Convicted felons owning guns
- Thread starter SalchaketJoe
- Start date
- Status
Arkansas Paul
Member
"The government wants All of us disarmed. They are not about to give back gun rights to anyone once they lose that right."
WRONG!!!
I know a guy personally who was convicted of manufactoring with intent to distribute. That was less than five years ago. He's completed a drug program and has had his record expunged. He went to buy a deer rifle and passed the background check, and got it. It does happen.
WRONG!!!
I know a guy personally who was convicted of manufactoring with intent to distribute. That was less than five years ago. He's completed a drug program and has had his record expunged. He went to buy a deer rifle and passed the background check, and got it. It does happen.
Everyone wants to blame the "government/politicians", but they are elected by your friends, neighbors and others in your communities. Apparently they are doing what the people who elected them want them to do. If they weren't, they'd be out of their jobs. What are you all doing to fix that or elect folks who will adopt policies more to your liking?Mike J said:
It's true that part of the role of the Constitution is to help prevent a tyranny of the majority. If you believe that your elected representatives have adopted laws that are repugnant under the Constitution, the courts are open and available to challenge those laws. What are you all doing to help finance challenges to laws you believe are unconstitutional?
forestdavegump
Member
I am now of the view if people are not safe enough to trust with guns maybe they should not be walking the streets? We all should have a right to bear arms and be safe, the crooks will allways find ways to have guns legal or not.
So I can't seem to reconcile something. In other threads, I've seen many post the catchy phrase:
"I'm not anti-gun, I'm ANTI-CRIMINAL!"
Ok, that sounds catchy and great.
So then I come in this thread and read a multitude of posters complaining that the penalties for convicted felons are "just too steep". They shouldn't have their gun rights taken like that, it's just not fair (even though they are convicted felons and it's constitutionally legal). They should only get some jail time.
So.... criminal punishments are too severe in this country is the point I suppose?
In my mind, if you're anti-criminal it means that you support severe and significant punishments for those convicted of crimes. I'm not sure what other's think it means.
And as for "non-violent" felony 'exceptions'. So someone steals my identity, takes over my financial life, remortgages my home (and I potentially lose it) and makes my financial life a living hell for years and years. Then, they do it to my neighbor and their neighbor and theirs before getting caught.
Now, I'm supposed to care if they maintain their gun ownership rights because it was "non-violent"? I don't think so, punishments are supposed to SUCK. Tough sh*t.
"I'm not anti-gun, I'm ANTI-CRIMINAL!"
Ok, that sounds catchy and great.
So then I come in this thread and read a multitude of posters complaining that the penalties for convicted felons are "just too steep". They shouldn't have their gun rights taken like that, it's just not fair (even though they are convicted felons and it's constitutionally legal). They should only get some jail time.
So.... criminal punishments are too severe in this country is the point I suppose?
In my mind, if you're anti-criminal it means that you support severe and significant punishments for those convicted of crimes. I'm not sure what other's think it means.
And as for "non-violent" felony 'exceptions'. So someone steals my identity, takes over my financial life, remortgages my home (and I potentially lose it) and makes my financial life a living hell for years and years. Then, they do it to my neighbor and their neighbor and theirs before getting caught.
Now, I'm supposed to care if they maintain their gun ownership rights because it was "non-violent"? I don't think so, punishments are supposed to SUCK. Tough sh*t.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Of course, keep in mind that the law doesn't really just say "felon". It says ANY crime where the maximum punishment is 366 days or more. So, many misdemeanors are included, regardless of age of the person.
And, one does not have to be convicted, merely indicted.
So, a 19 year old kid gets convicted of a misdemeanor, gets probation because he's a good kid but the penal code has a max sentence of more than a year and he's a prohibited person for life.
President Andrew Johnson had a 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18. Under many state laws today that would put him in this category, a prohibited person.
The net cast just got a LOT wider didn't it?
So it's not "pro-criminal" to consider that there might be many cases where it's an extremely excessive punishment.
CoRoMo
Member
Most everyone already is a felon, not so many are convicted felons though.
