Do felons lose the right to self defense.

[gh1950]

How in the world are you coming up with that conclusion??

He was charged with felony murder, which means that someone was killed during the commission of a felony by the accused. The only felony is the weapons charge. The weapons charge is based on him being a felon. "But for" he being a felon, there would be no felony or felony murder charge.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have gotten hung with some sort of manslaughter charge if he had beat the dude to death with a baseball bat, but he wouldn't have the weapons possession charge. But he didn't so we can't speculate about that.

further includes, without limitation

Any law that is "without limitation" I personally consider not precise.

 

[Ken Ford]

In Georgia, your voting rights are automatically restored once you totally completed your sentence (hard time, probation, fines).

This is incorrect.

 

[Ken Ford]

In Georgia, you don't have to be in fear of your life or for someone else. You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony Note that the statute is written in the disjunctive, so that there it contemplates forcible felonies that do not involve the threat of death or great bodily injury.



The news story is a little vague about the the traditional who, what, when, where, and why so a lot is speculation So if he was shooting to prevent the commission of a forcible felony he would be good. Again, from what we can infer from the charges, if he were not a felon, there would be no charges - all three charges are predicated on the felon in possession charge. Part of my inference is that he WAS NOT charged with malice murder - which helps isolate the fact that the felon in possession charge is the predicate felony.

But one of the ongoing debates in Georgia self defense circles is when does an assault actually end, and when does a person reasonably cease to be in fear of serious bodily injury. If someone has just beaten the tar out of you, can you still reasonably be in fear that they will renew the attack? Juries seem to say "yes?"

This was misdemeanor battery at best, not a forcible felony, even from the one sided witness accounts.

 

[geezer]

Good info in here, and good opinions. Not knowing the entire story leaves us all speculating...JUST speculating.

 

[gh1950]

This is incorrect.

Really? Then me and a whole of other people are operating under a misapprehension.

https://www.acluga.org/en/campaigns/get-your-vote-back

https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/felon-voting-rights/georgia/

However, it has been found that employees in some local county voter registration facilities are misinformed about Georgia law. Others cannot determine electoral eligibility when a felon tries to make application. As a result, many felons, who are discouraged from voting, are unable to vote because of this lack of knowledge and prejudice.

Apparently it's not just employees of voters registration facilities.

https://pap.georgia.gov/pardons-restoration-rights

Going out on a limb and saying these people know what they are talking about.

The right to vote is automatically restored upon completion of your sentence(s) therefore you need not submit an application.

And this is really good authority (or at least I think so).

https://law.justia.com/constitution/georgia/conart2.html

Paragraph III. Exceptions to right to register and vote. (a) No person who has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude may register, remain registered, or vote except upon completion of the sentence.

So care to point out exactly where I was "incorrect?"

 

[fattboyzz]

sss

 

[BLIP]

fascinating. In to read later.

 

[Ken Ford]

Really? Then me and a whole of other people are operating under a misapprehension.

https://www.acluga.org/en/campaigns/get-your-vote-back

https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/felon-voting-rights/georgia/


Apparently it's not just employees of voters registration facilities.

https://pap.georgia.gov/pardons-restoration-rights

Going out on a limb and saying these people know what they are talking about.




And this is really good authority (or at least I think so).

https://law.justia.com/constitution/georgia/conart2.html



So care to point out exactly where I was "incorrect?"

I will concede that is the way it should work for STATES rights in Georgia. Looking at the ACLU web sight regarding this it seems you are right in your opinion, but the states disagrees and regularly purges the registration roles of felons that register, based on the moral turpitude clause. Although no one quite knows what that is.

 

[Discollector]

Regarding your question op, I used to think that any felon should not be allowed to carry or possess a firearm.
But now I believe that many non violent felons could, not should, be considered for carry/possession.
This would exclude pedophiles and some other crimes

In other words, you like to have different classes of citizens? The privileged and those who are second class.

 

[gh1950]

I will concede that is the way it should work for STATES rights in Georgia. Looking at the ACLU web sight regarding this it seems you are right in your opinion, but the states disagrees and regularly purges the registration roles of felons that register, based on the moral turpitude clause. Although no one quite knows what that is.

The Secretary of State regularly purges the voter roles of felons, because in the tradition of all bureaucracies, there is no way for it to check to see if a felon has successfully completed his sentence, being as that may involve 3 0r 4 state agencies.

That fact that the felon's name has been purged from the rolls by the Sec. of State does not mean that he cannot immediately re-register. An analogous situation would be where a voter has been purged for not voting for a while (another favorite activity for the Sec. of State). That voter can go down the next day and register to vote. In fact this issue is being hotly litigated around the country.

The fact that the Sec. of State purges one's name from the voter rolls does not affect the fact that one has the right to vote. They purge other people for other reasons, and they still retain the right to vote if they re-register, or contest the purge (which is what the ACLU is doing).

Just to put everything in perspective, the Ga. Court of Appeals has held that writing a bad check is a crime of moral turpitude, so that strictly speaking anyone who has ever written a bad check and "picked it up at the courthouse" should not be able to vote.

The offense of criminal issuance of a bad check is committed when a person "makes, draws, utters, or delivers a check, draft, or order for the payment of money on any bank or other depository in exchange for a present consideration or wages, knowing that it will *659 not be honored by the drawee." OCGA § 16-9-20 (a). The heart of the crime, whether its commission is a felony or a misdemeanor, is dishonesty and thus involves moral turpitude

CARRUTH v. BROWN
202 Ga. App. 656 (1992)
415 S.E.2d 470

Note that the constitutional provision bars person convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, not "felonies" involving crimes of moral turpitude.

If we barred every one in Georgia who has ever floated paper, we could close the poll at 12:00 noon on election day, and go have a drink.

The State does not "disagree" - it just uses it power to take people's name off the voter rolls, who can immediately re-register.

And it does little (nothing) to advertise the fact that convicted felons who complete their sentences are entitled to vote, because, well, you know, 70% of them are black, and, well, you know, presumed to be Democrats. Leading to most lay people and as noted, voting officials to assume that the felons cannot vote.