Westfield man charged with illegally buying gun from ATF Agent

[namedpipes]

Right. Because that's what we're talking about.
...

That's actually "precisely" what he's talking about.

You're worried that someone that was "in" for the rape and murder of somebody's grandmother shouldn't be allowed to have a gun when they get out of jail. Mr. X is saying if the person is still dangerous they shouldn't be let out. If they are let out they aren't dangerous. If they aren't dangerous then why shouldn't they enjoy the same right to defend themselves that everyone else has.

I deliberately chose a horrific crime to illustrate the point. Now substitute Cousin Emacs' Aunt Martha, also a PP but for a non violent crime that nobody cared about.

You clearly do not understand the reason 2A exists.

 

[ScottS]

That's actually "precisely" what he's talking about.

You're worried that someone that was "in" for the rape and murder of somebody's grandmother shouldn't be allowed to have a gun when they get out of jail. Mr. X is saying if the person is still dangerous they shouldn't be let out. If they are let out they aren't dangerous. If they aren't dangerous then why shouldn't they enjoy the same right to defend themselves that everyone else has.

I deliberately chose a horrific crime to illustrate the point. Now substitute Cousin Emacs' Aunt Martha, also a PP but for a non violent crime that nobody cared about.

You clearly do not understand the reason 2A exists.

You make the mistake of "he doesn't agree with me. He obviously doesn't understand. If he did, he'd agree with me." This is right out of the lefty playbook, by the way. It is entirely possible for two people to look at the same fact pattern and reach different conclusions. As I said above, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I understand the issue plainly. I don't need it "re-explained." As I said, I have no problem with prohibiting a felon from owning a gun, just as I have no problem with a non-violent felon petitioning the court for restoration of 2A rights. If one has a problem with losing rights as a felon, I'd suggest avoiding felonious acts. I hear many people do just that each day.

ETA: "You clearly do not understand the reason 2A exists." I'm confident I will be able to comfortably live my life with you believing that.

 

[Garys]

You would be surprised how many people were fooled by the obviously better looking than other hookers police officers. We used to know when the stings were going to happen (easy, weekend nights in the Combat Zone) and sit there and watch the police make arrest after arrest. Guys would see the cops grab someone and then drive up to the same girl and get bagged. Would have made great videos only YouTube didn't exist back then.

As to entrapment, it's not because the knucklehead had already made previous attempts to make a purchase. Entrapment requires that the person arrested was goaded into committing a crime that he would not have been involved in of his own accord. At least that's the explanation I've read in the past.

How is this not entrapment???

I recall back in the late 80's, Boston was trying to crack down on the prostitution. You'd have to be a fool to get caught in that. All these hoochie-mammas wandering around in skanky-ass clothes bothering cars in the theater district. And this one lone woman, sitting on a bench doing nothing.

Hmmmm. Which one is the cop???

They still nabbed some morons with that one. LOL

 

[xgames969]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I have no problem with felon in possession prohibitions.

Absolutely disagree! Whats the entire point of serving time if you're not made Whole again when released? You need to learn the difference between RIGHTS and privileges.

 

[Nick Leduc]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I have no problem with felon in possession prohibitions.

An issue with this logic, is once everyone starts thinking like this, it is easier to take more rights away.
Think of how hard it is to convince someone they have lost a right. Not easy. So what they have done is convince people (like you) that a "lower" tier civilian (felon) shouldn't be given the same rights as you (firearms).
Step two of their plan, which is already in process is to just label more people felons. By creating stiffer punishments for smaller crimes, you have a higher % of the population labeled as felons. Read up on MA DUI convictions (post '94) for this issue.
The other side is using there "felon" labels to win over people like you while they strip rights away from people.
As mentioned above, get rid of the "felon" BS label and if someone is so dangerous to society, remove them from society. Don't make 2nd class citizens out of them.

 

[Dennis in MA]

You make the mistake of "he doesn't agree with me. He obviously doesn't understand. If he did, he'd agree with me." This is right out of the lefty playbook, by the way. It is entirely possible for two people to look at the same fact pattern and reach different conclusions. As I said above, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I understand the issue plainly. I don't need it "re-explained." As I said, I have no problem with prohibiting a felon from owning a gun, just as I have no problem with a non-violent felon petitioning the court for restoration of 2A rights. If one has a problem with losing rights as a felon, I'd suggest avoiding felonious acts. I hear many people do just that each day.

