Felons

[scrat]

If a person can't be trusted with a weapon, they shouldn't have been let out of jail. Pretty simple.

Notice I said weapon. If we can't trust a felon with a gun, how can we trust him with a knife, or a vehicle, or anything else that can be used as a weapon? And yet, only guns are denied purchase to felons (who can get them using illegal means anyway, if they really wanted to).

DUMB

people are released from jail because there is no room for them. 90% of all hard core criminals go right back to jail within the first year. Last thing i want is some moron that was just released from prison for armed robbery to purchase a gun. you might as well abolish back ground checks and waiting periods.

 

[Frog48]

you might as well abolish back ground checks and waiting periods.

You say that as if it would be a bad thing...

 

[cameron.personal]

DUMB

people are released from jail because there is no room for them. 90% of all hard core criminals go right back to jail within the first year. Last thing i want is some moron that was just released from prison for armed robbery to purchase a gun. you might as well abolish back ground checks and waiting periods.

DUMBER

I with the guys here that think if you have paid your dues to society and been released from prison parole etc you should be able to get on with your life as it was legally before the infraction.

If you are still a criminal you should not be released from jail at all. This would comepletly negate the requirements for background checks.

In prison, no guns for you.
Out of prison, pack a piece and behave yourself.

 

[Nitrogen]

If a judge feels an individual is enough of a danger to not get a gun, but safe enough to be in the general public, the judge might need the power to restrict that individual from getting guns in the future.

I'd rather it happen with due process, on a case by case basis, than happen blanketly.

It'd need to be finely targeted, i.e. only for violent felonies, and should be something that could also be returned by judicial review.

 

[Mr.Revolver]

I have no objections to Martha Stuart having a gun or carrying it

You can be sure that if Martha ever had to shoot someone, it would be handled as tastefully as possible.

 

[jeep-2]

For example, John Q. Pervy served his 12 years for molesting a couple little kids. He served his time, debt to society paid in full. No reason he should be denied that job as a kindergarten teacher for your kids right?"

Good thinking.

"They can legally own a .44 BP revolver or BP shotgun. Nothing to sneeze at."

Not true for the most part. There are several cases that pertain here. I can guarantee you that possession of black powder, black powder substitutes or caps by a felon is illegal according to federal law.

"The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled against the possession of black powder guns by a convicted felon.


maybe the Wyoming Supreme court ruled against BP, but they are still not classified as guns in New York State, it is the same as federal law, anyone can have a BP rifle or shotgun, BP pistols still come under the sullivan law.

Spitzer is going to start on them next if he dosen't get impeached over the drivers licenses for illegals

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

For example, John Q. Pervy served his 12 years for molesting a couple little kids. He served his time, debt to society paid in full. No reason he should be denied that job as a kindergarten teacher for your kids right?"

Good thinking.

If John Q. Pervy can't be trusted around kids why is he out of jail or still breathing? If "Pervy" and his ilk are such a bad risk to society, the sentencing guidelines need to be changed and the capacity of the prisons and execution chambers need to be increased accordingly. Upon the completion of due process, ALL violent felons must receive mandatory life in prison or execution.

Why should the rest of us suffer the inconvenience of background checks and live in fear of these violent felons? Why should the citizens of some states be forced to live disarmed with violent felons living among them? All this so the state can save a few bucks by not keeping these people locked up? All so the state doesn't have to accept the politically correct shame of executing the worst of the worse?

Yeah, think again, please.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to prevent crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

 

[ilbob]

I think violent criminals have proven they cannot be trusted. They should have to prove they can be trusted before they are allowed to have a firearm again. That proof would come in the form of a pardon.

Non-violent criminals probably should not have their firearms rights revoked, at least not on any kind of blanket basis. There may be some cases where non-violent criminals ought not to have firearms, just like certified lunatics should not be allowed them.

 

[jeep-2]

ConstitutionCowboy
Senior Member



Join Date: 03-15-06
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,150 Quote:
Originally Posted by jeep-2
For example, John Q. Pervy served his 12 years for molesting a couple little kids. He served his time, debt to society paid in full. No reason he should be denied that job as a kindergarten teacher for your kids right?"

Good thinking.

If John Q. Pervy can't be trusted around kids why is he out of jail or still breathing? If "Pervy" and his ilk are such a bad risk to society, the sentencing guidelines need to be changed and the capacity of the prisons and execution chambers need to be increased accordingly. Upon the completion of due process, ALL violent felons must receive mandatory life in prison or execution.

Why should the rest of us suffer the inconvenience of background checks and live in fear of these violent felons? Why should the citizens of some states be forced to live disarmed with violent felons living among them? All this so the state can save a few bucks by not keeping these people locked up? All so the state doesn't have to accept the politically correct shame of executing the worst of the worse?

Yeah, think again, please.

Woody

i think if you would read back, you would find the original post was made by Harvster

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

jeep-2

It would be to the advantage of all concerned if you would attribute what you quote to the original author. That way, there can be no confusion. There are simple icons in the "Quick Reply" box and on the "Post Reply" page that can be used to wrap text of a quote, as well as the vB code you can use. Look at the bottom left of the web page where it says "Posting Rules", and there is a link to the vB code.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

And Another Thing:

He served his time, debt to society paid in full.

That's another misnomer. It isn't about a debt to society; it's about protecting society from these errant people. They should not be released until they are no longer a threat - if such determination is even possible.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[ilbob]

you might as well abolish back ground checks and waiting periods.

You say that as if it would be a bad thing...

Background checks maybe, especially if they are relatively benign (BTW, I am not convinced the current NICS instant check is all that benign).

Waiting periods serve no real purpose other than to harass LACs. In Illinois we have to wait 3-20 weeks to get a FOID card so we can legally own a firearm. How does waiting another day to take delivery of a 22 rifle make any sense.

 

[jeep-2]

Background cks are just so polititions can make nieve people think they are being protected by big brother..
case in point, i know an ex deputy that used to get youthful offenders off minor charges if they would come over to his house and pool, this went on for a few yrs til he was caught and instead of being charged with child molesting and getting his name in the sex crime register, he just lost his job, after a few yrs he got full disability and is living like a king.

I know a couple of brother that take turns working over their girl friends, the cops come, arrest them and along comes the cousin that is a cop, he gets them out of the slammer with all the charges expunged, i'm wondering what will happen when one of these freaks kills a girl, will the cops feel bad because he didn't let them ge their do.

No folks, i'm not worried about the convicted felons with records, i'm more worried about all the sleeze bags that are on the streets who are felons and are being protected by another person who is in all light a felon.
many up high in government.

 

[Jimmypop97]

I can relate to this. We (wife and I) are friends with a lady , and have been for 8 years now.

A few years ago, said friend made the bad decision of sleeping with a 15yo, while she was 30 at the time. Now, this is not your standard 15yo. He is 6'3 and about 200lbs, and made decisions himself to pursue the relationship as well.

Anyhow, she served 1 year in prison. She is now back out, and the judge has granted her back custody of her 3 children. She has come out a much better person than when she went in, and has her head back on straight.

Her job laid her off when she got her kids back because they did not want the burden of having a mother working for them. She is now working for the lawyer who took her case probono. She is looking for another job, but is of course being turned down right and left because of her registered status.

She is not a violent offender. She has been intrusted back with her children, and the right to go on school grounds when it pertains to her children. However, she will never be legally permitted to have the ability to defend herself or her family ever again?

All I can say is that this one-size-fits-all mentality is far from right.

Also, as a side note: They register sex-offenders, but where is the murderer registry? How about the armed burglary registry? I would like to be able to know when low-lifes like that move in as well.

 

[Regolith]

DUMB

people are released from jail because there is no room for them. 90% of all hard core criminals go right back to jail within the first year. Last thing i want is some moron that was just released from prison for armed robbery to purchase a gun. you might as well abolish back ground checks and waiting periods.

The reason there is no room is because prisons are being jammed full to capacity of people who are convicted for non-violent, victimless crimes such as smoking dope. If we were to stop the silly War on Drugs and legalize them, or at the very least reduce the charges for possession to a minor misdemeanor punishable with a fine, we wouldn't have to release violent offenders to make room for petty, non-violent offenders.

 

[LeibstandarteAdH]

Since it is unreasonable and impossible to lock everyone up indefinitely until they're "cured", some extra (reasonable) steps should be taken to mitigate these people again. IMO, not letting violent offenders buy guns and not letting child molsters work with children seem pretty reasonable to me.

As long as those "violent offences" arent one conviction for simple assault when someone who you bumped into coming into a movie theater door decided to trap you in the door frame and yell "where the F are you going" in your face and when you squezed by them and continued to walk into the theater ran back inside, placed there hands on your shoulders, shook and shoved you and repated " i SAID where the F do you think your going " , and while the violent 300 lb+ man is shaking you by the shoulders you reach for your folding pocket knife in your right pocket, the guy notices what you are doing and steps back, you place the knife back in your pocket as tgere is no longer any percieved threar, and the guy begins to walk off while pointing at you and yelling for the police that you tried to stab him, and you get arrested by an officer based on that one persons statement for simple assault, and are now a "violent offender".

Thats what happend to a friend of mine that i was with, and watched while this very event happend to him about a year ago.

My point is there are huge gaps in between the correct way to handle things, and the way things get handled for you without your controll by those that are there to "protect and serve"

 

[alsaqr]

"They can legally own a .44 BP revolver or BP shotgun."

