Has anyone ever challenged non violent crime felonys being a bar to the 2A.

Currently in the U.S., we have a real mish-mash of laws, as it regards firearms. There are many local and State laws to take into account. Then there are Federal laws.

Double Naught Spy said:
However, for those that do have such singular events with crimes of little harm, then there is indeed already a process in place for restoration of rights.
Click to expand...

This is where we run into real problems.

On the Federal level, we have a procedure to restore the gun-rights rights of Felons (18 U.S.C. § 925(c)). But even that process does not cover those prohibited persons who have been convicted under DVMC (Lautenberg). In addition, Congress has refused to fund this section of the Federal gun laws, so relief of disability is a theory only, not a practicality.

Then there are States that have indeterminate sentencing for all misdemeanors. Remembering that if any conviction can result in a sentence of more than a year, you are a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1)).

MD is such a State. Under MD Statutory law, any misdemeanor conviction can result in incarceration of up to 3 years, under strict guidelines - most first time offenses result in much less. But the feds have concluded that a MD misdemeanor conviction will result in your being a prohibited person for life. See Schrader v. Holder.

Federal Law allows for the removal of prohibited status, if you have had your rights restored at the State level, according to State law.

There's a catch to this. If the violation was domestic violence, regardless of any State law or State action, you will be a prohibited person for life (see, generally, 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)). See Enos v Holder.

So the supposed remedies are not altogether as clear and straight forward as some make it out.
 
I believe our country was founded on principles meant to ensure freedom reins and instead we have a situation where freedom endures.
Click to expand...

Yes, so long as you were an anglo adult male landowner, you were good to go. If you were female, not an adult, slave or former slave, etc., then the country was founded on principles that ensured freedom would not reign for you. We had to make some significant changes to the Constitution because what the Founding Fathers founded has some hugely biasing constraints.

Look, it sounds like you want to help your brother, but I am not sure that you have recognized the parameters of the problem. Outside of the Constitution, Founding Father arguments are going to be tough to get into changed law since the laws of the country are more than 200 years beyond their initial steerage and cherrypicking intent only carries so much weight.

Perhaps incorrectly I have always been under the presumption that rights took some "reasonable" level of crime in order to loose those rights under law and I always felt some rights you simply cannot lose.
Click to expand...

It isn't there isn't a reasonable level of crime that defines when rights are lost. There is, and it has been in place for a while. You don't think it is reasonable, which is fine, so you need to change that which you don't think it is reasonable to a law that you think will be "reasonable."

As for your second belief that some rights should never be lost, good luck with that. I am not sure that closure of the prisons and jails is ever going to happen, but each person arrested and put into jail or who ends up in prison has a loss of rights. They are precious and people regularly piddle them away.
 
I understand that the constitution was written 200 years ago. My intent is certainly to help my brother but the bigger picture is how many millions of people have only made one minor mistake in a lifetime that result in a permanent removal of the right to keep and bear arms. Is that truly the American way? Is that the way it should really be? I’m not claiming to have all the answers but I know what my answers to these questions are and I don’t pretend to speak for you or even everyone… I can see a reasonable argument that one minor violation in a lifetime does not need to necessitate paying 3 thousand dollars to 40 thousand dollars for the removal of an offense that in many cases is very minor.

For the sake of this forum you are right I am cherry picking the 2A but that’s because it is appropriate to this forum.

I’m not sure when I implied anything about closing jails and it seems you are somehow offended that you could have rights that I see is being unalienable regardless of conviction and I do believe we have some documents presented in the founding of our nation that make it clear that some rights were intended to be unalienable.

Further as pointed out by others the government has utterly failed to give a way to resolve some of this issue or they failed to fund it or however you want to put it. Should we not expect our government to fund a reasonable method to determine these issues and when it continually fails to resolve them then should we not have a method of redress?

How many millions of more people could be enjoying hunting and shooting and how many more lives could be saved if we had these issues resolved.

I don’t understand your hostility unless your part of the system that I am morally impeaching for its lack of observation of the tenants of our own system of government and the inherent responsibility to present a reasonable path to allow the return of rights to lawful peace abiding citizens.

I mean no offense, but I find the situation untenable even if eternally sustainable, it is IMHO bankrupt of the intent of natural law.
 
Last edited:
Oh, you beat me to it. Millions, indeed?

