A lot of you have this general attitude:

"If they're trusted to be released from prison, they should be trusted to own a gun. If they are a threat, dont release them from prison."

In response to the many of you with this strange misconception...

Are you stating that ALL felonies now should be "life sentance with possibility of parole"?

A crime has a set punishment. If you are convicted for a certain crime, there is a range of time/money you can be punished with.

What happens when someone is convicted of a felony and sentanced by 12 to serve 3 years in prison.

At the end of the 3 years, do we now have to have another trial for this person to see if he's "fit to leave prison/own a gun"?

If he's not fit to leave, what... throw him back in prison again?

Real good... There are a few people here that just by reading some of their posts, I can see them easily being lumped into the "not fit to own a gun/live in our society" by most people.

Stick to one or the other. If you think felons should be allowed to have guns, dont try and say we need to effectively extend all felonies to a "life until paroled" sentance.

If you don't think they should have guns... well, this doesn't apply to you, now does it? [;)]

Personally... I don't think it should be label of "felon" that should determine whether you have all your rights or not. I think that should be included with the trial... if the crime was a violent one, the jury should make the RKBA decision as part of the sentancing.

NO, I don't think non-violent felonies should warrant loss of rights.

NO, I don't think ALL so called violent crimes warrant the loss of rights. But I think the so called violent crimes should be assessed on a case by case basis.

Erm, dont call believing in people rights to be a misconception



potentially yes, I would rework the criminal justice system though, because as it stands now it is well and truly fucked.



Well, first thing first, I dont think a felony should be punishable by something as low as 3 years, I would say the min punishment for a felony should be 10 years.



Exactly



Exactly



I dont, some people are pefectly capable of learnign from their mistakes and leading a normal life.  Others commit crimes that while are felonies pose no threat to their fellow citizens, others should never be allowed out



I personally would want to rebuild the entire judicial system up from scratch, get rid of alot of the bullshit 'felonies' that politicians created in order to be able to say 'Look, we made a felony see what we are doing to prevent crime'.

Felonies should be be things like rape, kidnapping, murder, robbery, assault with intent, manslaughter etc.  Not driving with a suspended license, or owning a few ounces of pot, or whatever.

I agree with the above. But I don't agree with what follows:



People who are a real threat to society should never be released from prison; but most convicted felons are not a real threat to society.



No.

He should serve his time and then be released. He then gains his rights back, including the RKBA. The original sentence should take into accout the fact that when he walks, he gets his rights back.



You don't get it.

[b]Some[/b] felons can't be trusted with guns. [b]They[/b] can't be trusted to walk our streets.

Note in the above: [b]Some[/b]. Not [b]all[/b], only [b]Some[/b].



I think that any released felon should retain the RKBA. The jury should take [i]that[/i] into account as part of the sentencing.

However, many if not most current felonies should not be felonies--or crimes of any kind, in most cases.



I agree.



And again I agree.

Silence, a felony is, by definition, any crime punishable by 1 year or more of incarceration.  Right now, aggravated battery - in Illinois - is a Class 3 felony, punishable by 3 to 5 years.  Under your theory of 10 years for a felony, hitting someone in the head with, say, a shovel would either be a misdemeanor, or punishable by a minimum of 10 years.  Take your pick.

Red Beard, unfortunately in reality the Constitution does come with asterisks.  Such as "freedom*" (unless you're convicted of a crime, in which case we lock your ass up), and "make no law respecting freedom of religion*" (unless your religion involves multiple wives) and "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*" (unless you happen to be incarcerated for murder).

Surely, you're not suggesting that someone incarcerated for murder should be able to excercise his right to bear arms?  

Reality and common sense dictate that there are times and circumstances where one's behavior can forfeit one's rights.  

YES!


I was stung by a bee on the hand once and my entire wrist swelled up.  For many summers I carried one of my dad's bee sting kits.  I have an extreme dislike of Epipens, but this was a syrette of epinephrine that I would have had to manually inject if it were needed.  I did not have a prescription for the kit, and neither of us saw any reason for me to go get one.  Felony drug charges could have been pressed had I been found with the bee sting kit.  I only wised up recently.

Crap like that should not be a felony - and if I had been tried and convicted, part of the sentence should NOT stipulate that I lose my GOD GIVEN right to keep and bear arms.

Violent felons should not lose their right to keep and bear arms either (except while incarcerated).  Releasing a violent felon to roam our streets is stupid unless we can trust him with to act in a legal and responsible manner when in contact with all of the items an ordinary citizen could legally purchase.  After all, some silly law didn't stop him from becoming a violent felon in the first place.

We don't prevent arsonists with felony convictions from purchasing Zippos or gasoline upon release from prison.

edited just a bit for clarity and to say that:

I have no problem with employers considering felony arrest records when selecting a job candidate.

Ayeap, and the is a shitty definition of a felony, same as the shitty 'legal' definition of a 'assault weapon'.

And yes, intentionally hit somebody in the head with a shovel, 10 years min.  Circumstance may warrant more or less, but it all depends on the circumstances.  It relies heavily upon the common sense of the prosecution, something that seems to be more and more lacking.



If that person is ever deemed trustworthy enough to be released, then yes.  If you can never trust that person out in society, then either keep em in prison til the die, or use capital punishment.



True, but the judical system we have now has very little common sense left in it.  

I agree (obviously, since in this thread I support prison for some people--a place where many rights are forfeit).

However, reality and common sense also dictate that most felons do not pose a violent threat, and those that do are not impeded by gun laws (at least not significantly, and in some cases the gun laws may aid them by creating black market opportunities).  

Just an interesting note: In Maine a convicted
felon "AFTER" 5 years, of his release "MAY"
apply for a NON CONCEALED weapons permit for
"ONLY" Black Power weapons.
Its not the full thing but a least a guy has
a chance to go hunting with something other than a bow. ( This is a little known law but
has recently made some national papers.)

Silence, I'm curious as to what your idea of felony crimes should be.  

I wrote:
Surely, you're not suggesting that someone incarcerated for murder should be able to excercise his right to bear arms?

To which you replied:
If that person is ever deemed trustworthy enough to be released, then yes. If you can never trust that person out in society, then either keep em in prison til the die, or use capital punishment.

From which I can only assume that you've just put your seal of approval on incarcerated murderers possessing firearms.  I bet you don't work inside a prison, right?

And apparently, you'd rather do away with any sort of written rules for what's illegal, and what the punishments should be.  You talk a lot about "circumstances"; unfortunately, if we allow the prosecuting/sentencing authorities too much discretion, we end up with a lot of disparate sentences based on factors like race.  

So what do you think should be a felony?  I'm really curious.  

Sir:

From [url]www.dictionary.com[/url]

Felony:
1. One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor.

2. (O.Eng.Law) An offense which occasions a total forfeiture either lands or goods, or both, at the common law, and to which capital or other punishment may be added, according to the degree of guilt.

3. A heinous crime; especially, a crime punishable by death or imprisonment.

Note: Forfeiture for crime having been generally abolished in the United States, the term felony, in American law, has lost this point of distinction; and its meaning, where not fixed by statute, is somewhat vague and undefined; generally, however, it is used to denote an offense of a high grade, punishable either capitally or by a term of imprisonment. In Massachusetts, by statute, any crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison, and no other, is a felony; so in New York. the tendency now is to obliterate the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors; and this has been done partially in England, and completely in some of the States of the Union. The distinction is purely arbitrary, and its entire abolition is only a question of time.

Note: There is no lawyer who would undertake to tell what a felony is, otherwise than by enumerating the various kinds of offenses which are so called. originally, the word felony had a meaning: it denoted all offenses the penalty of which included forfeiture of goods; but subsequent acts of Parliament have declared various offenses to be felonies, without enjoining that penalty, and have taken away the penalty from others, which continue, nevertheless, to be called felonies, insomuch that the acts so called have now no property whatever in common, save that of being unlawful and punishable. --J. S. Mill.

... So what would I call a felony?  Something along the lines of the first definition.  I would advocate that employers be allowed to factor felony convictions into employment decisions.  For many of the charges that can lead to felony convictions, I cannot advocate RKBA forfeiture.  I agree with your statement that too much discretion where prosecution/sentencing occurs most likely would be abused, and while I do not advocate an arbitrary and capricious legal code, violent convicted felons should be locked up until such a time that they are deemed safe to return to society, at which time RKBA should be restored.    

