JesseL
Member
It looks to me like it says that as long as you know you have a firearm and you know that you are in a school zone (within 1000' feet of a school), you're in violation of the law.
Convicted Felons and Self Defense. What do you think?
- Thread starter camslam
- Start date
- Status
It looks to me like it says that as long as you know you have a firearm and you know that you are in a school zone (within 1000' feet of a school), you're in violation of the law.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Trustworthy Felon
I'm aware it's not a simple as I paint it, and yet it is.
If the "litmus test" for felony were "is this man dangerous?" the a whole host of felonies would have to be removed from the books.
For the system to make any comprehensive sense, the definition of crime has to be fixed, the "paying your debt' thing has to have some actual meaning, and a clear demarcation has to exist between keeping violent offenders out of society, and making the non-violent ones actually clean up their messes and pay for their mistakes -- PAY, not "be commensurately punished" -- so that they can reclaim their rights, honor, and a place within society.
Real rehabilitation and redemption have to be possible for the system to make real sense.
But.
In the meantime, we have a system that visits injustice on the decent, the honest, the law-abiding, in the name of "restricting bad people" and it doesn't accomplish its supposed purpose. All it does is create misery for good citizens.
While there is no "crystal ball" for determining trust, there are some fairly clear and obvious things that can be used: 1) subject has committed no violence, 2) subject has made actual restitution, 3) subject has achieved real rehabilitation/redemption through other means (on which I will not speculate here).
There's no real uncertainty about what kind of folks need to be locked up and kept away from society. There is, however a very practical logistics problem of housing them indefinitely or permanently. There are two ways out of a prison: the front door (back into society) or the back door (which leads to the cemetery).
The thinking process that concludes "you have to let him out because things are crowded in there" is truly flawed. That gives us today's status quo.
The approach that concludes "that's all we can do because we don't know how to rehabilitate" is likewise flawed. Figure it out. Really.
Because all you have left is "kill them all because we have no better ideas."
Yeah, it's not simple.
But what we have today is intolerably stupid. The wrong people are called "felons" and the real evil creatures are allowed to roam free.
Restoration of "some rights" to "some felons" is a band-aid that merely complicates things.
Identify violent offenders. Be willing to make the penalties harsh and final.
Rehabilitate the ones who can be saved. No speculation here on how.
Fine the minor offenders and leave them the hell alone.
Trust is tough.
But saying it's "just too hard," so all the good people must suffer, is the wrong answer.
Nor do we have one that determines whether a man who has never been so much as charged with a crime can be trusted.
I'm aware it's not a simple as I paint it, and yet it is.
If the "litmus test" for felony were "is this man dangerous?" the a whole host of felonies would have to be removed from the books.
We have some very ironically named institutions. Justice Department. Department of Corrections. Penal System. Law Enforcement. Public Safety.
The Dept of Corrections doesn't correct. It doesn't rehabilitate. It achieves no redemption. The Justice Department doesn't dispense justice. Law Enforcement can't really enforce the law, they can only chase violators and, while that difference sounds like "just semantics" it has meaning when the law says "no murder allowed" and "Enforcement" can't actually prevent murder. They have to wait until the murder has happened, then catch the guy, then hand him over to the Justice guys, so he can be punished by "Corrections." Then, after he's been punished, he has "paid his debt" to society. Huh??
This is along the lines of, I set fire to your uninsured (liability only) used car, destroying it completely, and costing you thousands of dollars to replace it. The "justice" system makes me pay them a fine, or puts me in jail for a year, or breaks my fingers. You are never compensated, but I have been punished and therefore "paid my debt" to society.
Horse hockey. I haven't paid any kind of debt. All that's happened is someone has inflicted on me some kind of punishment they deem to be commensurate with the damage I caused to "society." You get to feel like you've been "avenged," the D.A. gets another conviction to bolster his political aspirations, and the sheriff can brag that he's tough on crime.
I haven't been rehabilitated, and you are still out the replacement cost of your car.
And, of course, there are the heinous crimes of illegal agriculture, for which one must be appropriately punished, even though there's no victim to feel "avenged" about it.
Now that system is quite broken.
The above is called "a digression."The Dept of Corrections doesn't correct. It doesn't rehabilitate. It achieves no redemption. The Justice Department doesn't dispense justice. Law Enforcement can't really enforce the law, they can only chase violators and, while that difference sounds like "just semantics" it has meaning when the law says "no murder allowed" and "Enforcement" can't actually prevent murder. They have to wait until the murder has happened, then catch the guy, then hand him over to the Justice guys, so he can be punished by "Corrections." Then, after he's been punished, he has "paid his debt" to society. Huh??
This is along the lines of, I set fire to your uninsured (liability only) used car, destroying it completely, and costing you thousands of dollars to replace it. The "justice" system makes me pay them a fine, or puts me in jail for a year, or breaks my fingers. You are never compensated, but I have been punished and therefore "paid my debt" to society.
Horse hockey. I haven't paid any kind of debt. All that's happened is someone has inflicted on me some kind of punishment they deem to be commensurate with the damage I caused to "society." You get to feel like you've been "avenged," the D.A. gets another conviction to bolster his political aspirations, and the sheriff can brag that he's tough on crime.
I haven't been rehabilitated, and you are still out the replacement cost of your car.
And, of course, there are the heinous crimes of illegal agriculture, for which one must be appropriately punished, even though there's no victim to feel "avenged" about it.
Now that system is quite broken.
For the system to make any comprehensive sense, the definition of crime has to be fixed, the "paying your debt' thing has to have some actual meaning, and a clear demarcation has to exist between keeping violent offenders out of society, and making the non-violent ones actually clean up their messes and pay for their mistakes -- PAY, not "be commensurately punished" -- so that they can reclaim their rights, honor, and a place within society.
Real rehabilitation and redemption have to be possible for the system to make real sense.
But.
In the meantime, we have a system that visits injustice on the decent, the honest, the law-abiding, in the name of "restricting bad people" and it doesn't accomplish its supposed purpose. All it does is create misery for good citizens.
While there is no "crystal ball" for determining trust, there are some fairly clear and obvious things that can be used: 1) subject has committed no violence, 2) subject has made actual restitution, 3) subject has achieved real rehabilitation/redemption through other means (on which I will not speculate here).
There's no real uncertainty about what kind of folks need to be locked up and kept away from society. There is, however a very practical logistics problem of housing them indefinitely or permanently. There are two ways out of a prison: the front door (back into society) or the back door (which leads to the cemetery).
The thinking process that concludes "you have to let him out because things are crowded in there" is truly flawed. That gives us today's status quo.
The approach that concludes "that's all we can do because we don't know how to rehabilitate" is likewise flawed. Figure it out. Really.
Because all you have left is "kill them all because we have no better ideas."
Yeah, it's not simple.
But what we have today is intolerably stupid. The wrong people are called "felons" and the real evil creatures are allowed to roam free.
Restoration of "some rights" to "some felons" is a band-aid that merely complicates things.
Identify violent offenders. Be willing to make the penalties harsh and final.
Rehabilitate the ones who can be saved. No speculation here on how.
Fine the minor offenders and leave them the hell alone.
Trust is tough.
But saying it's "just too hard," so all the good people must suffer, is the wrong answer.
Last edited:
You'd be surprised.
I often travel for pleasure, while traveling from a state where it is legal to carry a firearm openly in your vehicle, to a state where it is not, I have on at least one occasion committed a felony for over a hundred miles because it didn't occur to me at 3am to pull over and put my gun in the trunk.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
There's an idea . . .
While that clearly will never make it off the drawing board (despite having a certain rightness to it), I'm pretty sure there's a way to make real rehab work.
Repeat offenders . . . that wouldn't be pretty.
To more directly address the OP, I think the right answer for "pot felons" is that they simply aren't felons.
How hard is that?
Instead of defining a "felony" in terms of "how mad I am at you" or how many political points it scores for the lawmaker, make the definition make some actual sense.
Then we don't have "pot felons" any more.
And murdering rapists never see a parole board.
The current laws defining "felons" appear to have been written by idiots. Or congressmen. But I repeat myself. (Apologies to Mark Twain)
Ha. Indeed.
While that clearly will never make it off the drawing board (despite having a certain rightness to it), I'm pretty sure there's a way to make real rehab work.
Repeat offenders . . . that wouldn't be pretty.
