Some Wyoming lawmakers want to make certain that people accused of misdemeanor domestic violence realize that pleading guilty would cost them their federal gun rights. [More]Yeah, that would be kind of nice. You have to wonder what kind of total d*** would be against that.
Because as we keep seeing, ignorance of the edict du jour is no excuse...
[Via Mama Liberty]
11 comments:
On ignorance being no excuse, the original quote was "Ignorance of the law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man." Implying that ignorance cannot excuse major crimes and crimes that are wrong morally, but not extending to minor technical crimes. It's funny how the qualifier gets dropped.
I'm going to follow up on this story since I know someone who is a law intern in Laramie and works with the legislature frequently. It would be very interesting to get the inside dope on this.
If you remember, Wyoming tried to get gun rights restored to those with only misdemeanor DV charges, but the Feds blocked it since Wyoming was not willing to totally wipe the record of those charges. Never did understand why not, but probably has to do with the fear of appearing "soft" on "domestic violence."
I'll find out and report to David what I learn.
But, it's sooo much easier to prosecute someone who has absolutely no idea what he has done. And, unless one keeps a close eye on his state legislature's actions and on the actions of the federal government by following their respective Registers, they will slip a snake into the woodpile.
What's a "federal gun right"?
Good catch. I was so busy looking at the forest I missed that massive tree...
TJP,
I went back and re-read the Casper Star Tribune's story after seeing your comment and David's reply
My contribution? to the Casper Star Tribune's comments on the linked story:
The Constitution is not the Bible, but it is the bedrock to which all Federal and (after the 14th amendment was ratified) state laws must adhere. The Constitution consists of the original writing as well as the subsequent amendments. Like it or not, The 2nd amendment says, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The 14th amendment states (paraphrased) privileges and immunities, read rights, may be suspended only by due process. Once a person has been convicted and jailed even his 13th amendment rights (freedom from slavery) may be suspended. I’m not sure that the writers of the amendments meant that the person should have all his rights suspended for life. However, if the government is allowed to suspend ANY right for life, it will eventually suspend ALL rights for life.
You people who are so all fired ready to see the right to keep and bear arms suspended by government, for any reason, will have no room to bellyache when the State decides to suspend your right to free speech, to vote, to attend the church of your choice, to freely associate with others of like mind, etc… It’s just possible that the only things standing between you and your ever encroaching government are the folks who insist upon retaining and exercising their rights mentioned and hopefully protected by the 2nd amendment.
Let's look at a quote from the article:
""We don't have any problem with letting defendants facing losing their [gun] rights have access to an attorney, or being advised that by a judge."
The "[]" brackets were added by me. Reread the quote WITHOUT the bracketed word. Doesn't sound so warm and fuzzy anymore, does it? Nice!!!
David, I've carrying on with these folks over at the CST site for the better part of 3 weeks. Seems there's some kind of gun story/editorial every week. Kind of like Mel Gibson in "Braveheart"; I come to pick a fight.
Due to other pressing concerns over the weekend, I wasn't able to post on this story until today. What I saw for comments was about 13 against the ex post facto nature of the law in question (Laughtenberg) to 2 who thought that you should lose your rights for just looking cross ways at the law.
America abolished debtors' prison in the early 1800s, I believe. How can someone repay money they owe if they're in a jail cell?
"It's a deterrent," some said.
Yes, but what deters dishonest spouses or Significant Others with a grudge from ACCUSING you of something you didn't do, would never do, and you go to jail and lose your rights anyway unless you can prove you're innocent (an impossibility)?
The law is Silly Putty, lawyers (including legislators and judges) are demented children. Once they get that egg open, there's gonna be a mess.
Back up a few years: Prison overcrowding with victimless "offenders" means plea-bargaining becomes the favored method of speeding up trials and speeding up prisoner turnover. It goes so far as to offer a plea bargain and life to multiple murderers. Cause the need for a long, expensive trial, chance The Chair.
And that was while we still HAD habeas corpus.
You want fries and a shake with that conviction, Mr. DA? Pull up to the first window, please.
Hey, they have drive-thru FUNERAL PARLORS.
Defender,
Plea Bargaining is nothing more than court sponsored perjury. Poor idiots plead out to offenses they didn't commit because they have been coerced into the plea. Then, they stand in open court and swear that they are pleading guilty because they are guilty and have not been offered clemency or a promise of mercy. The defendant, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge all know the defendant is lying under oath.
Expediency trumps justice everytime.
Post a Comment