For those who think felons should never have guns...

[mregunz]

forgery is forgery and especially 12 times and 2 count's of false statement's a little going on here than a 0.50 parkin ticket

 

[Frank Ettin]

And if the point is that what they were charged, or may be charged in the future, with isn't okay, but it ought not be a felony, that's another question.

Deciding what acts or omissions are crimes and the severity of the punishment associated with those crimes, is a function of the legislature, and is subject to the legislative process. That includes lobbying by interested parties, public hearings and sometimes public discussion in the media. If the body politic thinks the legislature has gone overboard, the body politic has a remedy. If it is claimed that the enactment of the law has exceeded the constitutional authority of the legislature or is somehow otherwise repugnant under the State or U. S. Constitution, the matter can be brought to court for resolution.

 

[rainbowbob]

I still maintain that felons should lose their rights to vote and own firearms...

To what purpose? I still maintain that unless a person has demonstrated an inclination to commit criminal violence, there is NO logical reason to deny them the right to own and operate a firearm.

...unless and until they successfully petition for the restoration of their rights.

Also, why is the 2A the only right that is revoked forever?...

um because its not?

Unfortunately for those who have committed non-violent felonies, there is nobody home when you apply for restoration of your rights (the federal office is unfunded). My understanding is that in reality, you will NEVER be successful in your petition.

Now that may not be of any concern for most of us who will never commit a felony - at least not knowingly. But I maintain that any infringement of 2A rights chips away at ALL of our freedoms.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Next, Felony parking tickets.

Felony J-walking

Felony loitering

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

However, school officials have insisted the real issue is student education, not the loss of daily average attendance funds.

I teach in a public school system. While it's not as bad here, believe me, it all comes down to money or the lack of it.

I'm not at all in favor of violent felons having guns, or non-violent repeat felons for that matter, but there should be some measure of common sense here. At this point, nearly 1 in 20 Kentuckians are forbidden from owning firearms.

KR

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I still maintain that unless a person has demonstrated an inclination to commit criminal violence, there is NO logical reason to deny them the right to own and operate a firearm...

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm still not bothered by felons not being able to legally possess guns.

Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a felony is loss of gun rights.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and there is also a difference between a one time occurrence and a repeated pattern of illegal behavior

 

[A and O]

And to think that at the printing of the 1828 Webster Dictionary the definition of Felony was "Any Capitol Offense"

My how things have gone downhill. It would appear that the downward spiral has accelerated since 1992.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And to think that at the printing of the 1828 Webster Dictionary the definition of Felony was "Any Capitol Offense"...

I'll take your word for that. But then again, The Oxford English Dictionary in its definition of "felony" cites Blackstone's Commentaries (1769) for the proposition that a felony was a crime punishable by forfeiture. In any case, many crimes punishable by forfeiture or death 200 or so years ago are now punishable by incarceration.

And again, if someone doesn't like the fact that X or Y is a felony, he should take the matter up with the legislature and those of his fellows in his community who elected the legislators that made X or Y a felony.

 

[Hoxviii]

Felony revocation of rights is total BS in my eyes. If any rights should be revoked, the offender should have never left prison.

I base this on facing felony charges that were resolved about 10 months ago. I was facing felony tax evasion due to my father making transactions on an account in my name while i was still a minor. He filed taxes on the transactions on his SSN, but the IRS still came after me and forced me to prove the transactions were conducted while i was a minor (easy), that my father claimed taxes on them (sorta easy), and that I did not know of the transactions occurred, because if i did they had to be filed under my name/taxes/ssn(not easy at all), because i was the primary name on the account.

Had they convicted me, i would have lost voting and firearms rights for doing no more than not knowing transactions had been made on an account that I was a primary (but unable to interfere since i was a minor) name on and was unable to access records to until 3 years later- after i turned 21.

Just think about it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I base this on facing felony charges that were resolved about 10 months ago. I was facing felony tax evasion due to my father making transactions on an account in my name while i was still a minor. ....Had they convicted me, i would have lost voting and firearms rights for doing no more than not knowing transactions had been made on an account that I was a primary (but unable to interfere since i was a minor)...

But you were not in fact convicted. You were exonerated. The government may well have had enough evidence (i. e., probable cause) to pursue charges; but they ultimately determined that they lacked evidence to convict. You were able to successfully defend against the charges.

That happens, and that's how the system is supposed to work.

