reformed felons have right to self defense?

If your friends did not have violent offenses it is very likely that they can make an appearance in court (with the assistance of a private attorney or a public defender in the county in which their crime was committed) and have their record expunged.

I had some offenses when I was younger that were "wobblers" (can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony; most charges above infractions are wobblers); they were for childish partying that went a little too far.
I paid my dues, went through a program for my drinking problem, and got my charges dropped when I was done.

Note here that nothing I did was violent or extreme. I think if there are charges like this a person has to be off probation for something like 7 or 10 years and petition the governor for a pardon (in Commiefornia anyway).
In the end it was good for me; I haven't had a drink in quite a few years and life is good; just needed a wakeup call because I was a hardhead when I was in my late teens.

For the most part, I do not favor regulation for "felons." Back when I was partying I knew a lot of people that "shouldn't" have guns; they always had them if they wanted them.

It seems that once any regulation takes place there are so many other things necessary to implement that regulation that it becomes a slippery slope in a hurry.

What was it that Franklin said? Something about those who would choose safety over liberty should have neither. . . . . ? I think this applies here; we want to be "safe" so we support legislation to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals." In all reality those criminals that are dangerous will still get the guns they want and our rights will be removed from there, one piece at a time.

If people are "safe enough" to be alive and be set free there should be no further regulation. I support a swift death penalty for those who deserve it, and prison time with hard labor for all others that commit crimes worthy of incarceration. These punishments worked very well in this country for many years; the reason we have so many problems today is not because there are too many guns, it is because too many people are no longer afraid or respectful enough of consequences for their personal actions.

The government has made punishments less severe while penalizing us for criminals' actions by implementing laws that remove our personal freedoms under the guise of "public safety." The government is not responsible for our safety, nor are they adept at trying to be.
 
Fill out a national park form and give the wrong address? Felony. Do your own taxes and forgets to report your gambling earning of 400 dollars? Felony.

have a bitch of a wife who cheats on you? she files for divorce and her slimeball lawyer tells her to take out a restraining order on you, your rights to own guns has just been taken away for LIFE.
Click to expand...

Uh...I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. No, I'm positive this is wrong. Filling out a federal form with the wrong address is a weird example but I'll bite. To be conviced of perjury or fraud requires intent. Read your tax statements. Making a mistake when you meant to provide the correct info won't result in prosecution if you can prove it was an mistake.

Having a restraining order filled against you won't take away your right to own a firearm either. the closet thing that come to that is a charge of domestic violence, which is a misdemeanor. It's the only misdemeanor that I know of that'll remove a right.
 
Dfariswheel and BillCA

I covered this in my post at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215527 ; and due to the defunding of the restoration of rights program by congress, at the behest of anti-firearms organizations, there is no ability for a person to have their rights restored at this time.

Pursuant to UNITED STATES v. BEAN 537 U.S. 71 (2002)

Held: The absence of an actual denial by ATF of a felon's petition precludes judicial review under §925(c). The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant relief from a firearms disability if certain preconditions are met, and an applicant may seek federal-court review if the Secretary denies his application. Ibid. Since 1992, however, the appropriations bar has prevented ATF, to which the Secretary has delegated this authority, from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon the applications. Section 925(c)'s text and the procedure it lays out for seeking relief make clear that an actual decision by ATF on an application is a prerequisite for judicial review, and that mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction. Grammatically, the phrase "denied by the Secretary" references the Secretary's decision on whether an applicant "will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety," and whether "the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest." Such determination can hardly be construed as anything but a decision actually denying the application. (emphasis added) Under §925(c)'s procedure for those seeking relief, the Secretary, i.e., ATF, has broad authority to grant or deny relief, even when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. This procedure shows that judicial review cannot occur without a dispositive decision by ATF. (emphasis added) First, in the absence of a statutorily defined standard of review for action under §925(c), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) supplies the applicable standard. 5 U. S. C. §§701(a), 706(2)(A). The APA's "arbitrary and capricious" test, by its nature, contemplates review of some action by another entity. Second, both parts of §925(c)'s standard for granting relief--whether an applicant is "likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety" and whether the relief is in the "public interest"--are policy-based determinations and, hence, point to ATF as the primary decisionmaker. Third, §925(c) allows the admission of additional evidence in district court proceedings only in exceptional circumstances. Congressional assignment of such a circumscribed role to a district court shows that the statute contemplates that a court's determination will heavily rely on the record and the ATF's decision. Indeed, the very use in §925(c) of the word "review" to describe a court's responsibility in this statutory scheme signifies that it cannot grant relief on its own, absent an antecedent actual denial by ATF. Pp. 2-7.
Click to expand...

Read the entire decision at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=537&invol=71
 
Isn't it strange that until the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Law (GCA68) that convicted felons had no problems in voting, buying a firearm etc. Until then, you did your time and your "debt to society" was paid for.
Thanks to an anti-gun Senator named Dodd who was part of the Nuremberg trials; Mr. Dodd got hold of a copy of Adolph Hitler's gun control law. Mr. Dodd along with another anti-gun Senator named Cellars used Hitler's law as the basis of the GCA68. The words "convicted Felon" replaced "Jews" as those who would be kept from owning or handling firearms.
The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act changed the law inasmuch as a convicted felon could ask the court to restore all his civil rights afet serving out his time and any parole restrictions.
Which brings us to the Congress not allocating money for the BATF to look into each case of rights restoration. The Congress did allocate the funds, but the powers that be in the BATF REFUSED the money stating that they did not want felons to have their rights restored. I'll repeat that statement. They REFUSED the money as they did not want felons to have their rights restored.
I forget what year this occurred, but it did happen.
I happen to have a neighbor that tried to prevent a crime and inadvertantly became a felon. The guy was such a "Straight Arrow" that he didn't even get traffic tickets. He stopped some people from trying to steal a car that he had control over, and the state gave the car thieves immunity to testify against him. it was the most BS crap deal I've ever seen, but the County Attorney had one of the highest felony conviction rates in the country and just wanted to add another notch in his gun. The fellow has had his rights restored, but the cloud of that felony conviction hangs over his head every waking day. It's been more than ten years since that happened and a once happy man no longer smiles, and rarely laughs.
Felony? What is that? eems like they're constantly upgrading relatively minor stuff into felonies any more. I wonder just how much longer before spitting on the street gets you five years in the pen?
Paul B.
 
Paul B.

"Isn't it strange that until the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Law (GCA68) that convicted felons had no problems in voting...."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get your information, but not allowing convicted felons the vote is a state issue, not a national one. I don't think it has anything to do with GCA68. I believe the state of New York has had such a law from sometime in the 1800s.

In forty-six states and the District of Columbia, criminal disenfranchisement laws deny the vote to all convicted adults in prison. Thirty-two states also disenfranchise felons on parole; twenty-nine disenfranchise those on probation. And, due to laws that may be unique in the world, in fourteen states even ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences remain barred for life from voting.
Click to expand...

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm
 
This is what we're having to live with because of 1860, where we became subjects of a central government who is to decide how we make a living, what we can buy, and that the states and the people exist at the will and mercy of 5 or 6 large states who can send an army to kill you if you disagree with them.
 
Paul B.

The Congress did allocate the funds, but the powers that be in the BATF REFUSED the money stating that they did not want felons to have their rights restored. I'll repeat that statement. They REFUSED the money as they did not want felons to have their rights restored.
Click to expand...

Not true. The BATFE -- at the time BATF -- had the function and funds up until 1992.

You need to read http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=537&invol=71 especially this pertinent part:
Under federal law, a person who is convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing firearms. See §922(g)(1). The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant relief from that prohibition if it is established to his satisfaction that certain preconditions are met. See §925(c).1 An applicant may seek judicial review from a "United States district court" if his application "is denied by the Secretary." Ibid.


Since 1992, however, the appropriations bar has prevented ATF, to which the Secretary has delegated authority to act on §925(c) applications,2 from using "funds appropriated herein ... to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U. S. C. [§]925(c)." Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. 102-393, 106 Stat. 1732.3 Accordingly, ATF, upon receipt of respondent's petition, returned it, explaining that "ince October 1992, ATF's annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities." App. 33-34. Respondent contends that ATF's failure to act constitutes a "denial" within the meaning of §925(c), and that, therefore, district courts have jurisdiction to review such inaction.
Click to expand...


The BATF never refused the money. They were prohibited by the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. 102-393, 106 Stat. 1732.3 from using ANY appropriated funds to "investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities".

This happened because anti-firearms groups demanded an amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act which would prohibit the use of appropriations for this purpose.

I don't know where you get your information but it is inaccurate and false; and it will remain so regardless of how many times it is repeated.

What we need is for those who gather here to do more than puff up their chests and blather about their rights -- all show and no go as it were. Actions speak louder than words and we need more of us to contact their legislators and make them aware of this travesty. Most of them don't even know it exists.

Read my call-to-action post at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208086 and see how many relies there were.

NONE! Zip, zero, nada.

Other than my own call to the NRA, I assume that the number of calls from other posters was the same.
 
"once a felon always a felon"

I don't think so, if your conviction is expunged you are no longer a felon and all your rights are restored... complete... at least that's the way I understand it.

there is another way... the crime you were convicted of, a felony at the time, is reduced down later by law.. believe it or not...you are no longer a felon.
 
I know this sounds crazy...but first make sure the conviction WAS a felony. Most first time drug offenses, even manufacturing and intent to distribute have been downgraded to a Misdemeanor.

A person could actually have been convicted of what was a felony years ago and it is now a misdemenor... the law and feds will recognize the current rating of the conviction over the past.
Click to expand...

Many misdemeanors carry a jail sentence of more than one year. If you read the law on firearms ownership you will find that it states if the crime could have resulted in incarceration for more than one year -- regardless of the actual punishment imposed -- then you are forbidden from firearms ownership.
 
You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.
Click to expand...
Isn't it interesting that the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that is taken to be a "privilege" is the Second Amendment?

No one ever says "the privilege of free speech"; "the privilege of religion"; "the privilege of free association"; or "the privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Before GCA 68 there was no restriction of a person's right to own a firearm. It was only with the inception of that act that the right of ex-felons to own a firearm was abrogated.
 
jimpeel

"Before GCA 68 there was no restriction of a person's right to own a firearm. It was only with the inception of that act that the right of ex-felons to own a firearm was abrogated."
Click to expand...

In 1927 Congress passed a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

In 1934 The National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns, was approved by Congress.

In 1938 The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 placed the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns required to obtain a Federal Firearms License and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.
 
Sasquatch,

I see your 2¢, assign it full value, and I stand corrected.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938[38] was the most significant pre-1968 attempt to impose federal controls on the commerce and possession of a broad spectrum of firearms. Shepherded through the Congress by the National Rifle Association, the 1938 Act was pressed more to submerge than to further the schemes for federal handgun registration that regularly commuted from the justice Department to the Congress (and back) during the 1930s.[39] [Page 140]

The 1938 Federal Firearms Act spread a thin coat of regulation over all firearms and many classes of ammunition suitable for handguns. All manufacturers, importers and dealers handling guns shipped in interstate commerce were required to obtain federal licenses ($25 for manufacturers and importers, $1 for dealers).[40] Licensees were prohibited from knowingly shipping a firearm in interstate commerce to some felons, a fugitive from justice, a person under indictment, or anyone required to have a license under the law of the seller’s state who did not have a license.[41] All these prohibited owner classes were also forbidden to receive guns which were or had been in interstate commerce. Dealers were also required to keep records of firearms transactions. Enforcement responsibility was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, who delegated the assignment to the Internal Revenue Service.[42]

The apparent aims of the 1938 legislation were to create an independent federal policy banning the receipt of firearms by what must have been thought of as the criminal class of society, and to aid state and local efforts at tighter control by prohibiting transactions that would violate local laws. As a strategy to accomplish these goals, however, the Federal Firearms Act was deficient in a number of respects, and further crippled by a tradition of as less-than-Draconian enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service. One major problem was that the Act prohibited only the transfer of weapons to the prohibited classes when the transferor knew or had reasonable cause to believe his transferee was a felon, fugitive, etc.[43] but transferors were not required to obtain positive identification of their customers or to take other steps to verify the eligibility of customers under the act. From the standpoint of prosecuting dealers for violation of the federal ban against sale to felons, the requirement of knowledge, coupled with the absence of a verification system, rendered the Act stillborn. When local law required a license, however, the license requirement made both dealer and customer liable under federal law if they were aware of the local requirements.

Two other prominent loopholes in the 1938 Act deserve special mention because they determined the shape of the 1968 Act. First, the modest cost of a dealer’s license and the fact that dealers could freely receive firearms in interstate commerce created strong incentives for private parties to receive [Page 141] dealer licenses. This in turn resulted in a large number of dealers (over 100,000 in the mid-1960s)[44] and made any serious effort to monitor dealer compliance with the act an enormous undertaking for an Internal Revenue Service that did not, in any event, give the F.F.A. a very high priority. A second problem was that customers from states that required licenses could purchase guns in states that did not, as long as they did not give the dealer in the no-license state any reason to have knowledge of their lack of eligibility. The customer might have to lie to his supplier and would himself be subject to federal criminal penalties, but guns were readily available through this route.[45]
Click to expand...
 
Sorry for bringing back an old thread but I'm in the exact situation described by the original poster and I have a few questions. I was convicted of a 5th degree drug trafficking charge 6 years ago in Ohio when I was young and stupid. I have drastically changed my life since then and I was hoping I would be able to legally own a gun sometime in the future. But I get the impression from reading this thread that it's pretty much impossible to do. Am I right?? If it is even remotely possible I would like to do it, but I wouldn't know where to find a lawyer who could. How would I find one?? Thanks in advance for any help or advice.
 
I think that "felony" is the wrong place to draw the line.

Violent crimes, sure, take away his rights.

Non-violent crimes? Like "trademark counterfeiting in the first degree" ? No, that's just weird.
Click to expand...

Now how do we get the legislatures to implement this?
 
b22

but I wouldn't know where to find a lawyer who could. How would I find one??
Click to expand...

Call your state Bar. The number should be in the business section of the phonebook and will be listed as "state in which you reside" Bar (e.g. South Carolina Bar). Good luck.
 
read the whole thread, then get a lawyer.

1st, commiting a felony is not a mistake, a mistake is when you turn left and should have turned right, then you just turn around and start over.
commiting a felony is a major screw up that will haunt you til you die when it comes to owning a gun. and many other things.

Even if you do get it expunged by your state, you still have the federal Laws over you and they have took away the funds to get records expunged.

I think when a person has done their time and parole, they should without question get all their rights back including owning a gun unless their crime was gun connected, robbery, murder ect.
there are many felonies like your own that have nothing to do with guns, but politions think by taking away your gun rights it makes them look in the eyes of the voters, like they are protecting them.

a real good example of their stupidity is--examples-- a firebug gets out of prison can still carry matches but no gun.

a drunk driver can still get a license back after killing people with an auto, but not have a gun.

a child molester or sex freak can still walk around free long as they don't try to buy a gun, then they're in big trouble.
 
The arguement is moot.....

....laws, licenses, permission, certifications, prior service, felon or Mr. Squeekey clean....it doesn't matter....if you want a handgun, it's readily available...legal or otherwise...most CCW's have a license to carry 'cause they themselves are their only self defense...an ex-con doesn't need a license...he or she is going to carry in spite of...I will concede though, that there are an inordinate number of US citizens who have been convicted of a felony that should never have been convicted at all, or at the very least, should have been convicted of a misdemeanor...the scrote bags in Texas were sentencing folks to life in prison for possession of marijuana that in most civil societies would be considered personal use amounts...then again, what is there about Texas that is not Paleolithic in their way of thought processes? We live in a society that is criminalizing virtually every huan behavior known to S. Freud...it really doesn't take much these days to be a felon.
 
I've always been of the opinion that America is "advanced citizenship," and that not every single person in the world OUGHT to be granted the rights inherent in being a citizen of America. In my opinion, if you refuse to live your life within the laws of America, so much so that you have become a convicted felon, it's not such a grave injustice to deny someone the protection of American citizenship. (Don't play by the rules, don't get the rewards!)

So, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with denying convicted felons the right to own firearms, vote, etc. That's part of the decision you make when you decide to commit a felony.
Click to expand...

That sounds "hard-core" and therefore "tough on crime." But that's just not the real world. Crimes that were felonies used to be the very worst types of crimes. But now you can be commit a totally white collar, financial error in judgement and end up being pressured to plea bargain for a single felony count. I know, it happened to my family.

I don't think non-violent felons should be prohibited from owning guns. Why shouldn't they be able to own them if their crime didn't actually harm anybody? The whole thing amounts to an anti-gun effort to keep limiting the number of people who even have the possibility of legally owning a gun. Keep finding ways to limit those numbers plus make it a giant paperwork hassle. Plus make it expensive. The number of shooters goes down year by year until we aren't a "problem" anymore.

Gregg
 
Gregg,

It sounds to me like your issue is not whether "felons" should be denied firearm ownership, but rather, whether certain non-violent crimes should be classified as "felonies." I'll grant you the point that we do not do such a great job differentiating between violent and non-violent crime. (The average sentence for a single-count rape is around 4 years; the average sentence for a felony posession with intent to distribute cocaine is around 10 years. I think that's a complete injustice. I think the punishment for rape should be death, and drugs should be a legal form of Darwinian population control. But alas, that's the subject of another thread...)

But, my original statement stands. I believe that citizens of this country should be held to an active duty to uphold the Laws of the United States. I believe that if you engage in criminal behavior of a kind so bad that we've made it a felony, then you should be stripped of your citizenship in this country. No guns, no vote, no right of search and seizure, and NO right of free speech to gripe-and-moan about it. You made your choice. End of story. (Incidentally, I don't do drugs - not because I think they're "wrong," but simply because they're illegal. I consider it to be "un-American" behavior.)

And, again, I appologize if I seem harsh... But, America should mean something. We are supposed to be better than all those other countries. Our citizens should have to earn the privilege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top