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.
Gungnir said:
....Just because these laws aren't currently being executed to prosecute those who embellish or exaggerate to get a job, or sell something they own does not mean that they are not a breach of the definition of those laws....
One of the major considerations in any decision to prosecute is what harms has been done. In many cases of modest embellishment on a resume, nothing will come of it, because there is no injury; and if the employer discovers the imposture, the employee will simply be summarily fired.

But if the misrepresentation has the effect of convincing an employer that one is qualified to do something when he is not, and if significant injury is caused by that incompetence, that could be another matter entirely.

Note also that the statutes you've cited are couched in terms of "...having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses...." Words like "defraud" and "false pretenses" have well defined and understood meaning in the law. Among other things, an "embellishment" in order to rise to the level of an "artifice to defraud" must be material. Stretching the truth about minor or tangential matters won't create criminal liability (but they'd still get you fired).

Gungnir said:
...Application of these laws for Ponzi schemes, Identity theft etc. is indeed a fact and there are also other statutes that cover those offenses that are more strictly defined,...
Such as?

Gungnir said:
...Are prosecutors graded by the number of convictions or conviction rate they achieve I wonder...?...
In any case it doesn't enhance their careers to squander their limited budgets prosecuting trivial matters.

Gungnir said:
...Many things that we believe are perfectly legal can be and are felonies...
I wonder how many people actually think that telling lies in order to acquire money or property is legal. Wouldn't someone usually understand that if he's selling his car and a possible buyer asks about past problems, he has a legal duty to truthfully disclose known problems, and that if he fails to do so, he has committed fraud.
 
Arkansas Paul said:
Rembrant posted something way back in post #11 that is very true and bears repeating.
Criminals are the cause of the politicians burdening everyone else with more gun laws. They have damaged our cause and yet many still want to allow them to have the same rights as others who have done nothing but good.

They don't have any rights in prison. Again, I fail to see your logic at all.
 
The types of mail, wire and Internet fraud that gets investigated and prosecuted by the feds under statutes like 18 USC 1341 and 18 USC 1343 would seldom get investigated and prosecuted by a state. States in general lack the resources for those types of things; and when multiple states are involved, jurisdictional and choice of law difficulties make effective investigation and prosecution impractical. The feds have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute only federal statutory crimes.

Sorry comrade, how dare I criticize the all-reaching power of the state?
 
Officers'Wife said:
fiddletown said:
The types of mail, wire and Internet fraud that gets investigated and prosecuted by the feds under statutes like 18 USC 1341 and 18 USC 1343 would seldom get investigated and prosecuted by a state. States in general lack the resources for those types of things; and when multiple states are involved, jurisdictional and choice of law difficulties make effective investigation and prosecution impractical. The feds have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute only federal statutory crimes.
Sorry comrade, how dare I criticize the all-reaching power of the state?
So are we to gather from your snide comment here that you don't think that people who commit mail fraud or wire fraud or Internet fraud should be prosecuted? Should the Bernie Madoffs of the world get away with it?
 
Should the Bernie Madoffs of the world get away with it?

False dilemma, the standard for LEO's, politicians and protestant preachers. Since I'm not familiar with that particular case I have to ask for more details Specifically how many charges against Madoffs was dropped in favor of the wire fraud? Too many high profile case the prosecutor uses the grapeshot strategy - throw enough charges into the mix and one is bound to get a conviction. Save time and effort and once the conviction is obtained... Ah well, innocence is never a bar from incarceration. Ergo, if even one charge was dropped the entire case is suspect. Sorry trooper.
 
Officers'Wife said:
...Since I'm not familiar with that particular case I have to ask for more details Specifically how many charges against Madoffs was dropped in favor of the wire fraud?...
My you lead a sheltered life. You can get the low down on Madoff here:

http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo031209.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/13madoff.html

Officers'Wife said:
...if even one charge was dropped the entire case is suspect....
Ridiculous!
 
Ridiculous!

Nope, waste. 150 years worth of sentence for a 70 year old man means someone used assets that will never benefit the people, only the PR of the FBI, SEC and Treasury Dept.

My you lead a sheltered life

Apparently you are not worried about our gov following a budget and using assets with as much return as possible. I prefer sheltered to theft by fiat.
 
Last edited:
One of the major considerations in any decision to prosecute is what harms has been done. In many cases of modest embellishment on a resume, nothing will come of it, because there is no injury; and if the employer discovers the imposture, the employee will simply be summarily fired.

But if the misrepresentation has the effect of convincing an employer that one is qualified to do something when he is not, and if significant injury is caused by that incompetence, that could be another matter entirely.

Note also that the statutes you've cited are couched in terms of "...having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses...." Words like "defraud" and "false pretenses" have well defined and understood meaning in the law. Among other things, an "embellishment" in order to rise to the level of an "artifice to defraud" must be material. Stretching the truth about minor or tangential matters won't create criminal liability (but they'd still get you fired).

Such as?

In any case it doesn't enhance their careers to squander their limited budgets prosecuting trivial matters.

I wonder how many people actually think that telling lies in order to acquire money or property is legal. Wouldn't someone usually understand that if he's selling his car and a possible buyer asks about past problems, he has a legal duty to truthfully disclose known problems, and that if he fails to do so, he has committed fraud.
Fiddletown I PM'd you my response to your questions. Since this is off topic for this thread.
 
Since our beloved leader has now signed the health care care bill, you may perhaps become a prohibitted person. I seem to remember hearing that failing to procure health insurance can be punishable by fines and/or prison time. If you could, in fact, get 366 days, you would be what many here seem to consider a felon.
 
Since our beloved leader has now signed the health care care bill, you may perhaps become a prohibitted person.

Oh that could never happen....... wait, it already did...... by placing all of this under tax law they may very well have done just that. Have to see if it actually happens to anyone, but it's possible under the current law.

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
 
Since our beloved leader has now signed the health care care bill, you may perhaps become a prohibitted person. I seem to remember hearing that failing to procure health insurance can be punishable by fines and/or prison time. If you could, in fact, get 366 days, you would be what many here seem to consider a felon.

The obvious should be eating some of you alive by now but I'm sure some will have an answer for this too...How can all you highly possible future felons not see this?
 
Hunt480 said:
Since our beloved leader has now signed the health care care bill, you may perhaps become a prohibitted person. I seem to remember hearing that failing to procure health insurance can be punishable by fines and/or prison time. If you could, in fact, get 366 days, you would be what many here seem to consider a felon.
The obvious should be eating some of you alive by now but I'm sure some will have an answer for this too...How can all you highly possible future felons not see this?
There is a great deal wrong and obnoxious about the health care bill, and indeed criminalizing an individual's failure to secure health insurance is only a small piece of the problem. So let's get behind the efforts to repeal the bill and to toss out the pointy heads who voted for it. And let's get behind the suits that have been filed, or will be filed, by various attorneys general (as of this morning's news, I believe 12 or 13 AGs are suing).

But as far as me becoming a felon under the law, no worries. I would no sooner let me or my family go without medical coverage than I would use Mortimer Snerd's handloads in my self defense gun or take 220 grit sand paper to my Royal Blue Colt Python.
 
So, according to the Health care bill or law now - one could lose one's RKBA for willfully evading the requirement to purchase health insurance - well as has been said before - "if you can't do the time then don't do the crime." I know I wouldn't want any of those health insurance evaders having the ability to legally own or possess a gun. Gol-Durned criminals that's what they are - broke the law they did - lost my trust for sure - hope they throw the book at'em - felons.

Okay with this is it time to post this:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

or

"THEY CAME FIRST for the felons,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a felon.

THEN THEY CAME for the DV misdeneanors,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a DV misdemeanor.

THEN THEY CAME for the heath care scoff-laws,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a health care scoff-law.

THEN THEY CAME for the people on the no fly list,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn't on a no fly list.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
 
But as far as me becoming a felon under the law, no worries. I would no sooner let me or my family go without medical coverage

Sounds like you have admitted the possibility, "fiddletown" you are coming around after all.You are right... we do need to stick together on this...
 
"But as far as me becoming a felon under the law, no worries. I would no sooner let me or my family go without medical coverage than I would use Mortimer Snerd's handloads in my self defense gun or take 220 grit sand paper to my Royal Blue Colt Python."

Good for you - and I do mean that sincerely - that you provide for your family. But that really isn't the point - the point is whether one supports in principle or not that individuals can now be denied their RKBA for choosing to not purchase government approved health care insurance - because such a person can be convicted of a felony and the 1968 gun control act categorically prohibits "all felons" from owning or possessing guns. This is a prime example of the increasing absurdity of that law in light of the ceaseless increase in the number of crimes that are felonies - thanks to the ever benevolent government.
 
mack said:
...and I didn't speak up...
But in this case many are speaking up in many ways. There are and will be further challenges in Congress. There will be a fight over this in the next election, and probably the next after that. Thirteen attorneys general are filing suit to block the law. It's not about felonies. It's about much more.

Hunt480 said:
...Sounds like you have admitted the possibility, "fiddletown" you are coming around after all.You are right... we do need to stick together on this...
But this isn't about felons losing the RKBA. This is about lousy law and bad social engineering. Would the criminal provisions of this law be okay with you if convicted felons could legally possess guns?
 
mack said:
...the point is whether one supports in principle or not that individuals can now be denied their RKBA for choosing to not purchase government approved health care insurance - because such a person can be convicted of a felony and the 1968 gun control act categorically prohibits "all felons" from owning or possessing guns...
But that's not the point. The point is that it is fundamentally wrong to criminalize a person's choice to not buy health insurance, whatever the penalty for that created crime may be.
 
This is about lousy law and bad social engineering.
fiddletown, as I said you are coming around... I'm glad to see you admit these laws that throw the blanket label of "Felon" on anyone, even possibly on you.
 
Took congress about 10 minutes to pass the Patriot Act. That law made a whole string of things felonies.

We live in a class society and that means class justice.

Some felons should be deprived of the right to own or access to a firearm as a part of their conviction. Some should not.

Convicted felons lose the right to vote, irregardless of the crime.

Mandatory sentencing laws and one size fits all "justice" violate the right of an individual to a trial by a jury of their peers.

tipoc
 
Hunt480 said:
... I'm glad to see you admit these laws that throw the blanket label of "Felon" on anyone,...
If one thinks a law makes some conduct a felony that ought not to be one, the proper attack is on the law itself -- not upon the penalty. Changing the penalty doesn't make the law any better. If whistling in public were to be made a felony, would that be okay with you if the felons could legally buy guns? If the sentence for what you may consider a dumb crime were reduced from two years in jail to one year, would that be good enough for you?
 
If whistling in public were to be made a felony, would that be okay with you if the felons could legally buy guns?
I think thats the point; Yes, for the whistling felons...as for the soon to be felons with no health Ins.
I'm tired now,,, bye bye
 
"But this isn't about felons losing the RKBA." - yes it is because that is the law now.

"This is about lousy law and bad social engineering." - yes with both laws

"Would the criminal provisions of this law be okay with you if convicted felons could legally possess guns?" - no it would not.

But are you okay with the felon blanket ban now that this is the law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top