• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Laws Being Retroactive

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In 1969 it became illegal for convicted felons to own guns and in 1996 it became illegal for people convicted of misdemeanors of domestic violence to own guns but is it retroactive for convictions that occurred prior to the passage of such laws. I heard a story of a fellow who was denied a gun purchase because he had a felony conviction. Some time in the 50s he had removed and stolen a car's radio from out of a car and that conviction prohibited him from buying guns. However, since the conviction was from the 50s it was before the passage of the law in 1969 which prohibits convicted felons from buying guns. I also know of a case of a guy who was denied the purchase of a gun because of a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. His conviction? As a kid he had gotten into a fistfight with his brother. From what I know about it, the conviction was before 1996 when it became illegal for people with misdemeanors of domestic violence to buy guns. It appears that the passage of these laws that bar certain people from owning guns based on convictions that they are retroactive for convictions that occurred prior to the laws being passed but that's not how it should be. Laws barring gun ownership based on convictions should not be retroactive of convictions from before the passage of the laws and if a person is denied a gun purchase because of convictions that preceded the passage of such laws than they should take it to court and argue in court that their convictions were from before the laws were passed.
 
Nope, ex post facto does not apply here. An old conviction, or criminal record, does not go away simply because a later law extends its effect. Much like three strikes laws, which do not wipe out older convictions and apply only to convictions after their passage, placing new restrictions on rights based on past criminal convictions is not unconstitutional.
 
DebateChallenge said:
In 1969 it became illegal for convicted felons to own guns and in 1996 it became illegal for people convicted of misdemeanors of domestic violence to own guns but is it retroactive for convictions that occurred prior to the passage of such laws. I heard a story of a fellow who was denied a gun purchase because he had a felony conviction. Some time in the 50s he had removed and stolen a car's radio from out of a car and that conviction prohibited him from buying guns. However, since the conviction was from the 50s it was before the passage of the law in 1969 which prohibits convicted felons from buying guns. I also know of a case of a guy who was denied the purchase of a gun because of a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. His conviction? As a kid he had gotten into a fistfight with his brother. From what I know about it, the conviction was before 1996 when it became illegal for people with misdemeanors of domestic violence to buy guns. It appears that the passage of these laws that bar certain people from owning guns based on convictions that they are retroactive for convictions that occurred prior to the laws being passed but that's not how it should be. Laws barring gun ownership based on convictions should not be retroactive of convictions from before the passage of the laws and if a person is denied a gun purchase because of convictions that preceded the passage of such laws than they should take it to court and argue in court that their convictions were from before the laws were passed.
Click to expand...

many men-who plead out to misdemeanor charges for slapping an unfaithful wife or giving an ass kicking to a son who was a arrested or knocked up a girl-often did to to spare his family a trial. and most would have never ever agreed to such a plea if they had known of the disgusting Lautenberg idiocy. blatantly unfair Those who plead should have been able to void their plea agreements and try the matter
 
TurtleDude said:
many men-who plead out to misdemeanor charges for slapping an unfaithful wife or giving an ass kicking to a son who was a arrested or knocked up a girl-often did to to spare his family a trial. and most would have never ever agreed to such a plea if they had known of the disgusting Lautenberg idiocy. blatantly unfair Those who plead should have been able to void their plea agreements and try the matter
Click to expand...

Most accused criminals today don't even go to trial, and just plead out regardless of their innocence or guilt. According to federal statistics in 2013, 8% of all criminal charges were dismissed, but of the remainder, 97% accepted plea bargains before trial. This is due to our terrible public defender system (underfunded, underresourced in general), defendant misunderstandings of what they are pleading to and what the long-term consequences are, or to avoid mandatory minimum sentences being imposed consecutively. All of these are pretty terrible reasons to plead guilty and avoid a jury trial, the supposed foundation of our legal system. I think we need to seriously re-assess how we plead out defendants altogether, not just due to domestic violence gun removal issues.
 
