BATFE Restoration of 2A rights


PDA






Bartholomew Roberts
February 15, 2006, 12:09 PM
As you may or may not know, the BATFE has a process to restore firearm rights to people who have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Unfortunately, Congress has not provided funds for this purpose since the Clinton administration - which means that any such request will wait indefinitely and never be processed.

Further cases through the judicial system have said that this is OK from a constitutional standpoint, even when the felony conviction was for a stupid crime in another country that is not even illegal in America.

However, today I noticed several PETA-type groups are suing the Department of Agriculture. It seems that at their behest Congress defunded the USDA inspection of horsemeat for export at the three remaining slaughterhouses in the U.S. This threatened to put the $41 million industry out of business since the law says that such meat must be inspected by the USDA.

Rather than put the industry out of business, the USDA and the three slaughterhouses reached an accord where the industry would pay the costs of the USDA inspections. Naturally this irked the PETA-types and they are now suing to stop it.

However, it does bring up a question in my mind. Would it be possible to get a restoration of rights through the current BATFE process if you funded it yourself (or had a group like NRA fund it?)

If you enjoyed reading about "BATFE Restoration of 2A rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 12:15 PM
Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.

Geno
February 15, 2006, 12:27 PM
Just because someone has been "labeled" a "felon" does not mean that they truly were/are. One African-American gentleman was recently released from prison following a DNA test that proved HE did NOT do the rape. So, was he a "felon" because of the rape he didn't commit or because he was African-American? But, facts are facts! He IS A CONVICTED FELON, not by HIS action, but by systemic prosecution and jury conviction! He shouldn't have his rights restored?!

Dang--thought we lived in America.

Doc2005

pcf
February 15, 2006, 12:34 PM
New PETA lawsuits....didn't know that this one had come up.....

Does the BATF currently have agents or legal staff (excess manpower) that could conduct investigations and process request? The USDA already had personel in place to inspect the slaughter houses and meats, the only difference is that funding comes from a difference source.

Even if someone or a group was willing to pay to restore rights, could/would the BATF be able/willing to staff it? Even if private funding existed I don't think that the BATF would do it without a congressional edict.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 15, 2006, 12:35 PM
Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.

Felonies are easier to get than you might think. One example was a Texas FFL who drove over the border into Mexico. He had a loose round of ammo in the car that was discovered by the local police during a traffic stop/bribery shakedown. He was jailed in Mexico and underwent quite a bit of heartache there before being able to return to the states.

Upon returning to the states, he learns his conviction in Mexico makes him a felon here and has to surrender his FFL (livelihood) and firearms because there is no process for him to have his rights restored.

In a similar fashion, the 1994 Lautenberg bill makes anyone convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence prohibited from owning a firearm. Guys who had gotten in a fight with their brother as a teenager in the 1950s were suddenly prohibited from hunting even though they had a clean record since then. FBI agents were forced to retire because they could no longer carry a firearm. None of these people could get their rights restored.

This isn't an automatic restoration of rights for all felons. It is just a chance to have the record reviewed.

WT
February 15, 2006, 12:40 PM
M-Rex: I agree.

Crosshair
February 15, 2006, 12:45 PM
Remember, it is not that hard to get a felony conviction. Drug laws come to mind. If you pick up a hitchhiker, get stopped by the cops, and that hitchhiker has some heroin in his backpack. YOU can be in trouble, regardless of the fact you had no idea what he had.

Doing something stupid like drag racing when you where 18 can ruin you for the rest of your life. It is not that hard to become a felon. The term has been peverted soo much that it has lost much of its meaning. Just as there is a system to get a suspended drivers lisense back, there should be a way for people who have served their time to get their rights back.

beerslurpy
February 15, 2006, 12:55 PM
We are awash in things that cause firearms disqualifications. Lifetime disqualifications.

Every state has a process for restoring rights for state given felonies, even really serious ones that would have been called felonies in the old days.

Break a federal law or fail to get your state level rights to KBA, hold public office and vote restored and you never get to have a gun again unless you move to england.

sumpnz
February 15, 2006, 12:56 PM
Bart - There was a recent SCOTUS case where a guy was convicted in Japan of gun running. After serving his (10 year??) jail sentence he was deported back here. A couple or so years later he bought a gun (not sure if through a dealer). The po-po somehow found him in possesion of said gun and charged him with felon-in-possesion or lying on the 4473 or something similar. He appealed the conviction on that charge all the way to SCOTUS where they ruled foreign convictions cannot be held against him here. That TX FFL, if he was able/willing to go through the effort should be able to use that case to get his FFL and other rights restored.

M-Rex and WT - While I understand your position I cannot agree with it. For starters, it is firmly my belief that barring felons (who are not in still jail or on probation/parole) is a violation of their rights. If they are too dangerous to be allowed to posses a gun, they are too dangerous be out of jail. Also, why should someone who, 20 years ago as a 19 year old, commited some "youthful indiscretion" and wound up with a felony conviction (even if they served little or no jail time), but has otherwise kept their nose clean be barred from defending themselves and their family with the most effective tools available?

duckslayer
February 15, 2006, 12:58 PM
So, was he a "felon" because of the rape he didn't commit or because he was African-American?

:( White guys have been wrongly imprisoned too(and subsequently released following DNA proof of their innocence), so I hope you aren't trying to stir a racial debate about this matter.

If they are released due to evidence showing they are innocent, I would think that would equate to an acquittal, so the conviction should be withdrawn and they are no longer a felon.

Geno
February 15, 2006, 12:59 PM
I have a very good, Christian school teacher-friend, who while still single had an "affair" with his ex-girlfriend while she was broken up with her then-newer boyfriend. They had "relations" and when the new-boyfriend found out, she cried 'Rape!" My friend was jailed. Then, 3 days later, she gave written confession of the false statements. He was released, given his finger print card from the police, but to this day, HE CAN NOT PURCHASE A FIREARM BECAUSE IT IS IN THE SYSTEM THAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR RAPE. Even though there was no prosecution. He was active military at the time, served his duty and about 2 years later

HONORABLY discharged.

What gives?

Edited to add for Duckslayer (this man was Anglo-American). But, the African-American man who was falsely convicted was lied about by the woman. She admitted it. How, other than racial, could THAT case have been interpreted? It isn't a matter of stirring up anything--it's a matter of stating facts.

Doc2005

duckslayer
February 15, 2006, 01:03 PM
Doc, that is really messed up and I would certainly think there is some course of action that can be taken to help him out. If he was never tried and convicted, then there is no reason he should not be able to buy firearms.

armoredman
February 15, 2006, 01:05 PM
Something wrong there - convictions are what counts. Arrests cannot - you could be arrested for murder 5 minutes from now, and then be proven innocent in a court of law. No foul.
If this info about your friend is true, he needs to get an attorney, and a copy of the record showing charges dropped or dismissed. If he was convicted, or pled guilty to a lesser charge involving no jailtime, yet still punishable by more than one year in prison, he's done. If not, someone somewhere is doing things illegally....
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

BigRobT
February 15, 2006, 01:06 PM
Maybe we need to re-visit the Judicial system and the way laws have been changed. I recall hearing of some crimes that used to be gross misdemeanors are now felonies. I think that the politicians have pushed for tougher penalties on crimes and raised the bar to make them felonies. Personally, I think the Lautenberg Amendment is full of crap. It doesn't take much to be convicted of domestic abuse. Hell, verbal abuse can constitute a domestic abuse charge, IIR. Why can't that still fall under the assault & battery laws we already have. The same with "Hate Crimes", why can't that STILL fall under the appropriate charge we already had?? Just because a spouse, racism, homophobia or whatever the case may be is involved?? (I'm not justifying these crimes, just pointing out that there were already laws in place, why escalate them to an entirely different level??)

beerslurpy
February 15, 2006, 01:07 PM
DOC, what state is this in?

Maxwell
February 15, 2006, 01:15 PM
I think this only shows what was wrong with putting government agencies in charge of who has what constitutional rights. Instead of living how the law intended, people are left at the mercy of a beauracrat who might or might not lose track of your paperwork.

Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.

If their rights need to be restored then its your tax dollars currently paying it.
The NRA shouldnt have to bribe officials for its members to get back whats already rightfully theirs.

If your worried about a felon getting a gun, dont let him out of jail.

Geno
February 15, 2006, 01:16 PM
He lived in California at the time it happened; now he lives in Michigan.

Doc2005

GruntII
February 15, 2006, 01:20 PM
Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.


Really? So you don't believe in the concept of inalienable rights? Creator endowed, constitutionally affirmed rights? After a person convicted of a crime has fully served their sentence, including any parole, probation, restititution, or public service, they should have all rights restored immediately and automatically.
If a person is so dangerous that they should forever be denied these rigths they should not be walking amongst the free citizens. In fact the concept of restriction those who were convicted of crimes rights only really grained popularity towards the very end and of the 19th and the start of the 20th century.
Beyond the issue of inalienable rights is the fact that we live in a prissy wet your pants society and we now have more ridiculous felony and even misdemeanor laws that can cost you your civil rights as to be beyond stupid and moving up to insane.
Punishment such as prison time, parole, and probation is a reason to temporarily suspend inalienable constitutional rights but once the term of punishment is up and served fully then all rights should immediately retored otherwise the the whole concepts of inalienable rights which this country was founded on is a lie.

GruntII
February 15, 2006, 01:23 PM
I have a very good, Christian school teacher-friend, who while still single had an "affair" with his ex-girlfriend while she was broken up with her then-newer boyfriend. They had "relations" and when the new-boyfriend found out, she cried 'Rape!" My friend was jailed. Then, 3 days later, she gave written confession of the false statements. He was released, given his finger print card from the police, but to this day, HE CAN NOT PURCHASE A FIREARM BECAUSE IT IS IN THE SYSTEM THAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR RAPE. Even though there was no prosecution. He was active military at the time, served his duty and about 2 years later

HONORABLY discharged.

What gives?

Edited to add for Duckslayer (this man was Anglo-American). But, the African-American man who was falsely convicted was lied about by the woman. She admitted it. How, other than racial, could THAT case have been interpreted? It isn't a matter of stirring up anything--it's a matter of stating facts.

Doc2005


Doc your friend needs to get a copy of the results of the investigation and submit them to the NICs correction people if NICs is what is holding him up. Otherwise unless it is a state law there is not federal law or regulation that should keep him from purchasing a firearm or possessing it.

Geno
February 15, 2006, 01:32 PM
Every time he goes to the county police, they refuse to give him the Permit to Purchase Pistol card. They tell him that he has to have it removed from the system and that THEN they will issue. Ergo, he never even gets to the point of trying a NICS. He doesn't talk about it much--in fact, only once in the about 12 years that I have known him.

What's worse--he's a teacher. With Michigan's new "sex offender" laws changed at "ANY criminal act or accusation", he'll will now be out of a job within 2 more years. When he was MERELY accused!

Doc2005

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 01:32 PM
Just because someone has been "labeled" a "felon" does not mean that they truly were/are. One African-American gentleman was recently released from prison following a DNA test that proved HE did NOT do the rape. So, was he a "felon" because of the rape he didn't commit or because he was African-American? But, facts are facts! He IS A CONVICTED FELON, not by HIS action, but by systemic prosecution and jury conviction! He shouldn't have his rights restored?!

Dang--thought we lived in America.

Doc2005

Well...if a DNA test 'proved' he didn't do the rape and he was released, then he isn't a convicted felon anymore, now is he? :rolleyes:

Pay more attention.

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 01:38 PM
Felonies are easier to get than you might think. One example was a Texas FFL who drove over the border into Mexico. He had a loose round of ammo in the car that was discovered by the local police during a traffic stop/bribery shakedown. He was jailed in Mexico and underwent quite a bit of heartache there before being able to return to the states.

Upon returning to the states, he learns his conviction in Mexico makes him a felon here and has to surrender his FFL (livelihood) and firearms because there is no process for him to have his rights restored.

In a similar fashion, the 1994 Lautenberg bill makes anyone convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence prohibited from owning a firearm. Guys who had gotten in a fight with their brother as a teenager in the 1950s were suddenly prohibited from hunting even though they had a clean record since then. FBI agents were forced to retire because they could no longer carry a firearm. None of these people could get their rights restored.

Yep...and all those examples have been hashed out and resolved.


This isn't an automatic restoration of rights for all felons. It is just a chance to have the record reviewed.


