Ban on felons carrying firearms includes antique guns, court rules

cskny said:

But my point is simply, THR is a community of gun enthusiasts who don't agree on everything, so how can you say blanket statements about a 'THR movements' or 'THR ideals'? Because SOME people agree with something your saying?

Who appointed you guys to speak for all of us at THR?

Click to expand...

You can see by the rest of that post, I am not really qualified to answer that. I am sure someone will be along shortly.

As someone who believes that the only legitimate role of government is to secure our natural and inalienable rights, I think a person should only be deprived the possession of arms if he is proven to be so dangerous that the mere act of possessing a firearm by him constitutes a threat to the rights of others. I believe that anyone who is this dangerous should also be locked up, as his mere presence in society would also be a threat to our rights. I think that releasing someone from prison should be seen as a statement that they are no longer considered a threat to the rights of their fellow man, and they should be restored their maximum equal liberties, including the right to live (which the right to bear arms is just a corollary of).

henschman said:

As someone who believes that the only legitimate role of government is to secure our natural and inalienable rights, I think a person should only be deprived the possession of arms if he is proven to be so dangerous that the mere act of possessing a firearm by him constitutes a threat to the rights of others. I believe that anyone who is this dangerous should also be locked up, as his mere presence in society would also be a threat to our rights. I think that releasing someone from prison should be seen as a statement that they are no longer considered a threat to the rights of their fellow man, and they should be restored their maximum equal liberties, including the right to live (which the right to bear arms is just a corollary of).

Click to expand...

This is a whole different conversation

cskny said:

so how can you say blanket statements about a 'THR movements' or 'THR ideals'?

Click to expand...

Whoa a second here folks, let's read the post. Arcticap has been around here for a while and like all of us, I'm sure that he has "mis-spoke" at some point in time but, the way I read the post he is NOT attempting to speak for the forum, simply making an observation regarding "some" forum members.

arcticap said:

Some of us folks here on THR truely believe that our ideal is something worth fighting for in the long run.

Click to expand...

This forum is made up of "Individuals" with different philosophies, beliefs and ideals, that's what makes it what it is.

Whoa a second here folks, let's read the post. Arcticap has been around here for a while and like all of us, I'm sure that he has "mis-spoke" at some point in time but, the way I read the post he is NOT attempting to speak for the forum, simply making an observation regarding "some" forum members.

Click to expand...

There was no disrespect intended. If I'm misunderstanding it, my apologies because my point is the same as yours:

This forum is made up of "Individuals" with different philosophies, beliefs and ideals, that's what makes it what it is.

Click to expand...

How did possession of a muzzle loader bring up rape?

I must have missed something.

Click to expand...

It was simply a comparison to help show that someone was trying to imply the difficulty of having to enforce the law is a potential reason not to have the law in the first place.

So does that mean that you think that muzzle loaders should only be transferred through an FFL dealer instead of through the mail directly to the consumer like it is now in most states?

Click to expand...

Is there another point in that question I'm missing?

Is there another point in that question I'm missing?

Click to expand...

There most certainly is.
Try this: answer the question yes or no. Very simple.

Nevada=No

I was listening to the radio yesterday when they mentioned a new Nevada Supreme Court Decision.

In Nevada, it is now illegal for a felon to own or possess antique or black powder firearms. Even though the Feds have no such rule, Nevada now does.

It mentioned that this stems from a felony arrest in Elko. The felon had some old guns on him. Federally, he wasn't violating the law. I guess Nevada had no restriction either. Now they do.

I am surprised.

Nevada is a very lenient state when it comes to gun laws. Not this time.

Wht do you all think?

The state's supreme court created a law? That's terrible. The jucidical branch shouldn't be legislating.

Here is a link to story: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/jan/27/ban-felons-carrying-firearms-includes-antique-guns/

I find it confusing that Mr. Pohlabel is described as an "ex-felon", if he truly is an ex-felon then he cannot also be a felon. If that were the case then my ex-wife would still be my wife and that would not sit well with my wife, or something like that .

In any event, the same is true in WA; felons are not permitted to possess muzzle loaders and the like.

Considering a black powder single-action revolver has no effective difference for the first 6 shots from a modern single-action revolver that IS regulated, and a black powder shotgun has no real functional difference than a modern one, I'm not surprised, nor am I particularly concerned with this. I honestly say good call. You can hold up a store or kill someone just as easily for a black powder firearm as a modern one.

mykeal said:

There most certainly is.
Try this: answer the question yes or no. Very simple.

Click to expand...

Why? It's not what we were discussing!

We were discussing IF felons should be allowed to own any firearms including muzzle loaders, not how enforcement would work.

The original poster said they should not be allowed and the response seems to imply we should allow it because otherwise we may have to enforce it in an inconvinient and expensive way (sending muzzle loaders through FFLs). That's not a good reason to allow something IMO.

