That scenario is quite a stretch, even here in California. Besides, I have "prepaid legal", so I would get representation. Under your proposal, however, I would still go to prison for awhile, lose my job and house, but I would able to be ARMED when I got out! Great, thanks.
So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?
- Thread starter TechBrute
- Start date
- Status
That scenario is quite a stretch, even here in California. Besides, I have "prepaid legal", so I would get representation. Under your proposal, however, I would still go to prison for awhile, lose my job and house, but I would able to be ARMED when I got out! Great, thanks.
I am talking about the one size fits all policy (this policy is currently federal law). But I'm not being abstract, I'm asking you and others to consider the concrete, real-life individuals that have made into collateral damage. If not every of these individuals deserves the permanent loss of RKBA, will anyone step forward to admit one size indeed does not fit all?
SDC
Member
Because violent criminals have already PROVEN that they can't be trusted; I can see an argument for non-violent felons regaining that freedom, but never a violent felon.
ducktapehero
Member
I sometimes think that it would be better to allow some released felons to legally buy firearms if they are willing to register it with police so they can get "ballistic fingerprints" from the gun. They must also be willing to lock it in a safe when not home. There are probably other safeguards that can be implemented. That way if it is ever used in a crime then they know where to start.
I don't think laws forbidding a released felon from owning a gun has prevented many crimes. They just get their guns from different channels. Which in itself makes it more difficult to track them down than if they had used their legally bought and registered gun. Just my 2 cents.
I don't think laws forbidding a released felon from owning a gun has prevented many crimes. They just get their guns from different channels. Which in itself makes it more difficult to track them down than if they had used their legally bought and registered gun. Just my 2 cents.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Ballistic fingerprinting actually working is a myth.
Destructo6
Member
How about a concrete example?
A childhood buddy of mine, and Gulf War I vet, got into some sort of highway altercation with another driver. This other driver wouldn't be satisfied with just gestures and whatnot, so he forced my buddy to the side of the road. My buddy got out of his truck and grabbed an axe handle that was part of his work gear from the back. One hit on the driver's shoulder ended the confrontation. No broken bones and no serious injury resulted. Said buddy was convicted of felony battery, though he'd had no previous convictions.
He was sentanced to a halfway house and probation.
So, does this case merit the loss of rights forever?
I don't think it does.
A childhood buddy of mine, and Gulf War I vet, got into some sort of highway altercation with another driver. This other driver wouldn't be satisfied with just gestures and whatnot, so he forced my buddy to the side of the road. My buddy got out of his truck and grabbed an axe handle that was part of his work gear from the back. One hit on the driver's shoulder ended the confrontation. No broken bones and no serious injury resulted. Said buddy was convicted of felony battery, though he'd had no previous convictions.
He was sentanced to a halfway house and probation.
So, does this case merit the loss of rights forever?
I don't think it does.
D6, you described a road rage incident to a tee. That guy did not have to pull over and attack the other person with the axe handle. From what you describe he sounds like someone that could not handle his temper and CHOSE to have violent confrontation on the side of the road. VIOLENT FELON.
BTW, every felon at some time had no prior felony convictions, so I have no sympathy on that issue. Second, being a vet of DESERT STORM doesn't excuse assault and battery either, so you aren't getting any sympathy from me there either.
BTW, every felon at some time had no prior felony convictions, so I have no sympathy on that issue. Second, being a vet of DESERT STORM doesn't excuse assault and battery either, so you aren't getting any sympathy from me there either.
Wildalaska
member
Bull pucky...someone gets wronglfully jammed up I will work my butt off..thus Id give $$$ to Bushmaster but not to Bullseye...you can see the diff eh?
Nice silly rhetoric...but they dont take away "little" FFLs becasue a gun gets stolen, absent something more...and If I or any of the gang do something to deserve it hoipefully Ill be man enough not to whine about it...
WildnowwearegettingsillyAlaska
DMF- what about the other personal cases mentioned in this thread? Martha Stewart, tulsamal's father? 
Also, is past behavior an accurate predictor of future behavior indefinitely? Does its value as a predictor fade over time? A 20 year old's behavior may be a good predictor of his behavior at 21, but what about at 50? How come 18USC922 does not take this into account?
Also, is past behavior an accurate predictor of future behavior indefinitely? Does its value as a predictor fade over time? A 20 year old's behavior may be a good predictor of his behavior at 21, but what about at 50? How come 18USC922 does not take this into account?
Well sorry if 18USC922 doesn't take into account the subtleties of each and every case, but the truth is felonies are all the most serious crimes. Are there non-violent felonies? Sure, but the willingness to commit serious crimes shows a reckless disregard for the law. Also, the vast majority of felons are recidivists, and therefore the very few truly reformed criminals are greatly outweighed by the repeat offenders.
As for that 20 year old who commits a crime, too bad, he knew what he did was wrong, and did it anyway, and must live with consequences of his actions. It's called accepting responsibility for your actions.
Also, please take into account that most non-violent offenders, and sadly many violent offenders, plead down to misdemeanors. So the truth is the overwhelming majority of people affected by 18USC922 are the worst criminals.
As for that 20 year old who commits a crime, too bad, he knew what he did was wrong, and did it anyway, and must live with consequences of his actions. It's called accepting responsibility for your actions.
Also, please take into account that most non-violent offenders, and sadly many violent offenders, plead down to misdemeanors. So the truth is the overwhelming majority of people affected by 18USC922 are the worst criminals.
So maybe this issue of ex-cons' RKBA would best be handled as part of the sentencing process? That is where the subtleties of each case are usually worked out. Murder, rapist? No guns, forever. Caught speeding in Cali with some forgotten tracer rounds in the back of the truck? Naw, leave him alone.
The subtleties of each case can be handled quite nicely by each and every person, by NOT committing felonies. Simple way to take care of the whole problem. As I said earlier, most minor crimes are plead out to misdemeanors, and it is only the most serious offenders who are affected by prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons.
One thing I forgot to address, someone claimed our justice system was based on rehabilitation, which is not true. The idea of rehabilitating criminals is a modern concept. Our system was set up as penal system, meaning a system to punish offenders for their crimes. The idea being that hopefully the consequences would be great enough to convince people to follow the law rather than risk being caught and punished.
One thing I forgot to address, someone claimed our justice system was based on rehabilitation, which is not true. The idea of rehabilitating criminals is a modern concept. Our system was set up as penal system, meaning a system to punish offenders for their crimes. The idea being that hopefully the consequences would be great enough to convince people to follow the law rather than risk being caught and punished.
Aw, now that is a bit simplistic. By tautology our crime problem would be solved if people stopped committing crimes. Do you think handling the issue as a part of sentencing would be better, or worse, than what we do now?
Take the Martha Stewart example. I'm guessing the federal prosecutor, the judge, the jury, probably even Ms. Stewart herself don't care about the issue of RKBA. Probably. Under My Bold Plan (tm), would the issue of RKBA come up as part of sentencing? Nah, they don't care... But every murderer and thug, every prosecutor will have some restriction of RKBA on his checklist at sentencing.
Take the Martha Stewart example. I'm guessing the federal prosecutor, the judge, the jury, probably even Ms. Stewart herself don't care about the issue of RKBA. Probably. Under My Bold Plan (tm), would the issue of RKBA come up as part of sentencing? Nah, they don't care... But every murderer and thug, every prosecutor will have some restriction of RKBA on his checklist at sentencing.
I don't know how I missed this before, but I'll comment now. My old agency used to handle some contract fraud cases. I worked violent crimes, but did get the basic training in fraud, and briefly assisted an agent on a fraud case.
So that brings me to tulsamal's tale of woe. Keep in mind that talsumal tells it from a perspective sympathetic to his father, and it's still obvious that there was a serious problem.
Then there is this:
He had a clear conflict of interest in drafting a contract himself, that would essentially guarantee that he got the contract. You claim he had no criminal intent, however in your first paragraph you provide a motive, by describing how he was apprehensive about retiring from his civil service job, unless he had a guaranteed "retirement" job.
Also, since I know a little bit about contract fraud, not a lot, but enough to see some holes in your story, and I think either you are leaving some things out, or your Dad didn't give you the whole story. There would have to be much more going on here for AFOSI or DCIS, to spend time to investigate this matter, and for the AUSA in that district, to consider prosecuting, in the case.
So that brings me to tulsamal's tale of woe. Keep in mind that talsumal tells it from a perspective sympathetic to his father, and it's still obvious that there was a serious problem.
Well the boss didn't do it your dad did.
Then there is this:
By your own statements he knows the government contract process very well after 35 years in the game at W-P AFB, which is very busy with many huge AF contracts. So he should know better then to write a contract in which he has an obvious conflict of interest.
He had a clear conflict of interest in drafting a contract himself, that would essentially guarantee that he got the contract. You claim he had no criminal intent, however in your first paragraph you provide a motive, by describing how he was apprehensive about retiring from his civil service job, unless he had a guaranteed "retirement" job.
Also, since I know a little bit about contract fraud, not a lot, but enough to see some holes in your story, and I think either you are leaving some things out, or your Dad didn't give you the whole story. There would have to be much more going on here for AFOSI or DCIS, to spend time to investigate this matter, and for the AUSA in that district, to consider prosecuting, in the case.
Wildalaska
member
Im gonna add that the criminal justice system is like one big big vacum cleaner with smaller and smaller filters...a lot of poeple get sucked up but only a very few end up in the bag...
When I was a law student, I used to work pretrial release...on weekends, there would be 1-200 arrestees...out of those maybe 5% ever got indicted for a felony, maybe 1 % convicted....
Ya got to be bad or really piss someone off to catch a non violenmt felony...hell they barely have time to prosecute all the violent ones....
WildletsbepracticalAlaska
When I was a law student, I used to work pretrial release...on weekends, there would be 1-200 arrestees...out of those maybe 5% ever got indicted for a felony, maybe 1 % convicted....
Ya got to be bad or really piss someone off to catch a non violenmt felony...hell they barely have time to prosecute all the violent ones....
WildletsbepracticalAlaska
For those saying all felons deserve to have their gun rights taken away, and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime: please read the first (short) post in the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=41525
The story above simply illustrates the capricious nature of the justice system in the US these days.
Try this argument on for size:
The only people who are disarmed by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey the law.
If the felon is inclined to obey the laws now that he's done his time, he'll obey the law and not own any guns or shoot any people.
If the felon is not inclined to obey the laws now that he has done his time, he will own guns and shoot people no matter what the law says.
So the only people who are disarmed by the ex-felon gun bans are people who are no longer a threat to the rest of us.
pax
Whatever you may think about the death penalty, it has the lowest recidivism rate of any of the ways of fighting crime. -- Thomas Sowell
The story above simply illustrates the capricious nature of the justice system in the US these days.
Try this argument on for size:
The only people who are disarmed by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey the law.
If the felon is inclined to obey the laws now that he's done his time, he'll obey the law and not own any guns or shoot any people.
If the felon is not inclined to obey the laws now that he has done his time, he will own guns and shoot people no matter what the law says.
So the only people who are disarmed by the ex-felon gun bans are people who are no longer a threat to the rest of us.
pax
Whatever you may think about the death penalty, it has the lowest recidivism rate of any of the ways of fighting crime. -- Thomas Sowell
Hey pax did that guy actually get indicted? If so did he actually get convicted?
As WildAlaska points out it's rare that non-violent felonies get prosecuted unless there is a VERY large amount of money involved, think Enron, or contract fraud over $100K (although AUSAs are really looking for the $1M+ cases of fraud), or there is some other aspect that makes it a high profile case.
As for the stuff about this law only disarms people inclined to follow the law that is simply not true. My first post on this thread gave examples of repeat violent offenders sent back to jail for a VERY LONG time, based on violating the prohibition on felons possessing handguns.
My favorite example is:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf
"Gregory L. McCall, 44, of Kansas City, was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge
Dean Whipple this morning to 10 years in federal prison without parole. McCall was found
guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearms by a federal jury in the U.S. District Court on
Jan. 22, 2003.
The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves
explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."
Like I said there are many more examples available here:
Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases
This law disarms recidivist criminals, with enhanced penalties for those that are determined under the law to be "career armed criminals."
As WildAlaska points out it's rare that non-violent felonies get prosecuted unless there is a VERY large amount of money involved, think Enron, or contract fraud over $100K (although AUSAs are really looking for the $1M+ cases of fraud), or there is some other aspect that makes it a high profile case.
As for the stuff about this law only disarms people inclined to follow the law that is simply not true. My first post on this thread gave examples of repeat violent offenders sent back to jail for a VERY LONG time, based on violating the prohibition on felons possessing handguns.
My favorite example is:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf
"Gregory L. McCall, 44, of Kansas City, was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge
Dean Whipple this morning to 10 years in federal prison without parole. McCall was found
guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearms by a federal jury in the U.S. District Court on
Jan. 22, 2003.
The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves
explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."
Like I said there are many more examples available here:
Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases
This law disarms recidivist criminals, with enhanced penalties for those that are determined under the law to be "career armed criminals."
Man, sometimes getting people to answer a question on the errornet is like pulling teeth. And people don't want to yield an inch; it's like not-invented-here syndrome. I could post a slick proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus and somebody will call BS on the whole idea.
I've suggested a way to punish violent recidivists found in possession of weapons, while preventing the sob stories we've heard in this thread, and I get blown off out of hand with a vacuous statement that our crime problem would be solved if people stopped committing crimes. Bet ya we could solve the unemployment problem in this country if all those slackers would just get a job.
I'll ask again: Do you think handling the issue of ex-con's RKBA as a sentencing matter would be better, or worse, than what we do today?
I've suggested a way to punish violent recidivists found in possession of weapons, while preventing the sob stories we've heard in this thread, and I get blown off out of hand with a vacuous statement that our crime problem would be solved if people stopped committing crimes. Bet ya we could solve the unemployment problem in this country if all those slackers would just get a job.
I'll ask again: Do you think handling the issue of ex-con's RKBA as a sentencing matter would be better, or worse, than what we do today?
Based on what reviewable data?
You read his example, but you didn't understand it. What Pax (at least as I understand it) is saying is the only felons disarmed are the ones who are now willing to follow the law after their conviction (which makes them law-abiding citizens by default). The criminals who are still willing to break the law will still be armed as they will obtain firearms thru illegal means.
Again : Many states in the US have a provision for restoration of civil rights for felons. The felons just have to prove that they are good citizens now and go thru the appeal process. Some states even do it automatically x years after the criminal sentence has expired.
PBIR -- thanks.
DMF -- from the URL you provided above:
But some other basically good guy who got trimmed by a capricious justice system, or some guy who was in idiot in his youth but who learned his lesson 20 years ago and obeys the laws now -- that guy is disarmed by the law and prevented from owning firearms. He is no threat to the rest of us because the law means something to him and he respects it. Therefore, the law stops him from owning a gun.
If the goal is to punish people who use violence against other people, why not simply make it against the law for people, including felons, to use their guns to commit violence -- and leave it at that?
pax
When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken. -- Benjamin Disraeli
That's it, exactly.
DMF -- from the URL you provided above:
The felon you referred to is still a bad guy and has no respect for the law. When he came to the attention of the authories, it was for crimes that he was still committing (he didn't come to their attention for owning guns, but for committing crimes). It was against the law for him to own guns. He owned guns anyway because he was willing to break the law. The law didn't stop him, a bad guy, from owning guns. He went right on with his criminal career because the law meant nothing to him.
But some other basically good guy who got trimmed by a capricious justice system, or some guy who was in idiot in his youth but who learned his lesson 20 years ago and obeys the laws now -- that guy is disarmed by the law and prevented from owning firearms. He is no threat to the rest of us because the law means something to him and he respects it. Therefore, the law stops him from owning a gun.
If the goal is to punish people who use violence against other people, why not simply make it against the law for people, including felons, to use their guns to commit violence -- and leave it at that?
pax
When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken. -- Benjamin Disraeli
ATF has a great deal of information on Project Safe Neighborhoods, I suggest searching their site and if you don't get what you want there contact them. They are quite proud of the program and can provide data.
As for this:
Oh I read it and understand it, and as I pointed out Project Safe Neighborhoods (which is the program where local and state agencies, in cooperation with ATF and the US Attorney's Office, work to enforce 18USC922) is disarming the folks who don't follow the law, by putting them back in prison. Again, go to the links I provided and you will see examples of people that have no intention of following the law being disarmed.
Here are some more examples:
Some PSN Case Summaries
sm
member
I am against ANY type of gun control - period. That said , negates any need for RKBA to be a matter of sentencing.
pax presented a great point and example. Do we even know if this kid had any firearms? Kid could very well be a non-gunner, even an anti.
Here is the way I feel and look at it. Gun laws affect the honest law abiding citizen, not the criminals.
Criminals are not wired like some folks, they don't care what the law says, be it in regard to firearms, driving drunk without a DL, or making meth and selling it.
We have too many 'white collar' crimes that are felonies, some of these are committed by folks that have no interest or knowledge of firearms. Some are committed by computer geeks, they don't know what a real live girl is, much less a firearm. These folks would be hurt more if the computer was taken away moreso than a girl or a firearm. They will go out and "illegally" find a computer...before a girl or firearm.
The way I see it the gummit will find more and more ways to make things a felony, then we all get busted. It is a control matter of the people by gummit - not a gun control, RKBA matter.
So some fella gets caught up in medical bills, familiy emergency , young dumb and stupid, greed- whatever, embellezlzes monies, popped for a felony , does the time and gets out. IMO - he has every right to have a firearm to defend his home. Hell we ought to hire him to help advise how to keep the gummit from embezzling OUR monies or using using tax dollars wrong.
Even the playing field with no gun laws - period. If a lady runs to the emergency room with a kid that falls off a playset in back yard , who is a CCW and runs into the ER armed, that is a felony. She is concerned about that broken arm, crying kid, she runs in without thinking about the CCW.
The felon makes no nevermind about the law and fireams, he is wired different. He knows because the LAW says that firearms are prohibited by law and a felony if taken into a hospital that he has an easy victim.
So using the mom again. She is young and attractive, the felon likes young and attractive women, and figures a women taking a kid in the ER is going to be distracted, her awareness may be off from the usual.
The mom needs to get her cell phone, move her vehicle from emercency zone to parking lot, whatever at the hopital. With the current law she is easy prey for assault and rape. Get rid of the LAW that in this case - again - the law abiding citizen is the only one obeying and she can defend herself.
joab
Member
Once a person has served all of his time including probation or parole and is no longer subject to the terms of his incarceration his civil rights should be fully restored.
The purpose of punishment should be to make sure the infraction does not happen again, it should not be used for revenge
The purpose of punishment should be to make sure the infraction does not happen again, it should not be used for revenge
Wildalaska
member
I dunno Pax from a purely psycological standpoint that kid killin pigeons would be an excellent example of someone who shouldnt own a gun... (or a car for that matter)...
The rest of your argument is IMHO, circular...
So here it is all now rehab'ed felons....Bottom line...if ya rehabilitated yerself, ask for a pardon or even better..lobby and work for an expungment law in your state...but ya see that would...TAKE TIME AND EFFORT ON YOUR PART.......
So much EASIER to let all felons just get em automatically again...even the ones who dont deserve it.
WildnowondertheantigunnerswinthelogicfightsAlaska
The rest of your argument is IMHO, circular...
So here it is all now rehab'ed felons....Bottom line...if ya rehabilitated yerself, ask for a pardon or even better..lobby and work for an expungment law in your state...but ya see that would...TAKE TIME AND EFFORT ON YOUR PART.......
So much EASIER to let all felons just get em automatically again...even the ones who dont deserve it.
WildnowondertheantigunnerswinthelogicfightsAlaska
- Status