Father Facing Felony Charges After Shooting Two Men Attempting to Kidnap His Son

[RScottie]

A man in Slidell, LA was arrested after opening fire on two men attempting to kidnap his son. Hakim Dumas was at a family member's home in the early morning hours of October 24th when two men showed up attempting to take his sleeping child. Dumas pulled his gun and shot at both men, killing one and injuring the other, according to the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office.

A short time later, the surviving man, 24-year-old Billy Porche, was taken into custody and charged with aggravated attempted kidnapping of a child and second-degree murder. The murder charge comes as a result of his actions directly causing the death of the other individual.

Dumas was also arrested, and is facing felony charges. Why? Because Dumas is a convicted felon and prohibited from legally possessing a firearm under State and Federal law. According to the Sheriff's Office, Dumas is charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated number or mark.

So many people in the gun rights community believe that felons should not be legally allowed to possess a firearm. While it sounds good on paper, the problem is that all of these laws are infringements on our natural right to bear arms. The details of Dumas' past convictions are unknown, but it ultimately does not matter. The story is simple: a father is facing felony charges after defending his son. There is no justice in that.

Natural rights are not granted by government, therefore government has no authority to pick and choose who can and cannot exercise them. We either believe that keeping and bearing arms is a natural right, or it is a government-given privilege contingent upon good behavior. If it is a natural right (and it is), then no one can take it away; not government, and not society.

https://www.lsgr.live/post/father-fa...kidnap-his-son

[Ickthus]

You have the right o life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until you commit a crime. Then all the above can be forfeited. I also believe once your debit is paid and probation is over your rights should be restored or you are deported.

[Peacemakr40]

What I see when I read your accounting of the situation is a misperception of what really happened to the father. Societies have laws. those laws have various punishments. In the case of the father, he received a felony conviction. Did the state force him to commit the crime or merely convicted him of committing it? If the state forced him, he has a 1st amendment recourse under redress of grievances. I do not feel that this was the case. what probably played out was he committed a felony crime, got caught, tried and convicted of the crime. The penalty of a felony conviction is you can no longer own, possess or use firearms. The father didn't have his right to keep and bear arms taken away from him by the gov't. He willfully gave up that right by committing the crime. By being part of society, you enter into a contract to follow the rules of that society. Should you violate that trust, there are prescribed punishments. It's much like drinking and driving. If I choose to drink, I give up my ability to drive. Make sense?

[NotSo]

What I see when I read your accounting of the situation is a misperception of what really happened to the father. Societies have laws. those laws have various punishments. In the case of the father, he received a felony conviction. Did the state force him to commit the crime or merely convicted him of committing it? If the state forced him, he has a 1st amendment recourse under redress of grievances. I do not feel that this was the case. what probably played out was he committed a felony crime, got caught, tried and convicted of the crime. The penalty of a felony conviction is you can no longer own, possess or use firearms. The father didn't have his right to keep and bear arms taken away from him by the gov't. He willfully gave up that right by committing the crime. By being part of society, you enter into a contract to follow the rules of that society. Should you violate that trust, there are prescribed punishments. It's much like drinking and driving. If I choose to drink, I give up my ability to drive. Make sense?

I can see this one headed to Politics.

I understand your reasoning, but have to ask: Where in the Constitution does it say that your rights are forfeit if you commit a crime? My understanding is that these statutes have come afterward and have no Constitutional basis.

Having said that, imagine the firestorm if anyone has the temerity (courage?) to suggest that, after all punishment incurred because of the criminal activity has been satisfied, the citizen's rights are fully restored. Here in Florida there is an ongoing battle with restoring voting rights to convicted felons. And how loud the outcry would be if there were even the suggestion that their 2A rights be restored.

[mark38090]

I can see this one headed to Politics.

I understand your reasoning, but have to ask: Where in the Constitution does it say that your rights are forfeit if you commit a crime? My understanding is that these statutes have come afterward and have no Constitutional basis.

Having said that, imagine the firestorm if anyone has the temerity (courage?) to suggest that, after all punishment incurred because of the criminal activity has been satisfied, the citizen's rights are fully restored. Here in Florida there is an ongoing battle with restoring voting rights to convicted felons. And how loud the outcry would be if there were even the suggestion that their 2A rights be restored.

In Florida though, there is a process that a felon can go through to have their second amendment rights restored. It's a very expensive and time consuming process but it's there if a felon chooses to attempt out.

[Zen Ape]

In our society being an ex felon might as well come with leprosy, an albatross around your neck, and a branded forehead. You've paid your time for your crime, but your due to society is life, and you are locked in a perpetual state of inability to move forward, progress, or redeem, that far too often as is the case with extremely limited opportunities you wind up committing another crime and go right back into the system. Yeah I know, "choices", but when your choice is to eat or go hungry, that grey area becomes a whole lot bigger and what was once thought as unthinkable might now seem a necessity.

https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/07...-need-to-know/

[BigBlue]

I find it hard to trust anyone once they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy. This man committed a felony and therefor has proven that he cannot be trusted to live in our society with all of his rights intact. Time served is not the only penalty, the loss of other rights also comes with the conviction. The gun he had, with numbers removed, was most likely a stolen gun. Maybe it wasn't stolen by him, but the fact remains that he had it in his possession. The fact that he committed a legal act in protecting his child from being abducted doesn't negate the fact that he committed a felony in possessing the illegal weapon. I also find it hard to believe that there isn't more to this story in regards to why his child was chosen for abduction.

[230JHP]

When recidivism rates get low, I might start listening to the, ‘poor felons deserve to get their rights back,’ plea.

But since recidivism rates are over 80%, I don’t have time for that.

[Jake3501]

I unserstand both sides of restoring or not restoring a person's rights regarding 2nd amendment rights.

There needs to be some common sense added to the law. I have two convicted felons who work for me on remodels. Both have been clean for over 20 years, their felonies having happened when they were either in their late teens or early 20's. Both, one 52 and the other 62 years old have kept clean for over 30 years, and I would have no problem with either of them being able to own a firearm for defense of their family. Still, I have talked with both of them extensively over the past few years, and both have indicated they are better off without guns. Both do have knives and baseball bats.

[MoKen]

This is a legal misinterpretation I think should be corrected. I do not agree when considering none violent offenders. No one should be disallowed from protecting themselves or family members from harm.

What I see when I read your accounting of the situation is a misperception of what really happened to the father. Societies have laws. those laws have various punishments. In the case of the father, he received a felony conviction. Did the state force him to commit the crime or merely convicted him of committing it? If the state forced him, he has a 1st amendment recourse under redress of grievances. I do not feel that this was the case. what probably played out was he committed a felony crime, got caught, tried and convicted of the crime. The penalty of a felony conviction is you can no longer own, possess or use firearms. The father didn't have his right to keep and bear arms taken away from him by the gov't. He willfully gave up that right by committing the crime. By being part of society, you enter into a contract to follow the rules of that society. Should you violate that trust, there are prescribed punishments. It's much like drinking and driving. If I choose to drink, I give up my ability to drive. Make sense?