Quantcast

Ban on felons carrying firearms includes antique guns, court rules

Discussion in 'Legal' started by chicharrones, Jan 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NinjaFeint

    NinjaFeint Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    CT
    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.
     
  2. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    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).
     
  3. NinjaFeint

    NinjaFeint Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    CT
    This is a whole different conversation
     
  4. Foto Joe

    Foto Joe Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Location:
    Cody, WY
    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.

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

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,302
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    Thanks for that. I was wondering how it might work here in Texas. :cool:
     
  6. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,302
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    How did possession of a muzzle loader bring up rape?

    I must have missed something.
     
  7. cskny

    cskny Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    422
    There was no disrespect intended. If I'm misunderstanding it, my apologies because my point is the same as yours:

     
  8. cskny

    cskny Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    422

    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.

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

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    There most certainly is.
    Try this: answer the question yes or no. Very simple.
     
  10. lizziedog1

    lizziedog1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    942
    Location:
    The Silver State
    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?
     
  11. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,953
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    The state's supreme court created a law? That's terrible. The jucidical branch shouldn't be legislating.
     
  12. bikemutt

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,480
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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 :eek:.

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

    WardenWolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    5,884
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    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.
     
  14. cskny

    cskny Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    422
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2012
  15. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    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.
     
  16. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    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.
     
  17. cskny

    cskny Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    422
    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.
     
  18. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,302
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
  19. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,302
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    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.

    I posted this thread because I thought it was interesting. 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. See, that's my problem. I was still thinking legal vs. illegal since I consider myself to be a law abiding person.

    Being a juror in a felony case has shown me that jurors are informed very little during a court case. That jury can convict a person or set free a person when the opposite should have happened if all facts would have been known to the jury. The lawyers and judges do know much, much more than the jurors.

    Defending oneself well with a lawyer is a cost many people cannot afford. Continuing with appeals or later legal assistance adds to that cost. Pro-bono lawyers aren't exactly for middle class Americans that make too much for free services, but make to little for proper self defense.
     
  20. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,302
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
  21. Lee Roder

    Lee Roder Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    510
    Location:
    AZ
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2012
  22. cskny

    cskny Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    422
    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.

    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 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.
     
  23. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,090
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    It's the same in CA & HI.
    Felons can't own/possess blackpowder firearms in CA and HI.
     
  24. StrawHat

    StrawHat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,794
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  25. dprice3844444

    dprice3844444 member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,264
    Location:
    se fla i love claymores 01/sot
    it may get overturned on appeal.they could also state he was forbidden because by federal law because of the controlled substance
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice