U.S. appeals court to reconsider ban on nonviolent felons owning guns

I have a step son that at 19 was arrested for having 6 small pot plants in his bedroom. Charged with a Felony. Now cannot own or possess a firearm. Yet 50 years ago a drunk driver hit and killed my older brother, left his wife a widow and his 2 children fatherless. The driver was estimated at over 100mph when they hit him. All they were charged with was failing to Stop for a sign. A ticket. That is JUSTICE!
 
Old Dog said:
And... down the rabbit hole we fall yet again.

While the righteous continue to bloviate .
Click to expand...

Bloviate? Society is the one that makes the laws to suite their needs and wants. Societies values and Morals constantly change. 50 years ago you could not say DAMMIT on the radio or TV. 50 years ago you could not have two people of the same sex kissing each other. 50 years ago porn movies were only in blacked-out theaters in the down side of town. Now we have soft porn in everyday commercials!
 
kmw1954 said:
What comes to mind, "There has only been one perfect human on this planet and they nailed him to a cross". Or something about Glass Houses.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, everyone draws a line somewhere. My thoughts on this subject are formed by working the last 20 years at a cop shop. I likely have a very different view then people with other career paths. I have seen simple "stalking" move into kidnaping and then murder. I could go on and on but doubt the post or thread will live if I do, so I will leave it at that. Yes everyone is not that way, but people seem to switch views after their daughter is tossed in a trunk.
 
kmw1954 said:
I have a step son that at 19 was arrested for having 6 small pot plants in his bedroom. Charged with a Felony. Now cannot own or possess a firearm. Yet 50 years ago a drunk driver hit and killed my older brother, left his wife a widow and his 2 children fatherless. The driver was estimated at over 100mph when they hit him. All they were charged with was failing to Stop for a sign. A ticket. That is JUSTICE!
Click to expand...

I would love to comment on this, but it is so off topic it will not live very long and the thread be killed off or locked down. What I say will not "help", but it might put a little light on it. PM if you want.
 
Old Dog said:
And... down the rabbit hole we fall yet again.

While the righteous continue to bloviate about those who are deemed fit to return to society and why should they not have their 2nd Amendment rights restored, few bother to check out the recidivism rates in this country. Strangely, many of these same folks have never had more than casual dealings, if any, with actual criminals.

People, it's not about whether or not someone has committed a crime that can be classified as "violent" or "non-violent." It's a matter of breaking the social contract. The concept of forfeiture of rights is as old as the concept of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

I'm quite well aware of what recidivism is and how prevalent it is. But what we're talking about here very much DOES have to do with how crimes are classified, including whether they're "violent" or "non-violent".

For a punishment to be "just" it has to be relevant to the crime(s) in question, for one thing. In the first place, depriving an individual of a right is such a serious matter that the government was saddled with the burden of proof through a means called "due process".

And make no mistake here...we're not just talking about "criminals". We're talking about citizens first and foremost who are subject to the power and authority of the government. A government, mind you, that is supposed to be empowered by those same citizens. The citizens grant the government the power and authority to do various things, but the government cannot be allowed to abuse those things for the sake of further empowering the government over the people.

Rest assured that the government can ALWAYS find criminals. When you look around you, you see criminals. When you look in the mirror, you see a criminal. Not a single person here has lead, or will lead, a perfect life in full compliance with all the laws our government has enacted. On top of that, human nature being what it is, there are those in power who will actively seek to criminalize people even if they've done nothing wrong.

That the government has the legitimate power to enforce laws is not in question. Such a function is a necessity for any group of people to get along together, from the smallest family unit of 2 through everything up to a plant full of billions in 200+ countries. It's HOW that power is exercised that's always in question.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I beg to differ.

I'm quite well aware of what recidivism is and how prevalent it is. But what we're talking about here very much DOES have to do with how crimes are classified, including whether they're "violent" or "non-violent".

For a punishment to be "just" it has to be relevant to the crime(s) in question, for one thing. In the first place, depriving an individual of a right is such a serious matter that the government was saddled with the burden of proof through a means called "due process".

And make no mistake here...we're not just talking about "criminals". We're talking about citizens first and foremost who are subject to the power and authority of the government. A government, mind you, that is supposed to be empowered by those same citizens. The citizens grant the government the power and authority to do various things, but the government cannot be allowed to abuse those things for the sake of further empowering the government over the people.

