Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership

[Sam1911]

Given that most criminals are pretty dumb, if you can sweep up the dumb ones who are on the bad path, then you're really improving things.

Most people are pretty dumb. Criminals are just a subset of society, but I really don't think they're any dumber than their average man. Sure, any excuse to putting some back in jail is a good one, I guess.

Yes. But what we know is that they have decided to break the law yet again. And that, by itself, is a pretty good indication that model citizenry is not their current plan.

Maybe. But it's just a supposition, and a fully rebuttable one. If I had been in my acquaintance's shoes, I'd have had a gun. From what I saw, he faced more risk of violence than risk of being "picked up."

It doesn't effect their legal entitlement to safety. It does impact the likelihood of that right being removed/disregarded. Even if there is no deterrent effect whatsoever. Because some felons will go back to jail, where they are a minimal risk. We've covered this.

LOL. So you just want these folks back in jail, period, because that makes good folks safer. Getting some (ex?) felons off the street reduces the risk and the gun thing is just an excuse. Glad we aren't pretending this is about guns any more...

What's the bedtime story? That guns are effective for self-defense? That the restriction against felons possessing guns is avoided by refraining from committing serious crimes?

That making a class of prohibited persons somehow deters crime.

 

[ngnrd]

...allowing them a gun to protect their own rights comes at the expense of others' rights not to be shot or robbed or raped. ...

Oh, I see... I didn't realize that released convicts bent on returning to a life of robbing and raping would only do so if they had legal access to guns. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[450 Dakota]

Given that most criminals are pretty dumb, if you can sweep up the dumb ones who are on the bad path, then you're really improving things.

Wow, ATLDave. That's quite a statement, given that only the few dumb ones are caught, and the good majority of "smart" criminals are out there operating with clean records, committing daily felonies and carrying firearms. About 1% of our population is convicted and incarcerated. Do you think they are the only ones. Surveys have shown that most people have committed felonies and just not been caught. The smart (or lucky) ones actually get away with it repeatedly. So, if I understand you correctly, prohibiting firearms to dumb criminals is much more important than smart, successful criminals having them? Maybe an IQ test is more a reliable gun control method?

 

[ATLDave]

So you just want these folks back in jail, period, because that makes good folks safer. Getting some (ex?) felons off the street reduces the risk and the gun thing is just an excuse. Glad we aren't pretending this is about guns any more...

No, I want those who are showing signs of being on a bad path back in jail. For an felon, getting a gun is a good sign of being back on the bad path. At least that's the view of all 50 states and the federal government. Doesn't seem outlandish to me.

That making a class of prohibited persons somehow deters crime.

I think I've been pretty clear that the law is likely to reduce crime even with no deterrence effect whatsoever. Some will obtain guns, get caught with guns, and go back to jail. That's not dependent on deterrence. But there's likely some deterrence, particularly for those who are struggling not to return to prior bad ways.

 

[ATLDave]

Oh, I see... I didn't realize that released convicts bent on returning to a life of robbing and raping would only do so if they had legal access to guns.

I didn't realize that either, and didn't say that. Hope you didn't bang your head too many times in reaction to an imaginary remark.

 

[ATLDave]

Wow, ATLDave. That's quite a statement, given that only the few dumb ones are caught, and the good majority of "smart" criminals are out there operating with clean records, committing daily felonies and carrying firearms. About 1% of our population is convicted and incarcerated. Do you think they are the only ones. Surveys have shown that most people have committed felonies and just not been caught. The smart (or lucky) ones actually get away with it repeatedly. So, if I understand you correctly, prohibiting firearms to dumb criminals is much more important than smart, successful criminals having them? Maybe an IQ test is more a reliable gun control method?