Please answer me this:  Other than RKBA, what effects should a felony conviction have on a person?

Edited to say:
While a person is incarcerated for a felony or misdemeanor he should not have access to firearms or other weapons.  I see that these comments in your above post may have been directed to another member, but I hope I did not imply that inmates should be allowed to have firearms.

ERm, read what i said.  I said 'If that person is ever deemed trustworthy enough to be [b]released,[/b] then yes'.  I did not say that he should have them whiloe imprisoned, but thanks for the misinterpretation of my plain language.



And the current law/prosecutors does/do not take circumstances into account?  Come on get real, use your brain.  Again you are sayign I said somethign I did not say.  Please dont do that, it makes me question your honesty.



I plainly said in one of posts what I think should be felonies.

You mean this?



Sorry, if you plan on re-writing the penal code, you'll have to do better than "etc".  I think anyone would agree on kidnapping, murder, robbery, assault with intent (I assume you mean intent to commit bodily harm or something), and manslaughter.  

You forgot the hard stuff - burglary.  It's a non-violent offense, after all.  Auto theft.  Retail theft, amount over $500.  Statutory rape ("Hey, I really thought she was 18.  Whaddya mean I can't have a gun!").  Possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.  Don't tell me you don't have a comprehensive plan to re-write the penal code!  How about possession of burglary tools.  Delivery of a look-alike substance?  Contraband in a penal institution?  Residential burglary?  Battery to a police officer?  Elder abuse?  

It's not as black-and-white in the real world as you want it to be.  I know, I've been hip-deep in the criminal justice system for almost ten years.  How about you?

jchewie, from Black's Abridged Law Dictionary (West, 1983):

[b]felony[/b]  A crime of a graver or more serious nature than those designated as misdemeanors; [i]e.g.[/i] aggravated assault (felony) as contrasted with simple assault (misdemeanor).  Under federal law, and many state statues, any offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Jesus, are you trying to be an ass, or does it just come naturally?

Do you really expect something indepth on a internet forum about guns?

Fine, give me a COMPLETE list of EVERY POSSIBLE criminal charge in EVERY jurisdiction in the country and I will tell you if it should be a felony with 10 years in prison, a misdemeanor, or if it shoudl even be a crime at all.

Go ahead Mr. "I dont I dont have the brains god gave adam to understand speaking in generalizations on a fucking internet forum".

That's great.  You're every bit as clever as I thought.  Got anything else to add, or is it almost time for mommy to tuck you in?

I guess it just came naturally then.

Did being a lawyer exacerbate the condition?

No, really,  If you have any other idealistic, fantasy-world ideas to apply to real-life, complex problems, I'd like to hear them.  

And no, being an attorney doesn't "exacerbate" it, but it does make me a better attorney.

You're awful sensitive about this whole issue.  Not a convicted felon, are you?

Really?  I have always found that it tends to make people a worse attorney.  Those that tend to behave in that matter tend to lack common sense, and will bend/break the system simply to advance themselves, instead of working towards bettering the place.  But then that is something I dont expect you to understand.

Yeah, well, forgive me if I don't waste too much energy trying to understand you.  

Have a nice night.  I'm done with you.

No, I'm calling people who want to punish people indefinitely with a possibility of parole a strange misconception. I think there needs to be a set standard for punishment, not a vauge guestimate, or a indefinite ammount with a CHANCE they might get out someday.



This is what I was referring to above.

If you'd like to rework the laws, go for it... see if you can get anyone to agree with you, much less enough people that it would take to change the law/system.



And God help you if you were ever a victim of your "new system" and someone like me was the one to decide whether you got back out or not. Cause I think I already have a good idea ("I", in this case, being the typical sheeple) about you not being able to function properly in society.



Then if you think the jury should decide to sentance someone to life in prison for any old felony, based on their perception of the individual... once again, God help you if you're ever broght to trial.



I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, that's never gonna happen.