Yes, yes...thank you. I have no doubt that all the 'anti-guh-mint' posters on this board are going to start vomiting forth all the 'but-what-if's' and assorted examples of the 'system always puttin' down the man' and all the innocent folks who go to prison.

Big deal.

I don't want the NRA fronting the bill to get felons (read that as criminals for those of you who need to catch up) back the ability to have firearms.

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 01:42 PM
Really? So you don't believe in the concept of inalienable rights? Creator endowed, constitutionally affirmed rights? After a person convicted of a crime has fully served their sentence, including any parole, probation, restititution, or public service, they should have all rights restored immediately and automatically.

At which time he/she/it will go out and victimize more regular folks. Nice move. It's called R E C I D I V I S M. That means the big mean criminal hurts other people even after he's been "convicted of a crime has fully served their sentence, including any parole, probation, restititution, or public service."

If a person is so dangerous that they should forever be denied these rigths they should not be walking amongst the free citizens. In fact the concept of restriction those who were convicted of crimes rights only really grained popularity towards the very end and of the 19th and the start of the 20th century.
Beyond the issue of inalienable rights is the fact that we live in a prissy wet your pants society and we now have more ridiculous felony and even misdemeanor laws that can cost you your civil rights as to be beyond stupid and moving up to insane.
Punishment such as prison time, parole, and probation is a reason to temporarily suspend inalienable constitutional rights but once the term of punishment is up and served fully then all rights should immediately retored otherwise the the whole concepts of inalienable rights which this country was founded on is a lie.


I could almost hear music playing in the background.

So what? Go vote.

Geno
February 15, 2006, 01:46 PM
I did pay attention, but thank-you for your concern regarding my apparent cognitive lapse. I never realized you cared so much about your fellow THR members' cognitive well-being. Gee--that's just swell. :neener:

The fact is, despite his conviction being set aside, he (the first example) WAS convicted. Despite the fact that my friend (the second example) was never even prosecuted, he can not purchase a firearm.

Thanks for caring--I feel all warm and fuzzy!

Doc2005 :p

oldfart
February 15, 2006, 02:01 PM
:cuss:
I do not have the right to restrict any person's ability to defend himself. Since I can't do it, I cannot confer that right on another.
I believe that any person who has the money to buy it, should be able to buy any gun he/she wants with absolutely no paperwork other than a receipt. Once they buy it, they can carry it in their pocket, purse or holster anywhere they want so long as the owner of the property they are visiting is comfortable with the gun.
If someone is so dangerous they cannot be trusted with a gun they should be kept away from society and their personal protection provided by society. Recidivism is frequently caused by bad people, the kind that should never get out of prison. A primary contributing cause is stupid legislators, idiotic judges and blissninny organizations that have entirely too much power over those stupid legislators and idiotic judges.
No person can rely on the government for protection. No free person should have to. No sane person does.

CentralTexas
February 15, 2006, 02:03 PM
Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.

I noticed your sig line about being 100% pro police & against the Libertarian party, that saves me the time from having to ask why....
CT

ajax
February 15, 2006, 02:05 PM
Several people have said that once time is served that these men should have their rights back. In few instances I could accept this concept, but if anyone in here is trying to say that convicted rapist murderers or such deserve their rights back you need slapped in the frickin head.:cuss: By the way. I'm not referring to anyone convicted then found innocent of a crime.

CentralTexas
February 15, 2006, 02:07 PM
Something wrong there - convictions are what counts. Arrests cannot - you could be arrested for murder 5 minutes from now, and then be proven innocent in a court of law. No foul.
If this info about your friend is true, he needs to get an attorney, and a copy of the record showing charges dropped or dismissed. If he was convicted, or pled guilty to a lesser charge involving no jailtime, yet still punishable by more than one year in prison, he's done. If not, someone somewhere is doing things illegally....
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


Actually file for divorce with kids, Wifes lawyer says claim abuse and violence as method to get child custody. Without a conviction, many places will take your guns. Restraining orders, allegations of abuse etc.
CT

Geno
February 15, 2006, 02:11 PM
"oldfart":

I agree completely. We need better (more accurate) prosecution, longer terms for genuine CRIME, and for those criminals which are truly nuts (child rapists for example) don't EVER let them out. They aren't going to change, and the children can NOT protect themselves--WE have to protect them. Recall this lunatic judge gave the child raper 3 months?! Goodness!

Have a great day all; I enjoyed the conversation, but now I have to go to work.

Doc2005

Bartholomew Roberts
February 15, 2006, 02:45 PM
Yep...and all those examples have been hashed out and resolved.

So you support the removal of firearms privileges for life for all of the reasons listed in the prohibited persons listing, including post-fact misdemeanor domestic violence convictions?

Not just support the general concept; but support the concept that these people should not even be able to appeal in certain extraordinary circumstances, even when they pay the costs of the appeal?

ARperson
February 15, 2006, 03:06 PM
Just as there is a system to get a suspended drivers lisense back, there should be a way for people who have served their time to get their rights back.

Exactly. If they are done serving their time, then their debt to society should be considered paid in full, and all rights restored. If they are deemed too dangerous to have their rights restored, then they shouldn't be released in the first place.

How our society can allow this perversion of justice to exist is beyond me.

Several people have said that once time is served that these men should have their rights back. In few instances I could accept this concept, but if anyone in here is trying to say that convicted rapist murderers or such deserve their rights back you need slapped in the frickin head.

Then slap away because I still stand by the notion that they are either perfectly "rehabilitated" and have served their debt OR they are still to dangerous to let loose on society. If the former, then why shouldn't their rights be restored in full? Well?
Th

CentralTexas
February 15, 2006, 03:25 PM
ARperson,
Thanks for the dose of common sense. If a convicted felon/rapist is done with his sentence they are done with their sentence. If there is too high a recidivism rate let's change sentencing or how they are monitored.
The fact whether they can own a gunwill not stop a future crime if they are so inclined, any pointy object would work as a weapon.
CT

OVERLORD
February 15, 2006, 03:41 PM
So AR what your saying is that since they didn't get the prison sentence they should have or parolling due to possible over crowding and things like that we should also make another dumb a** mistake and allow them to own firearms legally. I'm really happy that your not the one making those decisions. I bet central texas wouldn't be talking that crap if it was your sister or wife or mother that was raped or murdered. I think this line of thinking should be called compounded stupidity!!

Maxwell
February 15, 2006, 03:52 PM
When someone cant get a gun legally, what do you wager the chances are they will purchase illegally?

Theres alot of dangerous jobs in America, and alot of un-safe places people have to live. An ex-criminal (stuck with bad jobs and living in low rent areas) has probly thought about all the bad things that can happen to someone.

The mans going to find a way to defend himself and, as you'll probly agree, he's not shy of breaking a few laws.

If the cops catch him with the weapon, many would say its good gun control in action.

...but was he going to use it?
Or did we just spend several hundred million dollars and ruin another mans life to capture a weapon that would have otherwise rusted away silently in a nightstand drawer?

Then wonder how many people were thinking of owning a gun that could have saved their life and property, but got turned off by the excessive paperwork and restrictions.

Personaly I think gun control, even in its most benevolent form, has endangerd many more lives than it will ever save.

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 04:08 PM
I noticed your sig line about being 100% pro police & against the Libertarian party, that saves me the time from having to ask why....
CT

You gathered that all by yourself? How open-minded of you,:rolleyes:

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 04:14 PM
So you support the removal of firearms privileges for life for all of the reasons listed in the prohibited persons listing, including post-fact misdemeanor domestic violence convictions?

Not just support the general concept; but support the concept that these people should not even be able to appeal in certain extraordinary circumstances, even when they pay the costs of the appeal?

It sounds like you are trying to put words in my mouth. Is there really any answer I could give you that would be satisfactory?

Bartholomew Roberts
February 15, 2006, 04:21 PM
It sounds like you are trying to put words in my mouth. Is there really any answer I could give you that would be satisfactory?

Well that is how I interpret your stance. I can't very well have a discussion with you if you are saying one thing and I am hearing another, can I? Is my interpretation correct?

Zundfolge
February 15, 2006, 04:24 PM
Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.
If all felonies where actually bad crimes (which is what the original intent of "felony" laws was in the first place) than I'd agree with you, but there are just too damn many "procedural felonies" for minor crap on the books.

Felon no longer means "bad person".



See my sig.

benEzra
February 15, 2006, 04:36 PM
Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of firearms rights for felons, thank you.
Should someone who wrote a bad check to a Florida restaurant at age 18 be barred for the rest of their life from so much as touching a gun or a single round of ammunition?

If someone screws up in a nonviolent way and then lives an exemplary life for the next 30 years, I think it is immoral to say that they should NEVER have the opportunity to appeal to have their rights restored.

Have you ever, in your lifetime, driven more than 20 mph over the speed limit? If so, turn in your guns and promise never to touch one again...because that's a felony in many states. If you don't turn in your guns, but support barring someone else from gun ownership for life because they got caught and you didn't, you're being hypocritical, IMHO.

Ever driven within 1000 feet of any school property with a gun in your vehicle without a state-issued carry permit? Felony...

Restoration of RKBA for violent offenders at risk of redicivism is a red herring. The real issue is people who are NOT at risk of redicivism, and whose crimes do not merit a lifetime prohibition from touching a gun.

Carl N. Brown
February 15, 2006, 05:03 PM
Two cases described to me by a local gun dealer FFL:

Man reported robbery of hotel where he was night clerk;
night clerks routinely listed on police reports as suspects;
cleared by investigation; served in military, honorable
discharge; started a farm and a gun shop. ATF informed
him he lied on his ATF form for the FFL because he was
in the system listed as a fugitive armed robbery suspect.
He got a videotape deposition by the investigating officer
that he was cleared as a suspect, but the record remained
and he has to keep a copy of the tape in his safe.

Two, another guy gets kicked out of ICS over a felony arrest:
a MISTAKEN IDENTITY arrest; he has to file an appeal with a
copy of the court record showing it was a mistaken identity
arrest, but the arrest record can not be expunged.

The system is broken and the review for restoration of rights
and correction of records needs to be funded.

cordex
February 15, 2006, 05:15 PM
In Virginia, oral sex is a felony (there are exceptions for police officers in the course of an investigation).

M-REX, how do you feel about someone convicted of a felony where their only "crime" was engaging in oral sex with their spouse?

If felonies did not include such rediculous things, I might see where you're coming from.

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 05:36 PM
Well that is how I interpret your stance. I can't very well have a discussion with you if you are saying one thing and I am hearing another, can I? Is my interpretation correct?

Your interpretation is going to be your interpretation regardless of what I say. You will pour into it whatever meaning you want. I don't want the NRA funding the 'restoration' of firearms rights for felons/criminals. Period. End of story.

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 05:40 PM
Should someone who wrote a bad check to a Florida restaurant at age 18 be barred for the rest of their life from so much as touching a gun or a single round of ammunition?

If someone screws up in a nonviolent way and then lives an exemplary life for the next 30 years, I think it is immoral to say that they should NEVER have the opportunity to appeal to have their rights restored.

Have you ever, in your lifetime, driven more than 20 mph over the speed limit? If so, turn in your guns and promise never to touch one again...because that's a felony in many states. If you don't turn in your guns, but support barring someone else from gun ownership for life because they got caught and you didn't, you're being hypocritical, IMHO.

Ever driven within 1000 feet of any school property with a gun in your vehicle without a state-issued carry permit? Felony...
Have you?

Restoration of RKBA for violent offenders at risk of redicivism is a red herring. The real issue is people who are NOT at risk of redicivism, and whose crimes do not merit a lifetime prohibition from touching a gun.

Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.

I'm sorry that I have to remind you that there ARE consequences for one's actions, and repercussions to one's poor decisions.

Responsibility is a bitch, isn't it?

Standing Wolf
February 15, 2006, 10:08 PM
Unfortunately, Congress has not provided funds for this purpose since the Clinton administration - which means that any such request will wait indefinitely and never be processed.


I think I've spotted the crux of the matter.

M-Rex
February 15, 2006, 10:49 PM
Deleted...double post.

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 12:34 AM
Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.


What your suggesting is there should be no limit to the time, no matter the crime.
You could be sentencing someone to a lifetime penalty over a traffic ticket or false arrest. Likewise you could be preventing a reformed criminal from returning to a normal life after he's done everything you asked of him.

Its ok because it hasnt happend to you?
Exactly how is that fair?

All the law prevents a felon from doing is getting his weapons from a legit dealer. There are easy ways around that problem.

Its not my fault if you cant keep a violent man in jail. Get your beauracratic noses out of my gun related business.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 12:54 AM
What your suggesting is there should be no limit to the time, no matter the crime.
You could be sentencing someone to a lifetime penalty over a traffic ticket or false arrest. Likewise you could be preventing a reformed criminal from returning to a normal life after he's done everything you asked of him.

Its ok because it hasnt happend to you?
Exactly how is that fair?

All the law prevents a felon from doing is getting his weapons from a legit dealer. There are easy ways around that problem.

Well...then I guess he is not as 'reformed' as you might think, then is he?

Its not my fault if you cant keep a violent man in jail. Get your beauracratic noses out of my gun related business.

Oh, ok...so you want to sell firearms to felons. My mistake.

whm1974
February 16, 2006, 01:11 AM
M-Rex I think you are missing the point here. It is real EASY to become a felon. In fact the are lot's of laws on the books that very few people would even think that are illegal.

Oral sex in some states is still a felony. At least one state(GA) an umarried cupple living togather is illegal.

The Federal and state govenments can make anything they please into a felony.

-Bill

Zundfolge
February 16, 2006, 01:37 AM
M-Rex I think you are missing the point here. It is real EASY to become a felon.
I think you're the one missing the point. M-Rex doesn't care because he's "100% Pro-Police. 0% Pro-Police State" (although I doubt the last part, or at least I doubt M-Rex's definition of "police state" is the same as most of the rest of us).

Making easy felons out of basically good people is nothing more than job security.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 02:00 AM
I think you're the one missing the point. M-Rex doesn't care because he's "100% Pro-Police. 0% Pro-Police State" (although I doubt the last part, or at least I doubt M-Rex's definition of "police state" is the same as most of the rest of us).

Making easy felons out of basically good people is nothing more than job security.

You know me that well, eh? Of course it has nothing to do with your pre-conceived bias. Naaaahhhhhh...couldn't be.

Blame your legislators. Vote. Live with the results.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 02:02 AM
M-Rex I think you are missing the point here. It is real EASY to become a felon. In fact the are lot's of laws on the books that very few people would even think that are illegal.

Oral sex in some states is still a felony. At least one state(GA) an umarried cupple living togather is illegal.

The Federal and state govenments can make anything they please into a felony.

-Bill

Really?

Name five people who have been convicted and incarcerated for a felony *****. Not prostitution, soliciting, or any of the usual sex crimes. Just a ******.

Oh...and I'd also like to hear about the rampant cases of the Georgia State Patrol going door to door rounding up all of the felony cohabitators in their 'fornication sweeps'.

Paranoia is rampant on this board.

Otherguy Overby
February 16, 2006, 02:40 AM
Really?

Name five people who have been convicted and incarcerated for a felony *****. Not prostitution, soliciting, or any of the usual sex crimes. Just a *****.



How about this. A good friend of mine is a felony sex offender. He got caught having sex in a car with his soon to be wife. She was almost 18...

Regarding recidivism, they've been married for more than 30 years now.

BTW, he lives in California. I'll have to warn him about you.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 02:44 AM
How about this. A good friend of mine is a felony sex offender. He got caught having sex in a car with his soon to be wife. She was almost 18...

Regarding recidivism, they've been married for more than 30 years now.

BTW, he lives in California. I'll have to warn him about you.

Once again. Consequences for actions. He chose to take the risk, and he got popped for it. Sucks to be him.

Yes, by all means, warn him about me. Why the very nerve that I even bring up responsibility for one's actions. Scandalous!

Next.

GruntII
February 16, 2006, 02:46 AM
double tap

GruntII
February 16, 2006, 02:49 AM
At which time he/she/it will go out and victimize more regular folks. Nice move. It's called R E C I D I V I S M. That means the big mean criminal hurts other people even after he's been "convicted of a crime has fully served their sentence, including any parole, probation, restititution, or public service."




I could almost hear music playing in the background.

So what? Go vote.


It's people like you who will be the death of civil liberties in this nation. Not the extremist lefties but the guy who keeps buying into resonable restrictions of inalienable rights. I bet things like due process and criminal defense attorneys really chaffe you. I've got 15 years behind a badge and I beleive now more than ever before that a right denied for some poor slob noboidy likes is a right eventually denied ot all of us. I too noticed your misguided sig line. I have worn the badge and i am not 100 % for the police as the police are just a mirror of society we have good, bad, devaint, and reall double barrel revolving so and so's. Your sig line implies you support the police regardless of their actions. Humm last time a group of citizens did they ended up herding people of different nationalities, religions, and cultures into camps for oven fodder. How do you define Police State?

As to R E C I D I V I S M then the criminal can go back to JAIL. That's how those Rich Wise Old White guys set it up in the begining. Besides that if we were truely the armed polite society we should be then the recivist would get blown away more times than not.

GruntII
February 16, 2006, 02:53 AM
Once again. Consequences for actions. He chose to take the risk, and he got popped for it. Sucks to be him.

Yes, by all means, warn him about me. Why the very nerve that I even bring up responsibility for one's actions. Scandalous!

Next.

Actually by serving the term of imprisonment , parole or probation the debt has been served. They have suffered the consequences of their actions. The idea of the full rights of citizenship being removed is overtly harsh, even vindictive.It also serves to create another under class of citizen.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 02:59 AM
Actually by serving the term of imprisonment , parole or probation the debt has been served. They have suffered the consequences of their actions. The idea of the full rights of citizenship being removed is overtly harsh, even vindictive.It also serves to create another under class of citizen.

Blame your legislators.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 03:08 AM
It's people like you who will be the death of civil liberties in this nation. Not the extremist lefties but the guy who keeps buying into resonable restrictions of inalienable rights. I bet things like due process and criminal defense attorneys really chaffe you. I've got 15 years behind a badge and I beleive now more than ever before that a right denied for some poor slob noboidy likes is a right eventually denied ot all of us. I too noticed your misguided sig line. I have worn the badge and i am not 100 % for the police as the police are just a mirror of society we have good, bad, devaint, and reall double barrel revolving so and so's. Your sig line implies you support the police regardless of their actions. Humm last time a group of citizens did they ended up herding people of different nationalities, religions, and cultures into camps for oven fodder. How do you define Police State?

'People like me', eh? Tell me...what kind of 'people' am I? Due process is great. Defense attorneys are a necessary part of the system. Civil liberties should be upheld and balanced with security and safety. C'mon now. What kind of 'people' am I?

If you feel that guilty about wearing a badge, maybe you should do what other users of this forum suggest and 'resign on principle.' That'll show 'em.

As to R E C I D I V I S M then the criminal can go back to JAIL. That's how those Rich Wise Old White guys set it up in the begining. Besides that if we were truely the armed polite society we should be then the recivist would get blown away more times than not.

Ah, ok. Much clearer now. The criminal goes to prison for victimizing someone. Then he does his time, and gets out. He's allowed to get a firearm again, and go victimize someone...then he can just 'go back to JAIL.' Then he does his time, and gets out. He's allowed to get a firearm again, and go victimize someone...then he can just 'go back to JAIL.' Then he does his time, and gets out. He's allowed to get a firearm again, and go victimize someone...then he can just 'go back to JAIL.' Then he does his time and gets out...

Autolycus
February 16, 2006, 04:13 AM
<Really foolish idea removed by Art>

But its nice to know that you believe the system works. So when a cop breaks the law during their investigation its ok?

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 09:44 AM
Oh, ok...so you want to sell firearms to felons. My mistake.

No, I want to buy weapons.
Im filling out forms and sufferign waiting periods so someone can try to sort me out from the criminal. Im paying for training, paying fees, and paying more for my gun. Im getting penalized on my end because someone couldnt do the job on their end.

Why am I, the legit owner, having to put up with the governments meddeling in my transactions?
Why is the government, having failed to stop criminals from obtaining weapons outside of the store, attempting to stop me?

Shouldnt we make it illegal to sell other supplies to dangerous people, like chemicals, vehicles, and power tools?
Would you fancy filling out forms at the hardware store for a drill just to help a cop?

If the cop cant do his job without my help then it sucks to be him.
They obviously dont believe in the 2nd amendment or civilian militia, why should I assist him?

Im sorry for the officer, but we pay him to lace up his boots and go find criminals. Not stand behind me in the gun store and scrutinize my weapon choices.

pcf
February 16, 2006, 10:45 AM
Back on subject.......

Does anyone know the name of the division/office/program that used to adjudicate felony cases?

The year the program was closed? EDITED: found one answer the year was 1992.

I don't understand how the ATF's budget works....is there a specific line in the BATF's budget that prohibits spending money on rights restoration? does that money have to be specifically ear marked by Congress? or since Congress doesn't specify the BATF has the discretion to not spend the money?

Here's a fun read on the subject :barf: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf

Zundfolge
February 16, 2006, 11:10 AM
You know me that well, eh? Of course it has nothing to do with your pre-conceived bias. Naaaahhhhhh...couldn't be.

All I know is what I see you post here ... and I stand by my statements about you 100%

Bartholomew Roberts
February 16, 2006, 11:15 AM
Back on subject.......

Does anyone know the name of the division/office/program that used to adjudicate felony cases?

The year the program was closed? EDITED: found one answer the year was 1992.

I don't understand how the ATF's budget works....is there a specific line in the BATF's budget that prohibits spending money on rights restoration? does that money have to be specifically ear marked by Congress? or since Congress doesn't specify the BATF has the discretion to not spend the money?

Here's a fun read on the subject http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf

The conversation with M-Rex is interesting; but isn't really the issue in the topic. Feel free to start another thread on the subject; but please bring this one back on topic.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 12:43 PM
No, I want to buy weapons.
Im filling out forms and sufferign waiting periods so someone can try to sort me out from the criminal. Im paying for training, paying fees, and paying more for my gun. Im getting penalized on my end because someone couldnt do the job on their end.

Why am I, the legit owner, having to put up with the governments meddeling in my transactions?
Why is the government, having failed to stop criminals from obtaining weapons outside of the store, attempting to stop me?

Shouldnt we make it illegal to sell other supplies to dangerous people, like chemicals, vehicles, and power tools?
Would you fancy filling out forms at the hardware store for a drill just to help a cop?

If the cop cant do his job without my help then it sucks to be him.
They obviously dont believe in the 2nd amendment or civilian militia, why should I assist him?

Im sorry for the officer, but we pay him to lace up his boots and go find criminals. Not stand behind me in the gun store and scrutinize my weapon choices.

Ooooook...
...I don't like waiting periods either. And, you are starting to weird-out. One more time in standard English, please.:confused: :confused: :confused:

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 12:45 PM
All I know is what I see you post here ... and I stand by my statements about you 100%

Translation: I don't know anything about you, but I'm going to form an opinion about you anyway. Don't confuse me with any facts. My mind is made up.

Enlightening.:rolleyes:

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 12:48 PM
The conversation with M-Rex is interesting; but isn't really the issue in the topic. Feel free to start another thread on the subject; but please bring this one back on topic.

Agreed.

I don't want any organization, such as the NRA, to fund the restoration of firearms rights to felons/criminals. It's a ridiculous idea.

Henry Bowman
February 16, 2006, 01:18 PM
I am intrigued by the idea of self-funding a process that was created by statute but defunded by Congress. On what legal basis could the BATFE refuse? I don't trust them to fairly charge for the service, but I'd like to see some rich felon (Martha Stewart, G. Gordon Liddy) do it so that we could then hash out the true/fair price for the next person in line.

cordex
February 16, 2006, 01:58 PM
I don't want any organization, such as the NRA, to fund the restoration of firearms rights to felons/criminals. It's a ridiculous idea.
What about instances where the criminal pays for the restoration proceedings on their own, as Bart also suggested?

Are you blindly and unquestioningly of the opinion that Felon==Evil and should never, ever, ever, ever, ever have rights restored to them regardless of the nature of their actual offense, or do you just have a problem with the NRA funding it?

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 02:10 PM
What about instances where the criminal pays for the restoration proceedings on their own, as Bart also suggested?

Are you blindly and unquestioningly of the opinion that Felon==Evil and should never, ever, ever, ever, ever have rights restored to them regardless of the nature of their actual offense, or do you just have a problem with the NRA funding it?

As I stated already, personal responsibility is a bitch.

Simple answer: Want to have guns? Don't commit crimes. It's not that hard.

Any questions?

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 02:14 PM
I don't like waiting periods either.

