Today's post is a follow-on to one that I wrote back on March 1, 2009. That one started with an article in the Alaska Daily News on 2-27-2009 that reported that a Simon G. McCamy had been indicted on three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Back then, I wrote that I was glad that the US Attorney was pursuing these charges because, while I'm all about increased gun rights and CCW for every law-abiding citizen, I didn't and still don't want bad people possessing guns, and by and large, felons are typically bad people and most of them are the sort of people that the rest of us choose to carry firearms for protection against.
This article has garnered the odd comment every now and again, many by people claiming to be reformed felons who describe minor infractions committed decades ago which now prevent them from owning firearms. Some, if true, are worthy of sympathy, to be sure. I've always made it my policy to approve for posting each one that wasn't obscene or personally insulting so they're there for any reader who wants to go back and look at them. Such readers will also see that, beginning a couple of days ago, I started getting comments from a Christina Barry, friend of Simon McCamy (according to her Google+ circle). She called me "stupix" and said that I didn't know anything about Simon's case and that he only had two DWIs and that he's just a nice guy who works 70 hours a week and walks on water in his spare time. Well having nothing better to do last night sine I work up and could not get back to sleep, I hauled the iPad off the night table and from the comfort of my warm, cozy, Germans-Shepherd-surrounded bed, I discovered some information about Mr. Simon McCamy that indicates that Miss Barry is either being disingenuous or doesn't know him as well as she thinks that she does.
Simon McCamy, Ketchikan, Alaska. W/M DOB 11-06-1978. Info from CourtView.
For the sake of brevity, I've left out his numerous traffic offences.
3-30-1996. 1st DWI arrest. 17 yrs old. Looks like they pled this one down to refusal to take a chemical test. Paid a $500 fine, or rather Marjorie McCamy paid it. I'm assuming that she's his mom.
7-1-1996, he was arrested for driving on that suspended drivers license. He couldn't even drive right for four months.
12-01-1998, we had another arrest. This was his second DWI arrest. Again he refused to take the chemical test, and his drivers license was still suspended. This one got him $1200 in additional fines (paid by Marjorie), a revoked drivers license, and time spent in the Ketchikan Correctional Complex. He's just 20 years old now.
6-24-1999. Arrested again for driving with his license suspended/revoked. This got him 10 more days in jail and got Marjorie another $250 fine.
He managed to keep his nose clean until 5-19-2002, and then he got his third DWI, this one a felony under Alaska's laws. He actually took this one to trial and wound up convicted. This time he was charged with resisting arrest as well, but the court subsequently dismissed that one. This one got him a two-year sentence, with 610 days suspended and 120 days in jail. He also got fined $5000 this time, which Marjorie paid.
In 2008, Simon was really a bad boy. On 5-30-2008, he was arrested again for driving without a license. (Yeah, eff the court, right Simon?) He was arrested again for Assault 3--a felony--and Domestic Violence on 10-14-2008. These were dismissed a year later during the trial process for some reason, however he was also arrested again on the following day--10-16-2008 and charged with felony witness tampering and unlawful contact, meaning that he violated a court-ordered protective order. He was found guilty on that and given another 2 year sentence, although I can't tell how much of that was actually spent incarcerated. There were more fines too, but Marjorie paid those, just like she put up his bail during this and the previous trial processes.
And now we come current. On 7-11-2013, the dumb ass got himself arrested for DWI yet again. (He just doesn't seem to learn, folks.) For some reason, they kept this one a misdemeanor but he got a year in jail suspended, with 30 days to serve, and he was only ordered to report to the jail on January 6th of this year, which is just a few days before his one-woman fan club, Christina Barry, began calling me "stupid" for not knowing that he was a really nice, hard-working guy.
But alas, Christina, I can read CourtView, and in CourtView I can find all sorts of records, including Simon McCamy's record, and even one for a Christina Lea Barry, born 8-1-1973, who was charged on 7-19-2013 with Theft 2--a Class C felony--and who is currently awaiting sentencing. Is that you, Christina? If so, write back from time to time and let us know how that case works out, k?
And now back to Simon McCamy again. It's fair to ask if Simon McCamy is one of these dangerous bad people that should be barred from ever possessing a firearm again. Some may argue that he's not, despite a record of domestic violence, fighting the police, and multiple DWIs that by themselves indicate extremely poor judgement and a pretty clear substance abuse problem. I can't honestly say for sure because, other than by his record, I don't know the guy. But the timing on the federal cases (which being federal, are not in CourtView) and the instances of him being found in possession of firearms in 2008 suggests that he had one on his person during his domestic violence arrest and his arrest the next day for witness tampering and violation of the protective order, and that's enough to convince me that his federal charges were appropriate and that his community won't be any less safe if he's permanently disarmed or incarcerated. Truth be told, it might actually be a better place as a result.
Everyone makes mistakes. I get that. But this guy's been making them for twenty years and shows no signs of changing his ways. So excuse me if I don't go hold a vigil demanding that his firearm rights be restored tomorrow.
Back to you, Christina Barry. And anyone else's thoughts are welcome as well.
Since the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm thing, he is prohibited under State law from ever owning or possessing one again. Makes no difference whether he's otherwise a "good guy" or not.
ReplyDeleteWhile Alaska allows concealed carry without permits, there's a higher level of accountability required, and Mr. McCamy apparently screwed up. His own fault, Ms. Barry's opinion notwithstanding.
Simon sounds like a real looser. The last thing you want is to give this idiot a gun.
ReplyDeleteIf that is you up on charges Christine just tell the court they're stupid. That always works. Hey birds of a feather flock together.....even jailbirds.
1) Marjorie has been one of his problems
ReplyDelete2) Some women like bad boys and convince themselves that they are wonderful as they are being used and abused.
3) I still maintain that "criminally stupid" should be a chargeable offense.
4) Christina shouldn't underestimate the research capabilities of a cop.
5) Even without DUIs the instant it went to the domestic violence followed by witness tampering he was done in my book. Add no impulse control to criminally stupid.
What everyone has said. Christina for all we know is incarcerated. A sad story all around, but "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is still in effect.
ReplyDeleteUsed to if a felon had a clean record for 10 or so years he had a recourse to get his rights back. Unfortunately congress defunded that method. Thus if you get convicted of say throwing trash on the side of highways in some states that is a felony.
ReplyDeleteSee some felonies are not violent or really that bad but the CAN BE SENTENCED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR IN PRISON, and hence the are felons.
Yes real bad ones don't need guns but not all felons are in that category.
+1 ProudHillbilly
ReplyDeleteThe problem for folks like Murphy's Law and myself is that we've been dealing with felons all our professional lives. We can spot a bad apple from half a continent away and It looks suspiciously like this dude fits the bill. I know there are a lot of anecdotal stories out there about former criminals who really have turned their lives around and are now living the straight and narrow. I applaud, encourage and have even celebrated them but it changes absolutely nothing. They are the exceptions, not the rule. The general rule is good people don't do bad things over and over and over again. Good people mess up once, pay the price and get on with their lives as best they can. Most of them don't even whinge about losing their 2A rights. They understand what the consequences of their actions are and as a proof of their new forthrightness refuse to use the results of their own mistakes as a blunt object to beat the rest of the law abiding, gun owning community over the head. Metaphorically speaking of course. If you're a felon then you're a felon whether or not you think it was unfair. Being a felon makes you a prohibited person. Period. I won't get into the details of why he was a felon in the first place (though they seem to me to be self evident) but please stop telling me that 3 arrests for being a felon in possession makes someone some kind of a victim. It doesn't. It shows either an appalling lack of understanding of basic criminal law or a "really doesn't give a shit" attitude. Which category is one left to imagine Ol' Simon falls into? My guess (and available data suggests) is he has more than a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system so there you go. Who wants folks like that armed? I mean, really? There are avenues to explore toward having your 2A right reinstated. Buying a gat off your BFF Joe "Angel" Scuzzball and 'somehow' attracting the attention of Officer Friendly ain't one of them. Want to impress us all? Start with STOP BEING A FELON IN POSSESSION AND COMMITTING FURTHER CRIMINAL ACTS. We can go from there but that seems to be a minimum to even having this discussion.
ReplyDeleteBear poking, it's a contact sport kids.
Another aspect is that this guy is 36 now and STILL driving drunk. And his behavior is getting worse.
ReplyDeleteOkay...I'll take the opposing side on this and argue a simple issue;
ReplyDeleteWho says his life is any less valuable then yours or mine?
Isn't that what we are really saying when we make a person prohibited from possessing firearms?
We argue that firearms are the most effective defense against crime; right?
So -- does this person deserve any less protection against criminals then you or I?
How about animals ? Oh....he drinks and drives there for he should be bear bait?
Couldn't it be argued that since he can not drive and has to walk everywhere (or should) that he is actually in greater danger of an animal attack?
I'm not arguing he is a reformed person or a misunderstood 'yute'. I think he is a scum bag and has a problem. That describes a lot of people from me and Bill Clinton to millions of others.
If we are going to support the right to keep and bear arms; let's be clear on what that means.
It means criminals who have beat the system get to carry a firearm.
It means criminals who have served their time get to carry a firearm.
It means people we really dislike and have shown themselves to be irresponsible get to carry a firearm.
Doesn't it say "shall not be infringed" instead of "except in cases of drunkenness, public mayhem and generally being NOT nice person"?
So you'd deny Simon McCamy the right to choose to give up his rights? Because that's what he did when you get down to it. Academic questions aside, he knew that to commit felonies would be to cede his rights to possess firearms and he still committed several. Leaving his felony DWI out, he still did something to warrant a domestic violence arrest, and it was violent enough to qualify as a felony, far above a misdemeanor assault. Then the next day, he did something else to interfere with the victim or a witness and got a second felony for witness tampering. His choices. And his consequences. If we're going to get all Libertarian here for a minute, won't you agree that he has the right to make that choice and live with the consequences?
DeleteAnd no one is saying that he has to walk around and get eaten by bears (as if that happens every day). He can always ask someone who hasn't lost their gun rights to accompany him, or he can move someplace where there aren't bears if he's so worried. Again, he has choices available, just like he could have chosen not to commit the crimes that he committed. And I support his right to live with the consequences of his choices.
Okay, let's take this a few steps at a time.
Deletehe still did something to warrant a domestic violence arrest, and it was violent enough to qualify as a felony, far above a misdemeanor assault.
First he went through the legal system and the charges were not prosecuted -- so legally he wasn't convicted of a felony domestic beef. MY son was arrested on felony domestic violence also -- his wife accused him of 'pushing passed her' in order to leave the scene of an argument. Since it involved a family member; it is a felony.
This guy wasn't even convicted and it is being used against him -- HUH? If there is a beef here, it should be with the Justice system not 2nd Amendment Rights.
We have a process to denying those rights; it is called prison. Again -- Does SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED mean it or not?
We argue against LEO approval so only "good people" can be approved for licenses; how is this any different?
I'm not arguing he is a good person. Far from it. I'm arguing that even scum bags deserve to have their rights. All of their rights. If you don't want them armed; push for life time prison sentences. We've seen, all too often, that truly violent criminals will not be deterred by gun control laws. How does it make sense to support them now?
And isn't that what you are doing? Supporting gun control laws that are reasonable?
Not trying to be rude or sarcastic -- just framing the debate in terms. We excoriated Dick Metcalf for supporting 'reasonable restrictions'.
or he can move someplace where there aren't bears if he's so worried.
Like People in Connecticut or New York or Masschuessets can move of they don't like the restrictions on their rights?
How about criminals -- how far out of town should he move to avoid people bent on evil?
I used bears as an example (much like the Militia is just an example) -- but the main question has to be - Do People have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that Shall Not Be Infringed.
If you say "BUT ONLY if they ......" that is the same argument the antis make and we are discussing how little of the cake we have left. Right?
You ave the advantage in choosing to argue simply from an academic point of view. This lets you shape the issue to fit your arguments and it's hard to lose on that basis. By using McCamy as a straw man, you've now contrived to set yourself up as the only true champion of freedom and liberty in this discussion.
DeleteBut I don't subscribe to the idea that violent predators like armed robbers and carjackers should be free to own and carry guns again once they are released from prison. In a perfect world, they would be imprisoned for life or executed, but this isn't that world. It's also not one where everyone who likes guns is virtuous and trustworthy even if they just walked out of prison yesterday and that's why, in this world, we, as a society, chose to legislatively bar such people from possessing firearms again after allowing them due process in a court of law and giving them the subsequent right to appeal both the conviction and the debarment of arms. It's not as it it were done arbitrarily or capriciously. And I can honestly say that this doesn't bother me. I can only fight so many battles at any given time and I'd rather fight for the advancement of law-abiding decent folks than ones who have proven that they don't give a damn what the laws are. McCamy was also indicted for possessing a firearm THREE TIMES in less than four months, and each time he knew full well that he was not allowed to possess one, but he thumbed his nose at the law and did as he pleased so that puts this squarely on him. Like I said before, he rolled the dice and took his chances knowing what the rules and the consequences were before he sat down to play.
I'll save my energy for the fight against actual unjust laws that affect innocent people. People like McCamy are swinging on nooses that they tried for themselves and that's on them, not me.
Murphy's Law
ReplyDeleteNote trying to set myself up as the only champion of freedom or liberty; just arguing that freedom and liberty is applicable to everyone.
But I don't subscribe to the idea that violent predators like armed robbers and carjackers should be free to own and carry guns again once they are released from prison.
So you don't believe in redemption? Second Chances? That people can change?
Or just some crimes are so horrendous the consequences should linger for ever?
we, as a society, chose to legislatively bar such people from possessing firearms again after allowing them due process in a court of law
In order to start making a more perfect union (to steal a phrase) or to steer our society more toward the ideal we have to start some place.
I find this argument to be less convincing then you might imagine given the abuses we as a society have tolerated throughout time; slavery, Japanese Internment, etc -- Not all of societies ideas are right. Some are merely compromises. Some are bad ideas pushed through by a minority of people. We've seen often enough in the battle over our rights. Haven't we?
allowing them due process in a court of law and giving them the subsequent right to appeal both the conviction and the debarment of arms.
And on the opposite side; we also gave people the chance to impose a life time sentence on people they find incapable of dealing with society within bounds. MOST of the criminals are not given that sentence. It isn't done arbitrarily or capriciously either - people consider the sentence and act on it.
Now the question becomes what do we do with criminals after they have served what society has said is an appropriate consequence. Isn't the debarment of rights creating a class of people we consider "less than us"?
They aren't considered worthy of effective self defense, they aren't considered to be worthy to elect representatives (didn't we fight a war over Taxation without Representation?) -- in short everything the antis want to do but without the convictions?
I can only fight so many battles at any given time and I'd rather fight for the advancement of law-abiding decent folks than ones who have proven that they don't give a damn what the laws are.
Like the folks in New York State who haven't turned in their 'high capacity magazines? Not all laws are just, right?
Shouldn't we as a society occasionally have this debate -- push back against the idea that One mistake means you lose the right to defend against government tyranny, against two and four legged predators?
You may feel comfortable with that decision; good. You asked and I'm trying to present the other side. I really don't feel comfortable with it because we don't live in an ideal world. If we did; I wouldn't have to worry about committing 3 felonies a day, I wouldn't have to worry about prosecutors trying to rack up a conviction rate by overcharging a person and plea bargaining down.
In an ideal world, we would have domestic violence laws that really made sense instead of the zero tolerance nonsense that happens all too often.
but he thumbed his nose at the law and did as he pleased so that puts this squarely on him.
And the people in New York, Like our Ancestors did in the Revolutionary War?
I agree he should suffer consequences for his actions. The question is - should that consequence include the current prohibition. I'm not saying let him off scot free. I'm asking where do we draw the line.
And in drawing that line; are we saying that some people are less human than others?
Let me ask you this -- have you always been the innocent person?
I'm not throwing stones because I know my sins, I know the laws I've violated -- both accidentally and on purpose. I want to defend the guys like McCamy before there is no one left to defend me.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that that freedom and liberty are applicable to everyone. We're all created equal and have the same rights and opportunities, however that includes the opportunity to throw one's rights away if one so chooses. And while second chances and redemption are noble concepts worthy of respect, it falls on the transgressor to demonstrate that he or she has changed first. Horse, then cart.
DeleteNow you're still trying to take us all over the map subject-wise, but this started out just being about this one guy, Simon McCamy, and his history. And yes, his record is probably fairly close to the borderline for some people on either side of the argument, and that's why I put the question out there. If it were cut-and-dried either way, I wouldn't have bothered.
So please, let's try to stay focused on this one guy and not go hither and yon arguing about New York, speculative prosecutorial overcharging, and other issues that are, at least from your side, easier and more fun to argue. Make the argument for McCamy being allowed to holster up a pistol when he walks out of the Ketchikan jail next month.
