A felon's right to self defense
- Thread starter cold dead hands
- Start date
This is an example of why courts shouldn't be ham strung by arbitrary regulations such as mandatory minimums or three strike you're out.
It's also an example of why the war on some drugs is a failure. It crams people into the meat grinder of the criminal justice system that more than likely would be regular citizens if we treated drugs as a public health issue.
Restricting former felons access to firearms only makes sense if all felons are violent criminals.
It's also an example of why the war on some drugs is a failure. It crams people into the meat grinder of the criminal justice system that more than likely would be regular citizens if we treated drugs as a public health issue.
Restricting former felons access to firearms only makes sense if all felons are violent criminals.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have to laugh at threads such as this. You can tell from the original post that it isn't a query that is truly oriented to getting a fair response. It even starts off with the title that turns out to be ploy at misdirection.
So you think this is about self defense, but then we find it is about weapon possession by a felon. The two are not the same issue at all.
Then we find the main character who is the felon is made out to be this wife and mother of made a mistake as a young dumb kid, hence the felony conviction for marijuana. So the author is pulling a pseudo Sally Struthers and making an appeal to emotion on the level of classifying the felon now as a wife and mother (both good wholesome things) who is apparently now much smarter and older than when she committed her non-violent drug crime, only she wasn't a dumb kid when she got her felony conviction, but an adult.
End of story and the pontification starts and we see the subtle, yet quite expected mixing of words...
Everyone has a right to self defense is then morphed into everyone should be able to maintain a firearm in the home. Note that everyone does have a right to self defense. This isn't an issue that the thread is made out to be. We are not lacking laws that allow for self defense and protect the right of self defense. Instead, this is a gun possession issue where the author is claiming self defense and gun ownership as being somehow equal.
I really liked the conditions. Everyone, felons included, should be able to possess guns at home. Okay. Then is the caveat that they can take them to and from the range. So we are no longer dealing with a felon with a gun at home, but also driving around to whatever ranges they want to visit.
If you get caught with a gun outside of the home and you aren't going to the range or coming home from it, then off to jail you go...but you know full well when you get out, you get to have another gun when you get home?
This makes me wonder. If this is really an argument about self defense via gun possession, then why does a felon only have the right of self defense with a gun at home (or when going and coming from the range)?
What about states that consider one's vehicle as an extension of the home? In those states, do felons get to carry firearms in their cars?
I liked the whole business about getting a hall pass for the gunsmith. That was cute.
So you think this is about self defense, but then we find it is about weapon possession by a felon. The two are not the same issue at all.
Then we find the main character who is the felon is made out to be this wife and mother of made a mistake as a young dumb kid, hence the felony conviction for marijuana. So the author is pulling a pseudo Sally Struthers and making an appeal to emotion on the level of classifying the felon now as a wife and mother (both good wholesome things) who is apparently now much smarter and older than when she committed her non-violent drug crime, only she wasn't a dumb kid when she got her felony conviction, but an adult.
End of story and the pontification starts and we see the subtle, yet quite expected mixing of words...
Everyone has a right to self defense is then morphed into everyone should be able to maintain a firearm in the home. Note that everyone does have a right to self defense. This isn't an issue that the thread is made out to be. We are not lacking laws that allow for self defense and protect the right of self defense. Instead, this is a gun possession issue where the author is claiming self defense and gun ownership as being somehow equal.
I really liked the conditions. Everyone, felons included, should be able to possess guns at home. Okay. Then is the caveat that they can take them to and from the range. So we are no longer dealing with a felon with a gun at home, but also driving around to whatever ranges they want to visit.
If you get caught with a gun outside of the home and you aren't going to the range or coming home from it, then off to jail you go...but you know full well when you get out, you get to have another gun when you get home?
This makes me wonder. If this is really an argument about self defense via gun possession, then why does a felon only have the right of self defense with a gun at home (or when going and coming from the range)?
What about states that consider one's vehicle as an extension of the home? In those states, do felons get to carry firearms in their cars?
I liked the whole business about getting a hall pass for the gunsmith. That was cute.
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
I have no sympathy for a felon. Maybe they should have taken all of this into consideration before pissing on the laws they broke.
bdcbbq said
There are different types of executive clemency - it depends on the exact type. I'm not sure a felon would still be a felon after the type that would allow him to possess a firearm. In any event, it's not likely to come up very often . . . and anyone getting executive clemency of any type can talk to his lawyer to see what rights he's gotten back.
There are different types of executive clemency - it depends on the exact type. I'm not sure a felon would still be a felon after the type that would allow him to possess a firearm. In any event, it's not likely to come up very often . . . and anyone getting executive clemency of any type can talk to his lawyer to see what rights he's gotten back.
cold dead hands
Moderator
There are two people here who have disagreed with every post I have made regardless of the topic. Only they know why and I don't want to know why.
