RKBA of the ex-convict

[RealGun]

Interesting to note the recent thread on violent felons possessing firearms. Apparently one can lose RKBA if convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to more than one year.

"Federal law already prohibits firearms possession for any
person who has been convicted of ANY crime for which they might have been sentenced to more than 1 year in prison." - Grass Roots -SC

"Violent" crimes would get limited argument from gun owners, but non-violent felonies and misdemeanors should be part of the question first before even worrying about violent felons.

Violation of federal firearms laws often carries a penalty of up to five years, while a state violation may and should be limited to one year, avoiding the threshold of loss of RKBA with technical equivalence to a felony.

It is especially important to monitor proposed legislation or fight to modify existing legislation that imposes a sentence of more than exactly one year. Be especially vigilant for misdemeanor convictions which allow sentences of more than one year. Also be vigilant of prosecution or conviction on more than one count, resulting in a sentence of more than one year.

One does not need to be sympathetic with those guilty of crimes and convicted. However, if RKBA disability is involved for no good reason, it hurts everyone and abuses the 2A.

I have not yet identified specific Federal laws which so broadly condemn gun possession, but if I do, my Senators and Congressmen will hear about it.

I do not condone their behavior, but I am acquainted with two people imprisoned as very young people because of marijuana, nothing violent involved. Neither of them now has the privilege of owning a gun.

One of the legal initiatives to watch is penalties for CDV (Criminal Domestic Violence), often involving a great deal of emotion and penalties that may be overly severe. Guns can be confiscated only for being charged. If there is such concern for a gun owner being dangerous, the person should be incarcerated, held for counseling. A gun is certainly not the only possible source of harm to others. These laws can easily become another abuse of RKBA. Should there be a condition for surrender of firearms, conditions under which they will be returned should be very clear. The need for and right of self defense should be acknowledged along with conditions under which 2A rights are justly forfeited. Inappropriate penalties leave yet another way to discredit firearms ownership.

 

[Art Eatman]

Before the Congress went all bat-guano in the brain to federalize what once had been state-law crimes, Texas law had it that everybody had a right to self-defense within their homes.

This applied to felons as well as honest folks. Do your time, get released, have a pistol in your home, okay. Carry it around, shame on your happy tail, go to jail.

Art

 

[1911Tuner]

Ex-Con RKBA

Depends...

If the felon was locked up for a non-violent crime such as failing to report income or stealing a car when he was young and drunk...I've got no
problem with it as long as the criminal history stops with the one offense.
An offender with a history of violence, stalking, murder, or armed robbery...No. Chronic substance abuser...No. Last thing we need is a
armed fry-brains with short fuses. <--- (If the gun stays at home...their business, but I don't want to go visit with'em and find a drunk with a loaded gun across the table from me.)

Child molesters and rapists should be hamstrung so they can't even
run from somebody who wants to bust their heads. They've got it comin'.
Nothin' worse in my book than a man who would hurt a woman or a child.

Cheers!

Tuner

 

[DMF]

Probably a good idea to know what the law actually says rather than just taking any post here (including mine) as true.

So feel free to read 18USC922(g) here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922

It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to
participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or
threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that
would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily
injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.

Typically any crime punishable for more than a year is a felony. However, there are violent misdemeanor offenses in many states, and they also are typically the crimes punishable by more than a year.

 

[Mr. Kook]

You know, I've heard this discussion on this and other boards before, and I've changed my viewpoint a bit. I once thought that a person convicted of a violent crime should have their right to keep and bear arms infringed. Then I came to the conclusion that if I don't trust an ex criminal with a gun why in hell would I trust them to be out of jail.

Just a thought, but I figure if a person serves their time they are entitled to the same protections as everyone else, otherwise I say put them back in jail. If we honestly believe they are going to hurt someone again why should they be let out to do it? If we don't believe they will hurt someone again what's the harm in allowing them an effective means of self defense?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I am ashamed to read 18USC922(g).

If God gave us the right to self defense (Not 2A) Then;

WHO thinks that they have the authority to infringe on it?

All gun control laws are unconstitutional.

 

[RealGun]

or possess in or affecting commerce,

Interpreting this infamous clause will determine the extent of the Fed's reach (jurisdiction).

What I find outrageous is the same violation of possession in a government building being felony-five years for Federal and misdemeanor, one year for State. Since the Federal prohibition is pretty easily argued to be unconstitutional, violation without demonstrable criminal intent, prosecutable on other grounds, is hardly of felony proportions.

 

[DMF]

Since the Federal prohibition is pretty easily argued to be unconstitutional . . .

Then feel free to get your case heard by the Supreme Court.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I think the supremes have already spoken.

us v cruickshank. google it. Somebody with link pasting and quote copying skills should put up the relevant parts. How about you, DMF?

In that opinion they state clearly that the 2nd amendment only affects the Federal (or national) govt. and that states are free to do their own thing.

 

[ksnecktieman]

The battle for the second ammendment is over, and the anti's won.

Even here in a gun forum it looks like two thirds of the members approve of gun control. The problem of having a line drawn in the sand is that the winds of political expediency will move it as time goes on. We have allowed a line to be drawn, now our challenge is to stay on the side of the line that allows us to own guns.

"Enhanced" sentences for crimes committed with a gun? WHY??? Is the crime better if it is committed with a knife or a club?

No firearms for a domestic violence crime? Why??? There are two people in that domestic situation, one of them may NEED defense.

No firearms if they have been convicted of a crime with a punishment of more than one year? WHY??? Do they need less protection?

I think at one time we all know someone that should not have a gun. I think that each and every one of us knows that we are good upstanding citizens, that should be allowed to have guns. It is just the "other guy" that is unsafe or criminal, or careless.

The problem with that logic is that to me, YOU are the "other guy", and to you, I am the "other guy".

The gun controlers came after the "saturday night specials", They came for the "assault weapons", They came for magazines holding more than ten rounds. They will come for the "armor piercing bullets", They will come for the "sniper rifles". Eventually They will come for your gun of choice too.

Thay have restricted the ex cons, They have restricted anyone in a federal building. They have restricted anyone in a school, or school activity. They have restricted anyone that has ever been addicted to drugs. They have restricted anyone in federally subsidized housing. They restrict anyone that works on an army base.

If YOU do not stand up for the "other guy" there will be no one to stand up for you when they come for your guns, and your rights.

It looks like most here have decided they would rather fall alone, than to stand together. If you think gun control is for the "other guy" we did lose this war.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I hope I did this right:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=92&invol=542

This is what the supremes said: Read it and weep, you gun controllers.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

 

[Mr. Kook]

And what of the 14th ammendment? The one that says the rights afforded by the federal constitution are protected from violation by the states?

 

[Wildalaska]

Read it and weep, you gun controllers.

Your anayislis of Supreme Court precendent is not quite as convincing as your anger..

But why preach to us sheeple, go down to the local Courthose with a machine gun, a flag and a copy of the constituion. I dare ya.

I will contrib your legal fund btw..lets get the matter settled onece and for all

WildjustanotheramatuerconstituionalscholarAlaska

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Wild,

I said

Read it and weep, you gun controllers.

You said,

Your anayislis of Supreme Court precendent is not quite as convincing as your anger..

But why preach to us sheeple, go down to the local Courthose with a machine gun, a flag and a copy of the constituion. I dare ya.

I will contrib your legal fund btw..lets get the matter settled onece and for all

Thanks for your support.

 

[RealGun]

Stop! Time out! Yadda, yadda.

Why should especially severe penalties be imposed for merely carrying a firearm in a federal building? Okay, fine, declare it gun free, we'll talk about it later, but why such a serious offense (felony-5 yrs) if not especially hostile to the 2A, and particluarly in contrast to a State offense (misdemeanor - 1 yr) that is directly comparable? What could possibly warrant a felony conviction and five years in prison with subsequent loss of rights? I can see being serious about compliance, but that's ridiculous.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I know a gentleman ( and I use that term to describe him literally) who was once a championship handgun shooter, NRA instructor, and I believe he may even have been a police firearms instructor at one point. I met him only recently, and when I heard about his history with shooting I asked if he'd like to come shooting with me and try my Para Ordnance LDA.

Without explaining why, he said "I can't."

What was unspoken is that apparently he must have been convicted of some crime, and he is now among those who are prohibited from owning a firearm. I'm not clear on the laws involved, but he seems to think that even if I take MY guns to the range, he's prohibited from even picking one up and pointing it downrange.

This is just plain wrong. I've met his wife and his teenage daughter. They are a close-knit family. He's not a kook. He's gainfully employed. I'd much rather trust him to have a handgun than some other people I know who are not prohibited from ownership.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

So, OK, I stopped, I timed out.

If I think I understand your question it's "Why do the feds take firearms laws so seriously?"

Perhaps some here don't want to hear it, but it's fear.

The rulers know they are doing wrong so they make laws to prevent the subjects from getting too close to them with firearms. And rightfully so.

What I can't figure out is why don't they give long prison terms for carrying tar and feathers into federal buildings?

Maybe that's what we need to carry instead of shootin' irons.

 

[Joey2]

I strongly agree with "ksnecktieman".

What this is all about is restricting gun ownership to a point that confiscation will be a doable thing.

How long before you are restricted from owning a gun with such a minor violation as a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt?

How about a parking meter violation?

Gentlemen we are slowly comming to that.

There was a time in our history when a man was released from prison and handed back his gun.

Incramentily we are being raped of our rights to defend ourselves, family and country and some here equivicate our rights with limitations.

I own guns for 2 reasons; recreation and defense. You have the same rights and so does your fellow man regardless of his past.

An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Deavis]

Art is right about Texas alowing a felon to possess a gun, but there is a five year waiting period...

Texas law says...

§ 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person
who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he
possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary
of the person's release from confinement following conviction of
the felony or the person's release from supervision under community
supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is
later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at
any location other than the premises at which the person lives.
(b) A person who has been convicted of an offense under
Section 22.01, punishable as a Class A misdemeanor and involving a
member of the person's family or household, commits an offense if
the person possesses a firearm before the fifth anniversary of the
later of:
(1) the date of the person's release from confinement
following conviction of the misdemeanor; or
(2) the date of the person's release from community
supervision following conviction of the misdemeanor.


What I want to know, is would you actually pass a background check if it had been 5 years?