Powderman
Member
A felony conviction with no time served? That's strange.
PM me.
Do you think a person convicted of a felony should be allowed to own a firearm?
- Thread starter SolaScriptura139
- Start date
- Status
A felony conviction with no time served? That's strange.
PM me.
That's the thing. Remember the definition is 'Found guilty of a crime that could have a sentence that exceeds a year'.
With plea-bargains at an all-time high, people often serve a fraction of the time that they could if it actually went to trial.
TallPine
Member
It's way easier than that even ... just de-fund the NICSystem - just like they did with the process to restore rights.
Want to buy a gun...? Well, send in an application and the govt will process it when and if they get around to it.Or President Clintonbush just declares a terrorism Red Alert and shuts down NICS temporarily permanently.
What do all you self-righteous folks think about that?
Sure, even then you could still own guns but not buy them. In the meantime gunstores go out of business, etc ...
Something to think about- You commit a felony, and get caught, (your felony was carrying without a lisence in CA) you do your time, then move to VT, you can't buy gun because your a felon, but what you did in CA that was a felony would have been completly legal in VT.
M.E.Eldridge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 367
It depends. In a perfect world I would say yes. My perfect world, murderers would not be free walking the streets. Ever. Violent felons can't be trusted to live in society.
If the felon in question made some bad choices in his 20's, like for instance getting involved in drugs or makin moonshine, as long as he has changed, I see no problem with it.
Falling for drugs or booze in your 20's is not something, that in my opinion, should strip you of your rights for rest of your life. If, that is, you come back from your addictions and quit. Basically, smoking pot can be an incredibly stupid mistake, but its is a mistake.
Murder, rape, and assualt are not mistakes.
If the felon in question made some bad choices in his 20's, like for instance getting involved in drugs or makin moonshine, as long as he has changed, I see no problem with it.
Falling for drugs or booze in your 20's is not something, that in my opinion, should strip you of your rights for rest of your life. If, that is, you come back from your addictions and quit. Basically, smoking pot can be an incredibly stupid mistake, but its is a mistake.
Murder, rape, and assualt are not mistakes.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Ala Dan,
I can see your point and would probably hold the same view except for two facts that bother me. The first is the enormous proliferation of acts which were once entirely legal and are now felonies. Acts that once were not even considered to be minor sins or slightly immoral are now felonious crimes. What acts that are legal today will be felonies in a few years?
The second thing that bothers me is that preventing a human being from owning weapons to defend his life is no different from denying his right to life, in my opinion. I don't believe that doing such a thing is constitutional. Given that the right to life is innate and not given by the Constitution, I don't believe that such a valid Constitution can be fashioned to make laws that deny the right of self defense valid.
There are two methods I would condone to keep weapons out of the hands of true felons(violent crimes which infringe the rights of other humans). One is to produce laws and cultural norms which result in the prospective victims of such felons killing the miscreant on the spot during the crime. Problem solved. The second is a refusal to tolerate violent crime by competent adults. You use unlawful violence against another person and you will never be released to purchase a weapon.
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
As previously stated, "if the criminal justice system worked correctly.....well thanks to trial attorneys and spineless judges it's worse today than ever before.
You have attorneys pleading serious charges down to misdemeanors and judges giving light sentences......because of a slap on the hand, the criminal gets back on the street and thinks the punishment wasn't so bad, so they become repeat offenders. Why the hell would anyone want to give them back gun rights....especially since they were denied a healthy dose of punishment and prison time?
In recent years Attorneys and Judges have been rationalizing criminal behavior like they were Oprah Winfrey. Crooks talk their way out of convictions by portraying themselves as victims of society.....maybe we should send these reformed model citizens to live in the homes of the attorneys, Judges, and parole boards for a while.
You have attorneys pleading serious charges down to misdemeanors and judges giving light sentences......because of a slap on the hand, the criminal gets back on the street and thinks the punishment wasn't so bad, so they become repeat offenders. Why the hell would anyone want to give them back gun rights....especially since they were denied a healthy dose of punishment and prison time?
In recent years Attorneys and Judges have been rationalizing criminal behavior like they were Oprah Winfrey. Crooks talk their way out of convictions by portraying themselves as victims of society.....maybe we should send these reformed model citizens to live in the homes of the attorneys, Judges, and parole boards for a while.
HankB
Member
Depends a lot on what the felony is - some "felonies" today consist of messing up government paperwork, or saying the wrong thing to government agents.
Twycross
Member
[rhetorical question]f4t9r said:
What would you say if the death penalty by torture was instituted for all crimes period? "Don't do the crime, tough luck for you kids who stole a candy bar?"
[/rhetorical question]
This isn't about the motivation for crime, its about whether the penalties are too harsh.
Hypnogator
Member
No. The only reliable predictor of behavior is past behavior.
A convicted felon has demonstrated a disregard of the rules of society. Allowing him (or her) access to firearms is, IMHO, an unacceptable risk.
Non-violent felons should have the right to petition to have their firearms rights restored after they have completed their sentences (including probation time).
Violent felons should never be allowed to possess firearms again.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
A convicted felon has demonstrated a disregard of the rules of society. Allowing him (or her) access to firearms is, IMHO, an unacceptable risk.
Non-violent felons should have the right to petition to have their firearms rights restored after they have completed their sentences (including probation time).
Violent felons should never be allowed to possess firearms again.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Twycross
Member
So it's OK to punish people based on what we predict they might do at some future point?
And once again we come back to the idea that people who want to commit crimes will obey anti-gun laws.
Old Dog
Member
Twycross, no. It's okay to punish people based on past behavior, particularly when their past behavior is an excellent indicator of their future behavior.
For those of us who work with felons, we know that (1) it's very difficult to accidentally become a felon (regardless of what so many THR members want to believe), and (2) a huge percentage of convicted felons, once released back into society, will re-offend -- more often, and more seriously.
I used to be a civil libertarian. Now ... I'm a firm believer in risk management.
For those of us who work with felons, we know that (1) it's very difficult to accidentally become a felon (regardless of what so many THR members want to believe), and (2) a huge percentage of convicted felons, once released back into society, will re-offend -- more often, and more seriously.
I used to be a civil libertarian. Now ... I'm a firm believer in risk management.
This is not the issue. We simply must make it as difficult as possible for them.
No vote here
As much as I hate to have to say it .... in this free country, I believe any FREE person, does (or should, IMO) have the "right" to own a gun. A previously convicted felon, that has been thru "the system" - been released - but is for some reason, not considered "safe" enough to own a weapon .... why the hell are these people back out on the streets to begin with?
If they've committed a crime of "violence", especially involving "the use" of some type of weapon, they didn't receive a stiff enough sentence. Some types of relatively minor .... or non-weapon related crimes, should be treated totally differently, than somebody convicted of; aggravated assault, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc.
This is completely asinine.
Fact - anybody with .... or without the cash, can acquire a gun, one way, or another. I'd rather see them be able to do it legally .... especially if they choose to do it this way. They have just as much of a right to self protection, as anyone else.
The problem of course lies with this "bassackwards system" (by design), that doesn't work. It's just a costly, and dangerous game. "Violent" criminals are arrested by LEO's, who risk their lives doing so .... the BG's get their slap on the wrist, pay their fines, ($) to the system - maybe do a little "time" (at our expense), then they're unleashed to prey upon society again (usually) .... until they're arrested again.
Very lucrative job security for the higher-ups within 'the system' - to be sure. I'd bet that the higher-ranking "so-called officials" (i.e. judges).... living in their upscale, or "gated neighborhoods" .... are not too likely to be affected by any actions of the violent, human trash .... that they've turned loose - by the lenient sentences that were handed out to them, by "the system".
BTW - I believe that there are way too many crimes that are classified as "felonies".... that should not be. Nowadays, almost everything is a felony. It won't be long until jay-walking will be considered a "felony".
*
As much as I hate to have to say it .... in this free country, I believe any FREE person, does (or should, IMO) have the "right" to own a gun. A previously convicted felon, that has been thru "the system" - been released - but is for some reason, not considered "safe" enough to own a weapon .... why the hell are these people back out on the streets to begin with?
If they've committed a crime of "violence", especially involving "the use" of some type of weapon, they didn't receive a stiff enough sentence. Some types of relatively minor .... or non-weapon related crimes, should be treated totally differently, than somebody convicted of; aggravated assault, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc.
This is completely asinine.
Fact - anybody with .... or without the cash, can acquire a gun, one way, or another. I'd rather see them be able to do it legally .... especially if they choose to do it this way. They have just as much of a right to self protection, as anyone else.
The problem of course lies with this "bassackwards system" (by design), that doesn't work. It's just a costly, and dangerous game. "Violent" criminals are arrested by LEO's, who risk their lives doing so .... the BG's get their slap on the wrist, pay their fines, ($) to the system - maybe do a little "time" (at our expense), then they're unleashed to prey upon society again (usually) .... until they're arrested again.
Very lucrative job security for the higher-ups within 'the system' - to be sure. I'd bet that the higher-ranking "so-called officials" (i.e. judges).... living in their upscale, or "gated neighborhoods" .... are not too likely to be affected by any actions of the violent, human trash .... that they've turned loose - by the lenient sentences that were handed out to them, by "the system".
BTW - I believe that there are way too many crimes that are classified as "felonies".... that should not be. Nowadays, almost everything is a felony. It won't be long until jay-walking will be considered a "felony".
*
stevelyn
Member
There is no logical reason to prohibit non-violent felons from owning a firearm. They aren't a physical threat to society..................your property maybe, but not society in general.
A good example of this is Martha Stewart. She didn't do anything wrong other than lie to the govt..........something the govt does to us everyday.
What rational reason would there be to prohibit her from gun ownership?
Violent felons should dangle from a rope.
A good example of this is Martha Stewart. She didn't do anything wrong other than lie to the govt..........something the govt does to us everyday.
What rational reason would there be to prohibit her from gun ownership?
Violent felons should dangle from a rope.
KriegHund
Member
I think a violent felony above and including assualt with a deadly weapon should NOT be allowed to own firearms.
I think a NON violent felony (unless it was something really sick like conning the elderly) should be allowed to.
I think a NON violent felony (unless it was something really sick like conning the elderly) should be allowed to.
BigFatKen
Member
Some felonies are like civil torts
redneck2
Senior Member
I sold a commercial building on hy 51, Mercer, WI to a man who ran a business from it. Business went bad so he removed the wheelchair ramp in the driveway to allow big logging trucks to park in the back. They paid him some rent. He also rented the building as a house to a logger.
He never replaced the ramp and left with over $2500 of damage. I now have the building back with a quit claim deed.
Should I turn him to the DA for prosecution for a felony?
redneck2
Senior Member
In Wisconsin, if you buy a building under a land cintract, alter it for your business and go out of business with over $2500 "damage", you have committed a Felony.
I sold a commercial building on hy 51, Mercer, WI to a man who ran a business from it. Business went bad so he removed the wheelchair ramp in the driveway to allow big logging trucks to park in the back. They paid him some rent. He also rented the building as a house to a logger.
He never replaced the ramp and left with over $2500 of damage. I now have the building back with a quit claim deed.
Should I turn him to the DA for prosecution for a felony?
$5 will get you 20 years in the stir?
http://www.co.henrico.va.us/com-atty
Scroll to Grand Larceny:
I was curious as to what might be a felony. Did I read this correctly? $5 from another will be a felony for up to 20 years?
If that is the case this is what I was referring to when I thought that it doesn't take much to be a felon.
I don't care if an overzealous District Attorney goes for blood or not. It is there on the books and another tool in the box for him.
have a great day,
cavman
now I know why all those folks at the information desks are worried when I need to borrow a pen...they are worried for my safety; for I might forget to return it and disappear for 20 years up the river!
http://www.co.henrico.va.us/com-atty
Scroll to Grand Larceny:
I was curious as to what might be a felony. Did I read this correctly? $5 from another will be a felony for up to 20 years?
If that is the case this is what I was referring to when I thought that it doesn't take much to be a felon.
I don't care if an overzealous District Attorney goes for blood or not. It is there on the books and another tool in the box for him.
have a great day,
cavman
now I know why all those folks at the information desks are worried when I need to borrow a pen...they are worried for my safety; for I might forget to return it and disappear for 20 years up the river!
BigRobT
Member
I have to agree with the more "liberal" ideology presented here. Criminals don't bother to acquire weapons legally. Once a person has served their sentence, they should be free to purchase a weapon in order to protect themselves. Will not allowing felons to acquire weapons legally really reduce crime?? Hardly. Let's be realistic about the situation. Maybe some tighter controls/ monitoring of these individuals MIGHT be in order. Even so, that could be questionable. As we travel this road of Democracy, we are giving up rights left & right. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear and doesn't say "except felons, wife beaters, etc" There was a time in this country that smacking around one's spouse was the norm and it wasn't criminal. I can't say that it's a good thing, but all of this "peacefulness" has led us to where we are today. Instead of settling things with fists, people resort to guns, knives, baseball bats, or whatever weapon they can find. While we take away rights from one group of people, we set ourselves up to lose those very same rights ourselves.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Don't Tread on Me summed up my view nicely in post #18. If we can't rrust them with a gun, they should not be back on the streets, they shold still be in prison. Complete the sentence (including any probation and restitution), and all rights should be restored. Back when I was in school, that's what was referred to as having "paid your debt to society," and the implication was that once you had done that, you were once again considered to be a part of society.
SouthpawShootr
Member
Do you think a person convicted of a felony should be allowed to own a firearm?
This is sort of a poorly worded question. If you asked me this and insisted on a yes or no answer, my answer would be no. If it was a non-violent felony and the individual in question has stayed out of trouble long enough to demonstrate self-discipline and a desire to go forth and sin no more, then sure, give him/her back the right to own a gun.
This is sort of a poorly worded question. If you asked me this and insisted on a yes or no answer, my answer would be no. If it was a non-violent felony and the individual in question has stayed out of trouble long enough to demonstrate self-discipline and a desire to go forth and sin no more, then sure, give him/her back the right to own a gun.
PlayboyPenguin
member
Maybe it should be worded "people with a current felony record". We all know people that made a mistake but atone for it can have their records cleared after a number of clean years.
Right and Resposibility
If a person in not in jail they have both the right and responsibility to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. NoOne has the authority to take that right away.
When in jail, the State has the responsibility to protect the individual. Once released, that responsibility is conferred back to the individual. To deny this is wrong and goes beyond the original punishment. Removing the right to vote is one thing, denying the right to self defense is entirely different.
If, I was convicted and served my time and released, I would be obligated to accept my responsibility to defend myself and family, regardless of what the law dictates. To create a law that denies the right to self defense creates criminals. This type of Law does not support the way this country was founded.
If a person in not in jail they have both the right and responsibility to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. NoOne has the authority to take that right away.
When in jail, the State has the responsibility to protect the individual. Once released, that responsibility is conferred back to the individual. To deny this is wrong and goes beyond the original punishment. Removing the right to vote is one thing, denying the right to self defense is entirely different.
If, I was convicted and served my time and released, I would be obligated to accept my responsibility to defend myself and family, regardless of what the law dictates. To create a law that denies the right to self defense creates criminals. This type of Law does not support the way this country was founded.
PlayboyPenguin
member
Coat4Guns
Don't get me wrong but I do not think denying felons weapons "creates criminals". It might make the felon (aren't they themselves criminal's by definition) an easier target for other criminals but I do not think it creates anything else.
Don't get me wrong but I do not think denying felons weapons "creates criminals". It might make the felon (aren't they themselves criminal's by definition) an easier target for other criminals but I do not think it creates anything else.
Same reason, because the system does not work. To assume that we can limit who gets the weapons is to assume that gun control has been effective... has it?
The state and feds have not stopped criminals from getting out, dont expect that their now going to get everything right when their attention is turned against gun owners.
While Im still proving my innocence to the feds, the other guy is out and re-armed. Since they cant contain the criminals, why bottle up the guns that will stop criminal attacks?
- Status
