PDA

View Full Version : Firearms Seized In Statewide Crackdown, AG Says


Brass Balls
12-10-2007, 10:25 AM
E-Mail News Alerts
Get breaking news and daily headlines.

Browse all e-mail newsletters

Firearms Seized In Statewide Crackdown, AG Says



Sweeps Conducted By State, Local Law Enforcement

POSTED: 11:15 am PST December 10, 2007


LOS ANGELES -- Authorities have seized more than 540 guns in recent months as part of a statewide crackdown on convicted felons and others banned from owning firearms, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said.

Brown announced Monday that sweeps conducted by state and local law enforcement since June targeted about 1,000 illegal gun owners.

He said the owners had purchased the guns legally. But they were later barred from owning guns because they were convicted of various felony and misdemeanor crimes or found to be mentally illl.

Everything from handguns to assault rifles were seized around the state.

The owners were identified through a state database that matches criminal histories with gun ownership registries. Authorities plan to investigate about 9,000 others.


Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


http://www.kcra.com/news/14814682/detail.html

bwiese
12-10-2007, 10:44 AM
OK, so the AG's making some 'keep guns outta the hands of criminals' noise.

I can live with that, esp if it keeps the BoFfers occupied and they're running off of valid criminal records.

rod
12-10-2007, 10:49 AM
That's great news. The BoF and LE are doing what they're supposed to be doing...keeping guns out of the hands of those who aren't allowed to have guns. It's about time.

Sgt Raven
12-10-2007, 10:50 AM
OK, so the AG's making some 'keep guns outta the hands of criminals' noise.

I can live with that, esp if it keeps the BoFfers occupied and they're running off of valid criminal records.


How many of them are vets with "PTSD" and the new VA reporting BS?

tlillard23
12-10-2007, 10:52 AM
yea, great news.... except they are using GUN OWNERSHIP registries.

Didn't you just go to the doctor and fill out the "gun question"?? (silence = consent) They will be at your door next time.

DedEye
12-10-2007, 10:57 AM
What ownership registries are they using? I don't like that part of the article...

bwiese
12-10-2007, 11:05 AM
What ownership registries are they using? I don't like that part of the article...

DROS stuff. Even if they don't have exact gun info, they know a gun was acquired (why else was something DROSed?)

FEDUPWBS
12-10-2007, 11:11 AM
That's great news. The BoF and LE are doing what they're supposed to be doing...keeping guns out of the hands of those who aren't allowed to have guns. It's about time.

What a concept:rolleyes:

WolfMansDad
12-10-2007, 11:48 AM
These laws that deny certain classes of people their rights are just wrong. If someone is so violent or unstable they can't be trusted to own a firearm, what are they doing out on the street? Why are they allowed to drive a car, handle kitchen knives, or purchase baseball bats? I am deeply uncomfortable with having a permanent underclass with fundamental rights removed. It sets a dangerous legal precedent that can all too easily be used on any unpopular minority, including otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

M. D. Van Norman
12-10-2007, 11:54 AM
Yes, but that’s the way it’s been for decades. In this case, at least, they’re going after prohibited persons instead of making things difficult for law-abiding citizens.

!@#$
12-10-2007, 12:01 PM
DROS stuff. Even if they don't have exact gun info, they know a gun was acquired (why else was something DROSed?)

so are they searching these peoples homes because they DROSed a gun before? i would hope they have some evidence that these people still posses the guns other than they DROSed one before they were no longer legal to have one.

tyrist
12-10-2007, 12:08 PM
Probably checked recent convictions then ran them through the automated firearms system and found handgun registered to them.

Got a warrant, showed up at the door, and took into custody the person and firearm.

!@#$
12-10-2007, 12:22 PM
Probably checked recent convictions then ran them through the automated firearms system and found handgun registered to them.

Got a warrant, showed up at the door, and took into custody the person and firearm.

i can understand that but long guns are not registered.

Addax
12-10-2007, 12:58 PM
i can understand that but long guns are not registered.

Long Gun Dros is sent electronically to DOJ-BOF.

It will not state the make and model, just that a long gun was purchased, and this will include your name, address etc.

All it takes is some IT guys to build a database, some admins to populate the database (i.e. criminal names, addresses etc. and cross match these names to the one's in the electronic DROS Database).

I know I make it sound easier than it is, but it is not impossible. It would take my Tech/Dev. guys about a month to make it happen.

I support the efforts of the DOJ's efforts to take away firearms from the hands of known and prosecuted crimminals even if they owned them before committing and being prosecuted for a felony crime. I am sure there were some white collar criminals in that mix, but most I am sure were gang bangers, murderers, rapists, mentally unstable.

I know what I said may offend some, but at least the DOJ is doing what they should be doing and taking away firearms from crimminals, they are doing their job.

Those who have gone to trial, but were aquitted or their cases thrown out / dropped, they should still retain the freedom and rights to purchase and own firearms.

4 Brigada
12-10-2007, 1:07 PM
Great, They should be spending all their time taking guns away from felons. Uhh but felons cant own guns, right. So how did the pass their background check? Ohh I see make life miserable for the gun dealers, but hey dont do your job. Im sure glad I pay these people, I bet they get regular pay raises too

Addax
12-10-2007, 1:20 PM
Great, They should be spending all their time taking guns away from felons. Uhh but felons cant own guns, right. So how did the pass their background check? Ohh I see make life miserable for the gun dealers, but hey dont do your job. Im sure glad I pay these people, I bet they get regular pay raises too

I believe they did a check after that fact, meaning that the people who they busted owned firearms before they were ever convicted of a felony or diagnosed as being mentally unstable. Basically they are cleaning house to show the media and the world that they are on top of the game in preventing convicted criminals and mentally unstable people from owning firearms and possibly using them to shoot up a mall or a restaurant or in a gang shooting etc..

4 Brigada
12-10-2007, 1:28 PM
Let me let you in a little thing, when my son was arrested. I wasnt the convicted felon.But they took MY GUNS AWAY cause he was still living in my house when he was arrested. I guess if your a felon you get to keep your guns until they find out? You just cant be the father of one and keep your guns. BTW I eventually was able to recover them.

Added later

As a matter of fact thats the first thing they went after, my safe.

Addax
12-10-2007, 1:49 PM
Let me let you in a little thing, when my son was arrested. I wasnt the convicted felon.But they took MY GUNS AWAY cause he was still living in my house when he was arrested. I guess if your a felon you get to keep your guns until they find out? You just cant be the father of one and keep your guns. BTW I eventually was able to recover them.

Added later

As a matter of fact thats the first thing they went after, my safe.

Now that is wrong and yet it does not surprise me that the DOJ would do that!

Sorry to hear you went through that ordeal, and I am glad you got your guns back. In your case they did not have the right to after your firearms, only your son's if he had any...

11Z50
12-10-2007, 1:51 PM
While I wholeheartedly support getting guns out of the hands of felons, keep in mind that also included in this group of prohibited persons are the poor dudes that are going thru a divorce and have a TRO filed on them.

Bweise brings up an interesting point on the VA database and PTSD. This will be more of an issue as time goes by. I know that the VA is supposed to keep PTSD information confidential, but they are included as mandatory reporters, I think. This would mean that if a vet was really a threat to himself or others, he'd get turned in and get a 5150 hold. This might mean a firearms seizure. With the recent trend in returning vet suicide, this might become an issue.

AFAIK, the vast majority of PTSD cases are not dangerous. If a vet was so flipped out he would go 5150, he/she should not be around guns. I've heard of this happening only a couple times, but it does happen.

4 Brigada
12-10-2007, 1:57 PM
Thanks Addax, It sucked like hoover but its done now. Even the longest day comes to an end. It was a local DA doing not DOJ. Hate to think what would have happened to my guns if they were involved.

Two Shots
12-10-2007, 2:19 PM
What will be next people that has medical prescriptions for pain pills or sleeping pills etc? Ever think about being called a Gun Nut? I'm all for felons not having guns but how far will they go after this?

milsurpshooter
12-10-2007, 2:24 PM
+more blackpowder killings.

5968
12-10-2007, 3:23 PM
That's great news. The BoF and LE are doing what they're supposed to be doing...keeping guns out of the hands of those who aren't allowed to have guns. It's about time.

Funny, that is exactly what I was thinking.

BillCA
12-10-2007, 3:50 PM
I wonder how many of these warrants will be issued to people who have already disposed of their firearms -- say out of state or otherwise legally?

I also wonder how many of these guys will have their homes turned upside down because the cops won't believe them.

MikeK
12-10-2007, 3:54 PM
I also wonder how many of these guys will have their homes turned upside down because the cops won't believe them.
Warrant means never having to say you're sorry.

odysseus
12-10-2007, 4:14 PM
What will be next people that has medical prescriptions for pain pills or sleeping pills etc? Ever think about being called a Gun Nut? I'm all for felons not having guns but how far will they go after this?

+1. All the more reason we all must remain vigilant against the many side channel routes "gun control" aka anti-2nd Amendment types will use to do whatever they can to try to get their way.

emc002
12-10-2007, 4:26 PM
Long Gun Dros is sent electronically to DOJ-BOF.

It will not state the make and model, just that a long gun was purchased, and this will include your name, address etc.

All it takes is some IT guys to build a database, some admins to populate the database (i.e. criminal names, addresses etc. and cross match these names to the one's in the electronic DROS Database).

I know I make it sound easier than it is, but it is not impossible. It would take my Tech/Dev. guys about a month to make it happen.

As long as they're making it happen within 30 days, right? Aren't they supposed to destroy the long gun DROS records after that time?

Stormfeather
12-10-2007, 5:25 PM
I just saw on the local news about this story. Apparently one felon had over 100 firearms, shotguns, rifles, handguns, and "assualt" weapons. Then they panned over a .50 cal single shot rifle, wasnt sure of make/model, maybe someone else saw the news and can help out.

bonjing
12-10-2007, 5:51 PM
so how are they able to buy firearms legally?

Grouch
12-10-2007, 5:58 PM
so how are they able to buy firearms legally?

that are looking for people that owned firearms prior to becoming a felon.

USN CHIEF
12-10-2007, 6:10 PM
:hide:

rorschach
12-10-2007, 6:27 PM
Everything from handguns to assault rifles were seized around the state.


Why do I get the feeling that "handguns" and "assault rifles" were purposely written into this story? Why no single shot .22s and O/U duck guns??:rolleyes::mad:

USN CHIEF
12-10-2007, 9:22 PM
Why do I get the feeling that "handguns" and "assault rifles" were purposely written into this story? Why no single shot .22s and O/U duck guns??:rolleyes::mad:

The Medias motto is "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story":eek:

586L-Frame
12-10-2007, 9:34 PM
Long Gun Dros is sent electronically to DOJ-BOF.

It will not state the make and model, just that a long gun was purchased, and this will include your name, address etc.

All it takes is some IT guys to build a database, some admins to populate the database (i.e. criminal names, addresses etc. and cross match these names to the one's in the electronic DROS Database).

I know I make it sound easier than it is, but it is not impossible. It would take my Tech/Dev. guys about a month to make it happen.

I support the efforts of the DOJ's efforts to take away firearms from the hands of known and prosecuted crimminals even if they owned them before committing and being prosecuted for a felony crime. I am sure there were some white collar criminals in that mix, but most I am sure were gang bangers, murderers, rapists, mentally unstable.

I know what I said may offend some, but at least the DOJ is doing what they should be doing and taking away firearms from crimminals, they are doing their job.

Those who have gone to trial, but were aquitted or their cases thrown out / dropped, they should still retain the freedom and rights to purchase and own firearms.

Once I have the data it would take only 5 to 10 minutes in msaccess
to generate a list.

gibbet
12-10-2007, 9:36 PM
I just saw on the local news about this story. Apparently one felon had over 100 firearms, shotguns, rifles, handguns, and "assualt" weapons. Then they panned over a .50 cal single shot rifle, wasnt sure of make/model, maybe someone else saw the news and can help out.

Kcal 9 reported that the wife of the felon owned and registered the .50. Because he had access to the weapon, it was seized.

Since this was LA City with Chief Bratton, I think its fair to assume if anyone living at your residence gets charged with a felony, expect a raid.

Addax
12-10-2007, 11:30 PM
Once I have the data it would take only 5 to 10 minutes in msaccess
to generate a list.

Good Point.

Keep in mind that you have a DROS system and you have a seperate criminal/convicted felon database statewide that may not be 100% compatible with each other, so you would have to build and program the criteria of the searches, the database logic etc.

It would take a programmer with no other projects on their plate (like that is ever is the case) at least 1-2 weeks to build the database and 1 week to test, and 1 more week to debug and test again etc. etc. I am only basing this off of industry experience/practice, it could have taken DOJ allot longer and quite possibly if their IT Staff was on the ball, then they would have a standardized database application/boiler plate that the DOJ would utilize and customize for different applications such as this one, which would then make the merging of both databases much more simpler. The State of California has dumped millions of dollars into IT projects that have produced great results, but unfortunately you still have different departments and organizations within the state that electronically can't talk to each other since their systems, databases etc. are all using different formats. I know this first hand since our company has worked with the state of several different IT related projects.

Of course you also have to factor time for admins to sift through the data and also verify info, catch errors, omissions etc.

All in all, in a perfect clean world, yes it would take only 5-10 minutes with MS Access, but we live and work in an imperfect world.

sloguy
12-10-2007, 11:37 PM
eff that, if a man pays his debt then he should be able to live free.

elroy
12-11-2007, 1:49 AM
keep in mind that this whole thing got on the news through Jerry Brown ,. governor moonbeam , anyone remember his past ???? this is grandstanding at its finest and old jerry is re-making himself , poised to move up the political ladder , waiting to take over for boxer or fienstein should they moove up ,,, jerry had it all at one time , power is worse than heroin , crack or oxywhatever , these megelomaniacs crave it once they've had a taste , if you think things are bad now , wait till jerry's in the senate or something , scary to think , california uber alles comes true , " I am governor jerry brown , my aura smiles and never frowns , soon i will be president ! " jell-o B.

Can'thavenuthingood
12-11-2007, 3:58 AM
So if the felon owned firearms prior to being convicted of a felony charge. I would think sometime during the courtroom proceedings, investigation etc someone in a position of authority would wonder if the accused has any firearms.

Then upon conviction of that felony the legally obtained firearms would be confiscated at that time rather than waiting to compile a list at a later date.

Seems odd that a statewide sweep has to happen as opposed to daily workings of law enforcement.

I tend to agree with the grandstanding line of thinking, JB has been somewhat out of the news cycle since the election.

Vick

Army
12-11-2007, 4:08 AM
Isn't it Federal law, that a database of firearms owners cannot be made or used?

BTW...G. Gordon Liddy is a prime example that the wife can own and possess all the firearms she wants.

Sam Hainn
12-11-2007, 4:30 AM
What will be next people that has medical prescriptions for pain pills or sleeping pills etc? Ever think about being called a Gun Nut? I'm all for felons not having guns but how far will they go after this?

I've never been to a psychiatrist and have no need for them. I've been through hell more than once and still never felt the need. But I realize not everybody is as capable of going it alone.

So what if you were going through a bad time in your life? your spouse or kid dies of disease or accident, you go through a messy divorce, lose your job and have financial trouble, you fear you have some nervous condition or OCD, whatever - and you go to see a psychiatrist about it. What if the dude is a major anti-gun freak and discovers you have guns? What if out of spite or his own irrational fear, he links gun ownership to being subversive or unstable and logs you as depressed or unstable? None of it may be true, but from his point of you, guns = Jeffrey Dahmer (BTW, who didn't use guns at all). Now what? What if the state uses the DROS then upon his recommendation that you are unstable (according to him and him alone) and should have your guns removed? Is that possible it could be deteremined by just one person? In that case, I can't imagine why any gun onwer in CA would ever seek out a therapist or psychiatrist to simply talk about things that are bothering them. If the idea is there that the DOJ could easily look up DROS records whenever they feel like it to take guns away from people deemed a certain way, nobody would ever seek out help to discuss their issues. So instead of talking to someone about a problem, to prevent them from losing it, their frustration/chaos escalate to a a level that they do act out. Great.

rod
12-11-2007, 5:42 AM
I don't have the written law pre-searched for you, but if I remember right, a judge has to order a person to see a head doctor before it can be entered into the tracking system. If someone gets some help on their own, the state will never know. That's how I remember it, but I could be wrong. Either way, if a person is a danger to society, I think it's best to make sure he/she doesn't have any guns to use. I don't think anyone is going after the guy who has a TRO or someone who sought counseling because their teenage daughter got knocked up. Believe it or not, some people have guns right now and they should not. Criminals aren't likely to tell their PO that they just stole a gun or their girlfriend bought them a gun as a getting out of prison/welcome back to the hood present. I bet there's at least one person who hid a gun or two before going off to the klink and now that they're out, has access to a gun. Yeah, I support this round up of illegal guns. We don't need more criminals and whackos shooting up malls and day care centers and give us good folks who legally own guns a bad name. If someone gets a gun taken away wrongfully, I'm sure Bill and Gene will let the right people know.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 11:24 AM
keep in mind that this whole thing got on the news through Jerry Brown ,. governor moonbeam , anyone remember his.

You are terribly misinformed about JB's interest in firearms matters.

Perhaps if the BoFfers are redirected to true gun crime. they aren't hassling people about non-redefined regulations for fixed mags?

aileron
12-11-2007, 11:25 AM
Isn't it Federal law, that a database of firearms owners cannot be made or used?


I wonder if it would be wise to get a request for DROS data through the Ca Public Records Act to verify they are not keeping long gun records past 30 days.

Big question what database or databases would keep this data. Bet they wouldn't be to willing to say.

emc002
12-11-2007, 11:50 AM
I wonder if it would be wise to get a request for DROS data through the Ca Public Records Act to verify they are not keeping long gun records past 30 days.

Big question what database or databases would keep this data. Bet they wouldn't be to willing to say.

My thoughts exactly.
I'd love to hear hoffmang or bwiese's opinion on this idea and whether they can keep these records over 30 days...

sierratangofoxtrotunion
12-11-2007, 11:59 AM
I wonder if it would be wise to get a request for DROS data through the Ca Public Records Act to verify they are not keeping long gun records past 30 days.

Big question what database or databases would keep this data. Bet they wouldn't be to willing to say.

Yeah, this story sounds nice except that the DOJ is admitting they had databases of who has guns.

DROS is required to be destroyed after 30 days. Also, I hear on the police scanner regularly when a cop asks to look up a gun's serial number, as long as isn't reported stolen, they come back with no information at all on that s/n unless it's a handgun, in which case they come back with that reg information. Okfine.

1) Maybe they aren't destroying the DROS information.

2) Maybe they're getting this information another way.

One possible way might be from FFL audits. DOJ never ever destroys those records, which would indeed record who all bought guns. Perhaps they "got around" the DROS info problem by entering all the data gleaned from audits into a database.

I'd be very interested to see what their sources of this data are.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 12:00 PM
My thoughts exactly.
I'd love to hear hoffmang or bwiese's opinion on this idea and whether they can keep these records over 30 days...

Here's what I know -

- handgun records are of course retained, they know make/model when you bought or transferred it, certainly after 1/1/91

- rifle records are likely destroyed but administrative audit trail on database would indicate activity occurred on a certain time/date. If so many bytes moved in a record change, that's likely not an update/edit but an instigation of a transaction. That could be construed to be a purchase of one or more long guns - they just don't know what model(s) or quantities.

- when DOJ was aggressively going after FFLs Dec 2005/Jan 2006 to ascertain how many OLL receivers were sold, DOJ auditors were travelling to 'hotspot' FFLs and going thru their books. I'm betting they copied some 4473s in addition to DROSes. I think they were interested in make/model and quantity - I think they were hoping we were stupid enough to actually import some 'listed' lowers. I think they were trying to get their hands on the size of the 'problem' if they were gonna list

Mize
12-11-2007, 12:05 PM
Gun ownership is a RIGHT and the government should not have the authority to take it away!!! If these people are that dangerous and unstable, they should be locked up. If they have paid their debt, then let them own guns. Don't think that the government can't make a felon out of YOU if they wanted to!

lawnrevenge
12-11-2007, 12:10 PM
And so history repeats it's self. We have created a sub-class (ex-cons who've paid their debt) and we've registered all the guns "for the greater good" ANd now we've disarmed that subclass. And many of them (sex offenders) can't live in certain places and are on display for us all (megan's law) and the government is praised for protecting us from an invented threat (or were these guns all used to commit crimes?)

So, which minority is next? smokers, gays, jews, muslems, middle aged white men with a job?

stag1500
12-11-2007, 1:19 PM
This really bothers me to no end. A lot of these fellons are people who never hurt anybody but only committed a crime against the government or done some other non-violent act (theft, for example). If they are out of prison now, it means that they've paid their debt to society and should have all their constitutional rights reinstated. We really need to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. After all, it was written by a bunch of Nazis! :mad:

Mize
12-11-2007, 1:21 PM
Bwiese, ROD, 5968, FEDUPWBS, M.D. Van Norman, ADDAX, 4Brigada, 11Z50 and Twoshots, all think it is okay to take away the rights of people THEY THINK should not have them! When will they come for your rights!?

elroy
12-11-2007, 2:01 PM
You are terribly misinformed about JB's interest in firearms matters.
BWE

the point i was making was simply that the story was being used for political gain by JB who called the press conf. to get his face on the tube ,,, but i do feel its easy to say felons should not have guns ( i agree for the most part ) , its easier still for the law to brand someone a felon , for a non-violent any number of things , just look at joe francis of ggw ,, you may not like his buisness morally , but he is being railroaded by a fla judge ,, or how bout tommy chong ,, jailed for selling bongs to stores a few years ago ,,, something thousands of smoke shops sell everyday legally ,,, they tried to make an example of him ,, i don't think of him as a violent threat to the community type of felon ,,

SteveH
12-11-2007, 2:37 PM
Interesting story. It appears they are cross referencing handgun, 50cal & assault weapon registrations with court, domestic violence restraining order, parole and probation records to come up with lists of prohibited persons who have registered guns.

SteveH
12-11-2007, 2:42 PM
So if the felon owned firearms prior to being convicted of a felony charge. I would think sometime during the courtroom proceedings, investigation etc someone in a position of authority would wonder if the accused has any firearms.

Then upon conviction of that felony the legally obtained firearms would be confiscated at that time rather than waiting to compile a list at a later date.

What they currently do, I'm not sure how long they have been doing it, is give the defndant a form which is used to assign a conservator of the defendants firearms. The defendant has a certain time frame to fill out the paperwork and file it with the court. I've seen the form of the DOJ website.

MrEd
12-11-2007, 2:45 PM
Taking the guns away from those that through their own actions have excluded themselves from the right to own them is only right , even after the felon has served his time the law states that he / she is not elligible to own firearms , You can not compare the rights of felons with the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS . Felons have proven through their actions that they do not belive in abeying the law , the second they make that decision they have to live with the consequences and I have absolutaly no problem with that .

Seing a head doctor does not mean it gets reported automatically , if the head doctor believes you are a danger to yourself or others then he reports you . People see shrinks for a multitude of reasons , I have an appointment once every 2 weeks as part of my Job , it is a condition of my employement so I go and spend one hour every two weeks with the shrink , I own guns , my boss knows , my shrink knows and nobody has a problem with it as I am not a convicted felon or classed as a prohibited person .

SteveH
12-11-2007, 2:46 PM
And so history repeats it's self. We have created a sub-class (ex-cons who've paid their debt)...


Part of the felons punishment includes loss of voting and firearms rights. incarceration is only part of the punishment for felonies, and a part often skipped entirely by the court.

Mize
12-11-2007, 2:58 PM
If the government wants to make you a felon, they will. Just because it is the law doesn't make it right.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 3:08 PM
Bwiese, ROD, 5968, FEDUPWBS, M.D. Van Norman, ADDAX, 4Brigada, 11Z50 and Twoshots, all think it is okay to take away the rights of people THEY THINK should not have them! When will they come for your rights!?


These folks committed felonies. They're comitting further felonies by retaining firearms as an ongoing/continiuing crime. This is well-known.

Depending on what they were convicted for (nonviolent especially), these people have some recourse to recover their firearms rights via expungment & 17(b) filings.

It helps our political stance to not support illegal ownership of firearms by criminals and the mentally ill. The recent NRA supported bill in Congress actually helped things by introducing a way for rights restoration that never existed before. The idea that crazies & criminals should still have guns is a politically unsupportable decision that will only cause us problems.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 3:10 PM
If the government wants to make you a felon, they will. Just because it is the law doesn't make it right.

That's 'black helicopters' thinking that's so outta whack I can't even respond.

All I can say is that if you know and follow the law you won't get in trouble for having guns.

The people this article referred to already were found guilty of multiple criminal acts, and were apparently too lazy to get expungements or 17(b) filings (if nonviolent/nonsexcrime)

bwiese
12-11-2007, 3:14 PM
[quote=bwieseYou are terribly misinformed about JB's interest in firearms matters.


the point i was making was simply that the story was being used for political gain by JB who called the press conf. to get his face on the tube..[/QUOTE]

Isn't it better for an AG using his Firearms Bureau to do this, than something else? He has to do something with them - politically he can't kill the unit even though he has demoted it from Division to Bureau. And crimes are being committed - "felon in possession".

The people involved had an opportunity to (1) not screw up (2) fight their case until they won or (3) (if case nonviolent) file for expungment/17(b) reduction etc. They failed to do this, which questions their basic functional skills.

If this were Bill Lockyer, they'd still be looking for pistol grips in Pomona gun shows using burned-out BNE narco guys having no idea of CA gunlaws.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 3:16 PM
Seing a head doctor does not mean it gets reported automatically , if the head


Correct, it has to be formally adjudicated, fairly strict level of scrutiny & restraint.

With the new bill in Congress, looks like folks that may have had 'an issue' in the past (or even a misjudged situation) will be able to recover their gun rights - something never doable before this.

Mize
12-11-2007, 3:19 PM
[QUOTE=bwiese;876717]That's 'black helicopters' thinking that's so outta whack I can't even respond.

"Black Helicopters!" There are plenty of people who would like to take YOUR right to bear arms away at any cost! Is that paranoia?

bwiese
12-11-2007, 3:27 PM
That's 'black helicopters' thinking that's so outta whack I can't even respond.

"Black Helicopters!" There are plenty of people who would like to take YOUR right to bear arms away at any cost! Is that paranoia?

Yes and no.
Random paranoia is useless.

Our biggest threats are from regulatory matters - or when people who are politically stupid assert that felons & mentally ill should still have firearms.

Again, it's refreshing that BOF resources are being used against regular criminals instead of arbitrary & capricious enforcement of non-laws on semiauto rifles.

Perhaps you don't know much about me, if there's someone that has to worry about his door being kicked down by antigunners, it's me (as well as a coupla other members on this site).

Mize
12-11-2007, 3:33 PM
I admit that I don't know you. However, I have met you once, and I have read thousands of your posts. I actually look at you as a sort of modern day civil rights leader. I am thankful for a lot of the work you have done in educating myself and others, but I know first hand how easy it is to be charged with a felony.

MudCamper
12-11-2007, 3:33 PM
Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say any one of you take your OLL to the range one day. You get arrested for a 12276 violation. You don't have the good fortune to get 20,000 bucks in donations from CalGunners like some people have. You are convicted. You are now a felon, for the rest of your life. For the rest of your life you cannot own any firearms. You committed no act of violence. Your "crime" had no victim. But you are forever branded a felon, and people on boards like this one berate you and say you don't deserve your 2A rights. It (or something like it) can happen to you. I personally know people like this, people who made mistakes when they were young and stupid, but who's "crimes" had no victims. And who's punishment never ends, for the rest of their lives. It's wrong. There is a huge underclass of people like this in this country, and it's just plain wrong.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 3:44 PM
Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say any one of you take your OLL to the range one day. You get arrested for a 12276 violation. You don't have the good fortune to get 20,000 bucks in donations from CalGunners like some people have. You are convicted. You are now a felon, for the rest of your life. For the rest of your life you cannot own any firearms.

Many of these people, if still in the state they reside in, can file for expungment and rights restoration via 17(b) filings. There's quite a few folks who have had a young & stupid vandalism case turn into felony burglary, or were caught selling a bit of pot and took the 'felony + no jail' option instead of fighting in court. These folks, after a period of time, have been able to file 17(b) rights restorations.

Our purpose here is to stop more things from becoming felonies and to help folks charged for nonviolent gun offenses, since most junior asst female DAs don't know sh*t from shinola about guns and either overcharge or are just confused. Continued resistance can mitigate against that.

WeThePeople
12-11-2007, 4:01 PM
http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-armedf...ll=ktla-news-2

Quote:
540 Firearms Seized in Statewide Crackdown on Felons
December 10, 2007, 6:01 PM PST

540 Firearms Seized in Statewide Crackdown on Felons Authorities have seized more than 540 guns in recent weeks as part of a statewide crackdown on convicted felons and others banned from owning firearms, California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced Monday.

Sweeps conducted by state and local law enforcement targeted about 1,000 illegal gun owners in Los Angeles, Redding, Oakland, Fresno, San Jose and other areas throughout California.

"We want people who are not supposed to own guns to get rid of them," Brown said. "We have to keep them under surveillance and that's what we're going to do."

While owners had purchased the guns legally, they were later barred from owning their weapons due to convictions for felonies and violent or firearms-related misdemeanors. Others involved in domestic violence incidents or found to be mentally ill typically must relinquish their guns as well.

Everything from handguns to assault rifles were seized in the last six weeks, with authorities arresting 16 people in the process. In one case, agents found a man with more than 100 weapons in Alameda County.

The crackdown is aimed at what authorities say are the most dangerous individuals. There are about 9,000 others listed in the database, which could eventually include as many as 60,000 people, officials said.

The owners were identified through a state database - known as the Armed and Prohibited Persons System - that matches criminal histories with gun ownership records.

The system was up and running last year. Brown expanded it in June so local police departments could better search for illegal gun owners by area.


Seems like a pretty big net for just 16 people. Imagine, 1000 warrants for just 16 people.

I wonder who's on the list of 60,000? OLL buyers?

Full Clip
12-11-2007, 4:51 PM
These laws that deny certain classes of people their rights are just wrong.

Criminals are not denied their rights, they freely give them up when they choose to commit a crime -- acts that generally deprive honest citizens of THEIR rights. Don't like the punishment? Don't do the crime. Pretty simple.

Mize
12-11-2007, 5:09 PM
Unfortunately it is not that simple. There are a lot of felony crimes out there, and many have no victims. Punishments don't always fit the crime!

bwiese
12-11-2007, 5:14 PM
Unfortunately it is not that simple. There are a lot of felony crimes out there, and many have no victims. Punishments don't always fit the crime!

Yes, but those folks knew the consequences when they committed the crime.

4 Brigada
12-11-2007, 5:17 PM
Bwiese, ROD, 5968, FEDUPWBS, M.D. Van Norman, ADDAX, 4Brigada, 11Z50 and Twoshots, all think it is okay to take away the rights of people THEY THINK should not have them! When will they come for your rights!?


Yes I stand by my post, If your a convicted felon (criminal) you have the right to not have guns. You have the right to be locked up and while your there work on your social skill and maybe some breakfast for you cellmate. I didnt post bail for my son when he was arrested, he stayed in jail, I had no pity for him, do you think I have pity for some criminal I dont know. If your a felon you need to pay the consecuences for your actions. The only thing that Im torn on is the issue of the vets, I would really like for them to receive treatment, even if that means the loss of the guns. Would hate to loose a vet because he didint get the teatment for fear of loosing his guns. Sorry if this offends someone but I care more about a fellow vet than the guns. Mize, first Im not planning on becoming a felon so no worries for me and we loose gun rights here and there we fight to keep them. Thats us the non felons.

Mize
12-11-2007, 5:38 PM
While you are free, work on your grammar and spelling. It doesn't have to be perfect, but your post is hard to read. Most people don't plan on becoming a felon. You should be worried. I wouldn't put it past a gun grabber to charge you with a felony, just to take away your rights. Gun control is wrong. If someone has paid their debt, they should be allowed to own a firearm. I am NOT a felon. I also support our vets. If you are one, then thank you for your service. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, because I feel that you are wrong.

4 Brigada
12-11-2007, 5:51 PM
Hey. Im on my way to the chalkboard to write I must learn how to spell and use proper grammar 100 times. I know your not a felon, I know exactly what you are. Have a nice day on ignore

psriley
12-11-2007, 6:20 PM
One factor that isn't being considered here is California's recidivism rate. Depending on whose stats you look at, California has one of the highest recidivism rates in the country. Some 70% of these people who have "paid their debt" will go on to commit future felonies.

Let me be clear in saying that I would never advocate a system whereby an individual is penalized for something he has not yet done and may never do, however the tendency for some convicted felons to continue to disregard the law is something that needs to be considered when contemplating restoring a felon's firearms rights.

As Bill W. has pointed out multiple times in this thread, there is an expungement process available for those who truly want to put their trip through the system behind them. I have a feeling that those who would bother going through this process are people who are less at risk of recidivism and are possibly those who should be able, by steps of provenance, to eventually have their firearms rights returned to them, but only if their original convictions were for nonviolent/nonsexual/nonfirearms related crimes.

Violent offenders are not going to care, by and large, whether they can legally purchase a firearm. If they want one, they will go about it by other means, presumably the same means they used to arm themselves to begin with.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Mize
12-11-2007, 6:42 PM
Or you could be right. We all have opinions, and one of the great things about this site is that we can express them. Recidivism rates are worth looking at, but in general I will not support any form of gun control, no matter how popular it is. If I offended anyone... get over it. If you want to put me on ignore... I don't care. Let the baby have his bottle.

Pred@tor
12-11-2007, 7:55 PM
I agree with you Mize! You're not alone. :D

rod
12-12-2007, 6:15 AM
http://i6.tinypic.com/82lcozb.jpg

aileron
12-12-2007, 6:22 AM
Many of these people, if still in the state they reside in, can file for expungment and rights restoration via 17(b) filings. There's quite a few folks who have had a young & stupid vandalism case turn into felony burglary, or were caught selling a bit of pot and took the 'felony + no jail' option instead of fighting in court. These folks, after a period of time, have been able to file 17(b) rights restorations.

Our purpose here is to stop more things from becoming felonies and to help folks charged for nonviolent gun offenses, since most junior asst female DAs don't know sh*t from shinola about guns and either overcharge or are just confused. Continued resistance can mitigate against that.

I think the lesson here folks, is to educate non-violent felons how to restore there rights under the law.

Also at a later date, like when we have firmly planted the wedge in the other way. Sometime after heller vs. dc. We can then ask whether non-violent felons that are now up standing citizens in the community have a right to have rights re-instated after a certain period of time has elapsed with no further criminal behavior. With no action required on their part to reinstate their rights. Say 10 years or so.

I cannot imagine anything else can be done for a non violent felon.

drclark
12-12-2007, 7:53 AM
I have mixed feelings on this issue. On the one hand, I do see what the BOF is doing as positive. We as a community have often said, "new gun laws aren't needed, how about enforcing the ones we have!". The BOF is doing precisely that, enforcing current gun laws.

However, I also do agree that there are way to many crimes that are felonies that should not be. This is a problem that spans beyond the gun community. Groups like the ACLU should be pushing for a general review of the criminal code to toss obsolete laws and re-align the definition of felony vs misdemeanor for many crimes. Maybe higher class misdemenaors that have fines and punishments similar to felonies that cover non-violent crimes (i.e. should someone really lose their rights over mere possession of throwing stars?)

I do worry that the process by which people are judged "mentally ill"; maybe because I don't know much about it. With the aftermath of the VT shooting and the recent Mall shooting, I suspect this is an area we will have to watch closely along with the issues related to restraining orders.

Lastly, I do think that we do need to watch the BOF to ensure that they are building their database in a legal manner (i.e. not retaining DROS records too long, etc). Also, anytime the .gov is involved in building databases I get worried about the accuracy of the information. Example: there are lots of people who have difficulty flying because their name is too similar to someone's name on the no-fly list. What happens to those felons who do rid themselves of their firearms, but that information is not updated in the data base; or the law abiding citizen who's name or identity is similar to that of a known felon? This also is "proof" of the saying "registration leads to confiscation". In this case they are confiscating firearms from people who shouldn't have them but someday..... I can understand the desire of the AK flat builders who want to build rifles that stay completely off the books.

Also, keep in mind this only addresses the problem of felon's/prohibited people who possess firearms that were legally purchased prior to their change in status. This does nothing about the felons who obtain their weapons by illegal means.

drc

WolfMansDad
12-12-2007, 8:52 AM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if a person is too dangerous to be "allowed" to own a firearm, they should be locked up, either in prison or a mental institution.

To be armed and to defend yourself is a fundamental human right. Taking that right, or any other human right, away from someone should be a very weighty matter and not done lightly. Could you justify forbidding someone to write a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, or posting his thoughts online, because he committed a felony at some point in the past? Words are, after all, much more powerful and dangerous than weapons, and such a man has proven himself to be untrustworthy by past behavior. Would you support random, warrantless searches of people who had once been convicted of a crime? If someone has been caught with drugs once, aren't they more likely to have them again? As we all know, drugs are dangerous, and it is in the best interest of society to keep a close eye on people who have demonstrated their willingness to break the law. (I'm playing devil's advocate, here, in case you didn't catch the satire.)

We ought to give the right to keep and bear arms just as much weight as freedom of speech or protection from illegal search and seizure. I am, as I've said before, deeply uncomfortable with the idea that whole classes of people can have certain fundamental rights denied to them, for whatever reason. It hints to the rest of us that those rights are actually privileges, to be handed out or taken back by the government at a whim. Any government with the authority to do that has far too much power, and governments with that kind of power don't have good track records.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
12-12-2007, 8:54 AM
The question remains: where did this database come from?

Hoop
12-12-2007, 9:06 AM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if a person is too dangerous to be "allowed" to own a firearm, they should be locked up, either in prison or a mental institution.



We don't have the room.

WolfMansDad
12-12-2007, 9:18 AM
The question remains: where did this database come from?

That question has been bothering me as well.

Sawdust
12-12-2007, 9:22 AM
That question has been bothering me as well.

And me.

Sawdust

MudCamper
12-12-2007, 9:45 AM
Some just don't seem to get it. And those people await this fate:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

"Felons" are an easy class to discriminate against. It is easy to justify taking away their rights. But what does "felon" mean? It does not mean violent person. It does not even mean criminal. It just means a person who has been convicted of a "felony" at any time in his past. There are a lot of felonies that shouldn't be. And there are a lot of good, decent, hard-working people who have made mistakes in their distant past. If you don't think that you could end up in their shoes, then you are a fool.

Sgt Raven
12-12-2007, 10:06 AM
I have mixed feelings on this issue. On the one hand, I do see what the BOF is doing as positive. We as a community have often said, "new gun laws aren't needed, how about enforcing the ones we have!". The BOF is doing precisely that, enforcing current gun laws.
.............snip................
I do worry that the process by which people are judged "mentally ill"; maybe because I don't know much about it. With the aftermath of the VT shooting and the recent Mall shooting, I suspect this is an area we will have to watch closely along with the issues related to restraining orders.
..............snip...........

Also, keep in mind this only addresses the problem of felon's/prohibited people who possess firearms that were legally purchased prior to their change in status. This does nothing about the felons who obtain their weapons by illegal means.

drc

I guy I worked with had a massive heart attack and ended up with a pacemaker. For a year and a half he was in and out of the VA hospital for heart problems. Toward the end of his life one time while at the VA he told the nurse that he was tired of all of this and he wished it would just end. Anyone that has been around someone that has a serious illness knows that at times they have ‘bad’ days and may feel like this. The nurse reported his statement to his doctor and the VA locked him in their ‘Looney’ bin for 2 weeks. About 6 months later he died of massive heart failure.

My wife has Cancer and I’ve seen her during a bad day and she’s said things that she doesn’t really mean. Should she lose her rights for those comments?

Hoop
12-12-2007, 11:43 AM
That question has been bothering me as well.

Probably just random searches of all parolee's homes & checkups on former felons.

emc002
12-12-2007, 12:11 PM
We don't have the room.

Or the mental institutions anymore, thanks Governor Moonbeam!

OOOOHHH, Post #200!

Dirk Tungsten
12-12-2007, 2:18 PM
I think the law in Cali re: mental institutions was changed in 1967 under Gov Regan.

WolfMansDad
12-12-2007, 2:56 PM
We don't have the room.

Then we have too many laws.

Really, what does it say about a society when we would really LIKE to lock up a large fraction of the population, but we just don't have enough room in our jails. Somehow I doubt that there are that many true sociopaths out there.

Pthfndr
12-12-2007, 5:47 PM
The question remains: where did this database come from?

Hand guns are registered at time of purchase.
AWs have had 3 (4?) different registration periods.
The .50 bmg firearms had a registration period.

Anyone who owns/owned one of the above is in a data base. Criminals are in a data base. In part of the press release they said they compared the two, then went after the 1000 felons with the most violent felony history.

I would guess the other long guns/shot guns were just something caught in the net. More than likely many of them not legally owned anyway.

The DOJ does not have the man power to go to every single FFL in the state and copy their 4473s. Niether does the DOJ have the office man power (clerical help) to enter all the 4473 info into a data base so it can be compared to their data base of felons on parole, etc.

Hoop
12-12-2007, 5:52 PM
Then we have too many laws.



That's exactly right, but I don't see it changing anytime soon. It would be nice it if did, but the California solution to it is more jails and more laws.

psriley
12-12-2007, 6:49 PM
Hypothetically, idiots like the Columbine shooters, the VA Tech shooter, the Omaha shooter and the Denver shooter, if they hadn't had the good sense to off themselves, were young enough to have been captured, done time in prison, and been released because some defense attorney convinced a jury that they "didn't really mean it" or were just having a bad day or were suffering from teen angst. Say the Columbine turds each did 30 years and got out having "paid their debt" (which could very well mean they seethed in stir with growing vengefulness and developed all sorts of interesting new skills and contacts). Are American society and the Constitution in general well-served if these individuals, upon exiting prison, with no further delay, could pop 'round to the gun shop and load up on the latest hardware?

When a person is born into a civilized society they enter into a binding social contract whether they like it or not, and this contract stipulates that harming others is not acceptable. In my opinion, this social contract overrides even the wisest legislation. There are certain acts that irrevocably violate this contract, and in my opinion firearms should be permanently denied those who commit those acts. I am referring to civilized society at large enforcing the social contract, not necessarily a government, although that is the apparatus through which it is done in our country.

There are also acts which violate the social contract to a lesser extent and should be redeemable, but the very process of that redemption should reveal the true character of the individual pursuing it.

lawnrevenge
12-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Hypothetically, idiots like the Columbine shooters, the VA Tech shooter, the Omaha shooter and the Denver shooter, if they hadn't had the good sense to off themselves, were young enough to have been captured, done time in prison, and been released because some defense attorney convinced a jury that they "didn't really mean it" or were just having a bad day or were suffering from teen angst. Say the Columbine turds each did 30 years and got out having "paid their debt" (which could very well mean they seethed in stir with growing vengefulness and developed all sorts of interesting new skills and contacts). Are American society and the Constitution in general well-served if these individuals, upon exiting prison, with no further delay, could pop 'round to the gun shop and load up on the latest hardware?

The flaw with this argument is that first we must make sure to keep people like this off the street, no matter the excuse for killing someone, they should be kept out of society so it would make your reason for disarming felons null.

Also, I think a sympathetic jury would have given the Columbine shooters, VA tech shooter, the Omaha shooter, and the Denver shooter LWOP. IMHO.

uscbigdawg
12-12-2007, 11:11 PM
OK, so the AG's making some 'keep guns outta the hands of criminals' noise.

I can live with that, esp if it keeps the BoFfers occupied and they're running off of valid criminal records.

Woohoo! They're doing their job. Now what?

Rich

Outlaw Josey Wales
12-12-2007, 11:20 PM
To be armed and to defend yourself is a fundamental human right. Taking that right, or any other human right, away from someone should be a very weighty matter and not done lightly.

We ought to give the right to keep and bear arms just as much weight as freedom of speech or protection from illegal search and seizure. I am, as I've said before, deeply uncomfortable with the idea that whole classes of people can have certain fundamental rights denied to them, for whatever reason. It hints to the rest of us that those rights are actually privileges, to be handed out or taken back by the government at a whim. Any government with the authority to do that has far too much power, and governments with that kind of power don't have good track records.

The State Vs. The People
by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman

The increase in government power is like a political arms buildup against the citizenry -- a vast expansion of the pretexts that the governing class has to attack the governed. A massive military buildup by one government can often subdue its foreign enemies without a fight. Similarly, contemporary statute books convey sufficient punitive power that citizens surrender without a fight in most potential conflicts with the government.

Americans should heed Wolfe and Zelman when they urge people to practice "living resistance" -- which means "committing your life to making sure that you never, through choice or inertia, help lay the bricks that build the police state."

People must summon the will and resolution to drive politicians out of their own lives. What is needed now is the same passion and outrage over political and bureaucratic aggrandizement that existed towards chattel slavery 140 years ago. We must recognize that possession of government office does not confer ownership rights over human beings....

If contemporary Americans can cease idolizing the State, a rebirth of the spirit of freedom will begin and the threat of America becoming a Police State will become far less foreboding.

-- From the Introduction by James Bovard

hoffmang
12-13-2007, 12:13 AM
All,

The founders of our nation were just fine barring felons, the mentally unstable, and substance abusers from arms in the first 13 colonies.

If you have a problem with the felon bar due to overcriminalizations then work to add more recourse for restoration and decreminalization.

WolfmansDad: You do realize that you're arguing that one the one hand felons who are done being locked up should have firearms rights, but instead of letting them out sooner we should instead deny them liberty longer to simply keep them from their right to arms, right? I bet you most convicted felons would disagree with your proposed balance.

-Gene

Mize
12-13-2007, 12:39 AM
How do you know that our founding fathers were "just fine" with barring felons from their right to bear arms? They may have been (I don't know for sure), but I read "shall not be infringed," to mean exactly that; at least to free men (and women).

hoffmang
12-13-2007, 1:03 AM
In US v. Emerson the court there quoted:
("violent criminals, children, and those of unsound mind may be deprived of firearms . . . ."); Don B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 266 (1983) ("Nor does it seem that the Founders considered felons within the common law right to arms or intended to confer any such right upon them.").

Mr Kates is on our side so I tend to trust his research.

-Gene

Mize
12-13-2007, 1:07 AM
My hat is off to you. That was fast:) Not all felons are violent criminals though.

hoffmang
12-13-2007, 1:11 AM
Mize,

I'd support limiting the felon bar to crimes of moral turpitude which tend to only be violent.

Also saw this from the Kentucky Supreme Court in dissent but well on point:

Part of the fight over ratification of the United States Constitution was the anti- Federalists' concern that it did not contain a bill of rights. Several days after the Pennsylvania Convention voted 46 to 23 to ratify the Constitution, twenty-one of the Convention's minority members issued a dissenting address calling for a Bill of Rights. Included in their proposed list of rights was a right to bear arms that stated in part: "[N]o law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . ." The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, 1787 (emphasis added), excerpts reprinted in Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights : A Documentary History 665 (1971). There is little doubt that the citizens of the early United States were sensitive to the possible deprivation of their rights and liberties at the hands of the newly-formed federal government. It is equally clear, however, that their concern did not extend to the rights and liberties of criminals.
http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-SC-000060-DG.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=17406&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cIndices%5cBoth%5f Courts%5fIndex&HitCount=8&hits=2b+83+e6+1819+1ce3+1e79+1e9c+4fda+&hc=172&req=posey

A decent read upholding the felon bar to arms in a free state.

-Gene

Mize
12-13-2007, 1:18 AM
Thanks for the link. I will read it another time and respond with my thoughts (as if anyone cares what I think :) )It is late and I have to work in a few hours, so I am going to bed.

lawnrevenge
12-13-2007, 7:45 AM
Well now thanks Gene. I guess the real point must be that there are too many crimes (non violent) that are deemed a felon.

For example my Uncle got caught 30 years ago with too much pot in his trunk...He's a felon. Never hurt anyone, just had "too much" for it to be a misdemeanor. Now, after serving time for that and losing so many rights over pot, he does not trust the government to the point that he won't even try to restore his rights as pointed out. He remains unarmed in Florida. So as much as I hate drug use and all the social problems it brings (just opened a can of worms:banghead: ) I don't see how as a society we can disarm someone (politically and literally) over something like this. Also I don't see why child molesters, rapists, murderers, at the sort should ever see the light of day. But maybe that's from what I learned in my psychology class, about how some disorders and behaviors aren't fixable with jail time. Pedophiles, rapists, and murderers rarely improve psychologically. Pedophiles and rapists can't be "fixed" or rehabilitated. So letting them out into society after they demonstrated such lack of self control is like letting a gorilla loose in downtown, sooner or later there will be problems from it.

Fjold
12-13-2007, 7:51 AM
JMHO, but most people who commit felonies (especially very publicized laws such as drug dealing, etc.) know that the loss of individual rights are a part of the penalty for doing these things and they do them anyway.

Prc329
12-13-2007, 8:02 AM
The more time the BoF is looking after real gun crime the less time I need to look over my shoulder while trying to enjoy me rifles.

MudCamper
12-13-2007, 8:34 AM
The more time the BoF is looking after real gun crime the less time I need to look over my shoulder while trying to enjoy me rifles.

But "your rifles" may turn you into a "felon" one day.

WolfMansDad
12-13-2007, 9:55 AM
WolfmansDad: You do realize that you're arguing that one the one hand felons who are done being locked up should have firearms rights, but instead of letting them out sooner we should instead deny them liberty longer to simply keep them from their right to arms, right? I bet you most convicted felons would disagree with your proposed balance.

-Gene

Yes, that's pretty much it. I am all in favor of stiff penalties for real crimes. To me, a "real" crime is one where there is a victim. That could be a crime of violence (assault, rape, murder), a property crime (burglary), or both (armed robbery). Individuals who commit such crimes should pay a steep price. What I am opposed to are the laws that criminalize behavior where there is no victim: the old hippie smoking pot and watching tv in his living room, the guy out in the desert shooting tin cans with a "forbidden" firearm.

We have far too many victimless crimes for which people are denied their rights ever after. If we didn't insist on locking up people for victimless crimes, we would probably have the room and the resources to deal with the real criminals.

hoffmang
12-13-2007, 11:19 AM
I'm all for reforming the criminal justice system WD. I'm however also quite sure that its well within the legislatures purview to bar especially violent felons and probably other felons from owning arms. I expect that over time there will be a due process right to post conviction rehabilitation for non violent felons, but this is one place that "shall not be infringed" is always going to yield to a degree.

-Gene