|
|
| |
| |
betweentheeyes wrote:
expunged has a new meaning to the Federal government
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/27/homepage_lead/doc48b6181658397567860042.txt
"Salzburg said his office planned to put out a statement on Wednesday
advising people who have gone through the procedure to expunge their
misdemeanor records of the court's decision. He said the ruling means
that if such people now have guns, they "may be viewed by federal
authorities as being in violation of federal firearms law."
|
| |
| |
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
betweentheeyes wrote:
Now that will be a case we want to go to court, as the S. Court said
"felons", not those who have committed misdemeanor offenses
Let us hope someone gets arrested fast for this violation
--
SpecTastic Wiggle Rig,
Fishing lure remote control
See lure video you won't believe
http://ezknot.com
|
| |
| |
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/27/homepage_lead/doc48b6181658397567860042.txt
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's stance
on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic violence."
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdimeanar domestic
violence charges... which would allow the convicted individual a "second
change" with the right to own a weapon.
Uncle Sam, on the other hand, does not want to allow this.
Your citation is directly misleading because you failed to mention the part
of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Prof. Jones does nothing more than tell misleading half-truths, which in
turn makes him a LIAR.
|
| |
| |
Rodney Long wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Now that will be a case we want to go to court, as the S. Court said
"felons", not those who have committed misdemeanor offenses
Are all gun-nuts as ignorant as you are?
Once you gutless fools abdicated the "right" to arms for "ex-felons"
(*other* people in your feeble brain)
you set the stage for the inevitable encroachment and expansion of
"prohibited parties"
to now include certain "misdemeanors" and whatever other lesser categories
the Gov't should
care to include (i.e. *you* jackass)
Let us hope someone gets arrested fast for this violation
|
| |
| |
Mr. Albritton wrote:
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/27/homepage_lead/doc48b6181658397567860042.txt
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
Are you done being dumber than a bucket of dirt?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's
stance on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic
violence."
Riiiight ... and they won't dare expand that ruling to then cover
other "expunged/sealed" criminal records, or mental health records,
will they ...?
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdimeanar
domestic violence charges...
Wyoming, or any other state, *does* have that power, jackass.
which would allow the convicted
individual a "second change" with the right to own a weapon.
Uncle Sam, on the other hand, does not want to allow this.
Your citation is directly misleading because you failed to mention
the part of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
You really are dumber than a bucket of dirt, aren't you boy?
|
| |
| |
betweentheeyes wrote:
How'd I miss that ..
Duh! ... because you're a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth guntard idiot.
|
| |
| |
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
Are you done being dumber than a bucket of dirt?
Riiiight ... and they won't dare expand that ruling to then cover
other "expunged/sealed" criminal records, or mental health records,
will they ...?
Wyoming, or any other state, *does* have that power, jackass.
Who's the jackass? I'm referencing a state vs. federal conflict. State law
(expunging domestic violence charges) directly conflicts with federal law of
no weapons shall be owned by anybody who has EVER been convicted of a
domestic violence charge.... to include MISDIMEANAR domestic violence
charges.
Reference: http://www.letswrap.com/legal/firearms.htm
You prove my point to the LETTER of taking a reference out of context.
You really are dumber than a bucket of dirt, aren't you boy?
Once again, a liberal nutjob using incomplete quotes out of context.
---------------------------------
For those of you that missed it, here is the script from my original
message:
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/27/homepage_lead/doc48b6181658397567860042.txt
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's stance
on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic violence."
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdemeanor domestic
violence charges... which would allow the convicted individual a "second
change" with the right to own a weapon.
Uncle Sam, on the other hand, does not want to allow this.
Your citation is directly misleading because you failed to mention the part
of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Prof. Jones does nothing more than tell misleading half-truths, which in
turn makes him a LIAR.
----------------------------------------
P.S. "Reality Check" falls into the same category.
My own personal belief: Gun "control" doesn't work. Never has, never will.
Don't believe me? Go to Great Britain or Australia. Look at the violent
crime stats. *Not the "gun crime" stats, but the overall violent crime
stats.*
Criminals in those countries have become exponentially more aggressive
because they know they can GET AWAY WITH IT.
|
| |
| |
Mr. Albritton wrote:
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
Are you done being dumber than a bucket of dirt?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's
stance on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic
violence."
Riiiight ... and they won't dare expand that ruling to then cover
other "expunged/sealed" criminal records, or mental health records,
will they ...?
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdimeanar
domestic violence charges...
Wyoming, or any other state, *does* have that power, jackass.
Who's the jackass? I'm referencing a state vs. federal conflict. State law
(expunging domestic violence charges) directly conflicts
with federal law of no weapons shall be owned by anybody who has EVER
been convicted of a domestic violence charge.... to include
MISDIMEANAR domestic violence charges.
There is no "conflict". Many States have expungement/sealing and/or pardons
available for criminal convictions, some even allow(ed) the expungement/sealing
of felonies -- including the Fed's themselves via the Youthful Offender
Act for those under 25 yrs old at the time of conviction.
That the ATF/Feds have implemented a policy that they won't honor such State
legal procedures, or that anyone receiving such a State
expungement/sealing/pardon
is still prohibited under FEDERAL law from owning a gun does not "conflict"
with STATE law and any benefits the person is entitled to under STATE statutes.
If under Wyoming State law the person is entitled to possess a firearm after
such expungement/sealing, then that person can not be prosecuted by
Wyoming State for doing so.
Reference: http://www.letswrap.com/legal/firearms.htm
You prove my point to the LETTER of taking a reference out of context.
Once again, a liberal nutjob using incomplete quotes out of context.
---------------------------------
For those of you that missed it, here is the script from my original
message:
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/27/homepage_lead/doc48b6181658397567860042.txt
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's
stance on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic
violence."
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdemeanor
domestic violence charges...
Once again numbnuts, Wyoming and all other States DO have the power
to expunge/seal criminal convictions if they so choose. They do so 1000s of
times every year.
Just as the Feds have the power to ignore such expungements/sealings
by still considering the underlying conviction as haven taken place,
which indeed and in fact it has.
Wyoming may decide to modify their procedures to more align
with "deferred prosecution" or "deferred sentencing" procedures
that other States use, since the end result of those legal processes
is that *no conviction occurred* as opposed to a conviction occuring
and then the record of that conviction being sealed/expunged.
The Fed's would *not* be allowed under current law to disqualify
someone who received and successfully completed a "deferred prosecution"
or "deferred sentence", regardless of the underlying charge.
which would allow the convicted
individual a "second change" with the right to own a weapon.
Uncle Sam, on the other hand, does not want to allow this.
Your citation is directly misleading because you failed to mention
the part of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Irrelevant.
Prof. Jones does nothing more than tell misleading half-truths, which
in turn makes him a LIAR.
----------------------------------------
P.S. "Reality Check" falls into the same category.
My own personal belief: Gun "control" doesn't work. Never has,
never will. Don't believe me? Go to Great Britain or Australia. Look at the
violent crime stats. *Not the "gun crime" stats, but the
overall violent crime stats.*
Next visit Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at the lax gun laws and the violent
crime stats.
Criminals in those countries have become exponentially more aggressive
because they know they can GET AWAY WITH IT.
Criminals in Iraq and Afghanistan have become exponentially more aggressive
because they have the weaponry and firepower to GET AWAY WITH IT.
LOL!
|
| |
| |
"Mr. Albritton" <albritton77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:g97qmm$30p$1@registered.motzarella.org:
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
Are you done being dumber than a bucket of dirt?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's
stance on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic
violence."
Riiiight ... and they won't dare expand that ruling to then cover
other "expunged/sealed" criminal records, or mental health records,
will they ...?
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdimeanar
domestic violence charges...
Wyoming, or any other state, *does* have that power, jackass.
Who's the jackass? I'm referencing a state vs. federal conflict. State
law (expunging domestic violence charges) directly conflicts with federal
law of no weapons shall be owned by anybody who has EVER been convicted
of a domestic violence charge.... to include MISDIMEANAR domestic
violence charges.
Reference: http://www.letswrap.com/legal/firearms.htm
You prove my point to the LETTER of taking a reference out of context.
Oddly enough the Fed restriction excludes police. Sworn officers convicted of
domestic violence can continue to possess firearms, not just in thier job but
personally.
Frankly I think the Fed is on tenuous ground if it goes to court.
Once again, a liberal nutjob using incomplete quotes out of context.
---------------------------------
For those of you that missed it, here is the script from my original
message:
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/08/27/homepage_lead/doc48b618165839756
7860042.txt
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's
stance on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic violence."
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdemeanor
domestic violence charges... which would allow the convicted individual
a "second change" with the right to own a weapon.
Uncle Sam, on the other hand, does not want to allow this.
Your citation is directly misleading because you failed to mention the
part of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Prof. Jones does nothing more than tell misleading half-truths, which in
turn makes him a LIAR.
----------------------------------------
P.S. "Reality Check" falls into the same category.
My own personal belief: Gun "control" doesn't work. Never has, never
will. Don't believe me? Go to Great Britain or Australia. Look at the
violent crime stats. *Not the "gun crime" stats, but the overall violent
crime stats.*
Criminals in those countries have become exponentially more aggressive
because they know they can GET AWAY WITH IT.
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
|
| |
| |
Gray Ghost wrote:
"Mr. Albritton" <albritton77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:g97qmm$30p$1@registered.motzarella.org:
Are you done presenting quotes out of context?
Are you done being dumber than a bucket of dirt?
The article specifically describes Wyoming's stance vs. Uncle Sam's
stance on "the criminal record of people convicted of domestic
violence."
Riiiight ... and they won't dare expand that ruling to then cover
other "expunged/sealed" criminal records, or mental health records,
will they ...?
Wyoming would like to have the power to legally expunge misdimeanar
domestic violence charges...
Wyoming, or any other state, *does* have that power, jackass.
Oddly enough the Fed restriction excludes police. Sworn officers
convicted of domestic violence can continue to possess firearms, not
just in thier job but personally.
Because cops' wives deserve what they get ...
Frankly I think the Fed is on tenuous ground if it goes to court.
Your opinion + 1 < 1
|
| |
| |
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Because cops' wives deserve what they get ...
Typical thought of the person that was arrested and charged with felony
child abuse, and ran away to Canada.
|
| |
| |
Kerry Ladd <Gus@Bass.gov.> wrote in news:48b829fb$0$29504$607ed4bc@cv.net:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Typical thought of the person that was arrested and charged with felony
child abuse, and ran away to Canada.
I finally just plonked him as being to stupid and intolerant to bother with.
His hate keeps him warm at night.
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
|
| |
| |
Gray Ghost wrote:
Kerry Ladd <Gus@Bass.gov.> wrote in
news:48b829fb$0$29504$607ed4bc@cv.net:
I finally just plonked him as being to stupid
You're still the illiterate imbecile, eh Frank ?
|
| |
| |
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote:
You're still the illiterate imbecile, eh Frank ?
He's not the one that diddled little boys and ran away to CanaDuh,
Poofter Jonez.. like you did!
|
| |
| |
David Finck wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
He's not the one that diddled little boys and ran away to CanaDuh,
You just can't subdue your pedophilic obsession, can you sicko?
|
| |
| |
|
