Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[04DarkShadowGT]

Are you sure about that? Maybe you should do a little research on how easy it is to be convicted of a felony. We have a member on INGO that took a plea deal to avoid going to prison, he was scared to death that he might lose his case at trial. I know at least 2 other people that did stupid crap when they were 17 and 19 and now lead normal lives just like most people we know.

What you do at 17 or 19 has the same consequences on you and your potential victims as it does at 30 or 40 or 50.

My opinion is that if you are convicted of a violent crime we should not make it easier to do it again. Of course criminals can get guns anytime, but lets not make them be able to want into dicks to do it.

We all choose our path in life, doing dumb things has consequences.

Sorry if I dont morn for the loss of a LTCH of a guy that was released from prison for raping someone, or killing someone, or whatever.

 

[JB357Mag]

About the 3rd post or so down, he is talking about picking up his new gun from the shop, of course he doesn't get to. He has revelaled in this thread to be a convicted felon. Isn't there a question on the FFL form that asks if you are a felon? Did you lie? I know after the fact, being convicted, you knew you had lost you right, correct?

I was denied, at that time I was told by a local police officer after
I had him run my history that I was ok to own a gun.

I assumed that the felony droped off like in some other states but I was
wrong.

If u read the 4473 there is instructions to the felony question and it says to
put no if the felony was reduced or expunged or set aside.

I thought it was so I put no.

Jimmy

 

[thumperdogg]

I was denied, at that time I was told by a local police officer after
I had him run my history that I was ok to own a gun.

I assumed that the felony droped off like in some other states but I was
wrong.

If u read the 4473 there is instructions to the felony question and it says to
put no if the felony was reduced or expunged or set aside.

I thought it was so I put no.

Jimmy

My opinion or thoughts are not of importance to you, I was just curious. Please take no offense to my statements.

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't think anyone should have guns. They're terribly frightening...

 

[JB357Mag]

My opinion or thoughts are not of importance to you, I was just curious. Please take no offense to my statements.

None taken.

Im still curious as to why a police officer after seeing my class d
felony said I was ok to own a gun, I would have never attempted
a purchace if knew then what I know now.

Jimmy

 

[downzero]

Because police officers are not legal professionals.

How long has it been since your felony? There might be a process by which you can get it reduced. But step one is that you will need a lawyer (of which I am not!)

Nevermind, I read the remainder of the thread.

Get a lawyer. Seriously, the results might be better than you think.

 

[downzero]

Ha!

Every man who signed the Declaration of Independence committed a FELONY.

And in those days, a "felony" meant treason, burglary, murder, or rape.

Now, attempting to steal a 49 cent pack of gum from a gas station is a felony in Indiana.

Amazing how times change.

 

[pirate]

I would have made the poll public. My vote was definitely. If they'd done their time and paid their debt to society, shouldn't they be a free man?

My thoughts exactly...If they are too dangerous to get all their rights back after punishment is deemed served, why let them out of prison in the first place? No one should have half their rights to exercise but be mocked by the thought of the rest.

 

[JB357Mag]

Im in the process of getting it done right now see Indiana Bill 1033.

I should know something real soon, my lawyer is setting up a meeting
with the prosecuter any day now.

Jimmy

 

[Stschil]

Yes, to the Crown. Not unto their state, or the United States.

So ha right back at ya.

Surely you remember that, at the time, they were all Bristish Citizens. So I'm kinda wondering what your point is. Is it more treasonous if it's against the US?

 

[Lex Concord]

Now seriously everyone.......

Is there anyone in America that doesn't know on some level, what a felony is?

How many don't know, with some exceptions, that prisoners aren't permitted to vote?

How many don't know, again with some exceptions, that upon conviction of a felony results in the surrendering of one's rights to vote and gun ownership?

As far as I am aware and before one submits to plea bargaining, one's own legal council and the court advises the defendant of the consequences of pleading to a felony.

Of course, there is also a process of having rights restored.

Alcohol intoxication and other drug uses, with few exceptions, is not a defense to the commission of a crime.

Life isn't fair, but shouldn't a felon have to demonstrate that he or she can be trusted again?

