I dont need no stinking CCW!

Status
Not open for further replies.
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

Laws against felons carrying doesn't make one whit of difference whether they will carry or not...

It is a useless law that does nothing, except line the pockets of law enforcement when someone is "caught" and has to pay a fine(bribe) to get free again...

Weapons charges that aren't in conjunction with a violent offense go relatively unpunished... To me that means that they're useless.
 
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

You correctly point out that carrying after having been released from prison is not mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment. But it is precisely the lack of that mention that ought to ensure its legality. Since the Bill of Rights limits Government's abilities to do things, not the citizen's, the lack of such a mention means that convicted felons have precisely such a right.

In other words, if the Second Ammendment read, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, except that convicted felons may be deprived of this right for life," then the government would have the constitutional authority to deny them. Otherwise, the government cannot consitutionally do so.
 
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying?
Click to expand...
Depends on the conditions of release... is it "time served in full" or probation/parole ...?

In the latter case of course there may be numerous restrictions on the individual's behavior: where to live, reporting to parole officer, no guns, etc. Really, they are still serving their sentence, just in a different manner than "inside."

Otherwise, I don't care. If a person is going to do wrong, he/she can get ahold of a gun to do it with regardless of any "prohibition" laws - all of which merely constrain the law abiding citizen. (by "prohibition" I mean laws against possesion of X rather than crimes against persons and property)

Now... I often wonder how many instances there are of otherwise upstanding citizens being busted for CCW...? My guess is that most CCW "convictions" are plea-downs from some greater offense like felony assault, but I could be wrong. :confused:
 
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying? After all, that wasn't mentioned in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

Yep. If they served their full sentence, why not? The ones who want guns for criminal purposes have them anyway, I can assure you. Infact, they obtain them with far less difficulty than many non felons. If a man is not trustworthy enough to carry a gun, he shouldn't be walking around in public. I hanve known several convicted felons who I'd rather have at my back than many non felons.
By advocating felon disarmament, we create a second class of citizens, and set the stage for our own loss of freedom. Ever notice that the list of things for which you can be denied a gun keeps getting longer?
 
Here in NC, lots of guys carry without a CHL because getting caught is a misdemeanor versus carrying it into the wrong place being a felony. And, I see that logic.

As far as felons, I think that once they've served their time and stamped paid to their debt to society, they should have all of their rights restored. Including 2nd amendment. After all, we don't mind them paying taxes, do we?

As for the Marine who ispired this thread, he should do what he wants.
 
I really don't consider "Shall-Issue" type programs much of a restriction since the state has no choice but to issue you a license.
 
So are the purists here really saying that you are OK with having no law that restricts a convicted felon from carrying?
Click to expand...
Depends, if the convicted felon is still serving his/her sentance, of course I dont think they should be armed.

They should be able to leave the prison and apply for a CCW. They served their time, and their debt to society has been paid. If they cant be trusted with a weapon, why are they being let out?

I really don't consider "Shall-Issue" type programs much of a restriction since the state has no choice but to issue you a license.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of the sheriff that somehow noted on every permit that he signed it under protest.

ETA link: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=84713&highlight=Sheriff+protest
 
"They served their time, and their debt to society has been paid."

Really? Have they reimbursed the victim or victims for their loss or losses? Have they completed their parole or probation? Have they even said they're sorry?

John
 
must ... resist ... posting ... to ... this ... thread ... Oh, what the heck ...
If they cant be trusted with a weapon, why are they being let out?
Click to expand...
Uh, gee, I've encountered a lot of folks who've never committed a crime, probably never will, but I still wouldn't trust them with a weapon ...

But it is precisely the lack of that mention that ought to ensure its legality
Click to expand...
While we can argue 'til the cows come home the intent of the framers and the correct interpretation of Constitutional issues, the fact remains that just occasionally, society collectively needs to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the majority of the citizens ... stripping violent criminals of their weapons is something that's been done in every culture since man first walked upright and took up rocks and sticks .... It was certainly happening in colonial America. It is only common sense to at least try to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms. "Paid their debt to society?" Please. One needs only look at the recidivism rates among violent offenders in this country ...
By advocating felon disarmament, we create a second class of citizens, and set the stage for our own loss of freedom.
Click to expand...
Please enlighten us on how this is happening.
Ever notice that the list of things for which you can be denied a gun keeps getting longer?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Not where I live (at least since Lautenberg), but I wouldn't argue that ...
 
Old Dog, it's not exactly difficult to end up a felon. Look at Jim March; he's at risk for becoming a felon because he wanted to observe an election. If you ever defend yourself, you are at risk for becoming a felon.

Allowing this idea that felons must be disarmed when they are released from prison to exist is a danger to law-abiding citizens.
 
Really? Have they reimbursed the victim or victims for their loss or losses?
Click to expand...
Seperate issue. I'd rather see those whof injure others make direct compensation to those they've injured rather than serve time in prison, but thats not the way our crimminal justice system works.
society collectively needs to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the majority of the citizens
Click to expand...
I'm sure that the intentions are good there, but I think we all know what highway is paved with those. :scrutiny:
 
it's not exactly difficult to end up a felon. Look at Jim March; he's at risk for becoming a felon because he wanted to observe an election. If you ever defend yourself, you are at risk for becoming a felon.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, are you advocating against felon dis-armament because law-abiding citizens may become felons? That's rather a specious argument ...

Look, I'll never argue that everyone convicted of a felony should permanently lose their rights to bear arms. I believe that there should exist a process (with a minimum of bureaucratic requirements and monetary outlay on the part of the petitioner) allowing certain persons who've once been convicted of a felony to have their firearms ownership rights restored. Excepting, of course, those who'd used firearms in the commission of a crime and those convicted of violent crimes ... Convicted criminals losing the right to own firearms does not impact my right as a citizen to own and bear arms.

Allowing this idea that felons must be disarmed when they are released from prison to exist is a danger to law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
Again, I ask: tell us how? Because, I, a life-long law-abiding citizen might accidently commit a felony?
 
Because, I, a life-long law-abiding citizen might accidently commit a felony?
Click to expand...
That is all too easy. Dump some fill on a low spot in your lawn? Opps, FELON, you've destroyed a wetlands. Have some kids plant C. sativa in your corn field unbeknownst to you? Opps, FELON, you've been conspiring to manufacture and distribute a class I controlled substance.
 
JohnBT,
Allowing felons their basic rights returned in full after the proper recompense is made only creates closure for the idea that they were criminals.
What's proper recompense? That usually consists of restitution, time served, probation/parole finished without incident.

Felons need to be allowed to get on with their lives as citizens after they've paid the price for their crime(s). Condemnation without a chance for redemption is just plain wrong.
Stats for recidivism notwithstanding, I'm speaking of a shift in the way we look at criminal rehabilitation, I suppose. If you can take away someone's rights for a criminal act, why not give them back when they've paid the price.
You honestly want to continue to tell people that because they committed a crime once that they will never vote or own a legal firearm, but they get to keep paying taxes?

Of course, we could continue to do things the way they are. Then, the guys at the range who have wet dreams about "a felon in a dark alleyway" could keep on keeping on with their shooting range fantasies and gun shop justifications. (we all know that guy...) And, we get the bonus of people spending the rest of their lives with what they feel is a scarlet letter sewn to their face for the whole world to see.

No, I'm not a convicted felon, either.
 
I think you do not understand how easy it is to be at risk to be charged with a felony.
 
I'll bet those of you who wouldn't mind felons getting guns back wouldn't want one living next door to you. Especially if they were a sex offender.
 
I'll bet those of you who wouldn't mind felons getting guns back wouldn't want one living next door to you. Especially if they were a sex offender.
Click to expand...
Begging the question and/or missing the point.

The felons I don't want to see get guns are the very ones who will get guns regardless of laws that say they shouldn't. This is exactly the same reason that gun control laws, in general, don't work: they only inhibit the law-abiding. If the felon is the sort who won't own guns because the law says he can't, then he's the sort that I fully trust with guns. You're assuming that having laws saying felons can't own guns will mean that felons don't have guns. Since the laws that say felons can't rape, murder, burgle, or thieve don't work, what makes you think the one that says they can't have guns will work?

And that's not even counting the number of felons who I'd trust with firearms while they were still on parole, even. The guy who got busted with just over an ounce of weed, and therefore got nailed with "intent to sell." The one who embezzled fifty grand from his employer to cover gambling debts. The CCW holder who forgot to leave his piece in the car when he went into a courthouse.

And that's not even counting the number of felons who were wrongfully convicted.

Incidentally, your "especially a sex offender" comment doesn't carry much water for me, since I, personally, know a guy who's eight years into a twenty year sentence for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 19. When they broke up, she got her revenge by accusing him of date rape. Her word against his, and now he'll never get to vote in a presidential election or legally own a firearm. Not to mention that he's in the sex offender registry, and he'll be tagged with that for the rest of his life.

So don't go betting on my opinions of felons and firearms, 'cause I'm pretty sure you'll lose.
 
Control Group makes some very good points.

Not every felon resembles the guy in the hoodie on those targets you shoot at when you're at the range.

Sex offenders? If they've done their time, have registered with the cops, keep their info up to date, and have been released into society, then I'm OK with it. Why? Because we have an entire legal system devoted to controlling, apprehending, punishing, and generally dealing with crime. In short, that's what jail is for. And, when jail is done and the requirements that WE as a society have agreed upon have been met, they should have their rights returned.

I know former felons. I work closely with them on occasion in a professional capacity. This includes at least one man who committed multiple armed robberies and did his time in federal prison.
I sure wish I could see the world in black and white like some of you guys though. My life would be much easier. Unfortunately, I tend to put myself in their position.
 
Anyway, I have mixed emotions on the subject. While I dont feel that one should have to get a permission slip, I dont want to hear about a good person getting locked up for not having a simple piece of paper (or plastic) that they could have easily gotten.

Since CO is shall-issue, and he has the option of being legally armed, he should arm himself legally. JMO.
Click to expand...

+1. I, like most on THR, rail against the injustice of having to apply and pay for permission to do that which the Constitution explicitly forbids the gov't to regulate or prohibit, but one must sometimes be practical and bow to reality. Many great theories don't work in practice, and this is probably one of them. The world we're in is almostly hopelessly biased against guns and gun owners (though we're making some progress of late), so I think it best to comply with the law. The simple fact is that in most states, carrying w/o a license is a felony; that'll get you jail time, big legal bills, eliminate your ability to maintain or obtain many jobs, and will prevent you from legally buying or owning guns anywhere in the country. To me, it just isn't worth it if there's an easy alternative like taking a class and sending a few bucks in with an application. The guy who's the subject of this thread is my kind of guy, and I'd hate to see him in jail and forbidden to own guns forever because of his bravado.

That being said, I definitely subscribe to the "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" rule. IF there is no other choice (i.e. an easily-obtained license), or IF I (having a CHL) think that my life or my families' lives are in danger, then I don't care about what the man-made bureaucratic law says about whether I can carry or where. I only care about the 0th Commandment - "Thou Shalt Survive, And Worry About The Consequences Later." Fortunately for me, I've never had to make that choice.

The guy in the thread has the option of saving himself from a world of potential trouble, and he should use all of his brain cells and get himself a carry license.
 
Back to the original issue.

If your friend wants to CCW sans permit here in Colorado, he's in a good place to do it ... if he gets caught (and the particular officer wants to make an issue of it) then its only a misdemeanor.

Additionally, if he CCWs on his own property and/or in his own vehicle then he can do so legally without a permit (however as soon as he gets out of his car any place but his own property he's breaking the law).


I would never recommend that anyone break the law and getting a permit in Colorado isn't that bad (especially in El Paso County ... too me two weeks from the time I had my picture taken and paid my fees for my permit to arrive in the mail). But I can't exactly criticize him since I ccw'd in Wichita Kansas for years before moving to Free America in the Rockys.
 
There's theory, and then there's practice.

Is the world dangerous enough to justify carrying a weapon ? Yep!

Do I want to go out into the world unarmed? Nope.

Do I want to be arrested for doing what I consider necessary to be safe? Nope.

Do I think the Second Amendment Fairy is going to suddenly wave her magic wand and make all the scumbag anti-gun politicians disappear in my lifetime? Nope.

So I take the course, pass the background check and carry legally.

And in the process add my mite to the argument that when law-abiding citizens exercise their rights, nothing bad happens. In fact, crime goes down. And as time goes on, we win more and more skirmishes and may someday win the war for our rights.
 
Vern, that's the best argument so far. We shall not win widespread acceptance of our cause by exercising our rights not in accordance with current law, nor shall we earn elimination of present restrictions by violating current laws ... If this is not your reality -- if you think you can carry illegally, consider that act "civil disobedience," and still believe that someday there will be no laws requiring "permission slips," well, your reality perhaps needs adjustment ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top