Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership

[ATLDave]

Because if he's generally willing to commit armed assault and rape, he'll probably stop short of breaking the law regarding possessing a firearm as a prohibited person?

The idea that convicted violent felons "can't" or "won't" possess weapons because that's against the law is patently absurd. A bedtime story we tell ourselves so we feel safer at night.

No, not what I'm saying at all. First, the law means that those who know he is a felon cannot provide him with a gun. That may make it marginally harder for him to obtain a gun, though that's hardly insurmountable... it may just cut down on the likelihood of an impulse acquisition.

Second, and more important, it means that if he has an interaction with the police, perhaps over a minor infraction, and he is caught with a gun, he can be locked back up for a long time. This possibility may deter him from possessing a gun. If he feels a gun is non-negotiable, it may deter him from committing any actions that would bring him into contact with the police. And even if he a is thorough-going imbecile or compulsive recidivist, at least if the police catch him on the way to or from a crime - but without the evidence to convict him to the crime itself - they can lock him up for having a gun.*

There are all kinds of practical, non-fantastic ways in which the rules against felons possessing guns actually impact real behavior and results in the real world. Unlike, say, "gun free zones" and other nonsense.

At least that's my view. I'm comfortable with others having different views.

* If the war on drugs has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that possession crimes are on average much easier to prove up in court than, say, rape or murder. So allowing a "felon in possession of firearm" charge has the practical effect of making convictions of felons easier to obtain than convictions of non-convicted defendants.

 

[BigBore44]

Sam your point is well taken. My only rebuttal for that is we shouldn't allow them to legally own one. Im speaking of violent repeat offenders. If they get caught, it's an AFCF conviction. But I also have differing opinions about what we should carry out as a punishment for rapists and the like.

 

[ATLDave]

But I also have differing opinions about what we should carry out as a punishment for rapists and the like.

Yeah, that may be a bit of a subtext for this discussion. I certainly think punishments ought to be harsher for certain kinds of violent criminals. The Supreme Court has forbidden us to use capital punishments on those who "merely" commit the crime of violent rape. But that's not my view.

Since I think that those who commit such acts should lie a mouldering in their grave 10 years after their conviction, the prospect of them enduring freedom without the benefit of a firearm at that same point does not fill my eyes with tears.

 

[JustinJ]

No, not what I'm saying at all. First, the law means that those who know he is a felon cannot provide him with a gun. That may make it marginally harder for him to obtain a gun, though that's hardly insurmountable... it may just cut down on the likelihood of an impulse acquisition.

Second, and more important, it means that if he has an interaction with the police, perhaps over a minor infraction, and he is caught with a gun, he can be locked back up for a long time. This possibility may deter him from possessing a gun. If he feels a gun is non-negotiable, it may deter him from committing any actions that would bring him into contact with the police. And even if he a is thorough-going imbecile or compulsive recidivist, at least if the police catch him on the way to or from a crime - but without the evidence to convict him to the crime itself - they can lock him up for having a gun.*

Agreed.

Also, few crimes are not carefully planned and orchestrated in advance. Having a gun certainly could be a determining factor when a potential criminal decides if and how he is going to act when an opportunity of crime arise. Our theoretical released felon may be out to get high but having a gun could very easily turn a drug purchase into armed robbery or murder. Knowing that getting caught with a gun will have severe consequences certainly will deter many from carrying a gun "just in case". Obviously such a law will not prevent all felons from using them but I personally find "all or nothing" arguments to be nonsensical.

I agree, it is certainly unfair for people who turn their lives around after a youthful indiscretion but there is no such thing as a "one size fits all law". Just not practical. That being said, i'm all for the implementation of some sort of system which allows people to more easily regain their gun rights after adequately proving that they have become responsible, law abiding citizens.

 

[450 Dakota]

The idea that one should not "associate" with anyone who has different ideas than you is absurd and un-American.

Wow. I thought freedom of choice was one of the cornerstones of individual liberty. Does that mean my homeowner association, private country club and my granddaughter's private school is absurd and unAmerican? I think not. Indeed, the freedom with whom to associate is key to personal happiness. I don't hear the term pluralism much anymore, but it always sounded more like the social brand of -ism to me. Jim from Tucson was a little immature in places and obviously had some political axes to grind but I always back someone's liberty to choose with whom to (or not to) associate.

