Convicted Felons and Self Defense. What do you think?

[JesseL]

Thank goodness that we don't let felons own firearms, can you imagine what would happen if we did? Dangerous ex-cons would be able to use guns to rob and murder people with impunity! There would be no law to stop them!

I'm so glad the law is so effective at preventing people from getting all the things they shouldn't have! It's nice knowing that nobody can get things like illegal drugs or guns anymore, and the money we spend enforcing these laws isn't wasted.

 

[tkendrick]

Have to disagree with most folks on this subject.

If you are a convicted felon, I don't care what your excuse is/was. I don't want to hear how the cops "framed you" or how your defense attorney was a "slug" or how the system "ran you over".

I won't ever completly trust you.

I don't want you carrying a gun. I don't want you in a job where you could affect the financial or physical security of other people. I definately don't want you in a position to make life and death decisions on your own.

If that leaves you defenseless, tough.

My honest feeling is that most of these people did a lot worse than they were convicted for. Plea bargains, don't you know. Several here have rationalised with the "well if they're that dangerous they should still be in prison" attitude. I agree, but that aint the reality.

I don't care how well they've cleaned up. I don't care if they've turned their lives around. I'll never trust them.

They should have thought of the consequences a little earlier.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Actually I have mixed emotions on the topic. To me such a restriction is the state admitting the correction system doesn't work. Yet despite the fact they know it doesn't work they continue the system as is.

Sounds like a waste of time, lives and money to me.

Selena

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Of Course

I won't ever completly trust you.

Like I said:

Everybody knows . . .

• people don't change their personalities.
• people never learn from their mistakes.
• real rehabilitation is not possible.
• once you've done something bad, you are ALL bad, forever.

I, of course, am perfect, having never made a mistake, never done anything wrong, never lied, never stolen, never broken a promise, never gone too far pursuing an adventure, and a long list of other things I've never done -- being perfect and all.

The whole "learning from mistakes" thing is a crock. Only a total loser makes mistakes.

 

[Cincinnati Slim]

Hello Folks,

Once upon a time, being a Felon meant you were a really bad guy; kidnapper, murderer, armed robber, thug, etc. But we just continued making laws, many of which are next to impossible to really enforce so, hey let's give these laws some "teeth" and impose ever stiffer penalties. Pretty soon, all kind of things are "Felonies". Most have nothing to do with violent criminal acts. By lumping all these non-violent, often victimless crimes in with really dangerous violent offenses, the whole concept of "felony" has been watered down. Once upon a time, even in poor areas, there was a stigma attached to being a Felon. That is no longer the case today because any serious encounter with the criminal justice system leaves one with a felony record.

The result is an ever increasing segment of our population who are deprived of essential rights under the law. Unable to vote or legally own a gun or even live where they choose there seems to be an ever increasing pressure on ex-offenders. In our efforts to "get tough on crime" we have produced a counterproductive situation which practically encourages released ex-cons to engage in the "under ground economy", slip into criminal activities, associate with even more hardened potentially violent convicted felons and so forth.

How can one expect someone to become a productive member of society and re-join the civic process when they must operate without fundemental basic rights ?

Please don't dismiss this as the concerns of a "bleeding-heart". I think people who break the law deserve punishment. But we have to give some thought about what happens when they have done their time and go back to their community. We can't just "lock 'em all up"; sooner or later these convicts will be released. Unfortunately, all too many of them wind up back in jail after only a short time, often after an even more serious crime. We really need to look at the bigger picture and examine the secondary results of some of our laws and policies.

Slim

 

[JesseL]

I won't ever completly trust you.

I don't want you carrying a gun. I don't want you in a job where you could affect the financial or physical security of other people. I definately don't want you in a position to make life and death decisions on your own.

If that leaves you defenseless, tough.

That sounds exactly like what the antis would say about YOU.

You can't escape the simple fact that a person is dangerous or they ain't. If they're dangerous and free, no law is going to make you safe from them. If they aren't dangerous you've got no business revoking their rights.

 

[Supertac45]

This is kind of tough since I'm the most pro 2nd Amendment person that I know. I'm also a State Corrections Officer, and I'm sorry in some ways for feeling this, but I believe it. Once a Felon, chances are, you'll never change. I really wish that it was different; but, I can't see it. It's only going to get worse. Dirt bags don't give a Sh** about anyone, but themselves. Legalize drugs, and they will just target younger kids with them

 

[Erebus]

Frightened people willingly surrender rights to FEEEEEEEL safer.

Fixed it for you Arfin.

No ones perfect(except Arfin apparently) and everyone screws up from time to time. Bouncing a check can get you a felony fraud conviction.

