Here's the rub, where do we draw the line, how is a person determined to be OK, who does the approving, who does the checking and who pays for it all if the person really isn't as good as they say they are? There are mechanisms in place currently for pardon on a state level. Some are realistic, some are all but non existent and some are for the politically connected only. There was a program within the ATF/DOJ that was defunded by congress that could do this if it was refunded and given some very clear guidelines. I think any automatic program would be way too open for abuse aside from it would never get passed into law.
convicted felon and guns
- Thread starter hot sauce
- Start date
Here's the rub, where do we draw the line, how is a person determined to be OK, who does the approving, who does the checking and who pays for it all if the person really isn't as good as they say they are? There are mechanisms in place currently for pardon on a state level. Some are realistic, some are all but non existent and some are for the politically connected only. There was a program within the ATF/DOJ that was defunded by congress that could do this if it was refunded and given some very clear guidelines. I think any automatic program would be way too open for abuse aside from it would never get passed into law.
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
ISP2605: I'm just as curious as TxGunGeek about your cite for including a BB gun as a forbidden firearm. Would you mind posting that part of the Fed law?
I agree with S.Miller. It would be a shame to deprive a guy the ability to protect himself and his family. Personally, I wouldnt trust most ex-cons with water-gun, let alone a Glock; afterall how often do we see the drug addicts and rapists let out of jail only to re-offend. But what about someone like Martha Stewart? Shes a convicted felon, but does she pose a threat to you or I? If Martha wanted to start "packing heat" for personal protection, would we honestly be doing a justice to deny her the basic right of gun ownership on the grounds of her felonious past? I think not.
teuffelhundenao
Inactive
If we give them guns what's next voting?
It is not unfortunate that these convicted felons can not own fire arms. I agree Martha Stewart does not pose any threat to my safety physically. She is; however a convicted felon. When she committed her crimes and was proven guilty she gave up certain rights. Included is the right to vote, if we give back these “non-violent” felons their right to vote this could be far more dangerous than a commando-squad of spatula toting Martha Stuart types. Society has laws for a reason and when you break the laws, rules and mores there are consequences these need to be upheld. If you are concerned about keeping the peace in your house consider keeping an armed guard or arming your wife significant, other or any other non-convicted criminal in your home. I am all for your Second Amendment rights, I practice mine but I also am aware of the fact if I mess up and commit a felony I can loose those rights. If you think of how our country is messed up now what will happen when we give back certain constitutional rights to those “non-violent” convicts what will happen next?
It is not unfortunate that these convicted felons can not own fire arms. I agree Martha Stewart does not pose any threat to my safety physically. She is; however a convicted felon. When she committed her crimes and was proven guilty she gave up certain rights. Included is the right to vote, if we give back these “non-violent” felons their right to vote this could be far more dangerous than a commando-squad of spatula toting Martha Stuart types. Society has laws for a reason and when you break the laws, rules and mores there are consequences these need to be upheld. If you are concerned about keeping the peace in your house consider keeping an armed guard or arming your wife significant, other or any other non-convicted criminal in your home. I am all for your Second Amendment rights, I practice mine but I also am aware of the fact if I mess up and commit a felony I can loose those rights. If you think of how our country is messed up now what will happen when we give back certain constitutional rights to those “non-violent” convicts what will happen next?
I don't know, however, you seem to have some idea... Just what would happen if civil rights were restored to non-violent (do you think there is no such animal?) offenders who have successfully completed their entire sentence?teuffelhundenao said:
You are aware that under federal law, before the passage of the GCA of 1968, all felons regained their civil rights when their sentence was completed?
As it stands now, a convicted felon never finishes paying their debt to society. Is this justice or merely retribution?
silicon wolverine
New member
You guys are forgetting somehting. Each person get ONE suspended imposition of sentence in thier lives. You can commit a felony and as longas you serve your time and any parole or probation succesfully without commiting any other crimes, your record is wiped clean. I knew a guy in high school who borrowed a car that (unknown to him) had thirteen pounds of pot in the trunk. He got busted for possesion with intent to sell. He simply copped to it and got his SIS. He still hunts and buys guns to this day. No problems
SW
SW
The above quote by Texas Gun Geek. Therein lies the problem. You must either set hard and fast criteria or judge on a case by case basis, which can be quite subjective. Personally, I'd say that if your crime were one of violence, and it involved a firearm then you forfeit the right to own firearms the remainder of your life. They are not only toys, they are never to be used as tools for crime either. One strike and you're out in that regard.
Aside from that I cannot offer anything off the cuff. Many convicts do not choose to leave their past behind and become solid citizens, but some do. It is the latter group that I'm concerned for. It's admittedly a mess to sort out, but I think something reasonable could be enacted by reasonable people. Of course, that leaves Congress out of the equation
The program exists already in multiple places. States have the ability for someone to apply for pardon/expunge/set aside based on the actors behavior and need. Problem is this process reaks with politics.
The ATF has a program for restoration of firearms rights that is defunded preveting them from acting and I am sure if the funds were freed up it would be very political as well.
Lastly, the FBI and DoD already perform background investigations for security clearances and know what is required to clear someone in tiem and cost.
So, if the restoration process was taken from ATF and given to the Department of Justice to run and the application had a set price for someone to apply, the DoJ through the FBI could perform the checks needed to clear or reject a person. If the actor is rejected, they could apeal through the court system with the outcome determining who pays, you win your apeal and the DoJ covers the cost and grants your restoration, you lose and you pay all court costs and you will NEVER be able to apply for restoration again. Same deal for repeat offenders, if you have had your rights restored for a non violent felony and then you comit again any felony your out for good. If your first strike was a violent act, involved a weapon or resulted in injury to anyone, you don't even get a first chance to restore.
Too common sense to be succesful?
The thought of a convicted felon regaining his or her rights to own firearms, vote, hold public office, or become judges gives me the willys. Now, Some people probably got a raw deal from the current laws, but as a non aggresive law abiding citizen. I sleep better knowing that the gang bangers, burgalers, etc. will be slapped right back into prison just for trying to re-arm themselves and return to their old ways.
cosmolinelover
New member
Thank you for pointing that out Erich... I think we sometimes forget that there is a gradual "felonizing" of just about everything here in America these days.
How many of you can say you never (maybe even unintentionally) allowed a "minor" to drink alcohol in your presence? Maybe it was passover and the kids drank a sip of wine out of tradition, or maybe you thought it would be better if you supervised your kid's alchohol intake rather than let them drive drunk and potentially do something much worse. Or more importantly, how many of you had a drink when you were a minor? Do you believe the person that provided it should go to prison?
There was a time when we could be relatively certain, that if someone was labeled a "felon" they did something really wrong (like burglary, robbery, murder, rape, etc.). But unfortunatley too many people are recieving the label "felon" for doing things that are arguably only "immoral" and definately not intrusive upon anyone else's rights. Now I am not jumping on the bandwagon to defend giving minors booze, I think its a bad idea. However we have to be realistic and realize that they'll get it anyway (I know I did). Does that make it OK? Probably not, but it probably doesn't mean Mom and Dad who provided it should be thrown in Prison and labeled felons for life either.
Let's be realistic, here in America every day more and more activities that were previously legal are being labeled as felonies. Vice "crimes" in particular have been at the top list of persecution these days. In fact, in Washington state they just passed a bill making it a felony to place a bet online, punishable by up to 5 years in prison! Better yet, there is legalized Indian gaming in Washington! So if you walk down the street to place a bet its okay, but do it from home and its prison time!
There is no doubt that violent felons, and even certain non-violent felons (I'm looking at you burglars!) should be dealt with switfly and probably harsher than they're dealt with currently. But we need to remember that not everybody the government has labels as "bad" is necessarily so. I suggest a visit to the cato institute if you have any doubts.
Just my $.02
-cosmo
here's a great link to an article about just what I'm talkin about
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n6/luna.pdf
How many of you can say you never (maybe even unintentionally) allowed a "minor" to drink alcohol in your presence? Maybe it was passover and the kids drank a sip of wine out of tradition, or maybe you thought it would be better if you supervised your kid's alchohol intake rather than let them drive drunk and potentially do something much worse. Or more importantly, how many of you had a drink when you were a minor? Do you believe the person that provided it should go to prison?
There was a time when we could be relatively certain, that if someone was labeled a "felon" they did something really wrong (like burglary, robbery, murder, rape, etc.). But unfortunatley too many people are recieving the label "felon" for doing things that are arguably only "immoral" and definately not intrusive upon anyone else's rights. Now I am not jumping on the bandwagon to defend giving minors booze, I think its a bad idea. However we have to be realistic and realize that they'll get it anyway (I know I did). Does that make it OK? Probably not, but it probably doesn't mean Mom and Dad who provided it should be thrown in Prison and labeled felons for life either.
Let's be realistic, here in America every day more and more activities that were previously legal are being labeled as felonies. Vice "crimes" in particular have been at the top list of persecution these days. In fact, in Washington state they just passed a bill making it a felony to place a bet online, punishable by up to 5 years in prison! Better yet, there is legalized Indian gaming in Washington! So if you walk down the street to place a bet its okay, but do it from home and its prison time!
There is no doubt that violent felons, and even certain non-violent felons (I'm looking at you burglars!) should be dealt with switfly and probably harsher than they're dealt with currently. But we need to remember that not everybody the government has labels as "bad" is necessarily so. I suggest a visit to the cato institute if you have any doubts.
Just my $.02
-cosmo
here's a great link to an article about just what I'm talkin about
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n6/luna.pdf
