Federal agents raided rapper Lil Wayne’s plane at Miami Opa Locka Airport, finding a gold-plated gun and some ammo, according to TMZ. Born Dwayne Carter, the popular performer now faces 10 years in prison because of a 2009 felony conviction, which meant he lost his 2nd Amendment protections forever. We used to say that a court sentence was how a man pays his debt to society. Now, a man can never pay that debt. The land of second chances…no more?
Background Resource:
Lil Wayne Charged by Feds, Poss. of Firearm, Ammo
[TMZ, November 17, 2020]
Scott Ott, Bill Whittle and Stephen Green produce 20 new episodes of Right Angle each month thanks to our Members. Join us today, or make a one-time donation to support these messages. Thank you.
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · Are Former Felons Still Citizens? Lil Wayne Faces 10 Years After Feds Raid Plane, Find Gun
37 replies on “Are Former Felons Still Citizens? Lil Wayne Faces 10 Years After Feds Raid Plane, Find Gun”
Regardless of wether the law is reasonable, he is a felon that intentionally (probably) violated the law (another feonly). Bad on him. Stop breaking the law Iil Wayne and you’ll stop getting punished. If you don’t like the law, spend some of those millions to change it via political activism.
So if I have superb skills as a bookkeeper and have recently been released from prison after stealing money from my previous employer, there shouldn’t be a public record? I think the records should be completely public so that there are no whispered secrets after a hiring takes place. The employer and employee start off in an atmosphere of honesty, which is a really good place for a new start. It may take a while to land that first job, but it can be done.
Your words make a lot of sense. I sympathize with them to a large degree. Still, they raise questions.
I wonder, what is the temptation of a felon in the “while” that it takes to “land that first job”?
Who pays for prisons and loses money as recidivism rises?
In an age of virtual envelopment what information are employers NOT entitled to?
Do you believe that expungement should somehow remedy these “completely public records”?
Is there a stigma to hiring a felon, particularly in public relations? If so, who really pays the price for completely public records?
Finally, have you ever been less than honest on a resume? Did the employer have a right to know about that?
No need to write an answer. Just a thought exercise.
All I would ask is “Where did you bury the money?” and “Are you married?” 😉
Some bright spark, in the early 2000s I think it was, decided to amend the law on police cautions in the UK. The point of a caution was that it was time limited; but this update to the law not only had it last forever, but also backdated the law to include all cautions previously given.
Obviously (although not to the politicians of the time it seems) many people who had taken a caution rather than argue their case, as advised at the time, suddenly found themselves with a caution again; which showed up on Disclosure and Barring Service forms.
As you may imagine, the immediate fallout was that those who require such a disclosure for their job (police, teachers, nurses etc) suddenly found themselves on moving to a new employer, suddenly ineligible for their own role.
One good example was someone who had thrown an egg at a policeman as a youth, suddenly losing their job after moving positions and having the standard DBS procedure followed.
Suffice to say that eventually someone in a subsequent administration must’ve seen the light and finally changed it back so that cautions expired. But the problem was much the same as discussed here. Those who had paid their debt were suddenly back on a list. It’s not right: second chances should exist.
The 1968 Gun Control Act (patterned after a 1938 Nazi law) banned gun possession by anyone convicted of a felony or dishonorably discharged from the military. This law was applied retroactively to all convicted felons. Anyone wishing to have their gun rights restored had to request “relief from disability.” In theory, people who could prove they had a long record of law‐abiding behavior and good conduct could petition ATF for restoration of their Second Amendment rights. Granting a petition was entirely at the discretion of the ATF, however, since 1992 all appropriations riders have forbidden ATF from processing petitions for restoration of rights. This is a Catch 22.
Another observation: We really ought to stop viewing a felony as a more morally extreme trespass than a misdemeanor. You can commit a felony by copying a dvd. The Federal Government ought not be seen as a morally higher branch of humanity than the State or the Individual, a slight against whom approaches damnation.
What happens there is that the DVD copying you mention is a felony and so is murder. Not remotely morally equivalent but because murder is a felony and was before things in the level of DVD copying even existed, all felonies are thought of as worse crimes than most of them should be.
