[308rifleman]

I am curious what some of you think on this matter... should anyone who is a felon be denied their rights of owning a firearm? Here are some things to think about... Is it really fair that a person who does their time be released then lose their right to defend themselves or hunt to feed themselves. What about non violent felons like DWI.. i can see taking their license from them driving, but is it really fair they lose their right to defend themselves? I just think more things need to be looked into on this rather then taking someones rights away. Now, im hoping this can be a mature topic for people to discuss without bashing or arguing. Looking forward to others thoughts.

 

[Trent12]

I am curious what some of you think on this matter... should anyone who is a felon be denied their rights of owning a firearm? Here are some things to think about... Is it really fair that a person who does their time be released then lose their right to defend themselves or hunt to feed themselves. What about non violent felons like DWI.. i can see taking their license from them driving, but is it really fair they lose their right to defend themselves? I just think more things need to be looked into on this rather then taking someones rights away. Now, im hoping this can be a mature topic for people to discuss without bashing or arguing. Looking forward to others thoughts.

I beleive certain felonies should be expunged from records after a set amount of time if the individual shows over time that they are not the same person. It's a delicate issue though. I know a gentleman who has been a fellon since he was 18 years old, and he's 56 now and he's never gotten in trouble since he was 18 years old. In his case. He should be allowed to own a firearm. I have a cousin who got stuck with a felony when he was 18 years old, but he has yet to show any sign of being a responsible citizen. I think the best thing they could do is give it a 5-10 year window. If a person doesn't repeat a crime or offense in 5-10 years, I doubt they'll ever do it again. And have a program ex-fellons can go through to expunge their record. (I think they do have a way to get your record expunged, but it's really difficult). I also know there used to be a state that would allow a felon to become a LEO, because my grandmothers friend was a convicted fellon back in the late 60's and he sobered up and became a police officer a few years later even with a fellony on his record. I want to say it was Ohio, but I'm not sure about it.

 

[BAGTIC]

It doesn't matter. Legal or not if they want a gun they can and will get a gun. If they aren't safe to turn loose on the streets with a gun they aren't safe to turn loose at all.

 

[MikeG]

We had a pretty long thread on the subject about a year ago -

http://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/33206-felons-firearms.html

Suspect you'll find every opinion under the sun in that one, already.

Just FYI.

 

[Tnhunter]

Not sure who would want that?

And yes, there is a procedure to expunge their records, IF they are approved.

 

[chevwilliam]

Some Felonies are more Dangerous than others, and should be treated more carefully in such a evaluation. A DUI that resulted in a Death or serious Injury to others is one of them as it showed a distinct lack of Responsible thinking by the Perpetrator BEFORE and DURING it's Commission. Of course the Violent Felonies are al there for review and should be looked at for longer periods than the 'Nonviolent' Felonies.

What provisions for Review, and Possible Restoration of Citizen Rights, would and should depend on each individual's history After Conviction and eventual Release from custody, along with the Severity of the Original Crime(s).

What is 'Fair' should be that the Society in General be Protected from Repeat Offenders gaining ability to become Dangers to Law Abiding Citizens. Those Convicted Felons who exhibit good Citizenship after there Sentence is served MAY be given the opportunity to request restoration of their Citizenship Rights, perhaps in multiple stages.

My Thoughts on the Subject at this time.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

 

[Tnhunter]

I suppose we could also not prosecute gun law violations that do not result in death or serious injury?

Oh wait, we already do that in NYC, DC, Chicago and many other cities......

 

[Head Shot]

Hello:
Id say it would depend on the crime but yes i do believe there are some laws on the books that make you a felon but that person may not be a physical threat to himself or others that the no gun should not be imposed.
Take for example here in iowa a person can drink at a bar and step outside behind the building hidden by bushes to take a pee because bathrooms too full and be followed by some nit wit thinkin whats he doing and turn him in and the cops arrest him for peeing in public and hes on the sex offenders list. WTF ???
Im sure theres examples just as inocent for felony charges such as keying a vehicle of someone you dont like that costs over 1000 dollars that puts you in the 2nd degree felony class that might do it but in the same token that person didnt willfully commit physical harm to a human being and most likely never would but there you go.
Im presently watching a person dealing in this very situation and im sure he will be proven quilty per the video but hes fighting it tooth and nail and truthfully i havent seen the video as its none of my biz but if infact he did well ????
Heck yes if hes quilty hes quilty and should pay the fine jail and comunity service but he also hunts and never gets in trouble gun wise so he gets drunk and gets stupid sorta like insanity .
Does he deserve the no guns and felony chg per keying the paint on a truck he hates the owner ???
Ahh probably not but he sure as all get out deserve some punishment but leave the no gun option to robbers violent kidnapping rape by force beat the crap out of you types ect that have proven they have a problem with respect towards other humans life.
Then yep youll run into that fella that you let keep his guns to later possibly use them wrongly but after all dont we wait till the car theif person thats released from prison to kill someone before we chg him with murder.
Meaning hes inocent of murder till he murders not quilty of having your gun rights taken away till hes proven hes a danger to himself or others.
All im sayin is if that squirrel gets away from you in that tree behind the bar dont try pissin up the tree on him cuz yeppers you got it felony chg no gun to get him later
Just a funny on that one but really some felonies dont earn the no gun in my opinion.
Head Shot

 

[smokinfz1]

I am not going to be popular, but here I go anyway. I believe that when a person's time is served, finished with time/parole/probation their rights should be restored FULLY. No I have never served time, no, I have never been arrested, so let's just get that out of the way.

A DUI that resulted in a Death or serious Injury to others is one of them as it showed a distinct lack of Responsible thinking by the Perpetrator BEFORE and DURING it's Commission.

Lack of responsible thinking should be punished? What about allowing your kid to ride a bicycle without a helmet, should you lose your gun rights and voting rights for that? Insurance and Liability has ruined America.

 

[douglas34474]

How did this nation exist allowing felons to have firearms before the '68 GCA?

What other "unalienable" rights are felons alienated from?
'

 

[JigMaster]

It seems to me people that commit felonies make a conscious decision to do so knowing what the penalties are and decide that the consequences don't matter. I don't like the fact that at a later time when those consequences become inconvenient they can step into the role of being discriminated against because of the conscious decisions they made in the first place.
Owning a firearm is a right for all in this country unless the decision is made to forego that right. For me, if you are willing to make that decision you should be willing to live with the consequences.

 

[Webley]

douglas34474,

As an retired federal lawman, let me advise you that" Felons being precluded from legal ownership of guns or ammunition" began with Section 902, Paragraph F of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Some state laws were earlier or later with the same prohibition. The 1938 FFA restrictions on felon gun possession were incorporated into Title 7 of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I believe if a person pays the penalty for his/her crime, the slate should be wiped clean and all rights should be restored. I think it is an unfair burden to tell a citizen they are "a prohibited person" from gun ownership for a past offense they paid the penalty for. I know that many felonies are non-violent such as cheating on your income taxes, mail fraud and possession of some "weed." In any event, if the alleged violator "Pays for his/her crime", why not let the slate be wiped clean and restore all rights until the person messes up again?

As an old agent, I know many FELONS are on the street because they have not yet been caught , do not have a Record and are not yet "Prohibited Persons." How does ostracizing people who Paid For Their Crimes keep us safe from the ones who NEED TO BE CAUGHT!

Webley

 

[Irv S]

One problem is the variety of crimes considered a felony. If the crime is serious enough to be a felony in more than name only, the prohibition of firearms ownership and voting should be considered part of the penalty when convicted. Execution of those convicted of serious felonies also removes the criminal's ability to own firearms and vote.

 

[douglas34474]

Webley, I stand corrected. But the question still remains; how did this nation survive from 1787 until 1938 with felons being allowed their God given rights to firearms. And you don't even need to be convicted, just under indictment. Why not also lose your 4th and 5th amendment rights. It would make law enforcement much easier?

The 1938 NFA came about time the progressives started trying to disarm the American people.

 

[nvshooter]

My opinion...

NO convicted felon should ever again own nor possess any firearm. Period. A felon takes a conscious decision to violate the law to such an egregious extent. He must live with the consequences of his actions. Freedom is for men of even temperament. Prisons are for those who cannot conduct themselves as gentlemen in a polite society.

 

[Irv S]

how did this nation survive from 1787 until 1938 with felons being allowed their God given rights to firearms.

In contrast to today when Governors even consider clemency for mass murderers (according to the current gubernatorial campaign in Colorado), I suspect then many of the worst were removed from society and their firearms by hanging.

 

[unclepaddy]

Interesting subject. Going by memory from having argued about California's 3 strikes law, it seems that the average felon gets away with something like 90% of his crimes. That's a "career criminal" type. I think there is room to let a "one-time, one-crime felon" expunge his record and get back to a normal life. I think it behooves us to look into his non-felony criminal history when we do. There are many petty criminals who habitually hover around the upper limits of petty crime or who have pled down a felony to a misdemeanor. I certainly don't want these types included in any recovery of social/legal status. If you are going to claim that you were a one-time unfortunate who made a bad choice or a mistake don't let me find out you have been arrested extensively for theft, verbal or physical assault or any other list of crappy behaviors.

 

[BAGTIC]

It seems to me people that commit felonies make a conscious decision to do so knowing what the penalties are and decide that the consequences don't matter. I don't like the fact that at a later time when those consequences become inconvenient they can step into the role of being discriminated against because of the conscious decisions they made in the first place.
Owning a firearm is a right for all in this country unless the decision is made to forego that right. For me, if you are willing to make that decision you should be willing to live with the consequences.

Nonsense Many people commit many offenses, felony and misdemeanor without either intent or knowledge of the consequences. Our laws are so complicated that NO ONE knows and understands them all. For example OBAMACARE which was passed by a majority of Congressmen who publcly admitted they had not even read it.

A speeder who was going with the flow an exceded the limit along with two out of three cars alonside him. The person who had some 'fruit punch' that was unknowingly spiked. The angler who has a single fish undersized by 3/8" because he used a tape measure and measured around the curve. Should their licenses be revoked, vehicles, boats, tackle, etc confiscated. Yes there should be a punishment to remind them to be more careful next time but it should not be draconian.

What we are seeing is the rise of 'ZERO TOLERANCE' mentality. No laws will ever prevent all offences. It is foolish to expect it. Reasonable law should uppress the most egregious violations in order to keep a cap on things.

How did prohibition work out? How about the war on drugs? Both failed examples of absolutist mentalities.

 

[JigMaster]

Nonsense Many people commit many offenses, felony and misdemeanor without either intent or knowledge of the consequences. Our laws are so complicated that NO ONE knows and understands them all. For example OBAMACARE which was passed by a majority of Congressmen who publcly admitted they had not even read it.

A speeder who was going with the flow an exceded the limit along with two out of three cars alonside him. The person who had some 'fruit punch' that was unknowingly spiked. The angler who has a single fish undersized by 3/8" because he used a tape measure and measured around the curve. Should their licenses be revoked, vehicles, boats, tackle, etc confiscated. Yes there should be a punishment to remind them to be more careful next time but it should not be draconian.

What we are seeing is the rise of 'ZERO TOLERANCE' mentality. No laws will ever prevent all offences. It is foolish to expect it. Reasonable law should uppress the most egregious violations in order to keep a cap on things.

How did prohibition work out? How about the war on drugs? Both failed examples of absolutist mentalities.

I was talking about FELONIES. I don't think speeding or cheating on fish size falls into the same category as murder,armed robbery drug dealing or assorted serious serious crimes that may or may not have guns involved.
As an example, Cheating on fish and game laws even if you tell the Warden you didn't know the rules, or they were to complicated to understand, will get you a ticket and may or may not get your equipment confiscated. Then the Warden will tell you it's your responsibility to know the rules.
I stand by my opinion that if you decide to break the law you should be willing to live with the consequences.

 

[BAGTIC]

Is everyone certain they have NEVER violated the Tax Code? Even the people at IRS give incorrect interpretations more often than not. Same with a lot of firearms laws. Someone takes their own child in a custody dispute.?
It is a Right. By definition Rights are immune from forfeiture. Where does the Constitution make an exception? Certainly not in the 2nd Amendment.