Friend of mine who works for a conservative state senator here in Texas is passing around an idea for the next legislative session. The idea is that non-violent/non-drug-related felons (3rd misdemeanor, non-aggraved theft, and such) might be allowed to regain their weapons ownership rights. Now I understand the federal side of the issue, but the idea (movement) for things like this usually start at the state level and move through the courts.

Just curious, anyone support the idea? reject it? and why?

I would support such an idea.

You can make a simple error in judgement and end up being a felon, and from state to state the definition of a felon changes.   Here in Florida, if you buy something that turns out to be stolen (and you didn't even know or suspect it to be stolen) and its value is merely 300 dollars, upon conviction, you're a felon!  It's ridiculous to lose your gun rights over something like that!

CJ

IMHO, it's a non-issue.  I don't see why a non-violent felon should have the right to weapons.  We cerrtainly can't keep weapons from a violent felon because cimminals don't obey the law.

I would always assume the the bad guys are always armed. It's allowing the good guys to be armed that's a big problem for some states.

If the gov't has determined that you are fit to live in society, then all of your rights should be recognized.....IMO.

Only to a certain point.

It's a matter of jurisdiction.

Depending on how your local law enforcement agencies are set up, they may or may not be tasked with enforcing ONLY state laws, OR all federal laws too, or only SOME federal laws.

It is not necessarily the job of your local deputies to be enforcing federal laws.  That should instead be the job of the U.S. Marshals and the FBI.

If the FBI or U.S. Marshals aren't interested in checking up on Joe Bagodonuts who's been out of jail for ten years, has been a good boy, and happens to enjoy the shooting sports as allowed for by TEXAS law, in Texas at least he shouldn't be bothered.

Who enforces federal laws?  Where does jurisdiction start and end?   Is that consistent across the entire country?

I say, no harm, no foul.  I don't much care if even a convicted violent felon owns a gun...as long as he's not going to commit a crime, why should I, really?  And if he's believed to be the kind who will commit a crime again, why did you let him out in the first place?

Punish only crimes, not ownership.

CJ

I agree with such a law.

Taking away ones rights only puts them in a position to be a criminal one more time.  Further congesting the "justice" system.

If one is convicted of a non-violent felnony,  SERVES OUT THEIR time and is deemed fit to return to society,  they should gain all rights back.

I am going to have to say "Yes" to such a proposition.

how does a guy that may have been convicted of tax evasion or some other white collar crime be a threat physically to another. heck you have people on the streets now that havent been convicted of ANY crime that should not have ANY type of weapon in hand.

i agree

I think it's a pretty good idea. I think it'd be a better idea to take along, hard look at the volume of crap that's been designated felonious over the last 20 years.

Since you can get a felony pretty easy now a days. Hell yes.

I agree with it as well.  What is really scary is your rights can be taken away with one phone call. Your signifigent other needs only make one phone call to  get a restraining order placed on you, stating that you made threats directed towrds them and poof, you cant buy a firearm.

CH

If that don't beat all!

There doesn't seem to be an exception in the 2nd, so it seem to me that when a person is released from custody their rights should be restored. The punishments for violent crime needs to be addressed too though. They shouldn't just be out again in a few years.  

Quoted: I agree with it as well.  What is really scary is your rights can be taken away with one phone call. Your signifigent other needs only make one phone call to  get a restraining order placed on you, stating that you made threats directed towrds them and poof, you cant buy a firearm. CH

How can you prove something didn't happen unless you live in front of the camera at wal-mart?

I'd agree with it.  The rate things are going, pretty soon you'll be a felon if you get a parking ticket.

Quoted: I think it's a pretty good idea. I think it'd be a better idea to take a long, hard look at the volume of crap that's been designated felonious over the last 20 years.

Exactly.  

Quoted: In Washington State, you can petition the courts for review.  It is not at all uncommon for felons to regain their rights.  ...

Sounds reasonable that each case should be judged on it’s own merits.

A youthful discretion is one thing, some dude with a long string of, say, burglary or car theft convictions is something else.

I agree.

From a cops point of view.  If they can't be trusted with a firearm, keep them locked up.
If you have paid your debt, you have paid your debt.

Anyway, everyone is armed until I know they are not.