“You’re a felon? My GAWD! You’re a HORRIBLE person. What? You copied a DVD? But you’re a FELON!”
Not even being facetious here: part of Li’l Wayne’s job is to do drugs. Like Bob Marley or Art Garfunkel, weed goes in and songs come out. People should stop clutching their pearls about that part. Also, it’s not really indicative of nefarious behavior that he had $22,000 on his person. He has a net worth of $150 million. By all rights he should have it stuffed down his pants, and lining his jacket. Also, he never did anything bad to anybody. That’s not really part of the Li’l Wayne bio. He is actually a supporter of the cops.
As a former federal and state prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer I have been involved in hundreds of these firearms cases. Believe it, or not, the legal rational the lifetime ban on firearm possession by felons is the historical imposition of the death penalty at common law for all felony crimes. The courts took the mandatory taking of the felons life and analogized that to the lifetime taking of the right to firearms, saying since we could take the felons life we certainly can take his right to firearms. This cropped up in the late 1800s during the change from agrarian to denser industrial society. Obviously, this infringes on the right to firearms (and in federal and some state courts the right to possess body armor is also banned so one has an even harder time defending himself). This is an idiotic basis upon which to violate a citizens God given right to self defense.
A ban on firearm possession while in custody in jail or prison makes sense. A ban during post release supervision, parole, probation or federal supervised release, featuring the worst features of parole and probation combined, also makes some sense. The supervised released person is under liability for minimal or no notice inspection by armed parol or probation officers as part of his punishment. No as strong a case but still convincing. After this point the reason for a temporary bar to the right to arms makes no sense. The idea that felons will reoffend after release is true for a significant felons. But these people are usually still on some form of supervision when they do. It is the ones who have truly turned their life around and stayed clean who are truly victimized.
This reminded me of something I read. Someone said something like ACB wants felons to be able to own machine guns.” Not really. She thought someone convicted of felony mail fraud should be able to have a gun. Sounds good to me. If someone is judged too dangerous to own a gun (like a psychotic, not just convicted of a felony), ok then. And now I just thought of a blog I need to write. Was going to do it here, but it is too long.
Depending on who was doing the quoting, “machine gun” could be lefty speak for “long black gun that scares me” without regard for caliber, rate of fire or anything else that differentiates a pellet gun from a gatling.
Oo! Gatling pellet gun. That might be fun. 😉
I saw plans for a gatling rubber band gun somewhere. They had plans for all sorts of rubber band guns but the 6 band one was the most complex.
Gold plating is also good for corrosion reduction/ prevention. And if the gun had some form of electronics for fingerprint or voice print only usage, etc., then there would be gold plating in some of those electronics, too.
So we can blame Nixon, when he took us off of the Gold Standard in 1971 he forced gold possessors to find other uses for their gold than as money.
This is a tough subject and before I say anything else I want to be clear I fully agree with Scott. If you are not under any legal burden then it should not be illegal for you to own a gun.
I do not see anything in the U.S. Constitution that supports this practice of branding people for life. I think fully restoring their rights as citizens is the surest, cheapest way to cut recidivism.
Consider the practices in states like California where pretty much everything is a felony. It seems clear to me that this is a sort of gun control whereby if the state can in any way slap that label on someone they can then punish the hell out of them for the rest of their life. This feeds the California Correctional Industrial Machine with fresh bodies on a steady basis.
Also in California if you own a gun or guns and are going through a divorce or any sort of domestic related legal proceeding the judge can arbitrarily order you to dispose of your firearms and provide proof that they were sold at a reduced price to a non-family member or someone who is not a friend. (You can’t sell your guns to your brother for a dollar and then buy them back when the legal burden is met.You must dispose of them permanently without any conviction for any crime and if/when the legal situation is resolved in your favor you have to go through the whole process of replacing your firearms.) Or that they were turned in to the police for destruction and the cops give you a receipt … etc. There has to be solid documentation that you are no longer in possession of your legally obtained and owned firearms.
This is an unconstitutional but very common practice in California. As I understand it, and bear in mind that I’m going by anecdotal information imparted to me by those who have gone through the process — It’s SOP for a judge to ask if either party owns any firearms and if so to order them disposed of.