They are in place to help stop crimes of passion and catch criminals.
Of course they usualy dont work, but you get to cool your heels anyway.

If you want to buy a firearm you first have to prove your not a criminal, right?
The guy thats out to break the law knows he cant buy from the store. So he goes to another source. The felon who legitimatly needs a weapon for his safety also knows he cant get it legally. He will also go elsewhere.
Those Dollars go strait into the black market, with absolutly no records kept on either weapon.

You dont do much to stop one man up to no good, and you deny what should have been a legal purchase from the other. Their both re-armed... Meanwhile, your still waiting for your gun.

Whos getting punished?

Carl N. Brown
February 16, 2006, 02:40 PM
Under the Virginia Racial Purity Act which stood til 1969,
I could have been charged with a felony, as a quad-racial
mongrel (White, Cherokee, Melungeon (Arabic-North African))
except I married my wife in Virginia in 1970 (we waited til
I had a full-time job),

About 400 people served time for violating the Racial Purity
Act before it was overturned. Should a felony conviction
under a law like that bar me from ever owning a gun?

In the past, a felony meant something: there were seven felonies
High Treaso, murder, rape, higway robbery, piracy--I mean
real felonies. In Montana it is supposed to be a felony for a wife
to open mail addressed to her husband. I have not checked that
law but given some of the things listed as felonies, I would not be
surprised.

A person guilty of a felony crime of violence should never be allowed
to own a gun, but to deny restoration of rights to a person who
committed a non-violent felony after decades on the straight and
narrow path, is the kind of pig-headedness that breeds lack of
respect for the law.

The 1968 Gun Control Act contains a section allowing the review
and restoration of rights to non-violent felons. The Congress has
not funded that program since 1992. WE have to obey 1968GCA;
the fed govt can do as it pleases. A nation of laws, not justice.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a10

A10) Q. How can a person convicted of a felony apply for relief from firearms disabilities? [Back]

A. Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. section 922(g).) The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety. (See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) The Secretary delegated this authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 107-67, 115 Stat. 514, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place.

Furthermore, the restriction contained in Pub. L. No. 107-67 does not change the status of prohibited persons. They are still prohibited from possessing, receiving, transporting, or shipping firearms under Federal law.

Henry Bowman
February 16, 2006, 02:49 PM
Simple answer: Want to have guns? Don't commit crimes. It's not that hard.

Any questions?Hopefully, you'll never fall off of that high horse. More and more things that were innocent pranks when I was a kid are felonies now. Some things that aren't even crimes in one place are felonies somewhere else.:fire:

Want to read or write books/magazines or exercise other basis human rights? Don't commit crimes. It's not that hard.

Want to buy a car? Don't ever get caught speeding in that hidden school zone

xcheck
February 16, 2006, 02:53 PM
Some practical considerations re: private/NRA funding of the review process which might serve to show why, at this moment it is an impossiblility and why it would be a bad, bad idea for organizations such as the NRA to involve themselves in this sort of scheme:

This sort of situation is apples and oranges with respect to horsemeat inspection scenario. One is an extensive, expensive legal process and the other is roughly having a couple guys come into your building and checking out your operation. The horsemeat inspection is a fraction of the costs and would require little to no new infrastructure to implement this policy. USDA has inpectors already familiar with the requirements in general. They are already driving around in their little trucks with their little forms. To have the three horsemeat slaughter houses pay to have them come to their establishment is little additional cost. There is only THREE of them.

To fund this sort of sceme for the review proces would cost millions and millions of dollars. There has not been funding for fourteen years, This is also a legal process. There will be lawyers and some sort of judge involved. This is essentially setting up a review process. There are no facilities, networks, or personnel on staff who are prepared to do this work or even know what it entails. The training and costs can be into the millions easily.

NRA dues are somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-40 per annum. If you paid for a lifetime membership or a term of years, then it is less. To even file an appeal or review of your case is easily going to cost $400+, minimum just in costs, even if the funding is in place by the government. This doesnt even take into account preparation and arguments. The cost per person even with government funding, would likely run into the thousands of dollars. For each case.

SO basically, you take all the money that everyone on this board has given to the NRA and you might be able to fund lets say, five total reviews out of the millions of felons in this country who will demand a review. So, where does this leave the NRA. This leaves the NRA in an untenable position. They take all of the money they get from dues annually and they get a process in place, that they cannot sustain funding for more than a year or two and they review a minimum of cases. Minimum as in we have more digits on our bodies than people who will see a review. Then what is the NRA left to do now that they are funding government operations? What happenes when everyone here wonders why the NRA isnt paradropping perosnel into every state in the country everytime there is a threat to the RKBA? Suddenly all grassroots efforts are being sacrificed to pay for the review of felons to have their rights possibly restored.

So the NRA is left with the choice of fighting the fight as they have or abandoning their efforts to fund a US governmental review organizaiton within the BATFE. EIther way they will be vilified. THe NRA cannot afford to fund the process for every person who will want an appeal. Even if the NRA gets GOA and all of the other organizations to kick in, they still could not possibly address the number of requests that they would be given. So now you are left with people who have been excluded from the process due to another lack of funding, but then, you are going to have a bigger stink because they did not get help and others did. You would see claims of discrimination and other lawsuits which would place an even greater strain on an already financially tapped out organization.

Many of the people demanding rewiew are people who are quite frankly doomed. With many of the states being discretionary, even if they do get a favorable ruling, the discretion of local officals in many states could still make it a losing proposition. Quite frankly, there are many people who will demand a review who have absolutely no chance success. Shall the NRA/GOA fund their doomed review regardless or risk being vilified if they decline to spend money on a losing proposition?

With all of these costs and dangers for the major 2A and RKBA orgs, what possible hope would private funding have?

THis is not a comment on the morality or constitutionality of the restoration or even in the conviction in the first place, but simply my thoughts on why private/NRA funding is impracticable.

Henry Bowman
February 16, 2006, 03:03 PM
To fund this sort of sceme for the review proces would cost millions and millions of dollars. There has not been funding for fourteen years, This is also a legal process. There will be lawyers and some sort of judge involved. This is essentially setting up a review process. There are no facilities, networks, or personnel on staff who are prepared to do this work or even know what it entails. The training and costs can be into the millions easily.It wouldn't need to cost millions, but government has a way of sucking $$$. There was funding and a process until 14 years ago. What happened to those people who were doing it then? Did they get laid off? Doubt it. This is not alchemy lost in the dark ages. We're talking 1992. Some of us were even born before then.

However, I would not trust the BATFE not to arbitrarily deny all such requests after going through the motions of diong what the law requires (but does not currently fund).

xcheck
February 16, 2006, 03:10 PM
It wouldn't need to cost millions, but government has a way of sucking $$$. There was funding and a process until 14 years ago. What happened to those people who were doing it then? Did they get laid off? Doubt it. This is not alchemy lost in the dark ages. We're talking 1992. Some of us were even born before then.

However, I would not trust the BATFE not to arbitrarily deny all such requests after going through the motions of diong what the law requires (but does not currently fund).
Its not that they were laid off, but after 14 years, many moved on or retired. I would bet that 14 years ago, there were some pretty senior personel on this staff who are no longer with BATFE. This is the government. People do their 20, 25, 30 and get out.

You are stil talking about offices, equipment, investigations, personel, training, etc. Even if there is still a common staff who could be easily switched into this role, how much of their old equipment or procedures are even valid today? Laws change, situations change, definitions change. All of these issues will need to be addressed and updated.

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 03:12 PM
So why cant they take 5 borderline cases they can probly win, run them through court and get these guys rights returned, then go back and sue in civil court for the money you need?

A clear violation of civil rights should be worth a few million.
If getting that is possible you can either fund more trials or penalize the government to the point where people look into changing the law.

pcf
February 16, 2006, 03:20 PM
So why cant they take 5 borderline cases they can probly win, run them through court and get these guys rights returned, then go back and sue in civil court for the money you need?

A clear violation of civil rights should be worth a few million.
If getting that is possible you can either fund more trials or penalize the government to the point where people look into changing the law.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf

xcheck
February 16, 2006, 03:26 PM
Thanks PCF. This is a much large issue/obstacle than most think. About the only practacable way I can think of altering this is through lobbying and legislative efforts. I was aware of Bean, but was tyring to stick with fiscal arguments.

Edit: Maxwell, even Bean notwithstanding, there is little or no legal grounds for the recovery of costs in a civil court any more than there is grounds for the recovery of costs in defending a criminal charge which resulted in a not guilty finding, absent evidence of misconduct or malicious prosecution.

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 04:19 PM
there is little or no legal grounds for the recovery of costs in a civil court any more than there is grounds for the recovery of costs in defending a criminal charge which resulted in a not guilty finding, absent evidence of misconduct or malicious prosecution.

At least one of these guys ox has most certainly been gored. His business was lost, correct?
The aclu has recoverd fees in civil rights cases before. Not to mention a chance for large settlements.

If Im reading this pdf correctly, this is a "we lost your paperwork" kind of answer. They havnt said yes or no its just presumed no. Then he cant sue them for not saying "no" because they havnt said anything?
Thats limbo, I dont see how anyone can call it legal.

I think if it was anything but a 2nd amendment case, the ACLU would have eaten the feds alive.

ARperson
February 16, 2006, 04:23 PM
So AR what your saying is that since they didn't get the prison sentence they should have or parolling due to possible over crowding and things like that we should also make another dumb a** mistake and allow them to own firearms legally. I'm really happy that your not the one making those decisions. I bet central texas wouldn't be talking that crap if it was your sister or wife or mother that was raped or murdered. I think this line of thinking should be called compounded stupidity!!

No, that's not what I am saying. Insufficient sentencing is a different subject entirely. But it doesn't matter.

The logic in my argument stands whether or not this country ever gets its act in gear regarding sufficient sentencing.

If the person is too dangerous to be on the streets and have ALL of their rights restored, then they shouldn't be released. Period. This is where your concern of insufficient sentencing comes in. And I agree with you that it is wrong to release criminals in the time served is not fitting with the crime or simply because of overcrowding.

But surely you can see the logic behind what I'm saying about criminals: either they okay to be on the streets 100% (and should therefore have their rights restored) or they are not okay to be on the streets and should therefore remain locked up.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 04:55 PM
Hopefully, you'll never fall off of that high horse. More and more things that were innocent pranks when I was a kid are felonies now. Some things that aren't even crimes in one place are felonies somewhere else.:fire:

Want to read or write books/magazines or exercise other basis human rights? Don't commit crimes. It's not that hard.

Want to buy a car? Don't ever get caught speeding in that hidden school zone

Welcome to 2006.

Blame your legislators.

Vote.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 05:03 PM
They are in place to help stop crimes of passion and catch criminals.
Of course they usualy dont work, but you get to cool your heels anyway.

If you want to buy a firearm you first have to prove your not a criminal, right?
The guy thats out to break the law knows he cant buy from the store. So he goes to another source. The felon who legitimatly needs a weapon for his safety also knows he cant get it legally. He will also go elsewhere.
Those Dollars go strait into the black market, with absolutly no records kept on either weapon.

You dont do much to stop one man up to no good, and you deny what should have been a legal purchase from the other. Their both re-armed... Meanwhile, your still waiting for your gun.

Whos getting punished?

Your point, as it relates to this discussion?

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 05:05 PM
So why cant they take 5 borderline cases they can probly win, run them through court and get these guys rights returned, then go back and sue in civil court for the money you need?

A clear violation of civil rights should be worth a few million.
If getting that is possible you can either fund more trials or penalize the government to the point where people look into changing the law.

Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?

Henry Bowman
February 16, 2006, 05:23 PM
Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?Yes, liberty for all.

Rights are presumptive. That is the burden of proof is on those wishing to limit rights.

Why are you so vehement about disarming everyone with a felony conviction in their past who has served the full term of any sentance and parole? Is it "zero tolerrance" thinking? Is it that all convicted felons are forever violent? Many were never violent.


Call me a libertarian (or worse), but I'd rather live in a dangerous, free society than a "safe" authoritarian one.

Zundfolge
February 16, 2006, 05:49 PM
Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?

Because our government has gone too far and made things that shouldn't even be crimes into serious crimes (ie felonies).

You are taking the simplistic view that anyone with a felony conviction is a bad/dangerous person who deserves to have their rights revoked and society is better off for them being disarmed.

I believe there are many (thousands? tens of thousands?) of people who deserve to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights but who have had them denied because they where convicted of some non-crime that the state calls a felony.