Personally, I learned a long time ago to pick my battles, and going to bat for someone with that sort of a record just isn't something that I want to expend my blood and treasure or my political capital on, especially when McCamy has not even bothered to make his own case to be allowed to legally possess a firearm yet to the best of my knowledge. The record suggests that he doesn't care what the laws are--he's just going to do what he wants, laws be damned. In that respect, he's hardly a poster boy for our side.
Geesh, I just can't win here :)
DeleteI get accused of using McCamy as a straw man and me as the only defender of liberty and justice then I get accused of being all over the board when I tried to broaden it out.
Make the argument for McCamy being allowed to holster up a pistol when he walks out of the Ketchikan jail next month.
Okay.
Let's take it from the top.
#1 - Does Shall Not Be Infringed mean it or not?
We argue that it means it to the antis but don't seem to believe it ourselves at times. I'm arguing that it really means it.
Each person, who is fit to be in public, is deserving of the right to keep and bear arms.
Period, end of story.
Don't want them to have arms, don't let them be in public. We, have the ability to do that. We can change the law, we can impose sentences that will keep a person in jail forever.
#2 - He is person who regardless of past mistakes/transgressions/sins/crimes -- however you want to view it that should be able to protect himself with the most efficient tool available.
In setting up prohibited classes of people we are creating a class of people we deem less worthy then ourselves.
Sorry to be blunt but isn't that what we are really saying? Person A screwed up and therefore isn't really a person any longer.
That McCamy's life isn't worth protecting as you or I can protect our lives?
#3 -- Ineffectiveness of the laws. We've already seen here and in many other cases prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm -- crossing a line or order written on paper does not work.
Therefore, why continue to push for laws that will be ignored. Doesn't that just lead to other laws being ignored?
This is seen with McCamy -- clearly he isn't learning his lesson from prison and adding on additional things for him not to do doesn't seem to work.
In that respect, he's hardly a poster boy for our side.
I would rather the antis spend time debating the point McCamy isn't a person who should have firearms than I am a person who shouldn't have firearm. Creeps, thugs, jerks and generally anti-social people aren't good poster boys. I agree completely But doesn't it make sense to say "either you trust him with a firearm or you don't trust him in public" instead of saying if he follows steps 1,2,3.....9999 he can get his rights back?
We argue the antis side when we say by his actions he doesn't deserve to protect his life, defend his liberty from a tyrannical government because he isn't someone we like?
Well guess what, they don't like us either. Ladd Everitt said "All a 'law abiding citizen' really is, is a previously unconvicted felon waiting to commit his first crime."
So what is the difference between us saying "He might commit another crime" and Everitt saying what he did?
Both are Minority Report Crime control aren't they?
This goes back to my comment that Marjorie has been one of his problems. She has prevented him from suffering the consequences of his actions for, probably, all his life. But it cannot be argued that he doesn't know that there are consequences for actions. And his behavior is inviting those consequences.
ReplyDeleteI would be curious if those involved with the Bill of Rights when it was passed would have supported, say, a madman who had killed someone retaining his gun. I'd bet not.
I'll take a stab at this. My rhetorical skills have been much neglected lately.
ReplyDelete"#1 - Does Shall Not Be Infringed mean it or not?"
Yep it does. But (and don't we all just hate that word?). Once a person has gone so far as to commit a felony (or in this case felonies) then they have voluntarily and knowingly placed themselves outside the bounds of society. By doing so they have voluntarily and knowingly surrendered some of their civil rights like personal freedom, voting and, yes, firearms possession. It's not something we as a society are doing to him it's something he has done to himself. We can argue the need or even legality of a lot of the laws on the books but felonious behavior is felonious behavior. My main point with this guy and those like him is they are engaging in a pattern of behavior not simply caught in a web of Machiavellian/Orwellian oversight.
"#2 - He is person who regardless of past mistakes/transgressions/sins/crimes -- however you want to view it that should be able to protect himself with the most efficient tool available.
In setting up prohibited classes of people we are creating a class of people we deem less worthy then ourselves."
No at all. Not to batter a lifeless equine or anything but We didn't do anything to him beyond hold him responsible for his own actions. No, he cannot have access to the most efficient tool available to defend himself precisely because he has shown such utter disregard for the lives and safety of others. He's not less worthy but he sure is less trustworthy and, being a felon and all, I have no concerns for his 2A rights. None. He can carry around a big stick for all I care. Once he demonstrates that he is ready to reenter polite society we can talk about restoring his right to carry a gun.
"#3 -- Ineffectiveness of the laws. We've already seen here and in many other cases prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm -- crossing a line or order written on paper does not work.
Therefore, why continue to push for laws that will be ignored. Doesn't that just lead to other laws being ignored?
This is seen with McCamy -- clearly he isn't learning his lesson from prison and adding on additional things for him not to do doesn't seem to work."
All laws are simply lines written on paper or orders. All of them. Murder, Rape, etc. And yet people still ignore and violate them every day. Are you arguing in favor of not enforcing any law simply because they don't deter some from violating them? McCamy became a prohibited person precisely because he cannot seem to grasp the basic idea that he should stop doing bad things. The idea that the laws don't seem to work to deter him is hardly a good reason to throw our hands in the air and say screw it.
Look, this really isn't about anyone saying he might commit another crime so he loses his 2A rights. It's about looking at his body of criminal work (as it were) and understanding that this man is a FELON, someone who has voluntarily placed himself outside the bounds of polite society and has demonstrated a wanton disregard for his fellow citizen's lives and well being. Yes, I do consider a multi time DUI offender to be in that category and when you combine it with his apparently comfort at thumbing his nose at the Justice System we have someone who is begging for our attention and not in a good way. It would be better for society if such men were permanently removed but we have decided such is cruel and unusual punishment so attention he will get. And if it ever does get to the Protection from a Tyrannical Government time I really don't think such as McCamy can be counted on. He certainly hasn't covered himself with patriotic glory now has he?
Sorry for taking up so much space ML but I do love a good debate!
Six,
DeleteWe, as a society, decide the punishment. So yes We are doing it to him -- now that is a direct consequence of his actions. I'm not denying that.
But we also say "for this crime, you can keep your rights but not that one". Murphy's Law pointed out several times it is society determining what the consequences are. Okay..I'm arguing that it goes too far.
then they have voluntarily and knowingly placed themselves outside the bounds of society.
And once out there is no way back???
That is part and parcel of the problem in my opinion. We so stigmatize people with labels that they can't get jobs, they can't assume the basic responsibilities and rights of people that it is easier for a decision not to even try. After all, if they are always going to be the felon, might as well live up to (or down to ) the label.
He's not less worthy but he sure is less trustworthy and, being a felon and all, I have no concerns for his 2A rights.
And yet we trust those same people with gasoline, with diesel fuel and fertilizer, with house hold chemicals like Ammonia and Chlorine. Doesn't make sense does it ?
He can carry around a big stick for all I care
UH. NO. That is considered a "Club" and outlawed in most states. Prohibited weapons and all. Arms doesn't just refer to firearms.
Next this is the same argument the antis make -- well, if you can't carry a firearm carry the next weapon.
It will reduce violence, save lives -- after all; you gun owners aren't trust worthy. Look at how many people are killed with guns.
Why are we making the same argument they do?
Once he demonstrates that he is ready to reenter polite society we can talk about restoring his right to carry a gun.
Thought that was what a person did after serving time -- reenter polite society. Again we have the ability to define consequences for someone committing repeat offenses that keeps them OUT of Polite Society. If we can't trust them in polite society; shouldn't they really be out of it?
The idea that the laws don't seem to work to deter him is hardly a good reason to throw our hands in the air and say screw it.
I'm arguing that we need to stop passing laws he will ignore and keep him in jail where he'll have fewer opportunities to break them.
I'm arguing that we have millions of people looking at laws that aren't being enforced, aren't being obeyed and people not suffering consequences that reform behavior-- therefore deciding not to follow other laws.
Let's roll back the laws to what we really find objectionable in polite society and make sure the people who violate them are kept out of polite society.
Look, this really isn't about anyone saying he might commit another crime so he loses his 2A rights.
Wait, didn't you say?
My main point with this guy and those like him is they are engaging in a pattern of behavior not simply caught in a web of Machiavellian/Orwellian oversight.
and
Once he demonstrates that he is ready to reenter polite society we can talk about restoring his right to carry a gun.
So - you are predicting his future behavior (keep a gun from him because he's shown he'll commit another crime) right?
And if it ever does get to the Protection from a Tyrannical Government time I really don't think such as McCamy can be counted on.
Wonder how many of our Founding Fathers were viewed that way by the British -- Didn't Ben Franklin smuggle tea; weren't many of them considered criminals for thumbing their noses at the Justice System?
Ok, fair enough. Let's take this to the next logical level.
ReplyDeleteDo you support the 2A rights of convicted felons to actively be armed while currently incarcerated? One cannot argue need as there could be no place where one would need a gun for self defense with more certainty. Even from corrupt and abusive staff, yes? If you do then I acknowledge that we are at a standstill and neither side will ever convince the other.
But.
If you don't then you have accepted a certain level of 'infringement as right, just and appropriate. Now all we're doing is defining the terms and conditions. My argument is pretty simple. Those who have demonstrated through their actions (not words) that they are criminals should have the onus for restoration of their rights placed squarely on their own shoulders. I have stated plainly that I believe there should indeed be a path for that restoration but that it shouldn't be automatic.
Let's view an admittedly anecdotal example of what I'm talking about: Lawrence Singleton. Singleton raped and chopped off the arms of a 15 year old girl. He was paroled but so heinous were his crimes that he had to live on the grounds of San Quentin because no community would take him in. When his parole was done he moved to Florida where he...killed again. He didn't use a gun as far as I can tell. Should his 2A rights have been restored as soon as he stepped past the San Quentin gate and assumed his freedom? Anecdotal as I said but our history is replete with such as he. I argue that once a person has taken up the brand of criminal it's up to them to prove to the rest of us that they can be trusted with a legal firearm once again. A person is no less a gang banger or rapist or armed robber or murderer 5 minutes after they've finished out their sentence than they were 5 minutes before. To an extent I am predicting his future behavior, based on his past. It's the very definition of criminal recidivism. First stop committing crimes.
And there is a vast gulf of difference between a petty criminal, wrapped up in his narcissism and sociopathy and patriots laboring against a tyrannical monarchy. You cannot equate McCamy and Franklin in the same breath with a straight face.
If you want to argue illicit laws and unequal enforcement I'm up for that but it's a side issue. What we're talking about is whether or not demonstrated and repeated felonious criminal behavior should be a disqualifier for legal firearms possession. I say a felon is a felon, whether incarcerated or not, and until they demonstrate otherwise should be prohibited.
Six,
DeleteDo you support the 2A rights of convicted felons to actively be armed while currently incarcerated?
I think that is a set up for an either or argument --- and you are making a both and argument.
I'm arguing EITHER lock them up OR give them their rights back. But while they are locked up; they don't have the same rights. So it isn't an issue of do they have 2nd Amendment Rights in prison but for that term of imprisonment they are greatly deprived of all rights.
What I see you and Murphy's Law doing is advocating that we BOTH lock them up AND further deprive them of some rights (kind like the War on Some Drugs).
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their actions. I'm arguing those consequences shouldn't be for the rest of their life. If we feel that they can not be trusted to exercise those rights acceptably, keep them locked up.
One cannot argue need as there could be no place where one would need a gun for self defense with more certainty
Ideally, prison shouldn't be a place a firearm is needed. That failure is on society - how we build, manage, staff, secure jails is a separate issue.
If you don't then you have accepted a certain level of 'infringement as right, just and appropriate.
The Constitution (state and federal) clearly, legally, morally and socially calls out times when the deprivation or infringement of rights is acceptable. -- Serving time in prison, serving in the military, government service, etc all are those times.
But once I got out of the service, I was not longer bound by the requirements I not keep a firearm in my home (barracks) right?
I argue that once a person has taken up the brand of criminal it's up to them to prove to the rest of us that they can be trusted with a legal firearm once again.
And isn't that the same argument, just with different qualifiers the anti-rights cultists make ?
They simply want US, the unconvicted felons, to prove we are to be trusted with a firearm?
We reject argument right?
Why should the criminal have to prove his/her worth to defend his/her life to you or anyone else? Haven't they served their time. Haven't they completed the court sentence.
And what happens when they run into the people who will never be convinced no matter what they do?
What proves they aren't? A traffic ticket? A unrelated misdemeanor? A sneeze in the wrong direction? 11 items in the 10 items or less lane?
Aren't you setting up an impossible task for a person?
