Infringing on rights is not the issue. The issue is that a felon cannot legally own a gun and in my view and that of a lot of other people that makes perfect sense. Is it "just" 100% of the time? No. But the downside of doing the opposite is too much. How is arresting people for possesing a legal substance comparable to arresting people for possessing an illegal one?
should ex felons be restricted
- Thread starter cheese_head
- Start date
- Status
Infringing on rights is not the issue. The issue is that a felon cannot legally own a gun and in my view and that of a lot of other people that makes perfect sense. Is it "just" 100% of the time? No. But the downside of doing the opposite is too much. How is arresting people for possesing a legal substance comparable to arresting people for possessing an illegal one?
thorn726
Member
some more rules
yeah no bullets, or any parts of weapons allowed.
here in CA, no
pepper spray
taser
stun guns
here/maybe everywhere= no body armor.
a HOST of MISDEMAENORS make you gunless-
domestic violence, and related charges.
certain types of theft!
mental illness, drunk driving even in some cases!
if gun is accessible by felon, he is criminal. so if it's in the house, it's too close.
i think it should be possible to restore these rights in some cases, but it genreally isnt, and reality-
most felons have had their guns removed for a very good reason.
commiting a felony shows you have the capacity to ignore the law, and risking the lives of others with that is no good.
i think the best thing would be a realistic time limit=
commit a felony, and be restricted from gun onwnership for 10 years, something like that.
maybe keep guns away from people busted for Violent crimes, or like drug dealers caught with lots of guns and drugs, the kind things that end up in gun battles.
a lot of people do make mistakes and become bette people later, and should have the right to defend themselves.
yeah no bullets, or any parts of weapons allowed.
here in CA, no
pepper spray
taser
stun guns
here/maybe everywhere= no body armor.
a HOST of MISDEMAENORS make you gunless-
domestic violence, and related charges.
certain types of theft!
mental illness, drunk driving even in some cases!
if gun is accessible by felon, he is criminal. so if it's in the house, it's too close.
i think it should be possible to restore these rights in some cases, but it genreally isnt, and reality-
most felons have had their guns removed for a very good reason.
commiting a felony shows you have the capacity to ignore the law, and risking the lives of others with that is no good.
i think the best thing would be a realistic time limit=
commit a felony, and be restricted from gun onwnership for 10 years, something like that.
maybe keep guns away from people busted for Violent crimes, or like drug dealers caught with lots of guns and drugs, the kind things that end up in gun battles.
a lot of people do make mistakes and become bette people later, and should have the right to defend themselves.
I have serious doubt that the public could agree on what "hurt" means. Every special interest would want any felony that applies to their passion be legalized or downgraded to a misdemeanor. "You vote to legalize my vice or I won't vote to legalize yours". It's called politics.
Glock Glockler
Member
You vote to legalize my vice or I won't vote to legalize yours". It's called politics.
Ok, I go to the range and blast off a few hundred rounds, can you please show me the damage I've done to someone's person or property?
Suppose someone lights up a joint in the living room while watching Monday night football, show me the harm to person or property.
Infringing on rights is not the issue.
So I suppose all those Jews that were stuffed into ovens by the Nazis shouldn't have complained because after all, "Infringing on rights is not the issue". You advocate a thug govt that acts for the "greater good" regardless of how many people it has to destroy in search of it. Your philosophy is really no different from that of Nazis and Communists.
How is arresting people for possesing a legal substance comparable to arresting people for possessing an illegal one?
Upon what basis is one made illegal? That makes about as much sense as arresting in 2000 for posessing a post-ban AR-15 with a flash supressor but not a pre-ban AR-15 with a flash supressor, one is illegal and one is not.
Ok, I go to the range and blast off a few hundred rounds, can you please show me the damage I've done to someone's person or property?
Suppose someone lights up a joint in the living room while watching Monday night football, show me the harm to person or property.
Infringing on rights is not the issue.