What we have to gain by arming these "criminals" is that another decent person who is armed makes it just that much more difficult for real criminals to ply their trade with impunity.


You seem to refuse to make the distinction between serious, violent felons and those convicted of non-crime felonies (like making a mistake on a federal form or engaging in oral sex with their wife or one of the thousands of stupid laws on the books). You also seem to refuse to make the distinction between the law and justice. If injustice is codified into the law you seem to be perfectly happy...I guess as long as slavery or genocide are neatly codified into law than they are perfectly moral and ethical in your world.

I still contend that you have likely done something in your life that had you been caught and convicted of you would be a felon ... I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of the population of this country have done something that could result in a felony conviction so I guess its "tough cookies ... shouldn't have got caught" for those who have been convicted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know ... ignorance of the law is no excuse ... etc. But I bet you can't name for me absolutely every offense where you live that could/would be considered a felony. Even though you're a cop I bet you can't ... and its that over complexity that the statists use against the people.

If indeed our legal system only recognized real felonies I'd agree with you 100%. I have no problem with forever revoking the right to keep and bear arms to someone who robs, rapes, murders, etc, but I have a hard time believing that someone who has been convicted of some sort of procedural and/or nonviolent felony shouldn't have the right to have their rights restored, nor that the #1 gun rights organization should support those people.


Why are YOU so vehement about disarming your fellow citizens over minor offenses?

pcf
February 16, 2006, 05:52 PM
Why are you so vehement about arming criminals? Do you have something to gain?

Please read Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922.g

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
-to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Back on subject again......
It appears that if the prohibition is removed from the budget that the BATF would have to start adjudicating petitions of relief. If that's the case then funding is incumbent on the BATF. Getting that line removed wouldn't be difficult especially if done by a rider or in conference committee. Unfortunately that's a double edge sword. The only solutions that would survive more than one year is enacting legislation that would forbid Congress from withholding funds. Or try to take it to court under admendments I, II, IV, V, VI, VIII. Legislation is a better bet.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 06:36 PM
Yes, liberty for all.

Rights are presumptive. That is the burden of proof is on those wishing to limit rights.

Why are you so vehement about disarming everyone with a felony conviction in their past who has served the full term of any sentance and parole? Is it "zero tolerrance" thinking? Is it that all convicted felons are forever violent? Many were never violent.


Call me a libertarian (or worse), but I'd rather live in a dangerous, free society than a "safe" authoritarian one.

I can only hope that neither you, nor your family, are the victims of a felonious ex-con.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 06:39 PM
Because our government has gone too far and made things that shouldn't even be crimes into serious crimes (ie felonies).

You are taking the simplistic view that anyone with a felony conviction is a bad/dangerous person who deserves to have their rights revoked and society is better off for them being disarmed.

I believe there are many (thousands? tens of thousands?) of people who deserve to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights but who have had them denied because they where convicted of some non-crime that the state calls a felony.


What we have to gain by arming these "criminals" is that another decent person who is armed makes it just that much more difficult for real criminals to ply their trade with impunity.


You seem to refuse to make the distinction between serious, violent felons and those convicted of non-crime felonies (like making a mistake on a federal form or engaging in oral sex with their wife or one of the thousands of stupid laws on the books). You also seem to refuse to make the distinction between the law and justice. If injustice is codified into the law you seem to be perfectly happy...I guess as long as slavery or genocide are neatly codified into law than they are perfectly moral and ethical in your world.

I still contend that you have likely done something in your life that had you been caught and convicted of you would be a felon ... I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of the population of this country have done something that could result in a felony conviction so I guess its "tough cookies ... shouldn't have got caught" for those who have been convicted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know ... ignorance of the law is no excuse ... etc. But I bet you can't name for me absolutely every offense where you live that could/would be considered a felony. Even though you're a cop I bet you can't ... and its that over complexity that the statists use against the people.

If indeed our legal system only recognized real felonies I'd agree with you 100%. I have no problem with forever revoking the right to keep and bear arms to someone who robs, rapes, murders, etc, but I have a hard time believing that someone who has been convicted of some sort of procedural and/or nonviolent felony shouldn't have the right to have their rights restored, nor that the #1 gun rights organization should support those people.


Why are YOU so vehement about disarming your fellow citizens over minor offenses?

Oh, I don't want mere citizens disarmed. Unfortunately, the representatives that you (general, not specific) elected have created the law the way it is.

Bottom line: Want guns? Don't do crimes.

It's not that hard.

Correia
February 16, 2006, 06:40 PM
I've got no dog in this fight, but M-Rex, that is the weakest rebuttal I've seen on this forum in quite some time.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 06:43 PM
I've got no dog in this fight, but M-Rex, that is the weakest rebuttal I've seen on this forum in quite some time.

So?

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 10:10 PM
Bottom line: Want guns? Don't do crimes.

It's not that hard.

Actually, it is.
If your accused of a crime, but not convited, you just lost your right to bear arms. You didnt have to do anything.

If you call the batf to get it back, you get a busy signal.
If you sue to get an answer from the batf, you get a judge telling you that no answer means he cant give you an answer, therefore you have no choice but to wait for the batf... forever?
You didnt do a crime, but your certainly doing time.

In light of that, who would you say has been more disarmed by our laws: The criminals who currently control our streets or the citizens who cant afford this legal tail chasing?

How about this. Instead of me having to prove that full and free ownership would be the best thing for America, I think its your turn to prove that a prohibition can (or ever has) worked for anyone.

GruntII
February 16, 2006, 10:12 PM
<Really foolish idea removed by Art>

But its nice to know that you believe the system works. So when a cop breaks the law during their investigation its ok?


Never. Have lost partners over searches and practices that cross the line.

F4GIB
February 16, 2006, 10:39 PM
Every state has a process for restoring rights for state given felonies, even really serious ones that would have been called felonies in the old days.

Unless you are referring to pardons (harder to find than hen's teeth), many states do not have any such law. Certainly they don't have a politically-neutral administrative process (which ATF's pre-Democrats process was)

IIRC Arizona is one of the once a felon, always a felon state, for example.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 10:51 PM
Actually, it is.
If your accused of a crime, but not convited, you just lost your right to bear arms. You didnt have to do anything.

If you call the batf to get it back, you get a busy signal.
If you sue to get an answer from the batf, you get a judge telling you that no answer means he cant give you an answer, therefore you have no choice but to wait for the batf... forever?
You didnt do a crime, but your certainly doing time.

In light of that, who would you say has been more disarmed by our laws: The criminals who currently control our streets or the citizens who cant afford this legal tail chasing?

How about this. Instead of me having to prove that full and free ownership would be the best thing for America, I think its your turn to prove that a prohibition can (or ever has) worked for anyone.

Interesting. I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted. I still have all my firearms. I guess I must be an anomoly.

It doesn't seem that hard to me.

CentralTexas
February 16, 2006, 11:15 PM
I can only hope that neither you, nor your family, are the victims of a felonious ex-con.


I'm pretty sure if they are, it wouldn't be by a felon who had his gun owning rights restored.
CT

Crosshair
February 16, 2006, 11:28 PM
Interesting. I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted. I still have all my firearms. I guess I must be an anomoly.

It doesn't seem that hard to me.
A classmate in college from a few years ago was accused of arson when his car caught fire and badly damaged his apartment garage. The police and fire department thought it was suspicious and arrested him. Turns out that the old battery charger he was using (It was winter and his battery would not hold a charge.) shorted out and caused the fire. I have not talked to him since that class ended and I have no idea if he can buy a gun or not. But he was arrested and accused of arson, then the fire department finaly found that it was the charger that caused the fire and charges where dropped.

M-Rex
February 16, 2006, 11:29 PM
I'm pretty sure if they are, it wouldn't be by a felon who had his gun owning rights restored.
CT

That is debatable. If it were me, I wouldn't be my life on that.

However, I have drifted off-topic again. At Mr. Roberts request, I'm going to throttle back a bit and hopefully, the topic will move back to it's original direction.

Maxwell
February 17, 2006, 02:24 AM
I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted.

I guess you dont think it can happen to you... an odd view to have around these parts.
If you were in these peoples shoes, you would want more than a judgement summised as "Thats not my department".

Skewed the right way what the batf is doing isint too far removed from extortion. Their holding people hostage until their fees are paid.
I just dont see how that can stand.

Im watching known terrorists and murderers go free befor an innocent man can get his record clear... I think these guys just got the wrong kind of lawyers.

LAK
February 17, 2006, 04:59 AM
The matter of depriving people of their rights - for whatever reason(s) - is and should remain with Congress and the Judiciary. The people who rubber stamped the concept of a Federal tax collection agency having control of this function ought to be in prison themselves.
---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

pcf
February 17, 2006, 09:08 AM
The real reason behind smoking bans are anti-smoking zealots and attempts to reduce health care cost. They are usually enacted under the guise of protection for employee and children's health.

Lawful Protection in Commerce in Arms Act, was passed as tort reform. It wasn't about firearms, it was about getting out of control trial lawyers under control. Normally hands off on 2A issues or anti 2A, Business periodicals supported the act.

Thinking outside of the box.

Any ideas on how to bring up the issue, federal firearms disability relief, without mentioning the second admendment or felons?

1st admendment issues? Congress through use of Budget Authority, has used the law to to stop the people from petitioning the government for a redress of greivances. Could this fall under 1A?

Homeland security? Police officers and Service members who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, are fired/discharged, it's a needless loss of manpower and skills? A court could adjudicate a petition and determine the accused's fitness to remain employed.

benEzra
February 17, 2006, 10:16 AM
Interesting. I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted. I still have all my firearms. I guess I must be an anomoly.
No, you've just never had the misfortune to be caught doing something illegal that you didn't realize was illegal, or that you were doing without your knowledge (yes, that's easy to do).

I'm a stickler for obeying every little law I know about, but it is literally impossible for any one person to know about every law. You just hope you're never unlucky enough to get on the radar screen of some bureaucrat who's having a bad day.

Remember the guy who filled in a mudhole on his own property, which he did not realize was a felony violation of wetlands regs? And got convicted of a felony, IIRC? That could be you someday...

M-Rex
February 17, 2006, 12:00 PM
I don't want any organization, such as the NRA, to fund the restoration of firearms rights to felons/criminals. It's a ridiculous idea.

db_tanker
February 17, 2006, 12:27 PM
I have read a few posts here and I have a simple question to ask M-Rex.


Reverse the rolls.

Say you were doing somthing that could be considered innocent...especially as seeing that you live in that wonderful bastion of democracy called California.

Say you were busted and convicted straight out.

Now...here is where I would ask "How would you feel about that?"

And you would possibly say "I would obey the law" (please note...I said possibly...not putting words in anyones mouth here...)

But what with all the thoughts and passions here that I have observed...can you honestly say that you would feel the same as you did before the conviction?

This isn't intended to start any flame-war here...I just know more than my share of LEO's here in Texas that would disagree with your ideals when it comes to certain liberties...

Perhaps the opening question was wrong for many of the answers received on this post...Do we believe of 2A restoration?

Do I? I feel that it should be, not so much as a case by case basis...but I do believe that the "burden of proof" that rights SHOULD be restored lay with the felon. IF he is of sound mind and body, and he has NOT commited any other unlawful act (save perhaps a speeding ticket...) then he should have the POSSIBILITY of restoration of gun rights. HE should hire a barrister to help him fill out the proper paperwork and petition the judge in the appropriate way. At the same time, showing proof of responsibility and good character to the judge presiding. Now...with all those fees invloved...who but a person that, at least in my oppinion, was truly devoted to staying within the confines of the law would be willing to do such an act?
I also think that this act should also restore the right to vote and also serve in the Military.

<stepping down off soapbox>

I pass the floor on to the next person. :)

D

M-Rex
February 17, 2006, 12:32 PM
I don't want any organization, such as the NRA, to fund the restoration of firearms rights to felons/criminals. It's a ridiculous idea.

Carl N. Brown
February 17, 2006, 12:54 PM
#1 Bartholomew Roberts: ".... Would it be possible to get a restoration of
rights through the current BATFE process if you funded it yourself (or had
a group like NRA fund it?)"

#2 M-Rex: "Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of
firearms rights for felons, thank you."

BATFE: "The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to
grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the
person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety.
(See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual
appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to
investigate or act upon applications for relief..."

#105: The obvious answer to this question is that the convicted felon seeking
BATFE Restoration of 2A rights should have the option of funding
the appeal themself.

Carl N. Brown
February 17, 2006, 12:56 PM
How does this issue differ from the legal process of
seeking an expungement of felony record?

Derby FALs
February 17, 2006, 01:26 PM
[QUOTE=Bartholomew Roberts]As you may or may not know, the BATFE has a process to restore firearm rights to people who have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Unfortunately, Congress has not provided funds for this purpose since the Clinton administration - which means that any such request will wait indefinitely and never be processed.

Further cases through the judicial system have said that this is OK from a constitutional standpoint, even when the felony conviction was for a stupid crime in another country that is not even illegal in America.
QUOTE]

Once the person has been convicted then it may be unlawful to possess firearms depending on whether the crime is a felony or a misdemeanor. Generally it is permissible to possess weapons following a misdemeanor conviction except during the term of the sentence when firearm prohibitions are universally in effect as a condition of probation. Another exception is where the misdemeanor conviction is for domestic assault. Here, federal law imposes a permanent ban on firearms. (2)

For a felony conviction the rules are superficially simple. Federal law prohibits firearm possession following ANY state or federal felony conviction even if the sentence was suspended.(3) State law is less restrictive to some degree but the distinctions are immaterial at this point since the federal criminal sanctions apply across the board.

The difficulty arises when the person has finished the term of imprisonment or probation or parole. How do you get your "gun rights" back? First, remember that there is no such thing as "gun rights," the Second Amendment notwithstanding. Rather, think of it as firearm disabilities and the removal of same.

A synthesis of a series of federal precedents establishes the following points which must be addressed to determine if a client is in violation of the federal statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms.

1. Federal law generally makes it a felony for a person to be in possession of a firearm if the person has any prior felony conviction.

2. Federal law contains an explicit statutory exception which provides that the federal criminal offense of firearms possession is inapplicable to persons who have had their civil rights restored on the predicate state felony conviction.(4)

3. Whether a person has had his or her civil rights restored for a state conviction is determined by state and NOT federal law.

4. However, (this "however" is the first of two elusive parts of the analysis) federal law requires that for federal law to recognize the state restoration of rights, the state restoration must include the right to vote, the right to seek and hold public office, and the right to serve on a jury. (5)

5. If the state restoration of rights includes the three aforementioned rights the federal law contains an additional federal "unless" clause which looks to state law to see if the state imposes any restriction on the right of the convicted felon to possess a weapon (e.g., some states such as North Carolina prohibit the subsequent possession of a handgun but would allow the individual to possess a rifle or shotgun).

6. If there is some added firearms restriction under state law then (and here is the second elusive part of the analysis) the federal "unless" clause is triggered to make the possession of any firearms unlawful under federal law notwithstanding the state's restoration of civil rights. Thus, if the state says that a restored-rights felon may possess a shotgun but not a pistol, the state has allowed the felon to possess the shotgun under state law BUT, because the state has created some firearm restriction for a convicted felon, this means that the federal prohibition applies with full force notwithstanding a state restoration of rights. Thus, in the shotgun-pistol example, that person could be convicted under federal law for possession of the shotgun even though it would be perfectly lawful under state law.(6)

Bartholomew Roberts
February 17, 2006, 03:12 PM
Guys, M-Rex has stated his position and kindly tried to move the thread back on track. Please start another thread or go to PM if you want to continue responding.

Maxwell
February 17, 2006, 04:27 PM
Any ideas on how to bring up the issue, federal firearms disability relief, without mentioning the second admendment or felons?

Now sure how you can not mention felons at all. Sounds like it would fit perfectly into some kind of criminals rights policy.

If youve been blocked from having normal citizens rights because of the justice system, it should be with a clearly defined and challengable status on your record.
Your either on parole, a sex offender, a violent but reformed criminal, mentally unstable, etc... but you cant just be an unspoken "he was in jail so dont trust him" blacklist with no way to get off or even file a complaint about it.

If your out of jail, your record should be reviewed in a timely manner for the restoration of rights automaticly. A right should only be blocked pending any special issues.
Say you whent down for drunkenly shooting up someones empty car in the parking lot. your 2nd amendment right would rightfully be blocked but your freedom to speak or to vote, wouldnt.

If the government cant prove anythings wrong, it should default to a clean slate. Its their burden to prove why your no longer trustworthy. Failing that theres no reason for them to hold you.

Innocent until proven guilty... again.

pcf
February 17, 2006, 06:50 PM
Now sure how you can not mention felons at all. Sounds like it would fit perfectly into some kind of criminals rights policy.

If youve been blocked from having normal citizens rights because of the justice system, it should be with a clearly defined and challengable status on your record.
Your either on parole, a sex offender, a violent but reformed criminal, mentally unstable, etc... but you cant just be an unspoken "he was in jail so dont trust him" blacklist with no way to get off or even file a complaint about it.

If your out of jail, your record should be reviewed in a timely manner for the restoration of rights automaticly. A right should only be blocked pending any special issues.
Say you whent down for drunkenly shooting up someones empty car in the parking lot. your 2nd amendment right would rightfully be blocked but your freedom to speak or to vote, wouldnt.

If the government cant prove anythings wrong, it should default to a clean slate. Its their burden to prove why your no longer trustworthy. Failing that theres no reason for them to hold you.

Innocent until proven guilty... again.

I agree completely, but lets be practical for a second. Even among members of this forum, restoration of firearms rights is a sore subject. "Restoring Felony Firearm Disablity Relief" is the equivalent of "politically dead." The goal is to escape the microcosm of idealism and survive in the world of reality, something labelled as "Restoring Funding for Petitions of Felony Firearm Disablity Relief" won't survive. "Congress violating 1st, 4th, 6th and 8th Amendment Rights of accused persons, by deceitfully witholding funds from the BATFE" might have a better chance. It's all semantics, how can you describe a pile of slag, to look like silver?

Maxwell
February 17, 2006, 08:01 PM
restoration of firearms rights is a sore subject

Can we agree, at the very least, that everyone deserves their day in court?
The case should be heard and a final decision made about the status of their rights.

Personaly I think if the batf wants to keep me from owning a gun, its their burden to prove why. Youve got a judge, a plaintiff and a defendant. You should have a trial and if no one turns up on behalf of the atf then let the man go with his rights restored.
Theres no reason to keep him.

Maybe you can hide it in some kind of "right to a fair trial" feelgood law.
If a government agency cant provide an answer then put a judge in charge of that. He's there to make a decision, not be held hostage by a paperwork snafu.
Once you get a decision at least you can appeal or something.

Wynterbourne
February 19, 2006, 02:53 PM
Bottom line: Want guns? Don't do crimes.

Ok then, here's one for ya. How about if the person is convicted of a crime for doing, quite literally, nothing.

Several years back my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a -very- bad case, resulting in her hospitalization. The combination of chemical and radiological therapies rendered her bedridden, incapable of anything but the simplest of actions.

This was done, over the course of several months, as they tried to reduce the size of the cancer to the point where a mascectomy would be effective. She would be hospitalized, stay until the treatment was completed, then be brought home. I had to quit my job to take care of her at my parent's place while she was at home, because she quite simply couldn't function.

Finally, she had a double mascectomy, including cosmetic reconstruction. This had been approved by the insurance provider months in advance based off of the Doctor's diagnosis. The surgery was a success, the cancerous cells were completely removed, and she has been in remission since.

Unfortunately, she didn't know that her employer, Texas Jet, had changed insurance providers.

The new insurance had become effective approximately 2 weeks before the surgery. However, no one in the family had been advised of the change. As such, the hospital operated off of the information and approval provided previously by the original provider.

About three or four months after the surgery she is approached by the hospital, who wanted their money. This is when she first heard of the insurance change. The current insurance provider refused to pay, on the basis that they had not approved the surgery.

My sister was undergoing a lengthy appeals process with the insurance provider when the hospital filed a complaint with the State of Texas. They had written off the mascectomy, which was a critical surgery to resolve a life threatening issue. However, the cosmetic reconstruction was not.

My sister had a felony warrant issued for her arrest for fraud. She was arrested on Father's Day as we went to the lake. She had no knowledge of the warrant until this time.

Ultimately, and I'll give you the trial details if you like, she was convicted of fraud. Due to the amount it was considered a felony. She's on a 10 year probation, owes $14,000 restitution, and can never own a firearm again. She's a felon due to the actions her employer took while she is bedridden and lacking lucidity.

Why should she be punished, for the rest of her life, for something that someone else did, and for something they failed to do, while she was essentially unconsious?

Zundfolge
February 19, 2006, 02:58 PM
Wynterbourne, you clearly don't get it. She's the one who went out and got herself all cancered up so she deserves to lose her second amendment rights ... its that simple.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.


edit: I hope it is clear this was sarcasm

444
February 19, 2006, 03:06 PM
I am getting into this thread WAY late and am not adding anything of value, but this felony thing IMO is another one of these media brainwashing things. I have a good friend that is pushing 40, and is your every day middle class guy. He owns a house and some property. He has a good job. And, he is a convicted felon.
It seems that when he was 18, he got busted with less than 1 oz. of marijuana which at that time was a felony in the state of Nevada. Since then, he has gone for about twenty years without ever touching the stuff again.
Yet, he is a felon and in some people's opinion on this board, he should be put right in the same catagory as a serial killer.
I have another friend who's marriage melted down. One evening, they had their final argument and his wife demanded that he leave the house. He refused saying that he paid for the house and his kids were living in the house. His wife called the police and said he hit her. The police responded immediately and put him in irons. After the police got there, the wife freely admitted that he never hit her: she just wanted him out of the house and knew that the police would respond if she said he hit her. She told the DA that she would not testify against him for domestic vilolence because he had never been violent with her. But, there was one fly in the ointment. My buddy didn't have any money for a lawyer. He was offered a deal. Plead guilty to domestic violence and the issue was over. Since he basically had no money to fight it, he agreed. He now had a criminal record of domestic battery and can not leagally own a gun. Dispite the fact that he never touched anyone. How could this happen ? The DA was running for office. That was an election year. The DA wanted to campaign on his tough stand against domestic violence and my buddy was just one more statistic in the political campaign.
Another media brainwashing thing is this convicted sex offender list. I was reading about a guy who was at a party in Park City Utah. He was drinking and had to take a leak real bad. All the bathrooms were full, so he went out on the patio (at night) and took a leak. He got busted for exposing himself in public (whatever that crime is called) and his name now appears on that convicted sex offender list along with the child rapists.
Some of you people on this board need to quit drinking the Koolaid and use some common sense. God gave us a brain that is capable of reasoning and logical thought: use it.

M-Rex
February 19, 2006, 05:46 PM
Ok then, here's one for ya. How about if the person is convicted of a crime for doing, quite literally, nothing.

Several years back my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a -very- bad case, resulting in her hospitalization. The combination of chemical and radiological therapies rendered her bedridden, incapable of anything but the simplest of actions.

This was done, over the course of several months, as they tried to reduce the size of the cancer to the point where a mascectomy would be effective. She would be hospitalized, stay until the treatment was completed, then be brought home. I had to quit my job to take care of her at my parent's place while she was at home, because she quite simply couldn't function.

Finally, she had a double mascectomy, including cosmetic reconstruction. This had been approved by the insurance provider months in advance based off of the Doctor's diagnosis. The surgery was a success, the cancerous cells were completely removed, and she has been in remission since.

Unfortunately, she didn't know that her employer, Texas Jet, had changed insurance providers.

The new insurance had become effective approximately 2 weeks before the surgery. However, no one in the family had been advised of the change. As such, the hospital operated off of the information and approval provided previously by the original provider.

About three or four months after the surgery she is approached by the hospital, who wanted their money. This is when she first heard of the insurance change. The current insurance provider refused to pay, on the basis that they had not approved the surgery.

My sister was undergoing a lengthy appeals process with the insurance provider when the hospital filed a complaint with the State of Texas. They had written off the mascectomy, which was a critical surgery to resolve a life threatening issue. However, the cosmetic reconstruction was not.

My sister had a felony warrant issued for her arrest for fraud. She was arrested on Father's Day as we went to the lake. She had no knowledge of the warrant until this time.

Ultimately, and I'll give you the trial details if you like, she was convicted of fraud. Due to the amount it was considered a felony. She's on a 10 year probation, owes $14,000 restitution, and can never own a firearm again. She's a felon due to the actions her employer took while she is bedridden and lacking lucidity.