 

[Hoxviii]

Based on the what it cost, had i not been able to afford a real lawyer(which i really couldn't, but he was a friend of the family and a helluva shark for better terms), there is no chance i would have gotten out of it- quite simply.

On my own, I'd be a felon right now for no doings of my own.

 

[rainbowbob]

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character...Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy...

I would argue the primary purpose of the law is to protect the public's safety. I don't want fundamental freedoms withheld after a sentence is served unless such action provides a clear public benefit.

I don't understand how restricting a non-violent offender's 2nd A rights, or any other rights, as a continuation of punishment after time served, or for character flaws, makes you or me any safer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Based on the what it cost, had i not been able to afford a real lawyer(which i really couldn't, but he was a friend of the family and a helluva shark for better terms), there is no chance i would have gotten out of it- quite simply.

On my own, I'd be a felon right now for no doings of my own.

All of which means what, exactly? Tax evasion is a serious crime. Are you suggesting that the IRS shouldn't pursue tax evasion charges when they have an apparent basis?

So someone messed up (as you've told your story) and left you hung out to dry. So you had to sort things out. That happens in the real world.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't understand how restricting a non-violent offender's 2nd A rights, or any other rights, as a continuation of punishment after time served, or for character flaws, makes you or me any safer....

How does any punishment for any crime make anyone safer? It get criminals off the street for a bit and it is a price that has to be paid for criminal behavior. Consider the loss of rights to be a surcharge.

 

[Hammer-52]

IMHO I think once a felon has fulfilled his/her sentence all lost rights should be reinstated. A board should review and have to justify NOT reinstated a particular right. For example no firearms because the person was convicted of robbing at gun point (not that it realy matters because they will get a firearm for the next robbery, if the, so desire). Why penalize further someone who has done their time and is not a threat to society. Again, just my 2 pennies.

 

[nyrifleman]

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character.

What flaw in a person's character does, for example, Rosa Parks' refusal to surrender her seat for a white passenger show? Or the Founding Fathers' refusal to pay British taxes? Or the people who missed their deadline for renewing a gun registration in Chicago? Not every law is just. Not every law makes sense. Not every law will match your personal moral code.

I think the RKBA should be revoked, if at all, from VIOLENT felons: murderers, forcible rapists, robbers, aggravated assaulters. I say "if at all" because really that law only affects the felons who wish to go straight. When have felons ever had trouble getting their hands on guns?

 

[griffudd]

Felony Indictment

Not only is your right to bear arms revoked if you are convicted of a felony, they are removed even if you are only indicted for a felony--and even for a non-violent one.

I know this for a fact because it happened to me. Though I was only indicted for fraud (for which charges were later dismissed), my right to buy a firearm was suspended.

I only found this out when I tried to buy a rifle 1 year after charges had already been dropped. The California DOJ put a hold on the pickup of my already-paid-for rifle. (They were not aware that the charges had been officially dismissed by a judge.)

And though I was only under indictment (i.e., I was only accused of a felony), my right to buy a firearm was suspended. It was necessary for me to prove not only that I had not been convicted, but that the charges had officially been dropped.

After sending an official dismissal order and an online description of the felony case to the California DOJ, they removed the hold from my firearm purchase.

Nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent."

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

IMO, it's symptomatic of a much larger problem. More and more we as a country are creating a felony class of our citizens. And because this felon class cannot vote, politicians have no reason to concern themselves with them. After all, when has a felon helped someone get elected (not counting the currently elected felons of course)? And further more, it's very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to find employment when you're a felon. So what are your alternatives? Well more crime usually. It's not like you didn't just learn the trade while away in prison. And if you cannot put your other skills to use, sheer desire to survive and provide for yourself/family dictates that you commit more crime. It's a never ending cycle once it's started.

But again, just MHO.

 

[Frank Ettin]

What flaw in a person's character does, for example, Rosa Parks' refusal to surrender her seat for a white passenger show? Or the Founding Fathers' refusal to pay British taxes?...

Are you suggesting that every criminal commits his criminal act for a worthy social purpose? Exactly how did Bernie Maddoff's huge fraud further the interests of social justice? Is someone capable of such evil and such chicanery, even if non-violent, worthy of being trusted with a gun?

And those who practice civil disobedience to serve a social purpose accept the penalties that come with their acts. If we had lost the Revolution, the Founding Fathers would have been hanged as traitors. (And actually they weren't the Founding Fathers at the time. That term is usually applied to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention -- which took place well after we had won the Revolution.)

