Court: Arizona can restore gun rights to felons convicted in other states

[kmw1954]

I know more felons with guns than people with clean slates as it is...so eh.

I try to avoid those people.
What I find confusing though is that we read daily of gun crimes but yet what is the first thing to happen when a felon is arrested with a gun? They Plea Bargain away the gun charges. We want more and more Gun LAWS except when it involves convicted violent criminals.

 

[DeepSouth]

So again ask the question, Why are these people released if they are such a danger? Has nothing to do with having a gun. If they are dangerous they are dangerous with and without guns.

Its really quiet simple. Convictions are handed down in time.. you serve 10 years then you get out, if one is a still a danger to society is not even considered.

ETA: this is made obvious with the 70ish% recidivism rate.

 

[kmw1954]

Not much we can do about recidivism is there. I also believe that the prison administrators and social workers have a very good idea just who will be returning even before they are released. Yet I have given 3 examples of ex-convicts that have been absolutely clean for more than a dozen years. Should they continue to be punished? In today's society of civil unrest should they not have the same protections as everyone else? Or should they be left defenseless? I think they have more than paid their dues to society.

By practicing this No Guns, No Vote we are turning these people into non-citizens by my view, with less rights than foreign immigrants.

 

[DeepSouth]

Not much we can do about recidivism is there. I also believe that the prison administrators and social workers have a very good idea just who will be returning even before they are released. Yet I have given 3 examples of ex-convicts that have been absolutely clean for more than a dozen years.

If we can’t fix the recidivism rate we shouldn’t fix the loss of rights problems, recidivism MUST be fixed first, IMO.

Should they continue to be punished? In today's society of civil unrest should they not have the same protections as everyone else? Or should they be left defenseless? I think they have more than paid their dues to society.

I’m sorry but yes. Since we’re giving personal examples. I knew a guy, a coworker, that went to a bar with a friend and saw he had a lot of money, later on that night after they had all gone their separate way he went back and shot his “friend” in the head while he was asleep, killing him. He then took his money and paid off a dealer so he could buy more drugs.
His sentence was 10 years and got out in 7.
Do you support giving him a gun.. he shouldn’t be out of prison, ever. And you want him out and with legal guns? Of course not, but the guy in my example is in the same equation as your example. Like I said, fix the recidivism then I’ll talk. I do agree many people that are out should be restored, unfortunately for them the risk is to high at this point to start restoration.

By practicing this No Guns, No Vote we are turning these people into non-citizens by my view, with less rights than foreign immigrants.

again, it’s not ideal, but some of these people shouldn’t even be alive IMO, (my example above) so yes, for now the “comprise” is for the less than 30% to suffer because of the 70+%.


I agree with you honestly, we just disagree about the order in which thing have to happen.

 

[wiscoaster]

That is not correct. A pardon sets aside the conviction as if it did not happen though the record often is not sealed....

(my emphasis) ... exactly ... and why NICS is going to come back with "Denied" and it's going to be up to you to prove you're not a prohibited person. A pardon is not necessarily going to get you off the hook, regardless of the legal definition of pardon. And how many convicted felons get pardons, anyway? It's barely worth considering. The whole approach to defining prohibited persons needs to be redone. Something only SCOTUS is going to be able to do, if the right case gets appealed, and the right decision is reached, and we all know what the probabilities of that are. Non-zero, sure, but not so high as to take bets on it.

 

[kmw1954]

I agree with you honestly, we just disagree about the order in which thing have to happen.

Seriously I don't think we are that far apart. and agreed that fellow should not continue to see light.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

Speaking as someone who grew up with a bunch of career criminals, I can say that a convicted felon will get a gun if he feels the need for one, laws don't really enter into the thought process. Besides, I'm pretty sure a state can't legally create laws that contradict federal law( before someone brings up legal marijuana, they could legally shut it all down if they really wanted to) so this law has no teeth anyway.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Great well give legal guns to gang bangers and murderers that shouldn’t even be out of prison…"

I don't think Arizona state judges would be removing state gun disability from "gang bangers and murderers"; probably more along the lines of non-violent felonies in other states that would be misdemeanors in Arizona. Some states have laws that can deny your right to purchase or possess a firearm that are not Federal GCA "prohibited person" categories. GCA "prohibited person" includes conviction for a non-violent crime for which you could have received a sentence of one year or more but received a sentence of less than a year or even probation. Even under Federal law persons listed as prohibited persons are not violent felons.

