Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 6/8/2009 1:22:49 PM EST
I say no.(Albeit I feel a little sick in my stomach saying it when I consider some of the scumbags that have been released ) done the time paid ones debt(sometimes) and right shall not be infringed. I read Arfcom much but have not seen this discussed, sorry if dupe.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:24:27 PM EST
No, not unless we adjust felonies back to actually being felonious. Way too much petty shit has become a "felony" as of late.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:24:29 PM EST
The only thing that should disqualify one from gun ownership in a free country is BEING IN JAIL.

Period, end of subject. If someone can't be trusted (because of past actions) to own a firearm, put them back in jail.

Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:24:34 PM EST
Nope.

Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:25:54 PM EST
I say it depends on the crime. Check fraud and other white collar crimes, no. Violent offenders, yes.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:26:22 PM EST
No..........after "X" amount of time following their release , let them have their rights back ............all of them.

Otherwise , keep em in jail.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:26:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
Nope.

Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.


It should be violent crime only, and it should be subject to the judge's ruling; ie a part of the sentance at the time of sentancing.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:27:51 PM EST
We have "felonized" almost the entire penal law.

Did you know its a federal felony to import the seeds of the wrong kind of Orchid flower?

In addition, if someone's done their time and paid their debt to society I see no reason for a continuing disability.

If they're too dangerous to have a gun, why are they out of prison?

Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:28:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2009 1:31:06 PM EST by KBaker]
Violent ones.

Do you have ANY idea how little it takes to have your 2nd Amendment rights stripped from you?

18 USC section 922(g)(1) in its entirety:
It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien -

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that -

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. You don't have to be sentenced to more than one year, the penalty just needs to be possible.

It's gotten to the point that "a term exceeding one year" is pretty damned common now for just about anything.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:28:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
Nope.

Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.


Whoa. We agree on something!



Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:29:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2009 1:29:54 PM EST by AllserviceBilliards]
You folks are aware that a "felony" conviction is not the issue, yes?

Your right is lost if you are convicted of a crime for which you could have been sentanced to more than 1 year in prison.

This also applies to ANY conviction, including foreign court.

For example, our two journalists in N. Korea just lost their RKBA.



ETA, beat me to it.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:30:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
We have "felonized" almost the entire penal law.

Did you know its a federal felony to import the seeds of the wrong kind of Orchid flower?

In addition, if someone's done their time and paid their debt to society I see no reason for a continuing disability.

If they're too dangerous to have a gun, why are they out of prison?




THIS +1000000
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:31:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2009 1:32:13 PM EST by Lympago]

I'm with it depending on the crime too. It seems they made everything from giving a cop the finger to stepping onto some public owned property a felony. There are some crimes, that aren't really crimes.





Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:32:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By StraightShooter7:
I say it depends on the crime. Check fraud and other white collar crimes, no. Violent offenders, yes.


Yep.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:32:52 PM EST
Were is the reset button.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:33:07 PM EST


The potential loss of gun ownership (which is most favorite hobby) keeps me from making poor decisions and ending up in custody.

Don't do the crime, if you can't deal with the consequences. Also - make sure you have enough resources to fight most any prolonged legal battle.

Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:36:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
You folks are aware that a "felony" conviction is not the issue, yes?

Your right is lost if you are convicted of a crime for which you could have been sentanced to more than 1 year in prison.

This also applies to ANY conviction, including foreign court.

For example, our two journalists in N. Korea just lost their RKBA.



ETA, beat me to it.


Thanks I did not know- that is SCARY...
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:36:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By Hedonist:


The potential loss of gun ownership (which is most favorite hobby) keeps me from making poor decisions and ending up in custody.

Don't do the crime, if you can't deal with the consequences. Also - make sure you have enough resources to fight most any prolonged legal battle.