Now, the funny thing here is that one often hears the argument that we don't need more gun control laws. Just enforce the ones we have. Yet we do and people complain. The basic problem is, apparently, people have the idea that any law they don't like is therefore unjust and you know how that goes. I assume all traffic laws are thought to be unjust based on my observation of how carefully they are obeyed. If you cannot trust a person with the small things, how can you trust them with the important things?

However, over the years we have expanded, I think, the meaning of the second admendment and probably some of the others (some seem to have become more restrictive). If that is what has happened, that is what you call a liberalization of the law. We're just a bunch of old liberals around here.
 
We as a nation allow our government to do all sorts of spending and we do things like buy stoves for other nations people.http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/earth/21stove.html

Yet here we don’t fund the mechanisms to allow the return of rights to citizens? I’m not debating the politics I am making what I believe is a pretty clear point that the government is choosing to not fund such things because it does not want people to have these rights returned and that itself is to me at least a problem.

You define liberalization of the law which I appreciate but what is the definition of a system that chooses to not fund the return of rights even when the mechanism itself has already been passed into law?

Even if its 10,000 people US wide that fall into the category I am speaking of that’s still a goodly number of people. Im so frustrated with this subject and sad state of affairs.. uggh.. the whole system is inept and corrupt.. someone hit the reset button.

I will see about expungement for my brother and maybe its they way to go. I appreciate the information.
 
contact your republican congressman and/or senators if you have any and tell them to stop playing political games and get working on funding the mechanism to restore your rights as well as other things they should be working on.
 
Thanks Heyjoe..

The real problem is as I see it that anyone thinks this is acceptable in the first place... I agree that certainly violent crime may rise to the level of taking ones rights to own a firearm away.

I do not think however that just any crime qualifies to do this and I truly belive a lot of felonys are more about being some kind of gun control than anything having to do with the crime itself.

Even some of my friends of this forum seem to find nothing wrong with that but it doesnt sit so well with me..
 
Last edited:
While it may be a form of gun control as you note, it isn't something necessarily done as a matter of gun control, just a result. As noted previously, a debt such as by your brother might have resulted in the loss of his life. That isn't gun control. Fortunately, things go toned down a bit.

Felonies are considered to be serious crimes, hence the loss of certain rights. You want to make the distinction that loss of 2A rights would be based on whether or not the crime was violent. Cool. What is a violent crime? Is it a violent crime if nobody got hurt? If nobody got hurt, how can it be a violent crime? Is the threat of violence enough to make a crime be considered a violent crime despite no injuries taking place, or would that be gun control as well?

There are folks who make a huge distiniction between types of violent crimes. Should you be disallowed from having firearms if you get a felony conviction for unarmed robbery? Why should you lose your rights for guns when you never did anything wrong with a gun, especially if nobody ever got hurt in the crime that you committed?

There are all sorts of gray areas in this notion of "violent crime." What standard is correct? Why does the crime being violent make it more relevant to loss of 2A rights if a gun wasn't even used?

The current standard skirts a lot of this nitpicking. If you don't want to play well with others in society to the point of committing a crime serious enough to be considered a felony, if you are willing to piddle away your 2A rights doing something stupid, then maybe you should not have them, huh? It isn't like these folks committed the crime and then all of a sudden the crime was recategorized as a felony on them and so now they are losing their rights for something that originally would not have resulted in a loss of their rights when they committed the crime. Nope. The rules were in place and yet they risked it all, in some cases, for a small amount of money. Bummer.

You don't like the current standard and want a different one. You don't like the current law. It does not sit well with you. You think it is wrong. You are frustrated. You keep arguing from emotion and emotion isn't a valid argument.

So, move away from the personal opinions and complaining and start deriving valid justifications. As near as I can tell from your complaints, you haven't done this. You aren't going to get a law changed by continually complaining you don't like it. You need to be able to convince folks and legislators why a change is needed and why the proposed changes will actually be appropriately beneficial or right for society or individual rights. Complaining doesn't cut it. We all complain. We all think some laws are poorly conceived. Complaining hasn't gotten them changed without valid justifications.
 
It is unfortunate that there is no current legal remedy for those convicted of a federal felony to have their civil rights restored to them other than one that congress refuses to fund.

For those convicted of state felonious offenses, most times the process for the restoration of civil rights is straightforward. I don't like to admit this, even to perfect strangers (i.e., the members of TFL), but having been convicted of a non-violent felony, I was in the "system" for a long time. After the state-imposed sentence and after many years of being a productive member of society (went back to get my BS and MS degrees), I petitioned the court to have my civil rights restored. In other words, I worked the system to have my civil rights restored to me, even though it would have been easy to sit around and feel sorry for myself, and bitch about the system. The system works, but it's still the system and can take forever to get anything done.

Many states automatically restore citizenship rights to convicted felons once their sentence has been completed. Check into the laws of the state in which your brother lives to determine what the remedy is.

Society is scared of felons. Most people hear the phrase "convicted felon" and assume that those felons are violent, scary people. I imagine that many would be flabbergasted to hear that I, a PhD, CWP holder, and all around super guy am also a convicted felon. Tell your brother to work the system available to him; contrary to popular belief, it does work, and can help those who were at its mercy for many, many years.

Fish
 
Last edited:
You keep arguing from emotion and emotion isn't a valid argument.
Click to expand...

This my friend is where you are wrong... This country was founded on natural law with certain inherent rights. You and I come at the problem from different positions to be sure but natural law is not subject to the governments whim.

Natural law is a regard for rights that exist with or without government and are inherent in human beings, the government does not create these rights.

You see my arguement as an emotion but the foundation of my arguement is natural law, the very basis of our nation... However I do see (rightly or wrongly) in your arguement that law is whatever the government makes it.

In my view of the world and the one I spent 21 years of my life fighting for that is not correct.... Im sure were not going to agree and I respect your opinion but I find little of the founding beliefs of this nation in your presentation. I see a government that has clear limits it should not pass and you and many others feel differently..

Were different people, for certain we will not agree on all things...
 
Last edited:
I have known too many "felons" most were convicted of stupid minor offenses.

1 guy, a drunk driving conviction with property damage, when he was 17, he got bad moonshine & came to in jail, & didnt remember anything.

another was speeding on motorcycle, he decided to run, when he realised he couldnt outrun he pulled over, but was arrested, & convicted. poof there went his rights.

another was a 18 year old, that let friends store some stolen goods in a building on his property, that he rented, then his friends got caught, & named him, said he was in on it, & he ran, & they caught up with him 9 years later, & he served his time, & has not been in trouble in 12 years since then, but he lost his rights.

a kid I grew up with, was 16, was drunk in public, resisted arrest, & then assaulted the cop, he managed to break officers arm, & poof. a felon at 16, he says he was stupid, barely remember anything, he just tried to get away & the "fight" escalated.

another kid I know was 18, & girl was 16, her parents got him on a sexual offense. he is a felon.

I knew a kid that had several drunk driving offenses before he was 18, & was a felon, his last police rammed his moped, to get him to stop & he was riding moped, because no license from drunk driving offenses.

a guy I knew messed up, & had a couple traffic tickets, & then got a DUI, he lost his license, & was declared a habitual offender, he got caught driving, after being declared a habbitual offender, he was in construction, & his wife never learned how to drive, so he had to drive to get tool to work, well he pulled a year, & became a felon because of this, & due to 1 year in jail, he lost his house, he had under 2 years left to pay for it. his wife worked part time within walking distance, but she couldnt keep up. after conviction, he couldnt find work, & had to live in a rental house & had lost everything he worked for & drank himself to death, he died from accute alcohol injestion.

as for having rights restored, a guy that sold items at flea market had his rights restored, then they "the state" decided to revoke his rights without informing him, he found out when someone stole a gun he was selling at flea market, & he reported it to police & they ran him through the system, & found he once was a felon, & had rights restored, & then cancelled, but without notifying him. it seemed where he lived they would restore rights after a certain time, but then later decided to reverse their decision, & take away the rights again. I got this from an officer that worked security where I work, during when all that happened.

Randy
 
Take your mind back about 40 years and you will realize where all this harsh punishment and strict laws are coming from. I don't think it is gun control necessarily, even though it may work out that way for some.

You may recall that gun laws were changed and became more restrictive and shall we say, conservative, after the Kennedy assassination in 1963 (with another in 1968). However, crime was a big issue in Nixon's elections and the net result was that the law simply became meaner. I can't think of a better word for it. And now, we are only second to China in the number of people who are in prison. I understand completely the attitudes people had in the late 1960s, so I guess we had it coming.
 
You see my arguement as an emotion but the foundation of my arguement is natural law, the very basis of our nation... However I do see (rightly or wrongly) in your arguement that law is whatever the government makes it.
Click to expand...

