! A lot of times, the motivation for a plea bargain is their case is shot full of holes. If you didn't do it, don't say you did.

The cases I refer to were cases of mistaken identification usually. A fellow was released a year or so ago who had been in prison for ~20 years, until finally DNA proved it was another guy. He didn't plead guilty IIRC but was convicted by a jury, wrongly it turns out. It happens.

If my memory seves me ( I am getting up there in years__ I was a A leo in La. in the 60's 70's In Narc & Vice) and I remember reading back then an old penal code that said 3 convictions of Sales of drugs was the Death Penaalty, that was aparently from the 30's to the fifties .. Also look up the senate of La.s investigation before a committe of that muslim freak from chi tcago that was the forerunner of Malcom X and Farakahan..
You will not believe it

sorry I was responding to someones post about death penalty in this thread

JALLEN wrote:
Don't want to lose those rights and privileges? Don't do any felonies! How hard is it? As astonishing as it may seem, quite a few people go through their entire lives without even a traffic ticket. They pay their taxes, don't cheat others, live quiet constructive lives, never coming to the attention to law enforcement or needing to.

JAllen,

I agree with SO much of what you write on this forum on a daily basis, that I find it personally challenging when I disagree so strongly on an issue...

I ask that you take a look at this page: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo ... fault.aspx. Sure, some of it may be a bit sensationalized in order to promote his book sales, but wow, you've got to admit there is some basis to it.

I simply believe that if a DA has it in his/her mind to destroy a person, then there is a way to get it done. Don't commit a felony? If this guy's book is even partially valid, I challenge any of us to do that.

I welcome your opinion on this.

(And yes, I know it is a liberal source, but I try to read both sides of the aisle, whenever possible, as distasteful as liberalism is...)