Felons and Guns

2875 Views 42 Replies 24 Participants Last post by Bud White, Jun 25, 2006

Angio333

Discussion Starter · Jun 8, 2006

I beleive that non-violent felons should be allowed to own/use firearms after they finish their sentence/probation. Do you?

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

P95Carry

· #2 · Jun 8, 2006

Another subject we have discussed tho not sure of the link.

I do agree that while an offence may be regarded as a felony - if in no way violent (maybe a fraud case for example) then the individual with time served should be clear to own and clear to carry.

Once however (IMO) violence comes into the picture then no - that right has been abused and should be recinded. A violent felon has if you will, pretty much proven that he had malicious intent and a wish to (potentially at best) harm another thru that means.

There are many grey areas tho - and so it is hard to make totally concrete judgements - so often there can be mitigating circumstances.

The situations that sadden me most are when old insignificant ''crimes'' get dredged up and prevent an otherwsie good citizen from possession or carry.

Most folks screw up, a bit, in younger days and if the misdemeanor was not too serious then the record should be expunged - and this can apply to certain felonies IMO.

Dakotaranger

· #3 · Jun 8, 2006

I do think felons should loose their firearms.

I also believe they never should be able to vote. Part of the reason is because of the felony they have demonstrated a level of disrespect for society that society has no right to forgive (Only God and the victim can forgive). Speaking strictly De Facto a felon looses their citizenship, because the crime is viewed as against society. Felons have long lost their right to vote due to this, and is a consequence of their crime.

Felons have historically had their rights restricted through out our Nations history, much like Esau in the Old Testament did when he sold his birth rite (granted he sold it instead of throwing away his rights the way a criminal does).

While I might get flamed for it this is my plug nickle's worth of wisdom on the subject.

Tubby45

· #4 · Jun 8, 2006

Nope. If you violate someones rights by committing a crime against them and that crime is considered bad enough by society to have the offender's freedoms taken away for at least a year, then you should have your rights taken away also. For life. No voting, no guns. You are a criminal and should be treated as such. I am sick and tired of criminals being coddled by liberals.

So you would let a car thief, who evaded police for hours on end through four counties, crash the stolen car, continue to evade on foot to own and carry a firearm? So a child molester, who hasn't committed actual "violence" towards anyone, should be able to own and carry a firearm. So the 23 year old jerk who abused a gentleman who stormed Normandy when he was 19 years old and has earned a Purple Heart, you think it is OK for that jerk to own and carry a firearm? So you think a 17 year old that burned down a multi million construction project just because he liked to play with fire, should be able to own and carry a firearm. BS. Complete steaming pile of chunky BS.

There are far more heinous crimes that don't involve violence that hurt or devastate people even more being the victim of a violent crime?

If you aren't responsible enough to follow basic simple common law principles by not committing a crime against someone, how can you trust them to own and safely use a firearm? I just don't get it. People act as if is is sooo hard to follow the law. It just sickens me.

See less See more

Angio333

Discussion Starter · #5 · Jun 8, 2006

freakshow10mm said:
Nope. If you violate someones rights by committing a crime against them and that crime is considered bad enough by society to have the offender's freedoms taken away for at least a year, then you should have your rights taken away also. For life. No voting, no guns. You are a criminal and should be treated as such. I am sick and tired of criminals being coddled by liberals....

Molestation, sex crimes, arson, and physical abuse are "violent" crimes. I'm referring to other crimes. For example, a guy who forges a check for over $500 (felony) when he is 18 who was convicted. He is now 35 years old and has not committed any crimes since then.

Tubby45

· #6 · Jun 8, 2006 (Edited)

Molestation is not violent in and of itself. It can be, but simple touching constitutes molestation. Neither are sex crimes. There is absolutely no reason for a 47 year old man to have sexual relations with a 15 year old girl, even if it was her wish. Physical abuse doesn't have to be violent. Not bathing an elderly person is abuse and is not violent.

Your clarification example of the forged check doesn't even make me think about modifying my position even an inch. The guy is still a POS and should suffer lifelong consequences. Too bad, so sad, if you didn't want to ruin your life, you should have obeyed the law. Criminals get what they deserve and many of them get off easy.

srfl

· #7 · Jun 8, 2006

I'm on the fence on this one since my criminal cases involve white collar crimes, i.e.: fraud and other non-violent felonies under Title 18 of the U.S. Code....most of these folks have low regard for their fellow man and woman and are in it to make a buck regardless of who they hurt (in a non-violent sort of way).

As such, I wouldn't want any of them to have access to a gun after they were to get out of prison.

Dakotaranger

· #8 · Jun 8, 2006

A Criminal is A Criminal.

And a theft is a theft. People's lives get destroyed in "non-violent" crimes. If we are going to forgive one crime we have to forgive them all. (which is my main problem with the Senate Immigration Bill, but that's another story)

AirForceShooter

· #9 · Jun 8, 2006

NO!!
if you're a convicted felon you're a bad guy.
Want proof? Let a LEO run a check on a guy and have it come back as Felon. Watch that LEO go to condition RED in a heartbeat.
That comes from experience.
That's proof.
Yeah, I know I'm a hardass.

AFS

MattInFla

· #10 · Jun 8, 2006

I'd say no. If you are a felon, you either have poor impulse control or a demonstrated disregard for the law.

Both of which are sufficient, IMHO, to bar firearms ownership.

Matt

Redneck Repairs

· #11 · Jun 8, 2006

I am former LE and personally I cannot understand why getting caught in a car with a joint ( no one admits to joint ownership all are charged in many jurisdictions ) some years ago when young in college ect.. should invalidate a persons right to effective self defense

rocky

· #12 · Jun 8, 2006

1 joint doesn't consitute a felony in my state, does it in yours? Anyway, I say no firearms, they DO show poor judgement to have been convicted. I am sure there are exceptions, but imagine they are few and far between.

ron8903

· #13 · Jun 8, 2006

No gun ownership for felony convictions.:hand1:
If you do not wont to suffer the consequences-
don't do the crime.

Fargo

· #14 · Jun 8, 2006

IMHO, the problem here is that the definition of "felony" has been slowly expanded into a catchall without significant meaning. At the time this country was founded, a felony was any crime punishable by death. If you were convicted, but not sentanced to death, there were still huge consequences. Your property was all forfeit, and IIRC you were not allowed to have an heir. If you later married, but had not told your spouse that you were a felon, your spouse could get the marriage annulled. Not a divorce, but rather a declaration that the marriage had never existed because this info was withheld.

Today, we define a felony as any offense for which you may be imprisoned for more than a year. This makes a huge range of behavior into felonies, without any real consideration of the nature of the behavior. I am currently in law school and I guarantee you that virtually every member of this board has unknowingly committed a technical "felony". The range of things for which you "may be imprisoned for more than 1 year" is huge. Most of these offenses are usually punished with a fine or community service, but because the option is there the felony description still sticks.

Consequently, I am very hesitant to revoke the RTKBA based upon this open ended definition. That does not mean that I don't think that is should be suspended for some behavior. We just need to return to a much more meaningful definition of felony before we start abridging constitutional rights. Just my .02

All the best,

Joe

See less See more

ron8903

· #15 · Jun 8, 2006

Good opinion Fargo.
But we have to apply the law as it is written.
Not what it should be.

Bumper

· #16 · Jun 9, 2006

For all the reasons already stated above, I would say absolutely not. They have a past history of not following the law and they knowingly forfeited that right....

Rugerman

· #17 · Jun 9, 2006

I say NO if you were CONVICTED of a felony then so sorry you lose.

PgSqlQuery

· #18 · Jun 11, 2006

freakshow10mm said:
Nope. If you violate someones rights by committing a crime against them and that crime is considered bad enough by society to have the offender's freedoms taken away for at least a year, then you should have your rights taken away also. For life. No voting, no guns. You are a criminal and should be treated as such. I am sick and tired of criminals being coddled by liberals.

Now wait a second here.

Let me pose this to you. Here, in Ohio, say I'm driving around, with my CHL, and carrying, and I get pulled over. Then, say, my shirt shifts in such a way that it covers my gun, I'm instantly a felon, if the cop finds out. OR, say I brush the firearm with my arm, accidentally, while getting my DL out, I'm an instant felon.

You're saying, for stupid things like that (and I could cite more, that don't involve my CHL) I should lose all those freedoms / rights?

I still think, if the ex-felon is able to obtain an expongement, then all should be well...

Texas_XD

· #19 · Jun 11, 2006

Bumper said:
For all the reasons already stated above, I would say absolutely not. They have a past history of not following the law and they knowingly forfeited that right....

Speaking of past history, what if the person committed a 3rd degree felony, just inside that realm of classification over 18 yrs ago and hasn't even recieved a parking ticket since? No violence, he signed a traveler's check in his ex-girlfriend's name but DIDN'T try to pass it. Should he continue to be punished by having his rights revoked? I think not, that is a LONG period of time proving he can and would be responsible enough. I speak of this from personal experience growing up. My best friend since 4th grade did something stupid while 18 and has suffered ever since. This suffering includes the armed robbery of his home while he and his family were present. Yes, he could have went the way of the straw purchase long ago using his wife, but didn't and hasn't. Certain cases should be reviewed for expongement using a system that allows for an easier usage by the person concerned. The current system makes it all but impossible for the average working man/woman to fiancially access. It comes down to feeding/housing your children or having rights. Not to mention that you end up restricted from most higher paying employment. There are holes in our legal system, some of them quite large. And I am in no real way a Liberal, I firmly believe that after 3 appeals on a death sentence, game over. Soon as that 3rd one is denied you get walked right to the excutioner. :nutkick: And that these appeals must happen within a 3 yr period, why feed/house/clothe the multiple murderer for 20 yrs? BUT I am not so narrow minded that I would lump all crimes into a "punish them till they die" idealology. There has to be a certain point that forgiveness is EARNED on some of the lesser felonies.
And on a side note, Child Molestation SHOULD be considered an act of violence. A person is causing physical and mental harm to the child which can, and most likely will, haunt them till they die.

See less See more

ibex

· #20 · Jun 11, 2006

Yeah, what Fargo said. :hand10:

But we have to apply the law as it is written.
Not what it should be.

Shouldn't a democracy make the laws into what they should be instead of shrugging and saying "coulda, woulda, shoulda"?

The guy is still a POS and should suffer lifelong consequences. Too bad, so sad

Let me get that straight... you'd pass out a LIFE sentence for forging a $500 check or smoking a joint? No voting rights, no right to effective self-defense for LIFE?

There is a certain proverb that I dare not quote here... let's just say that zero-tolerance policies are always a very bad sign. :scruntiny:

Chris' (P95Carry) approach seems far more sensible to me, I could compromise on that.

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.