 

[ATLDave]

450 Dakota,

The freedom to associate (or not) is very American. But exercising that right to avoid any and all who disagree with you is bad citizenship and bad for the republic. Good citizenship requires more than just obeying the laws (that's what it takes to not become a felon!).

You have every right not to vote. Yet failing to vote is, in my view, un-American. The same logic - for similar reasons - applies to refusing to associate with those who have different views.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Because if he's generally willing to commit armed assault and rape, he'll probably stop short of breaking the law regarding possessing a firearm as a prohibited person?

The idea that convicted violent felons "can't" or "won't" possess weapons because that's against the law is patently absurd. A bedtime story we tell ourselves so we feel safer at night.

I've always had very ambivelent feelings about that. I am 100% sure the current law is broken in that it definitely makes it illegal for some people to possess firearms for no reason at all. I also know that the law against felons possessing firearms is only going to affect those people who decide to become law abiding (and everyone is capable of changing).

But a small part of me keeps saying that it just doesn't seem right that a person who went to prison for armed robbery or other violent crimes should be able to get out and walk into a gun store and buy a gun unhindered.

If I had to vote one way or the other though, it would be to do away with the prohibitions - as long as my ability to defend myself against the criminals was also unregulated.

 

[ohioshooter]

AMEN!

 

[Sam1911]

But a small part of me keeps saying that it just doesn't seem right that a person who went to prison for armed robbery or other violent crimes should be able to get out and walk into a gun store and buy a gun unhindered.

But that small part may be quieted when you pause to reflect that obtaining a firearm may be EASIER for some prohibited persons than it is for the law-abiding.

When you realize the law is IRRELEVANT it make is easier to conclude that the law shouldn't exist.

If they want to harm someone or continue their bad actions, getting a gun will be the least of their worries.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

He's 52 now & because he can't afford a lawyer, he's not able to petition the court for restoration.
(yes, I'm sure he could do it w/o a lawyer, but what's the chance of success?)

Depends on the state.
In Arkansas it's not that hard, even without an attorney. I take paperwork from folks nearly every day that are petitioning the court to seal/expunge their record.
Here it is a simple Petition that is submitted to both the Court and the Prosecuting attorney's office. The PA makes a recommendation to the court and then the judge makes the decision.
In Arkansas, there are statutes set forth that govern what is able to be expunged and what isn't, so it really isn't up to the whim of a judge for the most part. The law says you qualify or you don't.

Here if you do one yourself it's a $50.00 filing fee and that's it.

Your friend should really check into it in his state. I bet it's not as difficult or expensive as he thinks.

 

[Schwing]

But a small part of me keeps saying that it just doesn't seem right that a person who went to prison for armed robbery or other violent crimes should be able to get out and walk into a gun store and buy a gun unhindered.

While I share this sentiment I agree that a law prohibiting it should not exist and serves only to target otherwise law abiding citizens (even past felons) who will be constrained to follow the law while those intent on being felons will continue to disregard it.

It has always bothered me that the same types of laws don't seem to apply to people convicted of DUI manslaughter. They can serve their time, get released, and walk to the nearest liquor store and there are NO laws prohibiting this yet someone convicted of a non-violent felony can still be barred from owning a firearm for life.

 

[450 Dakota]

450 Dakota,

The freedom to associate (or not) is very American. But exercising that right to avoid any and all who disagree with you is bad citizenship and bad for the republic. Good citizenship requires more than just obeying the laws (that's what it takes to not become a felon!).

You have every right not to vote. Yet failing to vote is, in my view, un-American. The same logic - for similar reasons - applies to refusing to associate with those who have different views.

You sound like a very responsible citizen, both politically and socially. I consider myself to be as well, but to require social and political responsibility from every person is to restrict individual liberty. Even if I choose not to cast a vote, that does not make me unAmerican because I am truly concerned about my country. Indeed, there are many elections in which I choose to abstain, because there is no candidate that adequately represents me. I dont believe in casting votes for the "lesser of two evils".

 

[JRH6856]

Saying "once they have served their time, their rights whould be restored" ignores the very real fact that loss of certain rights is part of the penalty for the crime. Saying non-violent felons are no threat misses the point that they have demonstrated a disrespect for the law and a willingness to ingore it if they think they can do so for their onw benefit. As US citizens, we all have a benefit of the doubt from birth. We should each take care to preserve it by trying to follow the law and avoid felonious actions. Until a person is convicted of a crime, they are generally considered trustworty by society. And having that trust is a valuable thing that some people apparently discount. But it is valuable and once that trust has been violated, regaining it should not be automatic.

When they petition the court for restoration of rights, they have the opportunity to make the case that they have indeed learned the value of that trust ask for a second chance. There is no procedure in place for restoration of rights of a federal felon other than a presidential pardon or an act of congress, and perhaps not all states have a provision for the restoration of the rights of a felon and that should change. Ideally, rights should be restored in the same way thay are taken--by a jury after a trial of the facts.

That said, there are more than a few laws on the books as felonies that when objectively considered, probably do not rise to that level. That is another thing that ideally should be corrected, but in reality, is easily ignored.

 

[ATLDave]

You sound like a very responsible citizen, both politically and socially. I consider myself to be as well, but to require social and political responsibility from every person is to restrict individual liberty. Even if I choose not to cast a vote, that does not make me unAmerican because I am truly concerned about my country. Indeed, there are many elections in which I choose to abstain, because there is no candidate that adequately represents me. I dont believe in casting votes for the "lesser of two evils".

Thanks for your kind words. Since I have no power to "require" responsibility from anyone, I'm not restricting individual liberty. And, as with voting, I am against a government requirement. So there's no restriction of liberty.

I'm advocating for what people should do, not what they are compelled/coerced to do. For our republic to continue to thrive - or even exist - many people have to do more than what is legally required. In my view, engaging in civil discourse with those who have different views is high on that list. I don't want to force anyone to do it. I just think people should. And when someone posits that refusing to do so makes you a good gun owner, I'm going to call that out as rubbish. Un-American rubbish.

 

[Ryanxia]

If they are locked up in a mental ward or incarcerated for a felony. Once released their 2A rights should be restored. There is no contradiction there. Once out,get a gun.

This.
Rights should be restored or keep them locked up. They just use the system as a way to strip as many Rights from as many people as they can. If someone gets a felony for downloading music they should pay the price but not lose their Rights for the rest of their lives.

 

[JRH6856]

to require social and political responsibility from every person is to restrict individual liberty.

Exactly. But the only way an individual can avoid restrictions on liberty is by living in total and complete isolation from other persons. When people live in association with others, there are inevitiable conflicts in which the exercise of liberties by one infringes on the liberties of others. That is why we have laws. To restrict individual liberty to the extent necessary for people to live in association with each other.

 

[JRH6856]

If someone gets a felony for downloading music they should pay the price but not lose their Rights for the rest of their lives.

Losing their Rights for the rest of their lives is part of the price for committing a felony, so they can't "pay the price" without losing their rights. This is nothing new, and people should consider what they risk when they engage in felonious actions. That they do not is an indication of how little they value the rights they stand to lose.

 

[450 Dakota]

And when someone posits that refusing to do so makes you a good gun owner, I'm going to call that out as rubbish. Un-American rubbish.

Well, you also have to choose your battles. Many are simply not worth the effort to debate, lacking the knowledge or facts to support their views and accepting none from you. Using the word "elitists" here was probably a mistake on the part of Jim from Tucson. You might call such people "legal fanboys" instead--those who think irrelelvant laws passed by ignorant politicians should supercede the Constitution and that we need the Supreme Court to "interpret" the Bill of Rights for us. Sorry, but I have to call very unAmerican "rubbish" on that.

 

[450 Dakota]

Losing their Rights for the rest of their lives is part of the price for committing a felony.

It doesnt have to be. Some politicians just decided it was. As Sam1911 stated, the law is irrelevant anyway. Too many people are drinking the gun control Kool-Aid and believing the law is actually protecting people. It's not! Besides, they are calling minor offenses felonies now, not just the "serious" crimes.

