Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership

[JRH6856]

As mentioned, there are many crimes that should be reclassified. That needs to be done thru the courts. Until then, you do the crime,

Actually, it needs to be done through legislation, as it is the law itself that specifies whether or not the infraction is a felony.

 

[JRH6856]

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?

Chief's are better Unlike the ones the ones in the OP, they actually make sense.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

^^^^

Thanks! I drafted them up on the spot. No copywrite involved, feel free to use/abuse them or draft your own as you see fit!

Humor appreciated...

You should see my "Young Man's Dating Guide". I'll have to find my copy of that. It's evidently not on my work computer.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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.

And you do have a point in much of what you've said. However, that doesn't change the fact that not all felony convictions REALLY deserve to result in a permanent removal of a citizen's RKBA (or to vote, for that matter).

Often times what makes a conviction a felony conviction is no more than what the maximum ALLOWABLE sentence is...not what the ACTUAL sentence was.

For example, in the case of Unauthorized Absence (UCMJ Art. 86): A Courts-martial conviction of a servicemember who was UA for 31 days makes him a felon...SOLELY because the maximum allowable penalty for this includes 1 year prison sentence. He may have only been fined a couple months of pay and sentenced to a week in the brig. But because he had the POTENTIAL to have been sentenced to 1 year by law, this conviction makes him a felon.

See what I mean?

Justice is not found in the letter of the law...it's found in HOW that law is applied from start to finish. In the courts, justice a process by which laws are used to FAIRLY JUDGE AND PUNISH. This involves not only the letter of the law, but the extinuating and mitigating circumstances of each case as well as the facts behind the accused's actions.


And though "ignorance is no excuse" is often cited, NavyLCDR's comment in post #99 is an outstanding example of a very real possibility. Does such a violation, when the facts and the extenuating and mitigating circumstances are taken into account, HONESTLY require a felony conviction and the removal of such a person's RKBA?


Don't get me wrong...I'll be the first to stand up and say "life is not fair", because that's the cold, hard, natural truth. But we're not talking about "life" as some universal concept...we're talking about human actions and punishment for them, which are things humans have control over.

 

[larryh1108]

But because he had the POTENTIAL to have been sentenced to 1 year by law, this conviction makes him a felon.

Perhaps the system could be changed to make the crime level according to the actual sentence as opposed to what the max is?

The same in the civilian courts. I do believe a lot of crimes are bargained down to misdemeanors instead of felonies by a plea bargain or as a first offense sentence. I agree that many crimes are unfairly classified but each case stands on it's own merit and there should be a final determination of restoration of rights at any parole hearing or once a full sentence is served. Perhaps in an early release, (it seems 50% of most sentences are actually served) the penalty of losing your rights remains with the original sentence which allows the early released person time to get reestablished in society and return to a new life without crime or if there is probation after release, the length of the probation.

The system is not perfect and is broken in many places. However, I do not believe for that reason every felon should have his rights restored. Regaining your rights should be discussed and decided at any/all hearings upon your release and every case should be looked at individually. Somehow this sounds good in discussion but it needs to get to the lawmakers.

Stripping some people of their rights forever often gives someone who truly wants to do the right thing a bad taste and little incentive to be a model citizen. Everyone does deserve a second chance but he has to earn it with effort, not a blanket pass.

 

[JRH6856]

Does such a violation, when the facts and the extenuating and mitigating circumstances are taken into account, HONESTLY require a felony conviction and the removal of such a person's RKBA?

In the case of the easily bruised wife, (sounds like a Perry Mason episode) it would likely be misdemeanor domestic violence--a misdemeanor! And still result in loss of RKBA.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

There is supposed to be an element of corrective action to the punative acts. In other words, there should be a behavioral correction such that the need for a future punative act is either eliminated or reduced.

Punatitive actions are supposed to be inconvenient in nature, or they're not really punative. But there is an inherent problem with long-term draconian solutions to problems. And that is the fact that human nature will start devising either workarounds or simply a complete ignoring of the draconian measures.

 

[ChaoSS]

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.

Marginally is right. Or wrong, as Sam has pointed out. Getting a gun is pretty easy if you don't care about the laws. I'd say this argument is out.

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.*

This may cause some felons to not carry guns with them at all times, but when it is time to commit crimes, it will have no affect on them at all.

As for the idea that the police may catch them on the way to a crime, that's a laugh. The chances of that happening are slim to none.

The only practical upshot is that it puts people who never should have been let out of prison, back in prison. This is a bandaid, though. Legal bandaids are not the solution. We need real fixes.


BTW, I am strongly of the opinion that no person should ever be punished, in whole or in part, by making them live in society as a second class citizen. Putting restrictions on people like this encourages them to commit crime, as it can be the only real solution when others are cut off.