I have a family member that was lied to by a girl about her age. He met her at a bar, she was drinking with a fake ID. He had sex with her, her mother reported him, bang instant felon. Strangly enough the bar didn't lose it's liquor license or even pay a fine for serving a minor. There are provisions in that law about fake IDs. There are no provisions in the statutory rape laws about fake IDs and lying about your age. It's 100% up to the guy to be sure she is 16.

Clearly he is very dangerous and should never be trusted with a gun to protect his wife.

Think people, we complain about zero tolerance rules/policies all the time. This is nothing more than a zero tolerance law.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

If they are so bad that they can't have a gun, why are they not still in jail. I'm all for harsher sentences for real crimes (murder,rape,child abuse,etc.),but when you've served your time, you've paid your debt to society.

 

[Jeff F]

Making a mistake is to be human. Lots of good people can and do make mistakes or do stupid things in life. If they have done their time or probation and it was not for a crime of violence then I see no reason the right to own or posses a firearm would not be restored without it becoming a big hassle.

 

[30-06 lover]

If we don't trust them to have a gun when we let them out, we should have never let them out.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Wasn't a problem in America till 1938 when the firearms act was passed. This was 2nd major Fed attack on you rights. The first the 1934 machine gun act.
1938 required The lic. of dealers and No felons with guns.(certian types of felon) Next act in 1968 added more felony acts including use of drugs.
So the Fed started with 1934 1938 1968 and of course Bill and Hillary little gun band
Looks like all had a DEM president and congress control. Guess 2008 we are sunk

Shall not be infringed Except when we want more control.

 

[Nolo]

If you are a free man, you should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Any and all arms. I don't care what crimes you have committed in the past, if you are deemed worthy to be released, then you are worthy to own and carry a weapon.
Simple as that. Many ex-felons have never gone back to their old ways (of course, other than people close to me, I cannot cite any examples, as inaction doesn't make the news much, outside politics), and too many people (read: Cho) that have never committed a crime go on to do heinous deeds.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Let's see, convicted felon who was in possession of a firearm isn't a person who has made just one mistake, but a person showing a pattern of making multiple mistakes or maybe best called, outright violations of the law as the felon knew what he was doing was against the law. It isn't a mistake to be cultivating marijuana, but an ongoing and long term violation of the law. Then knowing that he can't possess a gun as a felon is another violation.

The first conviction wasn't for a single mistake, but many decisions made every day in regard to the operation. He was only convicted of one violation, but he made it day after day.

If we don't trust them to have a gun when we let them out, we should have never let them out.

It isn't about trust. It is about losing rights. They also don't get to vote. They forfeit these things for the actions they commit. Time inside is just one of the aspects of the sentence.

 

[brickeyee]

"VIRGINIA Co-habitating by a unmarried couple is a felony. "



"750.532 Seduction; punishment.
Sec. 532. - Any man who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars; but no prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense. History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.532
"

And how may prosecutions have there been I the past 50 years under this statute?
Adultery is still a crime in Virginia also.
If it was NOT a crime it would not be grounds for divorce.

Should felons be granted security clearances also?

I can guarantee I have NOT committed anything even close to a felony EVER.

I will NOT trust someone with a felony with my life or safety. PERIOD.
There are multiple paths to ‘restore’ rights after a felony conviction.

Next time try to follow the law.
It is NOT that hard to do.

 

[rbernie]

I do not think it illogical for a society to set punitive measures in place as a deterrent to antisocial behavior. Be it the death penalty or the downstream loss of social rights, it's not an entirely nonlinear response.

Having said that - I refuse to accept that anyone who is allowed to walk the streets freely should not be considered 'safe' enough to trust with a firearm. Certainly, we trust them with a knife or a can of gasoline or any other potential weapon. Either they pose no danger to society and we treat them as such, or they do pose a potential danger and we shouldn't let them roam freely.

Had I been asked this question ten years ago, I would have quickly answered exactly as Brickeyee did. Today - I'm not so comfortable with removing a body's most elemental means of self-protection, especially if we're dealing with a felon who is not a repeat violent offender. (And if they are - they should not be roaming the streets.)

Should felons be granted security clearances also?

These things are not equal. Not being granted a security clearance simply means that I cannot potentially perform one specific job; I can still likely find many opportunities for gainful employment without the clearance. Removing my ability to readily defend myself and my family, however, is a far more reaching consequence.

Next time try to follow the law.
It is NOT that hard to do.

When I was twenty two, I had no idea that oral or anal sex was a punishable crime in my home state. And when I was twenty three, I watched people get arrested and tried for this 'crime' and sentenced as felons.

Sometimes, just FINDING the law is hard enough, much less being sure that you're always following it.

 

[Sistema1927]

I can guarantee I have NOT committed anything even close to a felony EVER.

Really? Are you sure? And if not today, can you be certain that they won't make your formerly acceptable behavior a felony tomorrow?

Hey folks, wake up. There are many more felonious offenses than most of you can imagine, and more added every day.

 

[cnorman18]

violent offenders only?

The point about there being a great many crimes classified as "felonies" is well taken. A person convicted of passing a bad check ought not forever forfeit his right to own a gun.

I propose a compromise: Anyone convicted of a crime involving a weapon or a physical assault ought to forfeit that right, but nonviolent offenders ought to regain it upon completing their sentences and/or probation. (Note that I do NOT say "convicted of a weapons violation," since those charges are often plea-bargained away.)

If that seems harsh, perhaps more than one conviction should be required. Surely there will be few who would argue with THAT.

It seems odd to me that those who rightly claim a right of armed self-defense against violent criminals would advocate that those same criminals ought to be legally armed after their release.

Actions have consequences, and should; and a reasonable consequence of violent behavior ought to be a diminished capacity to obtain the means to engage in it. If you've already proven that you can't own a gun without endangering others, you should lose the right to own one. Seems simple enough to me.

That criminals can obtain weapons illegally is irrelevant. The fact that illegal behavior exists does not imply that society should sanction it. If that were true, then we ought to have no laws at all.

 

[Zoogster]

Well for 361 years if we start with Jamestown, felons in America could legaly own arms once they did all thier time. For 39 years it is been illegal. Some very presitigous American figures in history served time or were fined for what would now be a felony. In fact back then they still had debtors prison and many people served well over a year for going into debt. Some of the financers of the American revolution in fact, and even signers of the Declaration of Independence did. Many serious violent criminals were put to death, but those who were sentenced to time became free men once they served thier time and were released.
It is a common misconception that crime was higher in the "Wild West" and similar times. In fact a person was safer then, and crime per capita was lower than it is today.

In the 39 years it has been illegal for felons (and now several misdemeanor offenses in various places) to have arms we have seen the most dramatic increase in illegal violent use of them by such people.

Human defense is a basic need. If someone, especialy someone that because of choices in life can only afford more dangerous places to live, cannot legaly provide for thier basic needs and once again become a decent citizen then they are going to meet that need outside the law. Well once breaking one law to provide for a basic need and risking jail time they might as well abandon any hope of changing thier ways and go back to what is easy for them. So I think such prohibitions encourage repeat offenders. It also encourages doing things outside the law. If already illegal to defend ones self and someone is out to get them or posing a threat they might as well take a pro active stance and go on the offensive. Waiting to defend themselves at a later date means they won't be able to decide when and where, and they may have to answer for that illegal action if it takes place at thier residence or with witnesses. If however they take the offensive they can try to get away with it. So it in fact encourages increased offensive criminal violence.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, they might as well not care about the law altogether.

That is not to say I want someone who intends to commit violent or criminal actions to have a gun, I just think legaly barring large numbers of people from a basic human need in an attempt to prevent violence even when the last 39 years has shown that is a failure is a bad practice. A practice that says the government does in fact have a final say on who may excercise the rights provided in the constitution, and therefore the constitution does not prevent the government from infringing upon anything.

So I say let them purchase arms legaly connected to them, it would be better than the illegal ones that don't trace back to them now. Let us all just be armed to deal with those that choose to victimize someone else, and insure they either get a bullet in the act, or a just sentence after the fact.

 

[JesseL]

Note: Do not take this as a defense of criminal behavior.

If I had ever been convicted of a felony, I can guarantee I would still own a firearm. The old axiom "It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" would still hold true. I value my life and the lives of my family more than I fear or respect the law.

I think that a large part of the recidivism problem has to do with how criminals are permanently disenfranchised. When you build a system that forces people into being second class citizens with little to no hope of ever regaining all their rights, don't be surprised when they decide to live the rest of their lives in conflict with the system.

 

[Socrates]

The real felony is the morass of laws written by our Congress', with our sanction. I like Texas. Have them work 2 months out of the year, and, we would have a LOT smaller government, and, we would slow the constant errosion of our rights.

In Kali, EVERYTHING has so many laws written about it, only an attorney could possibly understand them all, and with some laws, not even them.

Our government has become exactly that which the founders sought to prevent.