RationalPolicy said:
Most accused criminals today don't even go to trial, and just plead out regardless of their innocence or guilt. According to federal statistics in 2013, 8% of all criminal charges were dismissed, but of the remainder, 97% accepted plea bargains before trial. This is due to our terrible public defender system (underfunded, underresourced in general), defendant misunderstandings of what they are pleading to and what the long-term consequences are, or to avoid mandatory minimum sentences being imposed consecutively. All of these are pretty terrible reasons to plead guilty and avoid a jury trial, the supposed foundation of our legal system. I think we need to seriously re-assess how we plead out defendants altogether, not just due to domestic violence gun removal issues.
Click to expand...

30 years as prosecutor-24 federal. Federal public defenders-at least in the several districts I tried cases in-were very good. State courts-not so much.
 
DebateChallenge said:
In 1969 it became illegal for convicted felons to own guns and in 1996 it became illegal for people convicted of misdemeanors of domestic violence to own guns but is it retroactive for convictions that occurred prior to the passage of such laws. I heard a story of a fellow who was denied a gun purchase because he had a felony conviction. Some time in the 50s he had removed and stolen a car's radio from out of a car and that conviction prohibited him from buying guns. However, since the conviction was from the 50s it was before the passage of the law in 1969 which prohibits convicted felons from buying guns. I also know of a case of a guy who was denied the purchase of a gun because of a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. His conviction? As a kid he had gotten into a fistfight with his brother. From what I know about it, the conviction was before 1996 when it became illegal for people with misdemeanors of domestic violence to buy guns. It appears that the passage of these laws that bar certain people from owning guns based on convictions that they are retroactive for convictions that occurred prior to the laws being passed but that's not how it should be. Laws barring gun ownership based on convictions should not be retroactive of convictions from before the passage of the laws and if a person is denied a gun purchase because of convictions that preceded the passage of such laws than they should take it to court and argue in court that their convictions were from before the laws were passed.
Click to expand...

That brother's fight sounds fishy: if they were minors, it's a lie.

Having said that however, your guns are fine right? You still have yours and you still carry 'em around right? The second 'mendment hasn't changed for you - right?
 
jet57 said:
That brother's fight sounds fishy: if they were minors, it's a lie.

Having said that however, your guns are fine right? You still have yours and you still carry 'em around right? The second 'mendment hasn't changed for you - right?
Click to expand...

that's as stupid as saying because I, a white, was not subject to Jim Crow laws, I shouldn't have opposed them when they existed. Its sad and pathetic that people, who claim to be gun owners, not only refuse to object to the idiocy of anti gun laws in areas run by gun banner Democrats (like California): its even worse when those alleged gun owners-out of spite-try to spread that anti gun idiocy to other states
 
jet57 said:
That brother's fight sounds fishy: if they were minors, it's a lie.
Having said that however, your guns are fine right? You still have yours and you still carry 'em around right? The second 'mendment hasn't changed for you - right?
Click to expand...
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoller
Jet this reminds me of you. you don't own an assault "weapon"you if true own a M1 Carbine. Why should you worry-right?
 
TurtleDude said:
30 years as prosecutor-24 federal. Federal public defenders-at least in the several districts I tried cases in-were very good. State courts-not so much.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the firsthand information, I appreciate it. I've definitely heard about some state systems of public defense being poor (I think NY is being sued right now) but I'm glad that the federal system is better.
 
RationalPolicy said:
Thanks for the firsthand information, I appreciate it. I've definitely heard about some state systems of public defense being poor (I think NY is being sued right now) but I'm glad that the federal system is better.
Click to expand...

I've seen some big time prominent attorneys during my tenure including the famous Billy Martin, (who started off as an Asst US Attorney, in one of the districts I tried cases in) and some of the appellate hot shots from DOJ etc. Some of the public defenders can hang with those attorneys. Few people get as many hours of jury trial experience as the Federal Public Defenders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom