Legality of Felons & guns in the military

[FTA84]

Another +1000. The anti's keep talking about how the US has much more of a problem with gun violence than any other nation. Perhaps this is a symptom of poor societal values and a failed penal system - not a symptom of the responsibility to defend ourselves from oppression.

I see your +1000 and raise you +1000 more.

I believe that getting a violent felony should disqualify you from firearms ownership....for a set amount of time (10 years?)

I used to work construction when I was younger, it is a career where many ex-cons end up. They were not bad people, generally, they were a bit more willilng to get into confrontations, but most of the older ones (40+) had completely turned their lives around. Why should you be continually penalized for a crime you commited 30 years ago when you have had a clean record since.

I also don't think anyone should discuss 'felons' in the above context without speaking about 'violent felons'. At the rate that crimes are turning into felonies (to pad the DA's reelection commericials with "XXX felony convictions last year"), parking tickets will become felonies.

The crime should display the person's inability to be trusted to use a firearm correctly.

 

[rdhood]

Why do have to beat this to death all the time?

It's been long established, 40 years now, that you commit a felony crime you lose RKBA. Don't like it, don't be a criminal!

According to those of the anti gun persuasion, it has been long established, for 70 years now, that RKBA is not an individual right at all. But most here... and maybe in the highest court in the land... believe that to be untrue and unjust.

The closest thing that can said to be "cast in stone" is the 2nd. Everything else is going to get beat to death. Dont like it, don't read the thread.

 

[RP88]

I guess the loophole/technicality is that the felons in the military are issued their guns and do not actually own or buy them.

I'm all for the forfeiture of gun rights over felonies for life. If someone is desperate or cold enough to do something bad enough that they have to be locked up from the rest of us for as much as a third of their life, then i would not want them to have the legal means to buy something that would allow them to do it (or something worse) ever again. If someone learns their lesson and wants their gun rights back, then there is a legal procedure for expungement and reinstatement of the right last time I heard.

 

[Ash]

"Why is it we have soldiers at 18 years old who can die for our government but not legally drink alcohol?"

Last I heard, you could drink on base and, so, if you are actually in the military and, so, faced dying for your country but not yet 21, you could indeed drink. Thus, that argument was never valid.

Ash

 

[csmkersh]

Traditionally active duty U.S. military personnel could consume alcoholic beverages, while on any federal military installation, regardless of the drinking laws of the state in which their base was located.

However, in the 1980s, Congress was lobbied to prevent this. “Federal law (United States Code) requires military installation commanders to adopt the same drinking age as the state in which the military base is located. The only exception to this rule is if the base is located within 50 miles of Canada or Mexico, or a state with a lower drinking age, the installation commander may adopt the lower drinking age for military personnel on base.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) codification of this legislation specifies that on bases within 50 miles of“Mexico or Canada, the minimum drinking age on that DoD installation shall be the lowest applicable age of the State in which the DoD installation is located or the State or jurisdiction of Mexico or Canada that is within 50 miles of such DoD installation.

The minimum drinking age on a DoD installation located outside the United States shall be 18 years of age. Higher minimum drinking age will be based on international treaties and agreements and on the local situation as determined by the local installation commander.”

Source​

UCMJ does not cover minimum dringing age but does cover variosu offenses arising from drinking and being drunk. So, check base regs with the JAG office.

​

 

[Ash]

Ah, I stand corrected.

Ash

 

[orionengnr]

I say not really. Here's why. Cops have fully automatic machine guns, explosives. They kill without being prosecuted. Bottom line, they are entrusted to "serve and protect." Now, do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell a cop could have a felony on his record and be accepted to the force?

Sorry to burst your bubble...but that ship has already sailed. Numerous news articles are available doing a quick Google search. From a police training website (emphasis mine):

Integrity and character issues also make the list of problems that knock people out of contention for cop jobs. Falling expectations of departments are reflected in lowered standards in some agencies. It used to be that there was zero tolerance for drug use, speeding, and DUI. Now, those issues have been relegated to sliding scale formulas in a lot of agencies.

The hiring standard battle rages in many agencies. On the one hand, pressure exists to meet the staffing shortfalls by making it easier to gain entry into the profession. The flip side encompasses those that believe it is better to hire only those that meet long-established criteria for LEOs.

While the debate is framed as an issue of quality versus quantity, some contend that even the quality approach is not as it seems. Some view the “dings” and “dents” in the armor as examples of life’s experiences that make for a well-rounded and more empathetic patrol officer.

For some departments, issues such as so-called minor drug use experimentation are less of an issue if the use was limited and was anywhere from five to ten years ago. For just about all agencies nationwide, any hard drug use, transport or sale of illegal substances results in the application heading for the shredder.

Clearly, the rules have changed...and not for the better.

That said, I agree that not all felonies are created equal, and many things that would have been a verbal warning when I was a kid may be "felonies" today...

 

[Vibe]

Isn't the right to bear arms taken away by Due Process when one gets convicted of a (certain type of) felony?

Nope. But in practice, yes. By this I meant the RKBA (according to the SCOTUS) Is a right not "granted", but pre-existing and not dependent upon any document. As such nothing can really take that away. But the Government can, by act of law, refuse to recognize that right among people it has deemed unfit to exercise it. Particularly so long as they can demonstrate to the "greater part" of the governed, that it is in their better interest.

 

[Vibe]

There are a lot of misdemeanors that today will "automatically" become "Felony" simply at the Judges discression. A "Felony" is any crime which has a punishment of imprisonment greater than one year. Todays judges have the power to levy "add on sentences" for actions the defendant is not convicted of, but that were performed in the commission of some other "crime".
The recent Burgess case before SCOTUS touched on part of that
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/opinion-recap-burgess-v-us/
But it seems that there was another one recently, can't recall that case right now, but within the last month.

 

[romma]

If you have felonies, and you serve honorably, fight for freedom and kill enemy soldiers, possibly even get wounded in action,,,

do you get your gun rights back when you come Stateside?

That's what I want to know!

 

[Vibe]

If you can get a pardon for your Felony from the President (or even the Governor of your state I think) yes. Otherwise the action of restoration of rights is still under the domain of the BATFE , and they have no funding for it, and thus do not do it. So no.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

The military is not subject to civilian laws.

When you sign up with them, you give up your rights as you know them.

Not entirely.
Many years ago I had a loud, vocal and profane difference of opinon with my Navy LCDR Dept. Head, in the ward room in front of my Division LT and the ships (CDR) XO. I was written up for "Disrespect to a Superior Officer" (duh)
During the investigation phase they kept trying to get me to sign a document giving up my 5th Amendment Rights. I wouldn't sign and they couldn't explain to me why it was in my best interest to do so. Surprisinlgy the charges were dismissed at my Captains Mast (Art 15)
For some reason I still think refusing to sign away my 5th Amendment Rights has something to do with the dismissal (that and the dept head was an idiot and everyone knew it)

 

[Old Dog]

Actually, RoadKingLarry, those are known as your Art. 31B rights (from the UCMJ).

When I saw the title of this thread, I just knew someone would end up bringing LEOs into the discussion and say something ignorant such as

I'd be willing to bet that there are waaay more felons ( that haven't been caught yet) wearing blue than there are wearing Desert BDUs.

Now, having done over 20 years of active duty, 18 months of my last 3 years wearing DCUs (desert camouflage uniforms) in the Middle East, having worked many years in law enforcement both military and reserve while on active duty, now working in law enforcement post military, I strongly disagree with that statement. But hey, all you out there want to continue with your adversarial view of law enforcement, I don't give a rat's butt what you want to believe -- just quit making ridiculous remarks if you've no personal experience in today's military and today's law enforcement.

 

[W.E.G.]

Possession of a firearm by a felon is a felony.

Ownership is not required.

I am aware of no codified exception to this rule for military personnel.

That said, I don't give a rat's if the Marines want to put an M16 in the hands of a guy who had a bit of trouble with the law. I just want to know, can I trust him to follow orders, and does he think fast on his feet. At the end of the day, we hired him to kill people. Choirboys and intellectuals need not apply.

I'm pretty sure the felon-exception is only being used for recruiting enlisted personnel. I'd be surprised to find anybody in our military over the rank of sergeant with a felony conviction.

 

[scythefwd]

Ash said: "The military hands guys fully automatic machine guns, tank guns, guided missiles, grenades, and allows them to kill without being prosecuted. The rules are a bit different."

I say not really. Here's why. Cops have fully automatic machine guns, explosives. They kill without being prosecuted. Bottom line, they are entrusted to "serve and protect." Now, do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell a cop could have a felony on his record and be accepted to the force? Why should our standards be any different in the military. We certainly don't want a bunch of recidivistic felons representing our country by murdering or raping civilians across the globe. We should never entrust these ex-cons with such a high and grave job. They have served their time, true, but only their jail time. There is a reason they must disclose their past to employers, gun shop owners, and others. It is because they have acted in such a way as to not deserve our trust. Recidivism is so high among criminals, we are Pollyannaish idiots if we simply turn the other cheek for them to slap it.