ETA: "You clearly do not understand the reason 2A exists." I'm confident I will be able to comfortably live my life with you believing that.

It wasn't designed to be up to the courts. That's the point. You're assuming that this restoration of rights is swift and just and free. It's none of them.

I fully understand I'm advocating for a "less safe" America. And I'm good with that. I'd rather know our freedoms are well guarded than have someone "take care of me."

 

[ScottS]

Absolutely disagree! Whats the entire point of serving time if you're not made Whole again when released? You need to learn the difference between RIGHTS and privileges.

Again, the wholesale disbelief that someone can look at the same facts and come up to a different conclusion. Unbelievable.

I have a good handle on the difference between RIGHTS and privileges. I guess I'll just have to hang my hat with that crazy, leftist Justice, Antonin Scalia:

"...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..."

But, hey, WTF does he know about the differences between RIGHTS and privileges. Poor, uneducated loser. If only he had spent more time here on NES...

 

[xgames969]

Again, the wholesale disbelief that someone can look at the same facts and come up to a different conclusion. Unbelievable.

I have a good handle on the difference between RIGHTS and privileges. I guess I'll just have to hang my hat with that crazy, leftist Justice, Antonin Scalia:

"...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..."

But, hey, WTF does he know about the differences between RIGHTS and privileges. Poor, uneducated loser. If only he had spent more time here on NES...

I don't think you deserve to be using "Live Free or Die" as your location.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Again, the wholesale disbelief that someone can look at the same facts and come up to a different conclusion. Unbelievable.

I have a good handle on the difference between RIGHTS and privileges. I guess I'll just have to hang my hat with that crazy, leftist Justice, Antonin Scalia:

"...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..."

But, hey, WTF does he know about the differences between RIGHTS and privileges. Poor, uneducated loser. If only he had spent more time here on NES...

LOL. I love the sarcasm. I mean that. I'm a sarcastic b-word most of the time. So I'm smirking.

I get it. BUT. . . . I think Atonin trusted the US Gubmint more than I have come to trust them. The shocking level that judges go to withhold rights is just . . . . shocking. Honestly, we'll never get full 2A in my lifetime. And your middle-ground of petitioning the courts is probably a good idea. But I know that this government bastardizes and ruins good laws. So I don't have faith that will work.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

"Suffice it to say that the Court has consistently adhered to the view, first enunciated in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), that a valid entrapment defense has two related elements: government inducement of the crime and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct."

Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988)

If (and it's a big if) the allegations of a previous attempt to make an illegal purchase can be proved, then unless a juror is "Mary Sunshine" from "Chicago," an entrapment defense is going to fail.

 

[namedpipes]

You make the mistake of "he doesn't agree with me. He obviously doesn't understand. If he did, he'd agree with me." This is right out of the lefty playbook, by the way. It is entirely possible for two people to look at the same fact pattern and reach different conclusions. As I said above, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I understand the issue plainly. I don't need it "re-explained." As I said, I have no problem with prohibiting a felon from owning a gun, just as I have no problem with a non-violent felon petitioning the court for restoration of 2A rights. If one has a problem with losing rights as a felon, I'd suggest avoiding felonious acts. I hear many people do just that each day.

ETA: "You clearly do not understand the reason 2A exists." I'm confident I will be able to comfortably live my life with you believing that.

See, that right there tells me you do NOT understand what X was saying and further you can't possibly know what 2A is about.

My grandkids will be relieved to hear you're comfortable in your ignorance, when I relate this around the fireside, many years from now.

 

[ScottS]

LOL. I love the sarcasm. I mean that. I'm a sarcastic b-word most of the time. So I'm smirking.

I get it. BUT. . . . I think Atonin trusted the US Gubmint more than I have come to trust them. The shocking level that judges go to withhold rights is just . . . . shocking. Honestly, we'll never get full 2A in my lifetime. And your middle-ground of petitioning the courts is probably a good idea. But I know that this government bastardizes and ruins good laws. So I don't have faith that will work.

I wonder about Scalia's trusting the government. You may be right about that, but he always seemed to be a hard-line originalist. Although, in this thread, he's suddenly become this anti-rights, leftist. What a hilarious take one of the most conservative Justices on the court in recent history. I also agree that we may never go full 2A in our lifetime. I think the best we can hope for with the current Court makeup is holding back the tide. And long life for Thomas, Alito, et al.

 

[ScottS]

See, that right there tells me you do NOT understand what X was saying and further you can't possibly know what 2A is about.

My grandkids will be relieved to hear you're comfortable in your ignorance, when I relate this around the fireside, many years from now.

Assuming you're actually literate enough to procreate, make sure you mention "And he was aligned with one of the most conservative Justices on the SCOTUS; the man who authored the majority opinion that the 2A conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms." You know, that guy. We're such anti-rights extremists, Antonin and me...

 

[namedpipes]

Assuming you're actually literate enough to procreate, ...

That word. Literate. I'm not sure you know what that means

 

[Nick Leduc]

And he was aligned with one of the most conservative Justices on the SCOTUS

Apples to Oranges. Being the most conservative person out of such a small group doesn't say much. Some of us believe that any give to the 2A is a loss. Unfortunately, you and Scalia think that giving up rights and then asking for them back as a win, and go around thinking that your opinion is higher than most because you side on the same side as a conservative Justice. And thats why our rights will continue to be chipped away.
Cant wait for the thread 10 years from now for your posts with the upbeat attitude when NH becomes the next MA and has magazine limits that everyone should be happy about having 10 round magazine capacity instead of unlimited. Because you are soooooo conservative.

 

[Emacs]

That word. Literate. I'm not sure you know what that means

It may be also that he's misunderstanding what "procreate" means. His sentence was a tough one to parse.

 

[teamRR]

Practically I agree with the prohibition of "felons". Have certainly met some dangerous people who made me uncomfortable enough without being armed (usually due to mental weaknesses/temper). Unless they actually kill someone though, folks like that do not and can not get locked up forever.

But when the state of MA makes a DUI, or soliciting a prostitute for that matter, a "felony" (with no relief possible) then I strongly disagree with the label and the prohibitions resulting - sure those are avoidable situations but it doesn’t make what the law does morally OK.

Even if someone had an assault conviction 20 years ago, which could just be the result of "winning" a mutual bar brawl, the idea that they remain dangerous is often a fallacy.

Really there should just be a time limit on such prohibitions at least.

 

[namedpipes]

...

Practically I agree with the prohibition of "felons". Have certainly met some dangerous people who made me uncomfortable enough without being armed (usually due to mental weaknesses/temper). Unless they actually kill someone though, folks like that do not and can not get locked up forever.

But when the state of MA makes a DUI, or soliciting a prostitute for that matter, a "felony" (with no relief possible) then I strongly disagree with the label and the prohibitions resulting - sure those are avoidable situations but it doesn’t make what the law does morally OK.

Even if someone had an assault conviction 20 years ago, which could just be the result of "winning" a mutual bar brawl, the idea that they remain dangerous is often a fallacy.

Really there should just be a time limit on such prohibitions at least.

Your point on the classification of crimes, yes. Paying some chica for a BJ in no way should invalidate your right to self defense, 10 years later.

Rather than impose a time limit with automatic restoration of rights after some time, let's make these judges work a little.

If the prosecution believes their target is dangerous and should not have access to weapons then that should be part of the sentencing. The judge should say, "defendant is remanded to the Mass Dept of Corrections for a term not to exceed 10 years and further, the defendant shall be barred from possessing firearms for a period of 10 years after their release (or forever, or whatever)". And if the weapons prohibition is NOT incorporated in the sentence then it does not apply to this person.

This is a longwinded way of saying:

No person shall be deprived of any civil right without due process.

 

[Nick Leduc]

Some of you read up on what the current list of felonies are in the United States. We need to stop being afraid of the work "felon".

 

[teamRR]

...


Your point on the classification of crimes, yes. Paying some chica for a BJ in no way should invalidate your right to self defense, 10 years later.

Rather than impose a time limit with automatic restoration of rights after some time, let's make these judges work a little.

