Convicted felons have no gun rights: U.S. appeals court

[GregoryTech]

This is minimizing and not accurate

Actually, it's not.

You wouldn't believe the things that are now considered a felony. In Pompano Beach, FL, there is a sign posted next to the dumpster at the city stables. It is a felonly to illegally dump trash there.

 

[GregoryTech]

One of the problems with this exercise of discussing ex-felons' rights is that we tend to assume that the term "felons" describes a class of people with uniform characteristics and qualities. In truth felons comprise a wide variety of people with violent and non-violent tendencies. Satisfactory completion of a prison term may NOT also signify that a person is ready to resume the exercise of this constitional right

There is no way to keep weapons out of the hands of violent people free to roam society. All these laws do is keep non-violent, now law-abiding, ex-felons from owning a gun. The violent ones who want to kill again will kill again, with or without a gun. These laws will not keep guns out of the hands of those felons who "need" them in thier chosen illegal "profession".

 

[FPrice]

GregoryTech...

"There is no way to keep weapons out of the hands of violent people free to roam society."

I don't think that anyone is arguing that point at this moment. What we are discussing is at what point should SA rights be restored to someone who has completed a jail term for a felony.

"I think you missed the point slightly. How do you keep "a felon" who wants a gun from getting one?"

I did not miss the point, I responded to what was said. If what she said was not what she meant I am sure that Tamara will point that out.

This is not about keeping a felon or ex-felon from getting a gun. It is about not making it easier for said person to get a gun IF they continue to display behaviors inconsistent with responsible and legal firearms ownership. Her comment was, "If they can't be trusted with guns, don't let them out of the pokey.". As I pointed out if that is the only discriminator, then our anti-gun friends will have ALL of us in prison since THEY "know" that THEY can't trust US with guns.

 

[GregoryTech]

As I pointed out if that is the only discriminator, then our anti-gun friends will have ALL of us in prison since THEY "know" that THEY can't trust US with guns.

Scary. Good point.

But I still think you're twisting the meaning. If they can't be trusted not to engage in criminally violent behavior if they have access to guns, what are they doing out of prison? Because they DO HAVE access to guns once out. No law prevents it. (or Bats, or knives, or cars, or...).

 

[GregoryTech]

It is about not making it easier for said person to get a gun IF they continue to display behaviors inconsistent with responsible and legal firearms ownership

You mean criminal behavior? No, they should be in prison, and we're back on point.

 

[Tamara]

FPrice,

If what she said was not what she meant I am sure that Tamara will point that out.

What I said was exactly what I meant.

Every time I hear "Do you want a multiple murderer who's been paroled after eight years to own a gun?", my first response is "What the hell is he doing out of jail?" not "You're right! Take guns away from non-violent felons, too!".

 

[FPrice]

GregoryTech...

"But I still think you're twisting the meaning. If they can't be trusted not to engage in criminally violent behavior if they have access to guns, what are they doing out of prison?"

Probably because one of the cornerstones of our legal system is the premise that any particular crime has a finite sentence. You punish the person for that crime, hopefully with a prison sentence, the length of which corresponds to the severity of the crime, and then they are released back into society, their "debt" having been paid.

How can you keep a person incarcerated simply because you don't "trust" them?

This is NOT an easy situation or discussion by any means. On the one hand you want to protect the individual right to own firearms but on the other hand you need to have some way to protect society from those who cannot or will not behave responsibly. Can you do both and still be fair to the honest citizen?

 

[FPrice]

Tamara...

"Every time I hear "Do you want a multiple murderer who's been paroled after eight years to own a gun?", my first response is "What the hell is he doing out of jail?" "

No arguement there.

 

[GregoryTech]

Probably because one of the cornerstones of our legal system is the premise that any particular crime has a finite sentence. You punish the person for that crime, hopefully with a prison sentence, the length of which corresponds to the severity of the crime, and then they are released back into society, their "debt" having been paid.

This is NOT an easy situation or discussion by any means. On the one hand you want to protect the individual right to own firearms but on the other hand you need to have some way to protect society from those who cannot or will not behave responsibly. Can you do both and still be fair to the honest citizen?

I guess my point is that you're not protecting society with prior retraint laws. Released ex-felons who are violently inclined have access to guns and weapons no matter what the law says. If they want to go on a killing spree, they will. Released ex-felons who would never hurt another person except in self-defense are not a danger to society with a gun. Just like with any gun control law, the only people you disarm are those who are least likely to committ a crime.

And the focus on guns is bogus when this ex-felon has access to so many other items that can be used as weapons, including screwdrivers, drills, cars, bats, et al.

The situation is easy. Guns laws don't take guns out of the hands of potential criminals, ex-felons or not.

 

[Delmar]

I say the only reason you are putting a person in jail for a felony is because they have committed a violent, horrible crime. And Tamara has it exactly right-if you're good enough to get out of jail, then I assume you are working, paying taxes and all that like the rest of us. If not, we'll get back to you with a remedy...

One of the biggest beefs the colonials had against the king was taxation without representation, which means, and is slowly coming around, that you cannot deny a felon the right to vote once they have served their time.

You don't have to commit a felony to be denied the right to own a firearm-spank your kid and let the wrong person see it and you will have to give up your firearms, too.

Pot possession is a misdermeanor, but watch that Federal form on the question of drug abuse-its still illegal federally, so they have you on a misdermeanor drug charge and falsefying a federal document. That-I believe is a felony.

Keep pointing your fingers at all the others you don't agree with and you're gonna be like the bird hunter one day-shocked that the government is going to take their scattergun, but then they never lifted a finger for the black gun crowd, the rifle crowd, the handgun crowd......kind of like the 1930's German Jew.

The deal is, IMO, the second amendment applies to everyone-not just the priviledged or the wealthy or the powerful. Committ a violent deliberate crime with a gun-we should be able to shoot you off the porch of the court house with it.