Prohibited Persons Beliefs

[Texan Scott]

Violent felons are people who have demonstrated a profound contempt for the value of human life and/ or the sanctity of another person's body. Guns? If we let them out, they probably ought to be rearrested for loud profanity or possession of anything sharp... or just not let out.

I'm willing to have a process for giving their rights back, but since the burden was once on the state to prove that they CAN'T be trusted, it should be equally difficult (with the burden on them) to persuade us that they CAN be trustworthy again.

I think this should apply to certain NON-felonies as well. People with multiple arrests for DUI, drunk & disorderly in public, bodily assault, or family violence (repeated offenses, even if not considered felonies for whatever reason) indicate a malicious or willfully negligent disregard for human life and the safety of others, and IMO should result in the standard 7-year prohibition on firearms. This prohibition shouldn't just expire, but require a public hearing for the right to be reinstated.

Of course, I also happen to think that once due process has been observed, public hanging (by measured drop) would be the appropriate punishment for more crimes than are currently considered capital offenses.

My two cents.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

It's a broken system. I personally think there should be (free) ways to have your rights restored once you have proven that you are no longer a threat to society or yourself.

There is in Arkansas.
True, it is possible to do it for free but it is a lot easier to hire a private attorney to help you. I know a guy who plead guilty to manufacturing with intent to distribute and four years later applied for a concealed carry permit and was issued it. It can be done, but there are stipulations that must be met. All fines must be paid, as well as any ordered restitution, as well as many other things, depending on the crime.
I'm working on a couple of Petitions right now for clients to do this very thing you mention.

 

[TheSaint]

I believe people convicted of violent felonies by a jury should NOT own a firearm.

I do not believe people that have a restraining order (which is issued by a judge, not a jury), someone who pushed their spouse or had a shouting match, someone who has a misdemeanor for shoplifting 3 years ago, etc. should be restricted from exercising their rights.

 

[mljdeckard]

Some states work better than others. But at this time, it's pretty much impossible for a federal felony to get expunged.

 

[AlexanderA]

We all know people who shouldn't have access to guns. This can be due to lack of intelligence, lack of maturity, inability to control their emotions, substance abuse, etc., etc. Unfortunately, most of these factors are hard to quantify officially. So we've left with some arbitrary criteria that can be easily documented, such as felony convictions. This is a very imperfect system, but we really don't have anything that could work better.

As for the idea that those who cannot be trusted with guns should not be loose on the street in the first place, that's good in theory but not in practice. There's just not enough room in prisons for everyone who should be there, so we release many potentially dangerous individuals.

 

[smalls]

I think this should apply to certain NON-felonies as well. People with multiple arrests for DUI, drunk & disorderly in public, bodily assault, or family violence (repeated offenses, even if not considered felonies for whatever reason) indicate a malicious or willfully negligent disregard for human life and the safety of others, and IMO should result in the standard 7-year prohibition on firearms. This prohibition shouldn't just expire, but require a public hearing for the right to be reinstated.

Drunk and disorderly? Really? You could get one of those by getting drunk and singing at the top of your lungs in your driveway...

I've been known to do this on occasion, maybe someone better come grab my guns, I'm dangerous!

 

[BBQJOE]

Prohibiting people from defending themselves from the threat of death or other bodily harm is a pretty serious thing.
There are so many crimes that are a complete disconnect from firearms that involve removing a persons right to self defense as a punishment.

Such as being caught with naturally occurring vegetation. How dumb is that.
You get caught with an organic substance, now you can't defend yourself against someone who out of nowhere wants to kill you?

It needs to be remembered that it is up to an individual to be responsible for himself, AND his actions. If he shows he is incapable of such, than steps must be taken.
But because someone eats something, drinks something, or smokes something, it should not preclude them losing their God given rights of self protection.
I am of the belief that if a person does something awful while drunk, being drunk doesn't excuse their actions. Whatever it was, they still did it.
We've all met the violent drunk. The sad and crying drunk. The guy who doesn't drink, is pissed all the time, and could go off at any given moment.
Trying to judge ahead of time what anyone's state of mind might be under any number of variables is impossible.
To say that because someone smokes weed makes them dangerous is assuming too many things that are probably, most likely not true.

The right to self defense should not be based upon anything. It shouldn't matter that you may be absolutely bonkers, if someone tries to physically attack you, you should still have the right to save your life.
If you have proven that your level of bonkerness truly has led to actions that prove you are dangerous to yourself and others, then that must be dealt with. But just because a person is nuts, we can't assume he will kill just because he owns a firearm.
IMO, the same goes for anyone who smokes weed, drinks, or gobbles prescription or over the counter meds.
You can't judge a person on the assumptions of things he has not done, nor on things you think he might do in the future.
If a ball such as this is allowed to continue, anyone of us could be deemed guilty of possibly doing anything at any time.

Yes, at this time, MJ is still pretty much considered illegal.
So is speeding. So is not wearing your seat belt. So is selling a pillow with the stupid tag removed.
But we all do these things.
Should we all lose our right to self protection just because we break laws? We all break laws.
And the more laws they write, the more we all will be criminals.

 

[mljdeckard]

We most certainly do not all do all of those things. You can't say that any of us do ANY of them.

 

[BBQJOE]

My apologies. I certainly don't mean to infer that anyone here has ever driven over the speed limit, or not worn a safety belt.
I know we all obey every law on the books.
My bad.
I'm really just making a point. We all can't possibly follow every single law there is. I doubt any of us could even know them all.

 

[denton]

The Lautenberg Amendment that makes anyone convicted of misdemeanor DV a prohibited person for life is just plain outrageous.

We should put a stop to routinely depriving gun owners of their firearms as part of divorce proceedings.

Under current law, if you've got a sinus infection and your wife gives you one of her prescription antihistamine tablets, you're a prohibited person. That's absurd.

I'm fine with prohibiting felons, even non-violent ones, and illegal aliens.

In all cases, there needs to be a simple, low cost procedure for those deprived of their rights to regain them. Some kid that gets an underage felony DUI rap and then gets himself straight and has no further problems with the law is not a threat and there is no basis for depriving him of his rights.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

So is speeding. So is not wearing your seat belt. So is selling a pillow with the stupid tag removed.

These things are a far cry from using mind altering drugs.
And you selling your pillow with the tag removed is not against the law. A store in the business of selling furniture is in violation of the law if it does because of the crazy amounts of used and refurbished mattresses being sold as new. I know that sounds silly, but it's actually a sensitive issue among small private furniture stores. I've got in on a little bit of that extremely exciting work too. :banghead:

 

[Texan Scott]

Drunk and disorderly? Really? You could get one of those by getting drunk and singing at the top of your lungs in your driveway...

Might be different where you live, I dunno... but I don't mean being told to go inside and quiet down or risk a citation D&D...

I mean the kind of PI related police contact that results in a necessary ARREST. IMO, someone who KNOWS their substance use HAS resulted in arrest and prosecution, and WILL AGAIN result in arrest and prosecution, and either don't care or can't control it, need help for substance abuse and probably are NOT the sort of sensible, responsible person who should be allowed guns.

 

[KarenTOC]

Since anyone who wants a gun can get a gun why prohibit anyone? Let criminals and nutjobs buy retail snd pay sales tax like everyone else. Oh, and get rid of background checks while we're at it.

I realize that sounds like sarcasm, lol, but that's what I really believe

 

[Texan Scott]

KarenTOC, I hear you. Thing is, it would be NICE if prohibition equaled prevention, but it doesn't ... laws only define and punish crime. They are a clear warning: don't do this.

Then, if someone does it, they can't say they thought it was OK.

We pass the law and keep it on the books to justify what we do to the offender, that's all.

 

[Cosmoline]

So Stumpers you believe that criminal punishment should be for a lifetime?

Felony conviction has always been for a lifetime, absent a pardon. Traditionally that lifetime was the amount of time from the jail to the gallows. The idea of prison and parole are pretty new. And it's really a policy decision whether or not felons are given back their rights after serving their time. Personally I think it would be a greater mercy to just go back to killing everyone convicted of a felony. And that would have the side effect of reducing the number of people convicted. By reducing the penalty we've increased the number of "crimes" as defined by the state.

 

[browningguy]

I personally don't think any non violent crimes should ever keep anyone from owning a gun. Also I feel like people who have served their time or finished their probation should have another chance.

I think a criminal is a criminal, and recidivism rates would indicate that second chances fail more often than not.

 

[Milamber]

Let he without sin cast the first stone. I am sure that if we looked hard enough at most of you folks on here we could find a reason to prohibit. If they current administration has its way it will get easier to prohibit more folks.

That aside, as has been said before, if you cant be trusted with a gun you should be in jail. If you are sentenced to serve a time and you do your time. Don't re-offend and your crime did not involve violence or weapons why not.

 

[Bruno2]

Right, because they might non violent offend again?

 

[mljdeckard]

Without sin? No. Without felonies? Absolutely.

 

[texasgun]

my thoughts:

if you have been branded a "felon" or "domestic abuser" and been convicted... the issue of "not being able to own a gun" is seriously the LEAST of your problems..

how about:

not finding employment after being released?
not being able to rent an apartment in many cases?

and last but not least: being locked up for quite a amount of time....

 

[Crash_Test_Dhimmi]

I can see them being given an inch, but taking a mile with this. Ive seen rants by antis demanding all returning veterans being disarmed because "they all have PTSD". Have you ever had an eating disorder? had trouble sleeping? Had ADHD? taken ritalin or adderal? Taken an SSRI because a side effect is reduced migraines? They sky is the limit, and they are only limited by their imagination as the Bill of Rights no longer limits them. Ive seen some antis say merely only a gun is a sign of mental illness (lacking empathy for living things or some nonsense)

 

[Texan Scott]

The line has to be drawn somewhere... drawing it at CONVICTION IN A COURT OF LAW for a crime of violence, substance abuse, or other felony crime is the current line, and in general, I think that's right and I'm OK with that.

There are some crimes not treated in Texas as felonies that I think should be, and a few that are I think shouldn't; but I think it more appropriate to address those issues separately rather than redefine gun rights for criminals in general.

 

[denton]

There's a book out named "Three Felonies a Day". Its basic idea is that there are so many laws, and many of them are so obscure, that the average US citizen unknowingly commits an average of three felonies a day.

Did you post a picture of your recently killed trophy elk? If that is viewed in some countries, it constitutes a crime connected with animal cruelty. Under US law, if you export that picture to a place it is prohibited, you've committed a felony under US law. (Not sure, but that law may have been challenged and overturned.) For that, you should lose your firearms rights for life?

There was also a recent case of a guy who got two years in the slammer. His crime? He failed to put an ORD label (or the current equivalent) on a UPS package that contained ammunition. Isn't that a little silly? Or a lot?

The point is that if the government decides to make your life difficult, they can find a way to prosecute you and give you actual jail time, for something you never imagined was a crime, and which harmed no one.

Your right to own firearms depends almost solely on prosecutorial discretion.

 

[Twiki357]

As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of "prohibited persons" who should not be. A lot of the disqualifications are nothing more than the liberal anti's reducing the number of people who can legally own guns. A person convicted of driving with a BAC of .08 (Thanks to the extremists at MADD) or a teenager convicted of shopping lifting a 6 pack or caught with a joint and prosecuted as an adult. Sentenced to a fine and community service, but COULD be sentenced to a year in jail - - Prohibited for life... BS! Or how about the 165,000+/- veterans who are prohibited because some VA clerk decided that they had problems handling their financial affairs?

 

[Texan Scott]

The VA system for alleging and reporting mental incompetence is a travesty that DEMANDS justice. It is NOT, however, anything like the same issue as denying guns to felons.

Nor do I consider MADD "extremists"; there is no such thing as a "little" DUI. DUI is a crime that indicates either wanton disregard for the lives of others or the inability to judge when one is doing so.

In my opinion, ESPECIALLY REPEAT DUI offenders should be considered too recklessly dangerous and addicted to be allowed guns.