What MAY happen, is people voice up and have a say about how individual laws are wrong, or the punishments, etc... But just dreaming that one day everything will be rebuilt from scratch is just a fantasy... until the time comes that the USA falls, and a new government is in it's place.

LOL, good.

It is a shame though, you spent all this time, and you never ever understood that this entire thread is a 'fantasy' thing, not something in reality.

I guess it goes to show a law school graduate doesnt have to be all that bright these days...

Heh, so what you are essentially saying is if they're ex-cons, they're ok to have guns, and thus not one of the people I was talking to/about.

But just incase you are...

Could you elaborate please? Cause this is what's coming to my mind (how I see your argumetn):

Some felons shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, and shouldn't be set free.

Then my response would be (still the same as it was before, just gonna try and word it different):

The jury already decided the punishment for said felon(s). And obviously it wasn't life w/o parole (since this argument wouldn't be happening if that was the case). So, the jury convicted them and the system decided the felon should receive X ammt of time in prison... who are you to say this isn't enough and force them to STAY in prison for life?

If you think certain crimes are worthy of life in prison, then try to have the laws changed. For now, the jury decides guilt or innocence... the system is set up already to determine if and when an individual is able to rejoin society.

By your argument, I assume that you think that some of the felonies right now should be punishable w/ life in prison, that are not currently that stiff of a penalty.

If that's [b]not[/b] what you mean... and you think (like others) that once a persons time is up, they shouldn't be released, but instead judged again until they're worthy of rejoining society... well, God help you as well, if you're ever in that situation.

Two quick thoughts, when you commit a felony you forfeit those rights. Even if society lets you back on the streets, what once was a right is now a gift to be given back piecemeal if we choose.  For example, felons can't vote.

Sure some ex-felons will break this law, but like busting Al Capone for tax evasion, this creates an easy-to-prove way to bust dangerous crooks and put them back in the pen.

That all being said, something like "civil rights restoration" should be allowed once someone has shown they can walk a chalkline for a few years of freedom.  There should be no presumption of complete rehab just b/c you did time.  That's what parol, monitoring, and other restrictions are all about.

This is only partly true.  ATF had an unfunded mechanism to be used when states did not have their own procedures for restoring civil rights.  In states that do you can still get your rights restored (but it's tricky if your orig felony was in FL and now you live in MT or something).  

SB-

What I meant in my senario was that every felony should be sentenced by 'Someyear to life'.

the 'someyear' is when the convicted person would get a chance to prove to a jury? a parole board? or somethingelse?, that they have earned the priveledge to be returned to society (by behaving in prison, by attempting to better their life by schooling, by expressing true remorse, or whatver), if the jury/board/whatever does not feel that they can be trusted to be returned to freedom then they would return to prison and they would have 'x' amount of time to try again.  That would go one until either the person is 'trusted' to return to society, or ... well you can get the idea.

ps- btw my previous response was meant for eswanson, not you, in case you didnt realize it.

And yes as time goes by I begin to wonder if the system that is the USA is saveable without starting from scratch.

well, me for one.

eswanson - please don't stop posting on this topic just because of silence. Your posts have been some of the most thought out and meaningful posts of the bunch.

Your white collar, your a convicted felon, you have alot of "grease"? Hell your a House Rep. or a Senator right? or know one.....and are recoginized .... OF COURSE![;)]

Violent felony, nonviolent felony, domestic abuse misdemeanor.  It is all relative because you are barred if the crime you are convicted of carries a sentence of more than 12 months in prison.  It varies from state to state.  What would get you a max fine of xxx$$$ in one state gets you 2 years in another.  It is all designed as an instrument of disarmament.  As for the repeive that you an appl;y for through the Treasury, Congress castrated it years ago!  In PA however you have legal recourse in this instance.  I do not know how it applies to the Federal laws but there is a section of PA law that addresses specifically the non-funding of firearms disability waivers on the federal level and allows some release from this disability, at least on the state level.  

I know a guy that fucked up when he was young.  Stole some car stereo and radar detector.  Misdemeanors but in PA was like 5 years max because the value was artificially inflated by the owner, at the advice of the cop, to get the most punishment.  Anyway he's all jacked up and can't own a gun now but has a lawyer working on it and may get through it.

