Anyone know any felon shooters?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zund-

It depend's on the crime they commited.

A murderer or rapist? Screw um. Far as Im concerened you could give them a bullet, in the head. Individual case's reviedwed of course to see if such would not be appropriate. If you are the scum of socity, they far as Im concerned you have given up your right's. If you preform a violent criminal act that hurt's someone of has a high potential to, then yes you in my book have given up your right's.

Felony for driving to fast? Maybe even something like embezelment? To many parking ticket's not paid on time? People like these do not earn their rights being revolked. In fact in all but some of the most very extreme case's you shouldn't even be put in jail.
 
Or if your kid writes a fictional story about zombies invading his school, he's now a felon.

No, he's not. Grand Jury refused to indict on the felony charge, instead he was indicted on a misdemeanor charge. In October all charges were dropped.
http://www.bowjamesbow.net/2005/10/10/all_charges_dro.shtml He was placed on probation, when his two years are up, he'll not have a criminal record.

Dress up like an Abu Ghraib prisoner and if the cops over react you could be facing a felony.

Again, all charges dropped.
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/03950810.asp
Although, a Google search on the name "Joe Privetera" is ... interesting.

The thriteen kiddies are harder to research, although it's still early in their case.

LawDog
 
...why do they ALWAYS have amnesia about the caveat that BATF won't even accept any applications for 2A rights restoration...for LACK OF FUNDING!!!
(mrex asked)
Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?
Sure:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0368.htm

excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another misconception is that state judges can restore a reformed criminal's rights. On paper, this is at least partly true. Even on paper, however, only A.T.F. can restore the right to purchase a firearm -- even if an offense has been pardoned or expunged! -- although many states do allow possession in the home after a certain number of years have passed. What difference do the state laws make if you can be arrested merely for the attempt to purchase a firearm? So can these people make application to A.T.F. to restore their rights? Well, they can apply all day long, but it will never happen. For many years, the rights restoration program through A.T.F. has been un-staffed and unfunded. So it simply never happens these days. Never. And I know this to be true, because I have been trying for twenty years to assist another very law-abiding friend in expunging his ancient offense and recovering his rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are numerous other citations, do a google search.

One of the most egregious cases of denial of rights restoration (at the supreme court level, no less) - see Thomas Bean Vs. USA. Link: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1617/

Read it and weep.
 
Felony for driving to fast? Maybe even something like embezelment? To many parking ticket's not paid on time? People like these do not earn their rights being revolked. In fact in all but some of the most very extreme case's you shouldn't even be put in jail.

Fair enough. I can ride that bus.

However, where is the line? For example, one of our local 'celebrity dirtbags' used to come into the jail a lot...and I mean A LOT. He is one of the few people who has ever been sent to prison for 'drunk in public'. I kid you not, he served time in prison because he would not clean up his act. He was involved in some minor scuffles and fights, but nothing too serious. Certainly nothing of 'violent felony' level. Yet, one of our more conservative judges finally sent this guy up the river because he showed absolutely no proclivity to change his ways. Bear in mind, this wasn't after two or three convictions. This was after, literally, years of activity with about a hundred, or so, arrests...possibly more (one night the printer ran out of paper when printing up his rap sheet).

In fact, after he was parolled, he violated the terms of his parole and was sent back up again...a few times. Each time he went back to the pen, he came out a little harder and more criminally sophisticated.

When should this guy considered to have his rights abrogated ?
 
hammer4nc said:
...why do they ALWAYS have amnesia about the caveat that BATF won't even accept any applications for 2A rights restoration...for LACK OF FUNDING!!!
(mrex asked)
Sure:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0368.htm

excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another misconception is that state judges can restore a reformed criminal's rights. On paper, this is at least partly true. Even on paper, however, only A.T.F. can restore the right to purchase a firearm -- even if an offense has been pardoned or expunged! -- although many states do allow possession in the home after a certain number of years have passed. What difference do the state laws make if you can be arrested merely for the attempt to purchase a firearm? So can these people make application to A.T.F. to restore their rights? Well, they can apply all day long, but it will never happen. For many years, the rights restoration program through A.T.F. has been un-staffed and unfunded. So it simply never happens these days. Never. And I know this to be true, because I have been trying for twenty years to assist another very law-abiding friend in expunging his ancient offense and recovering his rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are numerous other citations, do a google search.

One of the most egregious cases of denial of rights restoration (at the supreme court level, no less) - see Thomas Bean Vs. USA. Link: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1617/

Read it and weep.


Ooooook, I meant something factual and not off someone's personal editorial, but I did find the Bean case in a search.

Thanks!
 
Rex-

I would agree I suppose in that case. Someone who has shown countless disreguard for law or public safty give's up certian right's I suppose.
 
Lupinus said:
Rex-

I would agree I suppose in that case. Someone who has shown countless disreguard for law or public safty give's up certian right's I suppose.

This one is a hard one. I know the guy in question. He's a turd through and through. But...he was never 'violent'...at least, I never saw him get violent when he was locked up. He was vocal, and borderline resistive, but I don't recall him ever actually being violent.

A tough call, to say the least.
 
On the contrary, felons can have whatever weapons they want, without the impediments of background checks, waiting periods, or any of the other restrictions that law-abiding citizens suffer. It’s almost enviable.

That said, my brother-in-law is a felon because he did something that is common and even expected in his home country. To expedite the customs process, he offered money to a federal agent. He’s hardly a dangerous criminal, but now he will never own a “legal” firearm.

~G. Fink
 
Lupinus said:
True com.

Felonies should have different classes as far as what get's you banned from having a gun

If it isnt violent you should be allowed a gun

Okay, what is it that you don't understand about misdemeanors? It is at the misdemeanor level of law breakage where you keep rights such as being able to own or possess a gun, vote, etc. It is at the felony level where you lose these rights. So you have your different classes already present. You apparently don't agree with the upper end class, the felon class.

So just because someone is a "felon" doesn't mean they are dangerous.

No, they are not necessarily dangerous. However, they have demonstrated to society that they are not willing to play by society's laws and have managed to get caught for a serious breech of the law.

Law Dog posted Texas laws concerning felons and guns. Regardless of state law, felons in possession of firearms will be breaking federal law, except in those cases where rights have been restored.
 
neither will people of such thing's as getting into a loud argument.

Man beat's his wife that's violent.

People and couple's argue, yelling is not violent.
 
Gordon Fink said:
On the contrary, felons can have whatever weapons they want, without the impediments of background checks, waiting periods, or any of the other restrictions that law-abiding citizens suffer. It’s almost enviable.

That said, my brother-in-law is a felon because he did something that is common and even expected in his home country. To expedite the customs process, he offered money to a federal agent. He’s hardly a dangerous criminal, but now he will never own a “legal” firearm.

~G. Fink

Good point.;)
 
Let's all take a deep breath and go back and read the 2A. Tell me WHERE does it mention anything about those rights being able to be revoked from a free person for whatever reason? Cite it? Quote it? I am sorry, I cannot find it. must be my public school education.

When they are imprisoned, they are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration (i.e. no guns). And of course, while incarcerated, they are obviously not free.

You can't have it both ways folks. This is the same crap the Anti's try to pull by reinventing the constitution and interpreting things that are not there and citing "saftey" and the "greater public good" as reasons to revoke an irrevocable right.

Should one that slanders someone never again be allowed their freedom of speech?

Should a felon also have their right to due process revoked simply because they have committed a felony in the past?

Why do even gun folks often treat the 2A different than any other Amendment or right when it suits them, and then turn around and blame the anti's for the errosion of our rights? Anyone familiar with the phrase, "slippery slope"?

Do I like that felons should be able to own firearms after their release? Nope. I don't like that my brother in law can own a gun either, cause he's an idiot. It doesn't matter what I think on the matter. One giving up liberty, even someone else's, for some measure of personal safety makes one deserve neither.
 
Last edited:
M-Rex said:
IF you give a firearm to a felon, not only will the felon return to prison (where he should have remained, anyway)

In Illinois if you get a DUI and then get caught driving on a revoked licence on your way to work or where ever. The charge can be upgraded to a felony.

Also in Illinois if you get caught urinating in public you will have to register as a sex offender if the prosecutor chooses. Get caught twice and that would be a felony.

So all felons should remain in jail for life? And never poses a firearm? I don't think so. Neither does the state of Illinois.

The state of Illinois will reinstate FOID privleges of a convicted felon as long as it's NOT a violent crime. However you must provide all details of the felony court records, successful completion of punishment ect. Also you must submit at least 3 letters of recomendation from non family members.

I have 2 long time friends that committed non violent minor felonies in their youth. Have since grown up applied for FOID cards and received them.

They are 2 of the most respectible people I know.

I also know some people that have never comitted a felony have FOID cards that I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw them and don't associate with by the way.

