Bill Stevens' testimony at CT Gun Violance Task Force

[jusputtn]

[Early]

Good...except for his reference to "god given rights". There are no god given rights; rights come from man...outlined in constitutions, bills of rights, etc.

[Felonious_Monk]

If rights come from man, then rights may be taken away by man.

If rights are natural, or innate, then they may not be taken away by man. I don't believe in god, but rights do not come from man. Rights are a natural condition of sentient life, and no law written by man may divest them from you, nor may they be given up, forfeit, or taken away.

[jjb4900]

If rights come from man, then rights may be taken away by man.

If rights are natural, or innate, then they may not be taken away by man. I don't believe in god, but rights do not come from man. Rights are a natural condition of sentient life, and no law written by man may divest them from you, nor may they be given up, forfeit, or taken away.

The way I see it, rights are man made and can be taken away by man, convicted felons will lose their right to keep and bear arms and if I'm not mistaken, the right to vote.......get sentenced to prison and you lost your right to be free and I'm sure there's a slew of other rights some will be deprived of for other types of illegal behavior. If rights weren't man made, they wouldn't have to be written on paper..........that's just the way I see it.

[jjb4900]

The rights to the things that people consider God given, didn't even exist when God created man.......if you believe in that kind of stuff.

[Felonious_Monk]

You cannot lose a right. It may only be infringed by a law written by man. You are born with them, and you will die with them.

[jjb4900]

You cannot lose a right. It may only be infringed by a law written by man. You are born with them, and you will die with them.

True....but,would you not agree that we were only born with them because man decided they would define what our rights are and put them on paper? They certainly weren't given to us by a God who supposedly existed before guns, voting, the right to privacy..etc even existed.

[josephmrtn]

God gave us the right to defend ourselves and our familys. PERIOD

[jjb4900]

and whether the term lost or infringed upon is used, the bottom line is you no longer have certain rights because of certain actions.........or should I say you still have them, you just can't excercise them.

[jjb4900]

God gave us the right to defend ourselves and our familys. PERIOD

interesting, but didn't God say "Thou shall not kill"?....God (allegedly) created man in the naked form, I'm gonna go drop my kids off at school tomorrow naked and walk them inside.....I'll let you know how that works out.

[Felonious_Monk]

Actually, it's thou shalt not murder. It's more than a technicality.

In response to your earlier post, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. The right to self defense is as natural as the right to procreate. It is a preprogrammed biological behavior. The idea that a person, regardless of his background or previous transgressions should not be permitted the use of what the SCOTUS has ruled "the most effective tool for self defense" is fallacious at best. If a man is free, then he has every right to defend himself, his family and his property. To believe that barring him the use of a gun is just is to believe that it is the object which is the problem. Once a man has served his sentence, has "paid his debt to society" I cannot condone the creation of a second class citizen with less than the full rights of a man.

The right to self defense predates any document wherein such right is enumerated. The Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes that certain rights exist, and prohibits government from infringing upon those rights. Yet they do so anyway. I have said it before, and I will say it again. If a man is too dangerous to be trusted with the full rights of citizenship, why is he out of prison? If he is out of prison, why should he be denied his full rights as a human being? There are some people who should never see the light of day again lest it be filtered through razor-wire and bars. The scumbag in Webster, NY was such a person.

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." So spoke the father of the Declaration of Independence. The only felon a law barring felons from owning firearms affects is the felon whom is inclined to follow the law, meaning he is by definition law abiding. The felon whom wishes to return to his lawless ways already has a gun. No law will stop him from acquiring one.

I'll give you an example. My Brother in Law. In his 20s he was stupid, and accumulated 3 DWIs, and pled guilty to a felony. Fastforward to today. He is 49 years old. He owns a small home in Quogue. He owns a small but relatively successful roofing business. He is married, but has no children. He is prohibited by law from owning a firearm to use in the defense of his home, his family, his life and his property. However, no law written by men can overcome the natural law. Say, as an example, that there were a string of home invasions on his block, one of which resulted in the homeowner being murdered. If he came to me and asked me for a gun, I would provide him one without batting an eyelash. He has as much right to defend his life, liberty and property as anyone else.

I do not recognize title 18 section 922 of the United States code as just law. I have never been called to serve on a jury to prosecute a felon in possession of a firearm. Were I ever to be, I would never vote to convict. Never.

[Elmo]

Atheist are SOL. They have no rights.