I have a huge problem with the Lautenberg Act.  It is way unconstitutional.  I do not know why it hasn't gone before SCOTUS and been struck down.  I would liken it to being subjected to double jeopardy as it was retroactive.  PFA's are another biggie!  How the fuck can they strip you of your RKBA because someone claims they fear you may hurt them?  There's a "due process" fuck-up in there someplace.  Why it still stands is a fucking wonder.

Yes, if they are ex-cons, they should be able to have guns.



I don't think that they should be judged again.

However, I think that the original jury needs to understand that when they are released, they will retain their right to own firearms.

I think that some felonies need to be stiffened, some need to become lessor crimes, and others shouldn't be crimes at all.

For awhile, carrying a pen in your pocket in California was technically carrying a concealed weapon. Normally not a felony, but it still makes the point that some laws are just plain silly. Our legal system is too complex, and too many things are against the law.

When a place like Texas has to release a man who raped and murdered because the prison is too crowded with people who got caught with marajuana, something is wrong.

No, they were some of the worst posts.

How do you know?

Have you read, and understand, every law?

I see that someone here attended the Bill Clinton "what is the meaning of 'is'" law school.

Good argument: ignore what everyone knows he means, and use technicalities to create a strawman . . .

first ya gotta define 'felony'.

Seems a lot of chickenshit stuff these days is now labeled a felony.

Littering in Philly is sometimes a felony, and I can't see taking a litterbug's RKBA from him.

S'pose they 'felonize' parking tickets?

Have you ever seen Chris Rock's "How Not to get Your Ass Kicked by the Police"? It has a humorous way of describing how not to break the law. "Laws can be thought of as hints.......you know, you probably won't get your ass kicked if you [b]just use common sense[/b]."

Even if I did violate some arcane law written in the 1800's that would have made me a felon if caught, I didn't get caught. People who get caught breaking the law are for the most part very stupid or arrogant while breaking the law, a act just as dangerous in my opinion. Most of the time (there are obviously exceptions) it takes some work to get convicted of a felony. You don't walk down the street and have felonies chasing after you, having to evade them at every turn.

I think that most of you that are for felons are thinking about the situation from a skewed viewpoint. Most of you are law abiding citizens who worry about losing their right to keep and bear arms for some bullshit felony conviction. For accidentally transporting an AR-15, or buying illegal ammo. For these types of situations I would agree that the crime should not be a felony, probably not even a crime. But felony convictions on these kind of people are a tiny minority of the convictions total.

[b]Most[/b] felons are human trash that should not be trusted with a gun for the rest of their life.

Do you agree?

If not then you are associating and alining with these pieces of human trash. Would any of you go into jail and consider the people inside your homies? The type of people inside the jail are the only reason I feel I need a gun on the street sometimes. Sure there is the occassional person that just got screwed and is now a felon for some stupid reason, but I don't think that your chances of finding those people are very high. Most felons did something very stupid, and did it repeatedly.

No. Not necessarly.

Most felons are there because of the war on drugs, which is just as stupid and destructive as the war on alcohol was back in the '20s.

I'll grant you that many felons -- maybe most -- are nasty people. Many have done worse than what they were convicted of. A classic example would be Al Capone/tax evasion. That, however, doesn't justify taking away their rights -- I believe that someone is innocent (in the eyes of the law) until proven guilty in court. Consequently, I don't believe that minor crimes warrent the loss of rights, even though we catch bad people with such an approach.

It's already been said eloquently, but I have to say it again:  There are waaaay too many BULLSHIT laws calling for felony charges out there.  There are waaaaay too many BULLSHIT ways to lose your rights.  

Absolutely not.

I personally know quite a few convicted felons and every single one of them is an very good person NOW.

Sure all of them but one became a felon through trumped up drug charges from their youth. War on drugs crap, lotta good it has done!

The other one was convicted of murder, kidnapping and armed robbery. He was not the trigger man but was with the guy who was. Although at first he tried to stop the crime from happening the further along it went the harder it was to stop without endangering his own life. He served 18 years of his life in prison. I know him very well and I would trust him with my wife and kids.

He will never be any trouble to anybody ever again. It's simply not in his nature.

Again we are not talking about the John Gacy's and the Charles Mansons of the world, we're talking about non-violent offenders, who have paid their debt by completing their prison terms.

Rickij, sounds to me like you've got something against felons of any kind. Ever been assulted personally? Seems you've got an axe to grind.

No flames, and I mean no personal attack, AND I don't mean to call you a liar....but I seriously doubt your answer.

Do you carry concealed? You're telling me you've NEVER.....EVER carried into a bar or a resturant that serves alcohol? In a school zone? You've never had oral or anal sex.....EVER? There are people in the USA today who are felons due to oral and anal sex laws.

These are felonies here in Virginia.

Sorry, to pick your post apart and I don't mean to attack you personally but you keep on making statements that have no basis in fact.

While I would not consider some felons my "homies" I do repeatedly go into jails and prisons to council prisoners. MOST of them are GENERALLY good people who made a stupid mistake because of an addiction or some sort of emotional outburst.

SOME of the are trash and will never change....but MOST of the felons I deal with are people who got a bad lot in life and were never taught how to deal with it. MOST...like 90+% of the felons I deal with never knew their father. What's that tell ya?



All felons did do something stupid, but only a small percentage repeatedly.

Again you've got your "most" and your "some" bass ackwards.

I deal with hundreds of these men personally for months and even years on end and you are wrong my friend.

If was a federal felony to carry a firearm within 1,000 ft of a school (IIRC struck down by the Supremes). It is my understanding that it didn't have to be an operating school, any school owned property would do.

So everyone with a gun living within 330 yards of a school became a felon overnight, with the passage of the law.

Everyone on the way to the shooting range who drove within 330 yards of school property became a felon -- probably without realizing it.

We should create a list of [b]Stupid Felonies[/b]

I'll start:

1) transferring 20 rd mags (CA)
2) transporting unregistered AR (CA)
3) oral sex with your spose (VA & other places)
4) owning post-'89 FAL with only 6 American made parts (Federal)
5) within 1,000 ft of school property with a firearm (Federal & some states)
6) having a flash hider on a post-'94 AR (Federal)

So? If I stab you in the eye with a sharp pencil, but never do it again, does that make me a very good person NOW? [whacko]



I personally have known many people on drug charges and they have all been reduced to nearly nothing or misdemeanors at most. It may be different where you are from but here you don't get a felony just for smoking some pot.



But other than that he is a good guy. [rolleyes]



Nonviolent murderers?



You are shitting me right? [b]HELL YES[/b] I have something against all felons. No, I have never been assaulted, raped, stabbed, shot, or murdered. Let me guess, even if I was I could only be angry with the actual person that did it to me. NO! Your friend that got convicted of murder, I have something against him. He is not a good guy, and his debt to society will NEVER be paid. Somebody died in part because of his actions. That person did not even have a trial.

Voted "Let 'em have guns", based ont he following premise:

If they are so dangerous that they should not be allowed to have guns, then they should not be out of jail.

End of story.

Oh, so it is not really their fault. How convienent. They either had an addiction (not to drugs because the war on drugs is 100% bullshit and drug users are never violent) or they had an emotional outburst (its not my fault I just got really mad). They never made the choice to become criminals they were forced there by society.

Sorry if I am just ignorant, but I believe that people in jail committed crimes. I don't care why they commited them, or how they feel about the effectiveness of the law. They broke the law and now they get to go to jail. Are there some bad laws out there, hell yes. Is that a good reason to let all felons own guns? No.

Not yet because I don't have a CHP

No, and I never will.


No, and I never will.



How exactly do you get convicted of that just out of curiousity? Are you having anal sex in a school playground? Your girl go down on you in court? How many people have really been convicted of this stupid law? I am sure the jails are not packed because of this law. If it is really done between two consenting adults and in private it is 100% unenforceable.

One thing that all of the above had in common was that they were all avoidable. In order to be convicted of any of the above you had to make the choice to [b]commit[/b] one of the above crimes.

Edited to add link to topic about bans on sodomy being struck down. One less thing to worry about: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=192991[/url]