You have a guy who is trying to do right after getting out of prison, he can't get a decent job, so he and his family are living in the bad area of town. Now, he can't get a gun to protect his family. You can say too bad, shouldn't have done the crime, but this isn't about feeling bad for him, it's about the practical realities of what will happen. If this guy cares about his family, he's likely to do what he has to do to protect his family, and that means getting the gun anyway. Can't buy it at the LGS, so where does he go? The friendly neighborhood fellow who sells things like stolen guns, crack cocaine, and other fun things like that. So now, instead of supporting the LGS, he's supporting the local gangs, and increasing demand for stolen guns. Good work, now we have a law which is encouraging theft of firearms, and putting more people at risk.:banghead:

 

[ChaoSS]

A few hours ago I was sitting at work, reading this thread on my phone and listening to the radio, they were talking about this: http://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-fatalities-vehicle-plows-crowd-south-southwest/story?id=22891689

It's not the gun, it's the person.

 

[ivankerley]

If you're convicted of a felony and serve your time, petition the court for restoration of your civil and political rights. But most people don't get "do overs" for major screw-ups (felonies)
It's pretty easy to avoid too. The consequences are known. Best course of action to avoid them is to not commit felonies.

agreed, theyre are a million ways and reasons to avoid doing something stupid, but having watched a family member go through the system, i was astonished to learn that vandalism (grafitti) resulted in a felony 5 charge, now im of the mind that you damage a person you pay your debt try to make that person whole again, get your butt kicked a bit then move on... rather shocked to see it doesnt work that way, and they dont want it to and when theres money involved, its like chum in the water. No punishment of labor, nothing, everybody gets their cash and you try and move one.
is it stupid? yes without a doubt, should it follow them the rest of their days?
im sorry cant get behind that
Gene

 

[JustinJ]

It amazes how many seem to think all violent crimes are carefully planned in advance. Very often, violent crimes occur by chance encounters or when lesser crimes escalate. Sure, if a convicted felon decides to rob a bank or take out a rival gang member laws against gun ownership will not stop him. However, if said felon gets into a scuffle on the street, having a gun, which he otherwise would not be carrying were it not for the fear of returning to prison, a disagreement or fist fight could quickly escalate. Having said gun might embolden him to engage in said conflict in the first place. Same thing if Mr. Anger issue convicted felon gets cut off in traffic. Same thing if he decides to break into homes to steal stuff. Stealing a drill from somebodies garage could quickly become murder. Obviously outlawing guns for felons will not stop all of them from committing murder and other violent crimes. So what? Its absurd to say a law must be 100% effective to have any value.

 

[Sam1911]

Having said gun might embolden him to engage in said conflict in the first place.

Sure! Just like those concealed carry guys.

 

[ATLDave]

Sure! Just like those concealed carry guys.

??? No, not like them at all. The difference being that the populations - licensed CCers and felons - are mutually exclusive. The former is a population that is more likely than average to follow laws, avoid violating the rights of others, etc. The latter group is precisely the opposite.

Can you honestly not see the difference in likelihood of bad acts between a population composed 100% of convicted felons and a population composed 100% of people never convicted of a felony?

 

[Sam1911]

Oh, sure, there's a difference. But, the idea that because person A has a gun he's more likely to get into an altercation than if he didn't have a gun is just as specious if we're talking about released felons as if we're talking about unconvicted type folks.

 

[JustinJ]

Sure! Just like those concealed carry guys.

Most legal concealed carry guys don't have a history of violent behavior and a higher incidence of anger management issues than the general population. However, without question there have been incidents in which the presence of concealed gun turned minor conflicts into murder. There have also been incidents which one can easily conclude that carrying a gun emboldened the shooter, such as Raul Rodriguez in Houston who videotaped himself constantly saying "i'm standing my ground" before shooting neighbors after a dispute over loud music.

Responsible law abiding citizens are entitled to carry a gun as a means to defend themselves. Violent felons forgo said right when they infringe on the rights of others to not be assaulted.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

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 indendst 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.

I agree with all but #10.
Hell, coveting my neighbor's guns is why I bought most of the ones I have. lol
But yeah, don't covet my smokin hot wife while she's shooting.

 

[ATLDave]

Oh, sure, there's a difference. But, the idea that because person A has a gun he's more likely to get into an altercation than if he didn't have a gun is just as specious if we're talking about released felons as if we're talking about unconvicted type folks.

Once again, you are talking about two totally different populations. Who have a demonstrated history of behaving differently. It's hardly "specious" to suggest that they might behave differently in the future. I don't think one can conclude that felons are unlikely to impulsively use a gun just because 99.999% of lawful CCers refrain from that.

 

[450 Dakota]

Once again, you are talking about two totally different populations.

No! It is the SAME population and that was one of my points before. Surveys show there are MANY more "felons" out there with clean records who are just smart enough not to be caught. Some of these are "felons" with CC licenses. Off the record, I am one of them. I have never been arrested or convicted of anything. I also have a CC license and two fully legal NFA weapons for which I have the federal tax stamps. However, in the past, I have committed several Federal offenses, including illegal possession (over 1200 counts) for some "special" items that I acquired at a gun show and kept for several years in my "doomsday preparation room" and for which I could have served a LOT of federal time. Victimless crimes to be sure, but still Federal crimes and still offenses that, if a conviction resulted, would have disbarred me from ever owning a weapon. How about that? I also know for a fact that I am only one of MANY out there who have a checkered past for which they were never charged or convicted. My point? We ALL have the propensity to break the law if conditions are right. Why punish the relatively small percentage who get caught and actually pay for their crime when the majority of us have not?