So, if it’s a crime against humanity, and it is, to kill a baby in it’s mother’s womb why is it also not a crime committed by the State against a person to render them incapable of defending themselves against lethal attack?
There’s more of a similar nature going on in California. Illegal entries to a persons home by agents of the State is something I’ve personally dealt with.
We moved my Mother out from Minnesota to California so she could spend her latter years with my sister and me. Mom’s sister, my Aunt, and her family also lived there. My Mom moved from a medium sized farmhouse with a lifetime of memorabilia and possessions to an apartment in San Pedro, an unincorporated sub-municipality of Los Angeles in Los Angeles County. We went through her stuff and tossed everything she would let us get rid of but there was still a lot that she had accumulated over a lifetime of living. She was by no means any sort of “hoarder”, she just had a lifetime of possessions that were dear to her. This rendered her apartment somewhat cluttered. It was clean and tidy and easily met anyone’s standards for safety and access but it had a lot of stuff in it. Then …
After several years of living there and under the pretext of building inspection to guarantee compliance by landlords a man showed up at her door one day to “inspect”. As far as I know, no one had made any complaints in the 4 apartment building but I’m absolutely certain that my Mom didn’t complain about anything. She had a very good relationship with the landlord/owner who was a family friend and I often did necessary repairs and replacements then submitted a bill to the landlord for materials and labor — Which was fine with him. He and his wife traveled a lot so if they were gone I just kept an eye on things and dealt with problems until they returned. This worked out quite well for everyone. I was always reimbursed promptly though the landlord wanted a bill for tax purposes and did not want Mom to just take it off the rent. Also fine with me.
So this guy from the City shows up to inspect and Mom wouldn’t let him in. She called me. My office was only a few doors down so I came right over. The landlord was there too. I didn’t see at the moment any reason not to let this guy do his inspection as long as I was there too. I knew there was nothing that would violate the regulations in that apartment because I did the maintenance. I thought this would take a few minutes and then be done forever …
Boy was I wrong.
This guy from the City looked around and didn’t find anything wrong with the apartment. He said so. Then he said “This place is a little cluttered, you’re going to have to get rid of some of this stuff.” My Mom got very upset.
I got her calmed down and I said to the guy “What does that have to do with the landlord meeting the code(s) for apartments? Isn’t that the pretext you entered my Mom’s home over?”
He said “There’s too much clutter in here and she’s going to have to get rid of some of it.”
I said “Show me the regulation or law that gives you the authority to order that. Then provide me with exact information on what it is that must be done to legally meet compliance to those regs or laws. Otherwise we’re at the mercy of your personal, arbitrary opinion and we are not subject to your undefined arbitrary opinions on anything at all. Without specific information on how to achieve compliance we have no way to know when we’ve met the legal standard you are claiming to apply here.”
The guy’s jaw dropped. How dare I question his authority to give arbitrary, unenforceable orders to people in their own home(s) regarding their personal property? I must be one of those “troublemakers” that keep the City from keeping everyone “safe”, huh?
The guy looked at the landlord and said “Are you OK with this place?” He was looking to co-opt the authority of a landlord to enforce his arbitrary demands.
The landlord said “I’m fine with it. This lady is my best renter. I don’t see anything wrong in here.”
The guy stormed off and that was the last we heard of it until the next time the City wanted to “inspect”. This time they posted a notice near the mail boxes of the date and time they were going to inspect. That was very helpful to me because this time I was ready.
I looked up all the statutes and printed them out so I would have the needed information in my hands. According to the actual laws they could not enter Mom’s apartment without her consent, which we didn’t know before and had innocently given it the first time. The landlord also consulted his attorney and confirmed the information I had turned up. Just like any other government agents entry without consent required a warrant. I got my sister to come over with her video camera and we were waiting outside the front door when the City Inspectors showed up.
They looked at the papers on the clipboard in my hand and at my sister who was taking video of them from the time they approached and asked “What’s all this about?”
I said “We deny you entry to this home without a warrant. We are taking video as evidence. If you proceed we will take legal action for a violation of Civil Rights on a Federal level and post the video to YouTube as your consent is not necessary and is implied if you enter this home.” (I was careful to say “home” and not “apartment”.)
They said “Oh, well if you don’t want us to inspect then we can’t. Is there nothing you wish to have us look at to ensure your landlord is in compliance?”
I said “I have nothing else to say to you other than to wish you ‘Good day and goodbye’.”
And they left. Which proves the original inspector was overstepping his authority in the first place. They never came back again.
I was never so happy to see anything in my rear view mirror as I was to see the back side of the “Welcome to California” sign as I left that state for the last time. I still have clients in California and I’ve made it very clear to them that under no circumstances will I ever set foot nor spend so much as a taxable penny in that political hell again. I’m an American and I escaped back to America. Leaving California felt like coming home after a very long time.
A terrifying anecdote, in its way. As I thought about your story a little, I could see Michael Moore as the original inspector you described.
I wonder if any of you who are familiar with that big book of psychological disorders knows if there is one in there describing people “who just can’t leave other people alone”. It seems to be a real mental problem for some folks.
In the movie version, is Michael Moore played by Danny DeVito?
Michael Moore as the inspector? Completely unrealistic. There is no apartment that could accommodate his ego and his girth simultaneously.
He was about the same size as per Bills brilliant alliteration of lil’ Mikey “That malignant manatee of malicious malfeasance” — and at least as ugly.
My mom was terrified … that this stranger could come into her home and give her orders regarding her privately owned property. Without anything more than his say-so to back it up.
Plus the fact that by his demeanor this asshat was expecting to be obeyed and quite used to people doing so. It was very clear to me by his body language and facial expressions that he was wholly unaccustomed to having someone stand up to him and take all the wind out of the sails of his Good Ship Petty Tyrant.
It took weeks before my Mom accepted that there was no reason to expect jack-booted Storm Troopers to kick down her door, drag her into the street and toss all her belongings into the gutter.
People reading this might not think the incident was such a big deal but it was. It was a really big deal to a kindly, harmless old woman who had spent her life in Free America and knew what her rights where there — Then come to Kalifornia to find out that a stranger could enter her home under color of law and upend her entire existence on no more than a whim. With her having no recourse at all. Because that’s the way it looked from her eyes.
It was a very, very big deal and I hate to think what would have happened had I been away on one of my protracted business trips. Had she made any effort to comply with those unlawful, ridiculous commands it might have been viewed as “consent” and then we may have had a whole furball of legal problems and costs to deal with.
For a guy like me that grew up in Free America, served in our Armed Forces and has a fairly decent education the contrast posed by Kalifornia to the rest of what I consider My Country is stark and obvious.
Kalifornians see it differently. When I would recount this tale to them they would just shrug and say “Why didn’t your Mom just get rid of some of her stuff?” and thereby miss the point completely. They have been conditioned not only to accept this kind of thing, it’s what they want and they’re happy to do it to you whether you want it or not.
Well said, all. But, Scott that was fabulous. Rights are rights, it’s that simple.
We have been listening to elected officials for years talking about prison reform, or sentencing reform; never have I heard a real discussion on the purpose of prison. Why do we send people to jail? Is it intended to be some lengthy time out so they can think about the wrong they did? Given the results it could be argued we send people to jail to make them better criminals, rather than better citizens.
We send them to prison to provide a punishment, not a time-out. That is the only rational way to ensure justice to their victims. We can’t measure justice to victims in dollars. There is no other measurable commodity we can exchange except time.
In the UK, murderers frequently get sentenced for only a few years. So a murder victim’s life is worth, say, three years of the murderer’s life. How is that fair? Their society has lost the value of the victim’s life and justice to the victim and the victim’s family.
Our society too is losing this sense of justice for victims and punishment of criminal behavior. As I said below, I’m all for second chances, but we have to re-focus the offender-centric “justice system” to be either victim-centric, or perfectly balanced between the two. An offender-centric system is unjust.
BUT I am a rights absolutist too and agree that restricting a felon’s right to keep and bear arms after they get out of prison is almost certainly unconstitutional.
