You would be amazed, Mac, at how often the fact that a felony brings a restriction on gun possession becomes THE central issue of a case. Well, maybe you wouldn't, but most people that don't hunt or own guns for other purposes would be. I have actually had people tell me they would rather go to prison for 10 years than lose their ability to hunt an d possess weapons. Of course there is no way to make that deal, but it seems incredible that someone would suggest it. The problem is compounded because now there is a Federal law that carries the same prohibition after any misdemeanor that is domestic abuse related. I had someone offer me a huge bribe if I would change a charge to one that did not involve domestic abuse. The great irony was , If he hadn't offered me the bribe, I would probably have lowered it to an ordinance violation or dismissed on a deferred prosecution agreement. I was stuck when he made the offer. <br><br> Of course the automatic restriction makes no sense for non-violent, non-gun related felonies, and it would certainly make my job easier without it. If someone uses a weapon to commit a crime, then it is clearly appropriate (as is mandatory prison), but for a guy with federal arithmetic problems or a kid who hotwires a car?<br><br>I have to think that your mistrust stems pretty much from a terrible experience with one really evil guy...right? Also, if I am reading well between the lines, from the fact that you represented yourself, and although successful, saw the system as unfair. I assume that you could not get the weather report into evidence because of the hearsay rule which disallows even public records unless they are certified. A layman would have no reason to know that, and it can look like an attorney is beating him up with the rules of evidence. The problem is that those "technicalities" are really there as a safeguard for the parties and you can't ignore the rules simply because one party is not aware of them. I HATE it when a defendant represents himself because it gives me two options: (1) ignore the rules of the system I am sworn to protect; or (2) prevent the defendant from effectively presenting his case. This is really not an attractive choice for me. <br><br>So, if you assumed away this one HUGE jerk of a prosecutor, the injustice that he threw at you and the awful insult to your spouse, and then looked at the system--does that change anything?<br><br>I know that this is kind of like saying "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?", but I really think that this might be a useful exercise. Police and prosecutors need the help of decent and honest citizens--not their avoidance. But be careful, if this exercise works at all, next I am going to ask you to ride with a cop for a shift to get a better look at that side. You would be amazed at how that can change a perspective!<br><br>Take care, and let me know what happens. Rob