Why should she be punished, for the rest of her life, for something that someone else did, and for something they failed to do, while she was essentially unconsious?

If that story is true, and all the facts were presented, then I would say your sister absolutely should petition to have her rights restored. More than that, I believe she should petition the state of Texas and have her record expunged. Not to mention a healthy civil suit, with penalties for pain and suffering. Where was her lawyer in all of this?

Assuming your post was factually accurate, it sounds like the hospital jumped the gun. The insurance companies should have had some communication between them as well. Somewhere in there a good lawyer should have raised a stink. I hope everything works out.

Be that as it may, I still don't want the NRA paying for felons to have their rights 'restored'. You can roll out all the sad-sack cases of 'innocent' people just swept up into the justice system. Look for something long enough and eventually you'll find it.

I think everyone on this board knows exactly what a felon is, but some are simply searching for minutae simply for the sake of arguement, and more tired anti-government diatribe.

Wynterbourne
February 19, 2006, 06:40 PM
Somewhere in there a good lawyer should have raised a stink. I hope everything works out.

That's the problem that we have with our current system.

She consulted with a number of 'private' lawyers prior to the trial. Each one that she spoke with assured her that this would be a relatively simple trial to win, but it would take time. As we are all aware, time is money. The lowest estimate she recieved was a little over twenty thousand dollars.

Had she been able to afford quality legal representation, rather than a court appointed attorney who's primary goal is to end the case as quickly as possible, she likely would have simply been required to make restitution. But she couldn't afford one then, still can't afford one now, and likely won't be able to afford one any time soon. Essentially, she will pay for not having $20,000 in savings to fight the effects of elses actions for the rest of her life.

A number of people are felons simply because of circumstances beyond their control, because of conflicting legalities, or because they simply couldn't afford proper represnetation. The number is not a high one, but they do exist. Personally, I can only think of 3 cases that fall into this category right off the top of my head, involving people I personally know/have known.

In these instances there needs to be some recourse to regain your personal rights. In several states simply having your record expunged would not be enough. In Texas, for example, having your record expunged no longer means that it does not appear on your record. Currently, having your record expunged means that the specifics behind the arrest and conviction are sealed and not available on a background check. However, it does indicate both a felony arrest and a felony conviction.

Or at least my record does, after the expungement of two Criminal Attempt: Prostitution charges from the late 90's. Admittedly, those are misdemeanors, but my understanding is that they operate in the same fashion.

Personally, I will agree with you that perhaps the NRA is not the best organization to fund this restoration of personal rights. However, I feel this way because I firmly believe that if they did certain 'anti' organizations would have an absolute field day. It would turn into a media frenzy of horrific proportions. I can see any number of news stations trotting out child rapists and murderers, fresh out of prison, with the quote, "The NRA wants to arm this rapist!"

But it does need to be funded. And if the Federal Government, a government ostensibly '...of the People, by the People, and for the People...' is unwill to fund one of their own programs, someone should be able to.

M-Rex
February 19, 2006, 08:44 PM
That's the problem that we have with our current system.

She consulted with a number of 'private' lawyers prior to the trial. Each one that she spoke with assured her that this would be a relatively simple trial to win, but it would take time. As we are all aware, time is money. The lowest estimate she recieved was a little over twenty thousand dollars.

Had she been able to afford quality legal representation, rather than a court appointed attorney who's primary goal is to end the case as quickly as possible, she likely would have simply been required to make restitution. But she couldn't afford one then, still can't afford one now, and likely won't be able to afford one any time soon. Essentially, she will pay for not having $20,000 in savings to fight the effects of elses actions for the rest of her life.

A number of people are felons simply because of circumstances beyond their control, because of conflicting legalities, or because they simply couldn't afford proper represnetation. The number is not a high one, but they do exist. Personally, I can only think of 3 cases that fall into this category right off the top of my head, involving people I personally know/have known.

In these instances there needs to be some recourse to regain your personal rights. In several states simply having your record expunged would not be enough. In Texas, for example, having your record expunged no longer means that it does not appear on your record. Currently, having your record expunged means that the specifics behind the arrest and conviction are sealed and not available on a background check. However, it does indicate both a felony arrest and a felony conviction.

Or at least my record does, after the expungement of two Criminal Attempt: Prostitution charges from the late 90's. Admittedly, those are misdemeanors, but my understanding is that they operate in the same fashion.

Personally, I will agree with you that perhaps the NRA is not the best organization to fund this restoration of personal rights. However, I feel this way because I firmly believe that if they did certain 'anti' organizations would have an absolute field day. It would turn into a media frenzy of horrific proportions. I can see any number of news stations trotting out child rapists and murderers, fresh out of prison, with the quote, "The NRA wants to arm this rapist!"

But it does need to be funded. And if the Federal Government, a government ostensibly '...of the People, by the People, and for the People...' is unwill to fund one of their own programs, someone should be able to.

You hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Unfortunately, 'justice' costs money. I'm certainly not so niave to see that folks with funds have an easier time than folks without. I would like to see the shroud of mystery over the whole process of 'restoration' lifted, and presented in such a way that lay folks can understand.

I don't doubt that examples such as the situation you described exist, but I believe they are extreme examples of exceptions to the rule.

GruntII
February 19, 2006, 10:23 PM
..............................................................................
but some are simply searching for minutae simply for the sake of arguement, and more tired anti-government diatribe.


And there you have hit on the underlying basis for the whole proble.The Founding Fathers realized government was a nessecary evil, a constant threat to personal liberty, as did most folk.Today people think government is the answer to everything and don't want personal liberty. I'm not anti government I realize we need government to perform a realitively small number of tasks that cannot be done by individuals. Things like national defense,a limited number of federal laws,rules and standards, ensuring the constitution and BOR is followed and International(limited) intanglements.

Today people are dependant on the government and are willing to forsake hard won, paid for in blood liberty. My own person feeling is we are over due for a cleaning of the shallow end of the gene pool. People who do not appreciate their liberty are giving mine away.They do not realize that if one persons liberty is compromised for personal comfort, privilege or imagined safety everyone's liberty is compromised.

IndianaDean
February 19, 2006, 10:44 PM
Kudos to Oldfart. I agree. And once a felon has paid a debt and is let out of prison, ALL of rights should be restored.

When the government passes anti-gun laws folks, they are saying We are the ones they do not trust with guns! The criminals will have them no matter what. Only law abiding citizens like us are affected by anti-gun laws, because we obey them. Once again We are the ones they do not trust!

And what does it say when the representatives that supposedly represent us, and are elected by us, do not trust us?

Zundfolge
February 19, 2006, 10:55 PM
I think everyone on this board knows exactly what a felon is...
No, and that is the root of our disagreement.

You seem to believe that anyone convicted of any felony is a clear danger to society whereas I (and many others) see more and more minor and BS crimes being elevated to the level of felony so that the original intention of "no 2A for Felons" is being twisted. And that its come to the point where an honest man cannot live 100% within the law because the law has become a complex web designed not to prevent bad people from doing bad things, but instead to increase the power of government officials over our lives.

Eventualy all they have to do to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms is to make something minor like traffic violations into felonies ... I'm sure than you'd come out against speeders saying something insipid like "If they can't be trusted to drive the speed limit they can't be trusted with guns."

I would say that that kind of creeping incrementalism is the very thing that the NRA should be fighting against (and part of that fight includes helping those caught up in the BS game of many antis in our government).

M-Rex
February 20, 2006, 12:43 AM
And there you have hit on the underlying basis for the whole proble.The Founding Fathers realized government was a nessecary evil, a constant threat to personal liberty, as did most folk.Today people think government is the answer to everything and don't want personal liberty. I'm not anti government I realize we need government to perform a realitively small number of tasks that cannot be done by individuals. Things like national defense,a limited number of federal laws,rules and standards, ensuring the constitution and BOR is followed and International(limited) intanglements.

Today people are dependant on the government and are willing to forsake hard won, paid for in blood liberty. My own person feeling is we are over due for a cleaning of the shallow end of the gene pool. People who do not appreciate their liberty are giving mine away.They do not realize that if one persons liberty is compromised for personal comfort, privilege or imagined safety everyone's liberty is compromised.

I agree whole heartedly.

-C4-
February 20, 2006, 12:47 AM
Just because someone has been "labeled" a "felon" does not mean that they truly were/are. One African-American gentleman was recently released from prison following a DNA test that proved HE did NOT do the rape. So, was he a "felon" because of the rape he didn't commit or because he was African-American? But, facts are facts! He IS A CONVICTED FELON, not by HIS action, but by systemic prosecution and jury conviction! He shouldn't have his rights restored?!

Dang--thought we lived in America.

Doc2005

Just wondering, but if the verdict was set aside and he was released from prison then technically he is NOT a felon any more. Or am I off here?

The_Ferret
February 20, 2006, 01:20 AM
Hmm...
I hate arguing on the internet, and have no intention of doing so here. However, I do feel compelled to offer an observation. (If you have questions or opinions on what I am writing, lets have a civilized "question, answer, and discuss" discourse, not an "I'll quote your statements and prove you are logically fallacious you sorry excuse for a human being!"-style discourse... Please.)

NOTE: I want to discuss this in the context of CURRENT AND STANDING LAWS, not in the context of "how it should be." I hope I can do that anyway.

To the point of this. As I see it, M-Rex is arguing against restoration of the right to keep and bear arms for "felons". I'm going to put that in quotes here so I can expound the definition a little. What are we talking about when we say "felons"? Many here are looking at this as "Any person convicted of a felony." That seems to be the correct definition. Let's examine that a little more...

Why are the majority of felons convicted? That is, what are the most frequent crimes commited which make a felon? I'm actually looking up some information for that right now, as I type. Be right back...

Okay, I'm back. I found this: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/felony/charges.html
Lest's see if I can get a quote outta it...
"The most common felony charges that led to conviction in 2000 were drug offenses (35 percent); property offenses, such as burglary, arson, fraud and forgery (28 percent); violent offenses, such as murder, rape or aggravated assault (19 percent); and weapon offenses or other non-violent offenses, such as escaping custody or receiving stolen property (18 percent). Marijuana felony charges accounted for 6.4 percent of the total convictions in 2000."

So it looks like 35% drugs, 28% property offenses, 19% violent stuff, and 18% weapons/non-violent stuff. (If anybody has other data, post it too. I'm actually forming an opinion on this as I'm writing it.) Now the question here seems to me to essentially be, "Is it smart to allow ex-felons the right to keep and bear arms?" This is a matter for public safety (of individuals), and also for the safety of society as a whole. If we look at the data I found and make some assumptions, we might can come to some conclusions about who is and who is not likely to be...(poo, I can't find it spelled on this page) recidivistic.

(NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS, I WANT YOU (PLEASE) TO REDO THIS MATH WITH YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS IN ANOTHER POST. THEN WE CAN COMPARE AND DISCUSS, AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING. :) )
Let's assume that most of the people who commit drug offenses just made a dumb mistake. Only 1 out of 5 was really into some crap. Then let's go one further, and assume that only 1/2 of those people were actually doing stuff with guns, like robbing to get drugs or distributing. For property offenses, burglary and arson sound bad, but forgery and fraud don't seem so much so, so let's assume 1/2 of those people will commit crimes again, and giving them guns will be an enabler. Now let's assume ALL the violent offenders are gonna do it again. Remember, I am in the context of the CURRENT system of laws and rules, not ideal ones. Now the final group consists mainly of non-violent offenses, according to the info I found. Let's still assume that the people convicted of weapons offenses were mostly gun-runners, and will continue when released, because its their livelihood. Let's say that...man this is a hard one to guess reasonably...1 out of 5 is gonna recommit some crime when released. Now, let's crunch the numbers...

Of the 35% who did drugs-stuff, 3.5% are going to recommit crimes. Of the 28% doing property stuff, 14% will reommit. All 19% of the violent criminals are foaming at the mouth for a gun here, and 3.6% are lookin to go a crimin' who were in for other stuff. REMEMBER: If these seem off to you, I really ask that you redo it as you think it should be and post that data here too.
Now we have 35+14+3.5+3.6 = 56.1% of felons who are going to recommit crimes, and who we DO NOT WANT to get a gun under the current laws. Again looking at the above website, we see that this is a total (from their statistics) of 0.561x(985,000 people, so call it a million) = 561,000 armed and dangerous (and we are talking DANGEROUS) people who did not need to have their rights restored.

