Felons in Kentucky


PDA






TheIrishJedi
May 17, 2009, 10:40 AM
I work with a fellow who is a convicted felon. They let him out everyday to come to work or attend classes at the local university. He was convicted of burglary and robbery of some bangers house. He is actually one of the few felons who I think will turn their life around and do something with it, but I digress.

Anyway, he is an avid fan of firearms and was telling me that in 5 years his rights will be restored and that he can own firearms again. True?

If you enjoyed reading about "Felons in Kentucky" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tim the student
May 17, 2009, 11:04 AM
Maybe, I know in Iowa they can petition the state government to have their voting rights restored after they have completed their sentence. Different states do things differently, so I think there is a good possibility that he may be able to.

jaholder1971
May 17, 2009, 03:17 PM
70 percent of all felons will offend again.

Sounds like he's on work release/halfway house. A felon will say and do anything to get back out on the streets one way or another. I'd never trust the word of a known felon.

I'm sure I will offend those who embrace these dirtbags as there are a small minority that believe that they deserve RKBA, but I've yet to see any of these folks offer to house them or trust them with their wives or daughters.

alsaqr
May 17, 2009, 03:24 PM
Anyway, he is an avid fan of firearms and was telling me that in 5 years his rights will be restored and that he can own firearms again. True?


That convicted felon is full of it.


70 percent of all felons will offend again.

Sounds like he's on work release/halfway house. A felon will say and do anything to get back out on the streets one way or another. I'd never trust the word of a known felon.

I'm sure I will offend those who embrace these dirtbags as there are a small minority that believe that they deserve RKBA, but I've yet to see any of these folks offer to house them or trust them with their wives or daughters.


Good post.

GRIZ22
May 17, 2009, 04:38 PM
Anyway, he is an avid fan of firearms and was telling me that in 5 years his rights will be restored and that he can own firearms again. True?

Don't know what the state law is in KY but he won't have any firearms rights under federal law.

I listen to Don Imus on the radio during the AM drive time. He used to get calls from prisoners in Riker's Island. Imus would ask what they were doing time for. All the prisoners would say "they said I....(fill in the crime)". Imus made a point of "Why do all you guys say they said I did? Apparently no one did anything to get locked up."

iiibdsiil
May 17, 2009, 04:38 PM
70 percent of all felons will offend again.

I'm guessing that there aren't too many of us non-felons that haven't actually committed a felony more than once.

armoredman
May 17, 2009, 05:05 PM
BATFE has sole authority to restore forearms rights, and they've been defunded from doing so.

jaholder1971
May 17, 2009, 05:05 PM
I'm guessing that there aren't too many of us non-felons that haven't actually committed a felony more than once.

Committing a felony and being a felon are two different things.

You're only a felon after you've been convicted of one by trial or waived your right and admitted your guilt to a judge.

Please, folks, try to understand this!!!!!!!!!!!

JImbothefiveth
May 17, 2009, 05:13 PM
I doubt it. I think it's illegal even in Kentucky. Not sure I'd tell him though, if he has a goal to work towards it might make it easier for him to stay away from crime.


70 percent of all felons will offend again. I think that the majority will be taken to jail again, and then there are those who will commit crimes and not get taken to jail, so I wouldn't doubt that.

kingpin008
May 17, 2009, 05:19 PM
70 percent of all felons will offend again.

Cite please.

Dark Skies
May 17, 2009, 05:20 PM
Some thirty percent do turn their lives around though. Like actor Danny Trejo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Danny_Trejo.jpg
Also actor / producer / author Edward Bunker.

kingpin008
May 17, 2009, 06:46 PM
That may be, but I'd still be interested in a citation from a reputable source to back it up.

ScottG1911
May 17, 2009, 07:09 PM
lol do we really need to cite every little thing, ffs it's common knowledge. are you going to have a fit if it's 68% or 71% ???

ar10
May 17, 2009, 07:14 PM
If any one is actually interested you can google the word "recidivism" which returns 1,600,000 hits. I'm sure you can find some accurate and/or inaccurate statistics on repeat felony offenders.
As far as the OP's question goes. It won't happen unless someone else admits to the crime. The Robbery alone (Act of Violence) would eliminate him on both the state and federal level.

