What crimes should disqualify gun ownership ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RH

New member
I'll start this potentially divisive discussion with this quote from a Kopel article posted at TFL:
__________________________________
"Another large group of people rejected by Brady aren't really dangerous. Take, for example, two brothers who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault 20 years ago after they got into a fistfight on the front lawn, and the neighbors called the police. These people would be barred from gun possession because they are guilty of "domestic violence."
________________________________

My query - are the current laws barring ownership from persons convicted of felonies or 'serious' misdemeanors constitutionally fair ? Is the above case fair ?

What about someone who had some run-ins at 17 or 18, maybe an assault charge for a bar brawl, maybe some jail time, whatever. When he's rehabilitated, paid his debt to society, and is now a middle-aged member of society, does he not have the right to own a home-defense arm to protect his family, or enjoy the shooting sports for that matter ? Since they don't affect me, I've always taken these laws as good and just, but there's lots of good folks that may have a spot on their record from a 'past life', that will affect them forever. Is that just a part of 'paying your debt' ?


------------------
Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
1 Peter 2:16.
 
RH -

My best friend, admittedly a bit of a character, has a misdemeanor DV hit from a few years ago. His crackwhore girlfriend nutted up on him and attacked him with a knife. He slammed her into a door frame and broke her arm. He got denied when he went to redeem his pawned pistol earlier this year.

Is that fair?

As to the thread title... if you're so dangerous that you can't be trusted with a gun, what the hell are you doing out of jail? IMNSFHO, the only crimes which should disqualify one from gun ownership are those which (should) carry life sentences: crimes of unjustified violence.
 
RH,

As harsh as it sounds, it is my belief that some lifelong penalties are "just part of paying your debt" (to use your words) for a felony conviction. After all, victims have enduring trauma from some crimes. My hope is these types of permanent prohibitions will act as a partial deterrent to serious criminal behavior.

Specifically concerning firearms ownership, I would enjoin felons from possessing handguns for life. Long gun ownership, however, would be permitted after the entire sentence is served and the individual passes a stringent background investigation of his post-incarceration behavior (a minimum of fifteen years without any convictions).
 
Coin,

As one of our esteemed leaders, I am reluctant to disagree with you. However, I respectfully offer two points re your friend's situation:
> In 20+ years of dealing with the minor scrapes, crimes, and peccadilloes of sailors and Marines, I learned there are ALWAYS two sides to every story. I wonder if your buddy's girlfriend and her associates would agree with his version of the incident?
> More important, in the eyes of the law your buddy committed a violent misdemeanor. The fact is he either pleaded guilty or was convicted of domestic violence. I don't doubt your friend is an exception to the general rule, but I am sure you can appreciate the fact that society wants violent individuals prohibited -- at least temporarily -- from handgun ownership.
The good news is misdemeanor convictions are not a permanent disbarment (usually only a few years).
 
In Switzerland, people have had their gun purchasing permits denied
for SPEEDING. Yes, SPEEDING (although, to get that on record, you have
to get court proceedings, so you had to do at least 20 km/h too much
(or 30 km/h on motorways)). Although, after five years, the register
is cleared of such things.

However, a lawyer set the magistrate straight on the exact wording of
Swiss gun laws and the person in question was later granted the
permit. And of course, the taxpayer had to pay everything.
 
IMHO, only violent felonies or child molestation should bar someone from owning a gun once they have done their time.
 
The only crimes that warrant a lifetime suspension of gun ownership rights, in my opinion, would be convictions on violent felonies. Not all felonies, mind you, only violent felonies.

NOT violent misdemeanors (fistycuffs are not indicative of a life long violence streak) and NOT victimless felonies. As for drug or mental cases, these can be cured or rehabilitated and should only be subject to gun ownership restrictions while active or on-going.

We already have waaay to many folks in jail for victimless crimes. They take up space and resources that would be better used to hold truly violent and dangerous criminals.

Just my opinion...

Mikey
 
Having spent 22 years in the Army as a bachelor and having MORE than my share of bar room brawls I guess that I'm lucky not to have some sort of "Black Spot" on my records cause I can still buy guns.
Oh Happy Day. :)

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping, Murder and Mayhem. In a sense, the classic felonies which could result in death or great bodily injury. Of course, I'd add on child molestation.

On the kidnapping one, we should consider whether the kidnapper is one of the parents or grandparents. Classically kidnapping is the illegal use of force or fear to move a person. Generally it was committed by a stranger. Taking into consideration that the majority of "kidnaps" are conducted by a parent against the other parent who was awarded lawful custody, I can see parental kidnapping excused from the exclusion list. Call me liberal.
 
In 20+ years of dealing with the minor scrapes, crimes, and peccadilloes of sailors and Marines, I learned there are ALWAYS two sides to every story. I wonder if your buddy's girlfriend and her associates would agree with his version of the incident?

Frankly, I don't give two sh!ts what she and her dealer say. You see, I knew the chick as well, and her attacking someone with a knife is totally in character for her. She's currently in Max in FL.

More important, in the eyes of the law your buddy committed a violent misdemeanor.

So? IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, I commit a felony every single freakin' day! Lord (yes, that's his name) was looking at a year, and plea-bargained. He shouldn't have, since it was self-defense (ever heard of it?), but our DA is a hardass bizatch who absolutely HATES men who hurt women, regardless of the circumstances. He took a conviction and suspended sentence, to avoid further trouble. Now he can NEVER own a gun FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!

