Convicted felons owning guns

Should convicted felons be allowed to own Firearms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 203 41.4%

  • No

    Votes: 287 58.6%
  • Total voters
    490
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
shephard19 said:
...Do you ever speed? Do you ever litter? Do you ever forget to buckle your seat belt? Do you not always use your turn signal? Have you ever gone through a red light when absolutely no one else is at the intersection? Ever had your parking meter go past the alotted time?
Click to expand...
These are not felonies (expect, perhaps, speeding if you're going fast enough).
 
Oh, I get it. Since speeders and litterbugs can own guns, let's just let thieves and murderers and rapists have them too. That's just freakin brilliant.
fiddletown is right, they aren't considered crimes. They're traffic violations. Even if they were crimes, the OP didn't ask if people convicted of crimes should be allowed to own firearms. He asked if convicted felons should.
navyretired 1 pretty much sums it up.
 
I haven't read every reply to this thread, so I'll probably be redundant in my answer.

In the US we have the right of presumed innocence until proven guilty. So basically anyone who is either not in jail or on probation is innocent. Why would we not want an innocent citizen to own a firearm? We are all potential threats in any number of ways. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho were not ex-cons so why prevent ex-cons from protecting themselves?

If we're going to assume that they may commit another violent crime, then we're assuming they're guilty without proof. If they are likely to commit another crime then why were they released from prison?

Boils down to basic rights. Innocent until proven guilty and the right to keep and bear arms.
 
I will say that there are a lot of people out there who can't own guns because of a technicality, but by the same hand there's probably some people with a minor non-felony record that should NOT have them. It's a tough subject.

Coby Clark made a good point. I'd make an argument that the only justifiable demographic that should be barred from purchasing a firearm are those that have used or possessed a firearm WHILE breaking the law in the past. This does not mean being in possession of a firearm while speeding. I don't think someone arrested for dealing drugs while carrying a pistol should be able to purchase one in the future, for example.

Let's say someone had a felony charge of, let's say...forgery. They were young, tried to rip somebody off, did some time and now have a felony on their record. Should they not be able to own or purchase even a sporting arm to shoot clays or take game? Let's take a recovering alcoholic who wound up with a felony DUI. Years or even decades after the fact, should they not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Even the option for these people to apply legally and formally for a fair and judicious hearing for the right to purchase a firearm would probably be an improvement over the current system. We all know that the real bad guys don't worry about the rules because they won't follow them anyway. By that hand, there should be more options out there for those who've found themselves on the wrong side of things at one point but when it comes down to it still want to live their lives as others do.
 
Last edited:
In the US we have the right of presumed innocence until proven guilty. So basically anyone who is either not in jail or on probation is innocent.
Click to expand...
What about people who have been duly convicted? The finding of guilty carries an automatic bar against them owning or carrying arms.
 
What about people who have been duly convicted? The finding of guilty carries an automatic bar against them owning or carrying arms.
Click to expand...

Interesting, then once duly convicted the right of presumed innocence for other crimes is forfeit? Would that mean the person duly convicted of DUI in one case must prove his innocence in a separate case of say... embezzlement?
 
Interesting, then once duly convicted the right of presumed innocence for other crimes is forfeit? Would that mean the person duly convicted of DUI in one case must prove his innocence in a separate case of say... embezzlement?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean that a person convicted of one crime must be convicted of another, different crime before he can be considered guilty?
 
My eldest son spent 2.5 years in the state pen min security for dui and cc fraud.

He has been out for over 10 years now, but is still prohibited from owning a

firearm without a full gubernatorial pardon IMO this is wrong , he should be

allowed to defend his family if necessary. Non violent crime was asleep in

Wal- Mart parking lot when dui happened.
 
Should conviction of the first crime be used to suppress presumption of innocence in any and all crimes this person may be accused of?
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not sure what you mean.

If the conviction carries penalties, the person convicted must pay the penalties. If it's a fine, he pays the fine. If it's imprisonment, he goes to prison. If it's loss of the right to bear arms, vote, and so on, he loses those rights. It's part of the price he pays for committing the crime.
 
^ +1 Vern.
Every choice has consequences. I try my best to get teenagers I know to realize this. If you screw up, it can haunt you for the rest of your life. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
 
Last edited:
The part of the felon's penalty that this thread addresses, was sold to you on under false assumptions. Are you still buying it?
Click to expand...
What was sold to who?

Are we going to look at every state law and decide what the penalties should be, case-by-case? Are we going to argue about whether the penalty for armed robbery should be 5 years or 10?

The law includes certain penalties. As the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
...if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I try and remember that every time my kid brings home a turtle to keep as a pet. I'd hate to live the rest of my life helplessly disarmed just because that turtle is on the wrong species list.

