Another Inconvenient Truth

[Erebus]

Erebus. That is true, as the law is now.
How ever not all "felons"are violent.

Agreed, absolutely

Also, by the law as it is, If your rights are restored, you are NOT a prohibited person.

That would require any felonies or misdemeanor domestic violence offences being removed from your record. Being released from prison at the conclusion of your sentence does not do this. Therefore unless your record is wiped clean you are still a felon and prohibited from possessing or in any way acquiring a weapon.

NICS does not keep those intent or evil from finding the means.

It should prevent them from acquiring weapons through official channels however that is not always the case as we saw with Cho. It was a failure of the system, not his legal status. But it's still very easy for someone prohibited to acquire weapons through illegal channels even in the places with the strictest laws.

NICS does infringe on the Rights of the law abiding.

That it does..... That it does..... People have been improperly denied or delayed do to the NICS check not going as planned.

 

[pcosmar]

Erebus

That would require any felonies or misdemeanor domestic violence offences being removed from your record. Being released from prison at the conclusion of your sentence does not do this. Therefore unless your record is wiped clean you are still a felon and prohibited from possessing or in any way acquiring a weapon.

Not exactly,Under the FOPA of 86, a person is not a prohibited person if he has had their sentence pardoned, expunged, OR has had a restoration of rights. That is the law.
However, in practice the policy is to deny it. If I had the $$$X10, for a good lawyer and a court battle, I could have my rights recognized.
There is the law, and there is the policy, c'est la vie.

 

[Daemon688]

A little thing I learned in psychology: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So, Joe Six Pack is much less likely to "snap" compared to say...a man with a previous record. If convicted felons don't have the right to vote, they should have no right to bear arms. NICS checks should only disqualify firearm ownership for people who are ONLY convicted felons.

 

[WeedWhacker]

So, convicted felons have no right to defend themselves?

If you've ever transferred a VHS tape to DVD or installed a no-CD patch for a game, guess what: you're a felon!

Makes you feel good, knowing a bunch of punks who copied their original Star Wars tapes aren't allowed to protect themselves, does it? :/

Frankly, even murderers who have served their time have inherent, God-given rights: if they are out on the street as "free men", then they are to be free men, dammit! Else, keep them in prison!

 

[pcosmar]

Daemon688

A little thing I learned in psychology: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

That does not explain The killer of the Amish school children. It did not predict the killing of Ms Johnston in Atlanta, or the many other crimes. There is no past record when it is a first offense

If convicted felons don't have the right to vote, they should have no right to bear arms.

I have the right to vote, I can run for public office. While on parole I was called for jury duty twice.( I was released from duty).
I pay taxes, income,property, and sales.
But I was arrested because my wife had a double barrel 12 ga. On a rural farm, that is a farm implement.

 

[Chui]

pcosmar, are you suggesting that persons who have been convicted of a felony have such identifying information on their ID/driver's licenses? It could be imbedded, but OUR information could be snatched and stored if our DLs are scanned.

Perhaps, while a person is on parole (say, five years) he has a different Driver's License and after he completes a trouble-free parole period he no longer has to have the distinguishing documentation...

I dunno, I'm brainstorming.

 

[Geister]

It's not going to help, pcosmar. All it will do is make a group feel safer without actually being safer. The only chance you have to keep a killer from killing is shooting him in self-defense.

 

[Daemon688]

That does not explain The killer of the Amish school children. It did not predict the killing of Ms Johnston in Atlanta, or the many other crimes. There is no past record when it is a first offense

Yes, sometimes people do just "lose it" but I still stand by my belief that the majority of people who commit murder are those who have a long standing criminal record. If you think I'm wrong about that, then prove it with criminal statistics.

I have the right to vote, I can run for public office. While on parole I was called for jury duty twice.( I was released from duty).
I pay taxes, income,property, and sales.
But I was arrested because my wife had a double barrel 12 ga. On a rural farm, that is a farm implement.

What's your point here? You were arrested and you're a felon because your wife had a shotgun? The story doesn't make any sense. If you disagree with my belief that "if felons can't vote, they shouldn't be able to own firearms", fine.

 

[Erebus]

I don't like the idea that anyone that is not in custody, and therefore on their own for defense, that they are ruled to be left helpless for prior offenses. If they are too dangerous to trust with a gun then they are too dangerous to trust with cars, kitchen knives, baseball bats, machetes, hammers, etc. All stuff they can get at any hardware store or department store.

If they are too dangerous to trust with a weapon they are too dangerous to be left loose.

If they are not too dangerous to be left loose than they are not too dangerous to be able to defend themselves.

Anyone know if a felon has ever sued the state because they were victimized and had been rendered defenseless by such laws?

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

dont forget a convicted felon can be someone who carried without a permit for protection in a rough neighborhood one time, atleast in my state anyways.

 

[Cosmoline]

My view is this. NICS is annoying, poorly run and does very little to stop crime. The money would be better spent on other law enforcement programs. But the reality is we're stuck with it for the time being. And if we can channel and vent the mainstream anti-gun hysteria into tweaking the rules on adjudicated mental impairment and how the court system deals with the nuts, I won't object. It could be much worse. And if we're going to have the thing, we might as well try to make it work right at least some of the time. Certainly this fellow had enough prior problems (stalking, taking lewd photos of women in class, threats, psychotic behavior, etc.) that he should have been kicked out of college and sent to the funny farm. The real problem is, the funny farm got closed down in the 70's and has never been replaced. So the nutcases end up either in prison or academia.

 

[pcosmar]

By Daemon688

What's your point here? You were arrested and you're a felon because your wife had a shotgun? The story doesn't make any sense. If you disagree with my belief that "if felons can't vote, they shouldn't be able to own firearms", fine

No, I was arrested (again) because I am a felon and my wife had a shotgun.
My rights have been restored, I vote. Felons Can Vote. I can run for public office. I just can't keep coyotes off my land.