should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[Paco Bedejo]

The kind of thinking that we have let people get away with "murder" and then we feel bad for them that are unable to have a weapon.

You're either highly ignorant or being intentionally disingenuous. The charge of "felony" is ridiculously watered down to the point that, AFAIK, most felons received their charges for non-violent offenses. If someone abused drugs 3 decades ago & was labeled a felon for doing so...their entire household is prevented from having the basic tools of home defense.

Ultimately, if someone is dangerous, they shouldn't be free. If someone is free, they should be totally free.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Its not my place to say, but here goes......
I believe that if someone has committed a crime that was a felony, then they should not be allowed to have a weapon. There are many ways for a good person to plea down a case. But after going through the courts and being found guilty then they shouldn't be allowed to get a weapon. This is a constitutional right and if that pre-felon did not have anymore sense to stop their actions which lead them to the prison, or consequences of their actions wouldn't allow them to have weapons then they shouldn't have them.
So I think that many would agree with me, that I would not do anything that would jeopardizing my right to carry, have in home or possession of a weapon.
The kind of thinking that we have let people get away with "murder" and then we feel bad for them that are unable to have a weapon. They should use their heads prior to committing a felon.
There might be the case of a person who was entangled with someone else and they got into trouble but still if they haven't had any prior run-in's with the law they can have reduced charges. (I think)
I again would not do anything that would prohibit my having a weapon for self defense or hunting.

You're either highly ignorant or being intentionally disingenuous. The charge of "felony" is ridiculously watered down to the point that, AFAIK, most felons received their charges for non-violent offenses. If someone abused drugs 3 decades ago & was labeled a felon for doing so...their entire household is prevented from having the basic tools of home defense.

Ultimately, if someone is dangerous, they shouldn't be free. If someone is free, they should be totally free.

Exactly this, Hazwhopper.

You're driving along (alone) in a nearby town. You don't know the area. You're doing... Oh, let's say 35. <siren> Cop's pulling you over. You pull into a nearby parking lot, and the cop pulls in behind you. When he comes up and taps on your window, and you hand him your DL, he spies the pink paper in your wallet. "Sir, do you have any weapons in the car?"

If you've a firearm anywhere in your car (and the cop is having a bad day), you're about to be busted under IC 35-47-9-2, because what you didn't know was that someone knocked down the "school zone" sign last week and it hasn't been replaced yet. You were speeding in a school zone, which is a traffic infraction, but it was a school parking lot into which you pulled.

There is no element of intent in that charge. If you possess a firearm on school property and you're not a cop (or transporting another person to the school), you have committed a felony.

No harm need be done, no intent need be proven. Have fun in jail and tell your cellmate that Sarah and Jim Brady send their regards.


Do you really think that a person in this situation somehow "loses" any rights given him by his Creator?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[stephen87]

I think that in some circumstances their right to own a firearm ought to be restored. Of course, this would depend on the original offense (violent criminals would be excluded). However, the reinstatement of this right would need to come after an extended time period that sufficiently exhibits reform in their life.

On a practical note, some former felons may find the real need to defend themselves later on in life. Do we want to deny them the ability that we all freely enjoy? Or, do we want to make them risk further criminal prosecution in an effort to defend themselves or their families?

Sure, we need penalties for actions. But we also need a system that seeks to be restore as well.

This! Not just violent crimes but also sexual crimes. Some may say they are the same, but it's not always the case. Once they have proven that they are rehabilitated then they should be able to purchase a firearm.

 

[Mosinowner]

I think we treat felons like they arent citizens they are the 2nd ammendment says they can have guns

 

[Lucas156]

For the sake of liberty if you are a free man you should be able to have firearms. For the sake of liberty there shouldn't be any exceptions otherwise liberty has been taken away and is a privilege

 

[Mosinowner]

My question is, what are we going to do about it?

 

[NYFelon]

My question is, what are we going to do about it?

As I have said earlier in this thread, it's a difficult proposition. Some of the opposition to the idea of ex-cons being able to own weapons, IMHO, is a result of the non-stop assault on the rights of those who themselves have never been in trouble. If you are, for all intents and purposes a lawful citizen, and you have to fight for your rights, how can you fight for the rights of others? This circumstance is exacerbated by the fact that those for whom you fight have done some perceived ill or harm to society.