So I suppose all those Jews that were stuffed into ovens by the Nazis shouldn't have complained because after all, "Infringing on rights is not the issue". You advocate a thug govt that acts for the "greater good" regardless of how many people it has to destroy in search of it. Your philosophy is really no different from that of Nazis and Communists.
How is arresting people for possesing a legal substance comparable to arresting people for possessing an illegal one?
Upon what basis is one made illegal? That makes about as much sense as arresting in 2000 for posessing a post-ban AR-15 with a flash supressor but not a pre-ban AR-15 with a flash supressor, one is illegal and one is not.
Glock Glockler
Member
I didnt specifically call you one, only that your philosophy that justifies trampling on people's rights in search of the greater good is no different than what Nazis and Communists believed in. That's ok though, I'll just take it as a de facto admission that you cannot present any logical arguement that would counter my claim.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
And that's enough. For those interested, marshall your arguments and start over. Or take it to PM/email...
Art
Art
I think that some people really enjoy the fact that they are placed above others and those others are not 2nd or 3rd class citizens.
Shows that no matter what people say, they secretly enjoy the fact that they have been made better by law (even if that law is wrong or unconstitutional).
The Rabbi is the one that really disappoints me the most in his comments. His people were declared criminals just because of who they were, and from what I have read *edited due to not right comments*. Even if that horrible period in our time had never had happened, just if they had just taken the guns and proclaimed them criminals, that would have been just fine and dandy (I don't think this, just what I am getting from reading the replies).
The gays are the same way from what I've heard and seen (in person). Depending upon the government to decide who can and should own firearms and to what degree they can restrict firearms.
I know that most to all of the folks that agree with this law are scared. They are scared that these people will turn around and do the same things when out.
But that is what freedom is all about, the way it was mentioned in our governering Documents.
To go out on a limb and may tick off some people, with the logic on the pro side then:
Blacks shouldn't own guns. They are still viewed as "criminals" to most whites and even asians.
Whites shouldn't own guns. They are viewed as "criminals" because they don't trust some of other races.
Etc..
So therefore we create a class and racial warfare. You shouldn't have a gun because you broke some law, which may or may not warrent such a punishment, and even though we "felt" you were okay to be in a free society, you are now a lower classed citizen.
No persons mistakes are worth their life in all cases. There should be people that are devoid their rights, and they are the ones that are in prison for life or on death row. To devoid a person of their rights based on pass mistakes is just wrong, morally as well as humanistically. To say so makes one no better than the ones that we complain about the most on these boards.
In no way am I calling anyone a nazi. I will say that maybe one should review history, not only of our nation when first conceived but of all nations of the world. And look especially at their laws and what they say is a felony and what our beloved America is moving toward.
Look at what "laws" other countries put into place to deprive a person from having a firearm and then look at what they are trying to do to America.
Not to be trollish or to hurt anyones sensitivities but think about it this way. What if it does happen in America (one point is to think back at what happened with Jap* (don't know how to spell it) American's during the world war. They were deprived of all Rights and were less then even second class citizens.
If a person should be disarmed so they can die then why doesn't our justice system keep them in prison and do society a favor?
Wayne
Shows that no matter what people say, they secretly enjoy the fact that they have been made better by law (even if that law is wrong or unconstitutional).
The Rabbi is the one that really disappoints me the most in his comments. His people were declared criminals just because of who they were, and from what I have read *edited due to not right comments*. Even if that horrible period in our time had never had happened, just if they had just taken the guns and proclaimed them criminals, that would have been just fine and dandy (I don't think this, just what I am getting from reading the replies).
The gays are the same way from what I've heard and seen (in person). Depending upon the government to decide who can and should own firearms and to what degree they can restrict firearms.
I know that most to all of the folks that agree with this law are scared. They are scared that these people will turn around and do the same things when out.
But that is what freedom is all about, the way it was mentioned in our governering Documents.
To go out on a limb and may tick off some people, with the logic on the pro side then:
Blacks shouldn't own guns. They are still viewed as "criminals" to most whites and even asians.
Whites shouldn't own guns. They are viewed as "criminals" because they don't trust some of other races.
Etc..
So therefore we create a class and racial warfare. You shouldn't have a gun because you broke some law, which may or may not warrent such a punishment, and even though we "felt" you were okay to be in a free society, you are now a lower classed citizen.
No persons mistakes are worth their life in all cases. There should be people that are devoid their rights, and they are the ones that are in prison for life or on death row. To devoid a person of their rights based on pass mistakes is just wrong, morally as well as humanistically. To say so makes one no better than the ones that we complain about the most on these boards.
In no way am I calling anyone a nazi. I will say that maybe one should review history, not only of our nation when first conceived but of all nations of the world. And look especially at their laws and what they say is a felony and what our beloved America is moving toward.
Look at what "laws" other countries put into place to deprive a person from having a firearm and then look at what they are trying to do to America.
Not to be trollish or to hurt anyones sensitivities but think about it this way. What if it does happen in America (one point is to think back at what happened with Jap* (don't know how to spell it) American's during the world war. They were deprived of all Rights and were less then even second class citizens.
If a person should be disarmed so they can die then why doesn't our justice system keep them in prison and do society a favor?
Wayne
Thats the same logic you (I,we) use when we carry a spare tire in our vehicle. EXCEPT I'm not scared of the flat tire or the convict, it's just prudent to use caution when past events dictate the need. Gun ownership is like credit...poor judgment limits your access. Or didn't you know that "rights" can be lost if used improperly, just ask any inmate. Law and ORDER does not have to equal Nazi.
Fletchette
Member
I agree with the first part - I carry a gun and a spare tire, basically for the same reason (to be prepared).
I disagree with the second part, keeping and bearing an arm is a right, not a privilage like getting a loan or credit. Yes, inmates cannot have a gun in prison, but they still have that right (!). When a citizen has gone through due process (tried and convicted) his/her rights are legally surpressed, or "annulled". The convict still has the basic right.
This is exactly the same concept where the Founders wrote that "they acknowledge" these rights as pre-existing; the Constitution did not "give" these rights to the People.
Because of this, we have some interesting ramifications. I am sure most of the people here are familiar with the fact that if you get mugged and try to sue the police for failing to protect you, you will lose in court. The police have NO responsibility to protect citizens, their responsibility is to enforce the law. Individuals have the right and responsibility to defend themselves.
However, if a law-abiding citizen is summoned to court, he/she cannot bring a gun into the courtroom. Their rights are "temporarily annulled", much like a convict in prison. As a consequence, if this citizen is assaulted in court he/she CAN SUE THE STATE FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT THEM. Why? because if the state legally surpresses the citizen's unalienable right it must assume the responsibility that goes with that right.
So, in a nutshell, prison inmates do have the right to keep and bear arms. This right is legally repressed by the State and therefore the State must assume the responsibility for the welfare of the prisoner.
Thus, when the prisoner is released, the State gives up the responsibility for the welfare of the citizen and that citizen should therefore be able to excersize all of his/her rights...including the right to keep and bear arms.
Fletchette Nice!!!
Good point! bang done its over.
Actually most states it is almost impossible to get your RKBA back. The cost and process are prohibitive. Saying there is a possibility and the actual chances of regaining your RKBA are 2 different things.
I know it is possible for me to be president.
But the chances are pretty non existent
Good point! bang done its over.
Actually most states it is almost impossible to get your RKBA back. The cost and process are prohibitive. Saying there is a possibility and the actual chances of regaining your RKBA are 2 different things.
I know it is possible for me to be president.
But the chances are pretty non existent
Sounds nice but most police departments (if not all) are protected from this type of lawsuit (upheld by the Supreme Court several times). I know of no convict (ex or otherwise) who convinced a court using your "logic/theory". Do You? Please cite your cases.
JMag
Member
A prisoner released from prison who was guilty of a violent crime with or without a gun has no business possessing one. Period. Shades of grey (gray) with this you say? I don't think so. That's a large problem with the legal system today. Too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers looking for a fence to ride and waiting for a certain wind to blow them off to one side. It is black and white to me.
Thats akin to offering a currently-sober alcoholic a bottle of Scotch. It's just too risky and has the ability to injure; either oneself or others.
As for a non-violent offender, I'm all for a case-by-case review. That's sensible.
:banghead:
Thats akin to offering a currently-sober alcoholic a bottle of Scotch. It's just too risky and has the ability to injure; either oneself or others.
As for a non-violent offender, I'm all for a case-by-case review. That's sensible.
:banghead:
There is no case by case review in the majority of states
Martha Stewart cannot own a gun, OJ simpson can.
Govenors generally dont give pardons. No one wants to be percieved as Soft on crime. We are all felonies waitng to happen. It is true you cannot make it to work without breaking a law. It is a gray area to me. DAs' are judged on how many felony convictions they can get. They Pile on cahrges and plea down to what they can get. Plea bargains are given to clear there work schedule and cover the unforseen circumstance that they might lose.
Defendants, innocent ones will plea bargain because again losing is a possibility and when your gambling with your freedom it is better to be free on probation then doing 5 years in prison.
How recent was the law changed to denie felons RKBA and what were the reasons? Everyone wants to be nostalgic in regards to crime rates.
What were the crime rates when felons could possess guns?
any one know?
FBI stats 1960 - 1999
http://members.aol.com/dpen98/ucrus.htm
FBI STATE BY STATE
1960 - 2001
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm/ucrus.wk1
Martha Stewart cannot own a gun, OJ simpson can.
Govenors generally dont give pardons. No one wants to be percieved as Soft on crime. We are all felonies waitng to happen. It is true you cannot make it to work without breaking a law. It is a gray area to me. DAs' are judged on how many felony convictions they can get. They Pile on cahrges and plea down to what they can get. Plea bargains are given to clear there work schedule and cover the unforseen circumstance that they might lose.
Defendants, innocent ones will plea bargain because again losing is a possibility and when your gambling with your freedom it is better to be free on probation then doing 5 years in prison.
How recent was the law changed to denie felons RKBA and what were the reasons? Everyone wants to be nostalgic in regards to crime rates.
What were the crime rates when felons could possess guns?
any one know?
FBI stats 1960 - 1999
http://members.aol.com/dpen98/ucrus.htm
FBI STATE BY STATE
1960 - 2001
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm/ucrus.wk1
JMag,
Why are they out if it was that violent?
I don't think that you people truly understand what our Constitution and Bill of Rights were based upon. Please, reread it and throw out all these "new laws" that have been proclaimed since then.
Just from this thread, I would have to say that most to all of the respondence on here are afraid of true freedom. That even though most proclaim that they hate/dislike/disagree with the leftist side agruements, they believe the same ideals.
Throw away the fear, stand up so that you have your Rights, and if they allow a criminal out for whatever reason, know the fact that you have no worries about what those criminals may try to do, because you can do to them what should have been done in the first place (you have your right to bear arms).
All of us will become felons in the eyes of the state or the government. Think about it, the day is coming and is here already in some states. Before you give me the "kook" label think about it.
Why do we wish or want 2nd or 3rd class citizens? Does not the Constitution quote "All men are created equal"? Why is a man's, a women's, a child's life worth less due to the going against the modern laws of the day?
In the eyes of most of the con's here (as in not allowing felon's to have guns), our forefathers were con's according to british law, which was the law of the land until we became America. Think about it.
Now, you say, but, but, but... yes, there are cases that are so extreme that those people should never be allowed back on the street. It's not a felon problem, it's not a individual problem, it's a justice problem. You kill someone just for the heck of it (no matter the tool used), die. If it's justisfiable then you get off.
We have laws on the books about murder (no matter the tool used), drinking and driving, etc..
Damn folks, I'm trying to be nice, but most of you that are on the "don't allow it" side, have come up with some pretty stupid remarks and just shows your fear.
In a way, understanded, but mostly, disgusted.
Wayne
Why are they out if it was that violent?
I don't think that you people truly understand what our Constitution and Bill of Rights were based upon. Please, reread it and throw out all these "new laws" that have been proclaimed since then.
Just from this thread, I would have to say that most to all of the respondence on here are afraid of true freedom. That even though most proclaim that they hate/dislike/disagree with the leftist side agruements, they believe the same ideals.
Throw away the fear, stand up so that you have your Rights, and if they allow a criminal out for whatever reason, know the fact that you have no worries about what those criminals may try to do, because you can do to them what should have been done in the first place (you have your right to bear arms).
All of us will become felons in the eyes of the state or the government. Think about it, the day is coming and is here already in some states. Before you give me the "kook" label think about it.
Why do we wish or want 2nd or 3rd class citizens? Does not the Constitution quote "All men are created equal"? Why is a man's, a women's, a child's life worth less due to the going against the modern laws of the day?
In the eyes of most of the con's here (as in not allowing felon's to have guns), our forefathers were con's according to british law, which was the law of the land until we became America. Think about it.
Now, you say, but, but, but... yes, there are cases that are so extreme that those people should never be allowed back on the street. It's not a felon problem, it's not a individual problem, it's a justice problem. You kill someone just for the heck of it (no matter the tool used), die. If it's justisfiable then you get off.
We have laws on the books about murder (no matter the tool used), drinking and driving, etc..
Damn folks, I'm trying to be nice, but most of you that are on the "don't allow it" side, have come up with some pretty stupid remarks and just shows your fear.
In a way, understanded, but mostly, disgusted.
Wayne
You bet I am! Rape, murder, I guess only Attila has enjoyed true freedom, thank God!
Because about 25% of inmates (regardless of their crime) are never paroled, they are discharged after having served their full sentence. Totally unsupervised release, no strings attached (except sex offenders)!
You have RIGHTS when it comes to credit, a simple phone call to your bank will prove my point.
I agree 100%.
Fletchette
Member
I've been away for a little while (ya gotta earn a paycheck, ya know).
I am not sure I undestand what you are asking for here. I essentially agree with you first sentence - the police are not held liable. What are you asking with regards to a convict convincing a court?
First, with all due respect, I do not think you have the legal authority to decide what "business" others have, regardless of past actions.
Second, I must take issue with your complaint that there are "too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers". Should we just accept who the government throws in jail or how they are punished, because "The Government" is always right? I completely disagree on this. This is supposed to be a government "of the People, by the People, for the People" ...so the People have a DUTY to participate.
I believe this is betrays a bit of prejudice on your part - that those who want freedom are anarchists. No one is advocating rape or murder, we just want to be able to do as we please so long as we do not infringe on someone else's rights.
I am not sure I undestand what you are asking for here. I essentially agree with you first sentence - the police are not held liable. What are you asking with regards to a convict convincing a court?
First, with all due respect, I do not think you have the legal authority to decide what "business" others have, regardless of past actions.
Second, I must take issue with your complaint that there are "too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers". Should we just accept who the government throws in jail or how they are punished, because "The Government" is always right? I completely disagree on this. This is supposed to be a government "of the People, by the People, for the People" ...so the People have a DUTY to participate.
I believe this is betrays a bit of prejudice on your part - that those who want freedom are anarchists. No one is advocating rape or murder, we just want to be able to do as we please so long as we do not infringe on someone else's rights.
This has gone on long enough and I'm about to get this post closed with the following comments.
First, you are not the boss of me or others. If a person is let out of jail then they should have all Rights. If you don't agree then why don't you ensure they don't get out of jail.
For those that think that "so and so" or whatever damn law that the government comes up with to take away your Rights, just remember the Jim Crow laws of the south.. yes, no ****** could have or own a gun. Or lets take the japenese(sp) that were sent to camps and died because we were at war. Tell that to the Jews and Gays and the Gypties(sorry to misspell that). Tell that to the Black Americans or to the Asian Americans that went through worse then what us white people have had to deal with.
Yes, I am throwing in all the race cards, due to all these laws and aspects that you agree with, were nothing but to put them down and control them.
If you are a felon, that doesn't mean that the state or the freaking government ownes your life. If they let you out then you are a freeman.
Yet, due to the way the law works, and they let out those who shouldn't be out, why not just give our Right to keep and bear arms seriously and that means, we blow those MF's away and that takes care of the problem?
Come on people, who I think have at least one brain cell working, what is it that you fear? The criminal that they let out or the government that gives you the laws of what you may, can, or maybe can do?
I fear no man myself, whether "they" (state or federal government) ""allow"" me to do, I care not because it's my life and I will do, anywhere, what I believe it right for me. I am not a felon but I will fight for their Rights as much as I fight for mine.
Maybe some of us, those that don't believe themselves better than all, to rethink their position.
Wayne
First, you are not the boss of me or others. If a person is let out of jail then they should have all Rights. If you don't agree then why don't you ensure they don't get out of jail.
For those that think that "so and so" or whatever damn law that the government comes up with to take away your Rights, just remember the Jim Crow laws of the south.. yes, no ****** could have or own a gun. Or lets take the japenese(sp) that were sent to camps and died because we were at war. Tell that to the Jews and Gays and the Gypties(sorry to misspell that). Tell that to the Black Americans or to the Asian Americans that went through worse then what us white people have had to deal with.
Yes, I am throwing in all the race cards, due to all these laws and aspects that you agree with, were nothing but to put them down and control them.
If you are a felon, that doesn't mean that the state or the freaking government ownes your life. If they let you out then you are a freeman.
Yet, due to the way the law works, and they let out those who shouldn't be out, why not just give our Right to keep and bear arms seriously and that means, we blow those MF's away and that takes care of the problem?
Come on people, who I think have at least one brain cell working, what is it that you fear? The criminal that they let out or the government that gives you the laws of what you may, can, or maybe can do?
I fear no man myself, whether "they" (state or federal government) ""allow"" me to do, I care not because it's my life and I will do, anywhere, what I believe it right for me. I am not a felon but I will fight for their Rights as much as I fight for mine.
Maybe some of us, those that don't believe themselves better than all, to rethink their position.
Wayne
In this country we go by the rule of law, not perfect but its better than no law at all.
If you are released on parole, an inmate agrees to all sorts of restrictions. He/she is far from being a free man BY MUTURAL AGREEMENT.
If your solution is to "blow them away" why let them have a gun in the first place? They might easily be a better shot than you.
I fear the future actions of felons who have PROVEN they have poor judgment and little respect for the law.
Wasted effort, they have and WILL fight to take away YOUR rights, why do you think they are in prison? Most of the inmates I know would "eat you alive" due to your idealistic beliefs, you are easy pickings. They would be laughing while they shove your CCW up your hind end.
patrick88240
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1
not everybody that lost their rkba deserves it! i myself lost my right due to a misd. i have a domestic violence against me, i came home from a night out, while my home was being burglarized, i beat the crap out of him, called the cops, they arrested him, then arrested me for domestic violence against my drug addict brother, that was back in '89, i got a court appointed lawyer he advised me to plead no contest and pay the 50 dollar fine, its a simple misd. no muss no fuss, yea right, if i had the slightest clue what was to happen a few years later, i wouldve sold everything i owned and fought it tooth and nail,
hopefully soon i'll be able to hire a good lawyer and go for a expungement or a pardon,
hopefully soon i'll be able to hire a good lawyer and go for a expungement or a pardon,
Molon Labe
Member
Unless, of course, the law is immoral, tyrannical, or unconstitutional, in which case we have a moral duty to not abide by the law...
- Status
