Convicted felons owning guns

[cassandrasdaddy]

The only thing the law would do is make punishment tougher if the felons were caught breaking the gun law. In most cases, a felon would only get caught breaking a gun law while being prosecuted for another felony. At that point, the gun law doesn't matter much anyway!

no in many cases the gun charge is more serious than the other crime in fact we had guys in va copping to the dope found in the car and still claiming "but the gun isn't mine!"


The end effect of any gun law against felons is that it would restrict law abiding citizens at some level.
how? and at what level?

In that way, the individual felon can have the burden of reinstating his rights, or not.



thats how the system works now so whats the problem?

 

[CCWB]

If your morals are that screwed up and you've been convicted, you shouldn't be able to own a firearm unless the sentenced was reversed.

 

[heeler]

I certainly dont want a violent felon owning a firearm.
Trouble is a lot of states are now making certasin acts felonies.
Did you know that pouring motor oil or gasoline on the ground is now a felony in Texas.
Come on!!

 

[ilbob]

I voted no. because they can get a pardon if they are worthy of having their full rights restored.

 

[CoRoMo]

I certainly don't want a violent criminal to be walking the streets of society.

But... if you're obtuse enough to believe letting him free is appropriate, then I can see how you naively think a law will keep guns out of his hands, or prevent some crime from happening. Ignorant decisions beget, yet more ignorant decisions.

 

[Gunfighter123]

I voted no. because they can get a pardon if they are worthy of having their full rights restored.

Not in all states ---- In Illinois , from what I can find --- it is next to impossable to get a felony conviction exponged or even a criminal sealed , much less asking for a State Gov. or Pres. pardon.

 

[tunnug]

A lot has to come from the circumstances of the felony act or conviction, I have a relative that was a federal agent (BP) stationed in California, one evening in a restaurant (off duty) someone saw his gun, (the person was drunk), the drunk tried to disarm him and in the struggle ended up getting shot, there was a lot of he said they said and my relative got fired and charged with a felony, his conviction got him time served and a few years probation, he is still a convicted felon and prohibited from owning guns, he was railroaded and that's just wrong.

 

[Gunfighter123]

But... if you're obtuse enough to believe letting him free is appropriate, then I can see how you naively think a law will keep guns out of his hands, or prevent some crime from happening. Ignorant decisions beget, yet more ignorant decisions.

EXACTLY !!!!! How many convicted felons are arrested later over a firearm ???
LOTS IN ILLINOIS !!!!

 

[ilbob]

Not in all states ---- In Illinois , from what I can find --- it is next to impossable to get a felony conviction exponged or even a criminal sealed , much less asking for a State Gov. or Pres. pardon.

Expungements in Illinois are only available for a limited number of crimes. For those it is almost automatic if you apply.

Getting a records seal does not restore your firearms rights, it only changes who can see your records. IIRC, sealing is generally only available for misdemeanors.

My understanding on the pardon issue is that a surprising number of pardons are issued. Very few violent felons get pardoned though. I think you have to ask for permission to expunge when you get the pardon or you cannot expunge the records.

BTW, record sealing and expungement only applies to official records. It does nothing to remove newspaper accounts or records that may be in the hands of private individuals.

 

[jakemccoy]

The only thing the law would do is make punishment tougher if the felons were caught breaking the gun law. In most cases, a felon would only get caught breaking a gun law while being prosecuted for another felony. At that point, the gun law doesn't matter much anyway!

no in many cases the gun charge is more serious than the other crime in fact we had guys in va copping to the dope found in the car and still claiming "but the gun isn't mine!"


The end effect of any gun law against felons is that it would restrict law abiding citizens at some level.
how? and at what level?

In that way, the individual felon can have the burden of reinstating his rights, or not.



thats how the system works now so whats the problem?

The gun law wouldn't make a difference if the felon gets caught again for another felony, such as robbery. It's a convicted felon, remember, who's now free. So, if the felon gets caught again in a robber for example, the robbery alone with the additional penalty for using a gun during a robbery is enough to send the felon to prison for good. In other words, (1) the felon gets a stiff sentence because he's already a former felon and (2) the robbery was performed with the use of a gun. That's what we already have. So, we are talking about adding a gun law that's unnecessary. I've never been a fan of doing such a thing.

A lot has to come from the circumstances of the felony act or conviction, I have a relative that was a federal agent (BP) stationed in California, one evening in a restaurant (off duty) someone saw his gun, (the person was drunk), the drunk tried to disarm him and in the struggle ended up getting shot, there was a lot of he said they said and my relative got fired and charged with a felony, his conviction got him time served and a few years probation, he is still a convicted felon and prohibited from owning guns, he was railroaded and that's just wrong.

That's exactly what I mean when I say such a gun law would adversely affect otherwise law abiding citizens.