THAT answer doesn't address the original question.

To illustrate the point, my answer to that specific question would be (and I'm not the original poster) "I don't know".

The answer of "I don't know" has NO impact on my agreement that felons lose gun rights, including rights to muzzle loaders.

Sounds like the law did not make a distinction about antique firearms, and the court decided that a law about 'firearms' without an explicit distinction for antiques applies.

If the state legislature wants to allow convicted felons to carry antique firerams (or reproductions) they can change the law to add the exception.

I would not recommend holding your breath.

Its amazing how many people on this board seem to get your knowledge of "felons" form the news, or movies, or some other nonsense. The act is people do their time and in many cases they do change. The larger issue is the fact that our INALIENABLE RIGHTS are not so if we can just arbitrarily take them away from an entire class of people based on public ignorance and opinion. Are some of you guys really arguing that guys like Tim the Tool Man Taylor (Tim Allen) are dangerous "felons" who shouldn't have the right to ever again possess a firearm because his heinous crimes have stripped him of the God given right to defend himself and his family???? If that is your argument I find it a little one dimensional and I would argue there is a better way to observe and protect our rights.

jon_in_wv said:

Its amazing how many people on this board seem to get your knowledge of "felons" form the news, or movies, or some other nonsense. The act is people do their time and in many cases they do change. The larger issue is the fact that our INALIENABLE RIGHTS are not so if we can just arbitrarily take them away from an entire class of people based on public ignorance and opinion. Are some of you guys really arguing that guys like Tim the Tool Man Taylor (Tim Allen) are dangerous "felons" who shouldn't have the right to ever again possess a firearm because his heinous crimes have stripped him of the God given right to defend himself and his family???? If that is your argument I find it a little one dimensional and I would argue there is a better way to observe and protect our rights.

Click to expand...

What's amazing to me is the bleeding heart sympathies that some extend to the convicted. We are talking about people who had due process and are now convicted felons, not the accused, not the general public. The convicted.

Arguing that rights are "INALIENABLE" and choosing to ignore the rest of the constitution that allows removal via legal due process, is silly. The constitution framed the process for the removal of those rights.

Part of the punishment that goes with crimes comes in addition to jail time. Don't ask my to cry about it, or work to change that. I don't know Tim Allen's story, and I don't care. I would tell him the same thing, he should have been thinking about the consequences BEFORE he did whatever the heck he did.

In contrast to federal standards, Nevada state law does not appear to exclude "antiques" from the definition of "firearm". State law almost certainly prohibits felons from firearms ownership, so I am not surprised by this court's decision.

NRS 202.253

2. "Firearm" means any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

I posted this thread because I thought it was interesting.

Click to expand...

There's little question it's interesting, I agree. There have been many threads about this type of topic here, there's even been at least 1 poll I can remember. The majority of people here at THR (not my opinion, the poll results), believed that felons justly lose gun rights. But inevitably, the topic comes back up and there are a minority of folks who strongly disagree. The muzzle loading aspect is an interesting twist.

It seems you lead a perfect life, cskny. I know a couple people with a charmed life with no run-ins with the law. Maybe a parking ticket, but that's it. Most of the people I have met in the world have dealt with the police or law in one way or another above having a traffic violation.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, trivializing the choice to know the law and legally abide by it with words like "perfect" or "charmed" is an excuse. There's no magical powers helping someone follow or not follow the law, it's your choice.

Saying "dealt with the police..." also seems trivializing. Dealing with the police has nothing to do with following or not following the law. We all "deal with the police". Do you mean to say they were "arrested" by the police for more than a traffic ticket?

Look, most people will unfortunately find themselves in bad situations sometimes. Someone's personal choices obviously have a large impact on how often. But regardless, what we decide to do in those situations is our choice. If you make the choice not to follow the law, expect punishment. And like all punishments, it's probably going to suck.

I had somehow assumed that if I had ever had a bad situation come up and was convicted of a felony for something I did not do, I could still legally have and use a muzzle loader.

Click to expand...

I think if you find yourself in a situation where you are being convicted for a felony you didn't commit, you probably have more pressing issues than keeping a muzzle loader. I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone rich, poor, or anywhere in the middle.

It's the same in CA & HI.
Felons can't own/possess blackpowder firearms in CA and HI.

It seems the idea "Once a felon, always a felon" prevails on The High Road. No one gets to make a mistake, learn from their mistakes and reform themselves. Too bad because it happens frequently. Yes, the majority of incarcerated felons are repeat offenders BUT the number of first time offenders who repeat is small. I don't see why they should be forever branded.

it may get overturned on appeal.they could also state he was forbidden because by federal law because of the controlled substance