JRH6856
Member
I'm glad you cleared that up. There have been times in this discussion that it appeared otherwise.
Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership
- Thread starter 450 Dakota
- Start date
- Status
NavyLCDR
member
Gun control laws get passed because they are easy and don't cost a whole lot of resources.
When someone shoots up a school it is much easier for the politicians to say, "OK, let's make it illegal to possess >10 round magazines." What does that accomplish to actually reduce crime? Absolutely nothing. What does it really cost to enforce - absolutely nothing. Ahh- but if you charge someone $10 to register each >10 round capacity magazine, now you are actually making money! The people who are clambering for "something to be done" are appeased and will vote for the politicians. The politicians are happy because at a minimum they spent no money, and probably even started making money. And the only people who suffer is Joe Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen who has a dozen >10 round magazines that came with his gun when bought it.
What would be difficult and costly would be for them to actually deal with the criminal. And that is also unpopular because the same people who clamber for "something to be done" are usually the same bleeding heart types who thinks the criminal should just spend some time on the couch with Dr. Freud working out his issues that are disturbing him. They would rather see people punished for owning guns than see them punished for mass murder.
When someone shoots up a school it is much easier for the politicians to say, "OK, let's make it illegal to possess >10 round magazines." What does that accomplish to actually reduce crime? Absolutely nothing. What does it really cost to enforce - absolutely nothing. Ahh- but if you charge someone $10 to register each >10 round capacity magazine, now you are actually making money! The people who are clambering for "something to be done" are appeased and will vote for the politicians. The politicians are happy because at a minimum they spent no money, and probably even started making money. And the only people who suffer is Joe Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen who has a dozen >10 round magazines that came with his gun when bought it.
What would be difficult and costly would be for them to actually deal with the criminal. And that is also unpopular because the same people who clamber for "something to be done" are usually the same bleeding heart types who thinks the criminal should just spend some time on the couch with Dr. Freud working out his issues that are disturbing him. They would rather see people punished for owning guns than see them punished for mass murder.
JRH6856
Member
Actually, they would rather see people constrained and restricted to the point that such indiviualistic action was unthinkable and completely impossible.
NavyLCDR
member
Which action? Owning guns, or mass murder?
Do you guys know how much money "which the Govt doesn't have to begin with", it would cost to review an ex-cons behavior over a period of time, in which to decide if they should get their rights back?
With the millions of people who go through the penal system every day? it would be impossible to track and decide if they had indeed changed their ways.
Plus who did more harm, a guy who murdered one person, or a Bernie Maddoff who put thousands of old people on the street, unable to house themselves or buy food, at an age that they can no longer regenerate their income, "who knows how many died of heart attacks when told all of their life savings had been taken.
Just because a felon didn't outwardly commit a murder, doesn't give them the right to get their standing in society back. I am sure if he was let out and others like him, that someone would kill them for what they did to their parents and others. The laws exist for reasons far greater than a gun forum can address, I think we should stick to guns, and leave the politics alone.
If you are a felon who wants their rights back, hire a lawyer and petition the Governor of the state you were indicted in to have them restored, if you really are a model citizen you have a chance.
Personally knowing cops and Crooks all my life, bad guys don't change, they may find god for a while, when inside, most do, but out on the street with no job, "especially in this economy" they will re-offend 90% of the time.
With the millions of people who go through the penal system every day? it would be impossible to track and decide if they had indeed changed their ways.
Plus who did more harm, a guy who murdered one person, or a Bernie Maddoff who put thousands of old people on the street, unable to house themselves or buy food, at an age that they can no longer regenerate their income, "who knows how many died of heart attacks when told all of their life savings had been taken.
Just because a felon didn't outwardly commit a murder, doesn't give them the right to get their standing in society back. I am sure if he was let out and others like him, that someone would kill them for what they did to their parents and others. The laws exist for reasons far greater than a gun forum can address, I think we should stick to guns, and leave the politics alone.
If you are a felon who wants their rights back, hire a lawyer and petition the Governor of the state you were indicted in to have them restored, if you really are a model citizen you have a chance.
Personally knowing cops and Crooks all my life, bad guys don't change, they may find god for a while, when inside, most do, but out on the street with no job, "especially in this economy" they will re-offend 90% of the time.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
No. Where did you get this number? If you look at rates of repeat offenders, it is more like 30%. It is higher in some areas and for certain types of crimes. As to cops, I've met a number of really bad cops (real scumbags with a badge) and also a number of good ex-crooks (one timers who are now model citizens). You guys want people permanently branded if they ever step out of line. I say, punish them severely, but once the punishment is over, all their rights need to be restored. You want a truly EFFECTIVE check of some kind? How about a psychological profile for EVERY potential gun buyer? That would screen out ALL the loonies--not just the ones who happen to have been criminals in the past! I say it a lot......I am more concerned with many of the folks with clean records that are a little "off" mentally having guns than any ex-crook with one!
Red Wind
Member
gym said:
As JRH6856 and a few others have pointed out more than once on this thread, if you are a Federal Felon, then there is no formal system of restoration of rights set up. If I am wrong, please correct me.
I employed a woman of 25 back in the 1990's, who had embezzled money from her Fed Bank employer at age 22. She served 3 years at Alderson, West Virginia, the same women's prison Martha Stewart did her stint for stock exchange antics.
Now, at age 47, she still can't vote or touch a gun, although a model citizen ever since.
Yes, she committed a egregious crime, even though non violent, and betrayed her employer. I can never condone that.It is immoral and also just plain stupidity. You are going to leave a paper and electronic trail and get caught eventually. It is almost always inevitable.
But 22 long years have passed and she has had no court of appeal, short of a Presidential or Congressional Act? Many thousands are in the same position.
Should this be rectified? I believe so.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
A true psychological profile would, indeed, find a lot of indicators...but "indicators" aren't "actions". I object to removing any person's rights based upon a psychological profile which is subjective, hypotheitical, and statistical in nature (as opposed to actual personal actions) and which, by the very intent of its use, has become a political/governmental tool deliberately used to levy government control and actions over citizens.
Punishments are for crimes which are COMMITTED, not crimes which a person MIGHT do based on subjective understanding of how the mind works and a subjective testing/evaluation process of that working of the mind.
Once a person has actually committed a crime, THEN some of these tools can be brought into play. But not before.
Last edited:
larryh1108
Member
She is paying the price, no doubt.
However, the system is in place for all the felons.
I'd be willing to bet that for every felon who TRULY changes their life and becomes a model citizen, 80 do not. It's the 80 that have rightfully lost their rights. Those 80 will get out and pick up where they left off. They got caught. No big deal. Next time maybe they won't.
If she needs a pardon from the Gov or even the Pres, let he petition to get one. It seems that every time they leave office, they pardon a lot of people for whatever reason. If she get her friends, allies and local LE and community leaders to sign a petition, she may be able to get it done. She needs to try if she wants her rights back. Will it be easy? Nope, not as easy as embezzling, I bet.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Actually...as a government employee in a naval shipyard, I can probably hazard a pretty good guess just based on knowing how the red tape works.
But a rather huge chunk of this time/money can be eliminated simply by looking at the crime and circumstances alone. There are quite a number of felony convicions out there which have no real bearing on a person's RKBA (or many other rights), especially after the sentence has been completed. Those do not require any kind of a time/cost intensive review.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
You are not wrong.
From the Criminal Resource Manual:
1435 Post-Conviction Restoration of Civil Rights
A frequently litigated issue under § 922(g)(1) is whether a convicted felon is exempt from the prohibitions of the statute because of a post-conviction restoration of civil rights under State law. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted "has had civil rights restored." In § 922(g)(1) cases based upon a State felony conviction, courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant's civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction's incidental prohibition on firearms possession. With respect to Federal felony convictions, the Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. This is so, the Court ruled, even though there is no Federal procedure for restoring the civil rights of Federal felons.
In United States v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003, 1009 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 113 S. Ct. 364 (1992), the court held that the term "restored" in § 921(a)(20) requires the State to make an "individualized official judgment" that the defendant should be excepted from the prohibitions of § 922(g)(1). The Criminal Division takes the position that where State law contains any provision purporting to restore civil rights -- either upon application by the defendant or automatically upon the completion of a sentence -- it should be given effect. It is not necessary that the State issue an individualized certificate reflecting the judgment of State officials regarding an individual defendant. The Ramos case should be limited to its unique facts and not extended in attempts to nullify the effect of other State schemes for civil rights restoration. A State restoration document that is absolute on its face should disqualify the affected State felon from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) unless the facts of the case strongly support a finding that the felon had actual notice of his/her continuing State firearms disability despite the terms of the restoration document.
Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01435.htm
How to Restore Gun Rights After a Felony
When someone is convicted of a felony, they may lose many rights -- including the right to bear arms. However, in many cases, those convicted of felonies are able to eventually restore their gun rights after release from jail.
The restoration of gun rights generally depend upon state laws and these standards can vary greatly from state to state.
In some states, restoration can be automatic. In other states, gun rights restoration is almost impossible and left largely up to a judge's discretion or a governor's pardon, reports The New York Times.
Perhaps the most lenient state on gun rights restoration is Minnesota. In this state, non-violent felons can regain their firearms rights as soon as they complete their sentences, reports the Times. And people who have committed a violent felony can petition a court to have their rights restored without even notifying prosecutors.
Montana is similarly lenient as it allows felons to regain their gun rights as soon as they complete their sentences provided that their underlying crime did not involve a dangerous weapon.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, California has perhaps the most difficult laws to regain gun rights. In California, a felon would have to receive a pardon from the governor to regain the ability to legally carry a gun.
Restoring gun rights for someone convicted of a federal felony. For federal felons, they typically need a presidential pardon for their crime, which can be extremely difficult to get. If you have questions about regarding your rights to carry a gun, you may want to contact an attorney.
Source: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/08/how-to-restore-gun-rights-after-a-felony.html
Red Wind
Member
Thank you,Chief for the corroboration and your time spent researching. This means her chances, and the chances of thousands of Federal felons, of ever having their rights restored, no matter the offense, is extremely bleak.
That's interesting, I was always under the impression that the rights had to be restored by the Governor of the state in which the offense was committed. But I was just speaking of State Law. It would make sense that a Federal case needed the top official in the Federal Government to ok it.
I would think that the current administration would be very uncooperative in such a matter. Especially with Obamas' stance on guns.
I wonder if they "the powers that be" would even be aware if someone applied and got a license, if the crimes predated the computer age? I had a friend in FL who had his old Pot smoking charge as a 16 yr old kid, come up after his 3d renewal, he is about 70 now.
The attorney simply had to show that the case had been expunged at the time and charges were dropped as a Juvenile. It was a pain in the neck to even find the attorney, who I think was still alive, "this was 20 years ago" But you never know what the system will pick up, or disregard. There have to be hundreds of millions of criminal files out there floating around. It is entirely possible that there are licenses given to people who simply applied and left out the part about being convicted of a crime.
In NYC when I got mine it was a much more thorough screening system, an FBI check, and a year just in interviews I believe it was 3 interviews back then in 1972-3. So if you had anything on your record that was even a juvenile offense, there was no way you would ever get a license.
But how thorough are the checks that they run now for ccw permits? Do they just take peoples word and finger print check?
I would think that the current administration would be very uncooperative in such a matter. Especially with Obamas' stance on guns.
I wonder if they "the powers that be" would even be aware if someone applied and got a license, if the crimes predated the computer age? I had a friend in FL who had his old Pot smoking charge as a 16 yr old kid, come up after his 3d renewal, he is about 70 now.
The attorney simply had to show that the case had been expunged at the time and charges were dropped as a Juvenile. It was a pain in the neck to even find the attorney, who I think was still alive, "this was 20 years ago" But you never know what the system will pick up, or disregard. There have to be hundreds of millions of criminal files out there floating around. It is entirely possible that there are licenses given to people who simply applied and left out the part about being convicted of a crime.
In NYC when I got mine it was a much more thorough screening system, an FBI check, and a year just in interviews I believe it was 3 interviews back then in 1972-3. So if you had anything on your record that was even a juvenile offense, there was no way you would ever get a license.
But how thorough are the checks that they run now for ccw permits? Do they just take peoples word and finger print check?
DoubleTapDrew
Member
Like all those evil new-felons in Connecticut who didn't register their "assault weapons" No rights for you!
JRH6856
Member
I don't like the CT law anymore than you do, but the objective truth is that they could have avoided becoming felons by complying with the law and registering the guns. But before they actually lose their rights to all guns due to the federal law, they have to actually be convicted of the state felony charge. And it remains to be seen how many CT will even prosecute, much less convict.
larryh1108
Member
Obviously, if you go thru an FFL there is a paper trace. If you go face-to-face, there is a form you have to complete and mail to the powers-to-be. CT has had a form of registration for a while now. Of course, this has led to a ban which leads to confiscation. They know who has purchased what while in state. Those, like me, who moved here a short time ago have unregistered guns from my previous place of living. So, it will be an incomplete database but if you've lived here for any length of time, they know what you've bought, sold and "should" still have.
JRH6856
Member
If you are talking about CT, I think there can be no sales of AWs in the state so if the gun is sold, it has to be sold out of state. Crossing state lines means going through an FFL for the transfer.
AFAIK, the only way a CT AW owner can legally retain ownership of an AW without registering it in CT is if they own property in another state and keep it there.
larryh1108
Member
I think he meant before the cutoff date.
If you didn't want to register them, they needed to be removed from the state.
I don't know how far the old boating accident would get someone on the wrong side of a search warrant.
If you didn't want to register them, they needed to be removed from the state.
I don't know how far the old boating accident would get someone on the wrong side of a search warrant.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Actually...the simple objective truth is that they are NOT felons.
One becomes a felon by "due process", which means they have to be tried and convicted. Not a single person has yet been tried and convicted, ergo none of these people are felons.
Which, I think, is the ultimate point of your statements.
JRH6856
Member
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt." — Ayn Rand
What strikes me as odd is that the thread has gone on for 170 posts and no one has posted any solid numbers as to whether the 68 GCA actually accomplished anything in terms of lowering the violent crime and/or homicide rate.
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, in 1967 anyone who wasn't physically in prison or a mental ward could buy a gun via mail order, heck they could buy a real military issue semi-auto magazine fed weapon of war ...
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, in 1967 anyone who wasn't physically in prison or a mental ward could buy a gun via mail order, heck they could buy a real military issue semi-auto magazine fed weapon of war ...
Red Wind
Member
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
It is hard to post what does not exist. That is, unless you just make up the numbers. I supose there may be data available to show that there have been very few if any instances of violent crime/homicide involving firearms among felons who obey the law.
That is correct. Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly did this in 1963 to purchase the guns allegedly used to shoot JFK and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippett. Which of course is why such practices must be banned.
- Status
