PDA

View Full Version : Should Felons have Firearms?


TurboChrisB
02-29-2012, 6:08 AM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.

How about you guys?

Tacobandit
02-29-2012, 6:11 AM
Okay let them have firearms but if they commit a crime with a firearm they get an additional 10 years on their crime or something like that.

scarville
02-29-2012, 6:12 AM
What!? Do you really want Martha Stewart to have a gun? She might go on a killing rampage over your kitchen curtains!

pointedstick
02-29-2012, 6:18 AM
You're likely to find that Republicans and Libertarians are of veeeeeery different minds on this matter.

Tacobandit
02-29-2012, 6:19 AM
I think we need to just start executing violent felons

SanPedroShooter
02-29-2012, 6:24 AM
How about reform what constitutes a 'felony'... I get flak occasionaly from my more liberal friends when I rightly point that this is the freest county on earth, they righty remind me that we incarcerate more people than any other country on the planet. That may be debatable, but I digress.

'Felony' used to equal hanging crime. What happened?

russt
02-29-2012, 6:27 AM
i think this is a hard one... i dont think anyone who used a weapon during a felony should be able to own a gun again, but maybe a non violent felon could jump through some hoops of some kind and get his right back.

compulsivegunbuyer
02-29-2012, 6:40 AM
Violent felons, no. But there are some ridiculous things that are felonies.

dustoff31
02-29-2012, 6:43 AM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

Our forefathers did exclude them. In common law there was generally only two types of punishment for felonies, either death if a capital offense, or forfeiture of all property, including guns for non-capital offenses.

joe_sun
02-29-2012, 6:44 AM
Violent felons, no. But there are some ridiculous things that are felonies.

This. No different than misdemeanor domestic violence with no injuries aside from a lifetime ban on the MD DV.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

SanPedroShooter
02-29-2012, 6:45 AM
Up untill the turn of the century? There were no 'convicted felons', or not for very long anyway. If you were convicted on Friday afternoon, they built your gallows Saturday, went to church Sunday, and you swung Monday morning...

Alan Guru makes this point in regards to felony prohibition on gun rights. Our system wasnt designed to accomodate large numbers of felons that didnt die after their conviction.

scarville
02-29-2012, 6:50 AM
'Felony' used to equal hanging crime. What happened?
I suspect asset forfeiture is a large part of it. Politicians and greed are intimate bedfellows.

NotEnufGarage
02-29-2012, 6:50 AM
I think we need to just start executing violent felons

Works for me...

OP mentioned felons getting "punished" or "rehabilitated". Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in this state and many others. They get warehoused, educated, exquisite medical and dental coverage, 8 hrs a day of working out, just as much time for entertainment, plenty of time to learn better crime techniques from their neighbors, and all the free legal expertise they can handle.

If they spent their time breaking rocks, building roads, picking up trash, etc. I'd be a little more amenable to it.

Kyle1886
02-29-2012, 6:52 AM
What was legal yesterday is an infraction today, that will become a misdemeanor tomorrow, that will be a felony the day after. There are a host of non-violent laws on the books that are easy to break without even knowing it. So yes, in my opinion non-violent "crimes" should be conditional as far as reacquiring gun rights.

Respectfully
Kyle

wayneinFL
02-29-2012, 7:05 AM
I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Yeah. The gov't lets a guy out of prison and and assures me he's a rehabilitated free man. Paid his debt to society. Out of the other side of the government's mouth I hear, "But whatever you do, don't him have a gun, he'll kill somebody!"

A dangerous criminal should be in prison until he's rehabilitated or dead. They shouldn't let him out if he's any more of a risk than the next guy. Once he's out who cares if he has a gun. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be trusted to be a member of a free society.

I don't understand why I'm supposed to feel secure with child molesters, rapists and murderers walking the streets, just because it's illegal for them to have guns. These guys have already shown a propensity for breaking the law. If they're dangerous with guns, they're dangerous with their hands. Keep them locked up!

The Tiger
02-29-2012, 8:05 AM
Yeah. The gov't lets a guy out of prison and and assures me he's a rehabilitated free man. Paid his debt to society. Out of the other side of the government's mouth I hear, "But whatever you do, don't him have a gun, he'll kill somebody!"

A dangerous criminal should be in prison until he's rehabilitated or dead. They shouldn't let him out if he's any more of a risk than the next guy. Once he's out who cares if he has a gun. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be trusted to be a member of a free society.

I don't understand why I'm supposed to feel secure with child molesters, rapists and murderers walking the streets, just because it's illegal for them to have guns. These guys have already shown a propensity for breaking the law. If they're dangerous with guns, they're dangerous with their hands. Keep them locked up!

That's an interesting point, one of the reasons I joined the bb is because people make points like this that pose valid questions. I never thought about it in these terms.

Like you say, if they are "rehabilitated" and considered safe to be on the streets, why not. I with have to ponder that one before I give you my opinion on that.

natrab
02-29-2012, 8:13 AM
Our prisons are so out of whack they serve mainly as criminal training grounds and gang recruiting sites. I definitely do not want someone getting out of prison to be allowed to buy a gun (granted they will probably get one anyway).

It's a broken system

frankm
02-29-2012, 8:20 AM
In some cases, I think some felons could be responsible. But there is no possible way for this to happen in today's world.

Curley Red
02-29-2012, 8:57 AM
If you use a firearm in any crime, you should not be able to own a firearm again. It proves you do not know how to properly own a firearm. As for violent crimes, that is a hard one since too many people take a plea on violence crimes when it was not really violent because they have neither had the time or resources to try and fight it. It would have to be a case by case scenario in my eyes.

The Tiger
02-29-2012, 9:10 AM
If you use a firearm in any crime, you should not be able to own a firearm again. It proves you do not know how to properly own a firearm. As for violent crimes, that is a hard one since too many people take a plea on violence crimes when it was not really violent because they have neither had the time or resources to try and fight it. It would have to be a case by case scenario in my eyes.

That's a true statement.

Some make a choice. They can't afford bail, so they are offered time served (1 day in jail) and they take the deal. Otherwise rot in jail for a few months to fight your case. If you stay in jail you lose your job, maybe more. It's a bad situation and most people just take the convictions.

This happens a lot on DV cases.

chris12
02-29-2012, 9:23 AM
i think this is a hard one... i dont think anyone who used a weapon during a felony should be able to own a gun again, but maybe a non violent felon could jump through some hoops of some kind and get his right back.
If you use a firearm in any crime, you should not be able to own a firearm again. It proves you do not know how to properly own a firearm.

So, lets say some who lives in another state decides to move into CA. They try to research the gun laws here, realize they have to throw out their mags, and put a bullet button in their rifle. They do so and move here. After they cross state lines, they get pulled over and searched. The search finds that one of their rifles is a named assault weapon. The weapon is itself the felony, so you believe this person should never be able to own a firearm again?


A dangerous criminal should be in prison until he's rehabilitated or dead. They shouldn't let him out if he's any more of a risk than the next guy. Once he's out who cares if he has a gun. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be trusted to be a member of a free society.

Sounds interesting, but I can't think of how this would actually work. Who decides if someone is rehabilitated? Can a 'minor' (drug possession) crime get someone jailed for life if they never rehabilitate? Can a 'major' (murder 1) crime allow someone to get released if they rehabilitate quickly?

soul
02-29-2012, 9:31 AM
the basic assumption is wrong, felons cannot be categorized in one category. Most will return to their earlier lifestyle or crime and some never leave it till dead. So cannot generalize and say that free means they are safe for others

Arondos
02-29-2012, 9:32 AM
I'm not sure how to fix this problem. Without a doubt people who commit violent crimes with weapons should have their right to have weapons again restricted. BUT

On the felony thing, from personal experience. My youngest boy and one of his buddies decide to pull a stupid high school prank (right after they both turned 18). They got caught. Did $126 in damage, but labor for the repairs put it over $400. Bingo felony vandalism. Thank God it got plea bargained down.

Both were decent students, never been in trouble before, no drugs involved (they were both tested), neither has been in trouble since (three years later). I just can't say I think it is right that they would have lost their right to vote, own firearms, pass background checks etc.. for the rest of their lives over this.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 9:33 AM
Not this garbage again!

Whereas I'm prepared to agree that some felonies are non-violent and maybe do not deserve a lifetime firearms ban, the recidivism rates are such that no way do I want any violent felons legitimately carrying weapons near me or mine.

Yes, they will get them anyway, if they are so inclined, and if they are caught with them, the cops have an instant reason to arrest them. Make it legal and the cops will have to wait until they shoot your mother/girlfriend/children before they can act. The majority of us are unlikely to use violence for illegal acts. Violent felons have already proved that they are willing so to do. A few years in Sing Sing isn't going to change that for most of them.

As for executing violent felons, society won't let us. Keeping them in prison for life is impracticable. They have to be released at some time and very few of them are, in fact, rehabilitated or reformed. The prison system does not work.

mdimeo
02-29-2012, 9:50 AM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.


Well, our forefathers mostly hung sufficiently criminal criminals.

And they certainly contemplated revocation of liberty through due process of law (amendment 5).


I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.


That is certainly a minority position generally, and probably within the gun-owning community as well.


Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.


It certainly prevents some. Increasing the cost of recidivism is a positive good.

napalmspork
02-29-2012, 9:59 AM
just yesterday, down the street from my house a parolee opened fire on police, atleast one bullet hit a car full of people, guess he was not rehabilitated.

SAR_boats
02-29-2012, 10:07 AM
Rant on:

Wait, so a felon, who is out of prison, is safe enough to mingle with the population, drive a car but not legally own a gun? If he is rehabilitated enough to be re-introduced to the general population, then he is rehabilitated enough to own a firearm. Otherwise, WTF is he doing out of prison in the first place.

And

Owning firearms is a RIGHT, not a privilege of those who havent been caught. Rights shouldn't be able to be taken away, period. That means convicted felons should have the right to vote too.

Rant off

paul0660
02-29-2012, 10:09 AM
Owning firearms is a RIGHT, not a privilege of those who havent been caught. Rights shouldn't be able to be taken away, period. That means convicted felons should have the right to vote too.

Most felons can vote. I think most should be able to have firearms as well.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 10:15 AM
Rant on:

Wait, so a felon, who is out of prison, is safe enough to mingle with the population, drive a car but not legally own a gun? If he is rehabilitated enough to be re-introduced to the general population, then he is rehabilitated enough to own a firearm. Otherwise, WTF is he doing out of prison in the first place.


He is out of prison because there are a limited number of prison cells and a limited budget, and there comes a point where society has to let him or her go, knowing that there is a 90% (or thereabouts) probability of him, or her, committing exactly the same crime again, over and over.

Your thought that he is released because he is "rehabilitated" is absurd. He is released to make room for more recent offenders.

If you are going to trust someone not to commit the same crime again, to the extent of making it easy for them to equip themselves for that purpose, you are either pretty ignorant of the facts of recidivism or you are extremely naive and think the best of everyone.


And

Owning firearms is a RIGHT, not a privilege of those who havent been caught. Rights shouldn't be able to be taken away, period. That means convicted felons should have the right to vote too.

Rant off

And I suppose diagnosed psychopaths, schizophrenics and other mentally disturbed people, and children, should have the same rights. And surely, prisoners actually serving their sentence should have the right to protect themselves from Bubba's amorous instincts and shanks in the shower. After all, it is a God-given right, you know, and the 2nd. didn't exclude any of these classes of people.

wayneinFL
02-29-2012, 10:17 AM
Whereas I'm prepared to agree that some felonies are non-violent and maybe do not deserve a lifetime firearms ban, the recidivism rates are such that no way do I want any violent felons legitimately carrying weapons near me or mine.

Even unarmed, do you want them hanging around your wife or children?

wayneinFL
02-29-2012, 10:25 AM
He is out of prison because there are a limited number of prison cells and a limited budget, and there comes a point where society has to let him or her go, knowing that there is a 90% (or thereabouts) probability of him, or her, committing exactly the same crime again, over and over.

Then let the guy who smokes a little pot out of prison to keep someone dangerous in prison. Think of all the money we'd save in the legal system. Rather than trying this guy over and over for increasingly violent repeat crimes, he just sits his happy little butt in prison.

Putting them out on the street and telling them they're not allowed to have guns- that isn't working. If it worked there wouldn't be a recidivism rate.

And I suppose diagnosed psychopaths, schizophrenics and other mentally disturbed people, and children, should have the same rights.

They should be supervised if they can't function in society. Children aren't allowed to have guns, except under adult supervision. If a nutjob is a danger to himself and others, lock him up in the looney bin.

It's better to treat the prisoners as prisoners, in a prison. The other option we have is to treat the rest of the world as a prison and make the rest of us conform to that standard by taking any dangerous object away so we can't hurt each other. I prefer option 1.

Rivers
02-29-2012, 10:32 AM
I'd like to see a system set up that allows felons who have successfully completed their sentences and proven that they are contributing to society again to regain their firearm ownership (and other) rights. For example, if a person is sentenced to 3 years in prison, he does the three in custody, then in three MORE years, he can petition the state to review his status. In the three years since his release from custody, he needs to actively contribute to society through charity, community service, etc. and DEMONSTRATE that he is no longer a liability to society. The burden of proof is on the felon. People can turn their lives around but rather than an automatic restoration of rights, make this something that goes before a review board or judge who answers to the public.

Certain felonies should not be eligible for restoration of firearm rights, like first degree murder, treason, etc. but since those convictions would likely have long sentences, plus an equal post-sentence redemption period, it's not likely that we'd see too many of those coming up for a review.

narcolepsy
02-29-2012, 10:35 AM
Much of the "the criminal gets what he deserves" premise assumes that the process resulting in the conviction is fair and equitable.

Anyone familiar with the court system would not make this assumption. The fight between the government and the individual is anything but fair and equitable. There may be some rights spelled out in books, but they don't really exist in the courtroom.

A truism: If you want to change a conservative into a liberal, all you have to do is indict him. Then he will experience first-hand how the primitive "get tough" policies which sound so good in a political speech actually play out with real people.

More to the point, we are far too quick to criminalize, and we incarcerate far too many people for far too long under far too brutal conditions. And I urge that this is true even if we accept the "the criminal gets what he deserves" premise. From my view, we have to consider how our treatment of others reflects on us, as well as the long-term consequences of the brutal treatment of a man who will eventually again be on the streets.

Are we an angry mob in search of a scapegoat to inflict pain on (as a way to congratulate ourselves for our goodness) or are we more civilized than that?

Personally, I disagree with the ex-felon firearm ban. I believe that the Second Amendment is absolute, and that every man has the right to defend himself and to hunt for food. However, this is definitely a minority position. My suggestion for a compromise is that the rules by which firearm rights may be restored be slightly liberalized. That is, if a person with a felony record can convince a judge of his trustworthiness under an agreed upon set of factors, then his firearm rights should be restored without a lot of political posturing or fanfare.

Sutcliffe
02-29-2012, 10:37 AM
Two hundred years ago its meaning was a bit different.
I really don'y have a problem with former felons having access to weapons. The idea inalieable rights can be taken from me is upsetting.
I'd be willing to bet everybody in our golden state has committed enough crimes(as legislated by the ruling class) that a half competant DA couldn't build a case to deprive you your right to arms.

The only way to rule a free and honest man is to turn him into a criminal.
Sacramento is ignorant of many things, but not that!

Nose Nuggets
02-29-2012, 10:41 AM
Yes, they should.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 10:41 AM
Then let the guy who smokes a little pot out of prison to keep someone dangerous in prison. Think of all the money we'd save in the legal system.


I have no problem with that.



Rather than trying this guy over and over for increasingly violent repeat crimes, he just sits his happy little butt in prison.

Putting them out on the street and telling them they're not allowed to have guns- that isn't working. If it worked there wouldn't be a recidivism rate.



I agree. But it is better than letting them out onto the streets and be unable to do anything about it when a cop spots them lurking in the shadows, wearing a balaclava helmet whilst armed to the teeth.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wfNYjrZfL._AA160_.jpg
"Yes officer, I know it is 86 degrees out here, but I feel the cold, you know."




They should be supervised if they can't function in society. Children aren't allowed to have guns, except under adult supervision. If a nutjob is a danger to himself and others, lock him up in the looney bin.

It's better to treat the prisoners as prisoners, in a prison. The other option we have is to treat the rest of the world as a prison and make the rest of us conform to that standard by taking any dangerous object away so we can't hurt each other. I prefer option 1.

I agree here too, as long as it is your taxes that are paying for all this prison time, and not mine.

Our views are not dissimilar, I think you just need to get the economics and social realities straightened out in your mind.

speedrrracer
02-29-2012, 10:43 AM
Should former convicted felons have free speech?

If they're not ready to be released from prison as a citizen with all the rights of a citizen, then don't release them.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 11:00 AM
Should former convicted felons have free speech?

If they're not ready to be released from prison as a citizen with all the rights of a citizen, then don't release them.

Idealism triumphs over practicality yet again!

Free speech doesn't include raping my daughters at gun point.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 11:09 AM
Let me ask this:

Do we have a single cop (or corrections officer or similar), active or honorably retired, on this forum who supports the general concept of arming released violent felons?

How about attorneys, prosecution or defense?

Curley Red
02-29-2012, 11:20 AM
So, lets say some who lives in another state decides to move into CA. They try to research the gun laws here, realize they have to throw out their mags, and put a bullet button in their rifle. They do so and move here. After they cross state lines, they get pulled over and searched. The search finds that one of their rifles is a named assault weapon. The weapon is itself the felony, so you believe this person should never be able to own a firearm again?

Let me put it as simple as I can. If the person is in the act of committing a crime on purpose, then no they should not be allowed to own a firearm again. Hope you understand what I was trying to say. In your scenario that person was not in the act of committing a crime on purpose. Heck you can take what I just said and probably still come up with some type of scenario if you try hard enough.

compulsivegunbuyer
02-29-2012, 11:53 AM
Prison should be a place where you are worked until you die, or are released, whichever comes first. Crime should be something with a victim, murder, robbery, sexual assault, fraud, someone had to experience a loss, and a perpetrator who committed said crime to attain said loss. Instead, crime is largely victimless, and punishment is a career criminal college. If for some reason you find yourself afoul of one of the victimless crimes, you get to go to prison to be victimized by the real criminals. I would say the system is pretty screwed up.

Fate
02-29-2012, 12:14 PM
Felonies shouldn't strip you of your natural rights. Period.

Those who "reform" should be able to protect themselves. Those who don't "reform" won't bother to comply with the possession ban anyhow.

chris12
02-29-2012, 12:42 PM
Let me put it as simple as I can. If the person is in the act of committing a crime on purpose, then no they should not be allowed to own a firearm again. Hope you understand what I was trying to say. In your scenario that person was not in the act of committing a crime on purpose. Heck you can take what I just said and probably still come up with some type of scenario if you try hard enough.

It wouldn't be hard to come up with a scenario, drug possession, free state red button screwed into bb, lying to a fed, etc. Even felony 'on purpose' is a very broad brush.

chris12
02-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Prison should be a place where you are worked until you die, or are released, whichever comes first. Crime should be something with a victim, murder, robbery, sexual assault, fraud, someone had to experience a loss, and a perpetrator who committed said crime to attain said loss. Instead, crime is largely victimless, and punishment is a career criminal college. If for some reason you find yourself afoul of one of the victimless crimes, you get to go to prison to be victimized by the real criminals. I would say the system is pretty screwed up.

I agree with this line of thought, but there are some very messy details. What does it take for someone to be a victim? What if I scare someone? By threatening them with a weapon, by just threatening them, by just having a worldview so different than them they are scared. Is DUI victimless?

Uxi
02-29-2012, 12:53 PM
There should be a process to confirm rehabilitation and restore all rights after felony conviction. Showing a lack of rehab or proclivity to recidivism should delay that restoration.

Moto
02-29-2012, 1:00 PM
I believe it depends on the situation.
For example, what is completely legal in one state can make you a felon in another.
It's not all black and white.

CrysisMonkey
02-29-2012, 1:01 PM
There are to many arguments. The purpose of prison and fines is to pay a debt to society for your crimes. The area where I start to slide one way or another is, if your debt is paid, then you should have no restrictions on you. If you are a repeat offender, then it's obvious you can't follow rules, then restrictions should remain. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. The problem with our system is, (and more often then not they are right) once a criminal, always a criminal. People are not given the chance to prove themselves. I'm still up in the air about violent offenses. Guy get into a drunken bar fight and gets slapped with felony assault is now a prohibited person. Say he was 21, does his time, then what. He no longer drinks, found God, he is the friendliest guy on your block, but will still be treated as a criminal for the rest of his life. Do we take a chance, or do we play it safe?

Law makers like to play it safe.

Is it right?

Is it fair?

geeknow
02-29-2012, 1:02 PM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.

How about you guys?

i disagree.

Uxi
02-29-2012, 1:21 PM
The Founders didn't exclude them, but the writers of the 14th Amendment DID give the provision to exclude prohibited persons.

wayneinFL
02-29-2012, 2:34 PM
I agree here too, as long as it is your taxes that are paying for all this prison time, and not mine.

Our views are not dissimilar, I think you just need to get the economics and social realities straightened out in your mind.

I'm not crazy about paying taxes and paying for restrictions meant to monitor convicted felons in the faint hope we can disarm a few of them.

And the social reality is that they don't always need guns to commit their crimes. And when they do want guns, they can get them.

Free speech doesn't include raping my daughters at gun point.

Would it be better if they raped your daughters without guns? Or that the guns they had were illegal? Would it be worth the taxes then?

stix213
02-29-2012, 3:15 PM
Lets focus on getting carry rights for the law abiding before we take on getting gun rights for gang bangers with two strikes.

The last thing we need is for the anti's to point out the gun rights community is "pro-felon gun possession" before we get a SCOTUS carry case.

One logical fallacy though with regard to those who are in favor of felons getting gun rights is that they often believe being released means that they have done their time for their crime and are rehabilitated, when the norm today is you are released due to nothing but overcrowding, knowing full well this individual is a serious risk to society.

clutchy
02-29-2012, 3:17 PM
if it was a non-violent felony not involving guns why not?

oh wait that's right they've chosen not to obey the laws of our state and country and cant' really be trusted.

i'm kinda mixed on this.

mtsul
02-29-2012, 3:24 PM
I think that we should not be releasing people in the first place if it would be unsafe for them to own a weapon/firearm.

So in a perfect world only free men should have firearms (It is not a perfect world) lol

*I did not read every post*

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 3:35 PM
I'm not crazy about paying taxes and paying for restrictions meant to monitor convicted felons in the faint hope we can disarm a few of them.

And the social reality is that they don't always need guns to commit their crimes. And when they do want guns, they can get them.

Would it be better if they raped your daughters without guns? Or that the guns they had were illegal? Would it be worth the taxes then?

I do not know how you turned my statements into this argument, for several reasons.

Enforcing gun bans amongst released felons is far cheaper than imprisoning them for extended periods.

Sure they may not need guns, sure they can get guns. Why does that mean that any rational person should want them to have guns? Shall we make murder legal because people are going to do it anyway?

And no, I would not want my daughters raped, with or without guns, legal or otherwise. But I would certainly be extra pi$$ed off if they were raped by a felon who had been stopped with a firearm just up the street and then allowed to go on his merry way with that weapon because some stupid people had said "He's going to get a gun anyway, so we should make it legal and nice and easy for him."

Some of you should arrange to tour a high-security prison, or do a few ridealongs in a bad part of town, or read some of the case studies and stories on recidivism. Just because your friend/brother/roommate has a felony conviction for M.J. and is now reformed doesn't mean that all felons can be trusted. Someone who has committed an act of violence with a deadly weapon can almost be guaranteed to repeat it.

I don't want them to be enabled that way.

rugershooter
02-29-2012, 7:22 PM
Every time this topic comes up it shows those who understand what rights are and those who don't. You guys sound like all the politicians who oppose ccw or open carry and tell use that "our rights need to be granted in a responsible way". I've had a gun pulled on me before in a road rage incident. And guess what, the guy didn't have a ccw, wasn't a cop, and wasn't carrying his gun legally. So the pc 12025 prohibitions against carrying without a permit didn't do a damn thing to protect (which is the foundational purpose of law, right?) me from someone who broke the law. And (no surprise here), since I'm a law abiding citizen, I didn't have a gun for self defense.

I swear, some of you people seem to want prohibitions on felons owning guns simply as an excuse to put people into prison...:facepalm:

rugershooter
02-29-2012, 7:23 PM
Every time this topic comes up it shows those who understand what rights are and those who don't. You guys sound like all the politicians who oppose ccw or open carry and tell use that "our rights need to be granted in a responsible way". I've had a gun pulled on me before in a road rage incident. And guess what, the guy didn't have a ccw, wasn't a cop, and wasn't carrying his gun legally. So the pc 12025 prohibitions against carrying without a permit didn't do a damn thing to protect (which is the foundational purpose of law, right?) me from someone who broke the law. And (no surprise here), since I'm a law abiding citizen, I didn't have a gun for self defense.

I swear, some of you people seem to want prohibitions on felons owning guns simply as an excuse to put people into prison...:facepalm:

Mstrty
02-29-2012, 7:42 PM
If I were King. No one would step out of prison without 100% of every right granted by the Bill of Rights. While in prison they would not be granted any rights.

We as a civil society should never allow anyone to walk among us and our children that we do not trust to own, and use a firearm. The idea of prohibited people walking among us is ludicrous. I would just lock up felons, violent or otherwise and then let them out when they no longer pose a risk to myself or my family or any other civil person functioning in society.

Most violent felons would never be returned to society. The Governement would never again need to worry about who will do the job Americans dont want to do.

kcbrown
02-29-2012, 7:56 PM
I think we need to just start executing violent felons

If it weren't for the fact that the rate of false convictions for those crimes is significantly higher than it should be (around 3.3% in the 1980s according to this (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931454)), I'd agree with you.

But the fact of the matter is that you cannot know that someone is guilty of the crime in question. As a result, you shouldn't kill them, because that's an irreversible action.

kcbrown
02-29-2012, 7:56 PM
Our forefathers did exclude them. In common law there was generally only two types of punishment for felonies, either death if a capital offense, or forfeiture of all property, including guns for non-capital offenses.

Forfeiture of property is not the same thing as forfeiture of rights. Property is replaceable. Rights aren't.

kcbrown
02-29-2012, 7:58 PM
If you use a firearm in any crime, you should not be able to own a firearm again. It proves you do not know how to properly own a firearm. As for violent crimes, that is a hard one since too many people take a plea on violence crimes when it was not really violent because they have neither had the time or resources to try and fight it. It would have to be a case by case scenario in my eyes.

And if it happens to be that the "crime" you used your firearm for really was self defense, and the courts simply didn't see it your way? Then what?

No, if you're convicted of a crime, then you do your time and get full rights restoration once you're released (if it's not a lifetime sentence, of course). Anything else is simply wrong.

colddeadhands
02-29-2012, 8:08 PM
My philosophy is that if society deems a person "good enough" to co-mingle with the general public that person should have all of the rights of anyone else in that society. There should not be the allowed to and the not allowed to.


Whether people who commit felonies should ever be free again or still alive is another argument.

colddeadhands
02-29-2012, 8:09 PM
double post

kcbrown
02-29-2012, 8:16 PM
Not this garbage again!

Whereas I'm prepared to agree that some felonies are non-violent and maybe do not deserve a lifetime firearms ban, the recidivism rates are such that no way do I want any violent felons legitimately carrying weapons near me or mine.

Yes, they will get them anyway, if they are so inclined, and if they are caught with them, the cops have an instant reason to arrest them. Make it legal and the cops will have to wait until they shoot your mother/girlfriend/children before they can act.


Welcome to the problem of real freedom. Freedom is dangerous. It carries risk.

Do you want freedom or not? There is no in-between answer. Yes or no. If you do, then accept the consequences like a man. If you don't, then give up this feigned "fight for freedom" that you're currently engaged in.

If you support removal of someone's freedom, then you support it for yourself, for if you can take it from someone else, then they can take it from you. That is why there is no middle ground on this.


If you're going to argue that a convicted felon should be stripped for life of his right to keep and bear arms, you may as well argue that any felony conviction should carry a mandatory lifetime sentence.



As for executing violent felons, society won't let us. Keeping them in prison for life is impracticable. They have to be released at some time and very few of them are, in fact, rehabilitated or reformed. The prison system does not work.

That's because many of the "crimes" for which people are locked up are pissant BS infractions. If you attempt to argue otherwise, you're left with the indefensible position that either people in the U.S. are significantly less law-abiding than people in the rest of the western world, or we in the U.S. are somehow even more lenient on criminals than even the "socialist paradises" in terms of executing them.

The bottom line is that we've made just about everything a "crime" these days, and are sticking a bunch of people in jail for doing things that are nobody's business but theirs. Much of this comes from the "war on drugs", but places like California are worse than the other states because they have criminalized damned near everything a person can do. That's the root cause of the incarceration problem, and "fixing" anything else will have no lasting positive effect.

kcbrown
02-29-2012, 8:25 PM
I do not know how you turned my statements into this argument, for several reasons.

Enforcing gun bans amongst released felons is far cheaper than imprisoning them for extended periods.


I call BS. Enforcing gun bans is more expensive because the primary expense is of putting the guy through the court system and incarcerating him afterwards.

No, let the guy get caught for committing a real crime. Let the people deal with violent criminals by letting them have the tools to properly defend themselves. The problem of violent criminals will then eventually take care of itself, as the law-abiding population takes out the majority of the violent criminals in self-defense encounters. Yeah, the good guys will lose some, but there is no risk-free option here.



Sure they may not need guns, sure they can get guns. Why does that mean that any rational person should want them to have guns? Shall we make murder legal because people are going to do it anyway?


Murder is illegal because we actually want to remove people who commit it from our presence. You're arguing here that we should want to remove someone from our presence merely for the fact that they have a firearm and have committed some kind of crime in the past. Not the same thing at all.



Some of you should arrange to tour a high-security prison, or do a few ridealongs in a bad part of town, or read some of the case studies and stories on recidivism. Just because your friend/brother/roommate has a felony conviction for M.J. and is now reformed doesn't mean that all felons can be trusted. Someone who has committed an act of violence with a deadly weapon can almost be guaranteed to repeat it.

I don't want them to be enabled that way.

You don't understand the argument. You don't have a say in whether or not they're enabled that way. If the violent felon wants a firearm, he'll get a firearm, and if he's intent on committing a violent crime then he's not going to give a damn about whether or not there's some law forbidding him from carrying a firearm.

Presence of a firearm does not indicate intent to commit a violent crime.

Stop making the anti-gunners arguments for them.

kcbrown
02-29-2012, 8:26 PM
He is out of prison because there are a limited number of prison cells and a limited budget, and there comes a point where society has to let him or her go, knowing that there is a 90% (or thereabouts) probability of him, or her, committing exactly the same crime again, over and over.

Your thought that he is released because he is "rehabilitated" is absurd. He is released to make room for more recent offenders.


If you're going to do that, then what's the point of arresting the guy and putting him back into prison at all? You said so yourself: there's limited space, and if someone goes in, someone else has to come out.

Also, are you seriously arguing here that, were prison space an infinite resource, any felony conviction should carry with it a lifetime sentence?



If you are going to trust someone not to commit the same crime again, to the extent of making it easy for them to equip themselves for that purpose, you are either pretty ignorant of the facts of recidivism or you are extremely naive and think the best of everyone.


No, we're just aware of the fact that you can't do anything about those people anyway, and therefore you're just wasting your time if you try. Much better to deal with the root cause of the issue.


You can either deal with this issue by giving people more freedom, or by giving them less. You're attempting to solve it by giving them less. That usually doesn't work in the end. Giving people more freedom usually does. Like I said, let the people arm themselves and the violent criminals will disappear through attrition.

visionx
02-29-2012, 8:30 PM
If our founding fathers wanted felons excluded they would have included it in the constitution. Also, our founding fathers would NEVER have imagined how many actions would later be deemed felonies by the state.

I would let most felons keep their 2nd Amend rights.

I would exclude people who committ violence with a firearm or any serious act of violence against another person.

motorhead
02-29-2012, 8:36 PM
YES!

Xedd
02-29-2012, 8:36 PM
I think I should be able to keep mine but the rest of you losers are TSOL turn em all in!!!
But back in reality.
Freedom demands equality, if they see fit to let a person out and they have "paid their debt to society" why shouldn't that person be able to defend themselves. I don't need the constitution to understand that self defense is a fundamental human right. I think its ridiculous to regulate personal property anyway. my 2c

marcusrn
02-29-2012, 8:36 PM
The word rehabilitation entails that one is habilitated(L. to make suitable) in the first place.

Unfortunately this is not the case in our modern day set up. In is politically incorrect to think that children need parents,ethics, mores etc.

If one does make it to prison where felons live one could very well be made less suitable to live with others post incarceration.

Felons should be able to carry shanks only, in prison only.

Unless of course their felony was some make believe gun crime.

831Shooter
02-29-2012, 8:46 PM
Yeah. The gov't lets a guy out of prison and and assures me he's a rehabilitated free man. Paid his debt to society. Out of the other side of the government's mouth I hear, "But whatever you do, don't him have a gun, he'll kill somebody!"

A dangerous criminal should be in prison until he's rehabilitated or dead. They shouldn't let him out if he's any more of a risk than the next guy. Once he's out who cares if he has a gun. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be trusted to be a member of a free society.

I don't understand why I'm supposed to feel secure with child molesters, rapists and murderers walking the streets, just because it's illegal for them to have guns. These guys have already shown a propensity for breaking the law. If they're dangerous with guns, they're dangerous with their hands. Keep them locked up!

THIS!

I agree 100%. If you can't be trusted with a legally owned firearm, you can't be trusted, period. It's not like a violent felon that wants to commit a crime will have a hard time acquiring an illegal firearm. Sheesh, he can just call the ATF.. ;)

and.. let's end the freaking "war on drugs". It has proven 100% ineffective and a huge financial burden on our country. If we stop putting people in jail for drugs there would be a HELL of a lot more room for the people that actually belong there.. instead of releasing them early. Prison overcrowding = stupid "war on drugs".

angelocris
02-29-2012, 9:02 PM
It guess it depends on what kind of felon. A felony caused by failing to appear in court or something to that affect, I do not feel is a valid reason for not allowing a sane and competent person to own a firearm.

However, someone who is/was a felon because he/she was a serious offender should NOT be allowed to ever own any kind of weapon, be it a gun, knife, pencil or even a fork! All of us sane and competent people who can legally own, earned our right by not screwing up.

If I have to abide by the laws just to keep my rights to be arms, shouldn't you?

Riflewizard
02-29-2012, 9:30 PM
I think many types of felons should be allowed to own firearms, with some restrictions and monitoring in place. Obviously it varies by the offense comitted.

NSR500
02-29-2012, 9:36 PM
Many felons should be given firearms... Bullets first.

:shifty:

Coded-Dude
02-29-2012, 9:40 PM
violent offenders, sure; a one time conditional chance. if they commit another violent crime(with or without a firearm), send them straight to gallows.

violent offenders who have been in and out of jail multiple times are a waste of oxygen, let alone taxpayer money.

dieselpower
02-29-2012, 9:47 PM
If they are unfit or can not be trusted in society, then they are in prison...right?

The fact the government releases people who are so dangerous they can not be trusted is the root of the problem.

Get3CoffinsReady
03-01-2012, 4:14 AM
This has come up in my mind a couple of times because this is probably the one gun law I can agree with but with a caveat. This points out a problem with our criminal justice system. We need to shift more towards protecting the public rather than assigning an arbitrary number of years to a crime. If someone is released from prison and they are considered to be so dangerous that they cannot be entrusted with the same rights as I am, then why were the released from prison in the first place? Conversely if they are released from prison and they are not considered to be dangerous then their rights should be fully restored.

Hopalong
03-01-2012, 5:43 AM
Whether it's right or wrong

Any post referring to felons owning firearms

Is a poster for the Bradies.

Wherryj
03-01-2012, 8:04 AM
What!? Do you really want Martha Stewart to have a gun? She might go on a killing rampage over your kitchen curtains!

I think that if Martha is safe enough to let out of "stir", she is safe enough to be allowed a gun for self-defense.

That being said, however, I don't ever plan to go over to her place and criticize her curtains. I hear she's pretty good with a shank...

Wherryj
03-01-2012, 8:08 AM
If they are unfit or can not be trusted in society, then they are in prison...right?

The fact the government releases people who are so dangerous they can not be trusted is the root of the problem.

THIS is the problem. There are arguably too many felonies due to too many laws being written that create felons. I don't begrudge someone who once was arrested for a few too many grams of a certain chemical the right to self-defense.

Unfortunately prisons are filled to the rafters with many people who probably only pose a risk to themselves through bad choices (think Ms. Houston). If we didn't create so many millions of these "non-dangerous" felons, we would probably be able to appropriately handle those that really don't deserve to walk among the rest of us ever again.

If someone is too dangerous to be trusted to be free, they should be in prison. If they are considered safe enough to be free, they deserve all of their civil rights. Is their life worth less than any other?

gixxnrocket
03-01-2012, 8:56 AM
It's a matter of the follow-through. If a crime is committed the state/fed hands down a sentence as punishment. There are a couple issues I have, not with Felons owning guns again but with the DOJ...

There should not be any good behavior exemptions, early parole, probation, nothing. If you do the crime you do the time. While one is incarcerated they are stripped of their rights. I believe once the debt is paid their rights are returned in full..

I also think the lifetime criminal shadow that ex-cons currently have only perpetuates a return to the life of crime. Though their debt was paid they are still outcasted as the criminal they were. Continuing to hold these individuals on a short leash in regards to employment, social venues, residence, etc jades the reintegration and rehabilitation back into society.

Regarding violent felons... well again I point the finger at the DOJ and gun grabbers ofcourse. In an act of self defence or preperation of self defence the defender shouldn't have to try so hard to comply with laws to make sure their weapon of choice "looks less intimidating" is/isn't concealed, permitted, trained blah blah... I'm of the mindset an armed society is a polite society.
it's been proven and disected at nausea that gun control is directly correlated with an increase of violent crime.

But like global warming I guess further study is needed :facepalm: /end rant

Glock22Fan
03-01-2012, 9:04 AM
THIS is the problem. There are arguably too many felonies due to too many laws being written that create felons. I don't begrudge someone who once was arrested for a few too many grams of a certain chemical the right to self-defense.

Unfortunately prisons are filled to the rafters with many people who probably only pose a risk to themselves through bad choices (think Ms. Houston). If we didn't create so many millions of these "non-dangerous" felons, we would probably be able to appropriately handle those that really don't deserve to walk among the rest of us ever again.


No argument there.


If someone is too dangerous to be trusted to be free, they should be in prison. If they are considered safe enough to be free, they deserve all of their civil rights. Is their life worth less than any other?

The phrase I have emboldened is where all you guys fall down. Very few of those who have already committed violent crimes are considered safe enough, they are released because there is no real practical alternative. I'm not talking about recreational drug users or white collar criminals, I'm talking hard core sociopathic criminals - of which there are far too many.

By all means, have some mechanism by which releasees can demonstrate their worthiness to be trusted again after a period of good behavior.

But, if you think that all criminals should be armed the moment they finish their sentence, you are, IMHO, as much a bleeding heart liberal as any of the libtards. My view is that even strict scrutiny, which we accept, would support the current ban.

And, I still haven't seen any response from the post where I asked if any cop, correction officer, attorney or whatever, directly involved with these criminals agreed with your utopian views.

Some of you see the world in black and white whereas in reality, as most of you will learn as you age, it is various shades of grey. Not wanting violent criminals to be legally armed does not turn me into a DiFi clone any more than the Brady's are correct when they say that the NRA is preaching that everyone should own fully automatic cop killing assault rifles with armor piercing rounds crammed into high capacity magazines. Though, if you are in favor of known sociopaths being armed, maybe you do think the NRA should hold those views.

On that note, I'm leaving this thread. You can have all the armed convicted murderers and rapists you want in your neighborhood, but I don't want them in mine.

BassNut
03-01-2012, 9:07 AM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.

How about you guys?

I think you bumped your head............:facepalm:

wayneinFL
03-01-2012, 9:11 AM
Enforcing gun bans amongst released felons is far cheaper than imprisoning them for extended periods.

I don't think you're figuring up all the costs of releasing felons. You're spending welfare money supporting many of these guys. You're paying for their healthcare. You're paying parole officers to monitor them. You're paying law enforcement to investigate/report their crimes while they're on the outside. You're paying insurance premiums to cover property damage, larceny, and injury. You're supporting crime victims who, for example, have lost a husband's income due to a murder.

Or the costs of enforcing gun bans. Every time you buy a gun or ammunition in California you're paying that price. Every time an innocent person gets killed and could have had a firearm to defend himself, you're paying that price.

But I would certainly be extra pi$$ed off if they were raped by a felon who had been stopped with a firearm just up the street and then allowed to go on his merry way with that weapon because some stupid people had said "He's going to get a gun anyway, so we should make it legal and nice and easy for him."

The odds of this are almost zero. Have you ever noticed that most of the time a crime is committed, the criminals case the place first? They go in unarmed, look the place over. They go home, pick up the gun hidden under the bed, commit the crime, then race home and hide the gun. The odds of them getting caught on the way to the scene is almost zero.

Except for 3 weeks in CA, and a week in MD, everywhere I've gone in at least the last ten years, I've had a pistol within arm's reach. I've driven at least 500,000 miles in that time. In all that time, a LEO has seen my gun once, and that's because I offered it up. So, what do you suppose the odds are of a criminal is getting stopped on the way to a crime scene?

And since you noted that it costs money to keep criminals locked up- what do you think is going to happen when the criminal gets a gun, lightning strikes, and he actually gets caught with it? If you can't afford to keep him locked up for rape, how can you afford to keep him locked up for possession of a firearm?

The only thing you can do is put in onerous bans, background checks, waiting periods, and lock up ordinary citizens for "allowing" criminals to steal their guns. Because the honest people are the only ones you can control outside of a prison environment.

Some of you should arrange to tour a high-security prison, or do a few ridealongs in a bad part of town, or read some of the case studies and stories on recidivism. Just because your friend/brother/roommate has a felony conviction for M.J. and is now reformed doesn't mean that all felons can be trusted. Someone who has committed an act of violence with a deadly weapon can almost be guaranteed to repeat it.


Hopefully you realize how dangerous some of these people really are and why they need to stay locked up.

And before you paint all of them with a broad brush consider how far we are from being felons. In FL speeding 50 over or contracting without a license can be a felony. I did both of them in my younger days. If I crossed the AZ/CA line with the guns that are normally in my car I'd be a felon.

cvc04
03-01-2012, 9:18 AM
As others have said: If a felon can't be trusted with a firearm then they can't be trusted without a custodian. After a felon successfully completes probation their debt to society is supposedly paid.

civilsnake
03-01-2012, 9:50 AM
Self defense is a human right. Denying that right to anyone is universally immoral.

Glock22Fan
03-01-2012, 9:52 AM
From http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

California’s Annual Costs to Incarcerate an
Inmate in Prison
2008-09
Type of Expenditure
Per Inmate Costs
Security
$19,663


Inmate Health Care
$12,442
Medical care
$8,768
Psychiatric services
1,928
Pharmaceuticals
998
Dental care
748


Operations
$7,214
Facility operations (maintenance, utilities, etc.)
$4,503
Classification services
1,773
Maintenance of inmate records
660
Reception, testing, assignment
261
Transportation
18


Administration
$3,493


Inmate Support
$2,562
Food
$1,475
Inmate activities
439
Inmate employment and canteen
407
Clothing
171
Religious activities
70


Rehabilitation Programs
$1,612
Academic education
$944
Vocational training
354
Substance abuse programs
313


Miscellaneous
$116
Total
$47,102


It costs an average of about $47,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate in prison in California.
Over two-thirds of these costs are for security and inmate health care.
Since 2000-01, the average annual cost has increased by about $19,500. This includes an increase of $8,300 for inmate health care and $7,100 for security.

wayneinFL
03-01-2012, 10:33 AM
I never doubted you understood the costs of keeping someone in prison. Like I said:

I don't think you're figuring up all the costs of releasing felons. You're spending welfare money supporting many of these guys. You're paying for their healthcare. You're paying parole officers to monitor them. You're paying law enforcement to investigate/report their crimes while they're on the outside. You're paying insurance premiums to cover property damage, larceny, and injury. You're supporting crime victims who, for example, have lost a husband's income due to a murder.

It's not as if you're turning these guys out on the street and that $47,000 goes back in the bank. IF, that's IF, you're saving any money by releasing a dangerous felon onto the street, you're trading liberty for a negligible level of safety.

wayneinFL
03-01-2012, 10:38 AM
And since you noted that it costs money to keep criminals locked up- what do you think is going to happen when the criminal gets a gun, lightning strikes, and he actually gets caught with it? If you can't afford to keep him locked up for rape, how can you afford to keep him locked up for possession of a firearm?

Bear in mind, if you catch this guy with a gun, you're still paying the $47,000. Unless of course you're going to take the gun and just turn him lose. How exactly would you handle that? Would you pay the $47,000/yr., or turn him loose and support him on the outside?

johnthomas
03-01-2012, 11:03 AM
That's the cool thing about being a felon, you can have any gun, configuration or ammo you want. Laws don't affect many of them, only us that obey them.

kcbrown
03-01-2012, 1:31 PM
On that note, I'm leaving this thread. You can have all the armed convicted murderers and rapists you want in your neighborhood, but I don't want them in mine.

Nor do I.

But for some reason, you seem to presume that a law that forbids convicted felons from having a firearm is somehow going to significantly lessen the number of armed convicted murderers and rapists in your neighborhood.

It doesn't.

If the law you support doesn't work, then why do you insist on supporting it, most especially when it's overbroad (even if only by a small amount)?

Wherryj
03-01-2012, 4:24 PM
No argument there.



The phrase I have emboldened is where all you guys fall down. Very few of those who have already committed violent crimes are considered safe enough, they are released because there is no real practical alternative. I'm not talking about recreational drug users or white collar criminals, I'm talking hard core sociopathic criminals - of which there are far too many.

By all means, have some mechanism by which releasees can demonstrate their worthiness to be trusted again after a period of good behavior.

But, if you think that all criminals should be armed the moment they finish their sentence, you are, IMHO, as much a bleeding heart liberal as any of the libtards. My view is that even strict scrutiny, which we accept, would support the current ban.

And, I still haven't seen any response from the post where I asked if any cop, correction officer, attorney or whatever, directly involved with these criminals agreed with your utopian views.

Some of you see the world in black and white whereas in reality, as most of you will learn as you age, it is various shades of grey. Not wanting violent criminals to be legally armed does not turn me into a DiFi clone any more than the Brady's are correct when they say that the NRA is preaching that everyone should own fully automatic cop killing assault rifles with armor piercing rounds crammed into high capacity magazines. Though, if you are in favor of known sociopaths being armed, maybe you do think the NRA should hold those views.

On that note, I'm leaving this thread. You can have all the armed convicted murderers and rapists you want in your neighborhood, but I don't want them in mine.

I don't see this as "falling down". The issue is that we have overload in our criminal justice system. Laws will not prevent violent predators from preying upon others. If these people aren't safe enough to allow free in society, WHY are they set free?

I realize that it is a matter of finite resources, but it seems that we are absolutely wasting the resources that we have. Some people are just obvious predators-they have long records of multiple violent crimes. These people either need to be incarcerated forever or we need to use the Texas methods.

Releasing known predators back into society isn't a wise choice. It is one made of necessity, but most likely because our country seems to be focusing on the wrong issues.

I still stand by the statement that someone who isn't capable of being trusted enough to allow them the basic human right of self-defense is someone that doesn't deserve to be walking amongst the rest of us "sheep".

Cylarz
03-01-2012, 7:30 PM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.

How about you guys?

I actually agree with you, and I don't think that is a crazy position at all. I have always found to be inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment that the right of self-defense of a man (or woman) walking among the rest of us had been taken away permanently through "due process." I always thought certain rights were said to be inalienable, meaning they cannot even be voluntarily relinquished, much less taken involuntarily.

The way I see it, human beings in the US should be in one of only two positions - A) locked up, for their own safety and/or society's...or B) walking free and in possession of ALL rights granted by the US Constitution.

Incidentally, I do not think it is right that felons are prohibited from voting, either. If they're paying taxes, they should have as much say as the rest of us in how that money is spent, even if it is true that felons tend to vote Democratic.

bruceflinch
03-01-2012, 9:04 PM
If I were King. No one would step out of prison without 100% of every right granted by the Bill of Rights. While in prison they would not be granted any rights.

We as a civil society should never allow anyone to walk among us and our children that we do not trust to own, and use a firearm. The idea of prohibited people walking among us is ludicrous. I would just lock up felons, violent or otherwise and then let them out when they no longer pose a risk to myself or my family or any other civil person functioning in society.

Most violent felons would never be returned to society. The Governement would never again need to worry about who will do the job Americans dont want to do.
Bombmaster for King! :King;

If you're going to do that, then what's the point of arresting the guy and putting him back into prison at all? You said so yourself: there's limited space, and if someone goes in, someone else has to come out.
Also, are you seriously arguing here that, were prison space an infinite resource, any felony conviction should carry with it a lifetime sentence?
No, we're just aware of the fact that you can't do anything about those people anyway, and therefore you're just wasting your time if you try. Much better to deal with the root cause of the issue.
You can either deal with this issue by giving people more freedom, or by giving them less. You're attempting to solve it by giving them less. That usually doesn't work in the end. Giving people more freedom usually does. Like I said, let the people arm themselves and the violent criminals will disappear through attrition.
Dude, PM me if you would like to learn how to Multi-Quote.

Bear in mind, if you catch this guy with a gun, you're still paying the $47,000. Unless of course you're going to take the gun and just turn him lose. How exactly would you handle that? Would you pay the $47,000/yr., or turn him loose and support him on the outside?

Multi-Quoting is your Friend, too.

Safety1st
03-02-2012, 1:17 AM
Just a thought. We are the worlds largest arms dealer. We routinely supply military weapons, fully automatic rifles, etc. to unknown, shadowy groups around the world without so much as a background check. We send boatloads of weapons to oppressive regimes, brutal dictators, and known human rights abusers so they can hand them out to their henchmen. And yet we debate the finer points of gun ownership. Its bizarre.


Oh, and I vote yes. After all, I'm pretty sure war criminals are worse than felons, and our government seems to think its perfectly fine for them to own firearms. So...

randomBytes
03-02-2012, 1:33 PM
There are so many felony's (some of them rather silly) that a blanket ban seems wrong.
Half the people on this forum are potentially guilty of a felony (by not using your real name on the internet).

DarthSean
03-02-2012, 5:41 PM
The Bradys talk about wild west gun laws like they are a bad thing. I think it worked beautifully. You buy whatever you want (up to and including cannons) without even having to tell anyone your name, you get to carry it loaded wherever you want, and you have a broad legal right to defend yourself with it. The gun control only comes in where if you use it maliciously, you will either get shot on site by someone else packing or you will hang for it without an appeals process.

That and the "wild west" wasn't that wild. Those civil war vets were very good at ensuring they were left alone. The problems tended to occur in boom towns and other places where cheap alcohol and other intoxicants were readily available.

jeep7081
03-02-2012, 5:44 PM
What!? Do you really want Martha Stewart to have a gun? She might go on a killing rampage over your kitchen curtains!

She is better with a knife then some of us with a gun!

bandook
03-02-2012, 7:21 PM
Also, are you seriously arguing here that, were prison space an infinite resource, any felony conviction should carry with it a lifetime sentence?


Yes. It'll reduce the number of crimes identified as felonies.

nicki
03-02-2012, 7:42 PM
The definition of what can be a "Felony" is way to broad to start with, we need a serious overhaul of our legal system so that we limit "Felonies" to "real crimes" with "real victims".

No victim, no crime, that simple. There must be a real injured party.

That being said, I think if a person has served their time, there should be an objective process for them to restore their civil rights after they have served their time and that they are off probation.

Perhaps 10 years. Since many people commit crimes in their 20s, by the time they are done with their prison and probation, they are in their late 20s.

Under this model, ex felons will be lucky if they can get a gun before they hit 40.

This is an area of "civil rights" that needs to be looked into because we are not getting our money's worth regarding public safety for the amount of money we are spending on these inmates.

We could start saving money by immediately deporting illegal aliens out of our prisons back to their home countries and let those countries deal with them.

Perhaps set up special prisons in the MOHAVE desert for undocumented felon aliens who come back after being thrown out of the country.



Nicki

bandook
03-02-2012, 7:46 PM
The Bradys talk about wild west gun laws like they are a bad thing. I think it worked beautifully. You buy whatever you want (up to and including cannons) without even having to tell anyone your name, you get to carry it loaded wherever you want, and you have a broad legal right to defend yourself with it. The gun control only comes in where if you use it maliciously, you will either get shot on site by someone else packing or you will hang for it without an appeals process.

That and the "wild west" wasn't that wild. Those civil war vets were very good at ensuring they were left alone. The problems tended to occur in boom towns and other places where cheap alcohol and other intoxicants were readily available.

Gun Control was alive and well even back in those days. Many a Marshal enforced a 'no guns' policy in town. Actually, the final instigating event that resulted in the gunfight at the OK corral was the attempt by Wyatt Earp to enforce the 'No Guns in Tombstone' local ordinance.

bandook
03-02-2012, 7:54 PM
Hmmm... are you a felon for life or is there something called an ex-felon.

Supertac916
03-02-2012, 10:05 PM
You could get non-violent felony's expunged from your record through the court system. It takes time, but if they really want to own a firearm again they can have their record cleared by a judge. For example, getting a felony DUI when your 18 and your now 30 and it was a stupid mistake.

On the other hand I had a gang banger come into the gun store I worked at during college. The guy was all tatted up with prison tatoos and he was telling me he was just released and wanted to buy a gun for protection. Obviously, not one of the upstanding rehabilitated criminals who got their law degree while they were in prison. When we got to the convicted felon part he admitted that he was just released after being convicted of 2nd degree murder. He was afraid that his life was in danger because of retaliation. He asked me if he could wear a bullet proof vest and what other weapons could he buy without a background check. I told him to check with his parole officer because I didn't know what he could or couldn't do. Convicted violent felons in my opinion shouldn't own firearms or if they do they should have to go through the courts before being allowed to own firearms again.

rugershooter
03-03-2012, 12:26 PM
You could get non-violent felony's expunged from your record through the court system. It takes time, but if they really want to own a firearm again they can have their record cleared by a judge. For example, getting a felony DUI when your 18 and your now 30 and it was a stupid mistake.

On the other hand I had a gang banger come into the gun store I worked at during college. The guy was all tatted up with prison tatoos and he was telling me he was just released and wanted to buy a gun for protection. Obviously, not one of the upstanding rehabilitated criminals who got their law degree while they were in prison. When we got to the convicted felon part he admitted that he was just released after being convicted of 2nd degree murder. He was afraid that his life was in danger because of retaliation. He asked me if he could wear a bullet proof vest and what other weapons could he buy without a background check. I told him to check with his parole officer because I didn't know what he could or couldn't do. Convicted violent felons in my opinion shouldn't own firearms or if they do they should have to go through the courts before being allowed to own firearms again.

Are you really naive enough to think that he couldn't illegally acquire whatever he came in the gun store to buy if he wanted to?

That is the fundamental flaw with gun control. People- even people here on Calguns- believe that gun control laws actually work to stop people from obtaining guns. Yet, at the same time they decry the gun laws we have because they only serve to disarm the law abiding citizen. They decry the gun laws we have because we can't get a gov't permission slip to carry a gun, yet criminals get to carry them anyways. How about bb's? Do you really think that a criminal is going to install a bullet button on his ar-15 simply so he's not committing a felony? Are people really that stupid?

So which is it, Calgunners? Do gun laws work in stopping (meaning preventing rather than punishing them after they get caught) "undesirable" people from obtaining and/or carrying guns?

JAGACIDA
03-03-2012, 1:06 PM
This is almost impossible to answer. You're in Ca coming back from a shooting session with your wife or GF. Guns are packed away but your little 10/22 packed in bag by wife/gf still has one in the chamber. You are stopped questioned, allow a search and guess what, You're a felon! Unless...
In my neck of the woods it's a mistake and a warning or a $100.00 misdemeanor. Depends on jurisdiction, judge, DA, what have you. All laws are not fair. All sentences are not fair. You aren't considered a felon in several states, so should you lose your rights indefinitely?

odysseus
03-03-2012, 1:13 PM
All laws are not fair. All sentences are not fair.

NO Joke. Check this out I just read: http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_20090245

A 17-year-old San Rafael gang member who shot a semiautomatic at three people in the street was placed on probation for five years.
...
Abril, who was charged as an adult, took a plea deal in December and admitted to assault with a deadly weapon with penalty enhancements for gang activity. In exchange, the district attorney's office offered to seek no more than six years in prison.
...
The judge decided to grant Abril probation

So a known gang member with priors goes into the street and tries to kill 3 people shooting a pistol, and he gets probation at sentencing though the DA wanted some prison time.

...situation in our courts is all over the place crazy. Good people get screwed on mistakes, bad people try to kill people get let loose with a finger shaking.

WTSGDYBBR
03-03-2012, 1:17 PM
Should Felons have Firearms? First off if a Felon wants a firearm he is going to get one legal or illegal. There is no such thing is 100% gun control. So banning felons for life will not prevent them from every owning a firearm. Question should be should a misdemeanor have a 10 year wait for a firearm.

blazeaglory
03-03-2012, 9:54 PM
Ex felons CAN own in some states by following the proper procedures. But sadly not in California. Ex felons can own under federal law as well as long as the felony is expunged and the state that the felony was in allows for restoration of gun rights.

The Federal "Felon in possession" law is null and void for felons who have had their rights restored allowing that the "jurisdiction" that the crime was committed and expunged allows for it.

States such as Oregon and Arizona are good to go but if you commit a felony in California even if you have your rights restored you are screwed for life even if you move to a friendly state.

Your best bet would be to move to a friendly state and buy a gun from a private owner. In Oregon you would not be breaking any state laws but would be breaking fed laws(if ex felony was committed in a state such as California). Your only option would be a pardon from the governor.

Long story short, if your a felon from California your gun rights are gone forever.

(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.

blazeaglory
03-03-2012, 10:00 PM
Should Felons have Firearms? First off if a Felon wants a firearm he is going to get one legal or illegal. There is no such thing is 100% gun control. So banning felons for life will not prevent them from every owning a firearm. Question should be should a misdemeanor have a 10 year wait for a firearm.

Only certain misdemeanors have a 10 year wait. Not all misdemeanors carry a 10 year ban

Bert Gamble
03-03-2012, 10:27 PM
I think we need to just start executing violent felons

This

Mint
03-04-2012, 12:07 AM
No.

rugershooter
03-04-2012, 12:56 AM
Should Felons have Firearms? First off if a Felon wants a firearm he is going to get one legal or illegal. There is no such thing is 100% gun control. So banning felons for life will not prevent them from every owning a firearm. Question should be should a misdemeanor have a 10 year wait for a firearm.

If you already believe and acknowledged that gun control doesn't prevent felons from getting guns, then why would you think that a 10 year wait for misdemeanors would work?

stangman86gt
03-04-2012, 12:56 AM
I'm sure this has already been said, but this has been discussed before...

And as before my response is...

If a felon is "rehabilitated" then he/she should have the same rights as every other citizen in the usa. Otherwise, keep them in their cell.

QQQ
03-04-2012, 7:04 AM
FREE = FREE.
No two ways about it. Either you're a slave or you're a free man.

Carnivore
03-04-2012, 7:29 AM
The only argument I have seen out of all of this that makes any sense about allowing felons their rights back is that some crimes are considered felony's that shouldn't be.

Past that free doesn't mean free especially not from consequences. Sex offenders are sex offenders for life. Felons are felons for life. If you can't handle the consequences for your actions then you shouldn't commit said actions in the first place. I get tired of people not willing to accept the ramifications of their actions that out of their own free will they commit.

Just because someone has run out their time doesn't mean they can be trusted and should still be in jail. The punishment has to fit the crime but let's face it, it rarely does.

donw
03-04-2012, 8:56 AM
IMHO-FWIW...IF the felony is NON-violent and IF the offender has "Paid his debt" in full...in other words, served entire sentence handed down by the court...yes...he/she should have it restored.

resident-shooter
03-04-2012, 9:14 AM
Half of u have NO clue as to what ridiculous "crimes" are considered felonies in this country.... I think if we were to clean up those dumb laws and reserve felonies for things that deserve to be called felonies, then they should not have guns.

Kyle1886
03-04-2012, 10:02 AM
As I stated in post #14, careful what you wish for. What's legal today, just may be a felony tomorrow. Are you "up" on every law on the books in this state that constitutes a felony? If you travel a lot---do you know every felony law in the states that you pass through?

Respectfully
Kyle

BigBamBoo
03-04-2012, 11:27 AM
Edited...

gunafficionado
03-05-2012, 2:09 PM
Only certain misdemeanors have a 10 year wait. Not all misdemeanors carry a 10 year ban

What misdemeanors carry a 10 year ban on firearms ownership?

gunafficionado
03-05-2012, 2:10 PM
IMHO-FWIW...IF the felony is NON-violent and IF the offender has "Paid his debt" in full...in other words, served entire sentence handed down by the court...yes...he/she should have it restored.

+1...I agree.

kcbrown
03-05-2012, 3:07 PM
IMHO-FWIW...IF the felony is NON-violent and IF the offender has "Paid his debt" in full...in other words, served entire sentence handed down by the court...yes...he/she should have it restored.

Agree. However, what constitutes a "violent" felony?

Does DV count? Careful: in California, it can encompass merely touching the other person (though that may be limited to misdemeanor DV. However, that's just a technicality -- nothing says the legislature can't make even that into a felony).


This is why, if you're going to restrict any felons from RKBA after they're out, it should only be those whose crimes actually resulted in death or life-threatening injuries, or when the actual injuries were the result of intentional use of what we regard as a deadly weapon for the purpose of harming the injured party.

Databyter
03-05-2012, 3:13 PM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.

How about you guys?

I think for violent crimes or crimes committed with guns the punishment must be served and it must be a minimum of 10 years ban, 15 if guns were actually used for the crime.

For kidnapping and attempted or premeditated murder and the like I would make it 25 years

for non violent felonies, I don't think there should be a ban at all. Even released embezlers have a right to protect themselves and their family from violence.

I don't think you're crazy at all, unless maybe crazy open minded and wise.

6172crew
03-05-2012, 3:27 PM
When LE are making a case against someone who they think is up to no good they will tend to "Get them on a Gun charge" so its a slam dunk in court. I have a hard time giving this question a yes or no answer, I would think each Felon should have his right restored after review...but who is reviewing each case? I certainly hope it isnt one of the people asking the F&G guy to step down or one of the Brady's nor the folks who hand out food stamps. Either way I think its a case by case basis and I think the blanket "Loss of Rights" is garbage. Whats to live for if you have nothing to work for?

It happened to a Friend of mine and even happened to Ruby. Here Mr. Felon guy take this gun over to him and have him cut the barrel here *point finger to 15.999 inch mark on shotgun.

JohanD
03-05-2012, 4:45 PM
Is the felon dangerous? Has he paid his debt to society?

No? Let him have a firearm.
Yes? Keep him incarcerated.

If the crime was so violent that he should lose the right to own a gun for life, shouldn't he be a candidate for capital punishment rather than release from prison?

Hogstir
03-05-2012, 5:42 PM
The truly dangerous felons don't care if it's against the law to have a firearm. By definition criminals do not obey the law.

diginit
03-05-2012, 8:54 PM
In IMO... NO. They blew it. Just that simple... Should a killer have a chance to kill again? Hello???? Should a rapist be armed? NO. Should any violent criminal that has been convicted be allowed a firearm? NO! Should a gang member be allowed to own a gun? NO, Should a drug dealer be allowed to own a gun? NO. Should a burgalar, car thief, or any other person convicted of a violent crime, Male or female be allowed to own a gun? NO!
So why did you ask such a stupid question?

Trojan Bayonet
03-05-2012, 9:26 PM
Remember one thing and remember it well. Most convicted felons have committed other crimes they have not been convicted of doing. Think about that if you believe felons should have firearms rights restored upon release.

ubet
03-06-2012, 6:39 AM
Should felons be able to posses guns, in a short answer no, because dead people have no possesions. Their is way to much that is construed as a felony these days though. Felonys should be, murder, rape, theft (over a certain amounty ie $5k), attempted murder, and involvement with "gangs". All those, should be cause for a felony ie mandatory death penalty.

Our prison system is broke beyond repair. When they live better that most people who are not incarcerated something is wrong. They should get to spend 18 hrs a day digging holes and filling them back in, turning big rocks into little rocks with small hammers, growing their own food (or they go hungry), cleaning up the roadways and not much else. They should have NO tv, NO phones, NO access to computers, and sleep on blankets on floors. Maybe then it wouldnt be considered "cool" to go to prison. Most of them are not going to reform, they are just going to get better educated in breaking laws and not getting caught, and how to screw the system.

I am tired of paying for all these inmates to be alive. Hang all the gang members, violent criminals and big theft criminals (white collar or not) and rapists and it would save this country a lot of money and headache.

lhecker51
03-06-2012, 12:53 PM
If you use a firearm in any crime, you should not be able to own a firearm again. It proves you do not know how to properly own a firearm. As for violent crimes, that is a hard one since too many people take a plea on violence crimes when it was not really violent because they have neither had the time or resources to try and fight it. It would have to be a case by case scenario in my eyes.

Really? If my wife shoots a burglar in the back as he is turning, and a jury convicts here of involuntary manslaughter, she should never be allowed to own a gun? We have homeowners in prison that this has happened to. They are not career criminals, nor did they have criminal intent, yet are now convicted felons.
Sounds like the first order of business is to put criminal intent back into the test of weather a person is guilty regarding felonies and get rid of the one size fits all laws regarding sentencing. You cast an ever bigger net, truly innocent citizens get caught as well, especially gun owners.

If one violently robs a victim weather armed or not, why should they EVER leave prison? To me a felony designates one a danger to society at large. The fact that a DA does not need to prove intent in order to convict one of a felony is an indictment of our legal system. That is my opinion. Please set me straight if I am wrong here regarding the above as I am no lawyer.

The topic raises many interesting questions as this is an emotionally charged issue due to public ignorance.

rugershooter
03-06-2012, 4:03 PM
Remember one thing and remember it well. Most convicted felons have committed other crimes they have not been convicted of doing. Think about that if you believe felons should have firearms rights restored upon release.

And you can say with 100% total, complete honesty that you haven't committed crimes you haven't been convicted of, even felonies? Are you certain enough about that to stake your freedom on it? You've never violated a law from the Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health & Safety Code, Welfare and Institutions Code, Business and Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Elections Code, Family Code, Water Code, etc.?

I'd bet a month's salary that I could find multiple crimes you (and most people) have committed without being caught. It's simple probability considering the sheer number of federal, state, and local laws we have.


Also, there's this thing about our criminal justice system we like to call "innocent until proven guilty". Unless someone has had a fair trial, due process, and been convicted of a crime, there's nothing that can (or should) be done about whatever crimes people think he's committed. Whether or not felons should be able to own firearms isn't really even relevant if they haven't been convicted of any crimes.

No conviction=no punishment of any type.

ClarenceBoddicker
03-06-2012, 4:22 PM
There should be no such thing as a felon. Either you are incarcerated or you have served your debt to society. Prisoners should not be allowed to have guns with them while behind bars. They should still be free to own them, as long as they are securely stored somewhere. Once they are released, they should be free to own as many as they want.

The real issue is that America's worthless (yet horrendously expensive) criminal "justice" system (courts & LE) exacerbates, not reduces crime. Fix that & the whole felon problem goes away. Read my post #23 here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=544568).

kaligaran
03-06-2012, 4:30 PM
Wow what a thread...

To be honest I think this issue really has less to do with released felons having guns and more to do with our prison system and crime classifications. IMO, it needs a full overhaul. Allow me to explain.

Yes, there are way too many ways to commit a felony (many state specific).
Yes, violent felons are being released early.
No, the system does not rehabilitate.
Yes, it costs tax payers too much money.

The fact that violent criminals are being released is the real problem. Overcrowding is caused from unnecessary criminalization and unequal punishments.

Rapists have been released while there are people with non violent drug charges are locked up for life without parole. Does this make sense? Of course not.
Should the guy that accidentally owned an illegal rifle configuration in CA be life-time banned from owning a gun? No.

We are currently using a generic system (felons can't own guns) to cover a never-ending growing definition of who is a felon.

Brianguy
03-06-2012, 5:32 PM
Yes.



Execute more criminals :)

mbt
03-06-2012, 6:45 PM
You can have all the armed convicted murderers and rapists you want in your neighborhood, but I don't want them in mine.

OP and his supporters are the voice of reason as they truly understand and believe in 2A.

Those who want restrictions completely miss the point of 2A and are definitely pro-Brady even tho they don't want to admit it. And those who think more laws and restrictions ("gun free zones" and "gun free people") will keep them safe are brainwashed cowards ... so, stop believing typical politicians fear rhetoric. No one likes those politicians who OWN GUNS but don't want OTHERS TO OWN THEM ... why be like that?

However, as far advocacy and reality, this will never happen as there are no strong ex-prisoner lobbies (and lobbies are what controls politicians and laws).

Carnivore
03-06-2012, 7:00 PM
OP and his supporters are the voice of reason as they truly understand and believe in 2A.

Those who want restrictions completely miss the point of 2A and are definitely pro-Brady even tho they don't want to admit it.

Hum so a group that wants no one to have a gun and people that believe that ones actions make their own choice are the same thing:confused:? Nice, I guess we are all raciest, anit gay, Muslim haters too:TFH:. Nice stretch but if that is your argument on felons having guns then I would be happy to be a Brady then.

kcbrown
03-06-2012, 7:21 PM
Hum so a group that wants no one to have a gun and people that believe that ones actions make their own choice are the same thing:confused:? Nice, I guess we are all raciest, anit gay, Muslim haters too:TFH:. Nice stretch but if that is your argument on felons having guns then I would be happy to be a Brady then.

Yeah, well, what about axes? Pocket knives? Forks? Baseball bats? Darts? Rope? Shall I go on?


Convicted felons have shown that they didn't give a crap about the law. That's why they broke it. So a law against them possessing firearms isn't going to do squat if their intent is to break it again. All it will do is increase the chance that they'll be tossed into jail again as a result of committing the victimless crime of possessing a firearm. If you want these people to be thrown back in jail after they've served their time, regardless of whether or not what they're doing once they're out is an actual endangerment to others, then just say so and be done with it. Your position amounts to an assertion that possession of the quintessential self-defense weapon is proof of intent to harm someone else. Because the alternative, that you want to maximize the chance that they'll commit some victimless crime and thus wind up in jail again, is even worse.

Quit trying to sneak around the issue, and just admit that what you really want is for these convicted felons to either be forced to serve lifetime sentences or to be executed, period. You're trying to build a prison for these people outside of prison. I call BS on any claim of yours and those with views like yours that you're willing to tolerate the presence of these people in your midst, regardless of their actual behavior once they're out, since your belief is that their possession of a tool that can be used to gravely harm another proves their intent to harm others.

They may have a high recidivism rate, but people must be punished solely on the basis of what they do that harms others and NOT ANYTHING ELSE. Anything else leads to tyranny the likes of which we've seen in countless other places.

What's next? Thoughtcrime? That's what your thinking leads to.

:mad:

Carnivore
03-07-2012, 1:17 AM
Yeah, well, what about axes? Pocket knives? Forks? Baseball bats? Darts? Rope? Shall I go on?


Convicted felons have shown that they didn't give a crap about the law. That's why they broke it. So a law against them possessing firearms isn't going to do squat if their intent is to break it again. All it will do is increase the chance that they'll be tossed into jail again as a result of committing the victimless crime of possessing a firearm. If you want these people to be thrown back in jail after they've served their time, regardless of whether or not what they're doing once they're out is an actual endangerment to others, then just say so and be done with it. Your position amounts to an assertion that possession of the quintessential self-defense weapon is proof of intent to harm someone else. Because the alternative, that you want to maximize the chance that they'll commit some victimless crime and thus wind up in jail again, is even worse.

Quit trying to sneak around the issue, and just admit that what you really want is for these convicted felons to either be forced to serve lifetime sentences or to be executed, period. You're trying to build a prison for these people outside of prison. I call BS on any claim of yours and those with views like yours that you're willing to tolerate the presence of these people in your midst, regardless of their actual behavior once they're out, since your belief is that their possession of a tool that can be used to gravely harm another proves their intent to harm others.

They may have a high recidivism rate, but people must be punished solely on the basis of what they do that harms others and NOT ANYTHING ELSE. Anything else leads to tyranny the likes of which we've seen in countless other places.

What's next? Thoughtcrime? That's what your thinking leads to.

:mad:WOW your jaw has got to be stinging after that knee jerk reaction. Sounds like you want them to stay in more then I do. I just want them to obey the law. As of right now the law says if you commit certain crimes you will loose your right to having a firearm. Kind of simple really, so if you commit that crime and are convicted then you loose the right. It wasn't added after they were convicted as a "oh by the way" it is part of the total package of being convicted of committing the crime.:facepalm: I really don't get why people do see this as part of the punitive faze of the conviction.

If a person is convicted of committing a crime using computers most of the time as part of the sentencing they are bared from ever using one again. If they molest a child then they can't go near schools, play grounds etc...this is no different in my book. You know going into it, you could loose your rights coming out...it really is simple.:facepalm:

Thought crime lol you jump some pretty big gaps in logic there my friend.

kcbrown
03-07-2012, 1:42 AM
WOW your jaw has got to be stinging after that knee jerk reaction. Sounds like you want them to stay in more then I do. I just want them to obey the law.


So do I.

But you want more than that. You actively want convicted felons to be prohibited from owning a firearm. This discussion is about justifying that prohibition, not merely acknowledging its existence.



As of right now the law says if you commit certain crimes you will loose your right to having a firearm. Kind of simple really, so if you commit that crime and are convicted then you loose the right.


This is a circular argument. You want convicted felons to obey the law once they get out, but justify the existence of the law against them possessing a firearm on the basis of "making sure" that they will follow the law!



It wasn't added after they were convicted as a "oh by the way" it is part of the total package of being convicted of committing the crime.:facepalm: I really don't get why people do see this as part of the punitive faze of the conviction.


Because the prohibition is a lifetime one on something that is a fundamental enumerated right, a prohibition that in and of itself does no good. Someone who is intent on committing a crime with a firearm after they get out will do so in spite of the prohibition on possession of a firearm, and someone who is not intent on committing a crime with a firearm after they get out is someone who does not need to be targeted by the prohibition!

And you have to be crazy to believe that people who are intent on committing a crime with a firearm are going to let the existence of such prohibition sway their decision as to whether or not to commit the crime. That's going to be the least of their concerns, because they know they can get their hands on a firearm after they get out no matter what the law says.


As a result, there is no rational justification for the prohibition as a punitive measure. The only people it has a punitive effect on are the people against whom the punitive effect is entirely unnecessary!



If a person is convicted of committing a crime using computers most of the time as part of the sentencing they are bared from ever using one again.


Setting aside the fact that the use of a computer isn't itself a fundamental enumerated right, the principles I alluded to earlier apply to this as well. Someone intent on committing a computer crime is going to get their hands on a computer and commit the crime. So what, exactly, is the point of prohibiting possession and/or access to a computer from such a person?

The bottom line is that measures such as this are feel-good measures only. They do absolutely nothing to improve society. Indeed, if anything, they give the rest of us a false sense of security, because it leaves people who believe as you do thinking that the measure in question is going to somehow keep those convicted felons who would misuse the items in question from misusing them, when it does no such thing.



If they molest a child then they can't go near schools, play grounds etc...this is no different in my book. You know going into it, you could loose your rights coming out...it really is simple.:facepalm:


So what? That the prohibitions exist isn't the issue. The issue is the justification for them.


The bottom line is that you support the prohibitions in question. You said so yourself. What could possibly be the logical justification for that, other than the ones I already outlined?




Thought crime lol you jump some pretty big gaps in logic there my friend.

No, thoughtcrime is the next logical step after possession crimes, when the purpose of possession crimes is to increase the chance that a convicted felon will be caught breaking the law.

Understand this: possession of something does not bring harm to anyone. It just doesn't. You have no way to argue that it does, because harm comes from the use of something, not the possession.

So either you're going to have to argue that possession implies intent to harm, or you're left with the purpose of the law being to make it more likely for a convicted felon to be caught violating the law so that they will be sent back to prison. The punitive effect of the law has already been dispensed with, which leaves you only these two choices. So which one of those two is it?

Carnivore
03-07-2012, 6:21 PM
So either you're going to have to argue that possession implies intent to harm, or you're left with the purpose of the law being to make it more likely for a convicted felon to be caught violating the law so that they will be sent back to prison. The punitive effect of the law has already been dispensed with, which leaves you only these two choices. So which one of those two is it?

With out going into further rambling about all the above let's just focus on what seems to be important to you. So first is the punitive argument. You don't see that anything beyond incarceration as punitive. I don't share that feeling and believe that loss of firearm rights is part of the punitive process. Since we have both established our opinions on this and I am not going to change your mind and you will not change mine, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Used solely as a reason to put them back in jail is absolute bullcrap. They know they can't have a firearm so they (once again) of their own free will violate their status then they have made a conscious decision to break the law.

Though I agree that it is a fundamental right for have a firearm, this isn't being taken away it is being given away in my view. Taken away is like the Californian assault weapons ban, hand gun roster or even the latest open carry etc. These are all laws or rules solely for the purpose of taking away the right to have certain arms or arms altogether though no action of our own. In the case of prohibited people, they made the choice when committing a crime to give their rights away. As I said before it wasn't after the fact they knew going in.


You have left out a third augment that I know you will not even consider but is relevant none the less. As a Deterrent: With a loss of freedom as a deterrent the loss of rights can be too. I know a few people are still in this world (alive) only because killing them wouldn't be worth the loss of freedom and rights such as voting, gun ownership etc. There is no telling how many crimes are not committed because of the deterrent factor. Again I am sure you will not accept that but that is your choice.


Past this I really don't see that continuing to say the same thing over and over for either of us is worth the effort. Your call really.

rudynix
03-07-2012, 6:53 PM
I believe that a person who commits a crime and is convicted for his crime, that once he serves his time, his debt to society will be repaid. Felons who are going to continue violent behavior after their release will do so no matter what prohibitions are in place. At least those people that learned a lesson and don't want a repeat of their situation can carry on normal lives and possibly be contributors to society instead of having limitations set on their rights and opportunities forcing many to return to crime.

NightOwl
03-07-2012, 8:04 PM
Felons should be able to own firearms the same as the rest of us. When they're released and have finished their time (including parole), then all rights should be restored.

Rights aren't privileges, to be granted or taken away on a whim. If the felon is such a threat to society, they shouldn't get out. I can think of quite a few things just off the top of my head that are plenty deadly, yet felons have access to them. Cars, for instance, a lot of people die to cars every year.

There is no way to convince me that a free person shouldn't have all their rights.

kcbrown
03-07-2012, 9:08 PM
With out going into further rambling about all the above let's just focus on what seems to be important to you. So first is the punitive argument. You don't see that anything beyond incarceration as punitive.


No, I dont see that removal of RKBA is effective at being punitive (or anything else, for that matter). There may be other measures that are effective for that, but removal of RKBA is not one of them.

A punitive measure is only effective if it actually has a real effect on the decisions of people to commit or not commit a crime because of the additional pain it causes them. Removal of RKBA has no effect there because someone who wishes to violate the law can get a firearm at least as easily as can a law abiding citizen.

If the punitive measure isn't actually useful in swaying the decision to commit a crime or in otherwise preventing the violation of the rights of others then what good is it? There is only one answer: it makes those who support such measures feel good. That's why it's a "feel good" measure, and not a real measure, against crime.

For a punitive measure to be effective, it must at the very least hurt when the target elects to break the law. It will also be effective if it always hurts regardless of whether or not the target breaks the law, but it might not be as useful in that case. But removal of RKBA is neither of those. It hurts only if the target elects to be lawful. Not only is that ineffective, it is counterproductive, because it punishes only lawfulness and/or rewards lawlessness.


And finally, if you support the measure only for its punitive effect and not its deterrence effect, then it means you're not after justice, you're after revenge. Not that it matters here, since the measure in question is wholly ineffective in both respects.



I don't share that feeling and believe that loss of firearm rights is part of the punitive process.


No, of course you don't share that feeling -- because you assume your own conclusion!

If you're going to insist on using logical fallacies, then there's no arguing with you. You will not be swayed by logic until you stop using logical fallacies to bolster your argument.



Since we have both established our opinions on this and I am not going to change your mind and you will not change mine, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.


If you insist.



Used solely as a reason to put them back in jail is absolute bullcrap. They know they can't have a firearm so they (once again) of their own free will violate their status then they have made a conscious decision to break the law.


That's not the point. The point is that the measure is ineffective. Entirely ineffective. Someone who is swayed by something as trivial as whether or not he can get a firearm legally after he gets out of prison is not going to commit the crime in the first place! I mean, listen to yourself. You're arguing that someone who is contemplating an unlawful act will allow his opinion to be swayed by whether or not he can do something lawfully after he gets out of prison! I'm sorry, but it doesn't get more ridiculous than that.



Though I agree that it is a fundamental right for have a firearm, this isn't being taken away it is being given away in my view.


No, it's being taken away. The law in question is not there due to the choice the person is making, it's there due to choices beyond his control.



Taken away is like the Californian assault weapons ban, hand gun roster or even the latest open carry etc. These are all laws or rules solely for the purpose of taking away the right to have certain arms or arms altogether though no action of our own. In the case of prohibited people, they made the choice when committing a crime to give their rights away. As I said before it wasn't after the fact they knew going in.


Maybe they knew and maybe they didn't. Are you going to attempt to argue here that it was a choice only on the part of those who knew this particular aspect of the law ahead of time? I doubt it.

But even if you did, and even if you were right, what difference does it make? The measure is wholly ineffective as a punitive measure and there's no getting around that. If anything, it encourages those who get out to continue to violate the law, because the prohibition is permanent! That's precisely what victimless crimes do, after all. What possible incentive for lawfulness does the prohibition give to someone who gets out of prison? Absolutely none. Instead, it encourages them to violate the law because it puts them in the position of having to violate the law in order to effectively protect themselves.

And that is why the prohibition is entirely wrong. If you remove someone's RKBA, you remove their right to self defense, and by doing that you strip them of their right to life.


Now, if you're comfortable telling someone who merely lied to the feds, or who accidentally shot a home invader in the back, or who brought an "assault weapon" into the state illegally, or kept their "assault weapon" beyond the time limit imposed by the law, or any number of other felonies, that they have no right to life, well, that's your call. I refuse to do that. It's BS.

You may claim that some of those were adjudicated the wrong way, or that the law in question shouldn't be there, or any number of other things, but guess what? By claiming that felons should be stripped of their RKBA, you are inherently saying that people such as those don't have the right to life, precisely because you assume 100% correctness on the part of the law and the legal system.


I don't play those games. Everyone has the right to life. It comes with human existence.

So either acknowledge those people's right to life (and, therefore, their RKBA, because the right to life doesn't exist for humans without RKBA), or admit that you want them dead (since they have no right to life). But make up your mind which one it's going to be.



You have left out a third augment that I know you will not even consider but is relevant none the less. As a Deterrent: With a loss of freedom as a deterrent the loss of rights can be too.


I already fully addressed the deterrent aspect of the measure previously. The prospect of losing one's rights to legal possession of firearms is nothing when a criminal can obtain one whenever he wishes.

Honestly, do you really think that someone who is thinking of breaking the law is going to be concerned about what is lawful once he gets out of prison after he breaks the law? Please.


Look, your position would be a lot stronger if what we were talking about were a mechanism that actually prevented convicted felons from getting their hands on firearms (as in, was nearly 100% effective at keeping them from getting their hands on any firearms whatsoever). Not only would that be a real punitive measure, but it would also reduce the options available to such felons. But then, you'd have to do the same with knives, baseball bats, rope, axes, sticks, automobiles, and everything else that can be used as a deadly weapon. And once you're done with all that, you may as well just leave the person in jail for all the freedom he'll have left. And it still doesn't address the right to life issue.



I know a few people are still in this world (alive) only because killing them wouldn't be worth the loss of freedom and rights such as voting, gun ownership etc. There is no telling how many crimes are not committed because of the deterrent factor. Again I am sure you will not accept that but that is your choice.


Some measures are true deterrents (e.g., sufficient prison time), and some aren't. There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe that loss of RKBA acts as any sort of significant deterrent whatsoever, and I'd bet money there's no statistical data backing your view on that, either. After all, if it were such a significant deterrent, then why are there so many gangbangers walking around with guns?



Past this I really don't see that continuing to say the same thing over and over for either of us is worth the effort. Your call really.

Again, it's your call. But if you cannot fight my logic with logic then at least be man enough to admit that your position has no logical basis, because I've already logically dispensed with all your arguments thus far.

ClarenceBoddicker
03-08-2012, 12:23 AM
A lot of people (mostly the Police State/Prison Industrial Complex supporters) seem to miss some very basic facts about civil rights/gun ownership. Until the Democrat (with a lot of input from Nazi Germany) sponsored, yet Republican/NRA/Bill Ruger supported 1968 Gun Control Act was passed, it was perfectly legal for felons to own guns. The GCA didn't do anything positive (except for the profits of the US gun manufactures, as they had less competition), but along with the NFA set the ground work for the future US ban of most, if not all modern guns, due to the "sporting" language. It also turned a class of people (mostly African Americans & poor whites then) into "extra" felons overnight unless they got rid of the guns they had legally owned. The SCOTUS didn't even rule on that part of the act until the 1980 Lewis (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=445&invol=55) case. 12 years to get around deciding such an important legal issue. Kinda shows how valuable the Supremes think of the 2A is. They of course ruled in big governments favor like they always do & will. Here's a few fun quotes that they used for their ruling. "broadly to keep firearms away from the persons Congress classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.", "The legislative history [of Title VII] in its entirety, while brief, further supports the view that Congress sought to rule broadly - to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated that: "they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society", "So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm."

The Police State supporters would do well to read those quotes with an open mind. Then think about all the other gun ownership disqualifications in the GCA. For example you could get a medical pot ID card & never use pot once, yet under the GCA you are a felon if you own a gun. What if congress decides to outlaw alcohol like they did once before & add that to the list of gun ownership prohibitions. How about changing the language to include all narcotic drugs. Take some pain meds after surgery, no guns for you. How about Congress (in all their wisdom) changing the mental defect language? Get too stressed with your divorce, see a shrink & no guns for you. As the number & complexity of (mostly worthless) laws increases, the likely hood that it will be just about impossible to not commit some obscure felony offense becomes the sad reality in America. Somehow I missed the part of the 2A that said: "the right of the people, subject to Congressional review, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Carnivore
03-08-2012, 12:42 AM
No, I dont see that removal of RKBA is effective at being punitive (or anything else, for that matter). There may be other measures that are effective for that, but removal of RKBA is not one of them.
What? effective at being punitive? Punitive is punishment for committing the crime. This is only your opinion and not based in any fact or logic. :facepalm:


A punitive measure is only effective if it actually has a real effect on the decisions of people to commit or not commit a crime because of the additional pain it causes them. Removal of RKBA has no effect there because someone who wishes to violate the law can get a firearm at least as easily as can a law abiding citizen. Yet a person that wishes to have a legal firearm or concealed permit etc would have the additional pain. Again nothing conclusive just your opinion.:facepalm:


If the punitive measure isn't actually useful in swaying the decision to commit a crime or in otherwise preventing the violation of the rights of others then what good is it? There is only one answer: it makes those who support such measures feel good. That's why it's a "feel good" measure, and not a real measure, against crime. Jail time doesn't detour people from committing crimes so that makes "real" punitive measures by your logic "feel good" measures too. Doesn't mean that they still shouldn't be imposed on the violator.:facepalm:


For a punitive measure to be effective, it must at the very least hurt when the target elects to break the law. It will also be effective if it always hurts regardless of whether or not the target breaks the law, but it might not be as useful in that case. But removal of RKBA is neither of those. It hurts only if the target elects to be lawful. Not only is that ineffective, it is counterproductive, because it punishes only lawfulness and/or rewards lawlessness. Then by your logic here if a punitive measure doesn't hurt it is ineffective. Seriously? then you had best plan on releasing most inmates because they can't feel a thing. This is just ridiculous at this point.


And finally, if you support the measure only for its punitive effect and not its deterrence effect, then it means you're not after justice, you're after revenge. Not that it matters here, since the measure in question is wholly ineffective in both respects. Once again with out any proof either way that removal of RKBA is an effective deterrent this is completely and only your opinion. I am not seeing any of your logic you speak so highly of. If this is your logical dispersion then by this little bit of genius all punitive measures are revenge because anyone that commits a crime was in fact not "detoured" :facepalm::facepalm:




No, of course you don't share that feeling -- because you assume your own conclusion! OH as well do you. :banghead:


If you're going to insist on using logical fallacies, then there's no arguing with you. You will not be swayed by logic until you stop using logical fallacies to bolster your argument. Back at ya. No really back at ya








That's not the point. The point is that the measure is ineffective. Entirely ineffective. Someone who is swayed by something as trivial as whether or not he can get a firearm legally after he gets out of prison is not going to commit the crime in the first place! I mean, listen to yourself. You're arguing that someone who is contemplating an unlawful act will allow his opinion to be swayed by whether or not he can do something lawfully after he gets out of prison! I'm sorry, but it doesn't get more ridiculous than that. good lord again completely your opinion with no facts or logic applied.




No, it's being taken away. The law in question is not there due to the choice the person is making, it's there due to choices beyond his control. this again? committing the crime is in their control so any punitive measures that follow is of their own doing.





But even if you did, and even if you were right, what difference does it make? The measure is wholly ineffective as a punitive measure and there's no getting around that. If anything, it encourages those who get out to continue to violate the law, because the prohibition is permanent! That's precisely what victimless crimes do, after all. What possible incentive for lawfulness does the prohibition give to someone who gets out of prison? Absolutely none. Instead, it encourages them to violate the law because it puts them in the position of having to violate the law in order to effectively protect themselves.

And that is why the prohibition is entirely wrong. If you remove someone's RKBA, you remove their right to self defense, and by doing that you strip them of their right to life. Oh ya that is completely logical stretch. Again if they didn't commit the crime in the first place they wouldn't have put THEM SELVES in that position. It is no different then an individual that doesn't believe in guns or wants one in their home. Their short sightedness can cause them to be unprotected. Well when the felon committed the act he/she/it should have been thinking of the ramifications of their actions. In no way is it stripping them to their right to life. That is just laughable.


Now, if you're comfortable telling someone who merely lied to the feds, or who accidentally shot a home invader in the back, or who brought an "assault weapon" into the state illegally, or kept their "assault weapon" beyond the time limit imposed by the law, or any number of other felonies, that they have no right to life, well, that's your call. I refuse to do that. It's BS. Again completely laughable. It doesn't bother me to look them in the eye and ask them why did they lie? Why didn't you find out the laws before coming into the state? I think you can figure out the rest of the questions on your own.


You may claim that some of those were adjudicated the wrong way, or that the law in question shouldn't be there, or any number of other things, but guess what? By claiming that felons should be stripped of their RKBA, you are inherently saying that people such as those don't have the right to life, precisely because you assume 100% correctness on the part of the law and the legal system.


I don't play those games. Everyone has the right to life. It comes with human existence.

So either acknowledge those people's right to life (and, therefore, their RKBA, because the right to life doesn't exist for humans without RKBA), or admit that you want them dead (since they have no right to life). But make up your mind which one it's going to be. I will look them in the eye and say they shouldn't have committed the crime and gave away their rights so easily.




I already fully addressed the deterrent aspect of the measure previously. The prospect of losing one's rights to legal possession of firearms is nothing when a criminal can obtain one whenever he wishes.

Honestly, do you really think that someone who is thinking of breaking the law is going to be concerned about what is lawful once he gets out of prison after he breaks the law? Please. Don't need too, I know 2 people that it did. So make all of your own conclusions you want to. All you have again in this arena is your own opinion with out any facts at all to back it up.


Look, your position would be a lot stronger if what we were talking about were a mechanism that actually prevented convicted felons from getting their hands on firearms (as in, was nearly 100% effective at keeping them from getting their hands on any firearms whatsoever). Not only would that be a real punitive measure, but it would also reduce the options available to such felons. But then, you'd have to do the same with knives, baseball bats, rope, axes, sticks, automobiles, and everything else that can be used as a deadly weapon. And once you're done with all that, you may as well just leave the person in jail for all the freedom he'll have left. And it still doesn't address the right to life issue. Or you can understand that I never said it would even stop one person from committing a crime. I never said it, thought it, implied it in anyway. It is only your narrow vision and lack or understanding (or unwillingness) to see that as I have said to ABSOLUTE NAUSEAM for myself and every one else that has read anything we have both written: "IT IS PART OF THE PUNITIVE PROCESS NOT A ALL POWERFUL, MAGICAL, FORCE TO STOP CRIMINALS IN THEIR TRACTS"




Some measures are true deterrents (e.g., sufficient prison time), and some aren't. There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe that loss of RKBA acts as any sort of significant deterrent whatsoever, and I'd bet money there's no statistical data backing your view on that, either. After all, if it were such a significant deterrent, then why are there so many gangbangers walking around with guns? Though I agree completely that there is not data to prove it is a deterrent, I will say there is no data to disprove it either. Logic dictates that lack of proof is no proof at all. So until you can prove it isn't a deterrent you have to logically believe it could be.




Again, it's your call. But if you cannot fight my logic with logic then at least be man enough to admit that your position has no logical basis, because I've already logically dispensed with all your arguments thus far.All you have done is prove you like to see yourself talk. Past that you have only prove to yourself what you say has any validity. Most of your "logic" isn't "logic" at all but just your own opinion. Once you have proof I am wrong in my opinions then I will relent to you. until then I will keep my opinions whether you see any validity to them or not.

kcbrown
03-08-2012, 2:58 AM
Or you can understand that I never said it would even stop one person from committing a crime. I never said it, thought it, implied it in anyway. It is only your narrow vision and lack or understanding (or unwillingness) to see that as I have said to ABSOLUTE NAUSEAM for myself and every one else that has read anything we have both written: "IT IS PART OF THE PUNITIVE PROCESS NOT A ALL POWERFUL, MAGICAL, FORCE TO STOP CRIMINALS IN THEIR TRACTS"


This appears to be the crux of the matter.

Tell me something: does punishment serve any purpose in your view? If so, what purpose or purposes does it serve?

I think it's unlikely that we'll get anywhere until you answer that question.

goldrush
03-08-2012, 3:51 AM
Call me crazy, but I think felons have the right to own firearms. I mean, our forefathers didn't exclude them. You do the crime...you get caught, you get "punished" or "rehabilitated". And then you're free again.

I believe any FREE man, should have the right to own a gun. Period.

Denying them the right doesn't stop "Bad guys" from getting guns, that's for sure.

How about you guys?

It's pretty hard to argue with your logic.

cineski
03-08-2012, 6:02 AM
I didn't read this entire thread, but my position is: There should be no such thing as a felon. If you are able to be released to the public, it should come with ALL your freedoms. If you can't handle just one freedom, then you should not be released.

sharxbyte
03-08-2012, 7:42 AM
I believe that non violent offenders should be able to own firearms.

carlosdarwin
03-08-2012, 6:25 PM
If its okay for felons to own guns, then it should be okay for them to vote too, right? I mean, our founding fathers didn't exclude them did they? Okay, they excluded women, Blacks, Indians, and non-propertied Whites, but other than that, it was democracy for all, right?

sharxbyte
03-08-2012, 10:03 PM
I have no problem with blacks, women, Indians, and poor whites voting. I also believe felons should have the right unless their crime involved vote tampering or some such crime dorectly involved with the legislation and election process.

rugershooter
03-08-2012, 10:19 PM
If its okay for felons to own guns, then it should be okay for them to vote too, right? I mean, our founding fathers didn't exclude them did they? Okay, they excluded women, Blacks, Indians, and non-propertied Whites, but other than that, it was democracy for all, right?

The fact that they've been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say in how the government is run or how their taxmoney is spent.

Carnivore
03-09-2012, 2:32 AM
This appears to be the crux of the matter.

Tell me something: does punishment serve any purpose in your view? If so, what purpose or purposes does it serve?

I think it's unlikely that we'll get anywhere until you answer that question.

WE will never get anywhere as you are dug in with your views and I am with mine. This argument is not any different then anyone I have had with any anti gunner and is just as pointless too.

To answer this question yes it does.

To be very short on the second answer, the purpose it serves is as a payment to society for the crime, a form of retribution for the person the crime was committed against, a deterrent for others and for the punished as well as time to for the punished to reflect on their crime and rehabilitate.

Whether or not any of the above past payment to society really works, all depends on the persons involved.

My guess is you will then ask how does loss of firearms fit in this. I will say it fits in with the first three other then it is no longer a deterrent for the punished as the crime was obviously already committed or they wouldn't be in the punishment faze.

See ya Monday for your next set of questions.:sarcasm:

kcbrown
03-09-2012, 3:34 AM
WE will never get anywhere as you are dug in with your views and I am with mine.


I am not wed to my views except as regards the axioms from which they derive. But hey, if you're dug in with your views such that they cannot be swayed through reason or anything else, then at least you're honest enough to say so up front.



This argument is not any different then anyone I have had with any anti gunner and is just as pointless too.


I very much disagree, because your viewpoint has (at least based on the discussion thus far -- this is subject to change depending on your answers yet to come) some very serious anti-liberty implications which I will prove later in the discussion (not in this message, however).



To answer this question yes it does.


Good. This is one of the axioms I've based my argument on, so at least we are not in disagreement on this.



To be very short on the second answer, the purpose it serves is as a payment to society for the crime,


Does the payment itself serve a purpose? If so, what purpose (or purposes) is that?

Does it matter whether or not the person "paying" for the crime is actually inconvenienced in any way by the measure in question? That is, from what point of view is the payment measured, that of society or that of the person paying (or that of someone else entirely, in case I'm missing something)?

What is the justification for requiring payment to society when the "crime" itself is victimless?

What is the justification for requiring payment to society when the "crime" itself is the legitimate exercise of a fundamental enumerated right?

What is the justification for requiring payment to society when the conviction for the crime is the result of incorrect adjudication?



a form of retribution for the person the crime was committed against,


If the person the crime was committed against is dead, then they are no longer in a position to care about retribution (at least in any way that can be proven). In that case, is the retribution for someone other than the person the crime was committed against? If so, then who?

Also, is the retribution in question for anyone in addition to the person the crime was committed against when the person in question survives? If so, who?

And how is the satisfactoriness of the retribution measured? For instance, if the criminal in question is neither deterred nor inconvenienced in the slightest by the measure, does that still satisfy the need/desire for "retribution", or does it leave that need/desire unsatisfied?

And finally, for whom is the retribution when the crime is a victimless one?



a deterrent for others and for the punished as well as time to for the punished to reflect on their crime and rehabilitate.


The latter is applicable to jail time or other forms of incarceration, but not to most (if any) other measures that I'm aware of, and most certainly not removal of RKBA.



Whether or not any of the above past payment to society really works, all depends on the persons involved.


How are you determining whether or not it "really works"?



My guess is you will then ask how does loss of firearms fit in this. I will say it fits in with the first three other then it is no longer a deterrent for the punished as the crime was obviously already committed or they wouldn't be in the punishment faze.


Please describe how a measure which affects the criminal only if the criminal decides to be law abiding is "effective" as a general deterrent and as a payment to the person(s) against which the crime was committed. I will certainly admit there can be some people for whom it would have a deterrence effect (though I'm puzzled at how/why this is so), but I see little evidence that such people are numerous, whereas I know that there are numerous people for whom the loss of the right to lawfully possess firearms is wholly ineffective (to wit, every gang member out there who carries a firearm, not to mention every other criminal who does the same).



See ya Monday for your next set of questions.:sarcasm:

:D

SunTzu
03-09-2012, 4:31 AM
Should people who commit misdeamoners or infractions be banned from owning Guns? After all. All criminals start some where? The guy that goes 75 miles an hour down a posted 45 clearly you can make the arguement has no regard for others. Or the guy with a DUI clearly has reckless tendencies. Where do you draw the line? And why would you trust the politicians you despise concerning all these other gun laws that limit your rights be the ones to decide who is trustworthy with a gun and who isn't?

DarthSean
03-10-2012, 6:02 PM
The scarlet letter approach to the treatment of ex-cons isn't working. It even makes it harder for them to become respectable again. They are more likely to fall back on old habits if they are unable to pursue any opportunities again. Being labeled a felon for life and denying them civil rights and job opportunities that are unrelated to their conviction does not inspire people to rejoin civilized society. Through activities at my church I've seen this play out countless times where felons want out of their old life but the laws make it functionally impossible for most of them to get out.

That being said, I don't believe felons should be given full gun rights back right away. I think they should be gradually allowed over the course of years to own more and more sophisticated firearms, starting out with a very Australian looking set of rules especially for new ex-cons and working towards normal RKBA. A lot of violent felons need to be executed to get rid of the problems they cause and stop them from hardening kids and petty thieves in jail. We would have a better, more transformable class of criminal to rehabilitate and encourage (trough the carrot and stick approach) to stay that way. Let's say 5 years after discharge from parole they were allowed to have non semi auto long arms with at least a 20" barrel, up to a 5+1 capacity, plus caliber restrictions, collection size limits, had to register it with the state and local Sheriff and PD (if applicable), and periodically prove they still had it and in an unaltered state. If they were willing to go through all that, for let's say 5 years, and completed then they would show a willingness to abide by the law and could be considered for full restoration of their rights. There a many ex-cons who have turned their life around, and denying them their rights any longer accomplishes nothing. The same arguments can be made about their job opportunities as well.

Then there are the issues surrounding mental health laws. The gun control lobby likes to portray people with a mental illness as low functioning schizophrenics wandering down a hospital hallway muttering to themselves, rogue CIA assassins, or any caricature that suits them that moment. The truth is that people with a mental illness are 3 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than commit one, and generally tend to not like guns to begin with. In 1968 there was very little that could be done that was genuinely helpful to those that were committed. Nowadays many people with the same symptoms and severity can be treated to the point they live completely normal lives with families, college educations, and careers. For example, there have been people on this forum that were successfully treated and now wonder why they can't even petition to get their gun rights back. Then there are those with learning or developmental disabilities. There is a common misconception that if someone can't drive, manage money or understand medical affairs, manage laundry/housework, navigate around their own neighborhood, manage time, hold a job, etc, then they shouldn't own a gun. There are lots of people with normal (or higher) intelligence that for various reasons cannot do some of those things. Lots of people with developmental disabilities have no predisposition to violent behavior (and often have to be kept protected by others), so the only variable that matters is if someone has enough common sense to use a gun safely. If they can pass some form of safety training and test, they should be allowed to at very least go shooting.

Perhaps not everybody should always have a gun, but they should be allowed a chance to redeem themselves. Regardless of what your position on the restoration of gun rights may be, the debate should not be centered around a 44 year old bill created for the purpose of slowly and systematically phasing out all private gun ownership. If you want to know the true intentions for the 1968 GCA, just look up Ted Kennedy's voting record and gun control bills he has sponsored and co-sponsored.

wayneinFL
03-10-2012, 6:18 PM
That being said, I don't believe felons should be given full gun rights back right away. I think they should be gradually allowed over the course of years to own more and more sophisticated firearms, starting out with a very Australian looking set of rules especially for new ex-cons and working towards normal RKBA. A lot of violent felons need to be executed to get rid of the problems they cause and stop them from hardening kids and petty thieves in jail. We would have a better, more transformable class of criminal to rehabilitate and encourage (trough the carrot and stick approach) to stay that way. Let's say 5 years after discharge from parole they were allowed to have non semi auto long arms with at least a 20" barrel, up to a 5+1 capacity, plus caliber restrictions, collection size limits, had to register it with the state and local Sheriff and PD (if applicable), and periodically prove they still had it and in an unaltered state. If they were willing to go through all that, for let's say 5 years, and completed then they would show a willingness to abide by the law and could be considered for full restoration of their rights. There a many ex-cons who have turned their life around, and denying them their rights any longer accomplishes nothing. The same arguments can be made about their job opportunities as well.


Sorry, but that just seems like a complete mess to comply with or enforce. Especially when someone predisposed to committing crimes is going to ignore all that anyway. If we cant trust them with guns, we can't trust them with anything else that will further enable them to kill people. They need to be in an environment where everything that could be used as a weapon is bolted down. If they're out, might as well let them buy whatever guns they want.

Carnivore
03-10-2012, 10:52 PM
:facepalm: I am so sick of the book size reply. Got much better things to do then read the "Ted Kaczynski" style writing. It is a apparent you love to see yourself write and kudos to ya but I am just not waisting any more time breaking this stuff down.

Does the payment itself serve a purpose? If so, what purpose (or purposes) is that?

Does it matter whether or not the person "paying" for the crime is actually inconvenienced in any way by the measure in question? That is, from what point of view is the payment measured, that of society or that of the person paying (or that of someone else entirely, in case I'm missing something)?

What is the justification for requiring payment to society when the "crime" itself is victimless?

What is the justification for requiring payment to society when the "crime" itself is the legitimate exercise of a fundamental enumerated right?

What is the justification for requiring payment to society when the conviction for the crime is the result of incorrect adjudication?

Yes it serves a purpose. payment for the crime. I don't know of a penalty that isn't inconvenient. "victim less crime" is a crime so it carries a penalty. The payment is measured by law. If the right has been taken away then it isn't legitimate to exercise the right as it isn't one anymore. Incorrect adjudication is grounds for retrial, my assumption is that the ruling could be over turned.

About retribution: that could be by anyone. If a child is killed you don't think the parents want to kill the person responsible? Really this question answers it's self. Whether the penalty is enough to deterred retribution or not is different for each victim. Again answers it's self.


The latter is applicable to jail time or other forms of incarceration, but not to most (if any) other measures that I'm aware of, and most certainly not removal of RKBA. Your opinion and this has to be the 5th time you have said it. Seriously, we get it.

How are you determining whether or not it "really works"? REALLY???? you think that might be, oh I don't know, whether the offender re-offends or not? :banghead:

For your last paragraph long question I already said that it isn't a deterrent for the criminal anymore as they already lost the right. To the victim it could be since it is added they feel justice is served(who knows). For the gangmenber/repeat offender that it a personal decision. If they choose to re-offend NOTHING will deter them but if you are insinuating that if it doesn't work it should happen then I guess we shouldn't send them to jail anymore.

Carnivore
03-10-2012, 11:00 PM
Should people who commit misdeamoners or infractions be banned from owning Guns? After all. All criminals start some where? The guy that goes 75 miles an hour down a posted 45 clearly you can make the arguement has no regard for others. Or the guy with a DUI clearly has reckless tendencies. Where do you draw the line? And why would you trust the politicians you despise concerning all these other gun laws that limit your rights be the ones to decide who is trustworthy with a gun and who isn't?

All I will say is if I had the chance of loosing my 2A rights for going over 65 I can tell ya I would have to make more time to get where I am going LOL.

kcbrown
03-11-2012, 11:12 AM
:facepalm: I am so sick of the book size reply. Got much better things to do then read the "Ted Kaczynski" style writing. It is a apparent you love to see yourself write and kudos to ya but I am just not waisting any more time breaking this stuff down.



Yes it serves a purpose. payment for the crime. I don't know of a penalty that isn't inconvenient.


Oh yes you do. Removal of RKBA! Someone who wishes to commit further crimes will not be inconvenienced at all by that "penalty". Thanks. That's exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.



If the right has been taken away then it isn't legitimate to exercise the right as it isn't one anymore.


This right here says it all. Nothing more needs to be argued. I rest my case.

Why? Because you do not believe in rights at all. You believe that what we have is only that which the government allows us to do, and that the law itself defines that which is a "right" and that which is not. Well, guess what? That makes the "right" into a privilege right then and there.

Thanks for playing. We're done. The source of the fundamental disagreement has now been found: I believe in rights independent of whether or not a government thinks you should have them, you do not. End of discussion.

CZ97B
03-11-2012, 11:24 AM
i think this is a hard one... i dont think anyone who used a weapon during a felony should be able to own a gun again, but maybe a non violent felon could jump through some hoops of some kind and get his right back.

I think the general opinion is that felons should not be allowed to legally posses weapons of any kind, and whereas the x-con community may feel that their 2nd amendment rights have been violated, as do perhaps you and some others here, when it comes down to a vote, any legislator voting to give felons the right to possess weapons is going to voted out of office by the majority, next time up for re-election.

So theory is one thing, and concensus is another.

wayneinFL
03-11-2012, 2:59 PM
Yes it serves a purpose. payment for the crime. I don't know of a penalty that isn't inconvenient.
Oh yes you do. Removal of RKBA! Someone who wishes to commit further crimes will not be inconvenienced at all by that "penalty". Thanks. That's exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.

Speaking of this restriction as a penalty for a crime and an inconvenience, I feel compelled to comment. The part that bothers me most about this penalty is that it's more of an inconvenience to me than it is to the 'reformed" criminal. If I am arrested- with enough evidence to be probable cause- and suspected of a crime, I am innocent until proven guilty. If I just want to buy a firearm at a dealer, or if I want to carry, I am guilty until I pay to prove myself innocent.

Meanwhile criminals are having their girlfriends buy guns for them, stealing guns, or trading cash or crack cocaine for them.

Carnivore
03-11-2012, 11:42 PM
Oh yes you do. Removal of RKBA! Someone who wishes to commit further crimes will not be inconvenienced at all by that "penalty". Thanks. That's exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.




This right here says it all. Nothing more needs to be argued. I rest my case.

Why? Because you do not believe in rights at all. You believe that what we have is only that which the government allows us to do, and that the law itself defines that which is a "right" and that which is not. Well, guess what? That makes the "right" into a privilege right then and there.

Thanks for playing. We're done. The source of the fundamental disagreement has now been found: I believe in rights independent of whether or not a government thinks you should have them, you do not. End of discussion.

:gunsmilie: What ever works for you man. Nothing like completely changing everything a person says and then declaring they agree with you. That is just awesome!!! :smilielol5:. Ya for you, congrats on declaring yourself the winner of a compition you were the only one in!! :jump::party:

SFgiants105
03-11-2012, 11:53 PM
If you use a firearm in any crime, you should not be able to own a firearm again. It proves you do not know how to properly own a firearm. As for violent crimes, that is a hard one since too many people take a plea on violence crimes when it was not really violent because they have neither had the time or resources to try and fight it. It would have to be a case by case scenario in my eyes.

Yup. My friend just caught a felony for being struck in the face by a flying elbow (without having initiated a confrontation) and was convicted a year later. All he did was lay the guy out with one punch when the guy came back to strike him again. Now he's on probation for a 30 second altercation that he didn't start. The justice system can be messed up if you don't know how to play your cards right. :(

kcbrown
03-12-2012, 12:00 PM
:gunsmilie: What ever works for you man. Nothing like completely changing everything a person says and then declaring they agree with you. That is just awesome!!! :smilielol5:. Ya for you, congrats on declaring yourself the winner of a compition you were the only one in!! :jump::party:

Hey, you're the one who said that the right is no longer a right after the government forbids exercise of it, not me. That statement has implications. It's not my problem if you don't like those implications.

So either argue against the logical implications of your own statements, or change your statements, or accept the implications. Your choice.

unclephreak
03-12-2012, 12:45 PM
I'd like to see a system set up that allows felons who have successfully completed their sentences and proven that they are contributing to society again to regain their firearm ownership (and other) rights. For example, if a person is sentenced to 3 years in prison, he does the three in custody, then in three MORE years, he can petition the state to review his status. In the three years since his release from custody, he needs to actively contribute to society through charity, community service, etc. and DEMONSTRATE that he is no longer a liability to society. The burden of proof is on the felon. People can turn their lives around but rather than an automatic restoration of rights, make this something that goes before a review board or judge who answers to the public.

Certain felonies should not be eligible for restoration of firearm rights, like first degree murder, treason, etc. but since those convictions would likely have long sentences, plus an equal post-sentence redemption period, it's not likely that we'd see too many of those coming up for a review.


This is precisely what my group is doing. and there are ways to clemency for those so inclined.



This is a tricky topic, and people's views on this are more diverse than the people themselves. case in point, I am a convicted felon. i plead "no contest" to a violent one because 90 days in jail sounded better than risking 15 years in prison when my girl was 9 months preggers. now i have 2 kids, and a third one on the way. i own and operate my own business as well as having another job on the side. i am very interested in gunsmithing and i intend to keep doing it, target shooting, and everything i can within the limits of the law.

there are ways for felons to get firearms, but the laws are tricky and very vague. i have BP guns. i have a couple BP pistols, (ffl exempt) and you can convert these guns to fire cartridge rounds. (you would do best to press your own rounds using BP if you are a felon.) but a 6 shot BP revolver shooting a .45 caliber bullet with 60 gr. of powder pushing it is well more than what you need for self defence, or home defence.

my wife is interested in gunsmithing and such as well, and she has a clean record, so she has a CCW permit and carries a ruger. i love that woman! she doesnt take any crap from anyone... (especially me).

i personally believe that every man and woman who have homes, property, children, and businesses to protect should be allowed to have a gun. it doesnt matter what someone is convicted of. people change. i sure the hell did. having 2 kids shows you first hand what is important, and i was a wild kid. my early 20's earned me a 9 page rapsheet. it's going to take over 10 years to even think of being able to exponge this stuff.

my point is, when someone breaks the law, they get punished. when your punishment is over it should be over. it should be illegal to discriminate against felons for anything. in florida i cant vote because of it. i am a constitutionalist, and i believe if everyone had a gun, there would be a lot less people in prison. the dumb people who want to hurt others would get shot instead. anyone here ever been shot? it doesnt feel good. One thing is for certain though, if my kids or wife is threatened (and she can take care of herself pretty well) or my life is threatened, i wont hesitate to shoot to kill.

i have done some crimes, and i have paid my dues. i am a responsible parent and practice responsible gun ownership. i am a member and founder of a local group called "new sons of liberty" and we advocate gun ownership for any responsible person who only looks to protect themselves and families. we actually help felons get guns LEGALLY. i always use my judgement and discretion in who we help. if i think for a second someone is going to commit a crime with a gun i help them get, then no dice! i wont have any part of it. i am a responsible adult now, a business owner and a homeowner who only seeks to protect myself and family.

and i have a lot of friends and people i know who are in the same situation as me. like it or not i run the "firearms for felons" program, and in this day and age i feel it irresponsible to not own a gun at least for home defence.

the constitution of the united states is the supreme law of the land, and i abide by it and the laws governing all people, and i think everyone else should do the same.

also local laws may not allow what i am doing (mine do) but everything is subject to local and state laws. i do not want to be judged on my past, and i am building a brighter future for my kids. i dont allow my children to have toy guns because i am advocating and teaching them gun-safety. dont judge me till you walk a mile in my shoes. i love this forum and the discussions. everyone has their opinions and a right to disagree, but so long as i keep everything nice and legal i have my rights and i will exercise them. my 2nd amendment rights will not be atrophied by a system i feel to be unfair and at times corrupt.:cool:

madonaldson
03-12-2012, 1:20 PM
I can personally relate to this subject, not being a felon myself but having a brother who is a felon. My brother was convicted of a felony drug possession charge over 10 years ago. He wasn't selling drugs, robbing people for drugs or anything like that. He was just younger, got introduced to them and got caught with them one day. Since his conviction he has completed court ordered rehab to include drug testing, he has not been arrested for anything else, he works full time, is married and has 4 kids.
My brother has tried to purchase a gun for home defense as well as recreational shooting recently and was denied after the background check results came in. I know that possessing illegal drugs is against the law and should not be done and if you get caught you will have to pay for it. My brother did pay for it, now just because my brother decided to try drugs at an earlier age, for the rest of his life he can't buy a firearm to defend his wife and kids? Not to mention he lives in Los Angeles where the criminals who break into homes normally are armed with illegally obtained guns.
Myself and my brother grew up in a family where shooting and hunting is a family tradition, it's sort of how we bond. Now for a simple mistake he made over a decade ago he's unable to carry the tradition on to his sons and in this day and age we to keep our youth as pro gun enthusiast more than ever so we can keep or second amendment alive. I'm not saying all felons, especially not ones convicted of violent crimes involving weapons, should have the same rights as us law abiding folks. What I'm trying to say is some people make mistakes. A mistake made a long time ago that didn't hurt anyone but yourself shouldn't leave a man unable to defend his family if need be.

unclephreak
03-12-2012, 1:33 PM
I can personally relate to this subject, not being a felon myself but having a brother who is a felon. My brother was convicted of a felony drug possession charge over 10 years ago. He wasn't selling drugs, robbing people for drugs or anything like that. He was just younger, got introduced to them and got caught with them one day. Since his conviction he has completed court ordered rehab to include drug testing, he has not been arrested for anything else, he works full time, is married and has 4 kids.
My brother has tried to purchase a gun for home defense as well as recreational shooting recently and was denied after the background check results came in. I know that possessing illegal drugs is against the law and should not be done and if you get caught you will have to pay for it. My brother did pay for it, now just because my brother decided to try drugs at an earlier age, for the rest of his life he can't buy a firearm to defend his wife and kids? Not to mention he lives in Los Angeles where the criminals who break into homes normally are armed with illegally obtained guns.
Myself and my brother grew up in a family where shooting and hunting is a family tradition, it's sort of how we bond. Now for a simple mistake he made over a decade ago he's unable to carry the tradition on to his sons and in this day and age we to keep our youth as pro gun enthusiast more than ever so we can keep or second amendment alive. I'm not saying all felons, especially not ones convicted of violent crimes involving weapons, should have the same rights as us law abiding folks. What I'm trying to say is some people make mistakes. A mistake made a long time ago that didn't hurt anyone but yourself shouldn't leave a man unable to defend his family if need be.


I couldnt agree with you more. send this link to your brother....

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/LegalFirearms.htm

there are cartridge firing antiques from .22 cal to .45 cal he can legally own posses and buy. the tricky part is the ammo thing. if he presses his own it's not subject to FFL guidelines because it's not recognized as being "obtained through regulated means of commerce"

and tell him to do his own research. local and state laws will be the deciding factor. if you press BP ammo with primers obtained from starter rounds i believe it's not recognized as "modern ammunition"

and again i stress the point; do your homework. it's not worth going to proson over if you have a family to protect. chances are they need you more than you need a gun. but i would not live in LA without a gun!! look up your local and state laws, and you can call the ATF and ask them any questions you may have. they are there and will help you understand what is defined within the laws. (theyre always very professional about it as well).

madonaldson
03-12-2012, 2:29 PM
I couldnt agree with you more. send this link to your brother....

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/LegalFirearms.htm

there are cartridge firing antiques from .22 cal to .45 cal he can legally own posses and buy. the tricky part is the ammo thing. if he presses his own it's not subject to FFL guidelines because it's not recognized as being "obtained through regulated means of commerce"

and tell him to do his own research. local and state laws will be the deciding factor. if you press BP ammo with primers obtained from starter rounds i believe it's not recognized as "modern ammunition"

and again i stress the point; do your homework. it's not worth going to proson over if you have a family to protect. chances are they need you more than you need a gun. but i would not live in LA without a gun!! look up your local and state laws, and you can call the ATF and ask them any questions you may have. they are there and will help you understand what is defined within the laws. (theyre always very professional about it as well).

Thank you for the info. I'm going to look into it and have my brother check it out as well.

Carnivore
03-12-2012, 11:36 PM
Hey, you're the one who said that the right is no longer a right after the government forbids exercise of it, not me. That statement has implications. It's not my problem if you don't like those implications.

So either argue against the logical implications of your own statements, or change your statements, or accept the implications. Your choice.

LOL for as smart as you think you are you need your hand held at every turn. When you commit a crime now you already give away your liberty, free speech, and some cases life once convicted and you act as though guns are any different. I guess I should use the phrase "with due process" somewhere at the end but I gave you to much credit to figure it out yourself.

I get it, you are one of those people that if you are told a square peg won't fit in a round hold you have to argue that if the peg is smaller it will fit or if it's hight is so it can be turned on it's axis and still fit etc..I really get it. I am just not one of these people that like the little tiny nit picky crap you do. Best thing I can tell ya is to find someone who does and talk your little self to death but I am just done with this boring conversation. So congrats again for declaring yourself the victor of a game you have been playing with yourself. You are the man/woman/thing, you are what all men hope to be and gods gift to all of us. Enter any other generic phrase you say to someone that you really don't care about (HERE).:wacko:

kcbrown
03-13-2012, 12:56 AM
LOL for as smart as you think you are you need your hand held at every turn.


I don't give a crap how smart or stupid you may think I am. Either address the logical arguments with logic or concede.



When you commit a crime now you already give away your liberty, free speech, and some cases life once convicted and you act as though guns are any different. I guess I should use the phrase "with due process" somewhere at the end but I gave you to much credit to figure it out yourself.


Sorry, "due process" isn't something that gets you out of the hole you're in. I am already aware of it. I didn't mention it because it does not need mention.

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". However, it also says in the 2nd Amendment "the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (emphasis mine).

So which takes priority with respect to violation of a law that itself is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment?

To answer that, we need only look at Marbury v Madison, the case in which the Supreme Court formalized its power of judicial review:


Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.



So a law which violates the 2nd Amendment is null and void as if it never existed at all. Someone who violates that law has not really violated the law at all.

And thus, "due process" does not get you out of this mess of your own making, for someone who violates a law which is, itself, an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is not in the wrong, the law itself is.

But your assertion is that if the government enacts a law which violates the 2nd Amendment, it is the right to keep and bear arms that has become void, and not the law!


I again offer you the opportunity to rephrase what you have said previously in order to avoid this problem.

stix213
03-13-2012, 1:21 AM
I don't give a crap how smart or stupid you may think I am. Either address the logical arguments with logic or concede.




Sorry, "due process" isn't something that gets you out of the hole you're in. I am already aware of it. I didn't mention it because it does not need mention.

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". However, it also says in the 2nd Amendment "the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (emphasis mine).

So which takes priority with respect to violation of a law that itself is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment?

To answer that, we need only look at Marbury v Madison, the case in which the Supreme Court formalized its power of judicial review:




So a law which violates the 2nd Amendment is null and void as if it never existed at all. Someone who violates that law has not really violated the law at all.

And thus, "due process" does not get you out of this mess of your own making, for someone who violates a law which is, itself, an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is not in the wrong, the law itself is.

But your assertion is that if the government enacts a law which violates the 2nd Amendment, it is the right to keep and bear arms that has become void, and not the law!


I again offer you the opportunity to rephrase what you have said previously in order to avoid this problem.

Not that it means much, but I'm actually very impressed with this post. How far do you think the 2A goes then? A prisoner in a maximum security prison should be allowed a gun according to the constitution? Or can such a prisoner have the "right" to a gun, if only they could get their hands on one, but can't since they have been deprived of both property (their guns) and liberty (their freedom to leave leave the prison and go to a gun store), by due process?

Those are genuine questions, not sarcasm.

kcbrown
03-13-2012, 1:35 AM
Not that it means much, but I'm actually very impressed with this post. How far do you think the 2A goes then? A prisoner in a maximum security prison should be allowed a gun according to the constitution? Or can such a prisoner have the "right" to a gun, if only they could get their hands on one, but can't since they have been deprived of both property (their guns) and liberty (their freedom to leave leave the prison and go to a gun store), by due process?

Those are genuine questions, not sarcasm.

Nor do I take them as sarcasm. They're good questions. And I thank you very much for the compliment!

My opinion is that a prison constitutes a "sensitive place" because it is a controlled area in which all people who enter (aside from those that run the facility) are stripped of their weapons, armed protection is provided for them by the facility, and the facility and those who operate it take full responsibility for the safety of those inside it. I believe that is really the only valid arrangement for removing someone's right to keep and bear arms. And in this case, the reason for such removal is more legitimate than most, for the prison would not long remain one if the prisoners were armed! Even air travel doesn't have a reason for RKBA removal as solid as that.


And yes, the prisoners are stripped of their freedom through due process, and it is only for that reason that the reduction of their freedom is legitimate. Indeed, I believe that the purpose of the "due process" clause was twofold: (a) to ensure that people are not imprisoned merely on a whim, and (b) to make prisons themselves legitimate under the law.

But note that the legitimacy of stripping someone of their freedom through due process applies only if the law they violated is itself legitimate! Someone who is there as a result of violating a law which is, itself, a violation of the Constitution is not there legitimately.

Falconis
03-13-2012, 10:59 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/13/BAU41NK91D.DTL

Just another example of why not as far as I am concern. Sorry if this is a repeat and I know there will be more back and forth even with an article like this.

lhecker51
03-14-2012, 2:49 PM
I think the general opinion is that felons should not be allowed to legally posses weapons of any kind, and whereas the x-con community may feel that their 2nd amendment rights have been violated, as do perhaps you and some others here, when it comes down to a vote, any legislator voting to give felons the right to possess weapons is going to voted out of office by the majority, next time up for re-election.

So theory is one thing, and concensus is another.

I agree with your statement. Current popular opinion's impact on lawmakers has produced many illogical and ineffective laws, but that is a reality that will not change in my lifetime. My belief is that what is classified a felony needs a huge enema. The net is far too big and ensnares far too many good people that are not career criminals. Examples of this are the current charges filed against well intentioned citizens for violating gun transport laws in NY.

A cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all law is never a sound practice in my opinion.

Packy14
03-14-2012, 3:01 PM
for the most part, nonviolent crime shouldn't be a felony in my opinion..and certain crimes like child molestation/rape should be punished by death if proven.

wolfstar
03-14-2012, 3:18 PM
Easy fix: No guns for felons until 10 years after their last jail sentence (including probation). This should remove most of the young felons who generally stop committing crimes once they get past their 20s and help people who screwed up one time when they were younger. Much easier sell with the OMG protect the children crowd as well.

lhecker51
03-14-2012, 3:32 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/13/BAU41NK91D.DTL

Just another example of why not as far as I am concern. Sorry if this is a repeat and I know there will be more back and forth even with an article like this.

Do you feel the same for this:

626.9(b) Possession of firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds

This is a felony as well and cannot be reduced.

This is just an example of felonies that a law abiding citizen may find themselves charged with and would result in permanent loss of RKBA and voting rights.

My point is that the public sees "Felony conviction=dangerous criminal".

This is not justice.

Falconis
03-14-2012, 5:37 PM
Depends on the situation. I'm not saying our system is perfect, I think that's why we are all here to begin with. All I am saying, in general, I am not in favor of returning gun rights to felons.

I will say that a lot has to be worked out.