Ditto_95
May 17, 2009, 07:16 PM
Non violent felons can petition the court for the right to vote and the right to own firearms.
It all depends on the reaso they were convicted.
I will cite as soon as I find out which one.

ar10
May 17, 2009, 09:54 PM
Ditto:
No robbery is NOT a non-violent felony.

kingpin008
May 17, 2009, 10:14 PM
lol do we really need to cite every little thing, ffs it's common knowledge. are you going to have a fit if it's 68% or 71% ???

Typically, when we choose to present a statement as fact, we need to be able to back up that statement with proof that it is indeed factual. It's got nothing to do with me having a "fit".

And if it's such common knowledge, it shouldn't be a chore to post a single cite supporting it, right?

JImbothefiveth
May 17, 2009, 10:20 PM
No robbery is NOT a non-violent felony. So all robberies are non-violent felonies? Even when force and the threat of death is used?

isp2605
May 17, 2009, 11:51 PM
Typically, when we choose to present a statement as fact, we need to be able to back up that statement with proof that it is indeed factual. It's got nothing to do with me having a "fit".

And if it's such common knowledge, it shouldn't be a chore to post a single cite supporting it, right?

It is "common knowledge" for those of us in the career field. Anyone doing stats for DOJ or other state agency has seen the numbers. Since you haven't or don't know where to look, DOJ has all those numbers as does every CJ course in the nation...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

The actual recidivism is about 67% nationwide within 3 yrs of release. Some states it's higher. Wherever jaholder1971 is located it could very well be 70% or higher. The percentage also goes up if you stretch the time past 3 yrs.

Just because a felon thinks he's going to get his rights restored doesn't mean it will happen. It's not all that common really. There's a lot more to expunging a record and restoring rights than just because some felon wants to to be so. One thing prisons do to people is it tends to make good BS artists out of them.

kingpin008
May 18, 2009, 12:31 AM
isp2605 - Thanks for the link.

To be clear, my intent wasn't to say that the info wasn't true - I was merely trying to point out that if one is stating something as fact, they should be willing to back it up with factual information.

We in the RKBA community routinely call out the anti's for not citing facts in their arguments against guns, and it bothers me that when it's one of our own stating something as fact, it's roundly accepted even if the poster doesn't offer citations to back it up.

The standards should be the same, is all I'm saying.

DMF
May 18, 2009, 12:48 AM
For those claiming that it is impossible for a felon to have their gun rights restored, such as this comment: BATFE has sole authority to restore forearms rights, and they've been defunded from doing so.

That quote is not accurate. ATF has the authority to under statute to grant relief from firearms disabilities, but has been prevented from spending any money to process applications for relief from firearms disabilities. HOWEVER, that is NOT the only way a felon can have their rights restored.

Persons convicted of Federal crimes may seek a presidential pardon. Persons convicted of State crimes can seek relief from their state of conviction.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a7

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a8

"(A8) Are there any alternatives for relief from firearms disabilities? [Back]


A person is not considered convicted for Gun Control Act purposes if he has been pardoned, had his civil rights restored, or the conviction was expunged or set aside, unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration expressly provides the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Persons convicted of a Federal offense may apply for a Presidential pardon. 28 CFR 1.1-1.10 specify the rules governing petitions for obtaining Presidential pardons. You may contact the Pardon Attorney's Office at the U.S. Department of Justice, 500 First Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20530, to inquire about the procedures for obtaining a Presidential pardon.

Persons convicted of a State offense may contact the State Attorney General's Office within the State in which they reside and the State of their conviction for information concerning any alternatives that may be available, such as pardons and civil rights restoration.

[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)]"

However, as I've advised before, don't take my word for it, or the word of anyone else on this forum. If this is more than a hypothetical discussion you should seek the advice of a competent attorney with experience in the applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

chris in va
May 18, 2009, 12:48 AM
I know a guy that was convicted of a felony about 4-5 years ago and sent to prison for two years. He's now talking about getting it expunged so he can start packing a 10mm again.

Tim the student
May 18, 2009, 01:50 AM
I'm sure I will offend those who embrace these dirtbags as there are a small minority that believe that they deserve RKBA, but I've yet to see any of these folks offer to house them or trust them with their wives or daughters.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think its a mistake to lump all convicted felons as "dirtbags".

One of my best friends is a convicted felon. When we were 19, he punched a guy that had beaten up his 14 year old brothers a couple of days prior. Oddly enough, he didn't even start the fight, the other guy did. The other guy (aka 20 year old drug dealing dirtbag non felon) got knocked out by that one punch, and fell and hit his head against a curb, causing brain damage. My friend was convicted of willfull injury, and spent some time in prison. I trust him much more than I trust anyone else on this board - I've known him for more than half my life, whereas I don't really know anyone on this board. He is a felon, and I'm assuming almost all of the people aren't felons on THR, and yet I trust him more than everyone else here.

PS - I would in fact welcome both Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart into my house, and even to be alone with my wife. I don't see them as big threats to anyone's personal safety.

Ditto_95
May 18, 2009, 06:05 AM
Ditto:
No robbery is NOT a non-violent felony.

AR10: I never stated that it wasn't.

Travis Bickle
May 18, 2009, 06:37 AM
Anyway, he is an avid fan of firearms and was telling me that in 5 years his rights will be restored and that he can own firearms again. True?

I believe he may be referring to Kentucky's prohibited possessor statute. Some states' prohibited possessor statutes are considerably less restrictive than the federal prohibited possessor statute and state and local police generally show very little interest in enforcing the federal statute. I've never heard of a single case where someone was arrested just for being in violation of the fed PP statute; that statute is always invoked as an add-on after a person violates some state law (often it will be the state PP statue that they get arrested for violating.)

Anyway, If Kentucky's prohibited possessor statute says he can own guns in five years, then for all practical purposes, he can (provided he can find a private seller that's willing to sell to him.)

DMF
May 18, 2009, 08:04 AM
I've never heard of a single case where someone was arrested just for being in violation of the fed PP statute; that statute is always invoked as an add-on after a person violates some state law.I can guarantee that is not true. I have direct personal experience with several cases where the offender was investigated for, arrested for, and successfully prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(1), and there was never any consideration given to whether or not there was a violation of state law. In fact I've worked in states where there was no prohibition on the possession of ammunition by a felon under state law, and offenders were arrested/prosecuted under 18USC922(g)(1) for possessing ammunition, but not a firearm.

It is foolish/reckless to suggest that someone would not be arrested/prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(1) unless they were also violating state law, as that is simply not true.

alsaqr
May 18, 2009, 08:21 AM
In fact I've worked in states where there was no prohibition on the possession of ammunition by a felon under state law, and offenders were arrested/prosecuted under 18USC922(g)(1) for possessing ammunition, but not a firearm.


Spot on. This is a pretty common federal charge. I personally could care less what happens to a convicted felon who is found to be in possession of a gun or ammo.


http://www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf?/base/news/1231409727268910.xml&coll=3

Smith was arrested on the heels of a December federal grand jury indictment charging him with illegal possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. The indictment alleges that Smith had ammunition Nov. 21. Federal law bars a convicted felon from having a firearm or ammunition.

Travis Bickle
May 18, 2009, 09:03 AM
In fact I've worked in states where there was no prohibition on the possession of ammunition by a felon under state law, and offenders were arrested/prosecuted under 18USC922(g)(1) for possessing ammunition, but not a firearm.

That's probably because they were on parole or something. Besides, what were they originally nabbed for? I'm guessing it wasn't possession of ammunition, but some state-level offense.

Spot on. This is a pretty common federal charge. I personally could care less what happens to a convicted felon who is found to be in possession of a gun or ammo.


http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...910.xml&coll=3

It sounds to me from that article that he originally got entangled with the authorities for other stuff.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
May 18, 2009, 09:33 AM
Sheesh---so much for paying your debt to society and getting a second chance.

If they served their time and run the straight and narrow for 5 years--I'd be all for restoration of rights-----if they wind back up in prison, then it doesn't really matter then does it.

With attitudes like some of you have--they would never even get the OPPORTUNITY to prove themselves rehabilitated.

charliewood
May 18, 2009, 10:13 AM
A felon is a legal label that doesn't necessarily reflect the character of the individual as much as being a non felon would indicate a person to be of good character. Granted that people often will continue along the same "path",but it's not a "given" that they will and each case is different.
I would think those of us that carry should be more understanding of how easy it could be to end up a felon.one "bad" shooting, or one concidered "bad" by twelve people that WANTED jury duty ,could earn you that title FOR LIFE . imho if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm they need to be locked up still.
even felons have a god given right to be able to defend themselves and there families.i feel that a properly operating legal system would keep the DANGEROUS people locked up forever and would bring more fairness to the rest.

ilbob
May 18, 2009, 02:09 PM
If it is a federal crime he was convicted of, AFAIK, the only route available to him is a presidential pardon.

If it is a state crime, he can either get a full pardon, or IF its is available as an option, he can get it expunged. Expungement is not always available. In most states only certain crimes can be expunged, although from what I understand, the limitations on what crimes can be expunged are often fudged by sympathetic judges in Illinois.

armoredman
May 18, 2009, 03:31 PM
DMF, good luck on that presidential pardon. :)

cjw3cma
May 18, 2009, 05:38 PM
Your all wrong! Read the 2nd Amendment - it says nothing about not letting a felony have a gun. They should be issued one when convicted, so as not to trample on their Constitutional rights. Right?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

KBintheSLC
May 18, 2009, 05:50 PM
70 percent of all felons will offend again.

Sounds like he's on work release/halfway house. A felon will say and do anything to get back out on the streets one way or another. I'd never trust the word of a known felon. -jaholder1971

Easy there turbo...

There is a whole slew of frivolous felonies out there, from having an unlicensed firearm in NY, to smoking a joint in NV, to driving through a school zone with a gun in your trunk without a CCW permit.

With more and more laws hitting the books every day, you could be next. Heck, I bet a lot of folks commit felony's without even knowing it. So, please try to tone down your wrathful judgments. You sound like you are on a witch hunt.


...

carebear
May 18, 2009, 09:17 PM
Given that when most "felon in possession" laws were created "felon" and "violent felon" were in practice synonymous, and that since then a whole raft of victimless and utterly non-violent crimes have had their penalties increased to felony status by legislatures seeking to appear "tough on crime" without actually doing anything about the real problems, I would say the time has come for a reexamination of blanket "felon in possession" laws.

If a person didn't commit a crime of violence, there is no reason to believe, based simply on that offense, that they will commit a violent crime in the future.

Since the stated aim of preventing convicted felons from lawfully having firearms is to eliminate (Prohibition always works :rolleyes: ) them from having the tools to reoffend, such prohibition has no relevence to non-violent or victimless crimes.

There's no rational basis for preventing persons convicted solely of non-violent or victimless crimes from having their right to possess firearms automatically returned at the completion of their full sentence.

ar10
May 18, 2009, 11:42 PM
Maybe this will answer the OP question, (but probably not)
Felony Convictions

If you have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, i.e., a felony, you are not only ineligible to possess a CCDW license; federal law prohibits you from possessing a firearm. Individuals subject to this disability should immediately lawfully dispose of their firearms and ammunition. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recommends that individuals who have been convicted of a felony surrender their firearms and ammunition to a third party, such as their attorney, local police agency, or a federal firearms dealer. The continued possession of firearms or ammunition by persons under this disability is a violation of federal law and may subject the possessor to criminal penalties as well as seizure and forfeiture of the firearms and ammunition.

http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/conceal.htm

alsaqr
May 18, 2009, 11:53 PM
A felon is a legal label that doesn't necessarily reflect the character of the individual as much as being a non felon would indicate a person to be of good character.


Suggest that you work as a corrections officer for a year or two and find out that 75 percent of those inmates are total scumbags.

SHvar
May 19, 2009, 12:02 AM
Recidivism rates vary across the country, it averages 70%, it varies from location to location from 64% to 77%. Its all about the choices you make in life.
I know that 70% commit new felonies and are convicted over and over again (not just once), a few never commit felonies again, among the rest, some are killed before they can be convicted, arrested, in the process of being arrested, or killed by other criminals on the street. Some even become worse criminals than they were before.
Its sad that most cannot just change their bad habits and go straight. When you deal with these people, person to person you see why they are in the situation and why the public wants them off the streets.
Some of us have never committed a felony, and never will. So for those of us who live law abiding lives dont group us in with criminals, Im proud of being one of the good guys.
By the way, to restore firearm ownership again takes a non-violent offender to finish their sentence and go straight for 10 years, then to petition the judge that convicted them (or their replacement) and a panel of judges must agree 100% to restore the right. I dont think anyone has had that happen yet. Or to have a pardon handed to you by the president or the governor of the state that convicted you of the state felony.

Tim the student
May 19, 2009, 12:54 AM
Suggest that you work as a corrections officer for a year or two and find out that 75 percent of those inmates are total scumbags.

Sure, I'll buy that.

But I'll also believe that this is true:A felon is a legal label that doesn't necessarily reflect the character of the individual as much as being a non felon would indicate a person to be of good character.

I'm sure we can think of a good amount of felons we believe to be good people (or at least not a total dirtbag), and boatloads more non-felons to be the slime of the earth.

DMF
May 19, 2009, 01:05 AM
That's probably because they were on parole or something. Besides, what were they originally nabbed for? I'm guessing it wasn't possession of ammunition, but some state-level offense.Silly me, I should have known that you would know more about the cases that my team has actually worked than I do! :rolleyes:

What part of, "I have direct personal experience with several cases . . ." did you not understand?

I guess the next time I discuss my real world experience on a particular subject I should check to see if it meets your preconceived ideas that have no basis in the real world. :rolleyes:

Let me be clear. I was talking about cases initiated by federal agents, in which the felon was proven to be in possession of firearms and/or ammunition, and in which there was never any intention of prosecuting the person for any state violation. That includes the ammunition only cases which is why I just said "and/or."

Let me also repeat:
It is foolish/reckless to suggest that someone would not be arrested/prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(1) unless they were also violating state law, as that is simply not true.

DMF
May 19, 2009, 01:18 AM
Given that when most "felon in possession" laws were created "felon" and "violent felon" were in practice synonymous . . . This statement also has no basis in reality. A whole host of property crimes, that are "non violent" have been considered felonies long before many of the laws prohibiting possession of a firearms by felons. Hell, early on the history of this nation in many areas a horse or cattle thief might be subjected to capital punishment, despite the non-violent nature of the crime. Certainly by the time Congress put 18USC922(g)(1) into law in 1968 it was well established that serious, albeit non violent crimes, were felonies.

As to the comment about "victimless" crimes, that is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

Further, to claim that non-violent offenders convicted of a felony should not be prohibited from possessing firearms has no relevance to preventing violent crime I would disagree. As I've said before on this forum:
When someone commits a serious crime they are showing a reckless disregard for society, and the safety of others. I'm not buying the "non-violent" felonies argument. If you commit a serious enough offense to be a felony, then you must suffer the consequences.

Travis Bickle
May 19, 2009, 01:41 AM
Let me be clear. I was talking about cases initiated by federal agents, in which the felon was proven to be in possession of firearms and/or ammunition, and in which there was never any intention of prosecuting the person for any state violation.

Please expatiate on this a little more. I have a very hard time believing that these people did nothing to merit some sort of special attention.

The feds generally have little interest in sending federal agents after Cletus and his fudd gun in Podunk, Kentucky. If a state prosecutor makes a referral the the US prosecutor after he has Cletus locked up for something else, they'll happily take the case, though.

Just for your information, I have a little experience with this, too. I happen to know someone who is prohibited by federal but not state law. The cops have run his name twice while he was in possession of a gun, and he was never arrested. State and local cops around here do not give a sh*t about 18 U.S.C. 922(g). They go by ARS 13-3101.

Travis Bickle
May 19, 2009, 01:44 AM
As to the comment about "victimless" crimes, that is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

Smoking marijuana in the privacy of one's home is victimless. It is also a crime. It is a victimless crime.

jaholder1971
May 19, 2009, 02:14 AM
Easy there turbo...

There is a whole slew of frivolous felonies out there, from having an unlicensed firearm in NY, to smoking a joint in NV, to driving through a school zone with a gun in your trunk without a CCW permit.

So the question remains: Are your freedoms and rights worth risking over a joint in NV, or too many sex toys in Texas, etc.?



With more and more laws hitting the books every day, you could be next. Heck, I bet a lot of folks commit felony's without even knowing it. So, please try to tone down your wrathful judgments. You sound like you are on a witch hunt.

While I agree that there are too many laws and too many felony statutes in most states, it doesn't change my assertion I made above: Is that questionable decision worth possibly losing your rights? Civil Death goes back long before the GCA of 68 when felons lost RKBA and even that's over 40 years old now. It isn't like people don't know a felony rap deep sixes RKBA.

Most everyone who commits a felony knows exactly what they're doing. They've simply made a very poor decision one way or another and ended up on the wrong end of the "risk vs. reward" equation.

rainbowbob
May 19, 2009, 02:37 AM
There's no rational basis for preventing persons convicted solely of non-violent or victimless crimes from having their right to possess firearms automatically returned at the completion of their full sentence.

Yes.

dave_pro2a
May 19, 2009, 02:49 AM
Inalienable right.

If you can't trust someone with a firearm, the sentence should have been longer -- because no law will prevent a bad person from owning a gun.

Amazing how many in this thread support back door gun control. Remember, it was a very small leap from felon to lautenberg.

dave_pro2a
May 19, 2009, 02:58 AM
Recidivism rates vary across the country, it averages 70%, it varies from location to location from 64% to 77%. Its all about the choices you make in life.

Such stats are BS. When you disenfranchise someone, don't be surprised if they get worse and not better.

You've assured they are NOT a part of society, that they will never again be a part of society. Little wonder if they re-offend.

alsaqr
May 19, 2009, 07:56 AM
You've assured they are NOT a part of society, that they will never again be a part of society. Little wonder if they re-offend.


Yep, fine upstanding citizens like these guys are just having their lives trashed by a heartless and uncaring justice system:

http://docapp8.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=428&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&SearchMode=Basic&undefined=Basic&SearchBy=Basic&undefined=ALL&SearchAW=ALL&zip=73501

SHvar
May 19, 2009, 12:41 PM
No, they separate themselves from society by going out of their way to break laws, steal from the rest of us, sell drugs, kill others, etc. I dont do anything to separate them from society, they do it to themselves.
They are so used to being criminals that they decide its easier to just be a criminal and do illegal activities rather than just follow the laws, be honest and work hard for what they want in life, like the rest of us do everyday.
They are not permitted firearm ownership simply because they prove the fact that they commit a felony, then gain access to fireams, then try to commit bigger and worse crimes the next time by their own choice.
If they were so upset about being separated from society they would leave the country or kill themselves, not commit more crimes.
Yes, recidivism, 70% everywhere on average, firsthand fact.

By the way for the respondant above about smoking marijane being a victimless crime, what about all of those other law abiding citizens along the way that are effected by the growing, sale, transportation, missed taxes, distribuition, and other crimes connected with the use of marijane, how are they not victims.
Of course like the old add said "when you smoke it, you dont do anything", also you dont learn anything.

dave_pro2a
May 19, 2009, 01:18 PM
America got along just fine with felons owning guns from 1776 to 1968.

That's 192 years of freedom and things working fine. Then suddenly the pansy a*@, liberal, nanny state decided it was crucial to deny them their inalienable rights. []Yes, makes perfect sense [/sarcasm]

I think I'll go with America's historical norm, and err on the side of freedom.

rainbowbob
May 19, 2009, 02:16 PM
...what about all of those other law abiding citizens along the way that are effected by the growing, sale, transportation, missed taxes, distribuition, and other crimes connected with the use of marijane, how are they not victims.

How are law-abiding citizens victimized by growing, selling, transporting, distributing, etc.?

As for the missed taxes...we all know the solution for that.

Persons that have not commited criminal violence should not be prohibited from owning the tools to defend themselves against criminal violence.

SuperFlanker
May 20, 2009, 12:45 AM
remember, the true felons won't obey gun laws... so the point is moot.

leadcounsel
May 20, 2009, 05:13 PM
I would think it important to know the underlying "crime" that he was convicted for.

Was it a violent crime, a white collar crime, or some BS law that few of us would think is a legit law (you know, mere possession of high capacity magazines or certain guns, knives, brass knuckles, etc. can be a felony in parts of the nation)?

I think that non-violent X cons should have their 2A rights restored as they've paid their price.

ar10
May 20, 2009, 05:55 PM
From OP's original post
He was convicted of burglary and robbery of some bangers house.

Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear..