To more directly address the OP, I think the right answer for "pot felons" is that they simply aren't felons.
How hard is that?
Instead of defining a "felony" in terms of "how mad I am at you" or how many political points it scores for the lawmaker, make the definition make some actual sense.
Then we don't have "pot felons" any more.
And murdering rapists never see a parole board.
The current laws defining "felons" appear to have been written by idiots. Or congressmen. But I repeat myself. (Apologies to Mark Twain)
Nolo
Member
Humans need certain things to survive. They need to eat, to sleep, to have shelter, to defecate, to remain healthy, to reproduce and to fend off predators.
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to eat?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to sleep?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to have shelter?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to defecate?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to remain healthy?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to reproduce?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to fend off predators?
All of these are basic human needs. Without even one of them, we would die out. Every human has a right to all of these. Nothing but capital punishment can remove them.
Let them have guns. They need them as much as we do.
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to eat?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to sleep?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to have shelter?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to defecate?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to remain healthy?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to reproduce?
If you are a felon, is it reasonable to lose the right to fend off predators?
All of these are basic human needs. Without even one of them, we would die out. Every human has a right to all of these. Nothing but capital punishment can remove them.
Let them have guns. They need them as much as we do.
alsaqr
Member
i do not have a problem with one conviction non-violent felons owning guns. i do have a problem with habitual offenders and violent felons owning guns.
"Fix the right problem"
How about discuss the right problem!
Seriously....these are two separate issues
yes....the govt treats us all like felons and that stinks
But (I thought) we were discussing actual felons getting their right to own firearms back
I think you can petition to get your rights back, but I think it is a uphill climb because the law is against you...I would support making the law more appeal friendly
I also like the idea of making a lot of the nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors...at least on the first offense
There are lots of "felonies" that are pretty benign....I would actually rank some as less serious than a lot of other misdemeanors
How about discuss the right problem!
Seriously....these are two separate issues
yes....the govt treats us all like felons and that stinks
But (I thought) we were discussing actual felons getting their right to own firearms back
I think you can petition to get your rights back, but I think it is a uphill climb because the law is against you...I would support making the law more appeal friendly
I also like the idea of making a lot of the nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors...at least on the first offense
There are lots of "felonies" that are pretty benign....I would actually rank some as less serious than a lot of other misdemeanors
Which just goes to prove how utterly stupid (and the politicians that create them) some laws are.
If the above interpretation is correct then there's a whole lot of gun owners living within that 1000' radius (including me) who are breaking the law just by living where they do.
Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
If he's allowed back out on the streets, then he should be allowed the means of effective self-defense.
If he's NOT reformed, he's gonna get a gun illegally if he wants one anyway...! To say nothing of a baseball bat, tire iron, knife, fellow thugs, or his bare hands to do bad deeds with!
If he IS reformed - hmmm - shouldn't it be considered cruel and unusual punishment to strip a man of a Constitutional right for a crime, even after he's served his punishment for the crime????
If he's NOT reformed, he's gonna get a gun illegally if he wants one anyway...! To say nothing of a baseball bat, tire iron, knife, fellow thugs, or his bare hands to do bad deeds with!
If he IS reformed - hmmm - shouldn't it be considered cruel and unusual punishment to strip a man of a Constitutional right for a crime, even after he's served his punishment for the crime????
VirgilCaine
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 617
Here in North Carolina:
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_108a/gs_108a-53.1.html
Trafficking in an amount of food stamps worth over $500 is a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_106/gs_106-363.html
" 106‑363. Damaging dipping vats a felony.
Any person or persons who shall willfully damage or destroy by any means any vat erected, or in the process of being erected, as provided for tick eradication, shall be guilty of a Class H felony."
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-56.1.html
Breaking into or forcibly opening coin or currency operated machines is a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_10b/gs_10b-146.html
Distributing electronic notarizing programs is a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-309.14.html
Beach bingo games. If you offer a prize of $50 or more, that's a felony. If you offer free bingo games as a prize or operate a beach bingo game in conjunction with other lawful bingo games...that's a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_113/gs_113-209.html
Various shellfish related offenses.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-280.2.html
Pointing a laser device at an aircraft. Is a felony.
Obviously, I take a dim view of those who believe every felony is created equal and that any felon cannot be reformed.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_108a/gs_108a-53.1.html
Trafficking in an amount of food stamps worth over $500 is a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_106/gs_106-363.html
" 106‑363. Damaging dipping vats a felony.
Any person or persons who shall willfully damage or destroy by any means any vat erected, or in the process of being erected, as provided for tick eradication, shall be guilty of a Class H felony."
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-56.1.html
Breaking into or forcibly opening coin or currency operated machines is a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_10b/gs_10b-146.html
Distributing electronic notarizing programs is a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-309.14.html
Beach bingo games. If you offer a prize of $50 or more, that's a felony. If you offer free bingo games as a prize or operate a beach bingo game in conjunction with other lawful bingo games...that's a felony.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_113/gs_113-209.html
Various shellfish related offenses.
http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-280.2.html
Pointing a laser device at an aircraft. Is a felony.
Obviously, I take a dim view of those who believe every felony is created equal and that any felon cannot be reformed.
I don't have a problem with making guns off-limits to particular criminals as part of their specific sentences, just like cars, computers, and other tools of their crimes might be off-limits as a condition of release from prison.
I believe Kevin Mitnick was forbidden to use a computer for some amount of time, as part of his sentence. That could certainly be done with guns, if there's a reason. Felony drunk drivers have their licenses revoked, as well, and in some places, driving is equivalent to being able to earn a living.
However, a blanket law that bars all convicted felons, regardless of the nature of their crimes, from gun ownership, indefinitely, goes against morality and common sense.
I believe Kevin Mitnick was forbidden to use a computer for some amount of time, as part of his sentence. That could certainly be done with guns, if there's a reason. Felony drunk drivers have their licenses revoked, as well, and in some places, driving is equivalent to being able to earn a living.
However, a blanket law that bars all convicted felons, regardless of the nature of their crimes, from gun ownership, indefinitely, goes against morality and common sense.
thorn726
Member
this is perfect sense.
there are many who have the "guilty forever" attitude, but i think the real cause is that the Gov't likes to find ways to remove rights, and the felon/firearm is a great one.
who would be the most likely to assist in a rebellion?
good thing we disarm them!
think about why felons are really barred from weapons, and it sets up a way to take away everyone's guns eventually. one unreasonable ban justified by false logic leads to another.
CharleyMarbles
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1
Taxes
I have to ask if those of you who feel Fellons should NOT be afforded ALL of their rights do you still feel they should have to pay ALL of their taxes???
Most haven't even thought of the amount of taxes that should be lost under the curent conditions.
You see the term used to rationalize the loss of rights to felons is "Civily Dead" if that is the case a "Civily Dead" person should NOT be charged taxes.
I would like to take the time to point out that it appears that the majority of respondents here are in favor of restoring the rights of the disenfranchised Felons. Even if on a severity of offence basis.
Sure would be nice if we could get it put to a vote as I think on a national level the numbers would probly be much the same.
I have to ask if those of you who feel Fellons should NOT be afforded ALL of their rights do you still feel they should have to pay ALL of their taxes???
Most haven't even thought of the amount of taxes that should be lost under the curent conditions.
You see the term used to rationalize the loss of rights to felons is "Civily Dead" if that is the case a "Civily Dead" person should NOT be charged taxes.
I would like to take the time to point out that it appears that the majority of respondents here are in favor of restoring the rights of the disenfranchised Felons. Even if on a severity of offence basis.
Sure would be nice if we could get it put to a vote as I think on a national level the numbers would probly be much the same.
Mozart 2
Member
I'm 100% in favor of disarming bad guys.
Why are ex-felons at greater risk of robbery than the rest of us...? I can't figure that one out.
Anyway, here's my $0.02 worth:
With rights come responsibilities. For example, everyone over the age of 16 (18 in some states) after passing an exam has the right to drive a car on public roadways. With that right come great responsibilities. If you drive while intoxicated, you have demonstrated a lack of responsibility and therefore give up your right to continue driving. Since firearms can be nearly as dangerous as automobiles, I believe the same principle applies. We all have (or should have) the right to own and carry firearms, but with that right come great responsibilities. If you choose to commit a crime with that weapon you demonstrate a lack of responsibility and therefore give up your right to continue carrying that weapon.
Notice that in both examples I used the phrase "give up your right." The rights weren't "taken away" but rather "given up" by the irresponsibility demonstrated in the choices made by the individual. If the drunk driver wants to continue to drive, he should have thought of that before he decided to drive drunk. If the felon wants to carry a firearm, he should have thought of that before CHOOSING to break the law.
Others in this thread have drawn a distinction between violent felony and non-violent felony. I would tend to agree with this and infact I will use it to further clarify my point above. Crimes that don't involve a weapon in my opinion shouldn't impact your firearm rights. But anyone who commits a crime using a firearm has demonstrated a lack of responsibility and therefore surrenders those corresponding rights. Life is about choices and consequences. If you don't like the consequences, start making better choices.
It's like others in this thread have stated, the bad guys with guns are the ones who ruin it for the rest of us. If Big Brother wants to control guns, let him control the bad guys' guns and leave mine alone.
As I said in my opening line, I'm in favor of disarming bad guys. If you don't want to be disarmed, don't be a bad guy.
I'm sure I'll get bashed for this, but that's expected when one proports his opinion.
Why are ex-felons at greater risk of robbery than the rest of us...? I can't figure that one out.
Anyway, here's my $0.02 worth:
With rights come responsibilities. For example, everyone over the age of 16 (18 in some states) after passing an exam has the right to drive a car on public roadways. With that right come great responsibilities. If you drive while intoxicated, you have demonstrated a lack of responsibility and therefore give up your right to continue driving. Since firearms can be nearly as dangerous as automobiles, I believe the same principle applies. We all have (or should have) the right to own and carry firearms, but with that right come great responsibilities. If you choose to commit a crime with that weapon you demonstrate a lack of responsibility and therefore give up your right to continue carrying that weapon.
Notice that in both examples I used the phrase "give up your right." The rights weren't "taken away" but rather "given up" by the irresponsibility demonstrated in the choices made by the individual. If the drunk driver wants to continue to drive, he should have thought of that before he decided to drive drunk. If the felon wants to carry a firearm, he should have thought of that before CHOOSING to break the law.
Others in this thread have drawn a distinction between violent felony and non-violent felony. I would tend to agree with this and infact I will use it to further clarify my point above. Crimes that don't involve a weapon in my opinion shouldn't impact your firearm rights. But anyone who commits a crime using a firearm has demonstrated a lack of responsibility and therefore surrenders those corresponding rights. Life is about choices and consequences. If you don't like the consequences, start making better choices.
It's like others in this thread have stated, the bad guys with guns are the ones who ruin it for the rest of us. If Big Brother wants to control guns, let him control the bad guys' guns and leave mine alone.
As I said in my opening line, I'm in favor of disarming bad guys. If you don't want to be disarmed, don't be a bad guy.
I'm sure I'll get bashed for this, but that's expected when one proports his opinion.
Nushif
Member
Man. Let's hope you never bounce a check in the wrong state or accidentally dig up a clam on the wrong day while playing with your kid. Because if you did, man you'd be the biggest dirtbag on the face of the planet.
ATBackPackin
Member
I only read the first couple of pages so I apologize if this has already been said.
I too am conflicted about this, but what I really don't get is question C. on the 4473.
Honestly, how many crimes are there where the judge cannot give you a jail term of a year or longer? It doesn't matter what the judge gave you, but merely what he could have given you - felony or not.
By saying that what I hear is,"although the judge gave you probation you could have received up to two years for your crime and we don't trust the judge."
Makes no sense to me.
I too am conflicted about this, but what I really don't get is question C. on the 4473.
Honestly, how many crimes are there where the judge cannot give you a jail term of a year or longer? It doesn't matter what the judge gave you, but merely what he could have given you - felony or not.
By saying that what I hear is,"although the judge gave you probation you could have received up to two years for your crime and we don't trust the judge."
Makes no sense to me.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Resurrecting a three-year-old thread to start an off-topic discussion about whether felons should pay taxes seems a bit of a stretch.
By the way, ATBackPackin,
By the way, ATBackPackin,
There are many crimes that the judge cannot give you a jail term of more than a year. Many state statues define the maximum punishment for a particular violation.
- Status
Similar threads