Give it a few years at most and something as farting in public will cause you to lose them. People have let big brother get to large and make laws for every little thing.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:39:17 PM EST
Committing? No
Felony convictions? Yes
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:43:25 PM EST
Depends what kind of felony.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:43:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By Rattle_Snake:
Originally Posted By Hedonist:


The potential loss of gun ownership (which is most favorite hobby) keeps me from making poor decisions and ending up in custody.

Don't do the crime, if you can't deal with the consequences. Also - make sure you have enough resources to fight most any prolonged legal battle.



Give it a few years at most and something as farting in public will cause you to lose them. People have let big brother get to large and make laws for every little thing.


Or worse............the mere possession of those firearms
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:43:39 PM EST
I would go for a non-violent felony, just like the liberals who advocate that "3 strikes and you're out," the 3rd strike should be a violent felony. Same with a gun, non-violent felonies should be excluded.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:43:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.


+1
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:45:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By Hedonist:

Also - make sure you have enough resources to fight most any prolonged legal battle.



So you mean ..........keep a few hundred grand around for some fucked up bullshit charge?

Check

Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:49:34 PM EST
i think if if the felony isn't a violence crime i would say yes
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:50:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By g3shooter:
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.


+1


Agreed. This type of justice has served the west and europe for centuries and has generated the greatest civilization ever known. After libcom theology took hold so went civilization.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:51:08 PM EST
In a word . . . . NO!

Everything is a felony these days.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:51:20 PM EST
It depends on what kind of felony. Crimes of violence, or drug dealing, yes. A felony conviction for, oh say like felony telephone harasment (second time in Ohio is a felony), then no.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:51:34 PM EST
Dave_A should be along shortly, as he thinks any person convicted of ANY crime should be put to death. No, I'm not bullshitting, he really said that.

My idea is that if the person served their sentence, they should own a gun if they want to. If they are not safe to be amongst us, they should never get out of jail.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:54:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By mobility6:
i think if if the felony isn't a violence crime i would say yes


So - defending ones family in self defense would disqualify?Or manslaughter for drunk driving?
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:55:49 PM EST
For violent crime only
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:56:34 PM EST
Yes.

Because anyone who loses their RKBA deserves to. The government is 100% right in this case... just not 99% of other cases.

I mean, God damn, picture all these check-forgers and folks who sold a couple grams of coke 20 years ago running around target shooting and protecting themselves! I, as a legal gun owner, love to lord my ability to finger-fuck my gun collection without some asshole who got really drunk at 19 and Baker-Acted buying that gun I really wanted. I want to sit around and eat Cheetos and bitch on the internet and take dinner pictures and talk shit about Obama's socialist tendancies and bleet endless warnings about losing our freedoms while rejoicing in the freedoms taken from others. Why?

Because I'm an eyes-wide-open American, not a sheep. So I agree wholeheartedly with my government in their opinion that people with felonies for credit card fraud and embezzlement don't deserve guns. The government knows best and would never try to take MY rights from me, because I'm law-abiding.

(yes, this was satire for you stupid ones who are nodding your heads in sheepish agreement)
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:58:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
Nope.

Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.


I can agree with that.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:00:09 PM EST
Violent felons should receive permanent loss of weapons rights, all other felons should serve their time then regain all rights.

I could go either way on the death penalty, its pretty much a non issue in my eyes.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:00:44 PM EST
IBTP
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:01:05 PM EST
Convictions? Yes.

Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:01:24 PM EST
some felons shouldnt be getting out of prison period.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:02:15 PM EST
If you are against felons having full rights restored, are you going to deny them the right to defend themselves?
Because that is what it boils down to in our society.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:03:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
Nope.

Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.


+1
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:03:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2009 2:13:47 PM EST by JamesP81]
Originally Posted By Frost7:
No, not unless we adjust felonies back to actually being felonious. Way too much petty shit has become a "felony" as of late.


This. Too many things are considered felonies that really shouldn't be. If we re-adjusted the criminal code so that only things that deserve the term 'felony' were treated that way, then I'd say felons shouldn't be able to own firearms.