What most people here don't seem to understand is that if you happen to use your gun in any kind of shooting of a human, there is a fair chance that you will have a felony charged against you, especially if the shooting happened in public. It all depends on your DA. What's fair is, unfortunately, largely irrelevant. It comes down to the temperament of the DA, what the DA can prove and the agenda of the DA.

Further, there are all kinds of felonies nowadays that shouldn't be felonies! Most people tend to think a felony is something that is harsh and outrageous. In reality, I'll bet just about every adult in America has committed a felony at some point. They just haven't gotten caught, and they may not even know they committed a felony. Pouring motor oil or gasoline onto the ground in Texas is an example of a felony that is easily broken by anybody. Generally, each of us needs to recalibrate our brains, with respect to the term "felony", before discussing this topic.

 

[conw]

JN01 wrote:

The point is that if someone with a violent history is caught with one, he can be once again incapacitated (imprisoned) even if he has not completed an offense against another victim (or enhance the sentence if he has).

Yes, I get that. But the reason I say it is ineffective/wrong is because if he has not committed an offense against a victim, this is prior restraint and does not prove that he has any ill intent. Obviously though I feel that if he does commit a crime, and the presence of a firearm counts as "escalation" of the charge, he should do more time. But with a few tweaks to the justice system - decide whether it's punishment or rehabilitation that's the goal, get the extremely high number of nonviolent drug users/sellers out - we could afford to tilt the odds in favor of allowing freed felons to have guns.

Holding criminals "until they can be trusted" would require life sentences with the possibility of parole for all violent crimes. Even then you would have to depend on a parole board to make that determination. How many paroled criminals re-offend under the current system?

This is a valid point, but I think you (and many others) fail to realize that the reason our justice system is bogged down is not because of violent crimes, but because of nonviolent drug "crimes" that are unconstitutional to prosecute and act as an introduction, oftentimes, to a violent lifestyle for unemployable, future career criminals after they go to jail. So by legalizing drug use and sale of drugs, we cut down on the number of violent criminals and the number of criminals in jail overall, thus enabling the justice system to effectively deal with the real problems, as opposed to the ones it creates.

Do you realize that in practically the same breath you say:

Holding criminals "until they can be trusted" would require life sentences

How many paroled criminals re-offend under the current system?

I find that unacceptable, quite apart from the issue of convicted felons owning guns. And it's ridiculous to act as if the justice system is not partially to blame for the extremely high recidivism rates and further to act as if the solution isn't staring us in the face. My belief that felons should be able to own firearms goes hand in hand with the belief that unless someone can be trusted in society at all, with the present possibility of getting firearms illegally anyway, they should not be out of prison.

This does not mean that I think we can magically determine 100% of the time who can be let out and who can't, but right now we clearly aren't even making an effort.

 

[gyvel]

That it hasn't been prosecuted IS actually relevant. No one in your state is walking around defenseless because they committed adultery.

How do you know?

 

[KirklandRdr]

I didn't read through all the previous posts so I don't know if this has been brought up already, but there is a recent book out analyzing our legal system, and it details that the average working American commits 3 felonies a day without knowing it.

The Federal govt alone creates over 7000 new laws a year. On top of state and local laws, it is impossible for anyone to to know what all the laws are and not violate them.

This book info is below:

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (Hardcover)
by Harvey A. Silverglate
Harvey A. Silverglate (Author)
› Visit Amazon's Harvey A. Silverglate Page

 

[jdub3]

I haven't read the whole thread but I voted yes. Alot of that has to do with the fact that a large percentage of felons and repeat offenders are charged with drug crimes. I am opposed to the Drug War and think that these poople shouldn't even be felons so restore their rights.

Personal tangent: If I was King, drugs would be legal and all profits made from their sales would go to prevention education and rehabs. I think this would solve alot of societal issues and help the overburdened justice system. The the justice system could focus on the real criminals and keep them locked up for their full sentences.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I think the poll could be worded better, or maybe have some more options beyond just yes or no.

I am okay with the idea of letting a convicted felon own a firearm after some period of time after they get out of jail and don't get themselves back in trouble again. I could even get behind the idea of letting violent offenders own firearms, just make the good behavior time longer. Our society ends up with a lot of teens and 20-somethings who do something profoundly stupid and pay pretty high prices for it who end up being responsible adults with some more maturing.

The whole question is particularly interesting to me up here in AK where carrying a gun for protection from the wildlife is a common, and legitimate, reason for anyone to carry.

 

[mljdeckard]

gyvel-

Because current Supreme Court precedents regarding sodomy, adultery, and fornication hold that these laws go beyond the scope of governmental authority. They have been struck down. The only reasons states don't get rid of them entirely are A: There is no need, since they are unenforceable anyway, and B: no state rep wants to be the guy who devoted his energy to make it 'legal' to commit sodomy.

The only place these laws are still enforced is under UCMJ, and this is only when it can be shown that committing these crimes directly affected morale or the mission.

