Do You Think All Convicted Felons should Lose the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Maybye it was the way the situation was handled that formed my opinions.

And I never said it was right to "run them off".

I wasn't trying to stereotype either, I was referring to the fact the that if the LE guy recognized anyone, then they probably had a criminal background andwere still getting guns.
 
I get your point. But the moral of the story remains that these felons (if they were indeed felon) were able to get guns, just like any felon who wants a gun. The only thing we accomplish by supporting feel-good, immoral lifetime gun bans for all felons, even the ones who have done their time, is to make sure that the ones who want to get back on the straight and narrow are left defenseless.

None of the gun laws on paper, federal or local, can prevent a determined person with $1,000 in their pocket to get a gun in this country, and no amount of gun laws will change that any time soon, if ever.

I remain unconvinced that we have the right to strike a right willy-nilly from the (supposedly inalienable) Bill of Rights, and deny it to a group of people just because it makes the majority feel good. If they have done their time, they have the right to defend themselves just like any other citizen.
 
Well I think 2 minutes, was long enough for this officer to apprehend these "urban gentleman". Do you think maybe the officers comment was a way to basically say you are unwelcome here.

I delivered things to a lot of places, somebody swore I had a twin in a town 40 miles away. I used to get asked if I was from different places all the time. Asking that question is used to gauge a person's reaction to the question, the officer will usually then use the reaction to ask more probing questions, or use the reaction, to the question to ask for a vehicle search, if he had said, don't you live on x street, and was correct, that might be different, but it could mean that the guy had his house broken into, or was the victim of a crime in the last year, hence the need for a long gun. From your desription it was meant to "run them off". Did the officer get their plate # after they left?

I do not know the price of an sks, or other guns like that at gunshows, I buy my guns already cleaned, because I do not know they proper way to field strip, and clean off cosmoline. As I understand it is a decent home defense gun, and the more rounds the better for HD. A shotgun would have been a better HD gun in a city enviroment, but if he lives in the country an inexpensive sks will do the job.

They may or may not have gotten the firearms legally, but I'ts scary that people like this are coming to the range to "practice", but all the more reason to make it as hard as possible for them to get ahold of firearms.

They obtained the arms legally, the question is under current law are they legally able to own firearms. It is a small point, but an important one. It means that gunshows do nothing illegal. Lawyers may try to say they have liability, but the purchasers of guns have a responsiblity to know if they are able to legally purchase guns.

I hope you mean ignorant of firearms. Most drugs smuggled to detroit comes from the south, a lot of drug dealers have relatives or associates with relatives in the south who have property where they can shoot guns to practice, and will pay 5 times the price to get a gun that is almost totally untraceable. This is detroit drug gangs.

The motorized bandits of the 30's were usually from the country, some were expert shots, some weren't. They practiced with their guns, and experimented with them also. All away from prying eyes, a true criminal does not want attention. The deadliest bandits, and gangsters from the era of prohibition, and motorized bandits were ex-military. Chicago and Al Capone romantized gangsters, he was an exception to the rule of lawing low, he preffered to hide in the open, and profess his innocence, most were smarter, had legit bussinesses, and laid low. Most of the gangsters were eastern european jews, and in detroit they were notoriously violent, it makes today's violence look tame. Capone would rather deal with detroit's purple gang than try to out-muscle them.

Young boys Incorparated, taped a lot of their antics. They had 24Kt gold plated fixtures in the bathroom of a house. They had so much money that they had a couple of clothes baskets full of $1 bills, after counting money with a money counter, they didn't even think it was worth the time to count the $1 bills.

2 guys ignorant of guns, come into the store and basically accused of being felons for ignorance of guns, not by you, but by someone in law enforcement. Reasons for an actual city dweller, and not just an "Urban dweller" to need a firearm, with a felony. Drug dealer sold younger relative drugs/dangerously cut drugs, person, found drug dealer in public place, and beat him senseless with small blunt object object, dealer not in position of anything at time, person charged with felony assault, now needs protection from dealer. Drug dealer has set up shop, by house, as a teen was picked up by friend in a car, did not immediately realize it was stolen, asks to get out, pulled over by police, convicted of felony. Small kid is picked on by neighborhood guys, single family home, dad works good job, but has to work a lot of OT and is not home, young kid has to go to school and graduate, can't just stay home, is bullied into being a lookout during burglary/home invasion, charged with non-violent felony, has now Graduated HS, never leaves home for fear of bullies, needs protection in case bullies attack him at home.

Some of the above examples are actual probation files, my wife works on.
 
There are basically two catagories of people that are lawfully denied their rights as free men; those incarcerated and those six feet under.

The term "convicted felon" in the context of this thread is a modern political contrivance, that serves no purpose other than to advance the agenda to disarm the global plantation workers who live in that province currently referred to as the United States.
 
Sorry, but it's a very simple subject for me: if we can't trust them to own guns, then why are they loose on the street?

I have a friend with a felony conviction: he wa in a very bad situation, and made a wrong decision. Nobody was physically harmed (crime was embezzlement), and he has since turned his life around. So WHY shouldn't he ba able to get his rights reinstated?
 
YES! No guns for felons.

Felons have proven their inability to play be the laws of our society, apparently thinking themselves above the law.

Yeah, felons like this guy?:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157573

or the guy selling maadi-griffin kits?

:barf:

You should be able to re-apply based on all the facts and circumstances. Non-violent offenders, including most drug-related crimes, should carry a presumption of re-instatement.

The term "convicted felon" in the context of this thread is a modern political contrivance, that serves no purpose other than to advance the agenda to disarm the global plantation workers who live in that province currently referred to as the United States.

This man speaks wisely.
 
Suck it up. If the laws broken were lower misdemeanors, then there would not be a problem. Being convicted of a felony has some default penalties. If you don't like them, work to change the laws. Until then, don't commit felonies.
 
There are federal laws already in place, there is also the bill of rights 2nd amd. The ATF btw 1982 and 1992, granted approx. 4000 felons there already guaranteed rights back. Since 1992, the feds, haven't funded that division of the atf. Read the post, it contains the law, and the truth.
 
Being convicted of a felony has some default penalties.

That's precisely the point of the discussion, DoubleNaught. Being convicted of a felony should not have the penalty of being stripped of an inalienable right, otherwise the Bill of Rights isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
 
Well stated Marko Kloos.

And on the practical side, people should look at the numbers. We have a very high percentage of incarcerated folk in this country. Every single day a number of them are released, and a few more go in to take their place. The net result is a growing number of "convicted felons" wandering freely around us.

Among the ones coming out are those who are a threat to anyone around them, and are then used as an excuse to control everyone else. This has effectively turned free society into an extension of the prison yard.

Then there are the aggregate number of people who have not committed an actual crime against an actual person or their property, yet who are denied their rights and given a third class status. At the present rate of turnover, an enormous percentage of our citizenry could end up this way. I do not see any signs of a runaway criminal justice system being brought to heel either by the Judiciary or the Congress.

Thirdly, outside of a return trip, there is little incentive for people that have been incarcerated under felony convictions and released to abstain from any other crime. While rights have practical applications in each context, they are integral to individual dignity and sense of honor. Stripping people of these things may be seen by some as sort of "tough pal, your own fault", but the net effect on average among a large number of people is not going to be conducive to a free and stable society.

The men that founded this country were not "wimps", "liberals" or sympathizers to criminals in any way. Many were of the martial aristocracy and well educated. On the average they probably had a much harsher view of how people convicted of real crimes should be treated than many today. Yet it is plainly evident that they did not believe that punishment extended beyond that passed down by a court and prison walls. And with good reason.
 
So WHY shouldn't he ba able to get his rights reinstated?
Because there are more people of the mindset that if he can't be trusted not to embezzle, he can't be trusted to own a gun than there are who think he should be able to have a gun after being convicted of embezzling.
 
Last edited:
Well. As a gun-owning "urban gentleman", I see based on some of the posts here that gun control attitudes and concerns are still racial in nature. Those of you who think us black people shouldn't have guns and are more likely to use them in a criminal manner, a question: The Ceo's of worldcom, tyco, adelphia, halliburton,enron, and so forth, are any of them black? The companies I've named have done more criminal damage to our country(and to our 401k's and savings) than any street gang, or the mob(cosa nostra, russian, etc) combined, but if you saw a CEO at the range, you'd feel safe. if you saw me, you'd worry. BTW, there are a lot of reasons for an leo to recognize someone besides seeing them on a wanted poster.
 
ok....

sarmstrong806 wrote:
Yesterday at the range two urban gentleman came in. One was holding an SKS with the folding bayonet extended asking for a 30 round "clip" and the other had a 9mm. The one set the handgun on the counter and startled quite a few people behind the counter when they discovered it was loaded with one in the chamber. They knew nothing about firearms whatsoever as they were wanting to fire the SKS when the cosmoline hadn't been cleaned.

One of the guys that worked there was ex LE and was talking with them. He asked them if they got the SKS at a gunshow, and they said "uhh Yeah". He then asked one, "Where do you live? You Look familiar." and that he was a patrol officer etc.

They looked around for about 2 minutes and hauled ass.

They may or may not have gotten the firearms legally, but I'ts scary that people like this are coming to the range to "practice", but all the more reason to make it as hard as possible for them to get ahold of firearms.

and markokloos replied:
Well, that's what the first gun control laws were intended to do...keep the guns out of the hands of the "urban gentlemen". Glad to see that intentions are consistent, even after all this time.

God forbid you use the opportunity to educate the gentlemen in question about safe gun handling and maintenance...

One of the most reliable regulars in my old shop is a gentleman who you'd probably classify as an "urban gentleman". He dresses in urban fashion, and talks in an urban vernacular. Thing is, he's a hard-working, tax-paying member of the community, he spends about $20,000 a year on guns (by my conservative estimate), and his gun collection probably makes Tamara's arsenal look modest. He also passes his background check every time, and he owns an NFA item or two...legally, with tax stamp.

Run him out of the store by bypassing him to help the good ol' boy who's there to haggle you down to 5% over cost on a Bersa (and "will you throw in a box of shells free if I buy the gun?"), and you've lost twenty grand a year in reliable business. But hey...whatever it takes to keep the darkies from getting their hands on guns. They're all felons anyway.
 
I have to disagree about the damage of the recent corporate criminals, and the prohibiton gangs, and violent crime. The people most hurt were employees that did not diversify, enron employees could have gotten mutual funds, and not made as much, but still have something, diversifying a 401k is easy, most people just don't do it, they also don't buy life insurance either. The criminals, and gangsters, have killed many people, and have had the effect of making certain groups seem to be violent, also they have gotten the government to severly infringe on our rights. Blaming it on the criminals, is easy, as it was are government's reactionary mentality, that did this, and allowed gangs to flourish in the first place. Opium dens were outlawed inSan Francisco, because yellow devils would ravish white women. The stock market has shaken off these negative things in a very short time, the DOW, is at 10,700, I believe, just about 1000 points off the all time high. The financial markets has shrugged off the negative impact of these crimes in under 5 years? I believe. Are freedoms, are taking a much longer time to be restored, over 100 years, and about 54?, and counting on guns. Like I said before the don't I know you is usually a tactic by the police to intimidate, but of course, there are no cruel, and agenda prone police. :)
 
A very similar thread was up on THR

My opinion, yes, felons should have full rights when they get out, if for no other reason so we avoid making a class society.

If someone has commited such a heinious crime that they cannot be trusted with a gun, we simply should not let them out. Afterall, they can still buy an axe, chainsaw, etc.

Many of todays "felons" should have been charged with a misdemeanor (or not charged at all). There are many cases of this that most people assume are rare, but aren't. Many "felons" haven't hurt anybody. Google Richard Paey who is doing 25 years for signing his own prescription.
http://www.reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml

Note that the average convict of homicide serves 5.9 years.

----------------------------------------------------

If you believe felons should not have RKBA, should we let them marry? If so, don't they have the right and DUTY to protect their family?

If felons do not have the right to vote, they cannot be "represented" in Congress by definition. Therefore they should not be counted in the census which allocates the number of Representatives for each state to Congress.

Short answer- release all the non-violent offenders and don't prosecute them as "felons". Lawmakers need to rediscover the idea of "misdemeanor". Then we would have plenty of prison space to keep the really dangerous people off the streets.
 
I forget where I read it, but I seem to recal the concept being laid out that, if you pass enough laws against things, you would eventually have a society of nothing but criminals. If said criminals are unable to get their rights reinstated, wouldn't that be a nice end-run around the BoR?
 
Racial issues.

It is my sincere hope that posts on this forum have not been construed as racial in nature. I have seen very few posts that are intentionally offensive, and am certain there was some kind of basis for the comments made.

If they were considered racial, I would like to reassure you by offering a standing invitation to the range with me at any time. As long as you are safe, responsible, and legal, I doubt that race or background matters much at all to anyone on this forum. Anyone responsible enough to legally own a gun and use it for it's intended purpose (hunting, defense, etc...) is a good person in my book, and no matter what your skin color, you're a good citizen simply for choosing to excercise your rights in a prudent and responsible manner.

Skin color is inconsequential, just be safe and obey the law. We're all Americans first.
 
Back
Top