I agree the intent was punishment. However, what I see frequently now are people who come out of prison and the only things they have gained are new skills as criminals. My LEO BIL has worked at the local jail and see the same folks over and over. Whatever justice was meant to be, it no longer is.
(Gotta love the transcript feature on YouTube.)
Walter Williams has pointed out one issue with this: Certain demographic groups are known to have higher rates of criminal activity. When prospective employers are not allowed access to specific information about individual job applicants belonging to a particular group, they are forced to use general information, aka prejudice.
Now we can argue that maybe that information still needs to be withheld, and that’s the price we pay for withholding it. But unless we’re aware of that effect, we can’t even make the argument to begin with.
Scott that was excellent.
well said Scott!!
Spot on Scott!
One question. Often, in order to forgo longer jail time, someone agrees to not own a weapon, and agrees for the future to forgo the right to not be searched at any time. Don’t like that 4th amendment rights can be suspended like this but it happens none the less.
This, to me, is a breech of our rights as well…much like the Supreme Court-blessed police consent searches. Every day, officers can and do pat down people not accused of any crime, without a warrant, because the subjects of those searches think they have to do what the officer says, or non-compliance might offer evidence of guilt.
I suppose the loophole in that is the wording that says the rights you have cannot be surrendered (in other words, you cannot even voluntarily enter into slavery in exchange for money for your family as was done in the past) because slavery is forbidden. You could agree not to have a firearm, then turn around and get one because you cannot give up that right.
This is a state issue. There is nothing in the Constitution about who can vote except for the specific amendments that prohibit states from denying the right to vote to anyone based on poll tax, other tax, race, color, former status as a slave, sex, or age under 18. The states are still free to deny voting privileges to anyone else based on other criteria, such as felon status, citizenship status, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in English, or singing the Star Spangled Banner without scatting or vibrato.
I am also an absolutist when it comes to the rights enumerated in the Constitution. I think that all laws imposing any restrictions at all on the right to keep and bear arms, for example, are flatly unconstitutional. That would include that denial to convicted felons.
I think the argument about paying one’s debt to society wiping out a felon’s disabilities is a powerful one, and might support a Constitutional Amendment enumerating it.
But while the U.S. is a nation of second chances, it is also a nation of laws. And the punishment for a felony should indeed be a punishment, not just a rehabilitation. Justice for victims demands it.
It’s one thing to reclassify an activity, such as adultery, homosexual practices, or drug use, as not-a-crime. It is right and proper that as our society’s attitudes change, so should our criminal code. And I think that when we “decriminalize” activities, we should also review the cases of all those who were convicted, whether or not they served time, for pardons and record expungement.
But we have got to pull back from the brink of describng all punishment for crimes as rehab, focused only on the offender. We are on a slippery slope that leads to the designation of “anti-social behavior” leading to psychological therapy instead of incarceration.
This leaves out the important component of justice that punishes to make reparation to the victims for what they have suffered. To reduce or eliminate punishment is unjust to victims.
I’m ranting about this because of the language used in this episode. Correctional centers, rehab, etc. I’m all for second chances and making paying one’s debt to society more meaningful to the felon. But justice for victims must not be lost in it. If the equation of justice is unbalanced between criminal and victim, it should be in favor of the victim. We are losing this.
How about not committing crimes? It is trivially easy not to commit a felony. I have lived 83 years without doing so. What is the problem?
The proved and convicted felon has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to respect the rights of others. What is the problem with him from being banned for life from having a weapon? I see no problem with that.
HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED with having easy access to lethal force. The principle is that if he holds that the constitution does not protect us, it doesn’t protect him. In fact, he is lucky that he is able to walk and breath free.
Scott: he who refuses to respect the rights of others have no rights that need to be respected. The constitution is not a suicide pact!
Are you sure about not committing felonies, Lionel?
There have been several books written on the state of the legal system and laws on the books in the US that make the case that the average citizen, in the course of their day, ‘commit’ up to 5 felonies. Daily.
Just because you haven’t been convicted of these crimes….
There is also the example given in the video of the person convicted of non-violent possession of an illegal substance. How does that “demonstrate that he cannot be trusted to respect the rights of others…” -your words.
