Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
Okay, here it is:
Being a convicted felon is not supposed to be a walk in the park.
I don't believe Rush ever said that.
Your conviction was for drugs, right?
Gun Rights for former felons
- Thread starter tgp
- Start date
- Status
Being a convicted felon is not supposed to be a walk in the park.
Your conviction was for drugs, right?
MaterDei
Member
Plastic ice cube trays and sliced bread are the cat's meow!
It is a valid argument - in this case, it's a social policy designed to reduce crime and gun use by alleged criminals.
Has the country been made safer by the placement of felons on the prohibited persons list for gun owners?
Has GCA '68 stopped criminals from getting guns?
Has it stopped enough crime to warrant the restrictions on citizens whose rights shall not be infringed?
There's probably no way to know. But I'm still not going to get worked up over felons not being able to legally possess guns.rfurtkamp said:
woof
Member
A felony assault has to be pretty severe. Sounds to me like the OP has a short fuse and a lot of anger. Hmmm
The truth about felonious recidivism.
The sad fact is that regardless of what any former felon says, 77% commit another felony and are back in prison, the average time between commitments is anywhere from a week to 6 months, a few can go for a few years before they are back again. WHY?
I do not feel sorry for former felons, and I dont think that a former felon should be able to own a firearm. The statistic I mentioned also goes along with a number that get killed or die after returning to society (dont know the actual number but its common). This leaves us with 1-1.5 out of 10 who may clean up their lives, and some that die before
they are convicted again.
The statistics show that when firearm possesion by a former felon was not a crime, the crimes committed by former felons more commonly involved a gun, advice they got in prison no doubt.
The sad fact is that regardless of what any former felon says, 77% commit another felony and are back in prison, the average time between commitments is anywhere from a week to 6 months, a few can go for a few years before they are back again. WHY?
I do not feel sorry for former felons, and I dont think that a former felon should be able to own a firearm. The statistic I mentioned also goes along with a number that get killed or die after returning to society (dont know the actual number but its common). This leaves us with 1-1.5 out of 10 who may clean up their lives, and some that die before
they are convicted again.
The statistics show that when firearm possesion by a former felon was not a crime, the crimes committed by former felons more commonly involved a gun, advice they got in prison no doubt.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
where do you get your stats?
Marcus5aurelius
Member
The fact is that felons who were charged with a crime involving assault or similar crimes are more likely to commit again. If you used your fists or boots then it is not all that unreasonable to assume you will use a gun in the future. The fact is, if you are changed that's great, but you are now included in a much larger group of people that may say they have changed but have not.
If you feel that you should be allowed the 2nd amendment rights, then how can you deny the rights of the 30% inmates that you said were worthy of the death penalty? There is no way to easily justify for individual cases. If you dont work with the law, the law will definitely not return the favor. Even this great nation has limits in order to protect the greater good.
If you feel that you should be allowed the 2nd amendment rights, then how can you deny the rights of the 30% inmates that you said were worthy of the death penalty? There is no way to easily justify for individual cases. If you dont work with the law, the law will definitely not return the favor. Even this great nation has limits in order to protect the greater good.
I am of the opinion that one who has committed a felony is never truly a free man again, due to his own actions. It was his choice to commit the crime, he knew the consequences, and chose to be a criminal anyway. Its his fault, no one elses.
If he is truly rehabilitated, he can apply for a pardon to restore his rights.
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
Of course violent criminals shouldn't have guns but there's always the fact that many felonies don't involve violence whatsoever. I don't know enough about the OPs situation to determine whethter i think it was self defense or not so I won't say whether that applies. Theres other crimes that can make you a felon for life such as firearms possession(like gettin caught carrying in NYC or school property.) I wouldn't do it myself for fear of the legal consequences but I can understand where someone would put their own personal safety over some stupid law that only gives antis a false sense of security. Several months ago some friends and I went squirrel hunting on some land made available by a former felon. He used to go to the same high school as us and the land belonged to his aunt. We spent several hours there but he never even showed up on the property. Apparently he's not even allowed to be around while we are have weapons due to his conviction for marijuana trafficking. His dad even had to move his safe and gun collection to another relative's house so his son could legally live there.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i regard being willing to do the footwork to get rights restored as a good hurdle if you aren't willing or able to do that you likely don't need/deserve it you need to work to restore your life
This is what I know, and I consider it enough:
People with no prior criminal activity typically do not go to prison for the first offense. It would get plead down and likely probation would be the result with the possibility of a small jail sentence. Unless there are other factors involved, they will typically not pursue a felony prison sentence when it can be reduced, especially to keep the prison population down. There is definitely more to this story than someone just getting a black eye during mutual combat, I'd be willing to bet money on it.
divemedic
Member
The problem that I have is that some felonies have no business being felonies. Copying a movie, while a crime, is in no way worthy of depriving a person of their rights for the remainder of their lives.
It is a felony to gamble online in Washington State.
In Texas, it is a felony to own more than 5 dildos.
Smoke pot in your home in Texas- misdemeanor, unless your house is less than 1000 feet from a school (including college), day care, school bus stop, church, or government building, then it is a felony.