Okay, you want to argue theory. Cool. I want to argue reality. You are hoping to change reality with theory based in emotion, and you continue to do so. Every one of your treatises on the matter are pumped full of emotion and your emotions have nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. For example...

In my view of the world and the one I spent 21 years of my life fighting for that is not correct.... Im sure were not going to agree and I respect your opinion but I find little of the founding beliefs of this nation in your presentation. I see a government that has clear limits it should not pass and you and many others feel differently..
Click to expand...

The founding beliefs, as you call them, didn't all work so well. That is why it immediately (several years later) became apparent that the Constitution had some major shortcomings and some changes had to be made. You see, natural law wasn't working so well.

With that said, you keep rattling your founding fathers saber and spouting emotions, but that isn't going to change diddly. Just how is it that you are going to take your emotion laden views about how things were and use them to change reality of how things are? So far, I just hear a lot of complaining - flash in the pan with no musket balls flying.
 
Double Naught - My change was proposed in possibly writing a paper to the NRA on this issue. I say what I see and believe to be true and apparently you do the same from a position I find hard to fathom.

I think your dialogue clearly proves that in the future any new amendments will need to be multi page if not volume affairs otherwise our legal system will continue to make laws infringing at any time that it makes political sense at the moment.

This thread has strayed far from its intent. I dont really care if you agree with me or my views or my apparently emotional opinions. It seems to me your just bored and have little to offer, I can hopefully be more generous. I will not respond to further baiting and I thank you for your time and input and if you make it to MN I will be happy to buy you lunch, I dont think the limits of text is helping this conversation.

I appreciate the input from everyone on this thread even those I may not have answered specifically. If you have any links you feel may help me in researching this subject I would be grateful, if not thats ok...
 
Last edited:
You have 18 years to figure out what's right and wrong

If you can make the right choices by the time youre a man then it deserves to be on your record, if it's a felony then you messed up and don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us
 
Yes a Felon can own a gun!!!

18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code - Section 921:

(a)(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.

and the case law to support it:

(date 1990)899 F.2d 543 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calvin CASSIDY, Defendant-Appellee.

(date 1990)911 F.2d 219 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baldemar GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1991)932 F.2d 1330 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodore Albert GEYLER, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1991)938 F.2d 131 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lee DAHMS, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1991)947 F.2d 914 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David SWANSON, Defendant-Appellee.

(date 1992)967 F.2d 1349 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl Rodney CARDWELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1993)992 F.2d 218 - UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael A. CAPITO, Appellant.

(date 1994)20 F.3d 1066 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Clinton HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1995)45 F.3d 340 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Danny S. HERRON, Defendant-Appellee.

(date 1996)74 F.3d 615 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary August DUPAQUIER, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1996)87 F.3d 1333 - UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael T. BOST, Appellant.ad Document

(date 1996)77 F.3d 1 - UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerald R. CARON, Defendant, Appellant.

(date 1999)198 F.3d 808 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bob Gene FOWLER a.k.a. Bobby L. Fowler, Defendant-Appellant.
 
Last edited:
There are consequences of one's actions. Some crimes/mistakes do not cause lifelong problems. Committing a felony does cause lifelong troubles.
I do not think that all punishments fit the crime. I do not think that something like a domestic violence arrest should bar one from owning a gun depending upon the situation.

But a felony is serious, and I do not have a problem with the current laws relating to those crimes. Young and old get into trouble, and each must pay the price. If you do the crime then you must do the time. One lapse of judgment can cause lifetime damage.

I just cannot work up much sympathy for one who commits a felony regardless of his age.

Regards,
Jerry
 
@JerryM:

Between the ages of 12 and 21 I was a very responsible hunter and had a lot of respect for firearms. Some family disputes lead me down the road of alcoholism, at which time I did not have any guns. Suffice it to say I got a few dui's, the last one being a felony. I did my time and on completion received a certificate stating, "is hereby restored to full rights of citizenship subject to the provisions of SDCL 22-14-15 and SDCL 22-14-15.1." Those two codified laws refer to drug felonies and violent crimes....therefore I can legaly own a firearm.

Also I have been sober since my last arrest in the early part of '06. For any one to say that I would be a danger to the community by having a firearm just because of the felony dui is just plain ignorant...in the immortal words of Charlton Heston two quotes, "Here's my credo. There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people." and “I have only five words for you: From my cold, dead hands.” That's when the gov't can attempt to take my firearms away from me...

Regards:)
I to am Jerry...lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top