People commit felonious acts throughout their lives without even realizing it. Some get arrested and prosecuted for it.
There is no dichotomy or hypocrisy about it - I am for the death penalty in cases of murder - I am for significant prison terms for people who victimize others and cause them serious physical or financial injury. But what we are talking about is that there are many non-violent felonies and misdemeanors that lead to a life time ban on the RKBA, that there are many victimless crimes that are felonies that lead to a lifetime ban on the RKBA, and that there is no objective standard for the restoration of rights, once someone has completed their punishment and has become a productive and responsible citizen (in many states it is a crap shoot if you want to get your record expunged or your rights restored - if you have money or you know the right people then you probably can if you don't then you are often denied in many states) I have seen it happen to a lot of people who twenty years down the road still have many doors shut in their face because of their long ago past). In the scenario of someone who has stolen an identity why would you want to continue punishing them if they have served their time, completed parole, and paid restitution - does one need additional revenge? Or did the courts not sufficiently punish the offender with the original sentence - if that is the case then the problem is with the courts and the sentencing. As has been pointed out again and again - if they are fit to be released from prison and parole or probation - then they should be fit to be full citizens - if they are not they should still be in prison or under active supervision.
The idea that anyone convicted of any crime that is a felony, or that could be punishable by up to one year in jail, or for a DV misdemeanor should "automatically" be punished for the rest of there lives is barbaric and idiotic and hardly justice.
Lets be real - there are some law abiding people who should never own a firearm because they are unsafe and irresponsible (but I still don't support a test to own a firearm). There are ex-felons who are still criminals and who will continue to engage in criminal activity, (if that is the case then lets arrest them and put them away, but a blanket law against them owning a gun won't stop them from owning one if they want one). There are also ex-felons who after serving their punishment become very responsible and positive members of society and their community. I am not naive about this issue - for over 20 years I worked with individuals - about thirty to forty percent of them had past or pending felonies. I can tell you that the hard core criminals could care less about legal gun ownership - they had all the guns they wanted. The only people I saw affected by the ban of gun ownership and the loss of other rights were those who really were serious about turning their lives around.
I knew one individual who had a felony over thirty years ago - one that she would never have been convicted of if it happened today (she had a physically violent and sexually assaultive alcoholic husband who abused her and her daughter).
After her release, she joined and later worked in a church - she followed a path that led her to care for others and eventually to the point of being able to pursue careers as a nurse or as a counselor - guess what though - oops she is a felon so no counseling career for her in this state, no nursing career either. She sought relief through all the legal channels including the governor to the state - she had letters from church and community leaders - she jumped through all the hoops - nope so sorry. Guess she never should have hit him after he got drunk, cause he was done abusing her and her daughter by then - and her trying to get the car keys from him to get her and her daughter away from him was inexcusable and a felony. But she was lucky in one respect - her abusive ex-husband died before she was let out of prison - so he wasn't able to follow up on his threats to kill her - since she wouldn't have been able to have a gun to defend herself. She also did eventually get a job in counseling as a support worker (she couldn't be an accredited counselor because of her felony) but she eventually quit that job after being stalked by a former patient who took an unhealthy liking to her - she left work late at night and didn't like the idea of not being able to defend herself walking to her car in the dark or if the perp had discovered where she lived in her home.
As my brother a police officer likes to say - anyone can be arrested for breaking the law - because everyone breaks the law. Don't think you do - drive taking one of thousands of prescription drugs as prescribed or even if you took some yesterday and there is still a small amount in your bloodstream - then you drove with your kid, grandson, niece or nephew in your car - oops you just committed a felony DUI in this state. Made a inadvertent mistake on your taxes - better hope it isn't in your favor. Got a unloaded and encased firearm in your car but the state didn't process your firearm card in 90 days like they are required so your old one lapsed, you're a felon. Ex-spouse violates your rights to see your kids - you lose your temper and lose control of your tongue for a few seconds but then apologize - oops too late - DV charge - you just lost your RKBA for life.
Ah, but what’s the difference - its just "those people" isn't it. They deserve it, and if it "saves just one life." Besides, it will make us all "feel" safer.
