Convicted felons owning guns

[fireside44]

That strikes me as kind of like saying that since a burglar can get into your house anyway, you might as well leave the door open.

Well, there is some merit to leaving the doors of your car unlocked when in a bad part of town. Why pay for a broken window? The half pack of smokes that get stolen is cheaper.

Telling a violent felon they are no longer able to legally purchase and own a gun is about as comical as it gets in their world. Are you really that far out of touch that you believe it has ANY effect on their ability to obtain a weapon at all?

 

[gym]

By saying that it's ok for a violent repeat offender to walk into a store and purchase a firearm, because it's more convenient for him, rather than going out on the street and getting one illegally is just nonsense. Should we allow drug dealers to open up shop in our schools, because the kids who want drugs are going to get them anyway, or perhaps have Bars in our Brokerage houses in case any of the brokers want a scotch and soda while managing your money. Making things convenient for misuse is facilitation. You are aiding in the commission of a felony. Maybe not in the stock brokers instance, but you understand why this will never happen. I believe that some here have perhaps had a friend relative or even themselves incarcerated for possibly a "mandatory sentencing" which is unfortunate, and I don't agree with "mandatory sentencing" but the violent repeat offender should not get access to weapons so easily. If they are going to get them anyway, that just proves the point that they will break the law again.

 

[fireside44]

By saying that it's ok for a violent repeat offender to walk into a store and purchase a firearm, because it's more convenient for him, rather than going out on the street and getting one illegally is just nonsense.

Yeah, and the NICS check would alert the authorities that the felon is now armed and probably preparing to commit a crime. A street purchase doesn't require notification of the authorities.

Should we allow drug dealers to open up shop in our schools, because the kids who want drugs are going to get them anyway, or perhaps have Bars in our Brokerage houses in case any of the brokers want a scotch and soda while managing your money.

Drug dealers already have shop open in schools. If you broker is a drunk the bar doesn't matter. Guns are already available to the common criminal.

Look, there are ten or fifteen classifieds listed in every Sunday paper. Glocks, Smith revolvers, Rugers autos and revolvers, rifles of all sorts, a veritable gunshop. Any convicted felon can easily make a private purchase. Most private sellers here are not running any checks on who they sell to, sometimes asking for an ID, which does nothing.

The felon doesn't have to wait three days to get their handgun and the ATF and other authorities who are ultimately going to have to deal with the situation are unaware of his now armed status.

So really, in effect you are just arguing against private sales and stolen weapons because the ban on felons possessing guns doesn't have any effect at all on their ability or willingness to do so.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Drug dealers already have shop open in schools. If you broker is a drunk the bar doesn't matter. Guns are already available to the common criminal....

So let's do away with all laws since folks inclined to sell drugs to kids, steal, etc., are going to do it anyway.

A point of laws is to put a price, i. e., negative personal consequences, on certain types of conduct. At present, if you are a felon having a gun in your possession has such a price. I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[fireside44]

A point of laws is to put a price, i. e., negative personal consequences, on certain types of conduct. At present, if you are a felon having a gun in your possession has such a price. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Right, but as we've seen, either there aren't enough negative consequences and/or current laws regarding felons and firearms are ineffective.

Since the government already actively pursues stolen weapons, the only other effective law preventing felons from easy access outside of an outright ban (still ineffective) would be to ban private sales, or at least force them all to run through NICS.

If you can't even so much as *prevent* a felon from obtaining a weapon in the real world, what good are the written laws?

The fact is that it is a totally failed policy and in need of revamping. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Right, but as we've seen, either there aren't enough negative consequences and/or current laws regarding felons and firearms are ineffective.....If you can't even so much as *prevent* a felon from obtaining a weapon in the real world, what good are the written laws?...

Like all other laws, laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms may keep firearms out of the hands of some, if not all, felons.

As noted, laws can't prevent all crime. They can exact a price for the act. It may be that in the case of any particular criminal act that price may be sufficient to dissuade some, but of course not all, people otherwise inclined to the act from actually committing it. And they allow us to keep people who have committed the act off the street for a while.

There's no perfect solution to any of this. Perfection will be achieved only in Heaven. In the meantime, we need to muddle through as best we can with the tools available to us.

 

[Echo9]

I think the mistake that a lot of people here are making is to assume that every convicted felon knows exactly where to buy a gun illegally. I really don't think that's the case.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Just like someone that gets too many DUIs has their DL taken, someone that has committed a crime (a felony) should have their rights taken away.

There is one big difference... duration. In most states, a second/third/fourth/fifth/etc DUI will earn you 6-12 months of license suspension... not indefinite, national revocation as with felons/guns. And considering the fact that cars are far more deadly than guns in the wrong hands, the consequences do not fit the crime.

Anyway, if more people in society were armed, we would not have to worry about them "paying their dues"... violent criminals would be more likely to pay the ultimate price through natural consequences.

 

[rm23]

Hi RM23,



Interesting, then you would have no problem with someone convicted of domestic violence 10 or 15 years ago to have - say- their automobiles taken by the government as they have also had their due process then? Or their houses?

All I did was post the 14th Amendment and state that felons have had their due process. The Lautenberg Amendment and the prohibition of felons are most certainly constitutional. Again, I am not saying that I necessarily agree with them; my personal opinion is that if people cannot be trusted, they should stay in prison.

 

[toxicity]

"That's just entirely too vague. I suspect that there is more to it than that. And newspaper articles are often less than fully accurate anyway."?????????

Praise big brother commrade fiddletown, preach the word of the police state!!!!

You are right about mainstream press though, they are most often in exclusion of the accurate story, and they always lean towards the progression of the police state with their exclusions. This is because they are all owned by the Globalist and are now nothing more the new "ministry of propoganda" for the police state.

 

[toxicity]

Thanks rm23!
14thamd. sec1. Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" no way to argue with this, give them their guns back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shockwave]

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Pssst: The term "convicted felon" means they had due process of law. That's why the state had the right to deprive such persons of both their liberty and property. In death penalty cases, the state can deprive them of life as well.

See, when you are a convicted felon, you have relinquished your rights because you are no longer a citizen in good standing.

Also, nobody here is a fool. Laws against felons being able to purchase guns do not preclude such persons from buying guns on the black market. What those laws DO mean is that if the felon is caught in possession of a gun, that's usually a trip back to the slammer. Our current system allows felons who have been released and have served their parole the opportunity to petition for restoration of their rights. This is a fair process. They can win back the right to bear arms, to vote, etc., but it shouldn't be given automatically.

 

[divemedic]

Our current system allows felons who have been released and have served their parole the opportunity to petition for restoration of their rights.

Except that the office that does this has been defunded. That means no restorations.

edited to add:

See, when you are a convicted felon, you have relinquished your rights because you are no longer a citizen in good standing.

So a convicted felon loses all rights? Is that what you are saying?

The police are free to beat confession out of him for any future crimes they would like to accuse them of?
They can no longer attend church?
Free speech?
Search and seizure?

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Right on Shockwave.

 

[sonick808]

If there were a way to discern the good guys from the bad, then sure. The problem is, that vetting system doesnt' exist.......

The closest ground i can think of giving would be non-violent felons who committed the crime when they were under 25, could own after 10 years of being clean & employed (unless physically disabled, etc.).

If you're in your thirties, fourties and fifties and still committing felonies, I don't think i'm comfortable with it. I do NOT understand how people cannot have enough wisdom by the age of 30 to NOT COMMIT FELONIES. Is it that hard ?

On the other hand, the bill of rights doesn't mention it so i dunno.

I do NOT want sociopaths or people capable of senseless violence possessing firearms. Felony records overlap frequently with this ability.

Rough subject for sure. If i have to give a one word answer, then I'd have to say no.

 

[toxicity]

"They can win back the right to bear arms, to vote, etc"
Not according to you, they are still convicted fellons and will never be anything else, due process has already been received in its completion, end of your little story.
It is quite clear for all to see this "convicted fellon" abaitment is an addition to due process. It maintains an exclusionary predjudiciary and illegal application of opinnion as law. I have never been arrested for anything. I am sure that will change for me and most of the actual patriots out there if things do not get pulled back under the folds of our great Constitution!!!!!!!! Then they can use some opinnion, most likely crafted by some "secret police BATFE like unit" to make you into a convicted fellon, its as easy as being arested and charged for throwing a rock at an occupied dwelling=(projecting a deadly missile at an occupied structure), notice the charge doesn't include actually hitting the structure!!!! or even how close it has to be, then guess what, you are a "CONVICTED VIOLENT FELLON"! Not to mention that classification also sets you up for prosecution under the ever popular Patriot acts 1 & 2. Still feel (I say feel in inleu of think, DUHHHHHHHHH!) the same way?
If they have served their sentence and complied with the punishment, as one who supports the constitution/ BOR of the free democratic republic in which we live I would be in direct conflict with their rights to stop them from owning a firearm after their return into citizenship.
. Why do you think they were always called ex-cons.
This is a typical fear tactic that is used to strip you of your rights with your own approval. They rename, reclassify, redesignate, and drive home the "new terminology" with an all controlling, total and complete, unrelenting media bombardment as to assemilate the idea as, not only the the norm but an idea of "the people", hence once you have paid the price for whatever crime and done the time you are never again just a citizen, you are now and forever part of the system, a "convicted fellon". Wow, the very words instills, (excuse me while vommitttttttt) fear in the halls of every workplace and school in the country.
Fear not though, soon, thanks to people that support such BS as this, there will be no displacement of equality in crime such as fellony and misdemeanor, there will be only criminals and followers of the state. If you do not worship the state you will be a criminal. Any and all former recorded offences will be regularly used by the state to cohers, harass, and even imprision. But, this is all just what I see going on and I don't matter for SH*^^&(^%^>

 

[shockwave]

Except that the office that does this has been defunded.