Also -- the slippery slope argument comes into play. Try to avoid it but this isn't theory or paranoia. It is reality. Used to be violent felons, then just felons. Now bills are in state and federal legislation to make some misdemeanor crimes a reason to prohibit.
If we don't fight this fight....a failure to signal lane change properly might turn you or I in a prohibited person. Isn't that reason to fight ?
I think we're at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a setup, it's a reasonable question. There is little difference between a convicted felon behind bars and one just walking out the gate except in the minds of those who refuse to accept the idea that some folks are demonstrably bad and separating the sheep from the goats takes time and savvy. Time some innocents will not have if the felonious among us have an easy and legal source of firearms. That is why I support an approach whereby felons have an avenue for the return of all their rights while still giving the system a chance to monitor and evaluate their behavior. Why is that wrong? I think it's perceived as wrong because of a massive distrust of the system. Ok, I get that but that means the system needs to be fixed not that we throw out the baby with the bath water. The question, for all of us, is who is part of the attempt at a solution and who has already checked out and quit?
I refuse to believe that you yourself have never once in your entire life either met in person or otherwise seen someone you think should probably not have access to a gun. That's a simple and valid judgement. Life is nothing more than a series of judgements. We each make them as best we can. But to baldly state that if a convicted felon isn't actively incarcerated they have an unquestioned right to a firearm smacks of unthinking, knee jerk absolutism.
I think you're clutching at straws. I'm talking about objective, demonstrable and proven felonious behavior and you're accusing me of supporting an evolution of the definition of prohibited persons downward. Never said or implied support for any such thing and never will. Can't be clearer than that.
The difference between my stance and the anti gunners is one of observable information on which to make an informed opinion. I'm not talking about the everyday citizen or even those who have committed but never been convicted of committing a crime. I'm talking about convicted in a court of law felons (and mostly multi time offenders like the subject if this post). I can't argue a hypothetical like your traffic ticket example simply because it isn't true. If such comes to pass please let me know and I'll add my weight to yours. Short of that I'll stand on my own judgement, education, experience and common sense. Like I said, I think we're just going to have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye on this. I have seen the horrors the willfully evil of the world inflict on the innocent way too often to be anything but certain in my own mind about this subject.
Sorry ML but I think I let you down.
No Six, you didn't let me down. I pretty much gave up when he suggested that it would somehow be better to deprive every convicted felon of his liberty forever than it would be to let one out of prison but not let him buy a shiny new gun and carry it around with him.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll pose one final question to 3boxes:
Let's assume that tomorrow, the governor decides that prison overcrowding is a problem and he arbitrarily commutes the sentence of every criminal serving time in the state's maximum-security prison but orders that every inmate thus released must move into one community so that they can be monitored. This community, coincidentally, is 3boxes' small town. I would like him to tell me straight up whether he would feel comfortable with a few thousand murderers, rapists, car-jackers, armed robbers and the like all moving into his neighborhood AND being handed a new gun and a box of bullets each because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Would that be ok by you, 3boxes, or would you protest this move as vigorously as possible?
You know, once upon a time there was a man who cheated on me. When I found out (didn't take long; he thought he was being clever, but it was only alcohol and testosterone giving him confidence), I dumped his ass. Hard.
ReplyDeleteHe was sorry, he said. He was wrong, he understood now that he was sober and hungover, and can't he just walk back into my arms and my bed and have everything the way it was before?
No, felons don't get their rights back the second they walk out the door, any more than cheating men get their relationship back. Both cases knowingly and willfully squandered the trust that was placed in them, and societies, like ex-girlfriends, are very, very hard to convince to trust again.
What do you think would have happened had I said "Oh, of course, dear, anything you say, I love you always, never mind that night." If you know anything of human nature, you know that the lower the consequences, the more likely he is to cheat again. Men are not angels, and it is neither safe to society nor to hearts to treat them as though they were.
Now, is Mr. McAmy's life worth the less because of his sentence? Of course not; all lives are precious and irreplacable. However, that does not mean we are obligated to free him from the consequences of how he chooses to live his life. If he meets up with a bear, or a mugger, the lack of firearm the law no longer allows him is a consequence of his actions and his life - just as my life is not worth any the less because I cannot run on these knees due to the consequences of my actions.
In case of bear, may G-d have mercy on both our souls.