"Don't lie for the other guy"


PDA

answerguy
February 11, 2003, 12:23 PM
I saw the above sticker at a gun store recently. Seems like a good informational program...


What is the goal of Don't Lie For The Other Guy?
The goal of Don't Lie For The Other Guy is to significantly reduce strawman purchases by informing and educating both retailers and firearms purchasers of the penalties imposed on persons involved in straw purchases of firearms. We hope to better enable retailers to identify potential strawman purchases and encourage them to go beyond the letter of the law when selling a firearm.

...but what is this about? How is the dealer supposed to 'go beyond the letter of the law'?

http://www.nafr.org/DontLie/qna.htm

If you enjoyed reading about ""Don't lie for the other guy"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Steve Smith
February 11, 2003, 12:35 PM
Personally I believe that even felons have a right to keep and bear arms, so this REALLY goes against my grain. Thanks NSSF!

cratz2
February 11, 2003, 12:44 PM
There are bad felons that I'm not so sure should be allowed to legally have arms... There are also felons that shouldn't be felons.

I know one guy, known him for 8 years, he has no reason to lie to me. Was with two guys that for whatever reason busted the lock on a gas station restroom, an outside restroom. Most of the guys he was with were 16 ad 17. He and another guy, that never went in the restroom were both 18. They were the two that the prosecution went after. Breaking and entering. No one would deal and they were both convicted. 90days in jail and a year of probation. And he can never defend his family against real bad guys. Well, not legally anyway.

Is this fair? Would I knowingly buy a gun to give/sell to a known felon? No, probably not. Would I proudly enable a felon, known years to me, to obtain a gun in state? You betcha!

Oleg Volk
February 11, 2003, 12:47 PM
"Going beyond the letter of the law" is newspeak for "discriminate against customers on the basis of appearance". Whoever designed the sticker is either a racist or wishes to set the dealers up for lawsuits...

CZ-75
February 11, 2003, 12:50 PM
Some of these folks should check into expungement. Get their records cleared.

Busting the lock on a gas station bathroom hardly qualifies as a serious crime, but I do wonder why they didn't answer the call of nature outdoors.

NotQuiteSane
February 11, 2003, 01:29 PM
Busting the lock on a gas station bathroom hardly qualifies as a serious crime, but I do wonder why they didn't answer the call of nature outdoors.

I understand in someplaces, like CA, this can get you tagged as a sex offender.

NQS

Bergeron
February 11, 2003, 01:36 PM
I've bought several guns through "strawman" :rolleyes: purchases with my dad before I became of age to buy them myself. These laws are as stupid as they are unenforceable.

Fed168
February 11, 2003, 01:46 PM
Most straw purchases are found out after the fact. I spoke to a local shop owner who deals with it a fair amount, and it gives them fits. Not to start a flame war, but if you own a business you do have the right to refuse service? At least locally, this could have prevented a couple purchases.

MitchSchaft
February 11, 2003, 01:48 PM
Personally I believe that even felons have a right to keep and bear arms

I was thinking the exact same thing while reading the original post!

anchored
February 11, 2003, 02:35 PM
Bullpucky. Felons know quite well BEFORE they commit the crime that there are penalties for doing so, one of which is forfeiture of certain civil rights. By committing the felony, the felons are granting permission to law-abiding society to take those rights away in recompense, same as if someone assaults me while I'm carrying, he is granting me permission to shoot him.


And I entirely miss how the sticker could be racist! That's a huge stretch.

FPrice
February 11, 2003, 02:43 PM
"And I entirely miss how the sticker could be racist! That's a huge stretch."

You missed that also? I am glad that I am not alone.

It's like a sign in my local gun store. States that customers must speak English inside the store. Since it went up he has been accused by several people (mainly women it seems) of being racist against Spanish-speaking people. He calmly points out, "Where on my sign does it refer to spanish-speaking people only?".

MrAcheson
February 11, 2003, 03:00 PM
"I don't believe that felons should lose RKBA" is not a legitimate reason to sell a felon a gun. This is the reason why people call for more regulation of firearms, because obviously some people will not self-regulate.

cordex
February 11, 2003, 03:04 PM
Bullpucky. Felons know quite well BEFORE they commit the crime that there are penalties for doing so, one of which is forfeiture of certain civil rights.
Is that so?
So you at all times know all potential crimes which could conceivably be prosecuted as felonies that might apply to you?

Or what if some slime brings a full-auto converted AR-15 into your gunshop and asks you to adjust the sights or replace the extractor or some other simple task without bothering to inform you about the modifications, and you do so without realizing that you are not licensed to work on full autos, you know quite well prior to the offense what the penalty will be and deserve whatever you get?
(say "it'd never happen" ... I dare you.)

If there were a reasonable number of reasonable laws, and felonies were defined by the extent that the perpetrator has harmed other people or their property, then you would be correct. Unfortunately, our laws are so extensive that one cannot help but be ignorant of some, and ignorance is no defense.

Politically Incorrect
February 11, 2003, 03:20 PM
There are bad felons that I'm not so sure should be allowed to legally have arms...

If they're that bad, then what are they doing out of prison?

Oh yeah, you have to make room for nonviolent drug offenders. :rolleyes:

Steve Smith
February 11, 2003, 03:59 PM
MrAcheson, if a person passes a background check, why must he also pass your personal check? Who gave you the power to decide who may defend themselves and who may not?

Steve Smith
February 11, 2003, 04:01 PM
"And I entirely miss how the sticker could be racist! That's a huge stretch."



The sticker is racist because it is prejudiced against straw men.

JohnBT
February 11, 2003, 04:10 PM
"Personally I believe that even felons have a right to keep and bear arms"

Does that include the ones in jail?

John

Steve Smith
February 11, 2003, 04:33 PM
Well, of course not, but they woudn't be going into a gun store if they're incarcerated, would they? What I'm getting at is after a man is released back into society ois punishment is over. His rights still exist.

Pappy John
February 11, 2003, 04:38 PM
And the ones who have already shown a propensity toward violence?

Justin
February 11, 2003, 04:39 PM
And I entirely miss how the sticker could be racist! That's a huge stretch. It could be considered racist, or at the least, discrimantory because the implication is that the dealer will have to decide whether or not to sell a gun to a person based strictly on their appearance. In other words, if a black person wearing baggy pants and a sideways ball cap comes into the shop, the campaign is asking you to not sell to them, with a wink and a nod.

Or, me, back in my college days when my hair was dyed bright blue.

So while it's not strictly a racist statement, it is encouraging gun dealers to refrain from selling to people who don't fit the mold of having a 'normal' appearance.

Steve Smith
February 11, 2003, 04:58 PM
And the ones who have already shown a propensity toward violence?

If they have already paid their debt to society, where's the problem?


If you have a problem with violent people having access to firearms, I SUGGEST YOU MAKE AN EFFORT FOR GOV'T TO MOVE TOWARD HARDER PUNISHMENT AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. If a man is out in society he has his full unalienable rights, IMHO. However, I would follow the letter of the law...I would definitely NOT go beyond it.

SteyrAUG
February 11, 2003, 05:07 PM
The NSSF is partnered with the ATF on this one.

And the examples are ridculous.

1. Scenario 1: Two men are in my shop. Man 1 points out a firearm and the other guy buys it.

I am supposed to: Decline the sale.

Now what if the other person was merely making a recommendation of a quality gun to a new shooter? What if the one guy owed the otehr guy money and was just apying for the gun to satisfy the debt? What if the other guy was just being nice and buying the gun for him?

This whole straw purchase thing is pure CRAP.

Any real criminal is gonna be smart enough to just sit in the car (or stay at home) while Mr. Straw buys the gun he wants. That is if he doesn't just steal one like MOST criminals.

I have been with plenty of people who are buying a NEW gun and will often help them pick out a good one. According to ATF/NSSF the sale should be declined.