The subject you raise - the fact that quite a few things are felonies and it's quite possible to semi-inadvertently commit certain of them - is an interesting topic. It's certainly an argument with which I am familiar, having been exposed to it many years ago in school. From a practical perspective, and in terms of this discussion, it's not really all that relevant. LE and prosecutorial discretion, resource allocation, etc., means that most of those acts don't even get investigated or identified, much less prosecuted through to conviction.

I've also said repeatedly that I'm open to arguments that we ought to have different rules on this subject regarding violent and non-violent felons. If you want to argue that an insider trader ought to be able to own a gun, I'm not going to fight you.

I'm talking about violent felons. People who have hurt other people in the past. Many/most of those people are dumb. (In no small part because crime becomes more economically attractive as other options get reduced, and the slow-witted and feeble-brained have fewer other options for making money.) Some are not. But most are. And if you end up tossing a decent percentage of those back into jail for failing to avoid firearms, then you will make a material impact on the quantity of criminals out roaming the streets. Will you get all of them? No, of course not, and nobody claims otherwise.

 

[450 Dakota]

I'm talking about violent felons. People who have hurt other people in the past.

My wife would agree with you wholeheartedly, and it would certainly be a better system than we have now. Disenfranchising all felons was truly a blunder, and I wonder about the intellegence of those who passed that legislation in 1968. To put an ex-felon who previously served a two-year sentence back in jail for at least five years simply for posession of a firearm is asinine and a waste of my tax dollars. Better to keep Randy the Rapist in prison for the rest of his life and not worry about his potential gun possession than to give jail time for possession by non-violent ex-offenders.

 

[Sol]

Rights restoration should be handled on a case by case basis.

Parolees and folks on probation basically have no rights. If Peter parolee was stopped the second his plates, drivers license or even his prison ID is ran, the situation is treated as a felony stop and the police will tear every inch of his car up hoping and wishing to find contraband.

Prison is prison. It's not "societal rehabilitation center" it's not "time out for 3-5 years" it's a facility that houses criminals. You eat with criminals, you congregate with criminals you befriend criminals. With the exception to those Martha Stewart/ Bernie Madoff country clubs.

Once in the system always in the system I say. Recidivism is high among felons. It's not that they are genetically made for crime or that they were born bad. Money and drugs are the reason for a majority of prisoners. Some people talk as if our prisons are full of serial killers and serial rapist, but that's tv. Felons don't go back to jail because they want or are compulsed to commit crimes.

Think about it: You're a felon. Who's going to employ you? What kind of business can you start? What bank is going to loan you money? What school is going to accept you and how do you secure loans? Who's going to rent to you? Who's going to trust you?

The answer is nobody, no one and nothing. Sure you can spout all the programs and what not in place for these people but guess what they don't work.

So when Joey car jacker gets hungry guess what he's doing for dinner.

The system is screwed up and really there is no viable solution.

Unless the private sector decides to lower their employment standards or put these guys on the public teat doing public works or sticking them on welfare.

Holy tangent, good list though.

 

[ATLDave]

My wife would agree with you wholeheartedly, and it would certainly be a better system than we have now. Disenfranchising all felons was truly a blunder, and I wonder about the intellegence of those who passed that legislation in 1968.

Fair enough. As I say, I'm open to the argument that non-violent felons should have firearms rights restored upon release/completion of parole. I'd be interested to see the rates of subsequent violent crime among those type of convicts, but assuming it's not super high, I could go along with a relaxation of the rule for them.

 

[JRH6856]

I wonder about the intellegence of those who passed that legislation in 1968.

Look at our history. What was happening in 1968? The "Establishment" was losing control, anti-war and civil rights riots, students rebelling, drug use increasing, SDS blowing up buildings, Black Panthers marching on the CA state house with guns... Guns in the hands of a rebellious segment of society is a dangerous thing, especially to The Establishment. The response in part was to felonize as much behavior as possible and then removing gun rights from felons. Hence the extremely stiff penalties for minor drug offenses classed as felonies.

 

[450 Dakota]

Look at our history. What was happening in 1968?

I can't well argue with that statement, but still--you criminalize behavior with the firearm, not the ownership of the firearm. It goes back to victimless crimes. I am very libertarian about criminalizing behaviors that have no victims. I dont believe in a "preemptive strike" against something that "might' happen.

 

[ATLDave]

I am very libertarian about criminalizing behaviors that have no victims. I dont believe in a "preemptive strike" against something that "might' happen.

Same here. The only difference is that I view the prohibition against guns being part of the consequences for the first crime. So it's not a preemptive strike. It's the new, less-free set of rules you get to live under if you engage in harmful behavior. A live-and-let-live attitude only works if transgressions against that ethos have appropriate repercussions.

 

[JRH6856]

450Dakota, I'm just trying to explain their action, not defend it. That said, the fact remains that we have a lot of non-violent crimes classified as felonies that perhaps should not be. Ignoring that fact and behaving as if things were otherwise just becasue we believe they should be otherwise is more likely to lead to prson time that to constrictive change.

The question remains, if something needs to change, what are we doing to change it?

 

[450 Dakota]

Same here. The only difference is that I view the prohibition against guns being part of the consequences for the first crime. So it's not a preemptive strike. It's the new, less-free set of rules you get to live under if you engage in harmful behavior. A live-and-let-live attitude only works if transgressions against that ethos have appropriate repercussions.

Well, I think we can just agree to disagree here. I have always been of the mind that the punishment should fit the crime exactly, and applying gun prohibition to non-gun crimes just grates on my sensibilities. Oh well.........it is what it is!

 

[ATLDave]

Maybe we're not so far apart after all. As I said, assuming the data don't suggest something counterintuitive, I'm open to ending the rule for non-violent felons. An inside trader probably ought to be OK to go skeet shooting after he does his time. I just don't want to see the rule relaxed for those who have violently hurt others in the past.

 

[larryh1108]

So, let me see if I understand this.
Make it legal for violent felons to own guns because they'll have one anyways, even though it's illegal. Yeah, that makes sense. How about only if he promises never to use it in a violent crime, just for self defense?

Losing your right to have firearms is part of the penalty for being found guilty of a felony. It's part of the sentence. You know it up front, before you decide to rob that gas station or car jack that Beemer. Get caught? You get 5-10 AND lose your rights.

So, let's just say only non-violent felons can get their rights back. This non-violent guy robs YOUR house, takes all 53 of YOUR guns and sells them for a nice buck for his drug habit. Non-violent, home burglary, no one home, not armed in any way. Non-violent. Yeah, sounds like a great guy to get his rights restored. After all, he didn't mean it. He was hungry for his next fix.

Ok, some non-violent felonies are not ok but some are ok to get your rights back. Where is the line? Someone mentioned above that poor Johnny took $5k from the bank he works at. Stupid, we know, but he needed it for new rims. Ok, non-violent and only $5k. He has to pay it back and gets 5 years probation. So, where is the line? Should Bernie Madoff be treated the same? He only robbed people who could afford to lose their money and besides, no one got killed. Is $500 million the line? $100K? $1 million? Where is this line? Is it ok to steal from your grandmother because she has her cash in a coffee can or is walking back from the bak with her Social Security check freshly cashed? After all, the young darling only took her purse, he didn't stab her or shoot her. Poor kid needed cash to help his mom buy groceries. Food stamps only go so far, right?

So, felons who steal to eat or feed their families are ok, just down on their luck but felons who steal to feed a drug habit are scum, right? Makes sense.

If we have laws that should not be felonies then get them changed. There are a lot of stupid laws that need to be changed or even dropped. That kid mentioned above who got busted with pot at 18 and got a felony? Well, from what I understand, to get a felony, he needed to have more than enough for personal use so I guess he got busted for being a drug dealer. Poor Johnny, busted at 18 for being a drug dealer. Oh, the injustice. He was just selling to his buddies, though. No harm. However, those buddies were selling at the local middle school but that's not his problem, right? HE didn't sell to the 8th graders.

From my understanding, felonies are pretty serious crimes. If Johnny was as pure and innocent as everyone seems to suggest, the why was he charged with a felony? It's my understanding that first time offenders are often given lesser charges and probation. Maybe Johnny has become a person on a first name basis with the local DA?

I'm sure there's been many cases of first time offenders and over-zealous DAs but when charged with a felony, chances are you did something really stupid or really dangerous.

If you don't want to lose your rights to own, don't commit a felony. Those who say we commit 3 felonies a day without knowing it, BS. We all speed. How fast is is to be a felony? I don't "borrow" anybody's pain pills. I don't drink and drive. If you do then if you get caught, shame on you. you know better.

There are ways to petition the courts to get your rights back. If, like Sam's example, you have turned it around and can prove you are on the right road, you should get your rights back. However, you have to earn them, not just do your time. Part of doing your time is losing those rights. If you want to be able to defend your family then don't commit a felony and get convicted. Get a baseball bat to play ball and hope the guy trying to hurt you doesn't have a gun. Or, do like Sam says and get a gun anyways. After all, it's your right to be a felon, right?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Meh.

Nice. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "Ten Commandments", though.

Perhaps we should have a contest and post our own "Ten Commandments" to see what we can come up with.

1) Thou shalt not treat thy gun as anything other than loadeth.

2) Thou shalt have nothing before thy gun except what thou intendst to destroy.

3) Thou shalt not aim thy gun except that thou knowest what lies beyond thy intended target.

4) Thou shalt not defile thy gun's trigger with thy finger before thy sights are on thy target.

5) Thou shalt annoint thy guns with holy oil, that their days may be long in the land which thy God giveth thee.

6) Remember to practice with thy gun and always striveth to increase thy mastery over it.

7) Thou shalt not play with thy gun lest thee incur the unholy wrath of the Negligent Discharge.

8) Thou shalt not murder with thy gun.

9) Thou shalt not putteth down another man's gun, as all guns are holy in the Lord thy God's eyes.

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's guns, nor his ammunition, nor his wife who may smoketh hot while she shootest at the sacred Gun Range.

 

[hotajax]

Regarding #10--who gets to decide who is mentally competent?

Who is mentally "competent"? Therein lies the lynch pin of the double-talk coming out of Washington.

 

[Elkins45]

The "Establishment" was losing control, anti-war, civil rights, students rebelling, drug use increasing, SDS blowing up buildings, Black Panthers marching on the CA state house with guns...

One of those things is not like the others.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

"From my understanding, felonies are pretty serious crimes."


Not all. Just ask all the Connecticut citizens risking felony charges by taking a stand against their state's new gun registration laws. The STATE thinks it's a serious crime (felony) not to comply with their law...but there are a growing number of citizens who are being quite vocal about their contrary opinion on this matter.

I certainly wouldn't count voter fraud as a violent crime, or one which would otherwise be cause to deny a person the RKBA. Yet one can be convicted of felony voter fraud.

Is a repeat DUI felony reason to deny a person the RKBA?

Is a Courts-Martial conviction for Unauthorized Absence (UCMJ Art. 86) for more than 30 days worthy of a person losing their RKBA? (Courts-Martial convictions are generally considered a felony conviction if the maximum allowable sentence includes 1 year or more in prison for the offense.) What about Fradulent Enlistment (UCMJ Art. 83), Contempt Towards Officials (UCMJ Art. 88), or Disrespect Towards Superior Commissioned Officers (UCMJ Art. 89)?

There are LOTS of felony charges out there which aren't necessarily "pretty serious crimes". Do ALL the people convictes of ANY felony charge actually deserve to have their rights abrogated on a continuing basis after having otherwise paid their dues to society?

 

[Stevie-Ray]

If sentencing allows, a parole board may be able to grant a felon early release with conditions.

Conditions are not a full release. Accordingly, when I had broken ribs, I was allowed to go back to work after a month, but with restrictions. I had to go back to surgeon after another 3 weeks before he made me a full citizen. A full release should grant all rights back to the released.

When I hear people say "if they are dangerous why are they out of prison" it makes me want to hit my head with a hammer.

Knock yourself out. I have to laugh that anybody can't see that a person willing to go through the entire process to own and/or carry a legal gun is doing his utmost at becoming a model citizen, when he can still get an illegal gun from so many of his former cohorts.

 

[larryh1108]

There are LOTS of felony charges out there which aren't necessarily "pretty serious crimes". Do ALL the people convictes of ANY felony charge actually deserve to have their rights abrogated on a continuing basis after having otherwise paid their dues to society?

I believe felonies are felonies to provide "persuasion" to think twice about it. In all of the instances mentioned, if an enlisted man was found guilty and it is a felony then he got what the system deemed was necessary. If it was a slap on the wrist and 5 days in the brig then how many more would commit these "crimes"?

As mentioned, there are many crimes that should be reclassified. That needs to be done thru the courts. Until then, you do the crime, you risk your rights. It really is that simple.

As for all the felonies that don't deserve to take away your rights, where do you draw the line? You have to answer that to justify not using a felony as a blanket reason.

If you notice, I live in CT. I am very well aware of what is happening around me. If you choose to not register your AR and have it in your car on the way to the range and you get pulled over or somebody t-bones you, you are risking your right to own that AR. You are making a conscious decision to not follow the law and risk getting caught and prosecuted. You are deciding that your cause is worth gambling your right to own. You are making a decision that could affect the rest of your life and you know it when you put that AR in your car to go shoot it. The law may be wrong but you know you are breaking the law as it is written today. You aren't patient enough to have it play out in court. You are taking the gamble with your eyes open. You know the consequences so don't cry foul if you get caught.

Yeah, there is the right way to fight this unjust law but choosing to ignore it may be noble and even righteous but if you do the crime be prepared to pay the penalty. If you get caught, you are giving up your right to own any firearm. Your decision.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Are you guys still talking about this without even acknowledging the gem of an improvement on the Ten Commandments from Chief?

I like his better.

Chief, did you just write those or are they old material?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's the biggest problem.... guy's wife wants to hit him with her shoe because for the third week in a row he didn't take out the trash on the way to work. Guy grabs her wrist to keep from getting hit with the shoe and she bruises easily. This guy is now very close to losing his rights to possess firearms for life because she is the one with the bruise and he is unharmed.

Or, how about this one - you are traveling through a state that has reciprocity with your home state, so you are carrying on your own state license. You get stopped for speeding in a school zone and you are carrying your gun loaded. Guess what? You have committed a felony and can lose your right to possess firearms for life.

That's the problems with these blanket laws that prohibit people from possessing firearms.

And, when you lose your rights to possess firearms for life because of speeding through an out of state school zone with a loaded gun, or someone stopped their wife from hitting them with a shoe - those are the types of people that will obey the law to not possess firearms for the rest of their life. Meanwhile, when the guy who used a firearm to rape several women gets out of jail, he won't think twice about getting a firearm illegally. The law only stops those from possessing firearms that really are no danger at all to begin with because those that willinglt commit crimes with firearms won't obey the "thou shalt not possess" anyway.

My personal opinion - if the person intentionally used a deadly weapon to commit a crime with - sure, make it illegal for them to possess the firearm - not that it will do any good. But leave the people alone who would never think of using a gun to commit a crime with.

 

[JRH6856]

One of those things is not like the others.

Good catch. Should have said, anti war and civil rights riots. I'll fix that. The scene in Chicago outside the Democratic Convention played out on national TV and itouched a lot of local and national politicians directly. It had a major impact.