Convicted Felons and Self Defense. What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just transporting my gun home from the range the wrong way, or stopping for a burger or gas on the way home is a felony in some states. I should lose my rights for the rest of my life over some b.s. unconstitutional law? I don't agree with that.
Violent felons need to spend a long time (or forever) in prison, when they are deemed responsible and trustworthy enough to be allowed back into society as free men, they should be treated as such.
The gun grabbers in government are creating felonies out of what used to be misdemeanors, it seems like another way of taking away the 2nd amendment rights.
Infact, some states prohibit gun possession if you have ever been convicted of a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of a year or more in prison. There are so MANY small acts that most would not realise was criminal that fall under this now.
 
If they're too violent or unstable to be trusted with a weapon, they shold still be in prison. If they've paid their due they have every right to defend themselves.
 
My thought is this:

A. He obtained the gun illegally.
B. He is not allowed to own a gun by law.
C. He should pay the consequences.

I agree... there should be more that goes into the decision to ban ex-cons from owning guns (like non-violent misdemeanors), but currently there aren't and we need to uphold the laws that are in place.
 
"Because of a 2004 felony conviction for cultivating marijuana, Dutton - a nephew of Hurricane Mayor Tom Hirschi - is prohibited from possessing firearms."

I wonder how much of our tax money was wasted locking up people like this guy. Just legalize the crap and tax the holy ever living beejesus out of it like everything else and stop wasting out time with it.

YEAR MARIJUANA ARRESTS

2005 786,545
2004 771,608
2003 755,187
2002 697,082
2001 723,627
2000 734,498
1999 704,812
1998 682,885
1997 695,200
1996 641,642
1995 588,963
1994 499,122
1993 380,689
1992 342,314
1991 287,850
1990 326,850

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html
 
Felon Forever

Well, let's examine some "everybody knows" items.

Everybody knows . . .
  • people don't change their personalities.
  • people never learn from their mistakes.
  • real rehabilitation is not possible.
  • that "correction" as in "Department Of Corrections" is not possible, and that it really ought to be called "Department Of Arbitrary Punishments."
  • once you've done something bad, you are ALL bad, forever.
So I have to wonder, why isn't the death penalty the standard for all felonies?

I mean, think.

Really.

It is possible to own something in one state, and be completely okay. The ownership of that same item in another state is a criminal act -- a felony -- and you are now a bad person and beyond any redemption.

It's pretty simple, really: it's control through criminalization. If you are always guilty of something then you're a lot easier to control. If you step out of line, it's only an afternoon's work to determine which of your many crimes shall be charged to you. And so you behave yourself, to whatever degree you are able.

When a person can be a felon, simply "because I said so," and when we can cherry-pick which rights he's "allowed to have" (following me here?) after he's been labeled "felon" (because we can, that's why), then we can pretty much control his life.

We let him back out on the streets, precisely because we know we can trust him to behave, and then pretend we can't trust him (hey, he's a felon), so we can deny him a select subset of rights.

Or, we really don't care whether we expose society to the dangers attendant upon letting a violent felon out; we let him out so we have a plausible excuse for regulating everyone's behavior (hey, it's hard to distinguish felons from citizens).

Pretty sick, huh?

We can't keep really really bad people incarcerated, because that would be cruel. We have to let them out into the general population. Because they've "paid their debt" to society. The fact that we are pretty sure they'll do something violent again (see "correction is not possible") and we let them wander unrestricted among the general population is not cruel to the members of society who will now be required to prove they're not felons (hey, it's hard to distinguish felons from citizens) while the actual felons are allowed to commit their next violent crime unrestrained, is irrelevant, because excessive imprisonment is cruel.

And we can't fix them anyway.

And a felony is whatever we say it is.

Hey, I can keep writing this brain-breaking stuff as long as you can stand to read it.

Or . . . we could look back 150 years or so.

Man commits crime. Man stands trial. Crime too heinous? Yes: hang him. No: start egg timer for sentence. Once the man has served his time, give him back his personal stuff and let him out.

Completely out.

He gets work, borrows money, whatever. He goes shopping, gets horse, saddle, sidearm, rifle, ammo, bedroll, groceries, and so on. He moves on with his life. If he's smart enough, he stays out of jail, becomes productive member of society.

Worth noting that in the society where this man lives, everybody else is also armed. Being armed is normal. An unarmed man is . . . a little weird. Maybe he's the pastor or something.

Our ex-felon makes his choices and either stays clean or gets in trouble. If he keeps screwing up he gets shot or hanged. If he adapts to society, observes the moral codes, he lives longer.

And crime? Way lower than what we see today.​
Today?

Right & wrong no longer taught. It's all about the feeeeeelings and whatever feels good is okay. Self esteem is king. Achievement is over-rated. MTV is art. Parents must defer to school authorities or risk accusations of child abuse, child neglect, etc., and schools encourage kids to report on parents.

Result: more violence per capita in youth than ever in U.S. history.

Must make laws to protect the children.

Law mills crank out new and improved felonies to keep up with the mysterious increase in social violence.

Frightened people willingly surrender rights to be safer.

New and better felonies create highest prison population on Earth.

Overcrowding means felons are released. Not rehabilitated. Just released.

But this is okay, because we screen everybody before letting them exercise their rights.

Thank God felons don't get to have guns.

Think how dangerous the world would be.

Just in case it's not clear where I stand on this:

If you trust him enough to let him out among the general population, give him back his rights. All of them. If you can't trust him enough to let him own a gun, don't let him out.
 
Convicted felons, serving time or not, should lose all rights.

If felonies were limited to murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, treason, espionage and serious crimes of that nature, I might agree with you. The problem is that many states now have over 3000 felonies on the books and those felonies include stupid stuff like digging oysters without a permit and possession of pot. Denying those people their rights for the duration of their lives does not even vaguely resemble justice or fairness.
 
Arfin, That is the best essay I have read on the current status of our criminal IN-Justice system. Well said and I agree 100%.

Our Laws need an overhaul soon or there is going to be a civil war. People can only stand so much injustice before they blow.
 
Interestingly enough,

I grew up in and near Hurricane, Tom Hirschi is also the town barber, or was for many years. I think his shop is still on State Street, but I'm not sure if he still works there. He was also a school-bus driver, wrestling referee and announcer at many of our sporting events. He was cutting my hair when I was about four. This is the same High School area as Virgin Utah, which has a mandatory firearms ownership law, and La Verkin, which sought to ban the U.N. a few years ago. How I miss home.

(Not that it's REALLY relevant, but the man who was mayor a couple of administrations previously was Lyndon Bradshaw, who was cited and convicted for poaching a deer while he was mayor. He had told the game warden that his delightful wife, Emma, had shot the deer the previous day and he was just recovering it. A thoughtful phone call by the game warden revealed that Emma had been out of the country for some time. The police in that town? Don't get me started. Anyhooo,)

I heard about the shooting, and looked up the address, two doors down from a good friend of mine. I hadn't seen the house in many years, so I had to picture it being a sleazy duplex, as described in the news story. I wondered if the Dutton kid was related to his older relatives whom I also know. I guess he is.

When this has been discussed before, I had previously said that if I were a cop, and I was in a person's home for an unrelated matter, and that person was a convicted felon, and I saw a firearm of a defensive nature in the home, with NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THAT PERSON INTENDED TO USE IT TO COMMIT ANY CRIME WITH IT, I would probably look the other way. (This is one of many reasons it's probably a good thing I'm not a cop.) However, in this case. it isn't at all clear that theis convicted felon didn't posess the firearm in concert with committing other crimes. If I was in HIS house for a complaint about violent and/or drug activity, and there was a gun there, yes, I would confiscate it.

TO ME, this is the difference between someone who lives in a bad neighborhood and has a legitimate fear for his life and needs means of defense, and a person who is THE REASON it is a bad neighborhood and EVERYONE ELSE needs means of defense.

I guess this is a true test of deciding that you are really committed to defending your life, and that all other consequences are secondary. We all say we would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. This guy has been given the opportunity to back it up. And knowing the jury pool in that county, He's going to have plenty of quiet time to decide if it was really worth it.

I have also pondered if we should draw the line at VIOLENT felony to ban posession of firearms.
 
I'm much less concerned about who owns or possesses a weapon and much more concerned about the behavior they engage in while using the gun.

You use a gun in an assault, rape, theft, etc. prison should be the norm. You get out fine. Want a gun? Fine. Use it correctly or go back to prison again.

Felon in possession of a firearm = jail time.
3rd Armed Robbery = probation.

Doesn't seem right to me.

As I noted in another post. I was convicted of a felony 35 years ago. Burglary, age 17, drugs were involved. Sentenced to two years in prison because I was arrested (not convicted) for possession of marijuana. I have not been particularly concerned about owning a gun until recently and have applied, received, and am awaiting the paperwork for a pardon.

I can't have a gun to defend my family. My wife would have to own it. Even then, its still possible for her to be charged and convicted for a straw purpose. There are many people who have convictions when young. Taking away there rights forever isn't necessarily the right response.
 
Don't commit a felony and it's not a problem, and if you do commit one take all other available precautions to protect yourself.

I think only violent felons should be barred from Firearm possession... That, or don't release them at all...
 
Brilliant Arfin!! outstanding! This is exemplary writing that speaks volumes of our Justice system on the Sentence and Correction level in our Country.
 
Convicted felons, serving time or not, should lose all rights.

So you're in favor of mandatory life sentences with no parole or capital punishment for all felonies?

Saying they should lose all rights is casting a pretty broad net, and I'm pretty sure that anyone left to survive in a system that doesn't recognize them having any rights doesn't have much reason to respect that system. What would you do with no right to own property, no right to negotiate contracts, no right to fair compensation for your labor, etc.?
 
Where is the "church lady" when you need her?

There is plenty of "self-righteousness" being expressed here, she would fit right in.

They say that confession is good for the soul, so I will step up to the plate and be the first one to confess. I have committed a felony. I have carried a concealed weapon into a place where I was prohibited by law, an offense that if prosecuted and convicted would have stripped me forever of my right to own or possess or handle a firearm. I wasn't caught, I wasn't prosecuted, I wasn't convicted. Never mind that I have never engaged in violent, criminal behavior. This one infraction, alone, would have been sufficient to remove my firearms rights, forever.

Come on brothers and sisters, how about you? Can you honestly state that you have NEVER committed an act, knowingly or unknowingly, which could have resulted in a felony conviction? Let the one without sin be the first to throw a stone.
 
Can you honestly state that you have NEVER committed an act, knowingly or unknowingly, which could have resulted in a felony conviction?

Yep.

Edited to add: After some discussion with another member of the board, I should qualify that I have done nothing that I know is a felony, however there may be some obscure law on the books that I am not aware of, such as "felony taking too many baths on sunday" or some such nonsense that may be on the books, but certainly wouldn't result in a conviction.
 
Denying released felons the right to own firearms is a poor fix for a flawed system.

Anyone that is such a danger to the public that they can't be trusted with a firearm won't care what the law says and shouldn't be at large in the first place.

Anyone that can be trusted to live peacefully with the rest of the public, should not be denied any of their human rights, including the right to self defense.
I could not have said it better.
 
Question

Under federal law are felons prohibited from purchasing firearms or owning them?
 
Can you honestly state that you have NEVER committed an act, knowingly or unknowingly, which could have resulted in a felony conviction?

Nope.. And I would bet money that I am not in the minority.
 
I'm not a fan of marijuana, but being banned for life from owning guns because they found a joint in your ashtray in 1988 is a little excessive.

huge point the variance in what a felony is!

a huge pile of weed in many states is a traffic ticket while it is a felony in others, and there are many similar examples........

Can you honestly state that you have NEVER committed an act, knowingly or unknowingly, which could have resulted in a felony conviction?
Nope.. And I would bet money that I am not in the minority.

i find that incredibly hard to believe, especially on a site full of gun owners.
especially considering the variance of laws
MAYBE in your state you haven't committed a felony, but i bet you have in mine!

if "felony" really meant what it initially intended to, it would be closer to ok with me but as it is it is RIDICULOUS.
In Arizona, any misdemeanor committed while wearing a red mask is considered a felony.
VIRGINIA Co-habitating by a unmarried couple is a felony.
#


# 750.532 Seduction; punishment.
Sec. 532. - Any man who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars; but no prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense. History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.532
 
Question
Under federal law are felons prohibited from purchasing firearms or owning them?

banned from purchase,. possesion of guns, parts, or AMMO

-previously owned guns= you can collect the proceeds from sale of, but you must immediately move to another location and sell
 
In the state of Washington, If you are a dead beat dad, or do on-line out of state gambling you are a class C felon , when caught.

Also A fellow soldier was drummed out of the army, and lost his gun rights for hitting his step-son with a piece of dog ****. Ture story.

This guy knew the price he would pay for having the firearm. I guess the safety of his family meant more.
 
My solution is to lock them up for a very, very, very, long time. That way even if they get access to some kind of weapon they can't inflict more injury on the general public.

...which means as well that the victim/prior felon in this case would still be in jail and would not have had to worry about being attacked, right? Seems like a pretty expensive proposition for me and other taxpayers to have to foot the bill for. Still, I see many sides on the issue, and we don't live in a perfect world.

I guess I have a different 2 cents in this case. If a person commits a felony involving violence to another individual, then there are some liberties that that person should forfeit - the right to bear arms being one of them. You still have the right to defend yourself, but not with a gun. In this case, the vic was previously convicted of drug related charges. In a vacuum, he was not convicted of a violent crime that I know of (could be wrong). There is argument there as well, though - was he selling? One can serve the time and be placed back in society, but that doesn't mean the consequences for the crime are completely nullified. e.g. - child molester has to report his whereabouts. And then, knowing that he was not supposed to be in possession of a firearm, he still had one contrary to law. He was also in possession of more drugs. Quality citizen...

Regarding firearms though, I was more impressed with the issue of his gun placement. I have a firearm upstairs in the safe during the day (nightstand at night) and a rifle downstairs in a safe at all times. His weapon was in the kitchen in a drawer I think, which is not a possibility for me with kids. If an intruder comes into the house, having only one firearm upstairs in a safe would make things much more difficult for defense.
 
Send Him Back to Jail

Dutton went to prison for knowningly comitting a crime. Upon his release he moved in with another felon, also with drug convictions and knowningly had a weapon. He hasn't learned a thing. No one did this to him, stop trying to make him a victim. Think about the kids and families he was selling dope. He threw away his rights.
 
If the laws change, then I'm OK with it.

BUT if current law is that convicted felons cannot own or possess firearms and a felon makes a conscious decision to do so, then he should be left to the mercy of our judicial system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top