No, the possession of black powder or a blackpowder substitute by a convicted felon is a felony.

 

[JerryM]

There are violations of the laws of man and God that carry consequences that cannot be eliminated. To think that a prison term reverses the consequences is not reasonable or even desirable.
One such violation has been mentioned, that is rape of a child or seduction of a child. While I think that rape should be a death penalty it isn't, and some get out to do it again. Others serve their terms, but they can never be trusted with children again.

We may be concerned with 2nd Amendment rights, but some should and do lose those rights.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[jeep-2]

"They can legally own a .44 BP revolver or BP shotgun."

No, the possession of black powder or a blackpowder substitute by a convicted felon is a felony
BP guns are exempt from fed laws and can be owned by anyone

[edit] United States Antique Gun Laws
Under the United States Gun Control Act of 1968, any cartridge firearm made in or before 1898 ("pre-1899") is classified as an "antique", and is generally outside of Federal jurisdiction, as administered and enforced by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives (BATFE). The only exceptions to the Federal exemption are antique machineguns (such as the Maxim gun and Colt Model 1895 "Potato Digger") and antique cartridge rifles or shotguns firing shotgun shells that are classified as "short barreled" per the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. (Namely, cartridge rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches, or shotguns firing shotgun shells with a barrel less than 18 inches, or either cartridge rifles or shotgun-shell firing shotguns with an overall length of less than 26 inches.) Muzzleloading guns, as replicas of antique guns, are not subject to Federal jusisdiction and are essentially classified the same as an antique gun. Hence, a muzzleloading blackpowder shotgun is not subject to the short-barreled National Firearms Act of 1934 restrictions. Purchases of such modern-day manufactured replicas may be done outside of the normal FFL restrictions that otherwise exist when purchasing modern (post-1898) guns. Replicas of cartridge firing rifles, however, are not classed the same as antiques, but must be purchased through FFL holders, although a true antique that was manufactured prior to 1899 firing the same cartridge as the replica would be legal for sale without the transfer being processed through an FFL. Furthermore, any rifle re-built on a receiver or frame that was manufactured prior to 1899 is considered antique, even if every other part has been replaced.

The following is an excerpt from the portion of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which modified Title 18, U.S. Code) that exempted pre-1899 guns from the Federal Firearms License paperwork requirements administered by the BATFE:

 

[Shureshot]

"Getting tough on criminals" , is just a stupid, mindless, propaganda-following sheep position. First off, most felons are not violent. Should Martha Stewart, Rush Limbaugh or Oliver North be denied rights? They are felons. How about former Enron employees? The way the laws are these days, it is easy for a person to inadvertanlty become a felon. How about someone who screwed up on their taxes? That's a felony as well.

Former felons are expected to go to work and pay taxes just like everyone else. They and they're families also run the same risk of becomming victims of violence as everyone else, but they are prohibited from the means to protect themselves and their loved ones. This is cruel and unusual punishment.

If you make it difficult or impossible for a former felon to work, rent a house or any other necesary functions, then what choice do you give them but to go back to crime? As I said earlier, violent offenders are a minority in prison.

Congress has purposly de-funded USC 925, which is a mechanism for the BATF to restore rights to deserving former felons. No one has had their rights restored under this law, ever!

There needs to be a law that requires immedeate and automatic restoration of ALL rights to a former felon who goes 5 or 10 years with no serious criminal issues, and has demonstrated that he is once again a contributing citizen. You shouldn't even have to ask for your rights. There needs to be a system where a person can restore themselves. That is the American way. That is true Justice.

By the way, in the formation of our country, everyone that fought for the colonies in the Revolutionary War was a felon, according to the Crown.

Here's something else to think about. With the passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2460) any veteran who goes to the VA for counseling, or treatment for depression, PTS, DSS or anything else, adults who were diagnosed with ADD as children, got into fights at school, or anyone who has ever been to see a psychiatrist, psychologist or social worker for anything, will all be placed on the Brady "prohibited persons' list for NICS. So it's not just felons that are being denied. Do you see a pattern here? If you can't take guns from all the people, then just make all the people felons and 'prohibited persons'.

Wake up and smell the coffee, people!