Who has this person harmed? Note that I’m not talking about selling, or even using these drugs. Mere possession.
How does that justify the loss of a Constitutionally guaranteed, God-given Right?
By your logic, any person ever jailed, for any reason, should be watched, monitored, and regulated for the rest of their life. I don’t see how that aligns with your position on honoring the Constitution above all else.
If the constitution does not protect we who don’t violate individual rights how can it protect those who do?
Remember, we each individually have a right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That MEANS you don’t have a right to my rights and I don’t have a right to your rights. Otherwise rights have no meaning. Rights sets the boundary of proper action between members of a society. Cross those boundaries and you loose all claim to having your boundary respected!
The constitution is not a suicide pact where some can violate its boundaries without consequence and others cannot. Respect those boundaries and you will have no problem from me. Refuse to respect those boundaries and you will have a problem. It won’t be me causing the problem. I will be because YOU caused the problem. It all falls in your lap.
PS: Our rights were not given to us by a non existent bronze age sky warlord big daddy in the sky. They are ours by right of existence. However, that works ONLY IF they are respected by all. If not, it is might makes right and all hell breaks loose! See history for far too many cases in point.
Rights sets the boundary of proper action between members of a society.
That’s not true. SOCIETY sets the boundaries for acceptable behavior. You seem to believe that if someone acts in a way that YOU don’t approve of, they abrogate all all rights and must be removed from society forever.
People are people. We’re not perfect. You aren’t going to get along, or even fully agree with 90% of people. Does that mean that they are not deserving of the rights that you have? Because they don’t behave EXACTLY as you would have them? Not gonna happen.
What is “society?” Point to it for me.
No, “society” is an abstract concept used to make thought and communication more efficient. Abstract concepts can’t do anything. “Society” cannot think or act.
The same is true of “rights.” Abstract concept. But Lionel is correct in that individuals – which are the only things capable of thought and action because they actually exist – work out amongst themselves how they want to deal with each other. The concept “rights” was created by those individuals – created and refined over centuries, to be sure – to define the… well…”right” way for individuals to interact.
It’s clear that that is his meaning. Like you, I think he goes too far with what he says about responding to violations of rights, making no distinction between highly dangerous and damaging violations and lesser ones. But his underlying idea about individuals being the ones who make decisions and take actions is entirely correct.
That’s why we punish criminals and not “society.” Perhaps the biggest fault of the left is that they constantly reify abstractions like “society” and “collective,” and act as if they are real, embodied things that can cause and react to events.
The Miranda warnings are read to suspects for the purpose of advising them of rights.
Institutional Codes within states are designed to protect inmates (felons) from abuses, as well as protecting others from that inmate’s abuse. I know this because I was in Law enforcement and a correctional officer.
People “existed” a great many years before the notion of free and respectful society was made an institution in reality. Mere existence did not bring about rights. Our “rights” are moral equations. The word comes from the conclusion that something is morally right and some other thing is morally wrong.
If moral rights exist it is because people looked beyond what they saw in mere existence (slavery, murder, rape, plunder, exploitation of the weak) and sought a deeper moral meaning to life and man’s interaction. There is no immediately obvious benefit to the strong and violent in the notion of respecting other people’s rights to be safe within themselves, their property, etc. This is why the Egyptians, the Roman’s, the Soviet Union could kill those that resisted their power grabs without thought or mercy. They didn’t believe that a moral right existed to be unmolested by those with power.
In your idea lies the real “Might makes right” motive. You say that if a person wrongs you, they have no more rights. Reciprocal justice is a right conferred upon those accused and convicted. We cannot implement cruel and unusual punishments on those convicted. That is a right. It is a Constitutional right of the convicted felon. Yet, you say they cannot have those rights because they have offended you. Is that not might makes right?
You certainly have your right to believe what you will about God. Still, the idea of reciprocal justice, equal treatment of people (neighbors or strangers), and not lying, cheating, or stealing have been taught against in the Bible for a very, very long time. This was done with a law that regulated interactions between people. It sought to limit violence and corruption. It is the philosophical root of free societies.
Pretty good for what you call “ non existent bronze age sky warlord big daddy in the sky” philosophy.