I looked on Wikipedia just now, and found that the population of the US was estimated by the census bureau to be (again, in 2000, the year our crime statistics are from) 281,421,906 people, for comparison to the above number (If you want to compare).

I guess the question now is, "What should we do about 561,000 criminals?" We'd be denying 439,000 people their right to bear arms as punishment for some crime, but does it make sense to award rights back to 439,000 while endangering 281,421,906? I'm hoping that these 439,000 are the cases we're hearing about here, the so-called "fringe" cases where violations occurred that shouldn't have been felonies, or occurred under "bizzare" circumstances, or were mistakes. Actually, I'm not really discussing the mistakes portion here, since I'm not sure that falls under felony convictions in the statistics.

Now, as I see it, M-Rex says:
"deny all". Under the current laws, we should protect those 281,421,906 from 561,000, and the 439,000 need to lobby to get the law fixed, since it is currently "broken", and they do not deserve to lose their right to keep and bear arms. But for Pete's sake, giving guns back to FELONS? To correct the mistakes of the law for 439,000 while endangering (some of, all of?) 281,421,906?! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS?!?!

The other prevailing opinion seems to say:
"reallow"/"reallow WITH important changes to the law". We need to reallow some/all of the convicted because they are being wronged. 439,000 innocent/reformed people without the right to arms is 439,000 TOO DAMNED MANY. Aside from the fact that 561,000 will not endager ANYWHERE NEAR 281,421,906, this is another incremental loss of freedom, and it CAN NOT AND MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. You say protect 281,421,906, but this idea is really hurting them just as badly by giving away their precious freedoms! These are our rights you're talking about!! Our God-given rights!!! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS??!?!

(If anybody else has other ideads/insight into these, let me know here. I want discussion! I want to learn something here, and understand.)

Now my opinion here...I've been pretty undecided up until now, honestly. The main problem I have is that I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that there are inalienable rights. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the government should not be allowed to merely strip away basic rights under the "its a felony! They're bad people!" argument. This sounds to me suspiciously like the "It's for the children" argument, and I have my mind made up on that one. (My opinion::barf: )
Now on the other hand, I'm a farm-boy and an engineer, and in that order. I'm about real solutions to real problems that work and work NOW. I love guns and I have done my best, on my end of the social contract, to obey the law, as well as I can. This includes stopping at a four-way stop even when nobody is there. I never have, and hope I never will, ended up on the wrong side of the law. This society has to be upheld and protected, and I will do my dead-level best to do just those things. In that vein, the idea of re-arming 561,000 people who have an intention of recividism (my poor spelling, again...) to try to save the rights of 439,000 seems ridiculous. It's bad economics. This is because I'm seeing the current laws and their status, and I see how laws change; Namely: slowly and only when forced to. If the 439,000 deserve guns, let's fight for them. But in our rush to do justice, do we really want to do an (approximately) equal amount of injustice?

I really cannot decide. You guys help me here. (M-Rex, this includes you. I NEED your opinion, with relation to the argument above, which is really an argument with myself.) How do we go about doing justice? Do we reform laws first? Do we allow a case-by-case basis? I know I've left out the whole "How do criminals attain firearms" business completely. Is that really a factor here? Will we be, even though not enabling criminals to re-attain arms (they could do this already) be SIGNIFICANTLY re-enabling criminals to be (The Lord is going to smite me for bad spelling in my sleep) recidivstic?

Please help me. I do not like having a non-opinion on an important subject.

Thanks guys. Again, let's DISCUSS. I'm looking for help here.

-the_ferret-

Derby FALs
February 20, 2006, 01:52 AM
In the United States 1 in 31 adults were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2004...

IndianaDean
February 20, 2006, 01:54 AM
There was an African American last year in Indiana who has been in prison for 20 years or so for murder. DNA tests proved he did not commit the murder. The Indiana Attorney General at the time STILL refused to let him out of prison. How's that for fairness?

I don't know what the situation there is now.

M-Rex
February 20, 2006, 02:07 AM
Hmm...
I hate arguing on the internet, and have no intention of doing so here. However, I do feel compelled to offer an observation. (If you have questions or opinions on what I am writing, lets have a civilized "question, answer, and discuss" discourse, not an "I'll quote your statements and prove you are logically fallacious you sorry excuse for a human being!"-style discourse... Please.)

NOTE: I want to discuss this in the context of CURRENT AND STANDING LAWS, not in the context of "how it should be." I hope I can do that anyway.

To the point of this. As I see it, M-Rex is arguing against restoration of the right to keep and bear arms for "felons". I'm going to put that in quotes here so I can expound the definition a little. What are we talking about when we say "felons"? Many here are looking at this as "Any person convicted of a felony." That seems to be the correct definition. Let's examine that a little more...

Why are the majority of felons convicted? That is, what are the most frequent crimes commited which make a felon? I'm actually looking up some information for that right now, as I type. Be right back...

Okay, I'm back. I found this: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/felony/charges.html
Lest's see if I can get a quote outta it...
"The most common felony charges that led to conviction in 2000 were drug offenses (35 percent); property offenses, such as burglary, arson, fraud and forgery (28 percent); violent offenses, such as murder, rape or aggravated assault (19 percent); and weapon offenses or other non-violent offenses, such as escaping custody or receiving stolen property (18 percent). Marijuana felony charges accounted for 6.4 percent of the total convictions in 2000."

So it looks like 35% drugs, 28% property offenses, 19% violent stuff, and 18% weapons/non-violent stuff. (If anybody has other data, post it too. I'm actually forming an opinion on this as I'm writing it.) Now the question here seems to me to essentially be, "Is it smart to allow ex-felons the right to keep and bear arms?" This is a matter for public safety (of individuals), and also for the safety of society as a whole. If we look at the data I found and make some assumptions, we might can come to some conclusions about who is and who is not likely to be...(poo, I can't find it spelled on this page) recidivistic.

(NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS, I WANT YOU (PLEASE) TO REDO THIS MATH WITH YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS IN ANOTHER POST. THEN WE CAN COMPARE AND DISCUSS, AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING. :) )
Let's assume that most of the people who commit drug offenses just made a dumb mistake. Only 1 out of 5 was really into some crap. Then let's go one further, and assume that only 1/2 of those people were actually doing stuff with guns, like robbing to get drugs or distributing. For property offenses, burglary and arson sound bad, but forgery and fraud don't seem so much so, so let's assume 1/2 of those people will commit crimes again, and giving them guns will be an enabler. Now let's assume ALL the violent offenders are gonna do it again. Remember, I am in the context of the CURRENT system of laws and rules, not ideal ones. Now the final group consists mainly of non-violent offenses, according to the info I found. Let's still assume that the people convicted of weapons offenses were mostly gun-runners, and will continue when released, because its their livelihood. Let's say that...man this is a hard one to guess reasonably...1 out of 5 is gonna recommit some crime when released. Now, let's crunch the numbers...

Of the 35% who did drugs-stuff, 3.5% are going to recommit crimes. Of the 28% doing property stuff, 14% will reommit. All 19% of the violent criminals are foaming at the mouth for a gun here, and 3.6% are lookin to go a crimin' who were in for other stuff. REMEMBER: If these seem off to you, I really ask that you redo it as you think it should be and post that data here too.
Now we have 35+14+3.5+3.6 = 56.1% of felons who are going to recommit crimes, and who we DO NOT WANT to get a gun under the current laws. Again looking at the above website, we see that this is a total (from their statistics) of 0.561x(985,000 people, so call it a million) = 561,000 armed and dangerous (and we are talking DANGEROUS) people who did not need to have their rights restored.

I looked on Wikipedia just now, and found that the population of the US was estimated by the census bureau to be (again, in 2000, the year our crime statistics are from) 281,421,906 people, for comparison to the above number (If you want to compare).

I guess the question now is, "What should we do about 561,000 criminals?" We'd be denying 439,000 people their right to bear arms as punishment for some crime, but does it make sense to award rights back to 439,000 while endangering 281,421,906? I'm hoping that these 439,000 are the cases we're hearing about here, the so-called "fringe" cases where violations occurred that shouldn't have been felonies, or occurred under "bizzare" circumstances, or were mistakes. Actually, I'm not really discussing the mistakes portion here, since I'm not sure that falls under felony convictions in the statistics.

Now, as I see it, M-Rex says:
"deny all". Under the current laws, we should protect those 281,421,906 from 561,000, and the 439,000 need to lobby to get the law fixed, since it is currently "broken", and they do not deserve to lose their right to keep and bear arms. But for Pete's sake, giving guns back to FELONS? To correct the mistakes of the law for 439,000 while endangering (some of, all of?) 281,421,906?! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS?!?!

The other prevailing opinion seems to say:
"reallow"/"reallow WITH important changes to the law". We need to reallow some/all of the convicted because they are being wronged. 439,000 innocent/reformed people without the right to arms is 439,000 TOO DAMNED MANY. Aside from the fact that 561,000 will not endager ANYWHERE NEAR 281,421,906, this is another incremental loss of freedom, and it CAN NOT AND MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. You say protect 281,421,906, but this idea is really hurting them just as badly by giving away their precious freedoms! These are our rights you're talking about!! Our God-given rights!!! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS??!?!

(If anybody else has other ideads/insight into these, let me know here. I want discussion! I want to learn something here, and understand.)

Now my opinion here...I've been pretty undecided up until now, honestly. The main problem I have is that I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that there are inalienable rights. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the government should not be allowed to merely strip away basic rights under the "its a felony! They're bad people!" argument. This sounds to me suspiciously like the "It's for the children" argument, and I have my mind made up on that one. (My opinion::barf: )
Now on the other hand, I'm a farm-boy and an engineer, and in that order. I'm about real solutions to real problems that work and work NOW. I love guns and I have done my best, on my end of the social contract, to obey the law, as well as I can. This includes stopping at a four-way stop even when nobody is there. I never have, and hope I never will, ended up on the wrong side of the law. This society has to be upheld and protected, and I will do my dead-level best to do just those things. In that vein, the idea of re-arming 561,000 people who have an intention of recividism (my poor spelling, again...) to try to save the rights of 439,000 seems ridiculous. It's bad economics. This is because I'm seeing the current laws and their status, and I see how laws change; Namely: slowly and only when forced to. If the 439,000 deserve guns, let's fight for them. But in our rush to do justice, do we really want to do an (approximately) equal amount of injustice?

I really cannot decide. You guys help me here. (M-Rex, this includes you. I NEED your opinion, with relation to the argument above, which is really an argument with myself.) How do we go about doing justice? Do we reform laws first? Do we allow a case-by-case basis? I know I've left out the whole "How do criminals attain firearms" business completely. Is that really a factor here? Will we be, even though not enabling criminals to re-attain arms (they could do this already) be SIGNIFICANTLY re-enabling criminals to be (The Lord is going to smite me for bad spelling in my sleep) recidivstic?

Please help me. I do not like having a non-opinion on an important subject.

Thanks guys. Again, let's DISCUSS. I'm looking for help here.

-the_ferret-


Excellent post.

Let me 'splain.

When I think 'felons', I think criminal felons. Ex-cons. Parolees-at-Large. Victimizers. I also include with those, assorted doper trash. In my mind, these individuals made a conscious choice to abandon their rights to live in a free society when they C H O S E to break the law. They chose. Chose.

If they chose, then one can make the logical assumption that they completely weighed the consequences of their actions and had them in mind when they chose. They deemed the repercussions of their actions acceptable and chose to engage in criminal activity. On some level, each and everyone of these individuals chose to break the law, and damn the consequences.

I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals. Cause and effect. Choice and consequence.

That is not to say that there are specific and anomalous cases (such as the gentleman's sister mentioned in a post above) that fly against convention. Those folks should be granted the opportunity to have their rights 'restored'. However, having the insight that I do from working in the field, I state that cases like this are extremely rare. I also believe that a person in this situation would not simply wait for someone else to pick up the tab.

I have never met a 'felon' who did not belong in jail. Conversely, every 'felon' I have met, insisted that he/she is innocent and 'it was someone else's fault'. Were an organization such as the NRA start assisting people in the 'restoration' of their rights, I speculate it would start with folks such as the gentleman's sister, but soon their lists would be glutted with every type of criminal element seeking to get out of some portion of their punishment.

There are consequences to actions. Although it is simplistic, it is true. Want guns? Don't commit crimes.

Don't like what constitutes a crime? Get active and vote.

If you enjoyed reading about "BATFE Restoration of 2A rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!