 

[450 Dakota]

I agree with all but #10.
Hell, coveting my neighbor's guns is why I bought most of the ones I have. lol
But yeah, don't covet my smokin hot wife while she's shooting.

Yep. A little more in keeping with the REAL Ten Commandments. Love the King James English!

 

[ATLDave]

No! It is the SAME population and that was one of my points before.

Then your point is incorrect. For your point to be valid/correct, one would have to not only accept the "3 felonies a day" premise, but also to assume that prosecution and conviction for those felonies is totally random. IOW, one must believe that the population of convicted felonies lived exactly the same kind of life before their arrest that the average American lives. It's absurd. As I explained earlier, prosecutorial discretion and other factors mean that 99+% of those "3 felonies" are completely ignored or not even recognized.

In contrast, those who go to prison for felonies have usually been pretty bad actors (assuming one buys drug distribution being a bad act) and are often being punished for a small fraction of their actual misdeeds.

Finally, just go look at recidivism conviction rates for convicted and released felons compared to the rate of conviction for the populace as a whole. These two populations behave very differently. They are not in any meaningful sense the same.

 

[450 Dakota]

For the record, I do NOT accept the "Three Felonies a Day premise. However, you don't seem to agree with me that there is a HUGE percentage of felonies successfully committed by people with clean records, including murder, extortion, blackmail, forced prostitution, child molestation and a plethera of other horrible offenses against other people.

In contrast, those who go to prison for felonies have usually been pretty bad actors.

So are the people who commit heinous crimes and get away with them (a much larger percentage). You are not talking about felonies--you are talking about dumb people who get CAUGHT for felonies. As I said in my post--I have committed over 1200 Federal felonies in the long past (statute of limitations applies) and was never caught. I may have the propensity to commit more if I am put in a certain situation. Yet I have all of my firearms rights and more. Does that make me somehow better than the dumber felons who got caught? I say no, it doesnt. I am still a felon but I have all of my rights. If I pose the question "have you ever committed what would be considered a felony", most people tell me "yes". The only two groups here are dumb (or unlucky) and smart (or not caught)!

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Oh, sure, there's a difference. But, the idea that because person A has a gun he's more likely to get into an altercation than if he didn't have a gun is just as specious if we're talking about released felons as if we're talking about unconvicted type folks.

Not really specious... A person is more likely to enter a conflict/fight they think they will win than if they think they will lose. If someone has a gun, they think they can win, they are more willing to enter that conflict/fight.

 

[Red Wind]

You have a guy who is trying to do right after getting out of prison, he can't get a decent job, so he and his family are living in the bad area of town. Now, he can't get a gun to protect his family. You can say too bad, shouldn't have done the crime, but this isn't about feeling bad for him, it's about the practical realities of what will happen. If this guy cares about his family, he's likely to do what he has to do to protect his family, and that means getting the gun anyway.

Can't buy it at the LGS, so where does he go? The friendly neighborhood fellow who sells things like stolen guns, crack cocaine, and other fun things like that. So now, instead of supporting the LGS, he's supporting the local gangs, and increasing demand for stolen guns. Good work, now we have a law which is encouraging theft of firearms, and putting more people at risk.

You are making a lot of sense, ChaoSS. Be careful here! Your thoughts mirror mine exactly. The '"system" has shut you down, no where to turn, so where do you go?

And like 450 Dakota, I have committed "major" felonies and have never been caught. Lucky? Smart? Who knows and who cares. But as he wisely says," We ALL have the propensity to break the law if conditions are right. Why punish the relatively small percentage who get caught and actually pay for their crime when the majority of us have not? "

A very good question waiting for a wise, intelligent answer.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I agree with all but #10.
Hell, coveting my neighbor's guns is why I bought most of the ones I have. lol
But yeah, don't covet my smokin hot wife while she's shooting.

Definitely no problems with coveting, so #10 might need some work.

I think #9 could be reviewed. Definitely important, not sure it is top ten though. Might be....

Chief's list is so good, I think we should work to edit/polish it. I'll make a cool PDF of it once we are done.

 

[JRH6856]

" We ALL have the propensity to break the law if conditions are right. Why punish the relatively small percentage who get caught and actually pay for their crime when the majority of us have not? "

We all may have the propensity, but we do not all have the same propensity. To suggest that we do is ludicrous.

Everyone of us a capable of unwittingly committing a felony everyday, but not everyone has the intent of doing so, and many actually have the intent of not doing so. We punish the ones who get caught, because they did get caught and their prosectution may 1) restrict them so that they have less opportunity to act on their intentions, 2) may deter others from acting on their intentions and 3) remind those without felonious intentions to take care not to offend unintentionally.