Felon disenfranchisement was couched as a crime reducing measure. It has proven to be impotent in that regard.
 
Should conviction of the first crime be used to suppress presumption of innocence in any and all crimes this person may be accused of?
__________________


If you're saying that the defendant's past record of convictions be brought up in a totally different trial, that's only allowed in any state or federal court under very limited circumstances. For example, if a defendant claims he never was in the state of NJ before 2010 and his driver's license extract shows he's had a NJ license since 1995 and has a string of MV violations since then prior to 2010 that can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony that he's lying.

You also have to remember that many times a prosecutor will dismiss "violent" charges for a guilty plea to "non-violent" charges.

I agree with Vern on this if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
My eldest son spent 2.5 years in the state pen min security for dui and cc fraud.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a really dangerous dude. Better strip him of his rights.

He has been out for over 10 years now, but is still prohibited from owning a

firearm without a full gubernatorial pardon
Click to expand...

According to the rest of the Brady bunch he "has to pay for his crimes", even if it means never being allowed to own or operate a firearm again.

Since he is a "drunk" (or was once at least) and a credit cheat, he isn't entitled to defend himself using a gun. He is relegated to second class citizen status when it comes to defending his life, the life of his family, and his home. Nice to see the other gun owners come out in full force to condemn such people.

he should be allowed to defend his family if necessary.
Click to expand...

Apparently about half of the board disagrees with you. The other half still retains some common sense.

Gotta love the 68 GCA. All these gun owners who complain about the never ending loss and restriction of their rights over the years sitting in this thread staunchly defending their favorite parts of the bill i.e felons being barred from gun ownership.

As they continue to tack regulations on to this stuff through the years (misdemeanor domestic violence 96) (restraining order 96) I imagine some of them will themselves become effected by it.

Until then they are left singing the same unconstitutional song. If you are trusted enough to be let out on the streets, you are trusted enough to own a gun.

As I conclusively proved earlier, these laws simply DON'T prevent a felon from getting a gun, they just require him to use different channels to do so. They are there to make the public and less informed gun owners feel "safe".

When I suggested that preventing gun owners from making private sales would help to further prevent felons from obtaining guns, how many hands do you think went up in here to support that idea, even though it is a completely viable way to limit access?

When they took the convicted felon's guns, I didn't speak up, cause I wasn't a convicted felon........
 
Actually no, I'm asking if in this person's opinion a conviction that suppresses 2nd amendment protections also be applied to suppression of other guarantees.
Click to expand...
That is, in fact the law. It's called "civil death." It varies from state to state, but usually includes losing the right to vote, to hold political office, to obtain a professional license (in law, medicine, pharmacy) and so on.
 
or on probation is innocent
Click to expand...

UMMMM if you're on probation, then you were found GUILTY of your crime, and if it was a felony, then you don't get to play with responsible people toys like guns

"So sad, too bad"

If you were convicted is a serious felony like murder, rape, etc. I would prefer you to not only to never have a gun, but you should have forfeited your life within 30 days of being found guilty by a jury of your peers
 
+1 fireside on all accounts.

Personally I really think that stripping a civil right for LIFE should be subject to closer scrutiny before being imposed. Yes, I don't want rapists and paroled murderers able to go into a gun shop and purchase a Glock 19, no. But not all felons are rapists. gun-toting drug dealers and paroled murderers. That's just how it is. If there's any doubt there, why not allow hearings to determine reinstatement of rights in certain cases? At least. Someone could be 19 years old and stupid as it gets at that point in their life, get a DUI and injure someone severely. That'd probably be charged as a felony. If it didn't get pled down to a lesser charge, that person would be barred from owning a firearm for life and I don't think felonies can be expunged. Yes, the person deserves to pay heavily - incarceration, fines, restitution, etc al....but the restriction on a firearm just doesn't correlate. It's too much of a generalization for me to agree with, even though I in no way condone the actions.

And like I said before, the REALLY bad guys are gonna get theirs either way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Does anyone have a convicted felon as a family member and a firearms issue?
Replies
21
Views
2K
akodo
A
M
  • Locked
becoming a felon/losing your guns
Replies
20
Views
1K
scythefwd
S
A
  • Locked
If a law is ruled Unconstitutional & a person was convicted under it is their conviction overturned?
Replies
5
Views
846
stonecutter2
stonecutter2
B
  • Locked
NY Post article....
Replies
5
Views
454
MikeyBee
M
A
  • Locked
Federal Government Bans Conservative Laura Loomer from Owning Guns
Replies
14
Views
2K
hso
hso
Back
Top