So a college kid, being stupid, smokes a joint in his dorm, or owns 6 sex toys, is a felon and has his rights taken away for life? No more voting, hunting, or even protecting his own life? To me, that is insanity.
It is easy for some to say "Don't break the law, then." But really, why not just use that logic to make exceeding the speed limit a felony?
Instead of a blanket law that prohibits felons from EVER owning a gun, why not make it a part of sentencing? Something like:
Nonviolent felony: Loss of gun rights for a period not to exceed 5 years.
Violent felony that does not include a weapon, first offense: Loss of gun rights for a period of not less than 3 years, nor more than 15 years. Second offense: Not less than 10 years, nor more than 25 years
Violent felony involving a weapon: loss of gun rights for a period of not less than 7 years, up to life
In no case will a felon have his firearm rights restored while on probation, parole, or within 1 year of being released from prison.
This makes more sense to me than "zero tolerance" and allows the court to have the punishment fit the crime.
It is a felony to gamble online in Washington State.
In Texas, it is a felony to own more than 5 dildos.
Smoke pot in your home in Texas- misdemeanor, unless your house is less than 1000 feet from a school (including college), day care, school bus stop, church, or government building, then it is a felony.
So a college kid, being stupid, smokes a joint in his dorm, or owns 6 sex toys, is a felon and has his rights taken away for life? No more voting, hunting, or even protecting his own life? To me, that is insanity.
It is easy for some to say "Don't break the law, then." But really, why not just use that logic to make exceeding the speed limit a felony?
Instead of a blanket law that prohibits felons from EVER owning a gun, why not make it a part of sentencing? Something like:
Nonviolent felony: Loss of gun rights for a period not to exceed 5 years.
Violent felony that does not include a weapon, first offense: Loss of gun rights for a period of not less than 3 years, nor more than 15 years. Second offense: Not less than 10 years, nor more than 25 years
Violent felony involving a weapon: loss of gun rights for a period of not less than 7 years, up to life
In no case will a felon have his firearm rights restored while on probation, parole, or within 1 year of being released from prison.
This makes more sense to me than "zero tolerance" and allows the court to have the punishment fit the crime.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
The truth about felonious recidivism.
The sad fact is that regardless of what any former felon says, 77% commit another felony and are back in prison, the average time between commitments is anywhere from a week to 6 months, a few can go for a few years before they are back again. WHY?
Rearrest within 3 years
* 67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983
* The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders
* The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).
up arrowTo the top
Reconviction within 3 years
* Overall, reconviction rates did not change significantly from 1983 to 1994. Among, prisoners released in 1983, 46.8% were reconvicted within 3 years compared to 46.9% among those released in 1994. From 1983 to 1994, reconviction rates remained stable for released:
- violent offenders (41.9% and 39.9%, respectively)
- property offenders (53.0% and 53.4%)
- public-order offenders (41.5% and 42.0%)
* Among drug offenders, the rate of reconviction increased significantly, going from 35.3% in 1983 to 47.0% in 1994.
up arrowTo the top
Returned to prison within 3 years
* The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years, 51.8% of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole. This rate was not calculated in the 1983 study.
your truth differs from the doj
The sad fact is that regardless of what any former felon says, 77% commit another felony and are back in prison, the average time between commitments is anywhere from a week to 6 months, a few can go for a few years before they are back again. WHY?
Rearrest within 3 years
* 67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983
* The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders
* The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).
up arrowTo the top
Reconviction within 3 years
* Overall, reconviction rates did not change significantly from 1983 to 1994. Among, prisoners released in 1983, 46.8% were reconvicted within 3 years compared to 46.9% among those released in 1994. From 1983 to 1994, reconviction rates remained stable for released:
- violent offenders (41.9% and 39.9%, respectively)
- property offenders (53.0% and 53.4%)
- public-order offenders (41.5% and 42.0%)
* Among drug offenders, the rate of reconviction increased significantly, going from 35.3% in 1983 to 47.0% in 1994.
up arrowTo the top
Returned to prison within 3 years
* The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years, 51.8% of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole. This rate was not calculated in the 1983 study.
your truth differs from the doj
But they all involve some level of dishonesty, disregard for others, moral turpitude and/or disrespect to the community. Bernie Madoff's crimes did not involve violence, but should a person so dishonest and devoid of regard for his obligations to his clients and the community ever be able to lawfully possess a gun? (Of course it's moot since it's highly unlikely that he'll ever be out of custody for the rest of his life.)sherman123 said:
But in real life someone isn't going to get tagged for felony copyright violation for copying one movie for personal use, unless there's a whole lot of other stuff going on. Nor is one likely to get convicted of a felony for smoking one joint, the first time, in his dorm room, unless there's a whole lot of other stuff going on. Casual violations are usually treated lightly.divemedic said:
Of course, it's possible for an injustice to occur. But there are remedies. In any case, no one is forcing you to copy that DVD or to smoke that joint. And if you don't know that doing so is a criminal act, you haven't been paying attention.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Since most of us here only want it taken away for a violent felony, which of those could be an accident?