Rest assured that the government can ALWAYS find criminals. When you look around you, you see criminals. When you look in the mirror, you see a criminal. Not a single person here has lead, or will lead, a perfect life in full compliance with all the laws our government has enacted. On top of that, human nature being what it is, there are those in power who will actively seek to criminalize people even if they've done nothing wrong.

That the government has the legitimate power to enforce laws is not in question. Such a function is a necessity for any group of people to get along together, from the smallest family unit of 2 through everything up to a plant full of billions in 200+ countries. It's HOW that power is exercised that's always in question.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with much of what you say. We all know the justice system in our country is broken.

But -- I should have articulated my position much more clearly. I think reconsidering the ban on non-violent felons firearms ownership is, at this point in time, putting the cart before the horse.

Before we get down in the weeds on looking at how types of crimes are classified solely for the purpose of restoring convicted felons' gun rights, we first need major reform of our entire criminal justice system. All of the structural issues in criminal justice systems. Policing is being heavily scrutinized these days, but it would seem that lawmakers and policy makers should first be looking at how unwieldy and overwhelming the system is, with millions of pages of ineffective laws, conflicting laws and generally unnecessary laws.

We need to abolish (or seriously reform the system of) plea bargaining.

We secondly need serious, systematic sentencing reform nationwide, both on the federal and state levels.

Trying to address only certain collateral consequences of a criminal conviction (loss of firearms rights and disenfranchisement) before fixing how we got there is just muddling the system with more laws on the books. And what's the real priority for convicted felons upon release? Most of those with whom I've dealt and know personally, will tell you that it'd be great to legally own a gun and vote again, but they're far more concerned with gaining employment and having access to affordable housing.

Here's a good read on some history (a Wyoming Law Review article on how we got here):
https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=wlr
 
Old Dog said:
I don't disagree with much of what you say. We all know the justice system in our country is broken.

But -- I should have articulated my position much more clearly. I think reconsidering the ban on non-violent felons firearms ownership is, at this point in time, putting the cart before the horse.

Before we get down in the weeds on looking at how types of crimes are classified solely for the purpose of restoring convicted felons' gun rights, we first need major reform of our entire criminal justice system. All of the structural issues in criminal justice systems. Policing is being heavily scrutinized these days, but it would seem that lawmakers and policy makers should first be looking at how unwieldy and overwhelming the system is, with millions of pages of ineffective laws, conflicting laws and generally unnecessary laws.

We need to abolish (or seriously reform the system of) plea bargaining.

We secondly need serious, systematic sentencing reform nationwide, both on the federal and state levels.

Trying to address only certain collateral consequences of a criminal conviction (loss of firearms rights and disenfranchisement) before fixing how we got there is just muddling the system with more laws on the books. And what's the real priority for convicted felons upon release? Most of those with whom I've dealt and know personally, will tell you that it'd be great to legally own a gun and vote again, but they're far more concerned with gaining employment and having access to affordable housing.

Here's a good read on some history (a Wyoming Law Review article on how we got here):
https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=wlr
Click to expand...

And none of that will do one single bit of "good". The issue can be summed up in one word, Judges. If you want to get more complex you can add two more words, Prosecuting attorney.

This is where everything happens.

I can't tell you how many times the question has come up. Why did you let him out of jail? Simple answer, the judge told us to. Why did you not take that guy to court, simple again the PA would not file charges.

Want to fix it those are the two areas. Judges are a real issue at all levels.

Darn I really wanted to stay away.
 
Remington1911 said:
I would love to comment on this, but it is so off topic it will not live very long and the thread be killed off or locked down. What I say will not "help", but it might put a little light on it. PM if you want.
Click to expand...

Now explain how this of off the topic of criminal charges and the restrictions they impose.

In this case a person was growing some plants for personal use, not hurting anyone and was charged as a Felon while the other person actually killed someone and only received a ticket?

Still comes down to if someone has completed their legal sentence and paid their owed debt then Rights should be restored. Being a convicted felon does not make one a Non-Citizen.
 
Remington1911 said:
Yes everyone is not that way, but people seem to switch views after their daughter is tossed in a trunk.
Click to expand...

And you don't have a problem with a system that lets that guy back out on the street, with a pinky swear that he won't buy a gun?

Just saying- somebody crazy enough to abduct or kill a woman either needs to be reformed or not let back on the street. Sending him back out there is just half-assed. Either they're going to get weapons, or they don't need them to abduct or kill a woman.

Meanwhile you have to put all kinds of restrictions on normal people that we have to get background checks or can't have weapons.

Either leave the prisoners in prison or adapt the rest of the country to be a prison? I know which one I choose.
 
Remington1911 said:
Want to fix it those are the two areas. Judges are a real issue at all levels.
Click to expand...
The only fair tax is the one the other guy has to pay, and all of society's problems are caused by prosecutors and judges who don't do as you wish. If only it were so simple. I have spent time with many judges and prosecutors who try to do a good job, but are frustrated with ridiculous laws, resource constraints and politics. Old dog has it right, the piecemeal approach works for politicians' purposes but doesn't get to the heart of matters.
 
There are a lot issues "wrong" with the justice system, so there is no single simple answer. I'm sure we can all agree on this.

We can speak philosophically about every angle of this with respect to "how to fix the system", and every one of us THR philosophers could bring up any number of good and valid ponits on this matter.

The system is swamped, for one thing. Plea bargaining is one way of lightening the load on the system. It is, in a way, also a method of "picking your battles". Someone is arrested and charged and facing court. Trials cost a lot of time and money to get a conviction. So the State may offer a plea bargain that minimizes that time and money, which can then be spent on other more serious cases.

But then plea bargaining begs the question of "how many of these cases should really be going to court in the first place?"

We have a lot of laws in place which quite frankly serve to do nothing more than pack our criminal justice system full of people if for no other reason than they give the law enforcement system plenty of "low hanging fruit" to go after. Fruit, mind you, which is also directly linked to their fiscal coffers.

Weaved throughout all this are blanket BS statutes which invoke punishments not really related to the crimes in question.

But this thread isn't about all this (and more). It's about a SINGLE ASPECT of it.

That revolving around the RKBA.

A lot of us here are very sensitive to the issue of gun control and the RKBA. And rightly so. But for all the BS we read about, see coming over the hill, fear, etc., where we are NOW with respect to this issue is a FAR CRY from that of the '70s. State, federal, and local governments went absolutely CRAZY with gun control following the 1968 GCA.

Reciprocity? Didn't exist.

Want a permit? Holy cow, the hoops people had to jump through for something they didn't need to have before in many places.

We didn't get to where we are today in one fell swoop. We stood our ground, pulled out the hammers and chisels, and commenced to strategically chipping away here and there, slowly making gains.

That's what this is...more chipping to erode the government's heavy handed gun control measures a bit more back in our favor.

Don't cloud this up by trying to tie everything else to this. Pick your battles so we can win, and ultimately win the war itself as a result.
 
DustyGmt said:
Strange. This has always tripped me up, (question 11.c) is something to the effect of "have you been convicted of any crime that could have resulted in a sentence of up to 2 years, even if you were given a shorter sentence and/or probation".

Something to that effect, I have a friend with a DUI and he has asked a bunch of FFL's if that's a prohibiting offense and I think he even asked a lawyer and was told something about it being traffic code violation and didn't count and was told that it absolutely, positively was not a prohibiting offense even though the maximum penalty for DUI in my state is 2 years. The question seems pretty unambiguous, but it's apparently somewhat convoluted. I heard an FFL say once that at least a few people every week fill out the form and say "I've got a DUI, that's not a disqualifying offense, right?".

I would imagine if DUI was a prohibiting offense, we would have half as many gun owners as we do.
Click to expand...
DUI is a prohibiting offense in Massachusetts, as is simple shoplifting. Both carry sentences of 2.5 years incarceration on the first offense. This law was changed regarding the DUI in the 90s. I know people who have been convicted of DUI who have their LTC. When their offense was committed, the penalty was less. DUI after xx/xx/199x and you are not getting a gun in Massachusetts.
 
north east redneck said:
DUI is a prohibiting offense in Massachusetts, as is simple shoplifting. Both carry sentences of 2.5 years incarceration on the first offense. This law was changed regarding the DUI in the 90s. I know people who have been convicted of DUI who have their LTC. When their offense was committed, the penalty was less. DUI after xx/xx/199x and you are not getting a gun in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Does the prohibition happen purely because they increased the potential penalty on those non violent misdemeanors?
Resized_Screenshot_20230111_185806_Chrome.jpeg
 
Armed trespass is a felony in Florida. If you jump a fence to chase after a deer or hog, you better make sure it's not onto somebody else's property. If there's any doubt, leave your gun.
 
If anyone has questions I will be VERY HAPPY to answer them in a PM.

I think I understand the rules here and the answers have nothing to do "what we discuss here".

Just trying to follow the rules of the house, sorry guys. PM me.
 
Up until 1968 GCA felons could own firearms.

This is good, no man should be deprived of freedom.

Elmer fudds are on this forum and in this world will disagree and say they are freedom as long as its done legally.
 
KY DAN said:
Up until 1968 GCA felons could own firearms.

This is good, no man should be deprived of freedom.

Elmer fudds are on this forum and in this world will disagree and say they are freedom as long as its done legally.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Are you calling forum members "Fudds" if they actually support depriving certain convicted felons of legal gun ownership? (Some have said that when the Fudd word is introduced in a thread, it's a sign that rational discussion has ceased.)

Deprived of freedom? First of all, you don't need to possess a firearm to be free. One does not need to possess a firearm to have means of self-defense. Depriving a man of the legal right to possess a firearm is not the same as depriving him the right to defend himself, his home and his family.

Second, I guess in your estimation I'd be a Fudd, because I've been acquainted with way more convicted felons than probably all but a few forum members, and I'm here to tell you that most of these folks I've been involuntary familiar with should never, ever be able to legally purchase or own a firearm. I want it to be difficult for them to obtain a firearm. And if they are found in possession of a firearm, I want them to be hammered to the extent of existing law.

And are some of you not aware that there already are processes for convicted felons to regain their right to buy and own firearms? In some states, the process is not even complicated. Can it be difficult? Sure, but should we have a problem with making sure someone has clearly demonstrated signs of being reformed/rehabilitated, ready to move on and function civilly in society? Yes, they may have completed their last sentence, but now they are still going to have to earn back some rights and privileges to re-integrate with society. Or do we automatically give them the right to go out and buy a new gun with their gate money as soon as they clear the salle port upon release, because sure, we trust them now?

But all this should not be construed to mean that I would be opposed to evaluating existing law to determine whether all felony convictions should result in loss of gun rights. Although some here have argued that it's all about the RKBA, I disagree and think that there is much other reform in the criminal justice system needed before we go cherry-picking only certain rights for restoration, which will only exacerbate the confusing, complex existing patchwork of the myriad unnecessary, superfluous, redundant and (to many) unconstitutional laws on the books now. There's a lot of work to be done before trying to "fix" this issue, a lot of evaluation and classification, and if you think it can be done with one swoop of the pen, you could be wrong. Or I could be, who knows? I was once wrong before, once...

Also, as I noted before, even most felons post-incarceration don't necessarily consider being able to legally arm themselves a top priority -- for those that don't plan to go back to the same street corning and slinging rock, it's almost always being able to secure affordable, safe housing and meaningful employment. Also being able to support their families, for many, furthering their education or getting into a trade, paying off their LFOs, voting, etc. Obviously, on an RKBA-centered forum, we think of every issue with how it relates to 2A and firearms, but for those not in the RKBA community and gun culture, there are other issues that may take priority.
 
I think most of us know at least one non-violent felon who has made it back into society. You probably don't even know it though. Not likely he or she brags about it. I think there should be a legitimate process where such a person can regain his 2A rights.

OTOH, it does not appear to me that most violent offenders can ever really be trusted even after finishing their sentences.
 
Old Dog said:
And are some of you not aware that there already are processes for convicted felons to regain their right to buy and own firearms? In some states, the process is not even complicated. Can it be difficult? Sure, but should we have a problem with making sure someone has clearly demonstrated signs of being reformed/rehabilitated, ready to move on and function civilly in society? Yes, they may have completed their last sentence, but now they are still going to have to earn back some rights and privileges to re-integrate with society. Or do we automatically give them the right to go out and buy a new gun with their gate money as soon as they clear the salle port upon release, because sure, we trust them now?
Click to expand...

I don't think we're all that far off in our actual opinions, between you and me. We differ on particulars.


Yes, there already ARE many processes for convicted felons to regain their right to buy and own firearms.

At the state level, anyway, where the processes by which this may happen will vary widely from state to state.

But not at the Federal level, per se.


If a person is a convicted felon at a state level, they can petition the state for restoration of this right by whatever their processes are. Per 18USC921(a)(20), if the person's civil rights have been restored or their conviction has been vacated, then it's no longer a concern at a federal level. In Washington State, as an example, a visit to the court to obtain a Certificate of Discharge would do this.

If a person has been convicted in a federal court, however, the ONLY way a person can get their right to buy and own a firearm is by Presidential pardon. The turkeys a President pardons every year have a better chance at this than any citizen. There ARE no processes one can go through to attempt the restoration of their RKBA other than to petition the President for a pardon. And that's not the typically the kind of thing that's generally considered with respect to someone who has gone through the judicial process and "paid their dues" by serving out their full sentence. (Though I admit I'm not legally up on this and could well be wrong.)

And if a person was convicted at a courts-martial? Forget about it. A conviction by courts-martial is effectively a federal conviction, NOT a state conviction. A general courts-martial conviction is the equivalent of a felony conviction in a US federal district court. Trying to overturn a courts-martial sentence would be about as effective as spitting into a hurricane wind. A Presidential pardon would do it...if you were a turkey, anyway. Getting the military to overturn a courts-martial happens so rarely that it's almost a unicorn event. You're very likely to have died of old age before that will happen. Consider Captain McVay of the USS Indianapolis (which was the ship that delivered the atomic bomb components to Tinian). He was convicted in a courts-martial in December, 1945. He later committed suicide in 1968. And it was in October of 2000, almost 55 years later, when he was finally exonerated by the President under Congress' recommendation.


And there are other shades of this too, making it a very complex issue to discuss. Probably the best way would be to pick a specific set of circumstances, in a specific jurisdiction, then look up that jurisdiction's processes on the matter.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I don't think we're all that far off in our actual opinions, between you and me. We differ on particulars.


Yes, there already ARE many processes for convicted felons to regain their right to buy and own firearms.

At the state level, anyway, where the processes by which this may happen will vary widely from state to state.

But not at the Federal level, per se.


If a person is a convicted felon at a state level, they can petition the state for restoration of this right by whatever their processes are. Per 18USC921(a)(20), if the person's civil rights have been restored or their conviction has been vacated, then it's no longer a concern at a federal level. In Washington State, as an example, a visit to the court to obtain a Certificate of Discharge would do this.

If a person has been convicted in a federal court, however, the ONLY way a person can get their right to buy and own a firearm is by Presidential pardon. The turkeys a President pardons every year have a better chance at this than any citizen. There ARE no processes one can go through to attempt the restoration of their RKBA other than to petition the President for a pardon. And that's not the typically the kind of thing that's generally considered with respect to someone who has gone through the judicial process and "paid their dues" by serving out their full sentence. (Though I admit I'm not legally up on this and could well be wrong.)

And if a person was convicted at a courts-martial? Forget about it. A conviction by courts-martial is effectively a federal conviction, NOT a state conviction. A general courts-martial conviction is the equivalent of a felony conviction in a US federal district court. Trying to overturn a courts-martial sentence would be about as effective as spitting into a hurricane wind. A Presidential pardon would do it...if you were a turkey, anyway. Getting the military to overturn a courts-martial happens so rarely that it's almost a unicorn event. You're very likely to have died of old age before that will happen. Consider Captain McVay of the USS Indianapolis (which was the ship that delivered the atomic bomb components to Tinian). He was convicted in a courts-martial in December, 1945. He later committed suicide in 1968. And it was in October of 2000, almost 55 years later, when he was finally exonerated by the President under Congress' recommendation.


And there are other shades of this too, making it a very complex issue to discuss. Probably the best way would be to pick a specific set of circumstances, in a specific jurisdiction, then look up that jurisdiction's processes on the matter.
Click to expand...

Chief,

As a "follow-on" to your posting concerning the effect of a military court-martial conviction, it's worth pointing out that Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, if he were still alive, would be a "Prohibited Person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

My comment is not to demean the Admiral. He has a well deserved his place in history and his honor is intact. My comment is meant as a poor reflection on the GCA of 1968.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Court: Arizona can restore gun rights to felons convicted in other states
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
P
  • Locked
Federal Judge Restores Non-Violent Offender’s Gun Rights Following Landmark Case
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
theotherwaldo
theotherwaldo
A
  • Locked
Appeals court strikes down ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
Replies
2
Views
343
Robert
Robert
Y
  • Locked
NC Supreme Court: Felon wins the right to own a gun!
Replies
9
Views
2K
Zoogster
Z
A
  • Locked
Federal Government Bans Conservative Laura Loomer from Owning Guns
Replies
14
Views
2K
hso
hso
Back
Top