Hope this clears it up, (after 3 pages).

ronbwolf
May 20, 2009, 08:06 PM
I can see this both ways. First, yes a felon is prohibited from possessing, just to answer the question. Second, for 192 years it was not that way. Remember a LEO of the 1800's, some guy named Wyatt Earp, seems he was a felon in Arkansas, but later one of the most famous, and effective lawmen in history. And if you examine history you will find many like him.

On the other hand, most felons today, and robbery/burglary is and should be a felony, are recidivists. They ally themselves with others in jail, and through their "networks" stay in criminal enterprise.

BTW, to the individual who commented about "smoking marijuana" in their own home. I suggest you reread the paragraph in the form 4473 that asks, "Are you an illegal user of, or addicted to narcotics or dangerous drugs."
Smoking, and possession are still illegal federally, and a "smoker" would be committing a federal felony by answering "no."

carebear
May 20, 2009, 10:10 PM
Think that through, smoking in your home and lying about it makes you a felon for lying on the 4473, not for victimizing anyone else or even being "riskier" with your otherwise lawfully owned firearm.

You could lie on the 4473 and own a hundred guns and if you never commit a criminal or negligent act, you are no threat to public safety. How, rationally, can that felony be treated the same under the law as a convicted armed robber?

The only time anyone, alcohol drinker, prescription drug user for health reasons, illegal drug user, etc, is "riskier" is when they are actively under the influence of their drug of choice. When they are sober they are as "safe" as any non-user.

Therefore the rational, limited and precise way (hmmm, strict scrutiny-ish ain't that?) to promote public safety is therefore to not regulate broadly but simply make it unlawful to possess loaded weapons in public while intoxicated as defined by the law of that state.

Criminalize particular actions that put others at direct risk, not blanket categories of behavior.


As for recidivism rates, those are only utile if controlled for both initial felony conviction type and type of further offenses.

If you are convicted of felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime), and you recommit felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime), then your recidivism rate is irrelevent as you still aren't a risk to others.

Last time I looked at the journals the data on criminal progression from non-violent felonies to violent felonies was, at best, inconclusive. Without facts to back up the assertion that, say, a felony check kiter will use a gun in their next check kiting scheme or go from kiting checks to burglary, there's no rational basis to prevent them from owning one.

SHvar
May 21, 2009, 12:51 AM
"felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime)"
In what fantasy world is using an illegal substance in your home a victimless crime? Its a crime, and it effects many people along the way from its propagation, to its distribuition, and use.
Commonly users of marijane dont realize, or see whats wrong with it.
If you are using it, thats on you, but there is no such animal as a victimless crime.
By the way 90% of convicted felons have committed multiple felonies for many years before they were convicted, the others in their long history were plea bargained down, reduced to lower charges many many times to keep them out of a felony conviction. 90% of these people have been given more chances than you and I could ever imagine, and they dont give a damn about the laws regardless.
So many start with drug sales, then work their way up to violent crimes. Many get wild ideas from other criminals about how to get away with the "big pay-off" and then try it for themselves, only they get caught really easily. Simply put most criminals are very stupid and cocky about what they do, and they get caught easy.

Tim the student
May 21, 2009, 02:15 AM
true felons won't obey gun laws...

What is an untrue felon?

In what fantasy world is using an illegal substance in your home a victimless crime? Its a crime, and it effects many people along the way from its propagation, to its distribuition, and use.

In my fantasy world, a terminal cancer patient that grows their own pot, does not sell it, does not let anyone else smoke it, who is not in posession of any weapons, does not smoke near anyone else, and doesn't leave their house while stoned is pretty victimless. For that (very unusual) instance, can anyone tell me who the victim might be? Other than the guy thats trying to get some pain relief during the process of dying that is. Can anyone tell me who that might affect? Other than the guy dying?

Now replace "cancer patient" with "some guy" and tell me who the victims are.

carebear
May 21, 2009, 03:42 AM
SHvar,

The only reason most of the current associated costs of drug use exist is because they are illegal.

Remove the illegality and 90% of the associated costs disappear.

Alcohol was legal, minimal problems.

Alcohol was criminalized, immediate creation of a black market and associated criminal activity.

Alcohol decriminalized again, immediate cesssation of the black market and associated criminal activity.

The history of drug (alcohol) prohibition is clear, criminalization is purely a blanket, imprecise morally based decision and creates more problems than it solves.

As bad as drug use is for individuals, the overall costs to society would be much lower if the associated criminal activity could be eliminated. Which, as with alcohol, would occur in a minimal amount of time.

When marijuana, opiates and cocaine were not as heavily criminalized (prior to the 20th century) the social costs were minimal. It was when moral crusaders set out to save everyone from themselves that criminals got involved and we all suffered; in violence, economics, loss of rights and the creation of ever more potent and harmful replacement drugs.

Oyeboten
May 21, 2009, 04:04 AM
'Moral' Crucaders make handy front-men, for beurocracies anxious to exploit and impose on the vulnerability, gullibility or wan aquiescence or surrender of the public, for their own agrandizement, their own Coffers, their own power-broker-shares, and their own remourseless self-perpetuation and growth on any pretext, at any cost to others, and at everyone's expense...


One sees this demonstrated with every charter...and every letter-acronym agency...like most parasites, given time, and succour, they sicken or kill the host by overserving their own secular interests, and eventually regarding the Host grudgingly, resentfully, or even as ungrateful servant standing in it's master's way, to be conquered and enslaved and put in it's place as humble and obedient subordinate having no interestsof it's own.


The lessons of History were not unappreciated by the Founding Fathers...


And now-a-days, we are discouraged from learning, or seeing straight, with regard to these lessons, for fear of undersanding...or fear we will understand.

SHvar
May 21, 2009, 12:21 PM
Well Tim, when you find one real example that follows your description word for word, and has never done otherwise you found a single example of it, until then there still are victims involved. Also to get what that person needs to grow it for themselves is breaking the laws under distribuition (a felony), and has victims at all points along the way.
Carebear, if you see it as having no problems if legal then by all means make a goal of it and make it legal, until then there are victims at every step of the process involved.
Ive never met one example of a cancer patient dieing who smokes marijane for pain relief, so until then, its just an excuse to get high, an illegal one.

KyJim
May 21, 2009, 04:08 PM
Wish I had seen this thread earlier.

First, let me state unequivocally that felons in Kentucky do not have any rights automatically restored after a certain number of years, not even the right to vote. They can petition the governor for a partial restoration of rights or a full pardon but these are entirely discretionary with the governor.

For a discussion about the right of Kentucky to prohibit felons from possessing firearms, look at the case of Posey v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 170 (Ky. 2006), available at http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-SC-000060-DG.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=1554&Index=D%3a\Inetpub\wwwroot\indices\SupremeCourt_Index&HitCount=9&hits=4+5+6+1809+180a+180b+1cd0+1cd1+1cd2+&hc=9&req=2004-SC-0060

It includes a lot of historical discussion about English common law. There was one justice who dissented on this issue.

carebear
May 21, 2009, 08:43 PM
SHvar,

You're talking in circles.

People smoking in their homes are breaking the law because smoking in their home is illegal.

Exactly.

The important question from a criminological perspective is why is smoking in one's home illegal in the first place?

Under our system of government (and Enlightenment political theory) individuals start with the right and freedom to do pretty much whatever they want to themselves and their property.

It is only when society can show a concrete harm to the rights of other individuals (not "society" in the abstract) that society is thereby justified in placing restrictions on rights and freedoms.

There is no rational basis, given the example of other nations and our own history prior to criminalization of opiates, cocaine and marijuana, that the mere use, possession or associated sales market has any costs for any other individuals* but the users if said use, possession and marketing is not first criminalized.

Rival liquor and cigarette distributors don't have violent turf wars and (most) people don't steal to support alcohol and cigarette habits.

The history of prohibition in the US is one of moralists attempting to control individuals' (admittedly poor) choices in the search for a more "moral" society, not that there was first any documentable evidence of statistically significant impacts on other individuals.

"Society" doesn't have rights, individuals do. Barring concrete evidence that criminalization has increased public safety (in fact the opposite is true, again based on foreign and historical US Prohibition experience) for other individuals then there is no justification to continue to restrict the rights of individuals to make poor choices.






* Yes, there is an argument to be made that families of users may, repeat may, be negatively affected by their drug use, but those effects are best dealt with on an individual basis by criminalizing the actual behavior (neglect of children, assault, theft, other existing crimes, etc) rather than by general Prohibition.

If you enjoyed reading about "Felons in Kentucky" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!