The idea that anyone convicted of any crime that is a felony, or that could be punishable by up to one year in jail, or for a DV misdemeanor should "automatically" be punished for the rest of there lives is barbaric and idiotic and hardly justice.
Lets be real - there are some law abiding people who should never own a firearm because they are unsafe and irresponsible (but I still don't support a test to own a firearm). There are ex-felons who are still criminals and who will continue to engage in criminal activity, (if that is the case then lets arrest them and put them away, but a blanket law against them owning a gun won't stop them from owning one if they want one). There are also ex-felons who after serving their punishment become very responsible and positive members of society and their community. I am not naive about this issue - for over 20 years I worked with individuals - about thirty to forty percent of them had past or pending felonies. I can tell you that the hard core criminals could care less about legal gun ownership - they had all the guns they wanted. The only people I saw affected by the ban of gun ownership and the loss of other rights were those who really were serious about turning their lives around.
I knew one individual who had a felony over thirty years ago - one that she would never have been convicted of if it happened today (she had a physically violent and sexually assaultive alcoholic husband who abused her and her daughter).
After her release, she joined and later worked in a church - she followed a path that led her to care for others and eventually to the point of being able to pursue careers as a nurse or as a counselor - guess what though - oops she is a felon so no counseling career for her in this state, no nursing career either. She sought relief through all the legal channels including the governor to the state - she had letters from church and community leaders - she jumped through all the hoops - nope so sorry. Guess she never should have hit him after he got drunk, cause he was done abusing her and her daughter by then - and her trying to get the car keys from him to get her and her daughter away from him was inexcusable and a felony. But she was lucky in one respect - her abusive ex-husband died before she was let out of prison - so he wasn't able to follow up on his threats to kill her - since she wouldn't have been able to have a gun to defend herself. She also did eventually get a job in counseling as a support worker (she couldn't be an accredited counselor because of her felony) but she eventually quit that job after being stalked by a former patient who took an unhealthy liking to her - she left work late at night and didn't like the idea of not being able to defend herself walking to her car in the dark or if the perp had discovered where she lived in her home.
As my brother a police officer likes to say - anyone can be arrested for breaking the law - because everyone breaks the law. Don't think you do - drive taking one of thousands of prescription drugs as prescribed or even if you took some yesterday and there is still a small amount in your bloodstream - then you drove with your kid, grandson, niece or nephew in your car - oops you just committed a felony DUI in this state. Made a inadvertent mistake on your taxes - better hope it isn't in your favor. Got a unloaded and encased firearm in your car but the state didn't process your firearm card in 90 days like they are required so your old one lapsed, you're a felon. Ex-spouse violates your rights to see your kids - you lose your temper and lose control of your tongue for a few seconds but then apologize - oops too late - DV charge - you just lost your RKBA for life.
Ah, but what’s the difference - its just "those people" isn't it. They deserve it, and if it "saves just one life." Besides, it will make us all "feel" safer.
MikePGS
Member
Sorry I know I'm a little late to this but I just wanted to make a point. Someone pointed out that you can be denied liberties via due process of law and this is of course very correct. However that doesn't really matter so far as rights, such as the right to bear arms, goes. Rights pre-exist governmental authority. The Bill of Rights simply acknowledges these rights, it does not grant them. Liberties on the other hand are something granted to you by a governing authority and therefore can be deprived via due process of law.
Arkansas Paul
Member
The right to life also pre-exists governmental authority, but I'd wager that 75% or more of the people here support capital punishment.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
It's called a "Clear and Present Danger". The death penalty is not meant to be punishment, it's meant to be a protection to everyone else. It's Constitutionality has been upheld in cases where the crime is so severe that it's likely the criminal presents a clear and present danger to a free society were he allowed to live.
A criminal who has served his time as required and then released does not necessarily represent a clear and present danger.
That's the theoretical of course. We all know that innocent people have been put to death, as well as innocent people wrongly convicted of felonies are now denied their right to own firearms.
