TX has 'concrete' sentences, with parole eligibilty after a majority of time is served. None of this "5 to 25 years" bullshit. If you're sentenced, it'll be, "20 years at a facility to be determined by the Texas Department of criminal Justice."
TX law also states you get your firearms rights back several years after your conviction date.
Eli
Interesting concept and or fact. So you are saying that a prison term is not over when parole is granted but when the actual/first sentence was given? If that is the definition of the law, I'm game. I guess it would go like this?Originally Posted by precision32
Person sentenced to 12 years for robbery
Person gets out on parole in 7 years
Person can't get a gun for 5 more years when the original sentence would be over?
I guess if that's the law, and when on parole you are still under "sentence" that would make sense.
Rehabilitated? Do you know anyone in prison, or anyone that has come out of prison? There is no "rehabilitation" in prison. Watch the show "Scared Straight". The Inmates run those asylums. "Corrections" is an oxymoron term. No one comes out of prison any better than when they went in, and certainly not "rehabilitated". Rehabilitation is something the Liberals would like you to think is happening behind the walls.
I may not have been clear. If sentenced to 20 years and the parole board says that you can leave at 15, then it ends there as far as I know. Never been there or done that! This may or may not depend on if your being rehabilitated, just that you have been a good boy. The psychologists that determine if someone is "rehabilitated" are only correct 8% of the time according to my psychology professor. Look at the number of repeat offenders.
However, if your not a good boy in the play pen, you still get out at the 20 year mark, good boy or not. You can be just as screwed up as when they sentenced you. They can't hold you forever.
In Florida we have the 10, 20, LIFE law. The 10-20-Life law was created to deter violent repeat felons. There is now mandatory sentencing for:
Producing a gun while committing certain felonies — 10 years
Firing a gun while committing certain felonies — 20 years
Shooting someone while committing certain felonies — 25 years to life
This still leaves the question as to where the Constitution says you loose your Rights. Florida has the same provision that the '68 GCA has, if you are under indictment for a felony crime you can not have a firearm. No court hearings, no conviction, just a charge. This has been determined by the Florida Supreme Court to be UN-Constitutional in Florida's law. It is still in the Statutes, just unenforceable. Any time this provision is challenged under the '68 GCA they drop the charges rather then have the law thrown out.
That's what "infringement" is all about. Take it from the bad guys first, they don't matter. After it's accepted for THEM, then they come after YOU. Look at the crap we face today, just for being a Citizen. According to FatAss Napolytono if you believe in the Constitution, individual freedom and self determination, you're a potential terrorist and should have no Right to have a gun.
KnickKnack is correct, rehabilitation is only in the minds of the bleeding heart liberals.
Last edited by precision32; 02-11-2013 at 01:22 AM.
The only way to stop criminals to plant them. Having been involved with Corrections for the last 16 years locking someone up does not work. They get out! Whether it is on Parole or the end of the sentence. Now if we armed the general population and the criminals than Darwinism would come into play. After all if someone is trying to rob you using a deadly weapon or deadly instrument you can use deadly physical force. I see any gun laws as an infringement on a citizens rights. Unfortunately criminals do not lose that citizenship when convicted, so yes they should be able to have guns also. Shit they have them anyway only the law abiding suckers are disarmed by gun laws. If we planted more criminals than the recidivism rates would decline and maybe someone who not a criminal would think twice about becoming one.
Mack
The last three posts are exactly why I see no reason for background checks.
1. The 2nd amendment says very clearly "shall not be infringed".
2. When someone gets out of prison there is no device in the Constitution that proclaims a former felon as a non citizen.
3. Since we cannot infringe on people currently obeying the law, former prisoners, there is no need for background checks even if it makes us feel good.
4. If we as a society feel strongly enough that former felons should not be able to have a firearm, the Constitution should be changed so that former felons are classified as "lesser citizens". Fat chance of that happening because the aclu will not even let a currently incarcerated felon be classified as such.
What about voting??
Convicted felons are not allowed to vote either.
Since that very effectively disqualifies a huge number of otherwise completely useless individuals that would vote themselves a free ride at everyone else's expense.... OH wait..that happened anyway. I guess we can leave that law alone.
Some people are like slinkies.
They aren't good for much, but they do bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
They are not allowed to own firearms or to vote. It's kinda' like the old adage "once a machine gun, always a machine gun". They're felons for life like it or not even if they've served their time. Once a felon, always a felon. There's no such thing as an ex-felon.
Jon
Help me to wrap my brain around this for a second...
Am I to understand that some of you believe convicted criminals should enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the American population?
And am I also to understand that some of the very same people with the aforementioned belief feel that it's ok to burn suspected criminals to death?
I'm just wondering, perhaps I'm way off base.
Naaaah.
Yes, but in a sarcastic way. If a violent felon is returned to mainstream society then he obviously is no longer a threat (that's the sarcastic part) and therefore should be afforded the same rights to self defense, defense of his family, and defense of his property. How could a judge sentence such a person to a limited sentence, and how can a parole board release that person unless they are ABSOLUTELY sure that they pose no threat to society? Basically, if the experts say "rehabilitated" then I have to go along with it. The new proposed gun owner liability insurance mandate being proposed in several states does give me a good idea however. Why don' we mandate judges, juries, defense attorneys, and members of parole boards to each carry $100,000,000.00 in liability insurance-per instance- just in case they accidentally release a dangerous person back into society?
When dealing with liberals, always attribute to malice what would ordinarily be attributed to incompetence.
"Of course it won't be easy; nothing worthwhile ever is. That is why I have always failed where others have succeeded."-Clouseau
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote