The Perception of Gun Owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s because the government keeps adding things that are felonies. I don’t know when that statute was implemented but have to assume there were a lot less felonies on the books you could be charged with .

Here in CA they are making and or trying to make several misdemeanor offenses that will make you a prohibited person . So felony or doing your time is not the issue really . It seems just being accused these days is good enough in some states and now nationally with at RF law .
 
Aguila Blanca said:
So I think USNRet93's question is valid. Why do we now make people convicted of non-violent, white-collar type crimes prohibited persons for life? Is it because we think they are potentially dangerous, or is it because we want to prolong their punishment?
Click to expand...

I'd say the real story isn't a rationale based on one or the other, but historical inertia. Historically, a felony -- rape, murder, attempted regicide, horse stealing -- were crimes punished by actual death. With time, this softened to a sort of civic death that resulted in the death of many of one's rights.

The death of one's rights isn't a very specific prophylactic and explains why so many states don't have felons voting. It isn't a specific anxiety that a felon may support sub-optimal public policy. Edit - Curiosity raised, I wondered which states have which rule. According to this link, incarcerated felons can vote in Maine and Vermont. https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/

Now add the more modern development of making bad bookkeeping or underhanded business practices into felonies, and it's tough to see a specific and individualized reason for every felon to be denied his 2d Am. rights. In that way it is unlike a RFL in which there is a specific alleged anxiety about the future conduct of an individual.
 
Last edited:
Except for cases that involved violent crimes, abuse and sexual assault I feel that once a person has completed their sentence they should have all rights restored.

The poor public perception of gun ownership by the public is also partially caused by some of the more belligerent type of gun owners... the ones that threaten the other side with statements “we have all the guns” and those that show up at open carry rallies dressed like two-bit mercenaries... like Barney Fife and Blackwater had a love child.
 
Felons being prohibited persons for life...

So I think USNRet93's question is valid. Why do we now make people convicted of non-violent, white-collar type crimes prohibited persons for life? Is it because we think they are potentially dangerous, or is it because we want to prolong their punishment?
Click to expand...

Neither. You are overthinking it. It has nothing to do with the individual, or really the specific crime, other than what ever crime it is being a felony.

It's about classification of crimes, and standard one size fits all punishments, based on the class of crime, and not the individual circumstances.

A convicted felon became a prohibited person, for life, with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Technically its not a "for life" prohibition, but in practical terms, it is. A convicted felon, after all sentence requirements have been completed, may petition a court to have their rights restored. With voting rights, this is almost automatic, today. With firearm rights, it is nearly impossible.

White collar (non violent) crimes carry the prohibited person punishment, not because of any physical harm done, unlike like rape, assault and murder, but simply because they are FELONIES. Felony Jaywalking (if such a thing exists,) and felony murder are equally felonies as far as making the perpetrator a prohibited person.

AND, since 1996, MISDEMEANOR domestic violence ALSO makes you a prohibited person.

It appears to me (and I might be wrong, if so, please correct me) but if you get convicted of any crime where the sentence could be more than one year in jail, you become a prohibited person.

Note that it doesn't matter what sentence is actually imposed, if you could be sentenced to more than a year, you are now a prohibited person, for life, unless you can get a court to restore your rights.

Prior to 1968 there was no prohibited person status for a convicted felon. Upon release from custody, they could, legally arm themselves, unless it was otherwise specified in the terms of their release.

Prior to 1996, NO misdemeanor made you a prohibited person, ever.
 
^^^ Correct.

Which is a long way of explaining that it has nothing to do with prohibiting felons from possessing firearms because "we" (the .gov) think they may commit more violent crimes, it has to do with "Because I said so and I'm the Mommy, so that's why!"
 
Aguila Blanca said:
True, but IMHO this doesn't answer USNRet93's question. He appears to understand that people convicted of non-violent felonies are forever barred from possessing firearms; his question is "Why?" The fact that they are is not an answer.

It wasn't always that way. I went through junior high school in the 1950s. Even then, we were still being taught in Social Studies class that criminals who had served their sentences and were released had "paid their debt to society." The implication was that the prison sentence (including any probation period) was the punishment. Being deprived of a fundamental Constitutional right even after the completion of a prison sentence (and probation) is a prolonged punishment.

(As an aside, I haven't heard anyone suggest that a felon who has been released from prison and has completed his parole has "paid his debt to society" in a very, VERY long time.)

It wasn't always that way. So I think USNRet93's question is valid. Why do we now make people convicted of non-violent, white-collar type crimes prohibited persons for life? Is it because we think they are potentially dangerous, or is it because we want to prolong their punishment?
Click to expand...
Thanks, exactly my point..'why?'...like RFL, the 'state' is assuming the guy will be a threat IN THE FUTURE, so no guns for you.
 
Thanks, exactly my point..'why?'...like RFL, the 'state' is assuming the guy will be a threat IN THE FUTURE, so no guns for you.
Click to expand...

I think we're either talking around each other, or one of us, probably me:rolleyes:, is missing the point.

It's quite likely that 50+ years ago the claimed justification for making felons into prohibited persons was "so they won't do it again" (be a threat in the future).

I think today, that doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if you might be a credible threat, in the future. You're a felon, now, and (part of) the punishment for being a felon is being a prohibited person. DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FELONY WAS. Doesn't matter if you're seen as a threat or not, its a blanket prohibition applied to everyone who has gotten a felony convition (and some classes of misdeanor).

Red Flag laws are thought (by some) as justified, because someone is making a claim that you are a threat NOW. You have guns, and they have to be taken away NOW!!! Then we'll sort out if the claim you are a threat was valid, later (sometime within the next year, they say.. ;))

I see those things a quite different.
 
The underlying problem with ever reaching agreement on restrictions on gun ownership or the right to purchase, or any other aspect of gun rights is that the two sides do not share a common value or goal. If both the Right and Left agreed that the goal is to try to prevent future mass murders while preserving individual rights and due process of law, then a meaningful discussion could ensue. But when one side says we agree that we should try to prevent mass killings, and the other side says, in effect, we really don't care about mass killings or individual rights or due process but only have one real goal and that is to take away your guns. The pro-gun side then has no reason to ever agree to any new restriction proposed by the anti-gun side because it is clear that no amount of "common sense" accommodation will ever satisfy the anti gun side, only total and complete capitulation.

This is why I oppose any expansion of government power over the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, as well as any restriction on my individual rights. I have never owned a "bump stock" and never will, but I oppose outlawing bump stocks because I absolutely know that agreeing to such a ban only moves the discussion one notch closer to the push for total confiscation. In the long run we might win, or we might lose (as the people in various countries like the UK and Australia have lost or are losing) but if it is a slow incremental loss I can at least retain my guns for the years I have left on this Earth.
 
44 AMP said:
It's quite likely that 50+ years ago the claimed justification for making felons into prohibited persons was "so they won't do it again" (be a threat in the future).

I think today, that doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if you might be a credible threat, in the future. You're a felon, now, and (part of) the punishment for being a felon is being a prohibited person. DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FELONY WAS. Doesn't matter if you're seen as a threat or not, its a blanket prohibition applied to everyone who has gotten a felony convition (and some classes of misdeanor).
Click to expand...
So you're saying it's because we (society) now want to prolong the punishment, not because we (society) think the felon is necessarily a future threat.
 
what I'm saying is that we (society) decided in 1968 to make felons life long prohibited persons and no matter what we feel today, or what ever else is involved (the likelihood of an individual..etc.,) we have not changed the law.

Certain groups have gotten the law changed about voting rights, in some places, felons CAN vote, without having to get individual restoration of voting rights (or so I've heard). NO one has tried to get the law changed about firearms rights and felon prohibited person status.

In fact, the opposite is true, the 96 Lautenberg law ADDED anyone EVER convicted of a domestic violence MISDEMEANOR to the prohibited person rolls.

Including cops...:rolleyes:
 
44 AMP said:
what I'm saying is that we (society) decided in 1968 to make felons life long prohibited persons and no matter what we feel today, or what ever else is involved (the likelihood of an individual..etc.,) we have not changed the law.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that. The question was "Why?"

If it's not because we think all convicted felons are a threat to commit violent crimes in the future, then it must be because we simply want to prolong the punishment.
 
Technically, there is a procedure for prohibited persons to apply to ATF for restoration of rights without expunging the conviction. It hasn’t been funded by Congress since before 1994, so no applications get processed.

One side effect of that is prior to the 2007 NICS Improvement Act, being adjudicated as mentally defective was a lifetime prohibition, regardless if it was just a teenager upset over a breakup or a mental health condition that improved. Post 2007, there is a process available through the states (to avoid the defunding trap you get from relying on Congress).
 
If it's not because we thing all convicted felons are a threat to commit violent crimes in the future, then it must be because we simply want to prolong the punishment.
Click to expand...


does it have to be such a binary explanation?

If you want to know what was in the minds of the people who passed the law, you'd have to ask them, but I think all you'll be able to find are items written at the time, as it was 1968...

and one has to consider the mood of the times, and that one man's punishment is another's justice.

and that no one has been working to get felon's firearms rights restored, as a group, unlike voting, which the general public considers, essentially, harmless. Or at least lacking the possible threat that a felon with a gun could pose.

I have known people who are prohibited persons who are not now the people they once were and I would trust to be lawful and responsible gun owners, if they were legally able to be.

I have also known people who have not changed in any significant way, other than that they are no longer currently incarcerated, and who should be still legally prohibited from possessing any firearms.

I don't feel the blanket system we use is fair to everyone, but we seem to lack the will to spend the money to do otherwise.

Of course, if the world was fair, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Yes, we know that. The question was "Why?"

If it's not because we thing all convicted felons are a threat to commit violent crimes in the future, then it must be because we simply want to prolong the punishment.
Click to expand...
Agree..I guess the 'why' part..the whole thing about 'paying your debt to society' is just lip service..do the crime, do the time..and now out..seems the 'gift' keeps on giving..
As if the past will predict the future, like a RFL..what the person said or did, predicts their
actions in the future..
 
Certain groups have gotten the law changed about voting rights, in some places, felons CAN vote, without having to get individual restoration of voting rights (or so I've heard). NO one has tried to get the law changed about firearms rights and felon prohibited person status.
Click to expand...

Florida's recent Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) pushed amendment 4 and now there are certain members pushing back. The wording of #4 has no violent or sex offenses getting re-enfranchised and those with nonviolent crimes should have made full restitution. The folks that pushed #4 want voting privileges back without considering the full debt repaid.
Since these ex-felons are not violent why can't they get ALL rights back?
Would one want an ex-felon drunk driver, driving your kids school bus?
 
Would one want an ex-felon drunk driver, driving your kids school bus?
Click to expand...

Depends on the person. Felony stupid, once, and a model citizen with a spotless driving record in the 15 years since? I'd be ok with it.

Multiple offenses and they just got out last week and need a job? Not so much.
 
True, so true, but people on both sides act like no one changes.

In my experience, the ones that promise earnestly to change often don’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top