 

[Cerca Trova]

OK, so are there any permanent consequences to be had when dealing with convicted violent felons? Is there such a concept of punishment which fits the crime anymore? While we can all cite examples of miscarriages of justice, innocent being wrongly convicted, misdemeanor offenses masquerading as felonies, etc, etc, are these examples not the exceptions to the rule?
If you are the victim of a violent felony, your life will be forever changed by the experience. You can not ever be what you once were, that being someone who has never experienced violent assault. There is no going back for you, the INNOCENT VICTIM. It disgusts me to no end how we obsess about the perpetrator of these crimes and their lives and rights. How many will poo-poo these "mistakes" in judgement, and banter back and forth about how it is the government's fault, or that he didn't get a train set for his 7th birthday, or what have you. Balderdash! No, the simple fact of the matter is that violent felonies are a personal matter. It is terrorism on a personal level. When you, as a criminal, cross that line of civility, and permanently scar another innocent individual in a violent manner, you should be subjected to the consequences of the law, to the fullest extent. If and when you commit the offence, and are convicted of it, you own it, plain and simple. There must be irrevocable consequences for these individuals. No mercy for swine. Punishment must fit the crime. Your victim will never be the same, and neither should you. The permanant loss of your 2nd ammendment right, is the least that should happen.

 

[keeleon]

I don't think that anyone is arguing for violent, repeat felons to have their rights restored. It is just very frustrating to have an "inalienable" right taken away in a blanket statement that might have nothing to do with it.

If you don't pay your taxes, that is in no way related to the ability to safely own a firearm. If you break into someone's house and shoot their children, then maybe you shouldn't have one again. Let the punishment fit the crime.

I am a very good and moral person (who cried at 25 when I had to tell my mom I got my first speeding ticket), and I am scared to death that something might happen in the future beyond my control that might take away my rights. I will never put myself in a "violent" situation on purpose, and will try to be as far away from it as possible, but there are so many silly things that count as felonies, I just don't know.

I did read somewhere, that your rights are only revoked if you spent more than a year in prison. Is that true? If that's the case, then I am slightly relieved, as I doubt I could ever possibly commit anything more than a "paperwork" crime.

 

[.44walkersabot]

I BELIEVE (they were trying to or talking about it or something a few years ago) that Louisiana will let you vote either in state elections or national elections or both. Maybe they cannot, but I know Al Gore and some more people, including politicans of Louisiana, were hot to trot on it back on President Bush's first election..Okay...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Why Am I Guilty?

I'm a full and natural citizen of this country.

I've never been charged with anything more serious than a driving offense.

Yet every time I go to buy a gun, they make me prove I'm not a felon.

[Insert standard "stoned cat" picture with "Dude . . . wait . . . what?" caption]

A felon, on the other hand, can go to a hardware store and buy a chain saw, a sporting goods store and buy a wicked piece of cutlery, or a gas station and buy a can of gasoline.

A felon can also buy a gun. All he needs is a source. And some money.

While I, on the other hand, am a complete moron, and keep going to stores that insist that I prove I'm not a felon before they'll sell to me.

Please, explain to me why I'm such an idiot.

Why do I keep shopping at places where I have to prove I'm not a criminal?

The criminal doesn't have to prove any such thing, and he gets his guns.

Go ahead.

Explain this to me.

Explain how it is that "gun-related" crime is out of control in places where guns are effectively banned.

Explain again why it is assumed when I walk into a gun store that I'm going to commit a crime if I haven't already.

Why is it that the only one that suffers any inconvenience from gun regulation is . . . me? Mr. Joe Badguy still has his gun. He can get another one tomorrow. Me? I gotta prove I'm not him if I want another gun.

I have an idea. We can reduce drunk driving if we make it really hard for sober people to buy liquor. Want to buy this? Prove you've never been a drunk driver.

I cannot, for the life of me, grasp why anyone would want to free a man they completely believe will commit another crime -- are totally convinced of it -- know for sure that the moment he's out, he'll do it again. And yet, because some egg timer expired, he's being released.

And now, because he's out, and we know he'll do something bad again, we make EVERYONE prove he's not that guy.

That's just colossally stupid.

"Well, we can't keep him locked up; that would be cruel."

Wow. You're right. Instead, let's molest all the law-abiding people engaging in lawful commerce, and make them prove they aren't this guy. Let's deny them access to self defense weapons AS THE DEFAULT POSITION.

If you're going to let him out, it should be only because you can trust him enough to mix with society. If that's not true, what kind of moron would let him out??

And then make EVERYONE ELSE prove they're not him?

Which doesn't stop him from getting a gun anyway.

Quit pretending to protect people that you have no intention of protecting.

Let them protect themselves.

Let "shooting by the victim" be the default major risk for violent crime.

I don't care if an ex-con has a gun, AS LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS ONE, TOO.

Yes. Let the felons -- the ones you actually trust enough to release -- have guns.

Let everyone who's not locked up have one.

Everyone.

 

[Regolith]

I BELIEVE (they were trying to or talking about it or something a few years ago) that Louisiana will let you vote either in state elections or national elections or both. Maybe they cannot, but I know Al Gore and some more people, including politicans of Louisiana, were hot to trot on it back on President Bush's first election..Okay...

The majority of states allow felons to vote, actually.