class d felony: will it stop an LTCH?

[sawgunner74]

Demonize the victims?and so what if the "victims" have insurance or not.(claims raise rates for everyone)."victims" should not just be compensated with money,same as crooks should not always be punished with just time seved.Argue for felons,it still wont, and will not ever change the fact they will never get a ltch permit in indiana. That you trust a felon, does not matter to anyone else or to the state of indiana,they cant and should not waste time,finding out if a convicted felon is trustworthy enough to have firearms.its easy to get a ltch permit in indiana ,for people who abide the law.

 

[downzero]

I wonder what will happen when every crime is a felony. It used to require a thousand dollars. Now it's around $250, even though that same thousand dollars would be worth many times that. I wonder what will happen when even a single traffic infraction is a "felony."

Sometimes I really wonder what conservatives are conserving. 150 years ago, nobody would have even considered the idea seriously that "felons" could not defend themselves with firearms if necessary. It's also somewhat comical to me that people don't realize that this is just another form of gun control that really isn't about guns...it's about control.

 

[sawgunner74]

150 years ago ,they hung people for stealing horses.(so they probably didnt worry about, if a felon could defend himself with firearms)

 

[CarmelHP]

I think there's something wrong with many people's conception of what a "felony" entails.

At common law, the list of felonies was short and the words are all household names: murder, burglary, rape, forgery, etc.

Whose common law are we talking about? We inherited a common law tradition from GB. Under the "Bloody Code" in effect in Britain at the time of the founding of this county, the number of offenses carrying the death penalty was around 200. Crimes that were punishable by execution at this time included stealing anything worth more than 5 shillings, stealing horses or sheep or writing a threatening letter. Children were punished in the same manner as adults, garroting or hanging. Any felony was considered "civil death" under common law and all rights were lost, including rights to property. If you're going to be singing the praises of common law tradition, understand what it entailed. The OP's friend got off light.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Compassion, they give him the license then theft can become armed robbery!
Theft = felony = BG = NO LICENSE!!

 

[downzero]

Whose common law are we talking about? We inherited a common law tradition from GB. Under the "Bloody Code" in effect in Britain at the time of the founding of this county, the number of offenses carrying the death penalty was around 200. Crimes that were punishable by execution at this time included stealing anything worth more than 5 shillings, stealing horses or sheep or writing a threatening letter. Children were punished in the same manner as adults, garroting or hanging. Any felony was considered "civil death" under common law and all rights were lost, including rights to property. If you're going to be singing the praises of common law tradition, understand what it entailed. The OP's friend got off light.

Do you want to go back even further and talk about trial by battle, trial by hot iron, the hue and cry, etc.?

If there's one thing that's clear about common law cases from at least the 1700s, they had a far greater respect for procedural due process than the courts have today. Cases that were improperly charged weren't corrected, amended, or continued--they were dismissed.

There are a lot of things that the common law was, and wasn't, historically, that are beyond the scope of this post. There also were many capital offenses, as you say, but there is also a great deal of evidence to support the conclusion that is was much more difficult to get a conviction at a jury trial then than it is now. Additionally, the perverse incentives that came from punishing every crime with death encouraged all sorts of behavior we'd like to deter. Highway robbers often killed their victims merely because the punishment was the same regardless.

Talking about the common law in the American sense requires not only an understanding of legal history and tradition, but an understanding of the Constitution as well. What exactly was inherited by the common law tradition requires a necessary understanding of how our government was formed and the reasoning behind some of the Constitution's strongest demands: the writ of habeas corpus, due process rights, prohibition of cruel and (not or) unusual punishment, etc.

We've come an awful long way to demand that men who were once free, but are no longer incarcerated continue to receive punishment for life. I don't think it's hard to conclude that most people who have any respect for the right to keep and bear arms at all are very uncomfortable with the idea that people who fail to pay their taxes or engage in other, non-violent felonious conduct ought to lose their rights for life. The courts would be unquestionably unwilling to deny felons their right to free speech, due process, against unreasonable searches and seizures, or quartering of troops, jury trial, confrontation rights, etc.

Why they'd be willing to deny them their right to bear arms is not exactly clear, especially since their can be no legitimate government interest in preventing a non-violent felon from exercising the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including, in my opinion anyway, whatever Second Amendment rights exist.

 

[The Keymaster]

Compassion, they give him the license then theft can become armed robbery!
Theft = felony = BG = NO LICENSE!!

Armed robbers do not bother to get an LTCH.

 

[TJSieling]

Armed robbers do not bother to get an LTCH.

Agreed. But the thing is, they wanted to charge him with 6 felonies and 4 misdemeanors because of what his two friends did. They were on the spree, they asked him for a ride somewhere. After they broke the window and took the backpack (which I learned carried nothing more than knick knacks stolen from OTHER people), he pretty much had the choice to turn his friends in, which he couldn't do seeing as THEY were armed, or drive. He chose to drive. Now he gets hammered with felony theft, and it's his fault?

Maybe you don't think about the fact that people are charged incorrectly. It was a misdemeanor charge at most because he was just driving, and didn't know why he was until he was smack in the middle of it.

But anyway, someone posted the IC, so that answers my question. I'll talk to him about getting it expunged, thanks.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Let me tell you, when you have a friend who cannot feed his family because he has been demonized by the criminal courts, you really ask yourself: if this man is a threat to society, why isn't he in prison? And if he isn't, why doesn't the government leave this man alone?

Im sure your great friend didnt have those 3 kids when he was 19 and in Jail.

Save pulling on the heart strings when you have a better example to talk about.

 

[Kuting]

Better question - do you REALLY want the guy having license to be ARMED?

How about you let this one go, bud.

There are many, MANY people out there who are legally armed that I would rather not see with weaponry of any kind, or even a sharp pencil for that matter.

A criminal record (Wrong place at the wrong time and anyone can get one) does not dictate anyone's safety (or lack thereof) or ability with a firearm, or car, or reproductive organs. I've met five year old kids who are safer and more conscious of firearms than adults who own them and carry on a daily basis.

Kut

 

[downzero]

There are many, MANY people out there who are legally armed that I would rather not see with weaponry of any kind, or even a sharp pencil for that matter.

A criminal record (Wrong place at the wrong time and anyone can get one) does not dictate anyone's safety (or lack thereof) or ability with a firearm, or car, or reproductive organs. I've met five year old kids who are safer and more conscious of firearms than adults who own them and carry on a daily basis.

Kut

+1. The world is full of idiots. They're still free men. Stupidity isn't illegal yet or I'd be in jail with them.

 

[Son of Liberty]

The idiots on here, and you like no name, Indy and vasil are the reason why ex-cons, who have seen the error of their ways, and try to do right after serving their time, end up going back to crime.
Hard to stay on the straight and narrow when you are treated like crap, for a past misdeed that you have already served your time for.
All of the above folks speak in absolutes, as if people don't change or grow up.
You know nothing of this mans friend or downzeros buddy, yet you would judge them for minor crimes, one over a decade ago, and the other over four decades ago.

Its cool for the government to take these peoples money for taxes and fees for this and that, but they still want to treat them as second class citizens

 

[42769vette]

im going to go out on a limb and say 90 percent of people have done things when they were young that could have been a crime/felony if we got caught. some folks were lucky some wern't.

there is a difrence between "committed a crime" and career criminal" i dont know how you could make the distinction between the 2 without it being a case by case bases wich could turn into a waste of goverment recorces but i think somthing should be done. im like alot of folks here, if they are good enough to be free they are good enough for the 2nd amendment. if they are not they should be in jail. and i also agree that anything can be a felony now wich is sad.

 

[IndyMonkey]

The idiots on here, and you like no name, Indy and vasil are the reason why ex-cons, who have seen the error of their ways, and try to do right after serving their time, end up going back to crime.
Hard to stay on the straight and narrow when you are treated like crap, for a past misdeed that you have already served your time for.
All of the above folks speak in absolutes, as if people don't change or grow up.
You know nothing of this mans friend or downzeros buddy, yet you would judge them for minor crimes, one over a decade ago, and the other over four decades ago.

Its cool for the government to take these peoples money for taxes and fees for this and that, but they still want to treat them as second class citizens

Stupid hurts, some more than others.

I would be ok with it if the person who stole got there hand cut off.

I have had to much stolen from me in the past to care how it effects the thief in his later years.