Tough topic :banghead:
 
Double Naught Spy said:
No, they are not necessarily dangerous. However, they have demonstrated to society that they are not willing to play by society's laws and have managed to get caught for a serious breech of the law.
There is the viewpoint that the citizen is rightfully to be expected to conform to the law, and that such law exists for a reason. One can only assume that that's the viewpoint that motivates the argument that the government has the right to revoke a basic human right over whatever triviality they choose to designate as a "felony". Do you honestly hold that every single law on the books is morally correct and/or reasonable? If not how do you justify removing a person's rights over those laws? Further, if laws have a statute of limitations, a point at which the crime is no longer worth prosecuting, how do we justify a likely permanent punishment for a crime that we're only willing to punish outright for X number of years?

Apparently nobody else read Zundfolge's sig. Free men live by whatever code they choose to, so long as they don't cause injury to others; therefore dangerous to others is the only reasonable criteria why someone's rights can be removed. If the state can't prove that someone is still a danger, they should have to restore their rights, automatically.
 
Last edited:
I am married to a felon.

My wife supposedly commited a felony back in 1998 when we were dating. A lady cop was questioning her brother(14 at the time) about an auto burglary that he did not commit because he was home the whole day. My wife told him to go inside and get mama and the cop told him no!, he could not get his mother. Wife told him to get her anyway and he walked up the porch steps, my wife following, back to the lady cop. Cop grabs my wife, slams her down on the sidewalk, OC in the face, cuffs, and into the car. Cop charges my wife , resisting arrest, trying to disarm a peace officer, and agravated battery towards a peace officer!:mad: My wife is black, the cop white, my wife is now 5'6" and 110 lbs, but was about 98lbs at the time. 3 witnesses (older white couple and there daughter)across the street testified that my wife did npthing to the ladycop. Still CONVICTED of aggravated battery to a peace officer, and trying to disarm a peace officer. Clearly the cop LIED twice. There was a mistrial the first time because a tape came up in court with injuries to the officer supposedly caused by my wife but never put on the evidence list given to either the prosecutor or defense attorney. Still a CONVICTION, a violent one at that, from a person with no violent bones in her body. I was not there, but have asked her several times if there was anything that she could have done that would have been threatening to the cop and she said NO! This same cop has been in trouble for a few things, she got suspended for excessive brutality or something a few years back. Anytime she sees us in public she smiles at my wife. BITCH

Just wanted to let you know that there are people out there who were railroaded. She couldn't afford an attorney,and the public defenders sucked. Them and the prosecutors wanted her to plea, and BOTH of them admitted they didn't think she did it. I asked the PROSECUTOR why we were here then, and he said his boss likes convictions on everything. I asked him how does he live with himself.

So, I have a felon living in my house. My good friend is a patrol sargent with our police force and knows about all of this. Guess he doesn't care/knows the situation and knows there is no threat. Now I'm pissed again.

Gotta love Make up, I mean Macon County!

By the way, she only got 1 year probationa nd only served 9 of those because of good behavior.
 
Them and the prosecutors wanted her to plea, and BOTH of them admitted they didn't think she did it. I asked the PROSECUTOR why we were here then, and he said his boss likes convictions on everything.

And that is often what it's all about. Law for prosecutor's is no longer about justice. It is about racking up as many conviction's as possible.

Okay, what is it that you don't understand about misdemeanors? It is at the misdemeanor level of law breakage where you keep rights such as being able to own or possess a gun, vote, etc. It is at the felony level where you lose these rights. So you have your different classes already present. You apparently don't agree with the upper end class, the felon class.
I understand it just fine. But there is violent and non-violent. If someone get's themselves convicted for beating his wife. That is violent and loose's their right to firearm's because they have proven themselve's to be a danger to other's. But not all felonies have squat to do with violence. If I drive 26 mph over the speed limit, that is a felony. Violent how? If I don't pay my taxes that is a felony. Violent how? The list of felonies which are non-violent and in no way clasify you as a danger are long. More sever then misdemeanor? Sure. Dangerous? No. If you are to be striped of a right, it need's to be for a damn better reason then unpaid parking ticket's.

No, they are not necessarily dangerous. However, they have demonstrated to society that they are not willing to play by society's laws and have managed to get caught for a serious breech of the law.
So it is about being a danger or not playing by society's rule's that determine's you can be stripped of your right's? By commiting certian act's you give up certian freedom's. But just because it is a felony does not make you a dangerous person. Doing any one of hundred's if not thousand's of thing's could get you landed with a felony. Doesn't make you a danger to society. If what you did warent's it. You have lost your right to bare arm's for the sake of public safty. If what you did doesn't warrent that you shouldn't be needlessly stripped of one of your right's. Frankly if it does, I question if you should be out of prision in the first place.

