What kinds of people have lost their gun rights.
- Thread starter STAGE 2
- Start date
- Status
I know a guy who, in the heat of an arguement with his (now ex) wife smacked his coffee table hard enough to break a leg off. (It was a $39.95 chunck of particle board you had to set drinks on carefully.) The wife calls the cops, and it becomes "Domestic Violence." They confiscated his guns, and after two years & who knows how many $ he has no guns or rights as yet.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
I didn't know that. Can you provide some cites please showing it's illegal to have sex with someone under 18 in every jurisdiction across the United States?
Never No More
Member
having sex with someone under 18 is a crime
Not really, the age of concent in a lot of states is 16.
Not really, the age of concent in a lot of states is 16.
Novus Collectus
Member
Well, not in the states, but it is illegal for an adult American citizen to have sex with someone under the age of 18 (that is not a prositute) anywhere outside of the United States though.
Fletchette
Member
..and in some states it is even less.
So much for the "everyone knows <fill in the blank> is illegal" arguement. You didn't even know your own example
Getting back to guns: what about obviously victimless crimes like the barrel length of a shotgun needing to be more than 18 inches whereas a rifle is only 16 inches? I can see people easily confusing the two and commiting afelony unintentionally. I suppose an honest mixup would still mean that the citizen in question should still lose his/her rights forever.
Hawk
Member
I guess you missed the part where they thought the party involved was of sufficient age.
Inadvertant felony.
What were positing here could go as far as fake proof of identity / age in addition to a verbal claim of being 18 (where 18 is the magic number).
I'm assuming you don't believe that failure to exhibit clairvoyance should be punishable by a felony record.
Old Dog
Member
Interesting that so many here seem to believe that it's easy to "inadvertently" be convicted of a felony in this country. Lost on many, apparently, is the distinction between inadvertently committing a felony and then later being convicted of same felony. Certainly, given the ridiculous numbers of laws on the books, any citizen may conceivably commit, unknowingly, a felony offense. However, the chances of the citizen actually being convicted of any of these obscure felonies some here are wont to bring up, are generally pretty slim.
As to the noble sentiment of the many here who believe convicted felons should maintain their right to keep and bear arms post incarceration, well, I harken back to a recent thread wherein a THR member related an account of his newly acquired convicted felon next door neighbor ... and boy howdy, did the real feelings ever come out from folks who apparently are all for letting our ex-cons have guns, but don't want 'em living next door or even in the same cul-de-sac ...
As I stated in the other thread, for the most part, you really have to be determined to get convicted of a felony in most parts of this country. You're either a real criminal, or criminally stupid. Felony convictions don't happen by accident.
As to the noble sentiment of the many here who believe convicted felons should maintain their right to keep and bear arms post incarceration, well, I harken back to a recent thread wherein a THR member related an account of his newly acquired convicted felon next door neighbor ... and boy howdy, did the real feelings ever come out from folks who apparently are all for letting our ex-cons have guns, but don't want 'em living next door or even in the same cul-de-sac ...
As I stated in the other thread, for the most part, you really have to be determined to get convicted of a felony in most parts of this country. You're either a real criminal, or criminally stupid. Felony convictions don't happen by accident.
Novus Collectus
Member
As I mentioned before, there is recourse and a possibility for felons to regain their right if they somehow deserve the right back, so to me the issue of the rare few who supposedly did not get true justice is not worth addressing IMHO.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Nope, it is the courts that have the ability to take away and restore rights, not the ATF or any other law enforcement group. Law enforcement groups may attempt to interpret the law in a given manner as they do this with every law - acting on it in the manner they perceive it representing, but the final determination is in the courts. It is part of due process. The courts provide the check against law enforcement in the proper upholding of the law.
If folks don't have the ability to understand something as simple a rifle and shotgun minimal lengths, then maybe they should not have them. Those are not confusing concepts.
I am with Old Dog on this. It is rather amazing that so many seem to think that folks routinely get caught and convicted for committing supposed inadvertent felonies.
Of course there are those out there on some of the sports forums who have expressed concern over Michael Vick's dog fighting bust and feel that he should not go to jail because he will be penalized enough by losing his football endorsements. Of course Vick originally claimed to know nothing about dog fighting on his property. I wonder how many other folks who claim to be convicted of inadvertent felonies simply make the claims like Vick did so as to appear innocent. As it turns out, Vick knew what was going on and was an organizer and significant participant.
waterhouse
Member
This will be a bit of a thread drift, as I don't have any examples of convictions. I am watching the thread as I am curious to see if anyone finds something that meets the OPs request.
Not confusing to people who have a gun hobby and much higher than average gun intelligence, at least. My friends know that I know a lot about guns. I get asked a couple times a year what the "best way" to cut down a shotgun barrel is.
These questions are usually asked by guys that I hunt with. They are intimately familiar with hunting licenses, regulations, bag limits, etc. But they found a cheap spare barrel for their old 870, and want a short one for home defense.
When I tell them there is a minimum length before paperwork needs to be filed with the $200 tax, most of them think I am crazy.
My only point is that most people assume they can do as they please with their own property. If there are a couple people a year asking ME, I am willing to bet that there are hundreds of folks out there who have shotguns with 16" barrels, and who also have no idea that they have broken the law. Outside of folks who talk guns day in and day out, these laws are not commonly known.
People in general always seem to "know" that machine guns and silencers are totally illegal. On the other hand, I'd bet that most people, heck, even most gun owners, have never heard of regulations on things like barrel length and foreign parts count.
There was a guy on the For Sale forum on this very board about a week ago trying to sell his US made PTR-91 who did not know that by putting wooden German stocks on it that he had committed a crime by exceeding a foreign parts count. He had a picture and description, right on the internet, basically proclaiming, "Hi, I'm committing a crime."
Again, for the OP, I know of no convictions, but to say that if you can't understand something as "simple" as barrel length minimums you should not own guns is going a little far, IMO.
Not confusing to people who have a gun hobby and much higher than average gun intelligence, at least. My friends know that I know a lot about guns. I get asked a couple times a year what the "best way" to cut down a shotgun barrel is.
These questions are usually asked by guys that I hunt with. They are intimately familiar with hunting licenses, regulations, bag limits, etc. But they found a cheap spare barrel for their old 870, and want a short one for home defense.
When I tell them there is a minimum length before paperwork needs to be filed with the $200 tax, most of them think I am crazy.
My only point is that most people assume they can do as they please with their own property. If there are a couple people a year asking ME, I am willing to bet that there are hundreds of folks out there who have shotguns with 16" barrels, and who also have no idea that they have broken the law. Outside of folks who talk guns day in and day out, these laws are not commonly known.
People in general always seem to "know" that machine guns and silencers are totally illegal. On the other hand, I'd bet that most people, heck, even most gun owners, have never heard of regulations on things like barrel length and foreign parts count.
There was a guy on the For Sale forum on this very board about a week ago trying to sell his US made PTR-91 who did not know that by putting wooden German stocks on it that he had committed a crime by exceeding a foreign parts count. He had a picture and description, right on the internet, basically proclaiming, "Hi, I'm committing a crime."
Again, for the OP, I know of no convictions, but to say that if you can't understand something as "simple" as barrel length minimums you should not own guns is going a little far, IMO.
Just to nit pick...
Actually, most states have the age set at 16, provided the older individual is within X number years of age of the younger, or the older individual is not in a position of responsibility in the younger person's life that could be used to exploit the younger person in such a relationship.
So while avoiding relationships with anyone under 18 would be considered good advice for avoiding legal trouble(and her father sitting on the porch with a shotgun in his lap and a smile on his face
), it is not that clear cut in most states.
My point(to bring it back on topic) is that laws are rarely that simple, and are, in many cases, not understood by the vast majority of people, so inevitably somebody will inadvertently break the law.
So what happens when someone accidentally breaks the law and gets caught? Well, that's up to the prosecutor to decide.
Actually, most states have the age set at 16, provided the older individual is within X number years of age of the younger, or the older individual is not in a position of responsibility in the younger person's life that could be used to exploit the younger person in such a relationship.
So while avoiding relationships with anyone under 18 would be considered good advice for avoiding legal trouble(and her father sitting on the porch with a shotgun in his lap and a smile on his face
), it is not that clear cut in most states.My point(to bring it back on topic) is that laws are rarely that simple, and are, in many cases, not understood by the vast majority of people, so inevitably somebody will inadvertently break the law.