If the prosecution believes their target is dangerous and should not have access to weapons then that should be part of the sentencing. The judge should say, "defendant is remanded to the Mass Dept of Corrections for a term not to exceed 10 years and further, the defendant shall be barred from possessing firearms for a period of 10 years after their release (or forever, or whatever)". And if the weapons prohibition is NOT incorporated in the sentence then it does not apply to this person.

This is a longwinded way of saying:

No person shall be deprived of any civil right without due process.

Ya that would make sense if it was part of sentencing. It's the blanket classifications (by the feds mind you, exploited by the states who have 0 consistency) that created these problems - as bad as MA is they gave out LTC's to people that were fed PP's at one point and it was the feds who brought it up as a problem.

 

[Spicolii]

ScottS is soft

 

[Marty McFly]

ScottS is soft

I dont have kids. Cuz I can't read. Ill take your word for it

 

[AHM]

If the prosecution believes their target is dangerous and should not have access to weapons then that should be part of the sentencing.

79 posts until someone approaches the concept of parole conditions.

 

[namedpipes]

79 posts until someone approaches the concept of parole conditions.

Parole is sort of the "anti-sentence".

Sentencing is where you find your punishment.

Parole is where you (if you're a non-violent penny ante offender) plead for a second chance, or if a violent psychopath, get early release due to overcrowding along with an apology from the state and a debit card for your expenses.

 

[AHM]

Parole is sort of the "anti-sentence".

Sentencing is where you find your punishment.

If your parole doesn't have strings attached,
they're doing it wrong.

 

[AHM]

If your parole doesn't have strings attached,
they're doing it wrong.

Should a felon who's done their time, and then reoffends,
be entitled to the same sentence that a first-timer would receive for the same crime?

If not, then they must not have had all their "rights" restored.

 

[MaverickNH]

And so you can see the futility of ATF going after straw purchases and true NICS denials. With over a quarter million *caught and jailed* prisoners in possession, the time and effort to snag even one is senseless. Unless ATF hired on thousands of field officers. That doesn’t sound so good to me... Going after a gunrunner might snag a “pipeline” but is still very laborious. That’s why they target gun shops that are the source of many “crime guns” even if the shops follow all local, state, federal laws. The gun shops have a brick and mortar address and the gunrunners lurk in shadows.

Fewer than half of violent and property crimes are reported (41% and 32%), with fewer than half that are reported “solved” (45% and 18%). Imagine how many bad guys with guns are out there - millions? Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved

Surveys show maybe 2/3 of on parole/probation say they have guns for protection. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2019.0054 I’m sure that’s true - even if a convict is “turning their life around”, they are more likely to be in an environment where people *are* out to get them, if not personally then statistically. If anyone *needs* a gun, it’s probably ex-convicts.

 

[Junior314]

If only the founders made their thoughts on this clear and wrote something like “shall not be infringed”.

Ohh well, let’s celebrate our taxes funding a useless Alphabet agency!

 

[Mesatchornug]

And so you can see the futility of ATF going after straw purchases and true NICS denials. With over a quarter million *caught and jailed* prisoners in possession, the time and effort to snag even one is senseless. Unless ATF hired on thousands of field officers. That doesn’t sound so good to me... Going after a gunrunner might snag a “pipeline” but is still very laborious. That’s why they target gun shops that are the source of many “crime guns” even if the shops follow all local, state, federal laws. The gun shops have a brick and mortar address and the gunrunners lurk in shadows.

Fewer than half of violent and property crimes are reported (41% and 32%), with fewer than half that are reported “solved” (45% and 18%). Imagine how many bad guys with guns are out there - millions? Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved

Surveys show maybe 2/3 of on parole/probation say they have guns for protection. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2019.0054 I’m sure that’s true - even if a convict is “turning their life around”, they are more likely to be in an environment where people *are* out to get them, if not personally then statistically. If anyone *needs* a gun, it’s probably ex-convicts.

View attachment 424028

Stop thinking with your freedom; I can't handle it.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Should a felon who's done their time, and then reoffends,
be entitled to the same sentence that a first-timer would receive for the same crime?

If not, then they must not have had all their "rights" restored.

An interesting point. But I think equality of jail sentence isn't one of those enumerated rights. I could be wrong. But an interesting twist all the same. (We already have disparity of jail sentences without even considering past offenses, FWIW.)