Felonies and gun ownership...thoughts?

[TonyNorCal]

As you know, a felony conviction results in a lifetime ban one ones Second Ammendment right.

What are your thoughts on this? Should it be for all felonies? Or, only for some?

Should it be a lifetime ban?

Should people convicted at a young age be given a second chance?

Or should felonies not bar people at all? (I suppose this would be a strict interpretation of the constituion?)

[saigon1965]

Discussed already - I feel only some should apply, not accross the board.

[gcvt]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

A friend of mine had a little (non-violent) problem when he was in college and lost his right to own firearms. He has about 50 guns, all in his wife's name. They are now getting a divorce. Sticky situation to say the least.

He is now 41 and has had no problems for the past 20 years. In his case, I think he should be given a second chance. He is considering contacting an attorney to see what his options are.

[510dat]

I'd be happy with a 'violent felony' restriction; there's loads of white-collar felonies out there that should have no bearing on the 2nd.

And maybe some kind of appeals process? "I was a dumb kid and did stupid things when I was 20. It's been 20 years, and I want to teach my kids how to shoot now." That's based on the assumption that someone who hasn't been arrested for 20 years probably isn't doing anything wrong.

[nagorb]

I'd be happy with a 'violent felony' restriction; there's loads of white-collar felonies out there that should have no bearing on the 2nd.

And maybe some kind of appeals process? "I was a dumb kid and did stupid things when I was 20. It's been 20 years, and I want to teach my kids how to shoot now." That's based on the assumption that someone who hasn't been arrested for 20 years probably isn't doing anything wrong.

I agree

[bigthaiboy]

Perhaps all felony convictions should include a ban with a fixed number of years depending on the seriousness of the crime. Felonies for violence related convictions obviously having lifetime or the very longest ban, again depending on seriousness of crime.

Once the ban has expired the felon has an opportunity to re-apply for a special permit to allow the purchase and ownership of a firearm. The application should require interviews, home checks and a psychological evaluation, and the outcome is decided on the merits of the individual applicant. Whatever happens, the application process should not be easy, nor cheap.

[compulsivegunbuyer]

This only bans felons who have turned their life around and now obey the law. All the others can get their hands on a gun, banned or not.

[tiko]

Perhaps all felony convictions should include a ban with a fixed number of years depending on the seriousness of the crime. Felonies for violence related convictions obviously having lifetime or the very longest ban, again depending on seriousness of crime.

Once the ban has expired the felon has an opportunity to re-apply for a special permit to allow the purchase and ownership of a firearm. The application should require interviews, home checks and a psychological evaluation, and the outcome is decided on the merits of the individual applicant. Whatever happens, the application process should not be easy, nor cheap.

Agreed, need to classify felonies to many levels.

[sorensen440]

I know this wont be a popular opinion but I think that if you let them out they should should be allowed anything any citizen is allowed
(Now I don't think that many should be let out but that's for another thread)

[saigon1965]

PM BigBamBoo - He just recently got his ownership rights back.


I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

A friend of mine had a little (non-violent) problem when he was in college and lost his right to own firearms. He has about 50 guns, all in his wife's name. They are now getting a divorce. Sticky situation to say the least.

He is now 41 and has had no problems for the past 20 years. In his case, I think he should be given a second chance. He is considering contacting an attorney to see what his options are.

[ohsmily]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

A friend of mine had a little (non-violent) problem when he was in college and lost his right to own firearms. He has about 50 guns, all in his wife's name. They are now getting a divorce. Sticky situation to say the least.

He is now 41 and has had no problems for the past 20 years. In his case, I think he should be given a second chance. He is considering contacting an attorney to see what his options are.

Uh, your buddy has probably been continually committing a crime for a long time. If he is a prohibited person, he is not even allowed to be in a place where he has access to firearms or ammunition. He has likely committed the felony of 'felon in possession' numerous times due to his proximity to the guns.......dumb dumb dumb

[BlackDrop50]

Kinda torn on this. If someone wants to own a firearm they should think before they do something stupid to revoke that 2nd amendment right. On the other hand, some felonies are for minor things, and sometimes people do stupid things. However violent felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns. They usually do anyways though, illegally.

[dribbler]

how many felons have voted in this poll?

[rg_1111@yahoo.com]

Yup,
If someone wants to own a firearm they should think before they do something stupid.

[redneckshootist]

I voted for rights sould be restricted for a certian time then restored.
I think that that time is once they served thier time all rights should be restored, if we cannt trust them WTF are letting them out of prison for.

[anthonyca]

It does sound good to hear that "felons" loose their second amendment rights until you look closer. Drag racing on a deserted road in many states is a felony, stupid and dangerous but should that cause you to loose your rights for ever if you do something like that on a farm road in the middle of nowhere at 18? Fire works can get you a felony. An old guy could have bought something legal through the mail and not registered it years later because he doesn't keep up with the laws and then is found to have it and he could loose his rights for ever.

What about the provision that you are banned federally if you commit a crime that carries more than one year sentence? People who refused to turn in their gold in 1933 could have been put in prison for up to 10 years.

As of 2005 the IRS tax code had 6,958,000 words. That is 482 times the number of words in the US constitution. Many people have committed a felony and not even known it.

Now a violent felon who uses a gun in a crime and is legally found through a trial to be guilty should loose his rights. Even someone who gets in a fight that started in self defense and it gets out of hand should be treated different then an armed robber.

[PorkLover]

i agree with violent felonies or felonies involving drug sales.....for the others...I would say at least 10 years before one can apply to own one.....

[Patriot]

No. There are far too many potential felonies.

[tow4dough]

restrictions, bans and firearms laws are for the most part ineffective as anyone can get a gun (.....and commit a crime )whether they are forbidden to or not.

[Amendment II]

All felons should stay in prison for life.

Fewer crimes should be classified as felonies.

[Quiet]

A felon can go through the courts and have their criminal record expunged, which will restore their rights (to vote and own guns).

A friend of mine's brother did this.
He had multiple drug related felonies (manufacturing, intent to sell, possessing firearms with drugs), went through "drug court" and rehabilitated. The judge was so impressed that he expunged his record. Three months after having his record expunged, he bought a few firearms at Turners & Big 5. He's since moved to MO, was able to purchase more firearms and get a CCW permit.

[bohoki]

i think a person should either be incarcerated or free

if they shouldn't own a gun they shouldn't be out

[BigDogatPlay]

Originally Posted by gcvt
I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

A friend of mine had a little (non-violent) problem when he was in college and lost his right to own firearms. He has about 50 guns, all in his wife's name. They are now getting a divorce. Sticky situation to say the least.

He is now 41 and has had no problems for the past 20 years. In his case, I think he should be given a second chance. He is considering contacting an attorney to see what his options are.

+1 on your friend being not very bright. I understand he enjoys firearms like the rest of us but he's committing a felony every time he touches a weapon or a round of ammo. If his wife bought them all and doesn't take them in a divorce she's a strawman.

This question tears me every time. I agree there are way too many crimes classified as felonies. There is also the bigger part of me that says that the felon made a choice to do their crime and needs to accept the consequences.

I think non-violent felonies (but not property crimes like burglary or things like drug possession with intent to distribute) should get another crack at full citizenship. I also think DUI injury or manslaughter should likely get another crack as those people are felons out of little more than sheer stupidity.

Any violent felony, I say no rights for life as the felon has made it emminently clear by their crime(s) that they can not be trusted to act responsibly. The violent felon, if they want to caper, is going to go find a firearm anyway. We can then hope that if they do indeed caper that they run into an armed citizen who isn't willing to be a victim as the final reward for their poor life choices.

[ohsmily]

A felon can go through the courts and have their criminal record expunged, which will restore their rights (to vote and own guns).

A friend of mine's brother did this.
He had multiple drug related felonies (manufacturing, intent to sell, possessing firearms with drugs), went through "drug court" and rehabilitated. The judge was so impressed that he expunged his record. Three months after having his record expunged, he bought a few firearms at Turners & Big 5. He's since moved to MO, was able to purchase more firearms and get a CCW permit.

It depends on what the offense was and whether it was a straight felony or a discretionary charge. Simple dismissal, pursuant to PC1203.4, (loosely called 'expungment') does not by itself restore gun rights. One should get the offense reduced (pursuant to PC17(b)) and then dismissed pursuant to 1203.4. If the original offense wasn't reduceable, you are out of luck unless you can get a COR (which may work) or pardon.

[AJAX22]

If you are too dangerous to trust with a firearm, then you shouldn't be out of jail.

Incarcerate the individual untill such time as they can be released with full rights.

[WolfMansDad]

I am deeply uncomfortable defining whole classes of people who aren't allowed a basic human right. It's far too easy to expand that class to encompass more and more people until you have medieval serfdom (or communist totalitarianism) all over again. We wouldn't dream of defining whole classes of people who have had their freedom of speech revoked, or religion, or protection from illegal search and seizure, so why do we treat the right of self defense any different?

Also, I don't think it even works. The whole idea that you can pacify a violent individual by restricting access to firearms is faulty logic. Most felons can get their hands on guns if they want to, and even if they can't, they can make plenty of trouble with knives, baseball bats, automobiles, broken bottles, etc. If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be out on the street.

No, banning felons from owning guns is just a foot in the door for those who would take them from the rest of us. It may sound like a good idea at first, but it does nothing to reduce crime. What it does do is set a dangerous legal and cultural precedent.

Edited to add: I voted "No. Rights should be restricted for a certain period of time, then restored." The time of restriction should be the time of incarceration, for all rights.

[tgriffin]

All felons should stay in prison for life.

Fewer crimes should be classified as felonies.

Agreed.

I can't support full loss of firearms ownership when there are soooo many ridiculous felonies out there,

[5hundo]

Some felonies don't warrant the loss of firearms. For example, if you're convicted of "Felony Speeding", then should the take your weapons away? :confused:

[scootergmc]

Some felonies don't warrant the loss of firearms. For example, if you're convicted of "Felony Speeding", then should the take your weapons away? :confused:

:confused:Felony speeding doesn't exist. Misdemeanor speeding doesn't exist.

[MudCamper]

I am deeply uncomfortable defining whole classes of people who aren't allowed a basic human right. It's far too easy to expand that class to encompass more and more people until you have medieval serfdom (or communist totalitarianism) all over again. We wouldn't dream of defining whole classes of people who have had their freedom of speech revoked, or religion, or protection from illegal search and seizure, so why do we treat the right of self defense any different?

Also, I don't think it even works. The whole idea that you can pacify a violent individual by restricting access to firearms is faulty logic. Most felons can get their hands on guns if they want to, and even if they can't, they can make plenty of trouble with knives, baseball bats, automobiles, broken bottles, etc. If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be out on the street.

No, banning felons from owning guns is just a foot in the door for those who would take them from the rest of us. It may sound like a good idea at first, but it does nothing to reduce crime. What it does do is set a dangerous legal and cultural precedent.

Edited to add: I voted "No. Rights should be restricted for a certain period of time, then restored." The time of restriction should be the time of incarceration, for all rights.

Very well said. I agree.

The key is this, "If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be out on the street."

Our current penal system let's murderers, rapists, and child molesters back into society. These people simply don't belong in society.

The problem with prohibiting "felons" from owning firearms is that "felons" include non-violent people, even worse, people who commited "crimes" with no victims (like 12020 and 12025).

[Shane916]

Some felonies don't warrant the loss of firearms. For example, if you're convicted of "Felony Speeding", then should the take your weapons away? :confused:

From a CHP Sergeant on LE forums:




No such violation in CA.

If you are driving too fast in CA it may revert to reckless driving - 100+ in some jurisdictions - but that is not a felony.

Felony operation of a vehicle is for DUI (injuries/death involved), evasion (total disregard for persons or property), hit and run (injuries/death involved), Assault with a deadly weapon (the vehicle), etc.

Speeding, alone, is insufficient to charge a felony.

[ohsmily]

Some felonies don't warrant the loss of firearms. For example, if you're convicted of "Felony Speeding", then should the take your weapons away? :confused:

Felony speeding? :willy_nilly: Is that like taking speed?

[ilbob]

felons who want a second chance at gun ownership have an option. it is called a pardon. some states have expungements that are available, at least for certain types of offenses.

[sorensen440]

felons who want a second chance at gun ownership have an option. it is called a pardon. some states have expungements that are available, at least for certain types of offenses.

That's like saying we have a chance at getting a ccw in the bay area because there is a process for getting one.

[ilbob]

If you are too dangerous to trust with a firearm, then you shouldn't be out of jail.

Incarcerate the individual untill such time as they can be released with full rights.

Thats certainly the best answer, although in most cases I think we could find a better penalty for those who were not especially dangerous in the first place than locking them up.

I don't consider incarceration to be the only penalty. I do think that one of the penalties upon conviction of a felony should be 100% confiscation of property.

I also agree that currently way too many things are felonies. In fact we have way too many laws that need to be undone.

[ilbob]

That's like saying we have a chance at getting a ccw in the bay area because there is a process for getting one.

the fact is that pardons and expungements do actually happen though.

[MudCamper]

the fact is that pardons and expungements do actually happen though.

The statistical probability of being granted a pardon are so low that as an engineer, I will say that it is zero.

As for expungement, there are two types in California, and only one grants firearms rights back, and it is discretionary, per the given court, and is only available for wobbler offenses where probation was the sentance.

[scr83jp]

A felon can go through the courts and have their criminal record expunged, which will restore their rights (to vote and own guns).

A friend of mine's brother did this.
He had multiple drug related felonies (manufacturing, intent to sell, possessing firearms with drugs), went through "drug court" and rehabilitated. The judge was so impressed that he expunged his record. Three months after having his record expunged, he bought a few firearms at Turners & Big 5. He's since moved to MO, was able to purchase more firearms and get a CCW permit.The only way a felon can get his rights restored is if he is given a pardon by the governor of the state in which he resides.

[MudCamper]

The only way a felon can get his rights restored is if he is given a pardon by the governor of the state in which he resides.

Not entirely true. Yes, if felony punishment was imposed (i.e. state prison time or more than a year in county jail) then you are correct. However, if probation was granted, the courts more often than not declare in the probation papers that the conviction is a felony. That can be changed to a misdemeanor per 17(b)(3). If a conviction results in less than a year in jail (but no probation), then by definition it's a misdemeanor already.

Also see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=97498

[BigBamBoo]

The only way a felon can get his rights restored is if he is given a pardon by the governor of the state in which he resides.

Ahhh...not to piss down your back and tell you it's raining.....but that is NOT correct.

I was a convicted felon....I went back and had my felonis..yes MULTI felonies....reduced and dismissed.

I now have ALL my gun rights restored and have been a gun buying fool as of late.

I wish people would do their homework before posting WRONG info.

Peace,tan

[ohsmily]

Ahhh...not to piss down your back and tell you it's raining.....but that is NOT correct. (the expression means you are BSing or 'selling' someone; it doesn't make any sense the way you used it).

I was a convicted felon....I went back and had my felonis..yes MULTI felonies....reduced and dismissed.

I now have ALL my gun rights restored and have been a gun buying fool as of late.

I wish people would do their homework before posting WRONG info.

Peace,tan

You were able to do this because you complied with the terms of your sentence/probation AND most imporantly, the offenses you were convicted of were 'wobblers,' meaning they could have originally been charged and punished as misdemeanors or felonies. Obviously, yours were charged as felonies. There are a huge number of offenses in the penal code that are discretionary. If you were convicted as a felon of one of these offenses, then you can have your rights restored IF you get a 17(b) motion granted (to reduce the charge to a misdo) (it would be best to motion for a dismissal pursuant to 1203.4 [expunge] at that point as well).

If you are convicted of a straight felony (as a fellow CalGunner recently was), only a pardon will restore your rights; basically, you are screwed.

[daves100]

A buddy of mines daughter was killed by a convicted felon, The Felon's GF bought him the gun, i Think she was only sent to jail for a year. Do not think the Felon has made it to trail yet....

[ohsmily]

Do not think the Felon has made it to trail yet....

:confused: huh?

[battleship]

Please give a list or examples of what would be classed a felonies beyound murder/rape/ robbery

[Rudolf the Red]

Once someone serves their debt to society and they remain out of trouble for a certain period of time, they should have all rights restored.

[MudCamper]

Please give a list or examples of what would be classed a felonies beyound murder/rape/ robbery

12020 possession of a concealable weapon
12020 transfer of high-cap mags
12025 carrying a concealed handgun, if also violating 12031, or if it's a second offense
496 receiving stolen property
a large number of theft type charges, if valued over $400
some drug charges

There are many more. These are all "wobblers" which means they can be prosecuted as felonies or misdemeanor. A person with a public defender will end up with a felony conviction in most of these cases.

[ohsmily]

Please give a list or examples of what would be classed a felonies beyound murder/rape/ robbery

Why? There are too many to list. There are hundreds of not thousands of sections (and subsections) that entail felony convictions for various acts.

[battleship]

Just wondering to what degree of crime would be considered a felony, plus i know some one at work who tryed to buy a gun legally and was denied for some conviction - ( he didnt go into it ) but it was over 20 years ago, i belive another 10 years has past and hes wanting to know if he will be able to buy a gun anytime soon.

[sb_pete]

If they did their time and are no longer on parole or probation, they should have all of their rights reinstated. Period. Voting, firearms ownership and whatever else.
Repeat offences should have bearing on the punishment, not what comes after the punishment.

I wouldn't have a problem with judges having the option to include a lifetime revocation of gun rights if the case merits it though - as long as there existed the possibilty of an appeals process. Such a punishment should not be automatically applied to all felony crimes though.

[sb_pete]

Please give a list or examples of what would be classed a felonies beyound murder/rape/ robbery

Generally speaking, a felony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony)is any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.

I say punishable as opposed to punished. As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, a felony remains a felony if the sentence given is less than a year. For instance, a crime punishable by 6 months to 2 years prison time is still a felony if the minimum sentence is given.


... Oh yeah, and if by "beyond" you meant above and beyond as in worse, well, there's always treason...

[tow4dough]

Just wondering to what degree of crime would be considered a felony, plus i know some one at work who tryed to buy a gun legally and was denied for some conviction - ( he didnt go into it ) but it was over 20 years ago, i belive another 10 years has past and hes wanting to know if he will be able to buy a gun anytime soon.

he wont be eligible for a legal gun purchase until that felony is reduced to a misdemeanor and set aside (expunged in other words) you dont need an attorney for this although they can do it quicker. the earlier replies about wobblers are correct-if it is not a serious crime,it can be reduced. and besides if you have enough money you can make anything disappear.

[freakshow10mm]

If someone is in society, they are free. If they are a convicted felon, served their sentence and were released, all rights should be restored as soon as they are not in the custody of a correctional facility.

If someone "shouldn't" have a gun, they should not be let out of jail. Society is for free people, prisons are for criminals.

[MudCamper]

Generally speaking, a felony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony)is any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.

Not quite for California. It doesn't have to be a year.

Lets take for example, 12020 (possession of a concealable weapon). It reads like this:

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:

The "jail or state prison" wording makes it a "wobbler", either a felony or misdemeanor.

Here's the PC that defines felony:

17. (a) A felony is a crime which is punishable with death or by
imprisonment in the state prison. Every other crime or public
offense is a misdemeanor except those offenses that are classified as
infractions.
(b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, by
imprisonment in the state prison or by fine or imprisonment in the
county jail, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following
circumstances:
(1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment
in the state prison.
(2) When the court, upon committing the defendant to the Youth
Authority, designates the offense to be a misdemeanor.
(3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without
imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on
application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the
court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor.


So any time in the state prison makes it a felony. And the tricky part is (3). When a defendant receives probation, it's a felony unless the court declares it to be a misdemeanor. What often happens is, the DA scares the defendant (who is represented by a public defender) into pleading guilty by telling him he'll only get probation. The defendant then pleads guilty to a felony charge (declared so in the court documents), receives probation, and has a felony on his record. (If he'd fought the charge, and ended up with six months in county jail, he'd actually have been better off, because the non-felony punishment would have automatically made it a misdemeanor conviction, but I digress.)

After completing probation, if he knows to do so, the defendant can then petition the court for two different types of expungement. PC 1203.4 "dismisses" the charges, but does not do so for the purpose of possessing firearms and is therefore useless. A reduction to misdemeanor per 17(b)(3) does restore firearms rights, but he is not guaranteed to get it. He has to ask the court, and they may or may not grant it.

Read these threads if you need to know:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=92885

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=97498