U.S. appeals court to reconsider ban on nonviolent felons owning guns

[Remington1911]

I think most of us know at least one non-violent felon who has made it back into society. You probably don't even know it though. Not likely he or she brags about it. I think there should be a legitimate process where such a person can regain his 2A rights.

OTOH, it does not appear to me that most violent offenders can ever really be trusted even after finishing their sentences.

I know of a great many. I would hazard to guess I know more then most people on the forum.

However like most things in life real experience is to be over looked.

Remember this conversation when that next news story comes out about a guy that got a "second chance".

Fudd? I will wear that with honor if thoughts expressed by some here are the alternative.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Chief,

As a "follow-on" to your posting concerning the effect of a military court-martial conviction, it's worth pointing out that Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, if he were still alive, would be a "Prohibited Person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

My comment is not to demean the Admiral. He has a well deserved his place in history and his honor is intact. My comment is meant as a poor reflection on the GCA of 1968.

Indeed.

In fact, many people from the past would be (and in fact are) judged harshly by today's standards and laws.

But I get your point!

 

[KY DAN]

Wait, what? Are you calling forum members "Fudds" if they actually support depriving certain convicted felons of legal gun ownership? (Some have said that when the Fudd word is introduced in a thread, it's a sign that rational discussion has ceased.)

Deprived of freedom? First of all, you don't need to possess a firearm to be free. One does not need to possess a firearm to have means of self-defense. Depriving a man of the legal right to possess a firearm is not the same as depriving him the right to defend himself, his home and his family.

Second, I guess in your estimation I'd be a Fudd, because I've been acquainted with way more convicted felons than probably all but a few forum members, and I'm here to tell you that most of these folks I've been involuntary familiar with should never, ever be able to legally purchase or own a firearm. I want it to be difficult for them to obtain a firearm. And if they are found in possession of a firearm, I want them to be hammered to the extent of existing law.

And are some of you not aware that there already are processes for convicted felons to regain their right to buy and own firearms? In some states, the process is not even complicated. Can it be difficult? Sure, but should we have a problem with making sure someone has clearly demonstrated signs of being reformed/rehabilitated, ready to move on and function civilly in society? Yes, they may have completed their last sentence, but now they are still going to have to earn back some rights and privileges to re-integrate with society. Or do we automatically give them the right to go out and buy a new gun with their gate money as soon as they clear the salle port upon release, because sure, we trust them now?

But all this should not be construed to mean that I would be opposed to evaluating existing law to determine whether all felony convictions should result in loss of gun rights. Although some here have argued that it's all about the RKBA, I disagree and think that there is much other reform in the criminal justice system needed before we go cherry-picking only certain rights for restoration, which will only exacerbate the confusing, complex existing patchwork of the myriad unnecessary, superfluous, redundant and (to many) unconstitutional laws on the books now. There's a lot of work to be done before trying to "fix" this issue, a lot of evaluation and classification, and if you think it can be done with one swoop of the pen, you could be wrong. Or I could be, who knows? I was once wrong before, once...

Also, as I noted before, even most felons post-incarceration don't necessarily consider being able to legally arm themselves a top priority -- for those that don't plan to go back to the same street corning and slinging rock, it's almost always being able to secure affordable, safe housing and meaningful employment. Also being able to support their families, for many, furthering their education or getting into a trade, paying off their LFOs, voting, etc. Obviously, on an RKBA-centered forum, we think of every issue with how it relates to 2A and firearms, but for those not in the RKBA community and gun culture, there are other issues that may take priority.

I call it like it is

There are people who want to talk with eloquence and that is fine if not for the fact the last 50 years we have lost more than we have gained thanks the lobbying efforts of our protectors (nra, hoa, etc)

The ball is in our court, we are freeman and free women and we must take back our freedom.

If you have to ask you are not free, if you have to have approval to own anything your not free.

I champion liberty for all, not just those whose "PRIORITIES " are firearm ownership.

I don't care what you have done that constitution and bill of rights is for that person and nothing short of death in my opinion should or would separate you from this amazing charter.

So yeah Fudds are real and are a threat to our freedom as a whole gun owning community.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I was raised by a prohibited person.
He committed his crime while in the military.
What that crime was is a bit unclear, as it varied through time.
He had the option of re-acquiring his lost rights but refused to do so.
He had no respect for the government agencies and had as little to do with them as possible.
Frankly, he was a rather erratic person with violent tendencies.
The amount of damage that he could do with his bare hands was remarkable.
I am just as glad that he couldn't legally have a gun - although he often had one.
If he is an example of the 'non-violent' offender that should have his gun rights restored then I say no... .

 

[Fishtales]

I call it like it is

There are people who want to talk with eloquence and that is fine if not for the fact the last 50 years we have lost more than we have gained thanks the lobbying efforts of our protectors (nra, hoa, etc)

The ball is in our court, we are freeman and free women and we must take back our freedom.

If you have to ask you are not free, if you have to have approval to own anything your not free.

I champion liberty for all, not just those whose "PRIORITIES " are firearm ownership.

I don't care what you have done that constitution and bill of rights is for that person and nothing short of death in my opinion should or would separate you from this amazing charter.

So yeah Fudds are real and are a threat to our freedom as a whole gun owning community.

To KYDAN: This reply has nothing to do with this thread, but it looks like the only way to contact you. In the trade/sell section of THR I saw you are/were looking for 500-1,000 12 gauge hulls. I have them as once fired AA from the 70'-80's era (so they are probably straight wall) if you still need them. I am using this platform as the ad says it is closed to further contact, but it doesn't say you found them. One can only assume you still need them or the ad would not still be there. Let me know.

 

[SwampWolf]

In many, if not most, states when a probationer/parolee completes his/her term of probation/parole period, they have all of their constitutional rights restored. When the government excepts the right to gun ownership when it applies to ex-offenders when they have otherwise had all of their constitutional rights restored, the case can be made that the right to keep and bear arms is really not a right at all; it's just a privilege to be granted or meted out by the state to more "deserving" citizens.
I think one answer to this dilemma (allowing/denying violent ex-cons to possess firearms upon reentering society) in the case of probationers and parolees might be to make it a condition of their release where they must voluntarily agree to forfeit their right to gun ownership until the court or parole board deems otherwise, based on the degree of success in their rehabilitation efforts.

 

[230RN]

I would imagine if DUI was a prohibiting offense, we would have half as many gun owners as we do.

I hesitate to point out that this is the ultimate goal of all firearms legislation.

Half and half again. And half once more.

Half of a half is a quarter.

Half of a quarter is an eighth

Half of an eighth is a sixteenth.

And it ain't about "safety."

 

[wayneinFL]

He had no respect for the government agencies and had as little to do with them as possible.
Frankly, he was a rather erratic person with violent tendencies.
The amount of damage that he could do with his bare hands was remarkable.
I am just as glad that he couldn't legally have a gun - although he often had one.
If he is an example of the 'non-violent' offender that should have his gun rights restored then I say no... .

So he committed violent acts without weapons and had weapons anyway.

And you think the best thing to do with people like this is to allow people like this to terrorize their families and communities, and just kinda sorta hope they don't kill people?

 

[theotherwaldo]

So he committed violent acts without weapons and had weapons anyway.

And you think the best thing to do with people like this is to allow people like this to terrorize their families and communities, and just kinda sorta hope they don't kill people?

-Sounds like you've got issues... .

 

[dcloco]

Have a conversation with your local probation officers. The recidivism rate for felons, regardless of felony, is higher than you think.

 

[230RN]

Have a conversation with your local probation officers. The recidivism rate for felons, regardless of felony, is higher than you think.
(Bolding mine)

Gee whiz, you think conceivably, possibly, maybe, just to look at all the angles, this might be in part because they can't live normal lives anyway anymore?

Makes me wonder how many archery and black powder enthusiasts are that way because of some sporty behavior in their past. No, don't answer that.

Makes me wonder how many of all those newbie Lefty would-be gun owners we read about are suddently discovering they are prohibited persons because of some sporty behavior...

Note the bolded portion of the quote...

"Higher than you think" = speculation?

Got any numbers from unbiased sources?

Don't get mad, just askin'.

I can suggest that those involved in probation departments are not likely to be neutral and are not likely to give you the straight dope.

I think "branding" people with lifelong punishment is not "punishment to fit the crime."