But I gotta disagree with Steve Smith one one issue. Convited Felons forfeit many of their rights (including right to vote or bear arms). Don't wanna lose your rights? Don't commit a felony. I would NOT want a convicted drug dealer/murderer/rapist/gang banger to lawfully own firearms.

Now people will just say that is why you keep them in jail. And I agree, but we both know that don't happen.

The exception being of course those who have had their rights restored.

Steve Smith
February 11, 2003, 05:11 PM
I ain't God, and I ain't preachin'. You don't have to agree with me.

Justin
February 11, 2003, 05:15 PM
The exception being of course those who have had their rights restored. Of course, that's mighty tough, what with the section of the BATF that is supposed to do such things never having received one dime of funding.:scrutiny:

SteyrAUG
February 11, 2003, 05:19 PM
Justin, the ATF doesn't restore your rights, a court does.

You hire a lawyer and a judge decides, etc. This is how people who are convicted felons can once again vote, get government jobs, etc.

I used to work Security Clearance for government employment and it was done quite a few times.

sm
February 11, 2003, 05:27 PM
Personally I see Steve Smith's point.
Less gov't meddlin' and no gun laws suit me fine.

Get into an argument with SO and in many places, jurisdictions, one loses the right to CCW and purchase a firearm. Just because of spite and the 'correct wording' of a report...Average Joe legal citizen is excempt from having guns. Ever notice the 'restraining order' many courts stick onto both parties when filing for divorce?

Reality is- the nasty BG's gonna have guns, laws restrict the responsible citizen for having when needed. The BG's knows the law better than most law abiding citizens. Like NO carry where alcohol served, Fed. State, City, County buildings...etc, just wait for you in parking lot. Your a victim and have no gun...

I say lets even the playing field.

Wildalaska
February 11, 2003, 05:31 PM
Or what if some slime brings a full-auto converted AR-15 into your gunshop and asks you to adjust the sights or replace the extractor or some other simple task without bothering to inform you about the modifications, and you do so without realizing that you are not licensed to work on full autos, you know quite well prior to the offense what the penalty will be and deserve whatever you get?
(say "it'd never happen" ... I dare you.)



Dare taken...Never will happen...never...

Ebbtide
February 11, 2003, 05:31 PM
Oh brother, here we go again with the “debt to society”.

Most felons never "pay their dept to society". If you want proof, look in your wallet.

I pay to house the felon in jail.
I pay higher insurance premiums because I live in a high crime area.
I pay my doctor more because the DUI artist hit someone without insurance.
I pay increased city taxes because we need more cops.
I pay higher county taxes because we need more judges and prosecutors.
I pay, and pay and pay and have received nothing back.

Most felon's criminal acts have far reaching ramifications including the depravation of piece of mind when I am taking advantage of my rights. So touché, you take my rights, we will take yours.

Part of their “debt to society” is the loss of some rights (yea, I prefer to look at it as punishment). I hope they learned their lesson and stop preying on the weak.

There are exceptions to this rule, but once we let one in, we will have to let them all in.

ehenz

jmbg29
February 11, 2003, 05:34 PM
it was done quite a few times.Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is a felon that got his rights restored. He briefly described the process at two different gun rights conferences that I attended.

EJ
February 11, 2003, 05:49 PM
There are some rough circumstances--

A friend of mine had a Juvenile pot conviction that was expunged--
For those of you who don't have access to rap sheets--
Expunged means there is the originalentry and below it -- a comment stating by virtue of this court decision --(Cites follow) the above conviction is hereby expunged--
Hence it is still on his/her record-

This guy had his wife buy his guns because he used tolive in Peoples Republic of Ill.
Now he lives in another state and doesn't have this problem --In Ill he couldn't get a gun card -- hence couldn't buy a gun--
Even though there is no realprohibition against his ownership rights--
I know -- He could have sued--He looked into it -- five grand up front with NO guarantees--(of course)

We live in a country basaed on an adversary system foir criminal justice--
Also based on a "letter of the law" for enforcement--
When an offense is evaluated for prosecution and/or arrest -- one has to look at the law itself -- (the letter of that particular law) and determine- if the law was in fact violated -- not in spirit but based on the statute as it is written--

It is exceptionally inappropriate for a government to encourage its citizens to take the law above it's literal meanings and
(pre-enforce) it--
That's not how our system or this country works-- I don't know if that's bad or good --but it is reality--

LEOs often enforce laws that are distastefull to them-- though obviously an attempt is often made to avoid this -- because of a complaint or if the offense is a Felony --it often cannot be ignored--
That is the Letter of the law--

Our government is acting in bad faith if it encourages its citizens to act differently than it requires of its own agents--

answerguy
February 11, 2003, 05:50 PM
Although I understand the arguement that says felons should be able to buy guns after serving their jail terms because they have paid their debt to society. I would hope it would be near the very bottom of everybodies list of things to do in regards to gun rights. I can't imagine a politician having that as one of the 'planks' in his election platform. I believe it would make him unelectable. As long as there is a system in place to restore gun rights to no-violent felons I think we have all we need in this area for a long time.

GregoryTech
February 11, 2003, 05:52 PM
It is a FELONY to put a bag of garbage in a dumpster at the city stables in Pompano Beach, Florida. This is why a blanket statement like "Felons shouldn't have guns" is wrong. When the government decides that too many lives are lost to speeders (there are) and decides to make speeding a felony "for the children" perhaps you'll think differently. We are incrementally losing our rights as more crimes are classified as "felonies" and that's just the way "they" want it.

answerguy
February 11, 2003, 06:01 PM
It is a FELONY to put a bag of garbage in a dumpster at the city stables in Pompano Beach, Florida. This is why a blanket statement like "Felons shouldn't have guns" is wrong. When the government decides that too many lives are lost to speeders (there are) and decides to make speeding a felony "for the children" perhaps you'll think differently. We are incrementally losing our rights as more crimes are classified as "felonies" and that's just the way "they" want it.

Can you provide a link?

GregoryTech
February 11, 2003, 06:09 PM
Can you provide a link?

I'll take a picture of the sign the next time I'm there and post it.

Ebbtide
February 11, 2003, 06:10 PM
It is a FELONY to put a bag of garbage in a dumpster at the city stables in Pompano Beach, Florida. This is why a blanket statement like "Felons shouldn't have guns" is wrong. When the government decides that too many lives are lost to speeders (there are) and decides to make speeding a felony "for the children" perhaps you'll think differently. We are incrementally losing our rights as more crimes are classified as "felonies" and that's just the way "they" want it.

Garbage in stable dumpsters of course should not be a felony. But I think you are attacking the wrong end of the argument.

The fight should be to make a felony a felony and keep guns out of the hands of people who can not demonstrate an ability to follow the rules of society.

Speed Kills!!!

Edited to add: this my my 100th post:D

redneck
February 11, 2003, 06:23 PM
I was about to say the same thing ehenz
The problem isn't that felons can't buy firearms, the problem is who the felons are. The whole legal system regarding crime and punishment is way off. There's guys with multiple DUI's getting less punishment than the guy who gets in an accident changing stations on the radio. Both do something stupid, but the consequences sure shouldn't be the same.
The whole system needs reworked so that the punishment matches the crime.

Justin
February 11, 2003, 06:46 PM
Justin, the ATF doesn't restore your rights, a court does.

You hire a lawyer and a judge decides, etc. This is how people who are convicted felons can once again vote, get government jobs, etc. D'oh. My bad. I seem to recall reading awhile back that the ATF had something to do with restoring gun rights. I guess not then?:confused:

Pappy John
February 11, 2003, 07:31 PM
I should have hung around, but I went to supper. I"M TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE FELONY ASSAULT! Yeah, lets give this guy his carry rights back as he leaves the prison, where he learned to perfect his chosen profession.:rolleyes: I know he should stay inside, but facts is...he's gonna be on the street in a couple of years:cuss: He's the reason I carry! I know he'll have a weapon, but we don't have to make it easier for him.

EJ
February 11, 2003, 07:51 PM
I am really stuck here--

First -- I think that the government has included many too many offenses // violations as felonies-- I Believe it has been spawned as a way to get around soft sentencing judges-- But obviously that's not the way to fix the problem--

That said-- regardless of why a person is a felon-- I don't believe that person should have a firearm untillhe/she can straighten it out lawfully -- if possible-- I should also note here that I believe we should also prevent the reinstatement of any Felon's right to seek public office and this is done much too often--

But as to the domestic abuse law problem and immediate forfeiture of firearms and firearm rights -- I believe that's way too far. Many people get trapped into this by the word of an obnoxious, lying ex-"Domestic Partner"-- No REAL Due Process in many of these cases-- just administrative-- How do you "prove" someone else isn't afraid of you???:rolleyes:

And then we have other increased restrictions on firearm ownership -- like in States that have Gun cards ETC ETC--
The Fed restrictions are enough--
How can the Fed Gov expect the Public to over-enforce the laws when the states do it on their own?

SteyrAUG
February 11, 2003, 07:55 PM
FYI, when I use the term "Felon" I am generally referring to someone who IS guilty of a violent felony. I thought these things were a given and that it was understood nobody is calling for the restrictions of a persons rights for illegal dumping.

I didn't think I had to be so specific on a firearm board as they are usually comprosed of people with common sense.

EJ
February 11, 2003, 07:59 PM
Really -- It's just not worth the risk--
Not that I want to yell this from the rooftops -- but it is still easy to get a gun via a private sale -- gun show --ETC ETC--
SO
Why risk it for yourself--

Let whomever it is that has a conflict with the system get a firearm on the "grey" market--
Keep your own nose clean--

Dex Sinister
February 11, 2003, 10:15 PM
FYI, when I use the term "Felon" I am generally referring to someone who IS guilty of a violent felony. I thought these things were a given and that it was understood nobody is calling for the restrictions of a persons rights for illegal dumping.

I didn't think I had to be so specific on a firearm board as they are usually comprosed of people with common sense.

In this age of "offence inflation" where "lying to a federal officer," is a felony, but them lying to you is perfectly legal, I don't see where common sense enters into it.

If you're going to make blanket statements, then you become the puppet of those people who manipulate the system by denying "felons" the right to own guns, and then making everything under the Sun a felony.

Dex :evil:

redneck
February 11, 2003, 10:20 PM
I don't think anyone here is saying they would be the "strawman" and buy guns for felons.
They're saying they don't agree with encouraging dealers to play cop and go beyond the letter of the law.
As a seller whether private of licensed, you have to watch your back and make sure that everything is legal in regards to the sale, especially your end of the sale. And of course your not going to sell it to the guy who says he wants it to kill his wife,even when he legally has the right to own a gun.
You don't have any control over what the buyer will use the gun for and its not really your business in the end though. Common sense should always be used. But I don't like the idea of encouraging people to play judge to the extent of enacting the law in a stricter sense.

JeremyIA
February 11, 2003, 10:33 PM
This is a great post because it raises the question regarding the actual purpose of incarceration. Paid their debt to society? Hardly! I assert that someone who does time actually has become MORE indebted to society whose tax dollars had to fund their stay in the Big House. I believe that incarceration should not be a means of rehabilitation OR a means of "repaying a debt to society". I believe that society has the right to be relieved of the presence of criminal dirtbags for a period of time. Incarceration makes that possible.

cordex
February 11, 2003, 11:43 PM
Dare taken...Never will happen...never...
You mean that it will never happen to you?
Why ... because you don't work on ARs? But completely beside the point.

It has happened. You are familiar with the Bob Stewart case, are you not? The entire point being that some felons haven't even done anything that a sane individual would consider wrong.

Psssniper
February 12, 2003, 12:45 AM
Mangled Shakespeare Tales

A Felon, A Felony? this is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in these days to suffer
The laws and precepts of unjust rulers,
Or to take arms against a sea of alaphabet Ninja's
And by opposing, end them. To fight, to win.

Marko Kloos
February 12, 2003, 07:43 AM
The fight should be to make a felony a felony and keep guns out of the hands of people who can not demonstrate an ability to follow the rules of society.

Nyuk, nyuk. Let's make another batch of rules to keep guns out of the hands of people who already demonstrated they don't obey rules.

Aren't we telling the Liberals all the time that felons don't obey the law by definition? Aren't we constantly pointing out that making access to guns just minimally more difficult for felons results in making that same access near impossible for law-abiding folk?

They're trying to "keep guns out of the hands of felons" in Chicago and D.C. by denying gun ownership to everyone, felon or not. Does it work? Why do D.C. and Chicago routinely show up in the top 10 cities with the most gun crime?

GregoryTech
February 12, 2003, 09:34 AM
The problem is, that by supporting "no guns for felons," you ARE supporting no guns for illegal dumpers (and eventually... smokers who have the gall to smoke in a public restaraunt in PRK). This is just the way incrementalism works. First get support for things that are hard to oppose "NO Felon with a GUN!" Get everyone on board and then start chipping away at the other end by making everything a felony. The next thing you know, you're unwittingly supporting the law that makes it a crime for an illegal dumper to own a gun for self-defense.

Nobody WANTS violent felons to have guns. Nobody WANTS it easy for them to get one. But evaluate what you're supporting with more than a casual observance. No law will ever stop a criminal from obtaining a weapon he "needs" for his "job." By trying to make it difficult for "a felon" to get a gun, you actually make it MUCH MORE difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns. The result is that the felons you were trying to target in the first place now have the advantage. They use their illegal sources without waiting periods and background checks, while the law abiding sit unarmed and intimidated by the legal process. The harder you try to make it for felons to get guns, the easier you make their job. The softer you make their targets.

It's one thing to be "stuck with" a bad law, it's another thing entirely to support and defend the idea. By being manipulated into supporting a blanket "no guns for felons" law, you are actually supporting slow but steady incremental steps to losing YOUR gun rights. Don't think it can't happen to you. "They" are trying very hard to make it just so.

Ebbtide
February 12, 2003, 09:46 AM
Nyuk, nyuk. Let's make another batch of rules to keep guns out of the hands of people who already demonstrated they don't obey rules

Aren't we telling the Liberals all the time that felons don't obey the law by definition? Aren't we constantly pointing out that making access to guns just minimally more difficult for felons results in making that same access near impossible for law-abiding folk?

I did not say I have a reasonable answer . If I could figure this out, the world would be a much more simple place.

Our rights shoulds not be infringed, but that is the way it seems to go. I don't think allowing a violent fellons to legally obtain a gun is the answer to improving my RKBA.

Steve Smith
February 12, 2003, 09:49 AM
Steyr, I am not saying light felon vs. heavy felon...I include all felons in my beliefs.

If they are still violent, WHY are they out on the streets?


If a man is released, he is released. If you don't want him to have his rights restored, don't let him out in the first place.

Ebbtide
February 12, 2003, 09:58 AM
It's one thing to be "stuck with" a bad law, it's another thing entirely to support and defend the idea. By being manipulated into supporting a blanket "no guns for felons" law, you are actually supporting slow but steady incremental steps to losing YOUR gun rights. Don't think it can't happen to you. "They" are trying very hard to make it just so.

Good job at connecting the dots. But it is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

It sound like the commercial that tells me by driving my SUV with gas from the mid-east makes me a supporter or terrorism.

Peace,

ehenz

Ebbtide
February 12, 2003, 10:06 AM
If a man is released, he is released. If you don't want him to have his rights restored, don't let him out in the first place.

If I may weigh in here...

Serving his sentence in jail is only part of his debt, rehabilitation, and punishment. The rest of his sentence is the loss of his rights.

If you abuse the powers of freedom, violate another’s rights, cause pain and suffering to law abiding free people be prepared to suffer the consequences.

I difference in philosophy I suppose, I will give yours some more thought if you can explain why you feel this way.

Thanks,

ehenz

Steve Smith
February 12, 2003, 10:16 AM
Our rights were not given to us by man and therefore cannot be taken away by man. At most, we can suspend those rights while a man is being punished. Does a man released from prison not have the right to free speech? Does he not have freedom of religion? Why then, can he not defend those rights, nor himself?

The punishment is carried out by the penal system, not a tyrannical society. That man's punishment should end the day he steps away from the prison gates. He is a FREE MAN. If you have a problem with voilent felons being released into society, do as I do and fight for harder sentences and the death penalty. Do not blame the felon for being released. Blame the WEAK and INEFFECTIVE system for releasing him.

Btennison
February 12, 2003, 10:16 AM
You'd be suprised what can constitute a felony these days. In Oregon, ANY domestic violence in front of children is a felony. Now I don't condone "wife beating" but domestic violence can be anything that leaves the smallest red mark or just frightens the wife to the point she wants the husband gone.

Here's one for you that happened in my small town. "Dad" (in his mid 50's) has his daughter and her husband living with him & "Mom" while they were looking for a house. Dad was sitting in his recliner, watching TV when daughter went off on him for some reason. After listening to her, up in his face, for awhile he pushed her away, she tripped over a stool and landed on her butt. Next second she's on the phone to 911 reporting the assault. Bad news for Dad, the grandbaby was in the room.

Dad was arrested for assault-4 APA (Abuse Prevention Act) FELONY. It could happen to you, just that easy!

bogie
February 12, 2003, 10:24 AM
Guys, fachrissake! It's a publicity campaign that's essentially designed to let folks know about the illegality of strawman purchases. That's ALL it is. Frankly, if I was working in a gun store, and some guy came in, picked out a heater, and then had his wife do the sale, I wouldn't do it. You do the crime, you do the time.

.45Ruger
February 12, 2003, 10:25 AM
I see the problem as consisting of trying to classify all felons together. Putting an eighteen year old car thief on the same level as a child molester is not only unjust but it also violates common sence. It seems to me that felons need to be classified as individuals rather than a class of undesireables. When a person is released from prison they have paid their debt to society and they should not be denied these rights rather they be voting or RKBA.

JohnBT
February 12, 2003, 10:29 AM
"You don't have to agree with me."

But I do agree with you.

OTOH, I'm not sure I can make a good argument for someone who has served his time for robbing six banks at gunpoint, or whatever at gunpoint, having a carry permit. Not a point I would like to try and win in a public debate.

John

Steve Smith
February 12, 2003, 10:45 AM
John, I agree with that as well.

Of course, the whole PREMISE of the carry permit is unconstitutional as well! Yeah, I have one...but its still uncostitutional.

GregoryTech
February 12, 2003, 11:57 AM
Good job at connecting the dots. But it is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? ...

No I don't. Who would have ever thought that illegal dumping could impede your rights to "legally" own guns. But it does. Iguess one doesn't have to stretch too far after all.

treeprof
February 12, 2003, 12:55 PM
Justin - You are at least partially correct. ATF is responsible for processing requests (basically a screening of the applicant) for restoration of RKBA for convicted felons. Congress has denied funding for such processing since 1992. In late 2002, SCOTUS ruled that judges cannot restore such rights w/out the ATF screening, and applicants cannot appeal failure to restore RKBA w/out a prior ATF decision denying such request. Thus, Congress specifically denying funding for such requests effectively cuts off all avenues for restoration of RKBA. Clarence Thomas authored the SCOTUS decision.

cordex
February 12, 2003, 01:46 PM
For the "When I say felon, I mean violent felon and you are silly to think I mean otherwise" crowd:
If violent felons were the only ones denied RKBA, you would have a point, and people bringing up illegal dumping would be silly.
Unfortunately, the prohibition against felon gun ownership makes no such distinctions. A convicted murderer gets the same prohibition as the guy who tosses a trash bag into the wrong dumpster.

I don't think it should be legal for violent felons to buy or own guns. Our criminal "justice" system is not set up to rehabilitate efficiently. The only question in my mind is determining how to enforce that without placing Susan Stalkervictim in danger and without making things yet harder on the average gunowner. Placing very large and obvious tattoos on the foreheads of released violent felons, perhaps? Anyone with a large amount of scar tissue on their head could be run through a quick background check. Yeah, it'd make their life harder, but maybe that should be part of their punishment.

I'm not sure I buy the "paid their debt to society" bit ... not sure how 10-20 years pays any debts when an innocent person is killed or paralyzed or whatever ... and I'm not sure why "society" is owned a darn thing. Lost tax revenue, perhaps? Cry me a river Mr. Politico.

Ebbtide
February 15, 2003, 11:33 AM
btt

Why?

Because I have committed a felony.

I guess I must rethink my position on this subject. Today, I went to get my emmisions test for the State of Ohio (big rip-off, but another story) so I could go and register my car (yet another rip-off, yet another story).

Inside the "test center" as they call it, on a big sign: "Offering cash to attendents for an altered emmisions outcome IS A FELONY!"

Now, I'm not proud of it, but there have been a few past occasions where I requested that "service" and the other parties complied (In years past you had to get one every year, regardless of the age of the car, and it cost 40.00. Then independent investigators found the the system was so flawed that some 70% of results were inaccurate. Was later ruled to be exsessive and reduced to twenty bucks and every other year).

There is no way that making an offer should restrict my gun rights. Even if the offer is in jest, it is a FELONY :what:

answerguy
February 15, 2003, 01:06 PM
Come on ehenz,

You have to actually be convicted of a felony before you're considered a felon. The chances of a DA going for a felony in a case as you described is very slim. It's like the fine for littering; $100 or 90 days in jail. You don't really think anyone is going to jail for littering do you?
Gary

benEzra
February 15, 2003, 01:07 PM
Putting a folding stock on a mini-14 is a felony.

Writing a bad check in Florida restaurant is a felony.

Taking some of your wife's prescription allergy medicine (or ANY prescription medicine) is a felony.

Putting some dirt in that low spot in your backyard is a felony, if someone comes along later and decides it's a wetland. (Yes, people DO get convicted of this in Florida . . .)

In some states, isn't speeding 15 mph over the limit (like 71 mph on a 55-mph stretch of Interstate) a felony?

Rescuing a baby robin that falls out of the nest, or picking up a discarded songbird feather, is a felony if you knew you weren't supposed to without a Federal license. (Violation of Migratory Bird Treaty act; I have the cite from the U.S. Code around here somewhere.)

Swatting that fly on your picnic table could be a felony if it happens to be a rare fly protected under the ESA.

There was a bill here in Florida a while back to make walking through a professional fern grower's field a felony if you stepped on a fern. (Fortunately, it failed to pass.)

In Florida, tresspassing while in possession of a firearm is a felony. (Walking to your tree stand while hunting and accidentally cut across someone's land because you didn't see the sign?)

Until such "felonies" are reduced to the misdemeanors that they really are, I CANNOT support a blanket prohibition against all "felons" owning firearms. Particularly, if you accidentally commit a nonviolent "felony" at age 18, you cannot own a gun even fifty years later, and YOU CAN NO LONGER GET YOUR RIGHTS RESTORED short of a pardon from the governor or President.

And yes, prosecutors DO sometimes press charges for such petty felonies. Maybe it looks good on their record, or maybe they're just a zealot, or maybe convicting you of a felony with no time served serves their purpose of allowing your evil gun collection to be confiscated.

bE

If you enjoyed reading about ""Don't lie for the other guy"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!