Do you support the 2nd amendment 100% or just partially?

[JBryan314]

You lose your rights when you infringe on the rights of others. Felons have done this. So sorry, but it's not my fault. Even in the days of the Revolution they had men sitting in jail. Did they let them play with guns? No.

 

[Brandon_SPC]

Sawman:

17. I was denied a job and think it was because of my criminal or arrest record. What do I do?

Generally, most state law prohibits the use of past crimes or arrest records as a factor against you in a hiring decision unless it is in some way relevant to the job position, or if your conviction bans your from working in that particular field. In some cases, the use of criminal records in a hiring decision may be discriminatory. If you think your rights may have been violated, you should contact a lawyer licensed in your state.

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.011

Rights of employees and applicants: May not be disqualified to practice or pursue any occupation or profession that requires a license, permit, or certificate because of a prior conviction, unless it was for a felony or first-degree misdemeanor and is directly related to the specific line of work.

So in this case Mikes if it was a non firearm related felon then yes it is okay to hire a felon.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/criminal-records

 

[Brandon_SPC]

You lose your rights when you infringe on the rights of others. Felons have done this. So sorry, but it's not my fault. Even in the days of the Revolution they had men sitting in jail. Did they let them play with guns? No.

So technically Congress should lose their rights correct? Because they sure as hell been infringing on all of ours. Also do you not think the had people that stole or do any crime fight next to them? Because if I remember correctly from what the books said they took everyone that volunteered to be part of their militia. There wasn't a background check, no questionnaire. Pretty much hey do you support our cause if so are you willing to die? Yes then get in line. Something like that.

 

[bigbulls]

The point of the question would be ............. does Scott hire any convicted felons ?? Do the people that work at either place work side by side with convicted felons. Are you ashamed to answer this question ?? Seems you are. NOW ..... wondering why.

I talked to my wife's boss. I told him that she would quit if he started hiring convicted felons. I do not want my wife working in an environment with convicted felons. He has absolutely no plans to. In fact,his insurance will not allow it and as a condition of employment all applicants have to pass a backbround check. Hmmmmmm ........ wonder why. This is so unfair !! Yeah right.

Now ..... sit back and think of all the crimes,sex crimes,violent crimes,etc,etc that "convicted felons" did their time for. Would you want your wife,how about your daughter,to work,sometimes closely,with these people. Sure you would,after all .... they did their time. Yeah ...... well ..... not me.

Brandon .... this is how employment ties into owning a firearm.

big bulls ..... I suspect that you still will not answer my question in post #9. In advance of that,may I please ask --- WHY NOT ??? --- SAWMAN

If I were you I would start your own thread about who does or does not employ fellons in Pensacola as it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

But to answer you, you would have to ask the owner of the company.

 

[Whisky]

100% "Shall not be infringed"

 

[bigbulls]

You lose your rights when you infringe on the rights of others. Felons have done this. So sorry, but it's not my fault. Even in the days of the Revolution they had men sitting in jail. Did they let them play with guns? No.

Not having rights while you are sitting in jail paying for your crime is a lot different than continually having no rights after you have paid for your crime.

 

[Ranger19]

I guess some people would consider Jesus and his follower's as Felon's. Big Bull is right as is Brandon. My two cent's

 

[JSD2137]

Wow Really?

 

[mooosie]

If you are convicted of a crime and serve whatever punishment you are sentenced to serve , then it should be over, your punishment has been fulfilled your rights should be restored all is forgiven and you go on with your life, if you screw up again back to prison


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Viking1204]

If you're convicted a violent crime then you should never be allowed to own a gun. I could see non-violent felons getting their gun rights back after they are released from prison.

 

[mooosie]

If the justice system releases them they have paid the price for their crime. Any further penalty is just a scam to take your rights. If these people can't be expected to return to civilian life and fly right then they shouldn't be turned loose on the rest of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrankT]

If you are convicted of a crime and serve whatever punishment you are sentenced to serve , then it should be over, your punishment has been fulfilled your rights should be restored all is forgiven and you go on with your life, if you screw up again back to prison


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If non violent felony I can see that for a violent offense NO WAY!

 

[mooosie]

If they are violent they shouldn't be turned loose!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seanpcola]

Wouldn't it be rational to take each case on its own merit? It doesn't take a genius to determine whether someone just effed up or they're a psychopath.

I have someone in my family that was arrested and convicted a dozen years ago for domestic violence. It was a bogus charge, I know, I was there the whole day and night and witnessed the "crime". Typical knee jerk reaction to something that was interpreted wrong in the heat of the moment. Since that time this person has proven 100% reliable, went on to start his own business, pays more in taxes than a lot of people make in a year and is raising a wonderful bunch of kids. He's a home owner (fine home), reliable, responsible and as upstanding as any human I know. The road blocks to his getting his rights back are just about not worth it.

Another guy I know got convicted on a stupid pot possession charge. He wasn't even smoking it, it was growing (2 tiny plants) on the back of his wooded property. Nope, can't have a gun, but I would trust him to get my back anytime!

The psycho that would use a firearm in a crime is going to get it anyway.

 

[donr101395]

Wouldn't it be rational to take each case on its own merit? It doesn't take a genius to determine whether someone just effed up or they're a psychopath.

That is where I was going with my comments. Mandatory minimum sentences are for the lazy and/or ignorant as is a system that attempts to punish for decades after the completion of the sentence.

 

[Famine]

So the real question is should an individuals civil liberties/rights be fully restored on the completion of jail time served for a 1st degree misdemeanor or felony conviction. In the past that was pretty much the case - mostly because if you moved to another area you could become anyone you wanted to be. No means to track people - that changed with technology and the ability to share information across geographically disperse areas. Telegraph, telephone, fax, radio, TV and now the Internet and data sharing pretty much ubiquitous in this country. If our prison systems worked as they should be which is to return to society someone ready and able to be a positive, contributing member and society was willing to accept them as such then I would agree. For the most prisons serve as a training facility to improve the criminal skills. The higher the security of the prison the less likely the rehabilitation and the less likely society is willing to accept them back. That results in the inability to find jobs that pay a living wage and that contributes to the return to crime....that just applies to those that want to go straight - then there are those that the criminal life and the opportunity to make lots of money in criminal activity is what they know and want to do. It is not a simple question or answer anymore - heck today we release prisoners early due to over crowding. That's due the cost of building and manning prisons. As for Club Feds - they are intended to house prisoners with a low risk of flight. The annual cost of housing a prisoner is directly related to the security of the prison - with maximum security facilities the most expensive - they are not revenue generators, they don't pay much and no one wants to have one built near them let alone have their taxes raised to pay for them - whether local, state or federal. Conceptually I have always been on of commit the crime, do your time and done....no follow on punishment - prison was supposed to be the punishment. My problem is the court system is broken - we recently had a Pensacola Judge sentence a confessed pedophile to probation with restrictions because he was a good doctor ignoring the minimum mandatory sentence without discussing the mitigating circumstances as required by law. To that end I believe they should not be restored immediately on release. I think other things should be considered first...like gain time for good behavior, early parole...I think that regardless of release before civil liberties and rights restoration the time originally sentenced must be completed. At that point I believe there should also be a time period that the individual must show that they have worked to become a positive contributing member of society and only then should their rights and liberties be restored.

 

[mooosie]

I don't think we are going to settle this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk