Which is why the law is not that way. However, if they truly cannot be trusted with a gun, I don't see why we feel compelled to release them. Are tehy banned from owning knives, rope, fertilizer or gasoline? Any of those will kill just as easily as any firearm. You can trust them with a multitude of deadly things, but guns are too far?
felons
- Thread starter psycho nut
- Start date
Which is why the law is not that way. However, if they truly cannot be trusted with a gun, I don't see why we feel compelled to release them. Are tehy banned from owning knives, rope, fertilizer or gasoline? Any of those will kill just as easily as any firearm. You can trust them with a multitude of deadly things, but guns are too far?
Here's some interesting reading for those who think released prisoners have "paid their debt to society":
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#inmates
A couple of snips from that page:
"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers."
Yes, that's an average of over 17 arrests per offender. And people are eager to give these guys their guns back?
Tim
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#inmates
A couple of snips from that page:
"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers."
Yes, that's an average of over 17 arrests per offender. And people are eager to give these guys their guns back?
Tim
IZinterrogator
New member
That is a result of the Lautenberg Act, which is a federal law stating that anyone involved in commiting an act of domestic violence is banned from handling guns, let alone owning them. Here's the odd thing about that law: It only applies to misdemeanors because a felon can't own a gun. Felons, however, can handle guns. Look at G. Gordon Liddy. He doesn't own any guns, but his wife sure does have a great collection, according to him. Now, if someone in the military gets arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence, just like your cop friend, they can't handle a gun and must be discharged. However, if they plead up to a felony, they can once again handle firearms and stay in the military, although they may never own a gun again unless they petition to get their rights restored. Have you ever of a dumber law?
leadcounsel
Moderator
The point of "paying your debts to society" is that you *should* have a clean slate. Most of ones other constitutional rights are restored, why not the 2nd Amendment (and voting for that matter). Maybe the gov't wants to suppress a popular and illegal activity but instead should listen to the votes of those convicted of the crime. Let's say that free speech was a crime and a felony. Everyone convicted of this felony can no longer vote for like-minded representatives nor raise arms to change the system. It's completely contradictory to a democratic form of government.
Besides, it's a "feel good" law that is really qutie meaningless. The liberal left thinks a motivated person cannot obtain a gun, whether legal or illegal. If an ex-con wants to get a gun badly enough for whatever his purposes, a law is certainly not going to stand in his way. Personally, I'd rather he buy his gun legally so there is a record, rather than steal it or buy it on the underground market, which incidently increases the risk to everyone legally owning guns.
Another thought is that it increases the risk to private firearms sales that a person may innocently sell a gun to a felon unwittingly and therefore commit a felony himself. As a gun owner this concerns me.
I think all constitutional rights should be restored and a persons record should be cleared up after he has paid his debts to society. I think that would help keep men honest and not repeat offenders. As it is now, ex-cons cannot make an honest living and resort to crime because they are continually and forever punished for a mistake they made and, more importantly, were caught making. Keep in mind that felonies are quite easy to get slapped with and quite common.
Besides, it's a "feel good" law that is really qutie meaningless. The liberal left thinks a motivated person cannot obtain a gun, whether legal or illegal. If an ex-con wants to get a gun badly enough for whatever his purposes, a law is certainly not going to stand in his way. Personally, I'd rather he buy his gun legally so there is a record, rather than steal it or buy it on the underground market, which incidently increases the risk to everyone legally owning guns.
Another thought is that it increases the risk to private firearms sales that a person may innocently sell a gun to a felon unwittingly and therefore commit a felony himself. As a gun owner this concerns me.
I think all constitutional rights should be restored and a persons record should be cleared up after he has paid his debts to society. I think that would help keep men honest and not repeat offenders. As it is now, ex-cons cannot make an honest living and resort to crime because they are continually and forever punished for a mistake they made and, more importantly, were caught making. Keep in mind that felonies are quite easy to get slapped with and quite common.
psycho nut
New member
He got in trouble for it a couple of times.
I guess if you get in trouble a certain amount of time it becomes a felony or something like that, my mom wasn't quite sure either. The thing is that in NE you can have a long gun with a barrel over 21 inches, but a national law says that you can't period.
MeekAndMild
New member
Nebraska, eh? Never much cared for that state. Probably learning to read is a misdemeanor there. 
+1 leadcounsel.
If a man is truly reformed and safe enough to be let on the street I can think of no good reason why his rights should not be fully restored.
Redworm:
Tim:
If a man is truly reformed and safe enough to be let on the street I can think of no good reason why his rights should not be fully restored.
Redworm:
That's exactly why I advocate the death penalty for murderers. Then they aren't allowed to own guns, knives, sticks or hands.
Tim:
You got it. At least 46.9% (excluding those rearrested just for firearms violations) should never have been let out of prison in the first place. And why were only 25.4% resentenced for a new crime? Sounds like the judicial system isn't putting the bad guys away long enough. The rest- let them have whatever they want.
Last edited:
Eghad,
Actually, in the fed law, there is a way for felons to ask for their Rights back.
Congress has refused to fund it.
So, there is a definite anti-gun atmosphere in the fed government to ensure that no one has the right to challage for their rights to be restored.
It's all part of the big picture.. get or make as many laws as you can to be felones, created new roadblocks to give grievince(sp) to the ruling, and there you have it... everyone is a felon and no one can own arms.
Wayne
Actually, in the fed law, there is a way for felons to ask for their Rights back.
Congress has refused to fund it.
So, there is a definite anti-gun atmosphere in the fed government to ensure that no one has the right to challage for their rights to be restored.
It's all part of the big picture.. get or make as many laws as you can to be felones, created new roadblocks to give grievince(sp) to the ruling, and there you have it... everyone is a felon and no one can own arms.
Wayne
Violent/non-violent makes no difference to me.
I say let em both have the means to protect themselves once they've paid for their crime.
I don't care for the idea any more than anyone else, but it's the right thing to do.
That's the way it was for over 180 years.
I don't see anything that indicates the last 37 years have been an improvement.
I say let em both have the means to protect themselves once they've paid for their crime.
I don't care for the idea any more than anyone else, but it's the right thing to do.
That's the way it was for over 180 years.
I don't see anything that indicates the last 37 years have been an improvement.
We need to make the term "felon" mean what it is suposed to mean. Violent crimes are what felonies should be for. To repeat an old quote;
Rape = Felony
Arson = Felony
Robbery of any kind = Felony
DWI = Not a Felony, though repeat offenders should be punished more.
Selling crack on the corner = Not a Felony, while it is a crime as long as there is no violence it should not be. There is enough gang violence that selling dope does not need to be a felony.
I had a Co-worker who was a felon and the only thing he did was have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18. Dad found out, got pissed, and screwed the guy for the rest of his life. We need to stop abusing the term "felon"
"If you can't shoot them while they are doing it, it isn't a felony."
Murder = FelonyRape = Felony
Arson = Felony
Robbery of any kind = Felony
DWI = Not a Felony, though repeat offenders should be punished more.
Selling crack on the corner = Not a Felony, while it is a crime as long as there is no violence it should not be. There is enough gang violence that selling dope does not need to be a felony.
I had a Co-worker who was a felon and the only thing he did was have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18. Dad found out, got pissed, and screwed the guy for the rest of his life. We need to stop abusing the term "felon"
Double Naught Spy
New member
Posted by Psycho Nut...
Something does not make sense here. My guess is that the felony is not simply for driving without a license. I could not find it for NE, but in some states, driving on a revoked license is apparently a felony.
While the offense may have been non-violent and so folks think the person should retain RKBA, the fact remains that the laws were in place before the offense and so losing the RKBA is simply a consequence of being convicted of a felony. It is pretty stupid to get caught committing some sort of small or non-violent felony as you run the risk of losing rights for these minor infractions.
Something does not make sense here. My guess is that the felony is not simply for driving without a license. I could not find it for NE, but in some states, driving on a revoked license is apparently a felony.
While the offense may have been non-violent and so folks think the person should retain RKBA, the fact remains that the laws were in place before the offense and so losing the RKBA is simply a consequence of being convicted of a felony. It is pretty stupid to get caught committing some sort of small or non-violent felony as you run the risk of losing rights for these minor infractions.
psycho nut
New member
Now that you mention it I do believe that is what happened.
DNS,
Different States, different laws. In some, one thing is illegal (like "Assault rifles" in CA) and in another, perfectly legal (like Oregon).
So when I read such things, it doesn't trigger any BS meter or anything because from living in many, many different states, I find that in one (like Oregon) I may find it totally lawful to do something (i.e. In Oregon I can buy AND carry a fully auto knife) but in others (like NY, GA and ID to name a few) that same deed is against the law.
So I therefore use this type of reasoning to answer the way that I did, that non-violent felons should be able to regain their Rights as seen fit under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
All in all, it's a non-issue, the governments at the federal level and the state level are wrong. Those that will seek out and jail those that are not in prison and trying to just live as Americans with all Rights, are wrong.
People may wish for complete safety and the protection from others, but you will never get that and to try to acheive that over the backs of others is just plain morally wrong, and an act of a coward IMNSHO.
To say that a person's life is worth less than anothers is just plain wrong and to continually punish them for a wrong that they have paid for, is the act of someone that thinks that they are greater than others, and that is immoral.
Wayne
Different States, different laws. In some, one thing is illegal (like "Assault rifles" in CA) and in another, perfectly legal (like Oregon).
So when I read such things, it doesn't trigger any BS meter or anything because from living in many, many different states, I find that in one (like Oregon) I may find it totally lawful to do something (i.e. In Oregon I can buy AND carry a fully auto knife) but in others (like NY, GA and ID to name a few) that same deed is against the law.
So I therefore use this type of reasoning to answer the way that I did, that non-violent felons should be able to regain their Rights as seen fit under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
All in all, it's a non-issue, the governments at the federal level and the state level are wrong. Those that will seek out and jail those that are not in prison and trying to just live as Americans with all Rights, are wrong.
People may wish for complete safety and the protection from others, but you will never get that and to try to acheive that over the backs of others is just plain morally wrong, and an act of a coward IMNSHO.
To say that a person's life is worth less than anothers is just plain wrong and to continually punish them for a wrong that they have paid for, is the act of someone that thinks that they are greater than others, and that is immoral.
Wayne
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Just a little old thing called: "The Constitution"
You see, there's this gosh darn problem of the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (you know, keeping someone locked up longer than their sentance.....)
I don't think anyone says someone should be locked up longer than their sentence.
IMO, violent felons need to be sentenced longer, kept in for the full length of their sentences, and in the worst cases be put to death. As for the 8th amendment, cruel and unusual punishment meant differnet things to the people of 18th century colonial America than it does today. It not as if I'm asking for someone to be drawn and quartered.
Rufus Pisanus
New member
I am not sure about non-violent felonies but for the real ones I think it's fine to restrict the felon's 2nd amendment rights. The argument "he pays his dues" doesn't apply as with good lawyers and jury to jury variability there is no way of saying whether one really did.
I have a wife and two kids and for sure I'd like rapists and child molesters to be unarmed...
I have a wife and two kids and for sure I'd like rapists and child molesters to be unarmed...
A rapist or murder kept in prison until they die in a jail cell is not cruel and unusual punishment. A man who robs a liquor store and in the process shoots the owner does not deserve to see the light of day as a free man. Ever again.
Keeping a pothead in jail for a year is cruel and unusual punishment. Keeping a violent person away from the rest of society is not.