should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[j706]

Nah. We were regulars, and I never saw the guy before in my life. The bouncer was there, and pulled me over to the wall after the fight. Really it just seemed like he was drunk, pissed about something, and looking for a fight. I don't think I "took it too far". He swung, missed. I hit him 2 or 3 times, and stepped back. He was still standing, so I hit him a couple more times, then he fell down. I did not hit him while he was down, because IMHO, once the guy hits the floor, he's no longer a threat.



lol. I know I shouldn't be laughing, but that tickled me.

Well that is a shame then. That charge would never fly in the county I work in. Guarantee it. Maybe battery with bodily injury (Bodily injury is Pain)


IC 35-42-2
Chapter 2. Battery and Related Offenses
IC 35-42-2-1
Battery
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(A) it results in bodily injury to any other person;
(B) it is committed against a law enforcement officer or against a person summoned and directed by the officer while the officer is engaged in the execution of the officer's official duty;
(C) it is committed against an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71) while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(D) it is committed against a firefighter (as defined in IC 9-18-34-1) while the firefighter is engaged in the execution of the firefighter's official duty;
(E) it is committed against a community policing volunteer:
(i) while the volunteer is performing the duties described in IC 35-41-1-4.7; or
(ii) because the person is a community policing volunteer; or
(F) it is committed against the state chemist or the state chemist's agent while the state chemist or the state chemist's agent is performing a duty under IC 15-16-5;
(2) a Class D felony if it results in bodily injury to:
(A) a law enforcement officer or a person summoned and directed by a law enforcement officer while the officer is engaged in the execution of the officer's official duty;
(B) a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(C) a person of any age who has a mental or physical disability and is committed by a person having the care of the person with a mental or physical disability, whether the care is assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation;
(D) the other person and the person who commits the battery was previously convicted of a battery in which the victim was the other person;
(E) an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2);
(F) an employee of the department of correction while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(G) an employee of a school corporation while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(H) a correctional professional while the correctional professional is engaged in the execution of the correctional
professional's official duty;
(I) a person who is a health care provider (as defined in IC 16-18-2-163) while the health care provider is engaged in the execution of the health care provider's official duty;
(J) an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71) while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(K) a firefighter (as defined in IC 9-18-34-1) while the firefighter is engaged in the execution of the firefighter's official duty;
(L) a community policing volunteer:
(i) while the volunteer is performing the duties described in IC 35-41-1-4.7; or
(ii) because the person is a community policing volunteer;
(M) a family or household member (as defined in IC 35-41-1-10.6) if the person who committed the offense:
(i) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(ii) committed the offense in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense; or
(N) a department of child services employee while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(3) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any other person or if it is committed by means of a deadly weapon;
(4) a Class B felony if it results in serious bodily injury to a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(5) a Class A felony if it results in the death of a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(6) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2);
(7) a Class B felony if it results in the death of an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2); and
(8) a Class C felony if it results in bodily injury to a pregnant woman and the person knew the woman was pregnant.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "law enforcement officer" includes an alcoholic beverage enforcement officer; and
(2) "correctional professional" means a:
(A) probation officer;
(B) parole officer;
(C) community corrections worker; or
(D) home detention officer.

 

[NYFelon]

My lawyer tried to get the DA to go for 120.00 Assault III

S 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

The DA would have none of it. The offer of the "county bullet" apparently ADA jargon for I'll send this guy to county for a year to pad my felony conviction count when I run for office, was contingent upon my acceptance of a conviction for Assault II


S 120.05 Assault in the second degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly
weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
3. With intent to prevent a peace officer, police officer, a fireman,
including a fireman acting as a paramedic or emergency medical
technician administering first aid in the course of performance of duty
as such fireman, an emergency medical service paramedic or emergency
medical service technician, or medical or related personnel in a
hospital emergency department, from performing a lawful duty, by means
including releasing or failing to control an animal under circumstances
evincing the actor`s intent that the animal obstruct the lawful activity
of such peace officer, police officer, fireman, paramedic or technician,
he causes physical injury to such peace officer, police officer,
fireman, paramedic, technician or medical or related personnel in a
hospital emergency department; or
4. He recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person by
means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
5. For a purpose other than lawful medical or therapeutic treatment,
he intentionally causes stupor, unconsciousness or other physical
impairment or injury to another person by administering to him, without
his consent, a drug, substance or preparation capable of producing the
same; or
6. In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted
commission of a felony, other than a felony defined in article one
hundred thirty which requires corroboration for conviction, or of
immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant if there be any,
causes physical injury to a person other than one of the participants;
or
7. Having been charged with or convicted of a crime and while confined
in a correctional facility, as defined in subdivision three of section
forty of the correction law, pursuant to such charge or conviction, with
intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury
to such person or to a third person; or
8. Being eighteen years old or more and with intent to cause physical
injury to a person less than eleven years old, the defendant recklessly
causes serious physical injury to such person; or
9. Being eighteen years old or more and with intent to cause physical
injury to a person less than seven years old, the defendant causes such
injury to such person; or
10. Acting at a place the person knows, or reasonably should know, is
on school grounds and with intent to cause physical injury, he or she:
(a) causes such injury to an employee of a school or public school
district; or
(b) not being a student of such school or public school district,
causes physical injury to another, and such other person is a student of
such school who is attending or present for educational purposes. For
purposes of this subdivision the term "school grounds" shall have the
meaning set forth in subdivision fourteen of section 220.00 of this
chapter.
11. With intent to cause physical injury to a train operator, ticket
inspector, conductor or bus operator employed by any transit agency,
authority or company, public or private, whose operation is authorized
by New York state or any of its political subdivisions, he or she causes
physical injury to such train operator, ticket inspector, conductor or
bus operator while such employee is performing an assigned duty on, or
directly related to, the operation of a train or bus.
Assault in the second degree is a class D felony.

I guess the popped snot locker and the tooth were the "serious physical harm".
I hate this effing state so much there are no words.

 

[Wabatuckian]

"...inalienable rights..."

"...shall not be infringed..."

If the good guys and the bad guys both carry guns, and the good guys outnumber the bad guys, then there will be very few bad guys.

Prisons will no longer be overpopulated, and my paycheck won't go to support scum.

Josh

 

[chefnick7]

First off let me apologize for some of these other posts , some people are commenting without even reading your whole post.

As much as I don't want felons to have firearms of any kind a lot of things that are felonies should not be considered so. Also a lot of people who commit the real felonies get out of jail too soon. You've paid your debt but it wasn't owed. Was the officer charged in any way ? If he was under the influence of alcohol I would like to know more about the cover up that took place to hide the real facts. Good luck to you.

 

[Wabatuckian]

When did having a felony prevent one from owning firearms, anyway? When did this become law?

A "common sense" gun control law, maybe one of the first?

Eh?

 

[NYFelon]

When did having a felony prevent one from owning firearms, anyway? When did this become law?

A "common sense" gun control law, maybe one of the first?

Eh?

18 USC sec 922 (a - g) if I recall properly. EDIT: Upon a little further research it was signed into law by Johnson on October 22, 1968. [Pub.L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213] and codified into USC.

Part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Just like the NFA (1934) it was "to stop criminals from getting their hands on the means to commit more crimes". NFA in response to the gangsters of the 20s and 30s. The GCA in response to the inner city crime associated with the rapid spread of drugs.

So, if we want less people to have guns, all we have to do is elevate their charge to a felony. And since felon is a stigma, we'll get all the sheep to follow whatever we say, because hell, they don't want to be felons. Then we can pass whatever laws we want, and enforce them all by making EVERYTHING a felony.

doesn't sound too far from where we are now, eh?

 

[Bill of Rights]

NYF, does NY not have a law on the books about self-defense being a defense against prosecution? I suppose I'd be unsurprised if they do not.

To me, this would seem to be a "no brainer" (which would make it perfect for the idiots you describe who seem to have no brains.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NYFelon]

Well, we're a duty to retreat state. I'm not really certain if there is a "self-defense" statute or clause here.

 

[E'villeGunner]

Laws should remain the same in regards to felons.

 

[NYFelon]

First off let me apologize for some of these other posts , some people are commenting without even reading your whole post.

As much as I don't want felons to have firearms of any kind a lot of things that are felonies should not be considered so. Also a lot of people who commit the real felonies get out of jail too soon. You've paid your debt but it wasn't owed. Was the officer charged in any way ? If he was under the influence of alcohol I would like to know more about the cover up that took place to hide the real facts. Good luck to you.

So far as I know, he was never charged.

With regards to your apology, thanks, but folks are going to say as they will when given the opportunity. That's what a forum's for.

Have a good'n.

 

[IndianaGTI]

I knowingly battered a police officer? I defended myself from a belligerent drunk who took a swing at me. So because he's a police officer by occupation, that precludes him from accepting the circumstances of his actions when his judgement is clouded by what was obviously too many drinks? That's an interesting perspective.



Thank you. Life is what it is. Nothing I can do about it now, except possibly be active politically, which I am.

To make a factual basis for battery, you can't allege it was in self defense since that is a defense. Apparently, you got up in a court of law and admitted battering the police officer. If you didn't do it, why did you plead guilty??? Were the judge and the prosecutor drunk also? Was their judgment clouded? What about the jury pool? Was their judgment clouded? We you the only one thinking clearly by admitting to a crime you now say you didn't commit?

 

[Bill of Rights]

To make a factual basis for battery, you can't allege it was in self defense since that is a defense. Apparently, you got up in a court of law and admitted battering the police officer. If you didn't do it, why did you plead guilty??? Were the judge and the prosecutor drunk also? Was their judgment clouded? What about the jury pool? Was their judgment clouded? We you the only one thinking clearly by admitting to a crime you now say you didn't commit?

From what he's said elsewhere in the thread, Suffolk Co., NY is possessed of "kangaroo courts", meaning that an accusation there is the equivalent of guilt in the eyes of the court. Given two choices, one year on a plea vs. up to 25 years when he was found guilty, he chose the lesser. I asked him about the self-defense thing and apparently, they have a duty to retreat under NY law (or did in whatever year this happened (1997, IIRC))

I've also received a PM that in re: a gentleman named John White. From the PM I got:

He was an attorney from the affluent town of Miller Place on Long Island. He also happened to be black.

Long and short of it, he had an illegal handgun in his home, and a legal shotgun. His son returned hom from a party, where all accounts were that a white girl had been "showing him some affection." A gang of 4 or 5 youths, all white, followed him home, and began assaulting the house. They shouted threats against the boy's life, and one boy smashed a window, and began climbing through it with a bat, telling the boy he was going to kill him. The father, after numerous warnings, shot and killed the home invader. Now, I'm not pardoning his illegal possession of the firearm. Whether or not the law is right, it's still the law. However, he was convicted not only of possession of a weapon, but of Manslaughter II, for killing a person actively threatening his son's life, and had forcibly entered his home. His sentence was later commuted NOT PARDONED by our former governor. So now, for definding his home and his son's life, he can no longer practice his business, as felony conviction means automatic disbarment, he is also now forever a felon.

While the actions of the court in NYF's case as he described them and of the court as the person who PMd me described them in re: Mr. White are not only blatantly wrong and patently unConstitutional, we are left with the question of what JQ Public is to do when he cannot afford an attorney and the court railroads him, not to mention refuses him post-conviction relief. It is easy to say that he should appeal, but courts of appeals still require representation.

As for me, I'm very glad that NYF is here and giving us his story. Even if it is completely devoid of verifiable fact or even actual fact (and I have no reason to believe that it is or is not), it provides us with a case to consider...Would any of us have dealt with the drunken, off-duty police officer or the home invaders differently?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[PatriotPride]

From what he's said elsewhere in the thread, Suffolk Co., NY is possessed of "kangaroo courts", meaning that an accusation there is the equivalent of guilt in the eyes of the court. Given two choices, one year on a plea vs. up to 25 years when he was found guilty, he chose the lesser. I asked him about the self-defense thing and apparently, they have a duty to retreat under NY law (or did in whatever year this happened (1997, IIRC))

I've also received a PM that in re: a gentleman named John White. From the PM I got:

While the actions of the court in NYF's case as he described them and of the court as the person who PMd me described them in re: Mr. White are not only blatantly wrong and patently unConstitutional, we are left with the question of what JQ Public is to do when he cannot afford an attorney and the court railroads him, not to mention refuses him post-conviction relief. It is easy to say that he should appeal, but courts of appeals still require representation.

As for me, I'm very glad that NYF is here and giving us his story. Even if it is completely devoid of verifiable fact or even actual fact (and I have no reason to believe that it is or is not), it provides us with a case to consider...Would any of us have dealt with the drunken, off-duty police officer or the home invaders differently?

Blessings,
Bill

Excellent post.

The off-duty officer should count himself lucky that he was not shot.

 

[revsaxon]

Excellent post.

The off-duty officer should count himself lucky that he was not shot.

In new york? Not likely.

 

[NYFelon]

To make a factual basis for battery, you can't allege it was in self defense since that is a defense. Apparently, you got up in a court of law and admitted battering the police officer. If you didn't do it, why did you plead guilty??? Were the judge and the prosecutor drunk also? Was their judgment clouded? What about the jury pool? Was their judgment clouded? We you the only one thinking clearly by admitting to a crime you now say you didn't commit?

I've stated here before. I was looking at 1 year or 5 - 25. For having a fight. Think about that for a second. For just one moment, slow your "holier-than-thou" roll, and think....You're 22, you've never really been in trouble. All of a sudden you find yourself incarcerated, and facing years and years in prison. You hire an attorney, the best you can afford, and he advises you to take a plea deal. It's one year in prison, or trial, where you'll almost assuredly be found guilty.

The Suffolk County District Attorney's is New York State's busiest prosecutor's office in the the State of New York outside of the City of New York. The office carries a felony conviction rate of more than 97%.

So, what would you do? Not have swung back at the guy that was drunk and belligerent? Not have accepted a plea deal when you were scared out of your wits, and under your attorneys advisement, and go to trial (which you can't really afford in any case), where there is a 3% chance you'll be acquitted? Where 97 times out of 100 you will be found guilty and sent to prison for possibly as many years as you've already been alive?

Come back and talk to me when you have more than "well, you pled guilty right?" as an argument. It's clear you're one of the ones with an absolutist opinion, and your mind is made up. Cool. This is America and that is your right. But if you can't see injustice here, you're a cop, a prosecutor, or you refuse to believe it could happen in "your America".

 

[revsaxon]

This is America and that is your right. But if you can't see injustice here, you're a cop, a prosecutor, or you refuse to believe it could happen in "your America".

Been reading your story since you came here, and I have to say thanks for sharing it with us. At the start of this thread I had the opinion of "Felons == Bad == No Weapons," but after that, and several other stories I now see just how crazy wrong that opinion was. While I don't think it should be guns for all the day you leave prison, I think its pretty clear that in a case like yours your no danger to society, and that society itself is a far greater danger to you.

 

[NYFelon]

The way I see it, The only way I can do anything about my situation is to raise the public's awareness of the fact that these things do happen. It just so happens where I live, they happen a lot. I'll have to reconfirm it, but I recall reading somewhere that NY has more felonies on the books than any other state. If anything, perhaps enough lawful citizens can create a movement to force the federal government to either rescind 18 USC 922, or to allow the ATF to fund applications to restore rights.

That would be long off in the future, and I understand that. It's hard to fight for someone else's rights when you're busy fighting for your own.

 

[PatriotPride]

In new york? Not likely.

That's a shame. Seems to me that it'd be an attitude adjuster. I know that in Indiana, if I start carrying on like a dumbass and attack someone, I have a good chance of getting shot, and rightly so. Seems to me that it would keep more police officers honest if that was more of a possibility in NY.

 

[finity]

First off, I want to thank NYFelon for sharing his story. It is a fine example of why there should not be this ridiculous flat out ban on felons owning the best means to defend themselves.

For those who can't see that it is an unnecessary infringement on a free person's Rights, well,...

To deny a felon their Rights based on something they might do in the future is no different than banning guns from non-felons because they MIGHT use it in a crime at some point in the future. I hear the Brady bunch is always looking for a few people (especially gun-owners) to support their cause...

If someone has been deemed to have paid his debt to society (right or wrong) then they should have all Rights restored.

I'm sure there are also many "pro-life" people here. I'm sure many of them are saying that felons shouldn't be given their Rights back. I'll ask you this...is your "pro-life" stance for everyone or just fetus's? Isn't every innocent life equally worth being protected? If a felon is attacked & their life threatened (through no fault of their own - IOW, they are an "innocent victim") shouldn't they have the ability to defend their life with, as the SCOTUS said, the best tool for the job? Do you think that EVERY felon's life should be forfeit? Even for the simplest, most victimless "crimes"?

As for when someone said that certain crimes are "planned", I don't NECESSARILY agree.

You mentioned murder & rape.

Not all "murders" or "rapes" are planned. Most probably are, but not ALL.

Do you think that in NYFelons case, if the cop he got into a fight with had died that he wouldn't have been tried for "murder" (& had a 97% chance of conviction)? It would have been fairly easy to have happen. All it would have taken was for the drunk cop to fall & hit his head wrong. Did NYF plan to "murder" him but was just not successful?

Do you think that the 17 year old (honor student - I think) who engaged in consensual sex with a 15 year old PLANNED on "raping" her. Now the 17 year old is a convicted felon & a sex-offender for the rest of his life. How many of us would have been in the same position but for the luck that we grew up in a different time or place or just simply weren't caught?

We need to see past the emotion (that I thought you conservatives were supposedly "known" for doing ) & look at the (il)logic of that restriction.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

NO! Consequences...