[Felonious_Monk]

I lol'd

[jjb4900]

I see a huge difference between a guy who has a felony dwi conviction who can't own a firearm and obtains and uses one to defend himself and family, and the career criminal who uses one to commit another crime......the second one should absolutely get a weapons possession conviction.......I did a internet search on the 10 commandments and it gave three versions, I went with the King James version which said kill, the other two say murder.......to be quite honest I have no idea which one most follow

[Felonious_Monk]

I see a huge difference between a guy who has a felony dwi conviction who can't own a firearm and obtains and uses one to defend himself and family, and the career criminal who uses one to commit another crime......the second one should absolutely get a weapons possession conviction.......I did a internet search on the 10 commandments and it gave three versions, I went with the King James version which said kill, the other two say murder.......to be quite honest I have no idea which one most follow

As I've mentioned, I'm an agnostic. However, being of Puerto Rican extraction, I was raised Catholic. I've always understood it to be "Thou shalt not murder." Which I'm certain we can both agree is different than a blanket prohibition on killing.

As for the career criminal who used his firearm to commit a crime, I'd gladly convict him on any actual crime he committed. If he is sitting in front of the jury solely for having a firearm, I will not convict. If he's there because he used said firearm to do harm, and the State proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, he's going to prison.

[josephmrtn]

interesting, but didn't God say "Thou shall not kill"?....God created man in the naked form, I'm gonna go drop my kids off at school tomorrow naked and walk them inside.....I'll let you know how that works out.

actually if you would read Genesis you would find that after man sinned God made him clothes from animal skins to wear, to replace the leaves they were wearing...

Actually, it's thou shalt not murder. It's more than a technicality.

In response to your earlier post, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. The right to self defense is as natural as the right to procreate. It is a preprogrammed biological behavior. The idea that a person, regardless of his background or previous transgressions should not be permitted the use of what the SCOTUS has ruled "the most effective tool for self defense" is fallacious at best. If a man is free, then he has every right to defend himself, his family and his property. To believe that barring him the use of a gun is just is to believe that it is the object which is the problem. Once a man has served his sentence, has "paid his debt to society" I cannot condone the creation of a second class citizen with less than the full rights of a man.

The right to self defense predates any document wherein such right is enumerated. The Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes that certain rights exist, and prohibits government from infringing upon those rights. Yet they do so anyway. I have said it before, and I will say it again. If a man is too dangerous to be trusted with the full rights of citizenship, why is he out of prison? If he is out of prison, why should he be denied his full rights as a human being? There are some people who should never see the light of day again lest it be filtered through razor-wire and bars. The scumbag in Webster, NY was such a person.

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." So spoke the father of the Declaration of Independence. The only felon a law barring felons from owning firearms affects is the felon whom is inclined to follow the law, meaning he is by definition law abiding. The felon whom wishes to return to his lawless ways already has a gun. No law will stop him from acquiring one.

I'll give you an example. My Brother in Law. In his 20s he was stupid, and accumulated 3 DWIs, and pled guilty to a felony. Fastforward to today. He is 49 years old. He owns a small home in Quogue. He owns a small but relatively successful roofing business. He is married, but has no children. He is prohibited by law from owning a firearm to use in the defense of his home, his family, his life and his property. However, no law written by men can overcome the natural law. Say, as an example, that there were a string of home invasions on his block, one of which resulted in the homeowner being murdered. If he came to me and asked me for a gun, I would provide him one without batting an eyelash. He has as much right to defend his life, liberty and property as anyone else.

I do not recognize title 18 section 922 of the United States code as just law. I have never been called to serve on a jury to prosecute a felon in possession of a firearm. Were I ever to be, I would never vote to convict. Never.

I support your view!!!

Quote: I see a huge difference between a guy who has a felony dwi conviction who can't own a firearm and obtains and uses one to defend himself and family, and the career criminal who uses one to commit another crime......the second one should absolutely get a weapons possession conviction.......I did a internet search on the 10 commandments and it gave three versions, I went with the King James version which said kill, the other two say murder.......to be quite honest I have no idea which one most follow :Quote

yes there is quite a diff there!!!

[jjb4900]

It's amazing that there's a process for murderers to sit in front of a parole board and plea their case and get set out back into society to kill again........which has happened more than once, but there's no process for someone convicted of basically a non-violent crime to petition for the legal right to possess a firearm.