When they are imprisoned, they are subject to the rules of that property and that term of incarceration (i.e. no guns). And of course, while incarcerated, they are obviously not free.
Valid point. But there are certian time's when you can't lock someone up and throw away the key. Murder's, rapist's, child molestor's, lock them up and throw away the key or rid the world of their usless existence. Most thing's I think should loose you your right to bare arm's for public safty I think should keep you in prision for a life sentence or executed. We shouldn't go back to the day's we hung people for stealin a horse. But we are far to scared to inflict major punishment to the very worst the human race has to offer.

So all felons should remain in jail for life? And never poses a firearm? I don't think so. Neither does the state of Illinois.
And I agree with what they are doing. But violent offender's need to be treated occordingly and either not released or strictly monitered. Right now if some psycopath serve's 20 year's for murdering someone. They day they leave prision they can maintain the first thing they are going to do is go fillet someone for the fun of it. And they will be released anyway. A child molestor can say he is going to go make a visit to the park. These are people who should have never been released from prision or executed. The guy that had to many unpaid parking ticket's? Once he serves his time and/or pay's his fine's he should have all his right's restored.

I have 2 long time friends that committed non violent minor felonies in their youth. Have since grown up applied for FOID cards and received them.
I couldn't agree more. Some people do stupid thing's in youth. Some people do stupid thing's and are truly reformed. Some people jsut do stupid thing's that count as a felony but wouldn't hurt a fly. These are the people who should have their right's restored to them upon serving their punishment.
Then there are people for whatever reason are just violent or sick individual's. These are people who should never have certian right's restored if they are even released from prision in the first place.

Victemless/Non-violent crime- People should have their right's restored when their punishment is done. Also you could consider mildly violent crime's.

Violent Criminals (murder's, rapist's, child molestor's, etc.)- I question their freedom if not their continued existence, let alone their right's.
 
I know a felon. He drew a pistol on two guys that were about to beat and rob him when he was putting some band instruments in his van after a show. This was before Michigan had a ccw shall issue. The two guys called the cops and guess who got arrested? Yep. I don't know what the charges were but he did prison time.

I met him after he got out. To the best of my knowledge being a felon has never stopped him from arming himself again. I won't give him or sell him a gun because I don't need the trouble but he doesn't need my assistance anyway. There are plent of people willing to help him out in this regard. All I have to say about this is: Good for him.
 
Hopfully thing's will turn in his favor, and people like him.

To many true criminal's get off because of technicalities or "misconduct" :rolleyes: by the public or police.
 
M-Rex said:
We have it codified in our law that a felon can have their rights reinstated. I believe there are a few folks who did it, but I will have to dig around a bit to find specific examples.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=52388510356+14+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Hmm...now that I was not aware of. Can you provide chapter and verse?
ATF's annual budget is given with the restriction that no funding may be used for the restoration of firearms rights.

I think we had a discussion here on THR about it earlier this year, the ATF's budget had some interesting lines in it.

Kharn
 
A convictwed felon cannot own or possess a gun under federal law (I think this was part of the GCA 1968).

A convicted felon can petition a court to clear a criminal record. Fairly routine if the crime was non-violent and several years have passed without further trouble with the law, harder to do for violent offenses.

I would NOT provide a firearm to a convicted felon. I would encourge this person (assuming he or she has been living a sterling life since "paying his debt") to speak with an attorney about expunging his criminal conviction. Once this is done, all rights are restored.
 
And that process is often long complicated and expensive and by no means sure.

So I do 30 mph over the speed limit and end up with a felony. Not only do I have to pay my fine's, loose my license, and maybe even jail time, I now have to spend month's petitioning the court and racking up thousands in lawyer bill's? Right....

Or if I am a true criminal I can always just go find a car trunk dealer and get myself one.
 
How about a cap and ball revolver? Does that count? My reason for asking is that a released felon shot and killed a fellow druggie not far from where I live. He used a replica Model 1849 Pocket Revolver. He was charged with murder but I don't remember his being charged with possession of a firearm.
 
What, was it a carry gun or something? Even with the cylinder stuffed to the point where I had to shave the front of the ball off, I got 38 S&W class velocites out of mine. (Checked it on a friend's chronograph) I think I'd opt for a Walker or Dragoon if limited to a cap and ball revolver.:eek:


Congress passes a law banning all personal posession of firearms tomorrow; now who's the felon?;) :rolleyes: :what:

And for those who think "Hey that violates the Third and Fourth Amendments"; If they were negating the Second, do you think they'd care about the rest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top