thorn726
Member
oh, but don't worry since they rarely implement those laws, they don't matter...........right?
Convicted Felons and Self Defense. What do you think?
- Thread starter camslam
- Start date
- Status
1911 guy
Member
Just my humble opinion.
If a felon is non-violent and has been viewed by the legal system as having paid their debt, their rights should be restored.
If your crime was violent and/or you're on probation, you've been found to be violent and/or not fully paid your debt. No guns for you.
I'm no lawyer (thank goodness, my family would lynch me) and I'm sure someone could shoot holes in my idea, but I find it to make sense.
If a felon is non-violent and has been viewed by the legal system as having paid their debt, their rights should be restored.
If your crime was violent and/or you're on probation, you've been found to be violent and/or not fully paid your debt. No guns for you.
I'm no lawyer (thank goodness, my family would lynch me) and I'm sure someone could shoot holes in my idea, but I find it to make sense.
Never No More
Member
Thank goodness that we don't let felons own firearms
Jess dont be so niave. They mean LEGAL firearm ownership.
Lots of bad guys, gang members, and assorted rif-raf have cases of firearms.
The govenment doesnt want YOU to have one, so you cant protect yourself from the evil suckers that do.
Jess dont be so niave. They mean LEGAL firearm ownership.
Lots of bad guys, gang members, and assorted rif-raf have cases of firearms.
The govenment doesnt want YOU to have one, so you cant protect yourself from the evil suckers that do.
thorn726
Member
just for a factoid, at least in CA
domestic and some other violence related misdemeanors also
equals no gun ownership
domestic and some other violence related misdemeanors also
equals no gun ownership
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Irony Alert
Never No More,
Actually, I'm pretty sure JesseL is laying on a bit of irony there.
Not that I know what's in his head, but it looked that way to me.
Never No More,
Actually, I'm pretty sure JesseL is laying on a bit of irony there.
Not that I know what's in his head, but it looked that way to me.
Guitargod1985
Member
So this guy wasn't allowed to defend himself because he grew some plants?
Does this seem absurd to anyone else, or am I crazy? I'm sure this guy wasn't a choir boy, but I believe he has every right to defend himself from an attacker.
Does this seem absurd to anyone else, or am I crazy? I'm sure this guy wasn't a choir boy, but I believe he has every right to defend himself from an attacker.
deadin
Member
Then why don't we allow those currently in prison to be armed??
The problem here is a disconnect between reality and theory. All that support banning felons from owning guns have to keep in mind that the laws against that do no good, and, they can get any gun they want. The only ones those laws affect are law abiding citizens, giving anti's the first step on the slope.
Everytime bad facts come up, once the slope is made, the anti's ban something else, and, pretty soon, voila, your in California, and, you never moved.
By the way, it would be a fun test to see which state has the most laws, considering the number of years in existence.
Our current situation with criminals reminds me of the 'treaty' after WW 1. The treaty insured we would have another world war, because of the poverty created by the severe conditions of the treaty. Likewise, when you take criminals, and make them people who are no longer a participant in the society, a second, or lower, class citizen class, you insure they have little choice but to return to crime.
S
Everytime bad facts come up, once the slope is made, the anti's ban something else, and, pretty soon, voila, your in California, and, you never moved.
By the way, it would be a fun test to see which state has the most laws, considering the number of years in existence.
Our current situation with criminals reminds me of the 'treaty' after WW 1. The treaty insured we would have another world war, because of the poverty created by the severe conditions of the treaty. Likewise, when you take criminals, and make them people who are no longer a participant in the society, a second, or lower, class citizen class, you insure they have little choice but to return to crime.
S
I support having a mechanism that allows "felons" to regain their right to own a weapon (and vote)
A legal process with a review...not much more onerous than getting a CC permit
Rather than trying to develop a one size fits all law, take each case ( and person) on their relative merits
Certain classes would have no chance...others would be (almost) a slam dunk
Dare I say it....let the punishment fit the crime
A legal process with a review...not much more onerous than getting a CC permit
Rather than trying to develop a one size fits all law, take each case ( and person) on their relative merits
Certain classes would have no chance...others would be (almost) a slam dunk
Dare I say it....let the punishment fit the crime
deadin
Member
Obiwan,
That's the most reasonable suggestion I have seen so far in this thread.
Although I think this already exists as I believe one can petition for "relief" under Federal Law. However getting a court to grant relief may be harder than some would like.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Review
As long as this "process" does not also require that in the meantime every honest and law-abiding citizen isn't continually required to prove he's not a felon or otherwise prohibited.
Otherwise it's no improvement.
As long as the exercise of a right requires permission and proof of eligibility, it's not a right.
That has to be fixed.
Which is fine.
As long as this "process" does not also require that in the meantime every honest and law-abiding citizen isn't continually required to prove he's not a felon or otherwise prohibited.
Otherwise it's no improvement.
As long as the exercise of a right requires permission and proof of eligibility, it's not a right.
That has to be fixed.
Scorpiusdeus
member
Are you kidding? Uh, yes I can state that as the truth.
littlegator
Member
Tell that to a murdered victim's family.
romma
Member
So keep them in or execute them.
deadin
Member
I don't really see this as pertinent to the discussion. The OP is about felons being allowed firearm rights, not regular, law-biding citizens.
Besides, if you aren't "allowed" to require that a person be required to show that he/she isn't a felon or otherwise prohibited, the whole discussion is moot.
JesseL
Member
For those saying they are certain that they have never committed a felony:
Did you know about the Gun-Free School Zones act?
Have you ever passed within 1000' of a school while in possesion of an unlocked firearm, without having a CWP that required a background check?
Did you know about the Gun-Free School Zones act?
Have you ever passed within 1000' of a school while in possesion of an unlocked firearm, without having a CWP that required a background check?
CountGlockula
Member
Felons should not own firearms.
deadin
Member
Last time I looked this isn't a law. Just more of the GOA's Chicken Little's 'The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling' rhetoric.
I don't know about your State, but here in WA unlawful carry on a school grounds is a misdomeanor and punishable by suspension of your CCW for up to three years. It's not a felony. Carrying a concealed firearm without a permit is a felony. [As it should be unless the law is changed.]
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Impertinent
What is currently in place, today, in real life, is that "regular, law-abiding" citizens are not allowed to buy firearms.
Well, you can get permission to buy one. As long as you can prove you're not one of those "felon" things.
So, the very fact that "felons that we let run around in society" are not allowed to own firearms, and the fact that we have no way of identifying them on sight, means that NO ONE gets to buy a gun.
Unless and until he can prove he's not one of them thar felons.
So, until you make it possible for the ones running around loose to be considered "fully rehabilitated" and allow them to own guns, what you're doing is continuing the restriction of ownership on the honest folk.
Which brings us to "what's the point of a rehab/redemption program that continues to abridge the rights of the honest, law-abiding population?"
So, the restriction experienced by the honest folks in their attempt to exercise a right IS ENTIRELY THE POINT.
It only SEEMS that "felons' rights" is the issue.
The felon mentioned in the original story is a "prohibited" person, yet the officials in our system are quite comfortable with letting him out in the general population. Because he's not a threat and they know it.
That's broken.
That means YOU AND I have to be screened to ensure we are not him. If he's not a threat, then he's not really a felon, and that law is broken. If he IS a threat, then what the hell is he doing loose? If he really is a "bad person" and letting him out is broken.
It's really, really simple.
If he's out, he can be trusted, and therefore he can buy a firearm.
If he can't be trusted, he's not out.
The whole "should felons be allowed . . ." thing disappears in a puff of logic.
Never forget this: the restrictions ostensibly placed on "felons" are really placed on the decent and law-abiding people, by making them prove -- continually -- that they are not restricted.
The concept of "give a few select felons their rights back" accomplishes nothing more than another desk required to manage that paperwork.
It's fixing the wrong problem.
Fix the right problem.
Not pertinent?
What is currently in place, today, in real life, is that "regular, law-abiding" citizens are not allowed to buy firearms.
Well, you can get permission to buy one. As long as you can prove you're not one of those "felon" things.
So, the very fact that "felons that we let run around in society" are not allowed to own firearms, and the fact that we have no way of identifying them on sight, means that NO ONE gets to buy a gun.
Unless and until he can prove he's not one of them thar felons.
So, until you make it possible for the ones running around loose to be considered "fully rehabilitated" and allow them to own guns, what you're doing is continuing the restriction of ownership on the honest folk.
Which brings us to "what's the point of a rehab/redemption program that continues to abridge the rights of the honest, law-abiding population?"
So, the restriction experienced by the honest folks in their attempt to exercise a right IS ENTIRELY THE POINT.
It only SEEMS that "felons' rights" is the issue.
The felon mentioned in the original story is a "prohibited" person, yet the officials in our system are quite comfortable with letting him out in the general population. Because he's not a threat and they know it.
That's broken.
That means YOU AND I have to be screened to ensure we are not him. If he's not a threat, then he's not really a felon, and that law is broken. If he IS a threat, then what the hell is he doing loose? If he really is a "bad person" and letting him out is broken.
It's really, really simple.
If he's out, he can be trusted, and therefore he can buy a firearm.
If he can't be trusted, he's not out.
The whole "should felons be allowed . . ." thing disappears in a puff of logic.
Never forget this: the restrictions ostensibly placed on "felons" are really placed on the decent and law-abiding people, by making them prove -- continually -- that they are not restricted.
The concept of "give a few select felons their rights back" accomplishes nothing more than another desk required to manage that paperwork.
It's fixing the wrong problem.
Fix the right problem.
Lonestar49
Member
Laws MUST have some FLEX
Quote:That is my argument, that while I don't like it, convicted felons have as much right to self defense as any one else.
----------------
...
I totally agree, especially in One's house or Apt. Maybe not CCW, but for HD/SD, totally fair, and apparently so in this case.
I think it's a simple situation if only we could go by: If the crime fits the law, which IMO, no crime was committed, rather, he did what any one of us would do if in his shoes, or situation.
He was found to be innocent, and in the right, by the law of self defence, and that should be the end of it, period, he owns, or rents a house or Apt, and has a/The Right, to defend himself, his family, etc., within it, just like the rest of us, from ANY BG's.
Again, "Common Sense" must be applied to laws.
LS
Quote:That is my argument, that while I don't like it, convicted felons have as much right to self defense as any one else.
----------------
...
I totally agree, especially in One's house or Apt. Maybe not CCW, but for HD/SD, totally fair, and apparently so in this case.
I think it's a simple situation if only we could go by: If the crime fits the law, which IMO, no crime was committed, rather, he did what any one of us would do if in his shoes, or situation.
He was found to be innocent, and in the right, by the law of self defence, and that should be the end of it, period, he owns, or rents a house or Apt, and has a/The Right, to defend himself, his family, etc., within it, just like the rest of us, from ANY BG's.
Again, "Common Sense" must be applied to laws.
LS
JesseL
Member
Nope. The law was struck down by the Supreme Court and promptly reenacted by Congress with a few changes to try to pass constitutional muster.
The law is still on the books (USC 922(q)) and the BATFE appears to still take it seriously(PDF).
They may not be actively prosecuting it, but it's still hanging there like the Sword of Damocles.
:banghead:deadin
Member
This approach sounds great in theory. Unfortunately I don't see it as workable, because no one has invented a crystal ball that will allow us to determine if a felon can be trusted. This alone would turn all felony convictions into life sentences. (Not even to speak of the logistics of keeping that many people locked up.)
On the other hand, how many people would really trust that all released felons aren't going to reoffend. As for the argument that they can get guns anyway, so why have restrictions? This is akin to saying why have any laws at all because they can be broken at will.
On a side note, I would be interested in know how many felons actually serve their full sentence and aren't turned loose because of "over crowding" or other such excuses.
How about this? We put someone in charge of deciding if a convict is truely rehabilitated and is deserving of being set free with full privlidges. The only catch is, if he reoffends, the "voucher" gets to share his cell with him.
Any volunteers?
unrealtrip
Member
To those who are under the impression they have never come close to committing an offense that could be considered or tried as a felony, they are unfortunately mistaken. As stated, we have watered down what a felony is with our overwhelming amount of laws. In some states oral or an*l copulation is a felony, in most states sex with a minor is and like someone already mentioned that mistake could be made by no fault of your own if someone posed as an adult.
Arson is a felony in every state, perhaps you would never intentionally burn something down, but have you ever had a campfire, ever? The possibility exists. Drank a beer, ever? Ever driven your car after drinking, ever? Even hours later? You might have been a felony DUI.
I just feel that if someone has been convicted of a crime, serves their time and we feel that is enough to repay their debt to society, I feel they should have their rights back. If they commit a crime again, then back they go. If we don't trust them with having the same rights as every other free citizen, maybe they should not be freed yet.
IMHO
Arson is a felony in every state, perhaps you would never intentionally burn something down, but have you ever had a campfire, ever? The possibility exists. Drank a beer, ever? Ever driven your car after drinking, ever? Even hours later? You might have been a felony DUI.
I just feel that if someone has been convicted of a crime, serves their time and we feel that is enough to repay their debt to society, I feel they should have their rights back. If they commit a crime again, then back they go. If we don't trust them with having the same rights as every other free citizen, maybe they should not be freed yet.
IMHO
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
Those changes addressed the problem suggested by the Court of Appeals, but not the problems articulated by SCOTUS. Therefore, I believe that 922(q) does not pass constitutional muster...
However, and assuming arguendo the validity of 922(q), please note this aspect:
The way I read it, your presence within 1000 feet of school grounds must be something more than mere inadvertance.... Thus driving down the road on the way to get groceries and passing by a school is probably not sufficient... IMHO.
- Status
Similar threads