Any other legal questions?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

So, if the felon gets caught again in a robber for example, the robbery alone with the additional penalty for using a gun during a robbery is enough to send the felon to prison for good


not in the real world
\
and you ignore the fact that the gun charge is often the one with the most time

 

[drjoker]

I voted yes, because some criminals are not violent criminals. Also, keep in mind that there are different kinds of firearms. In Texas, convicted felons are able to hunt with black powder guns. They may even keep black powder firearms for self-defense. Therefore, even convicted felons who have finished serving time will not have their 2nd amendment rights taken away from them in Texas. Texas and Alaska are the free-est states. Hee-Haw!

 

[ZO6Vettever]

May be a time frame for non voilent felons would work. Like may be no CCW until 10 years clean after prison release. I don't want the SOB who robbed my house getting out and legally having a firearm the next day.

 

[gopguy]

Heck under "Lautenberg" adjudication on a violent misdemeanor disqualifies you now.

 

[chuckusaret]

We have a cross section of America on THR, from small villages to large cities. The convicted felon problem in Texas is far less than what it is here in Florida and far worse in Chicago then Miami. For all the folks that would like to reinstate the felons rights I would like to invite you to Florida ,where we have a very high percentage of repeat offenders, and sit thru a day at the court house, you would change your mind. Better yet why don't we relocate them to your state and let you return them their rights. You crime stats would sky rocket. I am a great believer that there is an opportunity cost for everything that we do. The opportunity for committing a felony is the loss of many rights, such as the right to have a weapon and in Florida the right to vote.

Rbernie, are you in favor of returning a DUI repeat offenders drivers license after some set time period? I place a felon in the same catagory.

 

[Gunfighter123]

The convicted felon problem in Texas is far less than what it is here in Florida and far worse in Chicago then Miami. For all the folks that would like to reinstate the felons rights I would like to invite you to Florida ,where we have a very high percentage of repeat offenders, and sit thru a day at the court house, you would change your mind. Better yet why don't we relocate them to your state and let you return them their rights. You crime stats would sky rocket.

I live very near Chicago and in ILLinois , you must have a valid FOID card,issued from the IL. State Police , to own a firearm or ammo --- been like that for the last 35+ years.

Now , I ask Chuck and some of you others --- how many of the Tens of Thousands of felons in IL. who use weapons/firearms to commit a violent felony every year , have or had a LAWFULLY ISSUED "gun card" ??? My best guess is less then 1% - and my 2nd question is = in IL./Chicago , how many felons get a firearm ILLEAGLLY without a valid FOID/Gun Card ?? My best guess is 99.9% !!!!

My point is = IF YOU ARE GOING to do a crime , you do not care if your firearm is legal !!!
And , more then likely ----- you are NOT going to want to use a firearm that can be traced back to YOU !!!

EDIT ----- REPEAT OFFENDERS ??? EXACTLY !!! I have read that 10% of VIOLENT felons , commit 90% of all violent crime !!! I take it , we are talking about a person that commits a felony and after they do their "time" --- can they get their Right to Bear Arms back.

Add a poll asking ----- Do You Think That REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS Should Get Their Gun Rights Back and I bet it will show 99.9% will SAY NO !!!! And I would agree with it !!!

 

[KirklandRdr]

Here is another potential felon who would be banned from having the right to protect himself and his family.

David Bass – the Washington P.R. executive charged with a federal felony for alleged drunken behavior on a flight into Washington Reagan National Airport – says he was “out of it” on allergy medication and did nothing more than demand a glass of wine.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/bass_disrupts_flight.html

There are so many laws on the books, over 7000 new laws get written every year, and even lawyers argue their interpretation, that most of us have committed numerous felonies and are not even aware of it.

In many cases it is just a matter of time before you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if the cop wants to do the paperwork they can ruin your life.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

David Bass – the Washington P.R. executive charged with a federal felony for alleged drunken behavior on a flight into Washington Reagan National Airport – says he was “out of it” on allergy medication and did nothing more than demand a glass of wine.

A fine excuse for violent behavior. The next tme he's on allergy medicine, will he kill someone?

 

[KirklandRdr]

This is apparently what the guy did that will potentially make him a felon and lose his rights.

Bass had appeared drunk and abusive on the flight, demanding alcohol and refusing flight attendants’ orders to sit down.

Bass refused to obey the instructions issued by the flight attendants and ‘disrupted everyone’ in as much as he entered the aircraft's galley several times and crawled over the person seated next to him in order to access the overhead storage compartments and the aircraft's lavatory.

Bass made “mean faces” at flight attendants.

While the FBI agent’s affidavit said that Bass had assumed an “aggressive posture” with police at the airport, Bass said the incident was not confrontational at all.

one of the flight attendants said that Bass “stared at me the whole flight . . . didn’t listen to anyone and argued everything and appeared unsteady on his feet, upsetting everyone in first class, including me.”