So what happens when someone accidentally breaks the law and gets caught? Well, that's up to the prosecutor to decide.
langenc
Member
Watch the movie-- "Double Jeopardy."
Old Dog
Member
Sage, nobody's arguing that innocent folks don't occasionally get convicted of crimes they did not commit.
The issue is -- who has lost their gun rights due to a felony conviction for an offense they committed without foreknowledge that their action(s) was/were a felony offense?
It would seem that an underlying, but yet unspoken, belief is present that many jurisdictions engage in malicious prosecution of citizens for trivial or obscure offenses ... If more people here understand the actual cost (to the government, be it municipal, county, state or federal) of bringing someone to trial and conducting a courtroom trial (hell, even getting the prosecutors and defense attorneys together for purposes of arranging a plea deal), they would understand that generally speaking, if a trial can be avoided, the prosecution will do their utmost to avoid one. Of course, there are the regrettable exceptions (most notably, the situation with the Duke University lacrosse players and the bogus rape allegation, but fortunately there, the system did work out in the end).
The issue is -- who has lost their gun rights due to a felony conviction for an offense they committed without foreknowledge that their action(s) was/were a felony offense?
It would seem that an underlying, but yet unspoken, belief is present that many jurisdictions engage in malicious prosecution of citizens for trivial or obscure offenses ... If more people here understand the actual cost (to the government, be it municipal, county, state or federal) of bringing someone to trial and conducting a courtroom trial (hell, even getting the prosecutors and defense attorneys together for purposes of arranging a plea deal), they would understand that generally speaking, if a trial can be avoided, the prosecution will do their utmost to avoid one. Of course, there are the regrettable exceptions (most notably, the situation with the Duke University lacrosse players and the bogus rape allegation, but fortunately there, the system did work out in the end).
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Thank you for the clarification, Old Dog, though it does seem to me after reading quite a few comments that somehow intelligence has something to do with it, that I simply needed to show that intelligence and innocence don't necessarily have anything to do with it.
Also, in response to this
there have been many instances of THR members posting information regarding overzealous prosecutors. While in the minority, they still exist and they still end up prosecuting bad cases or innocent people. Don't we even have our own pet name for such as these? "Ohh, look -- that dude was just Nifonged!"
Finally, back to your main point.
Oh. I understand now. I missed the part where the question says specifically that a person must have committed a felony and not known it was a felony. In other words, examples are sought for people who actually did an unlawful action.
Guess I'll keep looking, though ultimately, I'm more concerned with the non-criminal issues that get people's rights taken away.
Also, in response to this
there have been many instances of THR members posting information regarding overzealous prosecutors. While in the minority, they still exist and they still end up prosecuting bad cases or innocent people. Don't we even have our own pet name for such as these? "Ohh, look -- that dude was just Nifonged!"
Finally, back to your main point.
Oh. I understand now. I missed the part where the question says specifically that a person must have committed a felony and not known it was a felony. In other words, examples are sought for people who actually did an unlawful action.
Guess I'll keep looking, though ultimately, I'm more concerned with the non-criminal issues that get people's rights taken away.
Prince Yamato
Member
Don't forget the forward vertical grip people frequently put on assault pistols, which illegally makes an AOW.
Fletchette
Member
Well, confusing or not it does happen. Are you suggesting an intelligence test be administered prior to allowing one to exercise their rights? Sounds a lot like the "literacy tests" required for voting a long time ago...clearly based on prejudice.
The fact that you think that 'perhaps they should not have them' indicates to me that you really do not think gun ownership is a right, but a privilege
Well, I do not want this to sound like an ad hominem attack, so with all due respect, perhaps you are sheltered. Really, people lose their rights for committing acts that hurt nobody all the time.
I suppose I should spell everything out since some here are bent on defending the right of people to sleep with minors. WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR JURISDICTION everyone knows that its illegal to have sex with someone under 18. Your particular mileage may very. However whatever the age of consent, the fact remains that normal people understand that doing this is illegal.
I think that all the responses here illustrates the fact that people are NOT being convicted of ridiculous felonies en masse as was suggested. While we can quibble about the wisdom of these laws, the point is that to commit a felony you have to be determined or stupid. The examples (or rather lack thereof) have bourne this out.