...When have felons ever had trouble getting their hands on guns?...

Why should we make it easier for them?

Not only is your right to bear arms revoked if you are convicted of a felony, they are removed even if you are only indicted for a felony--and even for a non-violent one....

But they are restored if the charges are dismissed or you are acquitted.

...Nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." ...

No, it is in fact nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." The "innocent until proven guilty" business is about the burden of proof at a trial on a criminal charge.

 

[Zoogster]

Had they convicted me, i would have lost voting and firearms rights

No you wouldn't have. You would have regained the right to vote after you finished your sentence, but remained permanently prohibited from ever owning a firearm.
At which point you would be free to vote for what firearm rights others besides yourself could have.

There is many people here who are under the impression that felons cannot vote.
This is incorrect in much of the nation. Felons can and do vote, and most of them support anti-gun legislation, which should not be surprising considered they are only voting on whether others can have something they cannot.


In several parts of the nation felons can vote. In many others felons can regain the right to vote through a process even when they cannot regain the right to possess firearms.


I did a quick search in Google for "states felons vote" and found it rather quick.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

Even out of the 12 states that are listed in the permanent category several of them only permanently deny for specific felony offenses, and they do have ways to regain their rights.


So felons can and do vote in most of the United States, with only 12 states that deny them for certain felonies, and even out of those many can go through a process to have voting rights restored.
You can however be certain they are not voting others should have the ability to do things they cannot do.
So most of those felon voters are anti-gun voters, who will typically vote for increased gun control.
If it was a right they also possessed it is unlikely they would be such an anti-gun voting block.

 

[griffudd]

Guilty until proven innocent

Quote:
Originally Posted by griffudd
...Nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." ...

No, it is in fact nothing like being "guilty until proven innocent." The "innocent until proven guilty" business is about the burden of proof at a trial on a criminal charge.

No, Fiddletown. You are wrong.

It is everything like being "guilty until proven innocent." Regarding gun rights, you are treated like a convicted felon if you are indicted. And your gun rights are not automatically restored--even once the charges have been officially dismissed--even a year later.

And again, in case you missed it the 1st time, this is not hearsay. I know this from my own personal experience.

And again, even if it was for a nonviolent (and false) accusation--which is all an indictment actually is--you're treated like a convicted felon when it comes to your right to bear arms, despite your supposedly being "innocent until proven guilty."

 

[Frank Ettin]

No, Fiddletown. You are wrong.

It is everything like being "guilty until proven innocent." ...

Nope, you simply don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means in the law.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is simply a layperson's way of referring to the presumption of innocence that applies under English Common Law, and legal systems derived from the English Common Law, like that of the United States.The presumption of innocence means that in a trial on a criminal charge the prosecution must prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the prosecution fails to do so, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

...even if it was for a nonviolent (and false) accusation--which is all an indictment actually is--you're treated like a convicted felon...

And an indictment is more than a mere accusation. It reflects a determination by a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe that you have committed a crime and will be held to answer the indictment at trial.

But you are not treated as a convicted felon, because you are not convicted. You are not in prison, unless you can't make bail or bail is denied on grounds determined the court to be sufficient. But at the same time, you are not a free man.

You are obliged to appear in court as may be required, and you have often had to post property with the court as security for your appearance, which property you will lose if you fail to appear. You may also be prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction without court approval. You will usually be relieved of your passport. Some assets may be frozen. And you will not be permitted to possess firearms.

But the various disabilities one suffers while under indictment are not the same as being "guilty until proven innocent." They are long recognized devices to foster the defendant's cooperation with and participation in the adjudicative process.

 

[gearhead]

But you were not in fact convicted. You were exonerated. The government may well have had enough evidence (i. e., probable cause) to pursue charges; but they ultimately determined that they lacked evidence to convict. You were able to successfully defend against the charges.

That happens, and that's how the system is supposed to work.

And that's what happened here, although at some level of cost and inconvenience to the accused. All due to overzealous prosecution, and choosing to charge under a statute that didn't apply. Surely you recognize that the judge wouldn't have thrown the case out without going to trial if the prosecutorial actions had not been egregious.

 

[Buck Snort]

fiddletown wrote: "Exactly how did Bernie Maddoff's huge fraud further the interests of social justice?"

Social justice? What are you, a Saul Alinsky fan? That's become a pretty ugly phrase, a concept largely embraced the the radical left wing of American politics. Marx and Lenin thought highly of it also (at least in their rhetoric).