Associated Press stories are not fair, balanced, or factual sources on news about guns or gun laws.

 

[dogtown tom]

If the child molester is still at risk of molesting children, why is he/she free at all?

Because being "at risk" isn't a crime.
Crimes have penalties. Serve your time and you get released. That doesn't necessarily change your behavior.

 

[dogtown tom]

This brings up another interesting scenario. Lets say an Arizona judge restores the 2nd amendment rights to an individual that is a Arizona resident. Now lets say this person applies for and receives an Arizona CCW.

In Arizona you can use your CCW in lieu of the NCIS background check to buy a firearm in your LGS but there is still the problem with the 4473 line 21c, Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

If only the instructions printed on the Form 4473 covered this.

 

[dogtown tom]

There is an underlying question about line 21c. If rights are restored are you legally required to answer that as a yes?

See the instructions for 21c on the Form 4473.

 

[dogtown tom]

I know more felons with guns than people with clean slates as it is...so eh.

 

[KarateHottie93]

Lol my parents were crackheads and drug dealers so I grew up around a lot of scumbags. I'm a law abiding citizen and don't associate with people like that. Even now though, I live in the hood. The fact of the matter is, almost every felon I know owns at least one firearm. People that don't follow laws usually don't follow gun laws either. Crazy isn't it?

 

[TBL004]

After reading the link it clearly states that AZ would not automatically allow an individual convicted of a felony in another state to legally purchase and own a firearm in AZ. This is a significant point of this appeals court decision. If this was an automatic approval in these situations it would essentially exonerate that convicted individual of that previous state felony conviction ( that would otherwise prohibit that individual from legally purchasing/owning a firearm). AZ does not have legal standing in exonerating another states felony conviction. However, some felony convictions can be expunged. Expungement is a lengthy process. If an individual that has moved to AZ, and has a felony conviction in another state, and has that conviction expunged in the state court that convicted him/her then this individual should be allowed to purchase and legally possess a firearm in AZ. In the absence of the legal process of expungement then the current laws should prevail.

 

[DeepSouth]

I don't think Arizona state judges would be removing state gun disability from "gang bangers and murderers"; probably more along the lines of non-violent felonies in other states that would be misdemeanors in Arizona.

it’s the “I don’t think” and “probably” that is the problem. I really hate to use the slippery slope argument so I’ll just say I do think there are some places in this country that would definitely do that.

I would certainly support a law that could restore certain people, non violent people and such, while keeping others restricted. The problem is we don’t seem to pass laws in this country anymore, we get vague court rulings that can be “interpreted” however one wants. But that’s another, non-gun related issue.

 

[jmorris]

Fact remains, a large percentage of convicted felons commit mayhem again

I am with Bassjam, if they are still a danger they should not be released. Also a number of non violent crimes that are felony’s in one State and not others.

In any case from what I see, a felon in AZ will remain so. So if they are going to break the law, as an AZ convicted felon and posses a gun, they will just be breaking two at once.

Places that have the strictest gun laws also have the highest crime rates with them. That’s pretty solid evidence that criminals don’t mind breaking the law, if they are out and able to.

 

[plainsdrifter]

I have a friend who was convicted of two felony's like almost 50 years ago, got his rights restored and always checks the "NO" box on line 21c. He always gets a gun however many times put on a wait list. And he is in Arizona convicted in Arizona.

Maybe because back then there were no computers and the file turned to dust. LOL

 

[DeepSouth]

I am with Bassjam, if they are still a danger they should not be released.

I seriously doubt you’ll find anyone that disagree’s. Unfortunately in reality, in the US, dangerous people are released daily.

So the point that they shouldn’t be released is completely and entirely irrelevant to to the topic, as they are being released.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well no one has posted a link to the actual decision, so we've been having this discussion without the benefit of knowing what the court actually said. As a consequence no one actually knows exactly what the ruling was, what it's likely to mean, or how it's likely to be applied.