Fletchette
Member
-and-
There appears to be several subtle layers to this debate, and admittedly I am in the extreme.
I think I need to clarify my position. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
Some people seem to think ‘stupid people’ should not have rights, and if you violate the law and claim ignorance because there are thousands of complicated laws, you are simply stupid and don't deserve rights. Others seem to believe that an intelligence test should be required, preventing 'stupid people' from violating the law beforehand. My argument is that rights are “unalienable” and do not revolve around qualifiers like “race” “religion” “wealth” “bloodline” or even “intelligence”.
I feel that these intelligence tests are much like the literacy tests that some states used to repress citizens and keep them from voting. I am against this.
Some people have argued about safety, saying that certain weapons should be restricted to prevent people from hurting themselves or from endangering others. Others have argued that allowing free access to weapons actually reduces crime and creates a safer society on balance. I believe that gun ownership is a right, and that the whole 'safety' argument is irrelevant. Freedom means Freedom, a Right is a Right and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was acknowledged by our Founders such that we may keep our Freedom. 'Safety' is irrelevant, and although I do also believe that crime goes down when people have access to guns, it is of secondary importance. Should we consider whether the stock market goes up or down with gun ownership?
Some people argue that this or that is more expensive as it requires court trials. These people argue that prosecutors will extend plea bargains to those who 'aren't really criminals'. My argument is 'so what?' Why are we putting a price on Freedom? How many of our citizens died to protect our Freedom and now we are willing to nickel and dime it away? I do not care how much trials cost, it is also a Right…or should we suspend expensive jury trial for some people since “they do not deserve them”?
Some people seem to believe that if someone commits a felony, regardless of circumstance, they should lose their rights. Others have correctly pointed out cases where people inadvertently commit a felony and argue that they should have their rights restored. My argument is that that a right is a right, and these rights are unalienable. Governments may repress those rights, lawfully or unlawfully, but citizens have them, even if they are flawed, nevertheless.
You don’t like the idea of a murderer buying a gun? Then the solution is not to remove guns from society, the solution is to remove the murderer from society.
In short, I would rather live in an imperfect society, with stupid people, annoying people, expensive jury trials, people of other religions, perhaps a higher crime rate, if I can be Free.
Autolycus
Member
Look at some of the people who were freed from prison by the Innocence Project. Some of them are not being given back their right to vote or own arms. They have to ask the governor for a pardon which means they have to admit to a crime they did not commit. Even when DNA evidence and the real killer came forward they were still being mistreated by the justice system.
freedomwanted
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 28
Fletchette
You don't really understand untill you walk in my shoes or someone thats been there. i have a article at my office that you all need to read an i'll put in the morning, very interesting!
You don't really understand untill you walk in my shoes or someone thats been there. i have a article at my office that you all need to read an i'll put in the morning, very interesting!
freedomwanted
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 28
Stage 2
For one thing what i did i did to protect my family from harm or death! But heres this {http;//www.gunweek.com/2003/hs012003.html] this was writen by Joseph P. Tartaro executive editor of gunweek.Title is The anti-gunners strain the quality of mercy.There was also a program on 20/20 on ABC called [ Hostage of fear ] back in the 1980's.I don't think that every felon needs to have his rights restored but the ones that truely changed there needs to be away for them to do so.Right now there is no way.
For one thing what i did i did to protect my family from harm or death! But heres this {http;//www.gunweek.com/2003/hs012003.html] this was writen by Joseph P. Tartaro executive editor of gunweek.Title is The anti-gunners strain the quality of mercy.There was also a program on 20/20 on ABC called [ Hostage of fear ] back in the 1980's.I don't think that every felon needs to have his rights restored but the ones that truely changed there needs to be away for them to do so.Right now there is no way.
Novus Collectus
Member
Actually there is. If it was a federal crime, then the president can pardon or commute. If it was a state crime, then a governor or a pardon board can pardon or commute.
freedomwanted
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 28
Novus collectus
See if you can find that wed site i put in from gunweek. Just because you get a pardon from the gov. doe's not give your 2A rights back that has to come from the ATF only!
See if you can find that wed site i put in from gunweek. Just because you get a pardon from the gov. doe's not give your 2A rights back that has to come from the ATF only!
- Status
