HB 142 - Rights Restoration
- Thread starter Nathan Hale
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Why would you be against this? The bill clearly delineates violent offenses from lesser non-violent offenses; allows a 15 year period of probation between conviction and possible re-instatement, and allows pardons by the Governor.
I know the arguments on the LEO side, but there has to be a vehicle to offer re-instatement of a person's ability to protect themselves. Particularly if they meet the criteria of repent!
Well after knowing someone who I believe would have qualified for this, burn down one of his family member's homes, I'm a bit more against it.
The guy was pardoned for non violent offenses, drugs, and managed not to get caught for 15 years. His behavior changed just enough to not get caught, until his life was upset again. Then he set a home on fire and wrecked his vehicle and turns out he had quite the mixed of drugs along with a firearm with him.
I get that there are special circumstances for some folks, but seems like most people can avoid committing felonies.
The guy was pardoned for non violent offenses, drugs, and managed not to get caught for 15 years. His behavior changed just enough to not get caught, until his life was upset again. Then he set a home on fire and wrecked his vehicle and turns out he had quite the mixed of drugs along with a firearm with him.
I get that there are special circumstances for some folks, but seems like most people can avoid committing felonies.
Conversely, 5 years ago my cat wouldn't come anywhere near me; now she can't wait to jump up and snuggle in my lap!
I am not debating the fact that these crimes are reprehensible or even caused someone harm, I am only spotlighting the extra effort made to suppress someone Rights just because it involves a firearm.
Last edited:
JoeLiberty
Well-Known Member
You mean the guy was a prohibited person and still managed to get a gun? Friggin shocker. It's almost like criminals have no problem breaking the law. It's almost like this proposed law would have had no effect on the situation. Meanwhile the ones who are following the law get more restricted? IMHO the law abiding should not be more helpless than the criminals that prey on them.
Agreed! However, the fact that none of the dummies had any objection to it whatsoever, scares me! They are up to something!
Agreed! However, the fact that none of the dummies had any objection to it whatsoever, scares me! They are up to something!
Lol, you are probably right. Probably already know the final outcome but want to make it look like they tried.
I think they want the voting Rights restored for their crew.
Or they know guns will be banned soon anyway!!
Ok, seems I may owe some people some apologies. My operatives tell me there was a decent showing of support at the committee hearing.
But always could have been more. So those of you that were whining on that 20 page thread about the subject that didn't go, get no apologies! And, if it passes; you deserve no credit!
Those that did? Good for you guys!
But always could have been more. So those of you that were whining on that 20 page thread about the subject that didn't go, get no apologies! And, if it passes; you deserve no credit!
Those that did? Good for you guys!
