A Lefty Mob Trespassed on Their Property

[chipbennett]

Seperate issue.

Think of the plea bargain as just another sort of contract. Remember the judge does *not* have to accept your guilty plea. I've personally seen it happen when the judge thought the defendent didn't understand fully or the plea was just too stupid/unfair for one party or the other.

Fill in the mad libs here: Your honor, if you accept my guilty plea I will do the following things: X, Y, Z.

It has nothing to do with your rights, or even if you're a felon, or not. It's simply what you promise to do in order for your plea to be accepted. A pardon has no effect on that. Imagine if a pardon was retroactive for an agreed upon jail sentence. You plead to 30 years. You do 10 and then get pardoned. The state doesn't owe you the 10 years back like a wrongful conviction, it just wipes away the 20 you have left.

So, forfeiture of the firearm is a consequence of the conviction (as defined in the terms of the plea agreement). The pardon nullifies that consequence.

 

[Ingomike]

A pardon removes the conviction and all of the consequences of the conviction. Forfeiture of the firearm is a consequence of conviction.

And if one reviews the case they cited to support this, it has serious 2A implications. A liquor store owner was busted selling booze on Sunday illegally. After pardon he sought a liquor license again, but though pardoned they (state Supreme Court) deemed he still had violated a liquor law and was ineligible for a license.

So I am wondering if they apply this to a 2A case, guy gets pardoned for a felony, but still cannot buy a gun because they will say he actually did the crime?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, forfeiture of the firearm is a consequence of the conviction (as defined in the terms of the plea agreement). The pardon nullifies that consequence.

Already covered the difference between punishment served and punishment yet to be served at the time of pardon. Ingomike's article agrees. "Presumably, if a pardon were issued before a plea (if allowed under state law), the weapons would have been subject to replevin."

And if one reviews the case they cited to support this, it has serious 2A implications. A liquor store owner was busted selling booze on Sunday illegally. After pardon he sought a liquor license again, but though pardoned they (state Supreme Court) deemed he still had violated a liquor law and was ineligible for a license.


So I am wondering if they apply this to a 2A case, guy gets pardoned for a felony, but still cannot buy a gun because they will say he actually did the crime?

No, that's not what the court said. They said he *was* eligible for the license. From the decision:

...if disqualification is based solely on the fact of conviction the eligibility of the offender is restored. On the other hand, if good character (requiring an absense of guilt) is a necessary qualification, the offender is not automatically once again qualified - merely as the result of the pardon.

the statute only disqualified those who had a conviction....the denial of the license was unauthorized.

The reason the case is cited, and correct, is that a pardon is not a reversal of conviction or an indication of wrongful conviction. It means you don't have to suffer the penalties of your guilt *going forward*. Read the decision. It's not complicated.

 

[jamil]

So, forfeiture of the firearm is a consequence of the conviction (as defined in the terms of the plea agreement). The pardon nullifies that consequence.

But nooo! He’s still guilty. His guilt remains for ever. Because no pardon can erase the guilt. And no guilt can ever be pardoned. You can destroy a conviction but you can’t destroy his guilt. Therefore he forfeits his guns because that’s somehow not a consequence of the conviction. It’s a consequence of the guilt. Which, have I mentioned lasts forever?

 

[jamil]

And if one reviews the case they cited to support this, it has serious 2A implications. A liquor store owner was busted selling booze on Sunday illegally. After pardon he sought a liquor license again, but though pardoned they (state Supreme Court) deemed he still had violated a liquor law and was ineligible for a license.

So I am wondering if they apply this to a 2A case, guy gets pardoned for a felony, but still cannot buy a gun because they will say he actually did the crime?

That’s the logical Conclusion. By that ruling a pardon doesn’t really impact the future. It’s an absurd ruling. And since it was used to justify the ruling on McClosky, that ruling is absurd as well. Even if McClosky is an idiot.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That’s the logical Conclusion. By that ruling a pardon doesn’t really impact the future. It’s an absurd ruling. And since it was used to justify the ruling on McClosky, that ruling is absurd as well. Even if McClosky is an idiot.

Read post #603. Or read the court case yourself. It would be an absurd ruling if it was, in fact, the ruling. It wasn't.

 

[jamil]

Already covered the difference between punishment served and punishment yet to be served at the time of pardon. Ingomike's article agrees. "Presumably, if a pardon were issued before a plea (if allowed under state law), the weapons would have been subject to replevin."

I get that MO has a weird state law that makes this the case. I think if a pardon destroys the conviction, it destroys the plea. I brought this point up before, if there were no plea deal and he plead guilty to the felony, and then he was pardoned, he'd get his guns back?

No, that's not what the court said. They said he *was* eligible for the license. From the decision:



The reason the case is cited, and correct, is that a pardon is not a reversal of conviction or an indication of wrongful conviction. It means you don't have to suffer the penalties of your guilt *going forward*. Read the decision. It's not complicated.

I'm just trying to make sense of what was written by the court. I get that the court said that the conviction is destroyed, or words to that effect, but the guilt remains. It makes sense that the court is saying what you say it's saying. But I don't agree it's right though. And I'm fine with leaving that as my opinion. However, if, because the conviction was destroyed, he does not have to suffer he penalties of his guilt "going forward", why doesn't he get his guns back.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be idealistic here. It sounds like you're saying he doesn't have to suffer the penalties of his guilt, except this one. But then without cause for why this one is exceptional.

Does he forfeit his gun rights?

 

[Sigblitz]

Does he have his receipt?