Quoted: Quoted: I agree with it as well.  What is really scary is your rights can be taken away with one phone call. Your signifigent other needs only make one phone call to  get a restraining order placed on you, stating that you made threats directed towrds them and poof, you cant buy a firearm. CH How can you prove something didn't happen unless you live in front of the camera at wal-mart? You can a tip from Jay Leno and have your whole life videotaped.

I am not sure what your point is but in regards of a restraining order a women need only call and tell them you threatened her. Thats it! They will get the restraining order, thus your right to purchase a firearm is gone.

CH

Non-violent felons to be allowed weapons?  
No, we need to have something on everyone.

That sounds reasonable; if you do the time, you shouldn’t be further penalized by having your rights taken away AFTER your debt to society has been paid. People on probation are another story; they are still being punished for their crime.

Also, I can see why people would be more concerned about allowing former VIOLENT offenders to have guns (although I personally don’t think these restrictions would do much good), but why are drug-related felons any more dangerous than other felons? If anything they are LESS dangerous; drug (or weapon) possession is one of a few instances where a person can be convinced of a felony without VICTIMIZING anyone else.

Quoted: I agree with it as well.  What is really scary is your rights can be taken away with one phone call. Your signifigent other needs only make one phone call to  get a restraining order placed on you, stating that you made threats directed towrds them and poof, you cant buy a firearm. CH

I second Cape_hunter; it is total BS that you can have a constitutional right taken away without even a jury trial!

non violent felons should be able to own guns, some dude screws up with some bad write offs and becomes a felon, why should he lose his rights

Quoted:  I don't see why a non-violent felon should have the right to weapons.

Maybe you should move to communist china. Your kind of thinking prevails there. @#$%#*@

I support the idea. A man who pays his debt is done being punished, why should he continue to lose the right to defend himself. It's already too easy to lose your RKBA, so restoring them in this case is fine by me.

Quoted: Quoted:  I don't see why a non-violent felon should have the right to weapons. Maybe you should move to communist china. Your kind of thinking prevails there. @#$%#*@

Maybe there's two Communist Chinas.......  ??

Anyway, non-violent felons, women, children, gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, men...........all of them oughta own guns.

I don't believe the Second Amendment does much excluding.

5sub

Personally, I don't think politicians, tax collectors, and postal workers should be allowed to have guns.

Quoted: Quoted:  I don't see why a non-violent felon should have the right to weapons. Maybe you should move to communist china. Your kind of thinking prevails there. @#$%#*@

Doh! Actually that's a typo on my part, I meant to say that they should be allowed because we can't even keep weapons away from violent felons.  

There are some non-violent felonies that do not preclude firearms possession under federal law.

It all depends on how the Texas law is worded as to whether it restores a person's right to firearms possession under federal law.

Quoted: Define "non-violent felon?" A person convicted of a felony is no longer a "full" citizen of this country. They have lost the right to be a full participant in society. This "debt paid" stuff is crap. Their debt is paid when they die, unless they have gone through some extraordinary circumstances and either been pardoned or had their civil rights retored through a judicial proceeding.

I think this would qualify.  It could have easily been you or I who lost our right to firearm's ownership as Mr. Bean has.  

Even though the circumstance of Bean’s conviction are not typical it does point out the need for a ATF or judicial review process to restore the right to possess firearms at the federal level.  

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/10/142436.shtml

Supreme Court Rejects Gun Rights for Felons
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder, if not impossible, for federal courts to restore gun rights to felons who have served their time. The action came in the case of a Texas gun dealer.

The case before the justices contains what may be a textbook example of congressional split personality.

Congress gave the authority to the Treasury Department in 1965 to restore gun rights to felons. But for the last decade, in annual appropriations laws, Congress has prohibited Treasury from acting to restore those gun rights.

The case put the Bush administration in the unusual position of arguing for a limitation on an American's right to own a firearm.

In two recent unrelated cases, the U.S. Solicitor General's Office has told the Supreme Court in briefs that individuals have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Though the Supreme Court has never ruled on that constitutional right, the administration's position represented a departure from those of past administrations.

In the Texas gun rights case, however, a top Justice Department lawyer argued in October that Congress has shown an express desire not to let felons have weapons, even if the felons represent no threat to the public safety and even if Congress has not revoked the law giving the Treasury Department the authority to restore firearms rights.

Because Congress has made its will clear, the administration argued, the courts have no right to interfere.

For many years, federal law has made it illegal for felons to transport, possess or receive firearms and ammunition.

In 1965, Congress enacted a federal law authorizing the Treasury secretary, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to restore firearms rights to felons if they were not "dangerous to public safety" and if the restoration of such rights was not "contrary to the public interest."

However, in 1992 the non-profit Violence Policy Center released a study showing that ATF had approved about a third of the 22,000 requests from felons for restoration of gun rights.

The ATF later conceded that 69 of the felons who had been granted restoration of gun rights had been re-arrested for crimes such as attempted murder, first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping, child molestation, illegal possession of a machine gun and drug trafficking.

Since that revelation, Congress has told the Treasury Department in annual appropriations laws that it may not spend money to act on requests from felons who want their firearms rights restored.

The Case

Then came the case of Thomas Lamar Bean.

A Treasury-licensed gun dealer, Bean attended a gun show in Laredo, Texas, in March 1998. Afterward, Bean and three associates decided to have dinner across the border in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

Bean asked his assistants to remove all guns and ammunition from his car. Unfortunately, they forgot to remove about 200 rounds of ammunition in the back seat.

The car was stopped at the border, and Mexican officials charged Bean with introducing ammunition into Mexico, a felony.

After being held in custody for nearly two months, Bean was tried and sentenced to five years in prison. He remained in a Mexican prison for only four months because of a treaty between the United States and Mexico allowing for the exchange of each country's imprisoned citizens.

Under the treaty, Mexicans are allowed to serve their time in Mexican prisons and Americans are allowed to serve their time in this country.

Bean was transferred to a prison in Texas, where he was released by a federal judge and placed on 10 months of probation.

When he applied to have his firearms rights restored, however, he received a form letter from Treasury saying it did not have the authority to act on his request.

Bean took his case to federal court. There the same federal judge who had freed him from prison ruled that just because Congress had tied the ATF's hands, it did not mean that firearms rights could not be restored.

The judge ruled that the prohibition was not meant to be used against like Bean, who should never have lost his rights in the first place.

The judge ruled that ATF's inaction in response to Bean's request was equivalent to a denial of his request. Under federal law, a U.S. court can review denials by federal agencies.

The judge also concluded that Bean, then 60, was no threat to anyone and restoring his rights would not be "contrary to the public interest." When a federal appeals court agreed, the Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to review, and the justices heard argument in October.

Tuesday, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.

Speaking for the entire court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the absence of a application denial by the ATF "precludes judicial review" by a federal judge, according to U.S. law.

Federal gun law "leads us to conclude that an actual adverse action on the application by ATF is a prerequisite for judicial review," Thomas said.

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

Quoted: Define "non-violent felon?" A person convicted of a felony is no longer a "full" citizen of this country. They have lost the right to be a full participant in society. This "debt paid" stuff is crap. Their debt is paid when they die, unless they have gone through some extraordinary circumstances and either been pardoned or had their civil rights retored through a judicial proceeding. Like I said before, this change in Texas law, if it makes it (and it probably won't), won't matter anyway; it is still illegal under federal law for felons to own firearms, and that is the standard that will apply.

Yes thats it, follow the law blindly. What if its illegal for non cops to breath? How bout no guns at all? Is that the standard that will apply?

You irritate me with your fucking Nazi crap shit. If he is free to walk the street he is a FREE MAN, PERIOD. If he cant be trusted, lock him up. Just who do you think is going to protect him and his family from an armed intruder? You, Mr big bad cop man? Don't kid your self, you will show up after the fact wiping the powdered doughnut off your face and clean up the mess like a good cop/trashman and proclaim that its just another felon and his family that died and the world is a better place because one more cop made it home safely.

I hope you get yours one day! FOOL!

Quoted: Quoted: Define "non-violent felon?" A person convicted of a felony is no longer a "full" citizen of this country. They have lost the right to be a full participant in society. This "debt paid" stuff is crap. Their debt is paid when they die, unless they have gone through some extraordinary circumstances and either been pardoned or had their civil rights retored through a judicial proceeding. I think this would qualify.  It could have easily been you or I who lost our right to firearm's ownership as Mr. Bean has.   <SNIP>

I sniped most of that drivel/crap you wrote because this man is a felon/dirtbag and does not deserve the privilege to own a firearm. Just ask Natez! Typical cop/trashman!

Far too many exclusions to firearm ownership in this country. They should all be rescinded with exception of SOME violent felonies such as rape and intentional homicides.

Thanks guys...I'll pass it on. Most all of the surveys indicate that a good 96% of the people support such legislation. Even anti-gun liberals  see the reasoning in this. They like it because of the idea that everyone should get a second (and third, and fourth, etc) chance. Conservatives like it because it supports the 2nd amendment and self sufficiency.

This issue, Im told, will be a proposal in the next Texas legislative session. I would suggest everyone here add this to your letter's list, and send it to your state legislators, as well as your Congressional delegates.

In fact, now is the opportunistic time. This spring season, there will be strong debate on the AWB. This is the time for this discussion to take place. Go to the AWB thread in this group and get your list of congressmen and start the letters. If you're not the type to act, and you just talk, then start talking. Once the populace is disarmed, there's no holding the government back from herding us all together.

Quoted: Define "non-violent felon?" A person convicted of a felony is no longer a "full" citizen of this country. They have lost the right to be a full participant in society. This "debt paid" stuff is crap. Their debt is paid when they die, unless they have gone through some extraordinary circumstances and either been pardoned or had their civil rights retored through a judicial proceeding. Like I said before, this change in Texas law, if it makes it (and it probably won't), won't matter anyway; it is still illegal under federal law for felons to own firearms, and that is the standard that will apply.

What bunch of bullshit! If a person if found guilty of felony fraud, or embezzlment, what the fuck does that have to do with owning a firearm? Nothing thats what. Its just one more way to chip away at our rights.


CH

natez:  How do you feel about the loss of your RKBA rights as a result of a misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse?  Many LEO's lost their jobs as a result of some BS DA that occurred 20 or more years prior to the enactment of the new law.

In many states it takes nothing more then an unsubstantiated ex-parte proceeding in family court by a pissed off wife, GF or other family member to have your firearms temporarily confiscated and in most cases permanently confiscated.  

I’m not advocating that everyone convicted of a felony or a MCODA should have his/her rights restored.  They should however have an avenue open to them either in federal/state court or a hearing by the ATF for a restoration determination.  Do you object to that also?

Quoted: RIP, pack sand. I am entitled to my opinion just the same as anyone else. How is having a different opinion than yours qualify as "Nazi crap shit?" (try to compose coherent sentences while you are at it). Having regular contact with felons, I have no problem with laws restricting their rights permanently. If you don't want to have your rights retricted, don't become a felon. It is that simple. I am familiar with the Bean case, and agree that that one has been handled poorly, and I am not quite on board with the idea of honoring the decision of some third-world court as to the rights of our own citizens, but that is another matter. I support RKBA and I still don't think felons should be allowed to own firearms. If you want to own weapons, don't embezzle, don't possess child porn, don't sell drugs or do other things that are felony violations of the law. If you can't follow the rules of society, then you don't get to enjoy full status as a member of that society.

natez,
Consider that you might be a convicted felon for any manner of an incraesing list of crimes. Maybe you kick some guys ass for picking a fight with you or grabbing your wife/GF. Perhaps for having an illegal preban postban weapon or perhaps the ATF gy who checks you out at the range is able to jam an 11th rd in your mag. Not to mention all of the more numerous reasons to infringe on your right to bear arms. See your form 4473 for details. No question that this is an obvious and blatant effort to whittle away at the number of people who are granted the "privelege" to bear arms. Is this really the nation we want to live in?

Since this whole issue came up over Mr. Beans case, there are a couple of things I feel should be examined.

1.  He was never convicted of a felony in the USA.

2.  The act he was prosecuted and convicted for by a foreign state isn't a felony here, not even a crime at all!

I think this guy got the shaft, and he deserves to have not only his rights restored, but his FFL as well.

I would be supportive of such legislation.

natez, I take it, by reading your posts, you would keep GCA68 and NFA34?

Quoted: I agree. Mr. Bean's case is different from home-grown felons, and he should be allowed to petition the government for a fair hearing to have his rights restored.

You are back peddling dude. Now you think some cases are different? HELL FUCKING LO. That is EXACTLY what we have been saying. Now you want to change your tune because you were exposed for the fucking gun grabbing NAZI you are.

PISS OFF!

Natez,  you are a JBT to the Nth degree.

So you do support GCA68 and NFA34. So, have these laws prevented any crimes?