And I can "speculate" that doubling the normal punishment for each successive genuinely felonious offense with "three (or four or five) strikes and you're out" as a final outcome, might be more appropriate than figuratively branding their foreheads with their single, perhaps long-past, crime.

Which might actually force them into recidivism.

Terry, 230RN

ETA NOTE:
People tend to misunderstand that doubling concept. First of all, "doubling" is only an example. Other factors might be appropriate. such as increasing the punishment for later offenses by one and a half times or whatever factor instead of two times.

Second of all, the "doubling" (or whatever factor) would apply to the statutory punishment for whatever the second or third offense occured:

First offense, two years statutory, and that's it.

Second, different kind of offense, statutory punishment six years, we double it to twelve years because it's a second offense,

Third, yet again a different kind of offense, statutory punishment three years, we double it or maybe triple it to nine years because it's their third offense.

As you can see, this kind of thing, presented only as an example, can ultimately add up to a life sentence.

 

[dcloco]

Gee whiz, you think conceivably, possibly, maybe, just to look at all the angles, this might be in part because they can't live normal lives anyway anymore?

Makes me wonder how many archery and black powder enthusiasts are that way because of some sporty behavior in their past. No, don't answer that.

Makes me wonder how many of all those newbie Lefty would-be gun owners we read about are suddently discovering they are prohibited persons because of some sporty behavior...

Note the bolded portion of the quote...

"Higher than you think" = speculation?

Got any numbers from unbiased sources?

Don't get mad, just askin'.

I can suggest that those involved in probation departments are not likely to be neutral and are not likely to give you the straight dope.

I think "branding" people with lifelong punishment is not "punishment to fit the crime."

And I can "speculate" that doubling the normal punishment for each successive genuinely felonious offense with "three (or four or five) strikes and you're out" as a final outcome, might be more appropriate than figuratively branding their foreheads with their single, perhaps long-past, crime.

Which might actually force them into recidivism.

Terry, 230RN

ETA NOTE:
People tend to misunderstand that doubling concept. First of all, "doubling" is only an example. Other factors might be appropriate. such as increasing the punishment for later offenses by one and a half times or whatever factor instead of two times.

Second of all, the "doubling" (or whatever factor) would apply to the statutory punishment for whatever the second or third offense occured:

First offense, two years statutory, and that's it.

Second, different kind of offense, statutory punishment six years, we double it to twelve years because it's a second offense,

Third, yet again a different kind of offense, statutory punishment three years, we double it or maybe triple it to nine years because it's their third offense.

As you can see, this kind of thing, presented only as an example, can ultimately add up to a life sentence.

Felony conviction, is NOT, in many states, a "lifetime ban". Most, if not all, states offer set aside, expungement, or pardon. There is a process in for each person to follow in their state.


Unbiased data - well, the probation officers only have felons as their customers. Why would you conduct a poll from a pool that do not have felony convictions?

 

[Big Bore 44]

My view of THIS case is that it would be a great way to undermine the 1968 GCA. The only reason for FFLs and background checks is for preventing "Undesirables" from lawfully purchasing firearms. Get rid of the "prohibited" status and BGCs go away.

 

[roscoe]

I don't know, how about they made a bad decision, bad enough to land you in prison, and we should trust you to make good decisions after you get out? Don't think so.

It is not so simple. The rights I refer to are Constitutionally enumerated for all US citizens. They sit in a different class than the right to drive, have a law license, etc. If you have discharged your debt to society, then society no longer has a claim on you, and you rejoin the citizenry.

The fact that the felony threshold varies dramatically by state and by offense category only highlights the essentially arbitrary nature of the denial of rights.

 

[dcloco]

It is not so simple. The rights I refer to are Constitutionally enumerated for all US citizens. They sit in a different class than the right to drive, have a law license, etc. If you have discharged your debt to society, then society no longer has a claim on you, and you rejoin the citizenry.

The fact that the felony threshold varies dramatically by state and by offense category only highlights the essentially arbitrary nature of the denial of rights.

Laws are based off of the history of what humans do.

The rate of recidivism of people who have been convicted of felonies, is very high.

Every state has a process of expungement, set aside, or pardon.

DON'T FORGET, there was probably 1/2/3 other charges, that were probably dropped, in exchange for the guilty plea.