Those laws definantly need to be changed. However, since gun control only affects honest people, I'd say that the people who don't obey it wouldn't be honest, law-abiding people. (That's why it doesn't work)
Probably some.
Their rights aren't being infringed, they have been taken away by due process. Liberty can be taken away by due process.
JImbothefiveth
Member
I also suspect the OP isn't telling the complete truth about why he was convicted. Perhaps the guy that attacked him was knocked out and he beat him, and maybe he had a huge size advantage.
That is by no means a victimless crime. I wonder how many people he got hooked on this stuff, who then broke in to houses and killed people.
mljdeckard
Member
I could work with something like the compromise divemedic suggests. Certainly not all felonies are created equal.
But like Jimbo keeps saying, and some completely ignore him, there is a legal, entirely constitutional DUE PROCESS OF LAW by which people may lose their rights. Doesn't mean you have to like it.
But like Jimbo keeps saying, and some completely ignore him, there is a legal, entirely constitutional DUE PROCESS OF LAW by which people may lose their rights. Doesn't mean you have to like it.
I have to agree with the op to some extent. If you can't trust a man with a gun, you can't trust him with a knife or for that matter anything that can be used as a weapon. So therefore you can't trust that man to be out in the world at all. What then was the point of letting him out? He either paid his dues or he didn't.
Iowa Don
Member
Firearms rights and federal disability.
Federal law clearly states that restoration of firearms rights by a state or a pardon by the Gov. relieves the person of dederal disability. Call your local ATF and they'll straighten you out. Lawyers -- if you can read English, follow directions, and meet the qualifying factors and have no disqualifying events, you can do it by yourself -- yes, they can take your money and snigger up their sleeve on the way to the bank. I have nothing against them - my own is the son of the best criminal attorney in Iowa.
I have done it by myself. Those who comment on this subject should inform themselves of the Federal law and the law of the state in which the felony was committed. There are disqualifying factors in each state and they may be different. Sex crimes, violent crimes, armed crimes, and crimes against children are the principal reasons. Extensive or continuing patterns of misdemeanors are not good news either. I do not believe there is any state you can move to to escape the disability -- that is the reason for the Federal statutes:to keep people from doing exactly that.
You are each entitled to your opinions, whatever they may be. You are not entitled to factual error, however, and in the case of Federal law and the laws of the State of Iowa, I have used my knowledge of them to get my pardon.
Federal law clearly states that restoration of firearms rights by a state or a pardon by the Gov. relieves the person of dederal disability. Call your local ATF and they'll straighten you out. Lawyers -- if you can read English, follow directions, and meet the qualifying factors and have no disqualifying events, you can do it by yourself -- yes, they can take your money and snigger up their sleeve on the way to the bank. I have nothing against them - my own is the son of the best criminal attorney in Iowa.
I have done it by myself. Those who comment on this subject should inform themselves of the Federal law and the law of the state in which the felony was committed. There are disqualifying factors in each state and they may be different. Sex crimes, violent crimes, armed crimes, and crimes against children are the principal reasons. Extensive or continuing patterns of misdemeanors are not good news either. I do not believe there is any state you can move to to escape the disability -- that is the reason for the Federal statutes:to keep people from doing exactly that.
You are each entitled to your opinions, whatever they may be. You are not entitled to factual error, however, and in the case of Federal law and the laws of the State of Iowa, I have used my knowledge of them to get my pardon.
Last edited:
DHJenkins
Member
That's a tough one. It seems like it's pretty easy to commit a felony these days...
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
This is too easy.
When you are convicted, you give up your constitutional rights.
Otherwise everyone in prison would say they lost "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The points that divemedic bring up are not entirely genuine with regard to application of law. Can you point to a case where a person with no priors was convicted of having 6 dildos? Apparently at one point there was a need to have such a law but I would pretty much guarantee that it had nothing to do with private use.
This is why there are two classes, felony and misdemeanor. Unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice, someone with no priors is not going to be convicted of felony excessive personal ***** usage.
I would hope that was sarcasm.
There are a lot of things that can accidentally happen to a person, but being convicted and jailed for a felony is not one of them. They have to meet some pretty high standards and be convicted by 12 people who also agree.
Once again, some members of this community don't seem to think that the law should restrict firearms to felons, but then they argue that instead of restricting gun rights to everyone that they (the gov't) go after the criminals instead. Make up your mind and quit trying to find the grey area in everything. Some things really are black and white.
This is why there are two classes, felony and misdemeanor. Unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice, someone with no priors is not going to be convicted of felony excessive personal ***** usage.
I would hope that was sarcasm.
There are a lot of things that can accidentally happen to a person, but being convicted and jailed for a felony is not one of them. They have to meet some pretty high standards and be convicted by 12 people who also agree.
Once again, some members of this community don't seem to think that the law should restrict firearms to felons, but then they argue that instead of restricting gun rights to everyone that they (the gov't) go after the criminals instead. Make up your mind and quit trying to find the grey area in everything. Some things really are black and white.
- Status