Convicted Felons and Self Defense. What do you think?

[camslam]

We had this story in our local paper last week and there is a lively debate raging over a letter to the editor regarding it.

I was curious what THR members think about the idea of felons having guns for self defense.

Just curious on people's thoughts. Thanks.

http://www.sltrib.com//ci_6799556?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

Catch-22: Man who killed intruder acted justifiably but will stand trial for illegally possessing the gun
By Stephen Hunt
The Salt Lake City Tribune

Article Last Updated: 09/04/2007 03:02:50 PM MDT


Authorities have determined Danny Dutton acted in self-defense when he shot and killed a violent intruder at his Hurricane apartment earlier this year.
But in a case of legal Catch-22, Dutton has been ordered to stand trial for possessing the gun he used to kill Aaron Rondan Barbosa during a March 24 break-in.
Because of a 2004 felony conviction for cultivating marijuana, Dutton - a nephew of Hurricane Mayor Tom Hirschi - is prohibited from possessing firearms.
Following a June preliminary hearing, defense attorney Gary Pendleton filed a motion to dismiss the charge, citing case law recognizing that even a convicted felon may be entitled to use a gun in a life-or-death situation.
Deputy Washington County Attorney Eric Gentry countered that the motion was premature and that prosecutors are not required at this stage to negate Dutton's claim of self-defense.
Gentry also noted that during the preliminary hearing, the state had produced evidence that Dutton possessed the gun before, during and after the shooting, and was sufficiently aware of its location that he was able to immediately retrieve it.
Judge G. Rand Beacham last week agreed with prosecutors that the defense motion was premature, but he said the issue may be raised again prior to trial.
A scheduling hearing for Dutton is set for Sept. 13. If convicted of the second-degree felony weapons charge, he faces up to 15 years in prison.
Dutton is also charged with three class B misdemeanor counts of illegal possession of a controlled substance in connection with prescription medication allegedly found by police at his apartment following the shooting.
The shooting episode began when Barbosa and another man knocked on the door of the apartment Dutton, 22, shares with a male roommate.
When Dutton answered the door, Barbosa entered and began beating Dutton with a metal pipe, breaking Dutton's arm, according to court documents.
Dutton shouted at the intruders that they had "the wrong man," but Barbosa continued beating Dutton, who retreated to the kitchen, grabbed a .357-caliber handgun and shot Barbosa.
The other man, Juan Gonzalez, fled in a vehicle driven by Lucinda Ann Corral, but later confirmed Dutton's version of events.
Gonzalez also told police that Corral and Barbosa were "discussing payment after the job was done," as they were driving to Dutton's residence, according to court documents.
Corral, 30, has pleaded guilty to second-degree felony aggravated assault and faces up to 15 years in prison when she is sentenced Sept. 24 by Judge Beacham.
Gonzalez has not been charged, according to court records.
Also being prosecuted in connection with the shooting is Dutton's roommate, Shane Leland Norris, 27, and Bow-Dee Woodgeard, 20.
Norris is charged with third-degree felony drug possession, and class B misdemeanor counts of drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Woodgeard, 20, who has a prior felony conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance, is charged with second-degree felony possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person.
Meanwhile, Dutton has been charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a handgun and ammunition on May 7 in Washington County, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

 

[camslam]

Just found this in my search. Sorry for the duplicate. Mods please close.

Thanks.

 

[Eyesac]

Wow. If they've paid their due, I think they're entitled.

 

[Socrates]

I've been thinking about this very issue.

As is proven here, if a felon wants a gun, he can get it. So, we try the poor ex-felon, on probation, after the fact.

First: I believe all government regulation, read gun laws are illegal. The second amendment, extended through the 14th and 5th, extends that right against any state regulation. So, we currently have both state and federal illegal laws regulating a right promised by the Constitution, but, allowed to errode by our apathy.

How did we get to this sad situation? By stepping down the slippery slope, and taking a big slide. When we take those first steps, banning ex-felons from having rights, etc. we took the first step that has put us in the sorry state that exists today.