Pardon the shouting and sarcasm, but attitudes like "Hey, it's the law and he broke it" are severely reality-challenged.

I am sure you can appreciate the fact that society wants violent individuals prohibited -- at least temporarily -- from handgun ownership.

Yeah, that's what prisons are for, as I noted above. I'll say it again: If you can't be trusted with a gun... if you're such a threat to society that you can't be allowed to own one... then what in the screaming blue hell are you doing out of prison?

The good news is misdemeanor convictions are not a permanent disbarment (usually only a few years).

Guess you missed the news, RWK. Lautenberg is a PERMANENT disqualification.

Coinneach, taking a deep breath and backing away from the keyboard now...
 
We used to hang people for rustling cattle in this country.. Our legal system has grown meek. :) Violent felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Violent! Of course then they'll turn "possesion of an 'Assault rifle'" into a violent felony.. :mad:



------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
Does anyone think a felony conviction really prevents an individual, intent on being armed, or causing bodily harm to someone, from owning a weapon? Do any of you truly believe that?

Personally, I don't believe that there should be any restrictions on who can own a gun. Those that want one will get one, regardless of their criminal history.

Would I be concerned about all those felons who would arm themselves if there were no prohibition against their posessing a firearm? No, because those that want a gun already have one.

------------------
For God so loved the world that he gave his onlly begoten Son...
 
You're falling into this old trap of who has rights and who doesn't. . . .

"Felons can always get guns anyway" - this is true without INCREDIBLY draconian gun laws/bans and door to door confiscations.

Gun prohibitionists have always had to incrementally ban guns, and the way to do this is under the excuse of an (ever increasing) group who are prohibited from ownership. You may not know this; but semis weren't banned in Australia; but the licencing just tightened to where most people would not qualify (through "need" for a particular weapon type).

Remember how we say a gun is just an inanimate piece of metal? Well, it is - no sense trying to ban people from possessing them.

Yes, Child Molesters should be allowed to buy guns. And violent felons should be allowed to have guns. However, murderers and child molesters should be deleted (or locked up permanently for the queasy) so we don't need gun licences to stop them from getting guns now, do we?

Remember too that absolute safety is not possible in a free society - someone can always hurt you if they want to. Bans on concealed carry work under the premise that there's a little felon deep inside you waiting to jump out when you get mad. Laws against fullauto assume you are a mass murderer.


Remember this.

Battler
 
I agree with Coinneach. If they're so dangerous that we wouldn't trust them with a gun, what the heck are they doing out on the street? This method gets rid of idiotic ideas like "instant check" and similar kinderspiel. As Dr. King said, a right delayed (even for an instant) is a right denied.

Tying the loss of rights to labels like "felon" or "serious misdemeanor" doesn't work. The government will get around such labels by defining acts of simple misconduct such as to deny as many people their right to arms as possible.

For example, take a post-94 AR lower and attach a pre-ban upper. With that evil act -- which harmed oh so many people -- you have just committed a felony and thus you have lost your right to arms forever.

Justin

------------------
Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania


[This message has been edited by jthuang (edited August 08, 2000).]
 
None. The Second Ammnendment does not mention "except ex-cons". This requires an actual belief and respect for the Second Ammendment. Something that most folks, including 'gun folks', don't really have. The unconstitutional GCA of '68 brought us this utter bull sh*t anyway.


[This message has been edited by cuerno de chivo (edited August 08, 2000).]
 
Violent felonies, kid related stuff.
As it stands now, in my state you lose your permit over a DWI. To me, that is a social crime, unless someone gets hurt in the process.
I think that those of you who dont want to restrict anyone from owning a gun need to reeevaluate who we're talking about here. We are talking about people who love to hurt others, have no regards to others as people, and generally live a life around criminal activity. we might not be able to STOP this sort from obtaining a gun, but it certainly should not be encouraged.
 
I don't think anyone here LIKES or WANTS violent lunatics having guns.

I don't WANT people wearing 70s-style flares.

I don't LIKE people doing <substitute some hobby I don't like and find repulsive>.

I don't LIKE people disagreeing with me.

Does any of these mean that I think that there should be a federal law?

Battler.
 
Coinneach's friend is a prime example of how laws tend to work. Laws tend to fall on the black and white, right and wrong there is no in-between. We have elected a lot of law makers who take the easy way and write a lot of feel good laws. Unfortunatly the time is not spent in making the laws flexible enough to deal with such situations and/or through overly agressive prosecution the laws effect people they should of never touched.
 
I will go along with the hard, violent felony categories already cited, but will add two of my own: treason and espionage. Anyone who screws their country like tat deserves to get screwed right back.

I also feel that there should be an appeals process by which a person can get their gun rights restored (Florida has this but it's not well known). This would handle the marginal cases and the guy who screwed up at age 17 and is now age 50 and has been blameless since 17.
 
As I recall, in NJ after 1994(?), a DUI will disqualify you from purchasing a pistol. Crazy, huh!?!

As far as what crimes should disqualify gun ownership, I agree with many here, NONE! If a man serves his time, that is his FULL sentence, all his rights should be restored. BUT!, make the sentence fit the crime! And nonviolent crimes should not disqualify one from owning a firearm.

I can see prohibiting a parolee from owning a firearm, but then I don't like the idea of parole in the first place.

------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top