Not my problem. But I looked it up.

In Florida, a past felony conviction usually means loss of civil rights, including the right to vote, even after completion of all the terms and conditions of the sentence. Loss of civil rights takes away not only the right to vote, but also the right to hold public office, serve on a jury, and hold certain types of state occupational licenses.

An ex-felon's civil rights are taken away permanently until and unless he or she successfully completes a lengthy clemency application process and is granted restoration of civil rights by the Governor and the Board of Executive Clemency.

Oh - look! The Florida Board of Executive Clemency appears to be doing business. Next objection?

 

[Gungnir]

Here's something that I posted in a different thread on a similar topic. It may be too political and bring the lock, but it didn't on the previous thread.

The fact that felons are barred from the RKBA does not undermine the right itself. Felons were historically all subject to the death penalty (except IIRC mayhem, which was punished by public dismemberment that might not technically kill you). Every felony was punished by death. Later that was modified to permit "transport" to the colonies--essentially banishment. Over the past centuries the laws have been modernized and relaxed so that only murder carries death, and other felonies have a mix of conditions. But what remains is the notion that once you are a felon, you have lost a number of key rights and may never get them back. Whether that's an improvement over being hanged is debatable, but it is well-established. The founders would not be surprised that felons lost the right to vote or bear arms. They would be surprised that so few felonies were subject to the death penalty. A return to the old way would curtail the ever-expanding list of felonies.

Well it would depend on the crime that the felon committed for the "kind of" surprise of the FF.

In many cases, where theft, or violence was the crime, I agree the FF would be surprised that the felon retained his right to life. However in other cases, the FF might be surprised that the unconstitutional behavior of the Government led to that person being marked as a felon.

Indeed as Justice Brown said in Bannon ""The word felony was used at common law to denote offenses which occasioned a forfeiture of the lands or goods of the offender, to which capital or other punishment might be superadded according to the degree of guilt.". Do all felonies pass scrutiny of this definition, are all felonies potentially capital offenses?

By barring felons, then it opens a class of people who are citizens who can have their rights restricted, and it's socially acceptable to boot. This gives government the opportunity and the means to restrict rights of others by reclassifying them as felons. At the end of the day Government defines who felons are, by agreeing that the government has the power to restrict rights of those so defined, this opens the door to some pretty serious potential for abuse.

As I mentioned in my post above, every American commits on average three federal felonies per day. Just because most of the time people aren't charged and convicted doesn't mean that these did not occur, and as we all know ignorance is no defense.

In the words of Ayn Rand
“There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

YMMV

 

[fireside44]

I think the mistake that a lot of people here are making is to assume that every convicted felon knows exactly where to buy a gun illegally. I really don't think that's the case.

Lol, you are kidding right?

Sunday classifieds section.

 

[toxicity]

Interresting post Gungnir!

 

[toxicity]

"I think the mistake that a lot of people here are making is to assume that every convicted felon knows exactly where to buy a gun illegally"
They already got to you, there is no way to buy a firearm illegally, thats the whole point!

 

[gym]

Yes great Idea, let's give murderers rapists child molesters and Heroin dealers easier access to deadly weapons. Maybe some of you want to adopt a few of them also, or have them move next door to you and play with your kids. Why not they are going to do it anyway according to a few in here so let's make it even easier, we don't want to inconvenience anyone who committed a murder of burned down a house or molested a kid. Society has laws, if you don't like them, you should move someware that you feel suits you better. And if they want another gun after they killed someones son or daughter, by all means give them one, for sure they can be trusted.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi gym

Yes great Idea, let's give murderers rapists child molesters and Heroin dealers easier access to deadly weapons.

Nice strawman, Oscar Wilde would love you. What of the man that killed when he was 16, was tried as an adult and served 20 years for the crime. He is now in sixties and living as best he can trying to be a productive citizen. Can you honestly say that he is the same person now as he was when the crime was committed? Are you the same now as you were when you were 16?

Long story short, if a felon is going to continue his life of crime after release from prison, an effective police force would be able to find evidence and once again separate him from a peaceful society. Civil death after incarceration is not a safety issue just state vindictiveness.

 

[toxicity]

Heygym
Freedom carries just such a price. Trust is not the issue. I don't trust cops as they are people too. They are just as foulable as anyone else, or do you give them the status of God??? I live and let live and have put my life on the line many, many times so that all may be free, doesn't say we have to trust that someone doesn't commit a crime. The currrent laws that we speak of are criminal and of the type that causes all of us to be victims.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Guys, you are clinging a little too hard to a flawed concept of "due process". The Nazis abused "due process" to disarm and criminalize millions of jews. Due process in our Constitution was meant to PRESERVE our rights by insuring our rights are observed, not provide a mechanism to REMOVE them. I don't see how you guys think the 14th Amendment was intended for the purpose of removing a Constitutional right?