As another issue, it's the political equivalent of a cyanide capsule. What politician wants to be seen fighting for the right of FELONS to own firearms? One side of the aisle is so busy trying to remove the right to own firearms from everyone, and the other is too busy looking to satisfy the need to appear "tough on crime". A good first step would be to have the congress remove the restriction of funds for the processing of applications to restore firearms rights to the ATF. For that though, you'd need a large political organization like the NRA, whom are incredibly unlikely to ever take up such a cause as they are already vilified by lame-brained media sycophants and upper east side cocktail party goers.

I don't know how to get it done frankly. Those are only a few suggestions. In either case, it would have to start somewhere outside my state, as I live in one of, if not the, most firearms unfriendly state in the union. The entire idea that we need to have laws regarding firearms repealed is in and of itself preposterous. The phrase"...shall not be infringed..." is pretty declarative in intent. There are no exceptions, neither enumerated or implied.

 

[IndianaGTI]

For the sake of liberty if you are a free man you should be able to have firearms. For the sake of liberty there shouldn't be any exceptions otherwise liberty has been taken away and is a privilege

Liberty of felons hasn't been taken away, it has been voluntarily forfeited by those choosing to commit felonies.

 

[NYFelon]

This! Not just violent crimes but also sexual crimes. Some may say they are the same, but it's not always the case. Once they have proven that they are rehabilitated then they should be able to purchase a firearm.

what would you suggest as acceptable proof of rehabilitation?

 

[NYFelon]

Liberty of felons hasn't been taken away, it has been voluntarily forfeited by those choosing to commit felonies.

How so? The mechanism by which they "forfeit" said right was not in place until 1968. So tell me, under what auspices or premise have they forfeited a right, when any law with respect to what citizens may own arms is expressly forbidden the federal government?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Liberty of felons hasn't been taken away, it has been voluntarily forfeited by those choosing to commit felonies.

For those who voluntarily chose to commit violent crimes against other people, yes, I'd agree that those people, understanding that the law in place does not allow them to purchase or possess firearms, have voluntarily chosen to place themselves in that category. Consider, however, the hypothetical examples I've given in this thread. Consider the example Mr. Ciyou cites in his book, of a person who parked his vehicle at a school loading dock and went inside. Granted, it was less-than-intelligent to leave his firearm out in plain sight in the vehicle, but his understanding of the law was faulty and no harm was either intended or perpetrated upon anyone... yet that man is now a felon.
Finally, consider the case that NYFelon described as his own: As reported, he was in a bar they frequented with some friends, celebrating a buddy's completing Basic Training (Marine, IIRC) when he and his friends were accosted by another patron of the bar, obviously drunk, who assaulted him. Lo and behold, when the cops arrived after the fight, the drunk pulled out his badge and NYF was cuffed, stuffed, and railroaded through the court system, all on the word of a drunken, off-duty cop who wanted to throw his weight around and was backed up by the on-duty cops who responded. Again, this is as he reported it; I have nothing else on which to base my opinion, but I also have no reason to doubt him. If it happened as he reported, what felony did he choose to commit? Self-defense? Or should he have just sat there and allowed the assailant to open a can of whoop-ass on him? (Remember that at that time, he had no way of knowing the drunk was a cop.)

Too many things are crimes and of those, too many things are "felonies" that should not be. Couple that with a system that makes you beg to be allowed to exercise your rights legally in the first place and then to get them back after you run afoul of one of those too-many laws, and your argument of "that was their choice" falls apart like a house of cards.

If "felony" still meant that you'd committed a malum in se act without a valid defense, I might agree with you. Trouble is, the term now encompasses many mala prohibita acts and the door has been opened to include even misdemeanor acts as theoretically-valid prohibitions.

NYF is correct: "...the right...shall not be infringed" does not include any exceptions. If a man is free, he should not be restricted. If he is not safe to be free, he should be incarcerated or at a bare minimum, he should be being re-acclimated to a free society.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[strahd71]

it doesnt matter if they are a fellon or not! the only law there should be on guns is that there is no law. gun laws do not keep guns away from fellons so its a moot point.

i have a friend who is almost 50, when he was 18 he got drunk and stole a car from a family member. more like borrowing in his drunk mind. at any rate he got charged with a felony. since then he has never been in any kind of trouble yet he still cant own a gun. its friggin lubricious!

jake

 

[ATM]

...its friggin lubricious!

lu·bri·cious
   /luˈbrɪʃ

əs/ [loo-brish-uh

s]

adjective
1. arousing or expressive of sexual desire; lustful; lecherous.