S

 

[dstorm1911]

hmmm I have a good friend who can no longer own any of his guns, they are stored at my place 73 milsurps, why can't he? well he is a very violent individual, I was present when he had to evict his own drug addict sister from a house he was letting her use for free tryin to help her get her life straightened out, well she got a 20 year old Skinhead boyfriend (she is 40) after neighbors informed my friend of all the minors runnin round drunk and stoned, guns being fired at all hours etc... he decided they hadda go.... I went as backup because of the reports and witnessed the entire transaction (in hind sight I shoulda took a camcorder) anyhow his sister is yellin an screaming callin him everything but white etc... my friend never raised his voice once the whole time just simply "this is how it is and no exceptions I will not tolerate this activity these people used to be MY neighbors my friends when I lived here, either get rid of the stupid crap or get out" that was all.

Well we are talkin to a couple of the neighbors when 4 deputy cruisers show up, his sister has called him in for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and claims he threatened her and cussed her etc... she never said he hit her or anything of the sort........ he is arrested the cops go to his house to take all his guns BUT I've already been there anticipating this move so they are SOL they contact me wanting me to turn over his guns I tell em no...... they are not in his possession so ya have no legal grounds to them... they threaten me I give em phone numbers for all 3 of my attorneys and tell em the conversation is over if they are not investigating a FELONY then they need to leave or will be arrested for criminal trespass , one of em makes a call and they very hurriedly exit my property.....

Well after months of court dates etc... he finally gets to court we have myself as a witness as well as two neighbors... in the end the judge decides he MIGHT have raised his voice or used terminology consistent with a threat, the guy had never even had a 10 over speeding ticket in his life, is a very well established local business man and now............ he can no longer posses a firearm

And yes for all those holier than thou types above I suggest you READ ARFIN'S essay very carefully cause all it takes no matter how clean ya have tried to live your life is anyone saying these simple words "he said he was going to kill me" to a police officer and its your word against theirs and ya can become a felon that easy....... And of course we all here will make sure that you being a violent lawless type you will never lay your scummy hands on another gun as long as you live and if ya do....... we'll send ya back for up to 15 more years.... ya know just makin sure your very own "beliefs" are upheld to the letter......

I know many many many victims of the all to easy "felony conviction" bit most of em....... no priors no nothing, all it takes is someone saying you did it, and unless ya hire someone to follow ya around 24/7 with a video camera (cause witnesses alone will not save you) then the odds are very good you will be convicted.... it can be a total stranger who simply doesn't like the sound of your voice.... or some hooker who approached ya and ya told her to take a walk etc... anyone.......

Ohhhh and for those of you that have teenage children with teenage friends would ya like to know just how easy it is for ya to become a sex offender in the 21st century? hint, ya will not be allowed ANY defense that discredits the "victim" in any way your only defense will be your word UNLESS ya had a video camera rolling the entire time ya were alone with that teenager even if it was as simple as ya drivin her or him home...... maybe they walked into your backyard and for a few minutes nobody was present..... I watched another friend go through this one in the end he made the mistake of takin a plea bargain......... he really didn't have any choice though cause he was barred from introducing any of the witnesses prior cases or other evidence showing that this particular girl (15 at the time) made a lucrative income by blackmailing men with the threat that she'd claim they molested her...... the guy felt that such a threat could never be carried out surly an honest man was safe from such things and the truth would come out in court........... not in the 21st century it won't........ as a result I will not even allow anyone not 18 near me if at least two other adults are not present! A simple word and your honest lived life goes right down the crapper its part of the new "victim rights and protections"

 

[Zen21Tao]

I agree with others that say it depend on the felony. If it is a violent felony and/or a crime where a firearm was used, then someone should lose their right to keep and bear arms for a long enough period of time. But, the main issue is why are these people set free in society anyway?

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, many of the crimes that have a "revolving door" problem today, were punished by death, boating (exile from society), or sever maiming. The founders understood that some criminals simply have to either removed from society or physically rendered helpless as not to be a threat to law abiding members of society.

 

[thorn726]

well the "tough on crime" folks -

show me how the antis can be so definitive without details.

if we can be so quick to judge people as "prohibited"

why shouldn't they

if we got rid of the guns entirely, this would be a moot point, no?

and really, judging by some of the "lock 'em up, toss the key"
attitudes i'm seeing here, do i feel safe anywhere near you with a gun?

i'd be afraid of looking at you wrong and being shot over it, or you shooting at someone else and hitting me

sounds silly but that is how the gun-afraid feel.

in a split second you will decide i don't deserve to live, and i am not sure you will think it out properly, so you don't get a gun

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

The real felony is the morass of laws written by our Congress', with our sanction. I like Texas. Have them work 2 months out of the year, and, we would have a LOT smaller government, and, we would slow the constant errosion of our rights.

Psst, some of the silly felonies they are talking about in this thread, including 11 felonies involving oysters, are among the 2324 felonies codified in Texas.