But, the death penalty being in existence doesn't conflict with the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". You are entitled to that life and pursuit as long as you don't infringe on another's pursuit of the same.
A convicted felon owning a gun in and of itself does not infringe on my right to life. If he decides to be a criminal again it does, and that's where we come back to this not being a gun problem anyway.
It's the standard "fire in a crowded theater" argument.
The net cast just got a LOT wider didn't it?
Yeah, but TexasRifleman, it still catches those breaking the law, not the general population. The way to avoid it is simple, don't commit the misdemeanor (but in fairness, the thread was asking about felonies)
I just don't have much criminal sympathy.
Yeah, but TexasRifleman, it still catches those breaking the law, not the general population. The way to avoid it is simple, don't commit the misdemeanor (but in fairness, the thread was asking about felonies)
I just don't have much criminal sympathy.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well no that's clearly not the case. Since less than 1/1000 of 1 percent of prohibited persons attempting to buy a gun are convicted of that, it's not catching anyone.
Since over 80% of guns used in crimes are stolen then sold illegally it's not catching anyone.
The gun crime rate hasn't changed since all of these laws were put in place, so it's not catching anyone.
Even if it does catch a bad guy it's catching plenty good guys too since there are a lot of wrongful convictions in this country as well as incorrect information in all of the NICS databases etc.
Over and over, you guys won't admit that this problem has nothing to do with guns.
Can't quite figure out why.
There are occasional, wrongful convictions, but what evidence do you have that there are "a lot"? There are also myriad procedural safeguards in the process, and sometimes wrongful convictions get identified and fixed. No system operated by humans is perfect.TexasRifleman said:
And as far as I know, incorrect information in NICS can get fixed.
It has to do with people who commit felonies. I don't see any good reason to give someone who has been convicted of a felony ready, lawful access to a gun -- at least unless and until he successfully goes through a process to have his rights restored.TexasRifleman said:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, NICS information can get fixed. It's not much easier than a felon getting his rights restored.
Why? The evidence shows that it doesn't matter, that those who want guns to commit crimes get them. We are back to that "feel good" thing.
You demand evidence for one thing I say and you ignore evidence to show that it doesn't matter in the end anyway.
Non salient. If a convicted felon who hasn't had his rights restored is found in possession of a firearm, he goes back to the slammer. Making it illegal for the felon to have a gun doesn't prevent him from getting one period, it prevents him from acquiring one legally. It means he can't just waltz into a shop and take his pick o' the litter.
It's not my job to evaluate whether a convicted criminal is "safe" to own a firearm. Is the pedophile or child molester now "safe"? Is the guy who robbed a convenience store now safe? Or is the guy who embezzled $250,000 from his employer now safe? I'm not interested in making that determination - that's the job of a magistrate. Let the felon establish a good record of public service, assemble a group of qualified character witnesses, and let him petition for the restoration of rights.
Oh boo hoo! You say it's difficult. Well it should be. I keep firearms to protect myself from these scumbags and I take a very dim view of those who would gladly shove guns in their pockets and send them along their merry way. It fails the "good sense" test.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
It is a crime for a prohibited person to even ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm.
Why then is this crime not being prosecuted if the idea is to stop crime?
I'm not advocating arming felons, I am asking what good these laws do. If the laws are not shown to lower the violent crime rate then what good are they?
I ask the same question about EVERY gun law on the books, and I find the same thing; no evidence that the crime rate is impacted by the gun law.
So, gut feelings all aside, what difference does it make if felons can buy guns in gun stores? The evidence seems to show that it doesn't make any difference.
floridaboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 334
Why I don't understand is why our Federal or State governments declare some things to be a felony. If someone didn't deprive another person of life or property through theft, fraud or violence, why should they be punished for life? Example: in my state being caught with 20 grams of pot is a felony. DUI can be a felony. An eighteen year old screwing a 17 year old is a felony. I'm not argueing whether or not these things are good, and should be condoned. Rather that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Theft, fraud and illegal violence are the things law enforcement should focus on. Not whether or not a man kisses his wife on Sunday. A felony in Washington, D.C.
"It has to do with people who commit felonies. I don't see any good reason to give someone who has been convicted of a felony ready, lawful access to a gun -- at least unless and until he successfully goes through a process to have his rights restored."
Except until 1968 it wasn't national policy to automatically deny felons their RKBA for life. And many former misdemeanors have been "upgraded to felonies." And many states have no readily available process to have one's rights restored much like Hawaii has may issue concealed carry - but no one is ever issued one. And misdemeanors now can lead to a lifetime ban on the RKBA.
But who cares right, after all these all must be hardened criminals and bad/evil people cause they got a felony right. None of them could be individuals who made a mistake and paid for it and then turned their lives around. They all should automatically be punnished for life - one size fits all. After all they couldn't have any good reason to need or want a gun - like the guy that turned in local dealers and gang bangers being released back to the same neighborhood - or the gal that is released to return to family in that bad part of town and has to take a job that leaves her traveling to and from work at odd hours at night, or the individual that because of economic necessity upon release lives in a very crime ridden part of the city or town where assaults and breakins are common. What possible good reason could they have to want or need a lawful gun - I mean its not like they have a good reason like us to need one - of course the Brady Campaign says that no one really has a good reason to need a gun. The Brady Campaign says that gun control works and banning guns like in DC and Chicago works - but we know that it doesn't work - well except this kind of gun control that is. Okay we can't really show that it works - but we feel better, feel safer, feel okay about it - and again it is only affects "those people". I mean so what if they served their time and completed parole and/or probation - they still can't be trusted - so the heck with them - who cares if they have families or kids. We must have a rigid gun control law that automatically deprives every single person with a felony from owning a gun without exception - that also makes it far easier to justify the next step - automatically banning gun ownership to DV misdemeanors - and to any non-felonies where the potential sentence was more than one year - even if the person didn't serve one day. Yep, that makes perfect sense.
Except until 1968 it wasn't national policy to automatically deny felons their RKBA for life. And many former misdemeanors have been "upgraded to felonies." And many states have no readily available process to have one's rights restored much like Hawaii has may issue concealed carry - but no one is ever issued one. And misdemeanors now can lead to a lifetime ban on the RKBA.
But who cares right, after all these all must be hardened criminals and bad/evil people cause they got a felony right. None of them could be individuals who made a mistake and paid for it and then turned their lives around. They all should automatically be punnished for life - one size fits all. After all they couldn't have any good reason to need or want a gun - like the guy that turned in local dealers and gang bangers being released back to the same neighborhood - or the gal that is released to return to family in that bad part of town and has to take a job that leaves her traveling to and from work at odd hours at night, or the individual that because of economic necessity upon release lives in a very crime ridden part of the city or town where assaults and breakins are common. What possible good reason could they have to want or need a lawful gun - I mean its not like they have a good reason like us to need one - of course the Brady Campaign says that no one really has a good reason to need a gun. The Brady Campaign says that gun control works and banning guns like in DC and Chicago works - but we know that it doesn't work - well except this kind of gun control that is. Okay we can't really show that it works - but we feel better, feel safer, feel okay about it - and again it is only affects "those people". I mean so what if they served their time and completed parole and/or probation - they still can't be trusted - so the heck with them - who cares if they have families or kids. We must have a rigid gun control law that automatically deprives every single person with a felony from owning a gun without exception - that also makes it far easier to justify the next step - automatically banning gun ownership to DV misdemeanors - and to any non-felonies where the potential sentence was more than one year - even if the person didn't serve one day. Yep, that makes perfect sense.
You seem to care. Are you doing anything to change things?mack said:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
How can we? We can't even get supposed pro gun people to listen without being judgmental.
It's easy to stand up for the rights of people you like, it's much harder to stand up for the rights of people you don't really like anyway.
Problem with that approach is that if you don't stand up for anyone else along the way there won't be anyone there to stand up for you when it's your turn.
That's a bit of what we see here. Before 1968 "felons" were hard core career criminals, now it can include all manner of folks who cross big brother in a myriad of ways.
