Should they or shouldn't they - The Firearms Forum

jim summers · 02-10-2010, 08:20 AM

I read a post from a new member and it got me to thinking about it. Here is the question.

If someone commits a felony that does not involve the use of a weapon and by weapon i mean handgun/longgun. The courts find that person guilty and from that point on they have a felony hanging around their neck. Should that person be banned from ever having owning a firearm the rest of their life.

As for me i don't think so but what say ye learned men/women.

carver · 02-10-2010, 08:33 AM

I'm on board! Our system of justice leaves a lot to be desired, but still, it's better than most others. The 2nd amendment makes it clear that the ownership of firearms are for every man, and that right shall not be infringed. There are folks that should not own firearms, such as violent convicted criminals. Everyone else should have the right.

NitroDave08 · 02-10-2010, 08:43 AM

I'm kinda torn on this topic. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility. I guess the logic is the ability to follow the laws. Here in wyoming, if someone is charged with a misdomener, they are not allowed a CCW for 5 years. New legislation is just introduced to make it 1 year to align with other states. As for felonies, forget it.

I see the logic in the "big picture". In the misdomenor cases you get atleast a second chance. In the felony cases you get none. I think that there should be a timeframe where a "felon" can get his right back, but after a second conviction, lose it. It leads towards the use of trends. Kinda sucks, but I can see the logic. As for the "without a weapon" it goes to my thought on the logic of it's not a matter of how you did it, it's what you did. A felony is a felony. Flawed, yes, but it would take forever to handle each case on case-by-case.

petesusn · 02-10-2010, 08:54 AM

If a person is obviously drunk and attempts to purchase a firearm that person should and probably will be denied that transaction. Another person does not pass the background check. Is this denying him/her their 2nd amendment rights? A convicted felon when released/paroled and put on probation forfits his/her 4th amendment rights yet should retain their 2nd amendment rights? A felon made the rational decision to break the law to that extent clearly indicating that they have no regard for authority, the law, the constitution and individual rights. Are we expected to allow them to walk the streets legally armed?
Just food for thought.

CampingJosh · 02-10-2010, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitroDave08

A felony is a felony. Flawed, yes, but it would take forever to handle each case on case-by-case.

I disagree here. I think there is a huge difference between felony marijuana possession and felony kidnapping/rape/murder/etc.

sniperassist · 02-10-2010, 09:10 AM

I think this is an area that needs common sense turned on. Violent criminals have given up their legal right to own a gun. However, non violent offenders that have no violence and are not repeat offenders should be considered. Just my opinion of course.

sniperassist · 02-10-2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I disagree here. I think there is a huge difference between felony marijuana possession and felony kidnapping/rape/murder/etc.

My neighbor was convicted as a felon because he beat the crap out of his daughters boyfriend for trying to take advantage of her in the car in his driveway...needless to say he was convicted and lost his right. He is a vet and responsible gun owner...so its not all cut & dry.

Terry_P · 02-10-2010, 09:20 AM

If someone commits a violent crime they have forfeited their right to own a gun. How about conspiracy? Someone conspires to spread antrax into a public school system but gets caught in an FBI sting, they spend 10 years in jail and get out. How about them? How about breaking and entering? Let them have a gun next time? Somebody beats another to death, spends 20 years in jail, let them have a gun when they get out?

The way crimes are plea bargained down these days if someone get a felony conviction then they should lose their rights.

petesusn · 02-10-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperassist

I think this is an area that needs common sense turned on. Violent criminals have given up their legal right to own a gun. However, non violent offenders that have no violence and are not repeat offenders should be considered. Just my opinion of course.

All too often our judicial system has no idea what common sense is.

ARB · 02-10-2010, 09:37 AM

It would be darn hard to do a case by case ruling on this. So, if I had to decide on whether or not felons should regain their rights to own a firearm, the answer is no. They should be happy with their freedom and the fact that they didn't lose their hands or life, like they may have in other countries.
I've known a guy that got locked up for felony stalking. He certainly doesn't need access to anything that goes boom. As for marajuana convictions, they just need to change the laws surrounding that in itself.

sniperassist · 02-10-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry_P

If someone commits a violent crime they have forfeited their right to own a gun. How about conspiracy? Someone conspires to spread antrax into a public school system but gets caught in an FBI sting, they spend 10 years in jail and get out. How about them? How about breaking and entering? Let them have a gun next time? Somebody beats another to death, spends 20 years in jail, let them have a gun when they get out?

The way crimes are plea bargained down these days if someone get a felony conviction then they should lose their rights.

You said violent crime...what about a legal gun owner arrested for defending himself only to find himself the guilty party for using excessive force. I am not saying give felons their rights back but there are some instances where they are no more a danger than you and I.....you may want to back off the coffee bro.

Alpo · 02-10-2010, 12:37 PM

I didn't read all of them, so this might have been said already, but:

I don't care what they did. Robbery, murder, mayhem, kidnapping. Doesn't matter. They were convicted. They were sentenced. They served their time. They have "paid their debt to society". They get out of jail and they still have the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Amendment rights. They should also have the 2nd.

If they cannot be trusted with a gun, they cannot be trusted with a knife or a car or a baseball bat or a screwdriver or a ball-peen hammer. If you can't trust them with something they can hurt someone with, then you can't trust them with anything they can hurt someone one. If you can't trust them with a weapon, they should not be outside. Either lock 'em up forever, or hang their sorry butts.

But if they've done their time, and you are going to let them back out on the street, they should have ALL of their rights back.

Silencer · 02-10-2010, 01:08 PM

A few years ago, a news report was done on the huge increase of felony convictions in LA/San Bernardino counties. It was discovered 12-20 year-old hispanics were the cause. In the city Pomona CA, a city right below mine, 90% of hispanics aged 12-20 were already convicted of felonies. Over 60% of the population of Pomona were convicted with felonies. Ontario, the town next to Pomona, and the town below mine, had similar records. Again, a town filled with hispanics.

Naturally the hispanic news reporter started a claim of racism, and was given quite a surprise. Both cities had several high-ranking hispanic officers come forward to reveal why so many hispanics had felony convictions. Simply put, "They're committing felony acts! We don't discriminate who gets a felony and who doesn't! That's absurd!"

The backlash on the reporter was severe enough for her to lose her job. She was made an example of when idiots like her don't report the news, but act like another moron playing the race card.

What was eye opening about her report, was the civil disabilities that come with a felony conviction. Here a few now...

1. Can't vote.
2. Can't own a firearm.
3. Can't serve on a jury.
4. Can't join military (recently lifted)
5. Can't receive food stamps, welfare, MediCal or other assistance.
6. Can't receive student loans.
7. Can't receive business loans.
8. Can't receive grants, loans, etc. of any type.
9. Can't get a civil servant job or any other government job.
10. Can't earn certain certificates or licenses (hazmat cards, chemical processing licenses, etc.)
11. Loss of rights to searches. (Cops can pull you out of your car and search both your car and you without warrants.)
12. Loss the right to fly or travel outside the US. (some instances but not all)

You see why it's so easy to get some 'felonies?' The government wants it that way. Look all the stuff you're not entitled to anymore. You become controlled sheep.

02-10-2010, 08:20 AM	#1
jim summers Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: I reside in southern Indiana, you can almost step out of my back door and be setting on Patoka Lake Posts: 1,056	Should they or shouldn't they I read a post from a new member and it got me to thinking about it. Here is the question. If someone commits a felony that does not involve the use of a weapon and by weapon i mean handgun/longgun. The courts find that person guilty and from that point on they have a felony hanging around their neck. Should that person be banned from ever having owning a firearm the rest of their life. As for me i don't think so but what say ye learned men/women. __________________ To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required. -->

02-10-2010, 08:33 AM	#2
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,254	Re: Should they or shouldn't they I'm on board! Our system of justice leaves a lot to be desired, but still, it's better than most others. The 2nd amendment makes it clear that the ownership of firearms are for every man, and that right shall not be infringed. There are folks that should not own firearms, such as violent convicted criminals. Everyone else should have the right. __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

02-10-2010, 08:43 AM	#3
NitroDave08 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Cheyenne, WY Posts: 69	Re: Should they or shouldn't they I'm kinda torn on this topic. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility. I guess the logic is the ability to follow the laws. Here in wyoming, if someone is charged with a misdomener, they are not allowed a CCW for 5 years. New legislation is just introduced to make it 1 year to align with other states. As for felonies, forget it. I see the logic in the "big picture". In the misdomenor cases you get atleast a second chance. In the felony cases you get none. I think that there should be a timeframe where a "felon" can get his right back, but after a second conviction, lose it. It leads towards the use of trends. Kinda sucks, but I can see the logic. As for the "without a weapon" it goes to my thought on the logic of it's not a matter of how you did it, it's what you did. A felony is a felony. Flawed, yes, but it would take forever to handle each case on case-by-case. __________________ Mine Ruger Stainless Mini-14 Centerpoint Scope, Ruger Stainless 10/22, Marlin 336 .30-30, Taurus PT145, Maverick 88 Security Wife's Ruger Mini-14, Ruger 10/22, Taurus PT111 Daughter's Stevens .22lr

02-10-2010, 08:54 AM	#4
petesusn Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: San Joaquin Valley, Ca. Posts: 614	Re: Should they or shouldn't they If a person is obviously drunk and attempts to purchase a firearm that person should and probably will be denied that transaction. Another person does not pass the background check. Is this denying him/her their 2nd amendment rights? A convicted felon when released/paroled and put on probation forfits his/her 4th amendment rights yet should retain their 2nd amendment rights? A felon made the rational decision to break the law to that extent clearly indicating that they have no regard for authority, the law, the constitution and individual rights. Are we expected to allow them to walk the streets legally armed? Just food for thought. __________________ Self Defense: A basic human right The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. A man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile...can respond with a great deal of pride and satisfaction, "I served in the U. S. Navy." John F. Kennedy VFW Life Member Last edited by petesusn; 02-10-2010 at 09:03 AM..

02-10-2010, 09:10 AM	#6
sniperassist Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 19	Re: Should they or shouldn't they I think this is an area that needs common sense turned on. Violent criminals have given up their legal right to own a gun. However, non violent offenders that have no violence and are not repeat offenders should be considered. Just my opinion of course.

02-10-2010, 09:20 AM	#8
Terry_P Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: NH Posts: 2,513	Re: Should they or shouldn't they If someone commits a violent crime they have forfeited their right to own a gun. How about conspiracy? Someone conspires to spread antrax into a public school system but gets caught in an FBI sting, they spend 10 years in jail and get out. How about them? How about breaking and entering? Let them have a gun next time? Somebody beats another to death, spends 20 years in jail, let them have a gun when they get out? The way crimes are plea bargained down these days if someone get a felony conviction then they should lose their rights. __________________ NRA and NAHC Life "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -Aristotle

02-10-2010, 09:37 AM	#10
ARB Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Mid Missouri Posts: 1,184	Re: Should they or shouldn't they It would be darn hard to do a case by case ruling on this. So, if I had to decide on whether or not felons should regain their rights to own a firearm, the answer is no. They should be happy with their freedom and the fact that they didn't lose their hands or life, like they may have in other countries. I've known a guy that got locked up for felony stalking. He certainly doesn't need access to anything that goes boom. As for marajuana convictions, they just need to change the laws surrounding that in itself.

02-10-2010, 12:37 PM	#12
Alpo Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: NW Florida Posts: 8,660	Re: Should they or shouldn't they I didn't read all of them, so this might have been said already, but: I don't care what they did. Robbery, murder, mayhem, kidnapping. Doesn't matter. They were convicted. They were sentenced. They served their time. They have "paid their debt to society". They get out of jail and they still have the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Amendment rights. They should also have the 2nd. If they cannot be trusted with a gun, they cannot be trusted with a knife or a car or a baseball bat or a screwdriver or a ball-peen hammer. If you can't trust them with something they can hurt someone with, then you can't trust them with anything they can hurt someone one. If you can't trust them with a weapon, they should not be outside. Either lock 'em up forever, or hang their sorry butts. But if they've done their time, and you are going to let them back out on the street, they should have ALL of their rights back. __________________ Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and taste good with catsup - George of Lod, Year of Our Lord 297 I always take precautions. Beware the Evil Bullet Fairies.

02-10-2010, 01:08 PM	#13
Silencer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Southern California: Inland Empire Posts: 1,294	Re: Should they or shouldn't they A few years ago, a news report was done on the huge increase of felony convictions in LA/San Bernardino counties. It was discovered 12-20 year-old hispanics were the cause. In the city Pomona CA, a city right below mine, 90% of hispanics aged 12-20 were already convicted of felonies. Over 60% of the population of Pomona were convicted with felonies. Ontario, the town next to Pomona, and the town below mine, had similar records. Again, a town filled with hispanics. Naturally the hispanic news reporter started a claim of racism, and was given quite a surprise. Both cities had several high-ranking hispanic officers come forward to reveal why so many hispanics had felony convictions. Simply put, "They're committing felony acts! We don't discriminate who gets a felony and who doesn't! That's absurd!" The backlash on the reporter was severe enough for her to lose her job. She was made an example of when idiots like her don't report the news, but act like another moron playing the race card. What was eye opening about her report, was the civil disabilities that come with a felony conviction. Here a few now... 1. Can't vote. 2. Can't own a firearm. 3. Can't serve on a jury. 4. Can't join military (recently lifted) 5. Can't receive food stamps, welfare, MediCal or other assistance. 6. Can't receive student loans. 7. Can't receive business loans. 8. Can't receive grants, loans, etc. of any type. 9. Can't get a civil servant job or any other government job. 10. Can't earn certain certificates or licenses (hazmat cards, chemical processing licenses, etc.) 11. Loss of rights to searches. (Cops can pull you out of your car and search both your car and you without warrants.) 12. Loss the right to fly or travel outside the US. (some instances but not all) You see why it's so easy to get some 'felonies?' The government wants it that way. Look all the stuff you're not entitled to anymore. You become controlled sheep. __________________ War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. Skeet Shooting Game! Don't Shoot Your Eye Out!