[Felonious_Monk]

It's amazing that there's a process for murderers to sit in front of a parole board and plea their case and get set out back into society to kill again........which has happened more than once, but there's no process for someone convicted of basically a non-violent crime to petition for the legal right to possess a firearm.

There is a process, several in fact. There's pardon, which is really only ever granted to the wealthy -- Richard "Slick Rick" Walters comes to mind. There are also the certificates of good conduct and relief from civil disabilities. My BiL had to get a CRD to get his professional license. The CRD can restore the right to own firearms, but it rarely does. It's a shame really. How many of us have had youthful indiscretions where if we were caught, we might be in the same position? I'd say quite a few. I think it's fair to say that a guy who has genuinely reformed and is a productive citizen, with only the occasional traffic ticket being the extent of his legal trouble for 2+ decades doesn't really present a threat.

I honestly have no issue with felons owning firearms. If they commit a crime with them, lock them up. This will start getting into a discussion of the failure of the criminal justice system though, and the failure that is the war on drugs, which we neither have time for, nor is it on topic for this discussion.

[jjb4900]

There is a process, several in fact. There's pardon, which is really only ever granted to the wealthy -- Richard "Slick Rick" Walters comes to mind. There are also the certificates of good conduct and relief from civil disabilities. My BiL had to get a CRD to get his professional license. The CRD can restore the right to own firearms, but it rarely does. It's a shame really. How many of us have had youthful indiscretions where if we were caught, we might be in the same position? I'd say quite a few. I think it's fair to say that a guy who has genuinely reformed and is a productive citizen, with only the occasional traffic ticket being the extent of his legal trouble for 2+ decades doesn't really present a threat.

I honestly have no issue with felons owning firearms. If they commit a crime with them, lock them up. This will start getting into a discussion of the failure of the criminal justice system though, and the failure that is the war on drugs, which we neither have time for, nor is it on topic for this discussion.

good thing you threw the last paragraph in, I was about to go there.

Edited February 7, 2013 by jjb4900

[shawnhu]

I see a huge difference between a guy who has a felony dwi conviction who can't own a firearm and obtains and uses one to defend himself and family, and the career criminal who uses one to commit another crime......the second one should absolutely get a weapons possession conviction.......I did a internet search on the 10 commandments and it gave three versions, I went with the King James version which said kill, the other two say murder.......to be quite honest I have no idea which one most follow

Doesn't matter how you see it, the law is written in such a way that it does not distinguish, a felon is a felon. There is something seriously wrong with this country's laws and correctional methodologies.

[jjb4900]

Doesn't matter how you see it, the law is written in such a way that it does not distinguish, a felon is a felon. There is something seriously wrong with this country's laws and correctional methodologies.

right, as far as following the laws and judicial system my opinion or anyone else's doesn't matter, or at least it's not supposed to come into play if you sit on a jury.

[josephmrtn]

It's amazing that there's a process for murderers to sit in front of a parole board and plea their case and get set out back into society to kill again........which has happened more than once, but there's no process for someone convicted of basically a non-violent crime to petition for the legal right to possess a firearm.

its our corrupt justice system.....

Doesn't matter how you see it, the law is written in such a way that it does not distinguish, a felon is a felon. There is something seriously wrong with this country's laws and correctional methodologies.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i think it is STUPID that i could go into a school/shopping mall ect shoot some people and then plead mentaly unstable and get put on parole!!!!! murderers should be killed (hanging or firing squad prefered) NO EXCEPTIONS!!! EVER... if you murder someone you have just given up you right to live in my mind...

[Felonious_Monk]

right, as far as following the laws and judicial system my opinion or anyone else's doesn't matter, or at least it's not supposed to come into play if you sit on a jury.

Jury nullification. Jurors are the final arbiters of fact and the law. The concept of jury nullification is an ancient one, and was practiced in the United States historically until the early to mid 20th century. If jurors feel that a law is unjust, or that a prosecution should not have been brought, it is their duty to acquit.

Let's return to my example from before. If I am seated on a jury tasked with the prosecution of a man with a prior felony conviction found in possession of a firearm, but has harmed no one with said firearm, I can guarantee him a hung jury, and I will work to convince other jurors to acquit. Conversely, if I am seated on a jury tasked with prosecuting a person with a prior conviction who has used a firearm to do harm, and the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not hesitate to convict. I see no harm in the mere possession of an object. As the arbiter of fact and the law, it is my duty to insure a person undeserving of prison is not sentenced for a crime.