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.
Here is a story very material to this discussion on legislation in Alaska that deals with some of the problems with the federal law and restoration of the RKBA -

http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2010/03/17/news/doc4ba179c50347a229385358.txt also available through KABA website newlinks for 3/18/10.

Restoration and defending the RKBA is no different in many respects to defending the right to free speech or the right of free association or freedom of religion or other basic rights. Changing the law however is not just a matter of simply raising money or filing a court case. It is also a matter of raising public awareness of an issue, and beginning to build a base of public support for it. Of building support in both political parties, in the media, and in RKBA organizations like the NRA. Without the years of work behind Heller - (second amendment scholarship to thoroughly debunk the collective rights argument, building a public consensus that the second protects an individual right, raising a public awareness of the RKBA as a civil right that includes the right to self-defense, as well as the demonstrable success of CCW laws, and years of empirical research that debunked the claims and shoddy studies that purported to show that guns are more detrimental than beneficial to individuals and society) - Heller wouldn't have happened, it wasw all necessary to set the plate or ripen the issue to the point that the USSC was finally willing to rule and support the RKBA.

This and the NFA are the two hardest issues related to the RKBA to tackle and both need to be vetted in the court of public opinion - through discussions like this - before they can be successfully challenged in court or through legislation. If one reads the story in the link it is surprising the courage that some legislators and even the NRA is showing in being willing to tackle this issue. After all those elected to office whether legislators or judges are faced with the prospect of political opponents who will run election ads claiming that they want to indiscriminately arm murders and rapists. Heck even in this thread on a board dedicated largely to the RKBA we have seen that or similar claims made. And the NRA runs the risk of being similarly demonized in the media. But then doing the right thing is not always the easy thing or without risk.

I would hope that this thread is educational and that individuals on this forum who have read or who will choose to read this thread, will if nothing else, have a fuller appreciation for this issue beyond a simple black and white slogan, and it is my hope some will therefore not support the federal blanket ban on "all felons" ever owning firearms and through future conversations share their view and the reasons for it with the wider audience of their friends, families, and peers. And as touched upon in the story link above even a state restoring an individuals RKBA does not guarantee that the federal government will accept it. Which is an issue that I don’t recall being significantly addressed in this thread.

It would be interesting to see if people who have read this entire thread - if there are any other than those posting - have changed there opinion one way or the other in regards to the federal law of 1968 banning all felons from legally owning firearms.
 
I don't understand some people's logic. If you are arguing that an ex-convict- someone who has been released from jail- should not have the right to own a gun for any reason for the simple fact that they are an ex-con, would you also argue that people with a DUI conviction be prohibited from owning a car?
According to the CDC's website, Motor vehicle fatalities are 4 times as high as firearm related homicides in 2006. I just made a stronger case to take away cars from reckless drivers than I have ever heard in favor of taking firearms away from people in free society. Like I said earlier, if we can't trust them to walk the streets, shouldn't they still be in jail?



http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
 
Hi CobyClark,

I am willing to agree a DUI conviction should bar that person from driving for life. But only because driving automobiles on public highways is not a right but a privilege to use government owned assets granted by the various states. However, the fed or the state are unlikely to allow such a lifesaving measure so it's a moot point. After all, the fed depends on the tax from motor fuel and the states not only motor fuel tax but the income from moving violations.
 
Officer's wife: "I am willing to agree a DUI conviction should bar that person from driving for life. But only because driving automobiles on public highways is not a right but a privilege to use government owned assets granted by the various states. "

Would you also support removing someone's right to free speech if they're convicted of perjury? Or freedom of the press?

Why not take away the right to peaceably assemble from former gang members?

Once we get the ball rolling for any government to take away our rights, it gets way to hard to get them back. As it is now, Ex-cons are second class citizens with very few rights, if any.
 
Officers'Wife said:
Unfortunately, as long as you defend the precedent to suppress the 2nd amendment for one class, you open the way to suppress for all classes.
Click to expand...
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."

There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go along with law abiding private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated, but the are far less likely to go along, at this stage, with letting convicted felons lawfully have guns. And these people vote.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.

Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.

We're left with opportunities to influence how much.

CobyClark said:
...If you are arguing that an ex-convict- someone who has been released from jail- should not have the right to own a gun for any reason for the simple fact that they are an ex-con, would you also argue that people with a DUI conviction be prohibited from owning a car?...
Click to expand...
Certainly in some States, repeat DUI offenders will permanently lose their driving licenses and thus be unable to lawfully drive on public roads.
 
Hi Fiddletown,

Quote:
Personally, I'm more interested in supporting the preservation and enhancement of gun rights for law abiding gun owners.
Unfortunately, as long as you defend the precedent to suppress the 2nd amendment for one class, you open the way to suppress for all classes.



The constitution provides the "suppression" mechanism for criminals, not fiddletown. The same constitution that grants the 2nd amendment in the first place. It's not a 'precedent', that power is built in.
 
Last edited:
The constitution provides the "suppression" mechanism for criminals, not fiddletown. The same constitution that grants the 2nd amendment in the first place.
Click to expand...

And that mechanism is slowly but surely being perverted to include the common citizen. Open burning springs to mind as an example. Another example is 'hate speech.' In modern times the Constitution is being taught as 'granting' rights to the people at large. It is being taught that any right not specifically given by the COUS is not in the public domain. This is why I prefer to watch very closely of how well the government respects the powers specifically granted to it.
 
The constitution provides the "suppression" mechanism for criminals, not fiddletown. The same constitution that grants the 2nd amendment in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not grant any rights, it acknowledges our inherent rights. They are our rights whether or not they are written on paper.

Anyone can be a criminal if laws are enacted making them so.

A felon who wants a gun to commit a crime will get one. Laws barring felons from owning guns only hassles those who now care about and respect the law, just like "no handgun" zones only hassle honest gun owners who carry legally.

Lots of people here who have never made a mistake, and believe that they won't ever be on the other side of the law either purposefully or by accident.
 
The constitutional part of this discussion was done to death around post 254 or so.
 
The constitutional part of this discussion was done to death around post 254 or so.
Click to expand...

Then why are gun owners in here still defending the wording that was included in the 68 GCA, the most comprehensively anti gun piece of legislation of all time?
 
Quote:
The constitutional part of this discussion was done to death around post 254 or so.
Doesn't this boil down to our constitutional rights?

My simple observation:

The constitution provides the 2A and provides for the removal of rights through due process. That wasn't really the question though.

The majority of people who voted seem to agree that the category of crimes labeled "felonies" merit the removal of the right to keep and bear arms as part of a criminal's punishment.

That seems to make some people very mad and the discussion has gone on a lot of tangents along the way.
 
The majority of people who voted seem to agree that the category of crimes labeled "felonies" merit the removal of the right to keep and bear arms as part of a criminal's punishment.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the poll seemed to have closed early. I suspect it would be closer if it were re-opened for voting for a time. I myself didn't check this thread out in time to hit the poll.

Secondly, we also know that just because a majority might agree with something unconstitutional, it doesn't make it right.
 
fireside44 said:
...we also know that just because a majority might agree with something unconstitutional, it doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...
And exactly when did any court, let alone SCOTUS, hold that the provisions of the GCA barring convicted felons from owning guns is unconstitutional?
 
Quote:
The majority of people who voted seem to agree that the category of crimes labeled "felonies" merit the removal of the right to keep and bear arms as part of a criminal's punishment.
Firstly, the poll seemed to have closed early. I suspect it would be closer if it were re-opened for voting for a time. I myself didn't check this thread out in time to hit the poll.

Secondly, we also know that just because a majority might agree with something unconstitutional, it doesn't make it right.




Yes, if the poll had stayed open longer the numbers would be different. We agree.

How would they be different? Obviously, you'd have to let it stay open to see!?!

It didn't, therefore they aren't.

So I guess on your logic perhaps you've uncovered 287 new THR members that can be labeled "anti's"
 
Then why are gun owners in here still defending the wording that was included in the 68 GCA, the most comprehensively anti gun piece of legislation of all time?
Click to expand...

Because explaining "restricted" to American gun owners is like explaining "wet" to a fish?

A lot of gun owners, including members here, are happy being told what to do, until it affects some small aspect of their particular brand of hobby. Then they'll get upset while another group assaults their rights, like they were happy to do to others...
 
And when did any court let alone SCOTUS, hold that handgun bans were unconstitutional prior to Heller?

Yet we agree they are... we agreed they were prior to the decision too.
Click to expand...

Well said.

So I guess on your logic perhaps you've uncovered 287 new THR members that can be labeled "anti's"
Click to expand...

Well, if you are donating to the NRA, actively supporting gun rights, and are a shooting enthusiast, voicing your support for bits of legislation that are distinctly anti gun in it's nature is kind of self defeating. That's what I see.

Half hearted attempts at demonizing the way I may or may not view other board members will be counter productive to the discussion.

A lot of gun owners, including members here, are happy being told what to do, until it affects some small aspect of their particular brand of hobby.
Click to expand...

Like the "assault weapons" ban. Hey, who needs an "assault weapon"? It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, therefore it must've been solid legislation. Why wasn't it reinstated?

If keeping guns out of the hands of felons is so important, why not ban private sales? Why not ban guns altogether? That would prevent felons from stealing legally owned weapons, cause there would be none.

It's all "common sense" gun law as far as I'm concerned. And there is no such thing. People here are picking and choosing their version of "common sense", but as we know, once one subset of citizenry is denied a Constitutional right, any and all can be denied.

One man's "common sense" is another man's crazy.
 
Without reading the entire thread, did anyone consider the unique situation of Alaska's residents ?

In many cases earning a living involves "getting out amongst" a lot of nasty, hungry critters and then there's the toothy/aggressive native fauna ! Requiring someone head out into the wilderness sans any form of self-defense, let alone the means of sustenance, is tantamount to a death sentence, IMO !! It could certainly be argued as "cruel and unusual punnishment" !! >MW
 
In many cases earning a living involves "getting out amongst" a lot of nasty, hungry critters and then there's the toothy/aggressive native fauna ! Requiring someone head out into the wilderness sans any form of self-defense, let alone the means of sustenance, is tantamount to a death sentence, IMO !! It could certainly be argued as "cruel and unusual punnishment" !! >MW
Click to expand...

The same could be said for Newark................ ;)
 
Millwright said:
Without reading the entire thread, did anyone consider the unique situation of Alaska's residents ?

In many cases earning a living involves "getting out amongst" a lot of nasty, hungry critters and then there's the toothy/aggressive native fauna ! Requiring someone head out into the wilderness sans any form of self-defense, let alone the means of sustenance, is tantamount to a death sentence, IMO !! It could certainly be argued as "cruel and unusual punnishment" !! >MW
Click to expand...
Yes I know such a person it started with a claim that he shot a Beaver (furbearer) out of season with an iron sighted SKS less than an inch behind it's left ear, while it was swimming in the Tanana (prohibited habitat in that area), at about 200 yards (he was convicted of this too), then he got nailed by the ATF on a 922(r) for not having enough compliance parts (one over, he bought it from someone in Minto, and had no clue it wasn't compliant, I suspect he didn't even know it needed to be), he carries a 50 cal BP rifle and Walker revolver (44 caliber).

Apparently he's safe with these, but not a 44 Magnum, or a Beowulf. Which of course illustrates the sheer lunacy of this law. Either he's safe for carrying firearms or he's not, now he's restricted from purchasing a 22 rimfire, but not a 50 caliber black powder, or a 44 caliber blackpowder revolver. Of course I'm sure that he'd be more than happy with a metallic cartridge rifle for followup shots if needed, or a pump action shotgun.
 
"In many cases earning a living involves "getting out amongst" a lot of nasty, hungry critters and then there's the toothy/aggressive native fauna ! Requiring someone head out into the wilderness sans any form of self-defense, let alone the means of sustenance, is tantamount to a death sentence, IMO !! It could certainly be argued as "cruel and unusual punnishment" !! "



Uuuuuuhhhhhhhh. If you don't want this to happen to you, then don't break the law. It's pretty simple.
 
Some Florida felonies:

Stick a coke can into the open port of a fire hydrant: felony 806.10

A guy that is camping, plays with the campfire. He sets an unoccupied tent on fire. felony. 806.01(2)

A teen plays with and discharges a fire extinguisher from the hallway of an apartment complex. felony. 812.014(c)

You are sitting in the parking lot of a Crispers restaurant after they are closed, and you use your smart phone to access the internet via the WiFi connection. You are now a felon. 815.06(1)

Bigamy is a felony. 826.01 So is incest. 826.04

Tripping a horse is a felony. 828.12

If you leave your wife, you have deserted her, and are now a felon. 856.04

Are you a member of the Communist party? Do you advocate civil disobedience? Good chance you are a felon. 876.02

There are others, and I guess people who do any of these things deserve to pay for the rest of their lives.
 
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
845
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