 

[downzero]

The idiots on here, and you like no name, Indy and vasil are the reason why ex-cons, who have seen the error of their ways, and try to do right after serving their time, end up going back to crime.
Hard to stay on the straight and narrow when you are treated like crap, for a past misdeed that you have already served your time for.
All of the above folks speak in absolutes, as if people don't change or grow up.
You know nothing of this mans friend or downzeros buddy, yet you would judge them for minor crimes, one over a decade ago, and the other over four decades ago.

Its cool for the government to take these peoples money for taxes and fees for this and that, but they still want to treat them as second class citizens

+1. The statists just never seem to get sick of giving government more and more power to take our liberty.

I'd rep you but I'm somehow out.

 

[kludge]

Ahh, I get it. His little girls should starve while the "victims" get an insurance company to pay for the stolen stuff anyway.

Insurnace compaines pay for stolen stereos?

Huh.

Now I have to wonder what they do with all the money I send them.

Non-violent felons do not present any more of a threat to society than you or I do. And once they are free from prison, they should enjoy all the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including the right to self defense.

Fail. Violent felons generally have a history of non-violent crimes.

I think the "15 years" in the IC is a good number to go by, as in we'll give you a chance at LTCH in 15 years.

Don't get me wrong. If the person referred to in the OP was 18 at the time of his felony and is now over age 33, then I think he should get legal counsel and try to get his rights restored. In fact, I support him.

 

[varasha]

I think in this case the law has it just about right. If you have a felony not LTCH. When i was 18 i was charged with a felony (possession). I was in a large VAN with 8 other people and one of them had some cocaine. I was super pissed because i never used it and wasn't involved with it, but because when we got pulled over he shoved it under the seat and everyone got hit with a d felony charge.

I DID have pot on me, but the prosecutor was uninterested in charging me with possession of pot so they only focused on hitting me with the felony...I was able to fight it enough to get it reduced to a d misdemeanor.. but some of the other kids in the van didn't have the 7 grand to make a lawyer fight it.

I got lucky but it could have easily gone the other way. Not all felons do crimes that have victims, and not all felonies should care a lifetime ban on gun ownership...but the felon should have to PROVE they deserve that right back...by getting the felony removed from their record...

I was almost a felon and i have and will never steal or hurt anyone...i am not a criminal..

 

[Brandon]

i see both sides of the argument. i have a friend who i am honestly surprised he doesnt have a felony on his record. but is allowed to have a gun. the guy cant hold a job, both of his parents (hes 27) have kicked him out, hes living with a friend that doesnt have a job. when he has a car in his words "has to win the race" to the next red light even if the car next to him was an 80 year old guy who moved and the car inched up 1 cm.

i dont agree with the "if they are not in jail then we can trust them" (how ever it was worded) statment.. how many people have been released out of jail or mistakenly released and with in days/weeks/ or even hours have been arrested for doing bad or murder?

maybe a felon should be able to own a gun after x amount of years, maybe it should be a little harder then just a background check to see if they have anything worse then a speeding ticket... i dont know what the answer is, but i think maybe some felons might deserve a second shot. maybe.

 

[zebov]

I think in this case the law has it just about right. If you have a felony not LTCH. When i was 18 i was charged with a felony (possession). I was in a large VAN with 8 other people and one of them had some cocaine. I was super pissed because i never used it and wasn't involved with it, but because when we got pulled over he shoved it under the seat and everyone got hit with a d felony charge.

I DID have pot on me, but the prosecutor was uninterested in charging me with possession of pot so they only focused on hitting me with the felony...I was able to fight it enough to get it reduced to a d misdemeanor.. but some of the other kids in the van didn't have the 7 grand to make a lawyer fight it.

I got lucky but it could have easily gone the other way. Not all felons do crimes that have victims, and not all felonies should care a lifetime ban on gun ownership...but the felon should have to PROVE they deserve that right back...by getting the felony removed from their record...

I was almost a felon and i have and will never steal or hurt anyone...i am not a criminal..

I'd agree with this. There IS a process to get the felony removed. It's a dang hard process apparently (as it should be), but it IS there if someone is so inclined and serious about the issue.

For those who support legal carrying by any and all felons so long as they're not in jail, be aware that if such a law change ever did occur it would doom us all forever. This would be the greatest thing the anti-gun crowd could ever ask for. The anti-gun rhetoric writes itself in such a scenario!

 

[downzero]

The right to keep and bear arms is either among the natural laws of man or it isn't. You guys can't have it both ways. I support the former. It's obvious where the rest of you stand.