But, the predjudice against the term "felon" is such that we're 19 pages into a debate about their rights to own a gun. The argument back is that there are systems in place for a restoral of rights. And of course the problem there is that system was put in place back when "felon" was a serious bad dude... not when it is a guy marrying his girlfriend, with parental permission, yet the state decides to brand him a criminal for it.
Yet most folks here don't see any problems with that at all, since it makes things "feel better" without actually making it any better.
And, when you try to actually have a conversation on it all you get is "You just want to sell machineguns to toddlers and felons at Wal Mart".
Last edited:
The key word here being "judge." See, somebody has to make a determination as to whether the felon in question is of sufficiently trustworthy character to warrant restoration of rights. That's the job of a court, not a firearms activist. The activist may seek to change law, which is in keeping with the democratic process.
It's also worth keeping in mind that in order for a person to be convicted of a crime in a court of law, a fair number of things have to happen. The guy who accidentally removed a pillow tag isn't going to be processed through the system. The crying here about blue laws is disingenuous and argumentation from the perspective of bad faith. The burden here is squarely upon the shoulders of the criminal, not upon the law-abiding citizen.
A case in point discussed here recently was about some guy who had a speeding ticket. That kind of thing can be fixed with a lawyer.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Do some research on what it takes to get firearm rights restored before you decide it's no big deal.
It's a VERY big deal and in many states it doesn't happen at all.
Again, you've decided that since there is a system in place it must be fair. Without actually knowing. Just accepting it all at face value is exactly what I'm talking about.
I seem to do very little about it - since most people don't like to hear my opinion on it. Most felons can't vote so politicians care little about the issue. And individuals who have never met or known many "felons" as individuals really couldn't care less either - all they see is FELON. But one has to start somewhere and education and confronting the issue is a start.
Why do we continue to deprive people of their rights automatically and without exception - does it serve a real purpose - do they have an objective method to follow that will lead to a restoration of those rights? I think that if those questions can't unequivically answered in the affirmative than the answer is that we shouldn't do it.
Should the widow who inherits her husbands property and doesn't have a firearm card in this state be a felon - she is committing a felony. Heck this is a gun board where people supposedly value the RKBA - yet we are so willing to say that well if you were guilty of any crime that is called a felony, or DV misdemeanor, or was punishable by more than 365 days in jail even if you didn't get a day then you should automatically lose that right for life - well we say you could get your rights restored, maybe, someday, down the road, perhaps, no gaurantee you can, but ya never know. So no, I don't think that is good enough - in fact it stinks. You can smoke pot and be president of the US but you may never be able to be a teacher. You can commit a cime that will ban you from ever owning a gun as a civilian, but you can often still serve in the military and risk your life for your country. Real rational the equitable it is not.
Maybe, a ban on violent felons, with an objective method for them to earn their rights back would be equitable - maybe a case by case review of non-violent felons to determine just cause to be denied any rights after their release - but what we have now is not equitable or just.
Why do we continue to deprive people of their rights automatically and without exception - does it serve a real purpose - do they have an objective method to follow that will lead to a restoration of those rights? I think that if those questions can't unequivically answered in the affirmative than the answer is that we shouldn't do it.
Should the widow who inherits her husbands property and doesn't have a firearm card in this state be a felon - she is committing a felony. Heck this is a gun board where people supposedly value the RKBA - yet we are so willing to say that well if you were guilty of any crime that is called a felony, or DV misdemeanor, or was punishable by more than 365 days in jail even if you didn't get a day then you should automatically lose that right for life - well we say you could get your rights restored, maybe, someday, down the road, perhaps, no gaurantee you can, but ya never know. So no, I don't think that is good enough - in fact it stinks. You can smoke pot and be president of the US but you may never be able to be a teacher. You can commit a cime that will ban you from ever owning a gun as a civilian, but you can often still serve in the military and risk your life for your country. Real rational the equitable it is not.
Maybe, a ban on violent felons, with an objective method for them to earn their rights back would be equitable - maybe a case by case review of non-violent felons to determine just cause to be denied any rights after their release - but what we have now is not equitable or just.
- Status