It's intresting to note that we allowed this all to happen without the help of the Supreme Court, who usually is the group that starts the walk down the slope, with some sort of 'balancing test', or rationale that sounds good, as they violate the strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

Frankly, I can't think of a group that is at greater risk of robbery then ex-felons, and, that need protection more.

S Esq.

 

[camslam]

That is my argument, that while I don't like it, convicted felons have as much right to self defense as any one else.

Also, many felonies aren't violent in nature. What about those people that are criminals per the law, but not violent or an immediate danger to those around them?

Tough questions no doubt. Here is the letter to the editor talking about just this question.

In a Sept. 4 Salt Lake Tribune story, Danny Dutton of Hurricane justifiably killed a man in self-defense, but may go to prison because he used a gun he wasn't entitled to have - because he's a convicted felon.
So, in order for Danny Dutton to save his life, he had to commit another felony to defend himself. There's something wrong here.
Do convicted felons have reasonable expectations to be able to defend themselves if their lives are in danger when they're not committing a crime? If not, why not? The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't go on to say "unless you're a convicted felon." That's something that individual states tacked on later.
The Utah Legislature needs to revisit the law and stipulate that even a convicted felon who is not committing any other crime has the same right as any other law-abiding citizen to defend himself in a deadly situation - especially in his own home.

 

[one-shot-one]

$0.02

he may be an "ex"-felon but appearently he still hangs with the wrong crowd.
didn't sound like there were any saints involved with this one.

 

[robert garner]

Even a worm will turn

Self defense is the right of all men, felon or not. If you would deny a felon the right to own/carry/defend; he should be denied release from internment.
There is none here who would argue that any criminal who so desires could not aquire a firearm, how he uses it and whether or not he hangs, should be up to the courts to decide,just as it would for myself,or any here.
robert

 

[camslam]

What bothers me in addition to the crimes that violent felons repeatedly commit with firearms is the direct result of their actions to the rest of us.

Because of their actions, we get the pleasure of constantly battling the anti's over our 2nd amendment rights.

Study after study has shown it is a select group of people in our society that commits the majority of crimes. I would love to be able to do something about criminals getting guns and using them, but how do you stop something like that?

My solution is to lock them up for a very, very, very, long time. That way even if they get access to some kind of weapon they can't inflict more injury on the general public.

 

[Cannonball888]

That is my argument, that while I don't like it, convicted felons have as much right to self defense as any one else.

Also, many felonies aren't violent in nature. What about those people that are criminals per the law, but not violent or an immediate danger to those around them?

+1.
Felons of nonviolent crimes should have rights once their debt to society is paid. However, I'm not so sure about excons of violent crimes, although I'm sure some THR members believe they should have rights too even though studies have shown that these types of cons are more often not reformed.

 

[cnorman18]

Not a good test case

I think if a guy has served his time, the right to own a firearm ought to be restored, especially if it was a nonviolent crime. If he's still on probation or parole, forget it; he's not done proving he can keep his nose clean, and he can stick with pepper spray and a big stick till he has.

If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals--well, duh...

This case sounds like the guy is STILL a criminal. Throw the book at him.

Sorry; if you want to own a gun, you shouldn't commit crimes. With nonviolent criminals, it's more arguable; but for violent criminals and drug dealers, I think it's a no-brainer.

No, I'm not a forgiving soul. I also think a first-offense DUI should get you a mandatory 2 years in the slam and your driver's license ought to be permanently revoked. That's the law in Sweden. They have NO drunk-driving problem there. (I'm no big fan of the Swedes, but this one they got right.)

 

[JesseL]

Denying released felons the right to own firearms is a poor fix for a flawed system.

Anyone that is such a danger to the public that they can't be trusted with a firearm won't care what the law says and shouldn't be at large in the first place.

Anyone that can be trusted to live peacefully with the rest of the public, should not be denied any of their human rights, including the right to self defense.

The ideal solution is to nurture a society that encourages individuals to take personal responsibility for their own well being, to posses the best tools available for self defense, and to be proficient with those tools. If we can manage that, the problem of what to do with violent felons will be largely a non-issue. They will receive instant karma at the hands of their first intended victim.

 

[F4GIB]

Self defense is a justification. Felons have as much right to live as anyone else. Justifications apply to all crimes.

Here's an example from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (not a pro-criminal court): http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/09/063432P.pdf

LINK REPAIRED.

 

[TallPine]

interesting ... we've never had this discussion before

 

[cnorman18]

?

Check that link. Nothing there.

 

[Erebus]

It's a simple arguement. I would put these questions to the people that decide who gets released.

If he's not safe enough to trust with a weapon, how could he be safe enough to release? Weapons are easy to aquire.

If he's safe enough to release, what are you worried about? You just said he's safe.

That's the standard we should be using.

 

[deadin]

If they've paid their due, I think they're entitled.

TS.. They should of thought of this before they became a felon. Losing their gun rights is part of their "due".

 

[Sistema1927]

deadin, I hope that you never get convicted of one of the many, many felony acts that have recently been defined. I bet that you have committed felonious acts unknowingly.

Here is the plain truth: If somebody is dangerous, they should be locked up or executed. If they are not locked up they should have the right to self-defense.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Quote:
If they've paid their due, I think they're entitled.
TS.. They should of thought of this before they became a felon. Losing their gun rights is part of their "due".

EXACTLY!!!

When you commit crimes, there is a punishment involved. If you don't like the punishment, don't commit crimes. Is it REALLY that hard?

How tough is it to avoid committing a felony?

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Here is the plain truth: If somebody is dangerous, they should be locked up or executed. If they are not locked up they should have the right to self-defense.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. In a perfect world that would be accurate, but we don't live in a perfect world so felons, non violent or otherwise don't get guns. Their right to self defense has not been taken away, just one tool of self defense. Isn't that what we ll tell people? A gun is just a tool?

No need to "hope" I don't commit a felony. I find it pretty easy to obey they law.

 

[SoonerSP101]

"Dutton is also charged with three class B misdemeanor counts of illegal possession of a controlled substance in connection with prescription medication allegedly found by police at his apartment following the shooting. "

My question is: Why were the police checking his medicine cabinet for who was listed on the prescription bottle? Was the body found in the medicine cabinet?

 

[JesseL]

I would like to propose legislation to classify "circular reasoning in an internet discussion forum" as a felony.

 

[camslam]

I agree with Scorpiusdeus on this:

Their right to self defense has not been taken away, just one tool of self defense.

The problem is a gun happens to be the best equalizer and form of self defense in my opinion. So the argument really comes down to self defense and it touches on hypocrisy for me to argue vehemently to keep my right to the best self defense, while taking that from another. It really is a catch-22.

 

[romma]

Okay Mr. or Mrs. Felon, we are releasing you from jail on the condition you allow yourself to be victimized any number of ways up to and including, Rape, Robbery, Beating, Torture, Murder, Sodomy, and countless other despicable acts. Enjoy your newfound freedom cause you did your time.

Sign here for your release please!

 

[Tom Servo]

How tough is it to avoid committing a felony?

Have you looked at gun regulations lately?

When I think "felony," I think of crimes that are malicious in nature, or that show a total disregard for the rules of civilized society. You'd be surprised how many little things can be classified as felonies.

I'm not a fan of marijuana, but being banned for life from owning guns because they found a joint in your ashtray in 1988 is a little excessive.

Their right to self defense has not been taken away, just one tool of self defense.

...which agrees exactly with the rhetorical strategies of the VPC.

 

[buzzard80]

Serving ones time is just the first step in "paying ones dues", and is a far cry from a trusted and respected member of society. He has to earn back that position through his actions over a period of time. If he has served his sentence, I'm not sure there is much legal ability to hold him, even if everyone thinks he'll be arrested next week for the same crime. No guns is part of his punishment, he violated that, and he got caught. Don't commit a felony and it's not a problem, and if you do commit one take all other available precautions to protect yourself.