Now seriously, Ted.

Is there any single person on the planet that can tell you every potential felonious act just in the jurisdictions which they might visit in a lifetime?

Have fun with that moving target.

The point is, there are people who 1) commit crimes without knowing it (what the hell happened to the concept of mens rea, anyway?) 2) may not know something is a felony (if you have mens rea, I really don't have much sympathy here).

Are you having a hard time conceiving of someone being wrongly identified? arrested? tried? convicted? waiting on death row? Not all of them make Dateline, Ted.

 

[richardraw316]

Negative...he has a felony because he BROKE into a closed gas station and STOLE something (anything) and all while drunk at 17. He deserves a felony IMO. Laws just don't m ean anything to some people. Sorry but no sympathy here.

and i would not expect any form a perfect citizen such as yourself.

anyone in here never stolen anything in their lives? other than this guy.
Re read, he was sixteeen. he was arrested 2 years later.
and hell technically he did not break into a gas station, he was with the people that did. he walked in and took a pack of cigarettes and walked out.

and you say because of that he has no right to defend his home, his family, or his friends.

no sympathy here huh? sounds like something a fool would say, right up until something happened to him.

 

[thumperdogg]

None taken.

Im still curious as to why a police officer after seeing my class d
felony said I was ok to own a gun, I would have never attempted
a purchace if knew then what I know now.

Jimmy

Cops aren't lawyers, but they should still know this law.

 

[Trooper]

Cops aren't lawyers, but they should still know this law.

Even lawyers do not know the law. They know only the portions that they deal with on a daily basis. The law has become so big that it controls everything that we do. No one is law abiding as no one could ever even understand the law let alone obey it.

 

[churchmouse]

If the system (with all of its flaws and short comings) sees fit to reduce a charge to a misdemeanor after you have served out the sentence handed down by the court then I believe you have just gotten a second chance at being a citizen with all the perks.
If the crime was premeditated harm to someone at any level then you should not be allowed to own a firearm but that charge most likely would not be reduced. Understand that it is only a matter of record. You still show a felony charge for a period of time but show a conviction on a misdemeanor. That is my understanding of this process.

 

[richardraw316]

we had a police officer tell us that a cap and ball revolver would not count as a pistol and that a felon could carry one, but to be careful because the law is open to interpretation, and if a lawyer or a judge disagreed then he would get another felony.
the law should be written in plain english so as everyone who can read knows what it says. no mistakes could be made then, o god what would we need buracrats for?

 

[mrobnoxious1]

It's a right, that shall not be infringed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why is incarceration the standard used in many of these arguments? Is one to believe that once an incarceration ends, then the "debt" is paid? Before one ever commits their felony, the consequences are known. By going forward with their crime, they are accepting the consequences of possibly never owning a firearm again. If they hold up their end of the contract, why should the not state hold up theirs as well?
I believe option 3 is the one best suited. Non-violent felons should IMO should get a pass.

To further strengthen the argument, one only need look at the text of the 5th Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...without due process of law. IMO, I read this to believe that as long as you are given due process, any of a person's rights can be forfeited (apparently indefinitely). There is no such mention of these rights being restored after the termination of an incarceration.

 

[Pitmaster]

You've got to question the intelligence and moral character of anyone that gets convicted of a felony in the first place. And if you have reason to question their intelligence and character, you have reason to question if they should be allowed have a firearm.

What about the 17 y/o who gets caught breaking into a store with a few of his buddies. Completes probation, starts and goes to college. Should he/she be denied the right to protect their family forever? I sure don't think so.

As far as I'm concerned the idea of denying firearms to "criminals" is unconstitutional. Everyone should have the same rights. Besides this restriction was in response to the violent crime increase in the early and mid-sixties. Brought forth by Democrats, this restriction's intent was disarm the the people where the crime increase. That's right, the inner cities and the growing African-American population. Another racist tool and idea that the liberals brought forth.

There are several other good threads on this subject and well worth the read.

 

[Tydeeh22]

i say we force EVERYONE to have a gun and ride out the wave of bloodshed that will ensue.


super awesome flame retardant suit: ACTIVATE!