 

[stephen87]

what would you suggest as acceptable proof of rehabilitation?

Well, strahdbgives a pretty good example. If youvve been out of trouble for 32 years, that's pretty well rehabilitated to me. If you go a traffic offense, or multiple in a felonious case, and you have been out for a year with no run ins, that's a pretty good indicator. If you're a habitual offender though, there's no need to let you waste your money on guns before you go back.

 

[NYFelon]

lu·bri·cious
   /luˈbrɪʃ

əs/ [loo-brish-uh

s]

adjective
1. arousing or expressive of sexual desire; lustful; lecherous.

synonym: Scarlett Johansson

 

[NYFelon]

Well, strahdbgives a pretty good example. If youvve been out of trouble for 32 years, that's pretty well rehabilitated to me. If you go a traffic offense, or multiple in a felonious case, and you have been out for a year with no run ins, that's a pretty good indicator. If you're a habitual offender though, there's no need to let you waste your money on guns before you go back.

Much further back, I posted my own case. Long story short, I did a year in county on a felony assault charge. This was 1997-1998. Since then, my only encounters with law enforcement, other than running into them in 7-11, have been 3 traffic tickets (in 13 years), and to report a stolen item from my car. I'm a husband, father, homeowner and taxpayer.

Do I qualify?

 

[jsgolfman]

You do in my book

 

[stephen87]

Much further back, I posted my own case. Long story short, I did a year in county on a felony assault charge. This was 1997-1998. Since then, my only encounters with law enforcement, other than running into them in 7-11, have been 3 traffic tickets (in 13 years), and to report a stolen item from my car. I'm a husband, father, homeowner and taxpayer.

Do I qualify?

As I see it, yes. Provided, and not to discredit you in anyway since I don't know you, that is really what happened. But if the courts and government just went by what I said on how to deal with it, no you would not be. However, they would most likely give you one since you appear to be rehabilitated. The people who were parts of gangs or assaulted people, not a drunk cop who was being an idiot to begin with, are the violent felons I was targeting.

 

[NYFelon]

As I see it, yes. Provided, and not to discredit you in anyway since I don't know you, that is really what happened. But if the courts and government just went by what I said on how to deal with it, no you would not be. However, they would most likely give you one since you appear to be rehabilitated. The people who were parts of gangs or assaulted people, not a drunk cop who was being an idiot to begin with, are the violent felons I was targeting.

I couldn't conceivably construe your statement as a discrediting. I am fully aware that you have precisely no way of knowing whether or not what I have said is in fact truthful.

While I see all laws regarding the ownership of firearms as UnConstitutional, I am not so far removed from reality to believe that they would all instantaneously be repealed. What I would propose as a legitimate compromise would be a window period of "social reintegration." The majority of statistics I see point to the fact that most recidivists reoffend within 3 years of release. Not just release fromprison, but full discharge from state wardship, that being work-release, probation or parole. If a person could double that (I have used 7 years as an arbitrarily arrived at number just to have a number), and show factual proof of rehabilitation such as productive societal integration, would that not be an acceptable modification to the current law?

 

[Mosinowner]

I couldn't conceivably construe your statement as a discrediting. I am fully aware that you have precisely no way of knowing whether or not what I have said is in fact truthful.

While I see all laws regarding the ownership of firearms as UnConstitutional, I am not so far removed from reality to believe that they would all instantaneously be repealed. What I would propose as a legitimate compromise would be a window period of "social reintegration." The majority of statistics I see point to the fact that most recidivists reoffend within 3 years of release. Not just release fromprison, but full discharge from state wardship, that being work-release, probation or parole. If a person could double that (I have used 7 years as an arbitrarily arrived at number just to have a number), and show factual proof of rehabilitation such as productive societal integration, would that not be an acceptable modification to the current law?

If you want to be able to own firearms then sue the USA for your gun rights back