What would you do

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

Ah, okay. Good to know.

 

[kenny]

imported post

tkd2006 wrote:

kenny wrote:

tkd2006 wrote:

kenny wrote:

CommonwealthKid wrote:

Agreed. He needs to find a good attorney who can make a plea before a judge to have his record expunged.

One can not expunge a record in Virginia. You have it for life. The process is known as Restoration of Rights, then on to Circuit Court for the Judge to grant you the privilege of possessing and owning a firearm.

a circuit ct can not restore your right to possess firearms for a domestic violence conviction. Since its a fed charge it must be done by their standards which in Va there is only one way outside of Federal judge, or Presidential Pardon and thats Gov pardon with proof that the pardon restores firearms rights.

Can I assume you mean it is a federal law or regulation? Domestic violence charges are heard each and every dayin Virginia's General District and Circuit Court's on state charges. I can't imagine that the feds would prosecute a spouse or partner beater. I've never researched the issue before, to be truthful I don't hang with that type of crowd.

The domestic violence conviction can happen in any court but the federal prohibitor can not be removed by a circuit ct. Va doesnt have a domestic violence law restricting purchasing, or possessing a firearm but the feds do and thats how people get denied a purchase.

thanks for the explanation

 

[darthmord]

imported post

Repeater wrote:

wrightme wrote:

vt800c wrote:

18-20? Rights restored?

Interesting thread. These don't apply to me, but you have my couriosity up: What is 18-20? (I'm guessing age that you can possess, but not purchase)

How WOULD one get such rights restored?

Depends upon location and statute. As example for felony convictions, it is dependent upon the state where the charge was handed down.

Maybe John Conyers can help:

Forget amnesty, look where Democrats now stoop for votes!
Proposed law would grant Obama's party deluge of new supporters

Democrats in Congress are pushing for a new law that would allow nearly 4 million people currently banned from voting to cast their ballot, and most of those millions, studies show, will vote Democrat.

And where will these new voters come from?

From the ranks of convicted felons.

Last week, a House subcommittee heard testimony on H.R. 3335, the "Democracy Restoration Act." The bill seeks to override state laws, which vary in how they restrict when convicted felons released from prison can vote.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., states, "The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election."

Advocates of the bill trumpet it as a civil rights issue and a matter of freedom, while pointing out that a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic Americans have been disenfranchised by laws restricting felons from voting.

And if that happens, a new study co-authored by criminologist Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota indicates, the felon vote could give many close elections to the Democrats.

Stupid question time...

If a person has completed their sentence and has been released from custody after meeting all sentence requirements, shouldn't they have their rights restored since they themselves were restored to society (andd thus deemed to not be a danger)?

Notsaying I'm in full support of the idea but just following it logically through.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

Repeater wrote:

wrightme wrote:

vt800c wrote:

18-20? Rights restored?

Interesting thread. These don't apply to me, but you have my couriosity up: What is 18-20? (I'm guessing age that you can possess, but not purchase)

How WOULD one get such rights restored?

Depends upon location and statute. As example for felony convictions, it is dependent upon the state where the charge was handed down.

Maybe John Conyers can help:

Forget amnesty, look where Democrats now stoop for votes!
Proposed law would grant Obama's party deluge of new supporters

Democrats in Congress are pushing for a new law that would allow nearly 4 million people currently banned from voting to cast their ballot, and most of those millions, studies show, will vote Democrat.

And where will these new voters come from?

From the ranks of convicted felons.

Last week, a House subcommittee heard testimony on H.R. 3335, the "Democracy Restoration Act." The bill seeks to override state laws, which vary in how they restrict when convicted felons released from prison can vote.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., states, "The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election."

Advocates of the bill trumpet it as a civil rights issue and a matter of freedom, while pointing out that a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic Americans have been disenfranchised by laws restricting felons from voting.

And if that happens, a new study co-authored by criminologist Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota indicates, the felon vote could give many close elections to the Democrats.

Stupid question time...

If a person has completed their sentence and has been released from custody after meeting all sentence requirements, shouldn't they have their rights restored since they themselves were restored to society (andd thus deemed to not be a danger)?

Notsaying I'm in full support of the idea but just following it logically through.

That's a good question. I've never heard a good answer though.

I think it's because we're so programed with the Good/Bad thing we want to keep a hard line between the two.

The problem with that is that now that the GA is making everything a felony, good people are really only bad people who haven't been caught yet.

 

[2a4all]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

Stupid question time...

If a person has completed their sentence and has been released from custody after meeting all sentence requirements, shouldn't they have their rights restored since they themselves were restored to society (andd thus deemed to not be a danger)?

Notsaying I'm in full support of the idea but just following it logically through.

As there are two sentencing issues, one imposed by the court, the other imposed by law, we should examine them separately. When the court-imposed sentence is fulfilled, thefelon is released back into society, alledgedly reformed and eager to become productive. However, s/he is still stripped of (some) civil rights, including no voice in government (right to vote), but yet still subject to taxation. Wasn't that why the Revolution was fought? If (former) felons are denied the right to vote, shouldn't they also be tax exempt?

 

[TFred]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

The problem with that is that now that the GA is making everything a felony, good people are really only bad people who haven't been caught yet.

Except for when the state is broke, in which case they are told to not make any new felonies!

TFred

 

[Jay]

imported post

Not all domestic violence crimes are disqualifing. State of CT has no domestic violence crime statues for Threatening everything gets grouped together whether it is family, or stranger. The only way CT disquinshes if it is family or not is by the RAP sheet which has a little "Y" next to it stating it was a family related incident. The threatening statue in Connecticut does not have the same definition as the Federal Law version of Domestic Violence Threatening. However CT statue states that if you are convicted in Connecticut of threatening you can not possess a firearm. However if you move out of state you might be able to qualify if the state only follows federal law ie, Virginia, New Hampshire, Arizona etc. You see in Connecticut if a husband tells his wife he is going to strangle her and she presses charges. He can be arrested for threatening by CT state statue, however federal law states threatening must be by the "threatened use of a deadly weapon". Simply stating to a spouse that you are going to strangle her does not qualify for the federal definition of Threatening of domestic violence.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Jay wrote:

Not all domestic violence crimes are disqualifing. State of CT has no domestic violence crime statues for Threatening everything gets grouped together whether it is family, or stranger. The only way CT disquinshes if it is family or not is by the RAP sheet which has a little "Y" next to it stating it was a family related incident. The threatening statue in Connecticut does not have the same definition as the Federal Law version of Domestic Violence Threatening. However CT statue states that if you are convicted in Connecticut of threatening you can not possess a firearm. However if you move out of state you might be able to qualify if the state only follows federal law ie, Virginia, New Hampshire, Arizona etc. You see in Connecticut if a husband tells his wife he is going to strangle her and she presses charges. He can be arrested for threatening by CT state statue, however federal law states threatening must be by the "threatened use of a deadly weapon". Simply stating to a spouse that you are going to strangle her does not qualify for the federal definition of Threatening of domestic violence.

Hell, my wife threatens to strangle me at least twice a week.:uhoh:

 

[Jay]

imported post

peter nap wrote

Hell, my wife threatens to strangle me at least twice a week.:uhoh:

TOUCHE!!!....lol

 

[darthmord]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Hell, my wife threatens to strangle me at least twice a week.:uhoh:

Mine does too. But also says she can't because I look too sweet & innocent while asleep. She's even used the word 'Angelic'.

I keep telling her it's because I am as pure as wind-driven snow. :lol:

 

[Jay]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

I keep telling her it's because I am as pure as wind-driven snow. :lol:

I see this post is starting to get as deep as the snow around here too...:quirky