If you think we should let felons in the military, then you also must agree we should let felons be cops. The only difference you could claim is that, "Hey they're on the other side of the world. They can't hurt us." Of course that attitude shows a xenophobic disregard for the other citizens of the world.

There is a massive difference. Cops can carry off duty, soldiers cant unless they are in a war zone. Cops take their weapon home, soldiers cannot take their service weapon home. Soldiers cannot just go out and buy a gun if they are a felon. They will be refused just as if they a civilian. A cop's duty weapon is available 24-7, a soldiers is only available on the range (with ammo), in ftx's (with blanks, maybe), or on deployment (with ammo). Of the 1 time every 6 months a soldier is allowed to take his weapon away from the arms room while not deployed and issued ammo, they are not issued ammo until they arrive at the range. They are not allowed to transport their weapons (most have M16's, which are not fully auto) in any method other than by foot or military vehicle. The only time a soldier is unsupervised with his weapon and has ammo is during deployment, and my rounds were counted daily when I was overseas so that is even a stretch. Cops are unsupervised with their weapons 16ish hours a day, seven days a week.

 

[scythefwd]

WEG, Your prior encounters with the law (like a felony before you enlisted) isn't even in your personel record, at least not the one sent to the board. In the army, up to E-6 is easily attained with a bad history or not. E-7 and up may be a bit harder, but I personally know a couple of felons who were e-7 or up (one was an E-9, the highest enlisted rank possible)

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Old Dog, after reviewing the UCMJ Art 31 you are probably right but I sure do "remember" it as being the 5th amendment rights on the papers they were trying to get me to sign. Oh well faulty memory of a very stressful time maybe.

As far as felons in the military getting guns, I just can't see the government prosecuting a felon for possessing/using the gun that that very same government handed him to possess/use.
(Its just not the same as if it were the ATF doing it)

 

[Old Dog]

Pretty much the same ... "Anything you say can or will be used against you ..."

 

[DMF]

When you enter the Armed Services and are on a military installation or under direct command overseas, civilian laws do not apply. The UCMJ rules your life. (Well, the UCMJ and your sergeant.)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. In areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, a defendant can be charged under the UCMJ, charged under any applicable US Code violation, or charged with an applicable state crime that would be tried in a US District Court under the Assimilative Crimes Act. In areas of concurrent jurisdiction, which is the majority of property on military bases the person could be charged under the UCMJ, any applicable US Code violation, or in state court on an applicable state charge, as the jurisdiction is shared by the federal government and the state. In areas of concurrent jurisdiction, local LE can and does come on base to enforce the law.

I did military LE for a few years, and I assure that military people can and often do get tried in civilian courts for crimes committed on base.

 

[DMF]

I am aware of no codified exception to this rule for military personnel.

18USC925(a)(1)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000925----000-.html

As I said earlier, there is an exception for LE and military personnel possessing firearms as part of their official duties. They may possess an issued firearm in conjunction with their duties, but are still prohibited from possessing other firearms.

 

[Oana]

Thanks for the specifics, DMF.

Interesting stuff.

 

[JohnBT]

"Personally I don't see why a felon who has finished their sentence and "paid their debt to society" should be denied their 2A rights."

As soon as they make full restitution to the victim or victims, and not a second sooner.

John

 

[dalepres]

But, aside from that rant, I would guess at the very least that the current administration would argue the President's power as commander in chief of the military trumps those statutes forbidding felons from possessing firarms, so long as it is for military purposes. I cringe when I hear about new powers claimed for the Executive Branch, but this would probably be a legitimate use of that argument. It would be interesting to know any specifics on this though, wouldn't it?

Huh? Do we have a king? A dictator? What am I missing in the constitution or the oath of office where the president swears to uphold some of the laws and not others?

 

[dalepres]

There are a lot of misdemeanors that today will "automatically" become "Felony" simply at the Judges discression. A "Felony" is any crime which has a punishment of imprisonment greater than one year.

In a recent trip to Branson, MO, I saw a sign in MO stating that the punishment for littering was up to $500 in fines and up to one year in jail... for littering. One day short of a felony and losing your right to bear arms for life... Scary stuff.

 

[BigMike66]

Personally I don't see why a felon who has finished their sentence and "paid their debt to society" should be denied their 2A rights. If they are safe enough to trust back out in society where they can easily get a weapon regardless of the laws... then they are safe enough to trust to legally own a weapon... if they are a likely menace to use law-abiding types then they should still be locked up.

Federal form 4474 firearms transaction record for every gun purchase has the question 11. c.:

"have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony..."

Maybe the powers-to-be have actually gotten something right.

I wonder why we have a sex offender database?