There will be no agreeing to disagree. We will just disagree.
And I have no sympathy for anyone who strips the right effective self defense from any in his/her domocile. Or for people who support stripping away those rights.
What is a ''fair response''? Please define.
What ploy? There was no ploy. What are you smoking? You might want to consider cutting down.
You need to clarify that statement for me because your statement makes no sense to me. Self defense is about weapons posession.
What part of felons who are actively trying to be positive contributors to society shall be allowed to own guns part did you miss. The ones who are going to try to live within the scope of the law after punishment will seek to own guns as prescibed by the law. I cooked up my idea for a method of legal ownership because all people have the right the most effective means of defense in their homes. I cannot make it any clearer and refuse to attempt to in your case.
The felons who aren't interested in living within the scope of the law will returned to prison, while those that have shown that they are trustworthy shall have their right returned yet limited because they made a bad choice and therefore will never have the complete freedom that non felons enjoy. Once again I will not attempt to make this any clearer to you.
As for the rest of it. You don't understand a word I say and don't feel like trying to reply to most of your post. Not because you have verbally beaten me and I have no intelligent response, but because I find it to be a waste of my time trying to explain myself to you and as I said, anything I say will be disagreed with by you regardless of topic. Well, maybe not if I suggest that you be king of the world. You would most likely agree to that.
In general you should ignore my posts just as I am going to bypass yours from now on.
As a general disclaimer to all. I have no felonies and legally CCW. I have known people who have felonies and they are attempting to make up for their crimes and live a normal life same as most of the rest of us. I see no reason why they should be denied a restricted right to sellf defense in their homes with the most effective tool that the rest of us would employ.
To deny a person who is living within the scope of the law the most effective means of defense in their home is the highest level of hypocrisy a person can attain.
A wise man (you know who) said ''Go and sin no more.'' It is time to forgive those who should be forgiven and punish those who will continue to harm us. It is as simple as that.
There will be no agreeing to disagree. We will just disagree.
And I have no sympathy for anyone who strips the right effective self defense from any in his/her domocile. Or for people who support stripping away those rights.
What is a ''fair response''? Please define.
What ploy? There was no ploy. What are you smoking? You might want to consider cutting down.
You need to clarify that statement for me because your statement makes no sense to me. Self defense is about weapons posession.
What part of felons who are actively trying to be positive contributors to society shall be allowed to own guns part did you miss. The ones who are going to try to live within the scope of the law after punishment will seek to own guns as prescibed by the law. I cooked up my idea for a method of legal ownership because all people have the right the most effective means of defense in their homes. I cannot make it any clearer and refuse to attempt to in your case.
The felons who aren't interested in living within the scope of the law will returned to prison, while those that have shown that they are trustworthy shall have their right returned yet limited because they made a bad choice and therefore will never have the complete freedom that non felons enjoy. Once again I will not attempt to make this any clearer to you.
As for the rest of it. You don't understand a word I say and don't feel like trying to reply to most of your post. Not because you have verbally beaten me and I have no intelligent response, but because I find it to be a waste of my time trying to explain myself to you and as I said, anything I say will be disagreed with by you regardless of topic. Well, maybe not if I suggest that you be king of the world. You would most likely agree to that.
In general you should ignore my posts just as I am going to bypass yours from now on.
As a general disclaimer to all. I have no felonies and legally CCW. I have known people who have felonies and they are attempting to make up for their crimes and live a normal life same as most of the rest of us. I see no reason why they should be denied a restricted right to sellf defense in their homes with the most effective tool that the rest of us would employ.
To deny a person who is living within the scope of the law the most effective means of defense in their home is the highest level of hypocrisy a person can attain.
A wise man (you know who) said ''Go and sin no more.'' It is time to forgive those who should be forgiven and punish those who will continue to harm us. It is as simple as that.
bushidomosquito
New member
Not to defend the felons, but the second amendment says, "The right of the people" so does commision of a felony reduce your status to that of less than a human being? It's just another gun control law. One, I might add, that is useless against anyone intent on commiting violent crime. If the grabbers could pass a law that said guys with beards and motorcycles couldn't have guns they would, and plenty of clean cut suburbanites would think it was fine because they were clean shaven in an SUV. We all think the gun laws that we agree with or that don't affect us are just fine but we're just conceding that it's ok to disarm this type or that kind. Eventually we may find ourselves to be that type. The fact is that ANY time that a non-violent person is left defenseless as a result of a short sighted law, the second amendment has been violated.
cold dead hands
Moderator
Where I really ruffled feathers was suggesting (nay, having the nerve to demand) that even violent offenders who have demonstrated that they are no longer a threat be armed in their homes.
To some people it means that they are (wild) animals, yes. Strangely though, I never hear any calls for these animals to be caged for life like we do to all of the other wild animals.
I say serve your punishment, do your good behavior probation to prove you are truly not a criminal threat any more and get your rights back in a restricted manner so that you never forget your wrong doing and not have to live in fear of the law for having the most effective means of self defense in your domicile provided you are truly no longer going to engage in criminal activity.
Jermtheory
New member
it would seem to me that if you're released conditionally(parole/probation),than there would be no issue of a rights violation....you could simply choose to remain locked up if you werent happy with your conditions of release.
if you're "free and clear" and your punishment has been served in full,you should be entitled to your rights in full.
im pretty sure in some states a half oz of marijuanna is a felony.
maybe im crazy but....
A:doesnt seem that far out of "societal norms".
B:bs/hypocritical law to begin with(not to change the debate).there are plenty of other examples(of how a felony isnt all that hard to come by) im sure.
if you're "free and clear" and your punishment has been served in full,you should be entitled to your rights in full.
im pretty sure in some states a half oz of marijuanna is a felony.
maybe im crazy but....
A:doesnt seem that far out of "societal norms".
B:bs/hypocritical law to begin with(not to change the debate).there are plenty of other examples(of how a felony isnt all that hard to come by) im sure.
TexasSeaRay
New member
Hmmm, not sure exactly how this would play out, Erich. You have any idea?
State law says you can, federal law says you can't. I know that if convicted of a federal felony, your chances of ever possessing (legally) a firearm are so slim as to not be able to throw a shadow.
But if convicted of a state felony and the offender "paid his dues" under all statutues and requirements of the State, who would the feds be (under the 10th Amendment) to say that such ex-offender has now comitted a federal felony (FIP) if he/she is caught with a firearm, but not while committing any crime?
It seems as though it would be an interesting battle over State's rights.
As a sidenote, the most I ever saw anyone get in a federal courtroom for felon-in-possession was eighteen months--and that was per the Congressionally mandated sentencing guidelines. I did see several "three-strikers" get upwards and beyond fifteen years and tagged concurrent during sentencing, but these were hardcore boys that should've been hung and done away with.
Jeff
Double Naught Spy
New member
I am sorry, CDH, that you are unable to understand the difference between what is a right and what is a means. Denial of a gun to a felon is not a denial of self defense. It is a denial of an object class that may be used in self defense. It is that simple.
See what I mean. You don't understand that there is a difference. Weapons possession is not self defense. Possessed (not as by demons, but in a person's hands) weapons may be used as a means of self defense, but are not in and of themselves self defense, nor is the possession of weapons self defense. I don't know how it can be explained any more simply than that.
Well, look at 18 U.S.C. § 922 - I am aware of many prosecutions of state felons under "Operation Exile." Tenth Amendment challenges of this law have been rejected. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 513-15 (9th Cir. 2000).
It sure would be nice if the Tenth Amendment still meant anything . . . .
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
Since that's aimed at me...never asked for or wanted anything from you, thanks.
??????
Its just another posting of which one is right,and picking a class struggle.
federal law makes any conviction over one yr a felony regardless of continuance or probation .some states a club raffle with out a license is a felony.the state wants its cut.
what about the 14th amendment.
and of course if the gov can get most people to have any convictions the second amendment would be moot.think about that.:barf:
Its just another posting of which one is right,and picking a class struggle.
federal law makes any conviction over one yr a felony regardless of continuance or probation .some states a club raffle with out a license is a felony.the state wants its cut.
what about the 14th amendment.
and of course if the gov can get most people to have any convictions the second amendment would be moot.think about that.:barf:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Paid his dues? You mean that they have completed their time in the slammer, right? Part of the dues that accompany felonies goes beyond the time in the slammer. The concept is quite simple and it is part of the punishment. If the bad person who so darned concerned about freedoms and rights, then he should not have committed the felony(ies) for which those freedoms and rights could be taken. It is that simple. There are some very real consequences that come with felonies.
As for having "paid his dues." I don't know of felons anywhere that actually pay for their own prison time. As of a few years ago, it cost about $40K a year to keep a felon in prison. If you want to talk about payment, then let them pay back those funds as well. Oh wait, they haven't paid for their time in the slammer so everyone else gets to pay for it. So I am paying some of the dues for the felons. I am with Thunderhawk on this. I have no sympathy for the plight of felons. Bad choices come with very real consequences.
Something to think about is that most of those individuals who have a felony and are being discussed in this thread are incidents that probably happened during youthful indiscretions while under that age of 25.
Many people have committed felonies and aren't caught. Ever picked up a penny and didn't claim it on your taxes? Tax evasion & fraud charges. Exaggerated your mileage or expenses for business travel? Could have been a felony. Taken a drug not prescribed to you or given one of your drugs to someone. Felony. Sold a firearm and not used a FFL. Possible you committed a felony. Carried a firearm while doing any of the above? 2 felonies now.
What if misdemeanors were included? Should there be different classifications of crime. What is the difference between stealing .02 and $2,000,000 and whether its misdemeanor or felony. The crime was stealing.
I'm a big fan of redemption and forgiving. I'm not opposed and think the use of pardons and restoration of rights encourage positive change.
Frankly I think we would be better off with no restrictions on gun ownership. But the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony should have a much stiffer sentence. The primary benefit would be a little Darwinsim to bleach out the gene pool.
thats not fair to deny someone the right to have a gun in there home nessisarily because of a felony some very simple acts are considered felonys.
BD makes a good point i think if everyone was under the eye of the law 24/7 no one would be here posting we would all probably be serving time.
bushidomosquito
New member
I don't mean to sound like an anarchist but...
So many laws are so convoluted and impossible to follow that even lawyers sometimes have to pour over lawbooks to figure out who is guilty of what and they expect us to keep it all straight? Can you really expect someone to do a full tailight check every time they go somewhere? Ask a cop that question the next time you're getting wrote up for having one out and see if it changes his mind. There's more incentive to convicting someone of whatever than justice. Then there's the matter of laws that no one had the right to make in the first place. If you want to smoke a joint or charge somebody to have sex with them well, I find very infuriating that my tax money is being spent chasing those folks. Hell, consentual sex between two adult men used to be illegal a few years back. Not exactly my thing but if it were, I would be super pissed to find myself on some sex offender list and facing all kinds of legalized discrimination for getting caught.
And what about the thousands of people that get wrongfully convicted every year? Is that just the cost of doing business? Very little effort is made to correct those mistakes or even admit there may be mistakes because it would harm to many high powered careers and show how flawed the legal system really is.
I still don't see that * under the 2nd ammendent that reads, "Unless you fail to comply with whatever other laws and regulations they feel like throwing at you.
So many laws are so convoluted and impossible to follow that even lawyers sometimes have to pour over lawbooks to figure out who is guilty of what and they expect us to keep it all straight? Can you really expect someone to do a full tailight check every time they go somewhere? Ask a cop that question the next time you're getting wrote up for having one out and see if it changes his mind. There's more incentive to convicting someone of whatever than justice. Then there's the matter of laws that no one had the right to make in the first place. If you want to smoke a joint or charge somebody to have sex with them well, I find very infuriating that my tax money is being spent chasing those folks. Hell, consentual sex between two adult men used to be illegal a few years back. Not exactly my thing but if it were, I would be super pissed to find myself on some sex offender list and facing all kinds of legalized discrimination for getting caught.
And what about the thousands of people that get wrongfully convicted every year? Is that just the cost of doing business? Very little effort is made to correct those mistakes or even admit there may be mistakes because it would harm to many high powered careers and show how flawed the legal system really is.
I still don't see that * under the 2nd ammendent that reads, "Unless you fail to comply with whatever other laws and regulations they feel like throwing at you.
cold dead hands
Moderator
It sure is nice to see that more people get it.
While a few others obviously don't!
There is possibly going to come a day that even having guns and ammo without extremely hard to obtain, expensive, and privacy invasive permits will be a felonious offense.
Will you still have no concern for the rights and plights of felons since you are now one because you can't jump through the hoops and afford the fees that make it legal for you to have your guns?
Remember that being a felon is just one law and a signiture away.
You might want to keep in mind that many ''felonies'' were never against the law until some schmuck who enjoyed making life hard for everyone else came along and convinced all the other schmucks that this new law was best for society.
Even scumbags deserve to be safe from other scumbags in their homes. Even scumbags have the right to protect their loved ones from other scumbags.
Even former scumbags deserve a chance to redeem themselves and get a limited amount of their rights returned to them if them have proven their evil/stupid ways are behind them.
While a few others obviously don't!
There is possibly going to come a day that even having guns and ammo without extremely hard to obtain, expensive, and privacy invasive permits will be a felonious offense.
Will you still have no concern for the rights and plights of felons since you are now one because you can't jump through the hoops and afford the fees that make it legal for you to have your guns?
Remember that being a felon is just one law and a signiture away.
You might want to keep in mind that many ''felonies'' were never against the law until some schmuck who enjoyed making life hard for everyone else came along and convinced all the other schmucks that this new law was best for society.
Even scumbags deserve to be safe from other scumbags in their homes. Even scumbags have the right to protect their loved ones from other scumbags.
Even former scumbags deserve a chance to redeem themselves and get a limited amount of their rights returned to them if them have proven their evil/stupid ways are behind them.