 

[ATLDave]

Well, you also have to choose your battles. Many are simply not worth the effort to debate, lacking the knowledge or facts to support their views and accepting none from you.

Of course, of course. Selectively choosing when, where, and with whom to engage in those discussions is simply sanity. That's not what "Jim" espoused, though. He said it was a "commandment" not to "associate" with those whose views differed. That's an absurd demand and, for the reasons I set forth above, one that (if taken seriously) would be profoundly damaging to the fabric of civil society.

His use of the term "elitist" is hyperbolic and over-simplified, but not what I'm objecting to. It's the "do not associate with" edict that I am proud to violate. I plan to transgress against that one every day of my life for the rest of my life. I suppose I will burn in Jim of Tuscon heck... assuming he has such a thing at his disposal. Would imagine the zoning permits tough to come by and OSHA compliance a real bear. I guess I'll find out someday.

 

[ngnrd]

... at least if the police catch him on the way to or from a crime - but without the evidence to convict him to the crime itself - they can lock him up for having a gun. ...

And, what if the police 'catch' him with a tail light out on his way to work the night shift in a not-so-great neighborhood, when he has done nothing wrong, and has no intent to do so? Should they also lock him up for having a gun?

Convicting a person 'thought to be' involved in a crime (referring to your statement that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to convict) on the grounds that the person was in possession of an otherwise legal object is grossly inappropriate.

 

[450 Dakota]

Hmmm. Very mixed points of view regarding gun ownership for a RKBA forum, but I still have to conclude that firearms law is irrelevant. I have always believed that a firearm is little more than a product--same for a container of gasoline, a bag of rat poison, a sack of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, a can of methyl bromide soil sterilant, or a viral culture. Used properly, they do exactly what they are intended to do. Used improperly, they are capable of mass killing. I was surprised that a compelling majority of the people who commit atrocities are first timers with clean records--people who just "lost it" or experienced some sort of "trigger" that made them decide to use these products improperly (Batman, Virginia Tech, and Newtown are just a few examples). Gun control laws do not protect the pubic.

 

[ATLDave]

And, what if the police 'catch' him with a tail light out on his way to work the night shift in a not-so-great neighborhood, when he has done nothing wrong, and has no intent to do so? Should they also lock him up for having a gun?

A former armed robber or armed rapist? Yes, they sure should.

Convicting a person 'thought to be' involved in a crime (referring to your statement that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to convict) on the grounds that the person was in possession of an otherwise legal object is grossly inappropriate.

Right. Thus the benefit/need of having that object not be legal for them to possess.

I'm completely open to the idea that "felon" is too broad a category and covers many people with no particular propensity to violence or abuse of guns. But when we're talking about violent felons, I want them locked up (again) if they get a gun. Sometimes they won't be caught with it. But sometimes they will.

 

[Palehorseman]

I read, then reread the 10, but did not see firearms safety, is safety relegated to commandment #11?

 

[ATLDave]

I was surprised that a compelling majority of the people who commit atrocities are first timers with clean records--people who just "lost it" or experienced some sort of "trigger" that made them decide to use these products improperly (Batman, Virginia Tech, and Newtown are just a few examples). Gun control laws do not protect the pubic.

But now you're making the same mistake as the pro-gun-control crowd. You're focusing on extremely rare events (mass killings) that are not really a sound basis for public policy. The idea of a no-guns-for-felons rule is not to prevent mass killings, it's to reduce the overall level of violence by those same felons.

And I'm with you that most gun control is inherently ineffective. I don't think that signs magically keep away the bad man. I don't think that mag limits do anything. Etc., etc. But I have already explained precisely how no-guns-for-felons laws have beneficial effects, even if the felons have no interest whatsoever in complying with laws.

My fundamental view of gun rights generally is that people should have them until they demonstrate themselves incapable of using those rights in a way that doesn't harm others. That's certainly not a pro-gun-control attitude - their policies are premised on a presumption that people should not have rights, barring some special showing or a "need." But I cannot support a view that says that one's gun rights are not something that can be lost by way of criminal activity.

Heck, we execute people for crimes. When we do that, we take away ALL their rights. Dead men cannot shoot guns. Losing gun rights for crimes demonstrating that you are a violent criminal? Cry me a river.