ETA: More specifically, I think those guilty of crimes that caused or were intended to cause physical harm or death should not regain their 2A rights. They probably shouldn't ever be out of a prison again, either. Non-violent crimes, whether felony or misdemeanor, should not disqualigy someone from their civil rights (2A being among them) once their sentence is completed.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:04:37 PM EST
Well we have the totally unrealistic. If they are bad keep them in jail.. Other than being stupid in public, these knuckleheads should understand that isn't going to happen. It's parroting a fantasy that ain't gonna happen. Grow the fuck up.

White collar? who cares you steal money, use a gun, use a pen? what's the difference, they stole the money, they lose.

With extremely few exceptions, people who DECIDE to commit felonies, are deciding to live with the consequences. No matter who they hurt or harm, let them live with their deciding to commit the crimes.

We hear about petty things that are felonies, but yet nobody ever actually provides the details,

Fuck 'em, if they decide to break the law too bad.

And oh yeah we never talk about this
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:06:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2009 2:08:04 PM EST by Lonestar45]
Originally Posted By danc46:
If you are against felons having full rights restored, are you going to deny them the right to defend themselves?
Because that is what it boils down to in our society.



Should've thought about that before they committed a felony. There are consequences for doing that and maybe that's one more deterrent. The more deterrent the better. If the thought of losing their RKBA stops them from committing a felony, good. If it doesn't stop them, then I guess they didn't care about it in the first place.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:09:01 PM EST
this
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:10:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2009 2:10:34 PM EST by Frost7]
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
We hear about petty things that are felonies, but yet nobody ever actually provides the details

Yeah, actually, they do. In the 890th repeat of this thread last fall we went through a pretty decently-sized list of petty bullshit that carries a felony charge. May have been in the 899th and 921st and well.

Sadly I don't keep this stuff saved to disk so I can produce lists every time someone comes along with "WELL I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD SO YOU MUST BE WRONG"

Maybe I should.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:12:24 PM EST
Felonies should be redefined as crimes which cause significant damage to a person or his properties and possessions. Damage or harm that will not be
easily overcome.


If that change were made, then yes, I'd say that felonies should eliminate gun ownership rights. But as it stands now, you can do some pretty trivial things
and be charged with a felony. I don't agree with that.


CJ
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:13:29 PM EST
If the felony involves violence or is aggravated by the use of a firearm (eg armed robbery) then yes.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:13:43 PM EST
Some states will take away gun rights for misedemenors, that have a punishment of less than a year in jail. In NY if you are caught with a pill that is not your own (Possesion of a controlled substance) you lose your gun rights. If you even so much as touch a gun you are guilty of criminal possesion of a weapon. Most people who are convicted of these crimes don't even know they lost their rights.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:14:11 PM EST
If a man is free, then he is free.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:14:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By Lonestar45:
Originally Posted By danc46:
If you are against felons having full rights restored, are you going to deny them the right to defend themselves?
Because that is what it boils down to in our society.



Should've thought about that before they committed a felony. There are consequences for doing that and maybe that's one more deterrent. The more deterrent the better. If the thought of losing their RKBA stops them from committing a felony, good. If it doesn't stop them, then I guess they didn't care about it in the first place.


Some felonies aren't intentional. Such as negligent homicide.
Or people are wrongly convicted, set free years later awaiting a new trial.
Every creature has the right to defend itself.
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:17:35 PM EST
This
Violent criminals (murderers/rapists/child molesters) should be put down (executed) and non-violent criminals should serve their time then regain all their freedoms.

This is an oversimplification but a good starting point!
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 2:18:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Felonies should be redefined as crimes which cause significant damage to a person or his properties and possessions. Damage or harm that will not be
easily overcome.


If that change were made, then yes, I'd say that felonies should eliminate gun ownership rights. But as it stands now, you can do some pretty trivial things
and be charged with a felony. I don't agree with that.


CJ

Besides trivial crimes- I believe the overarching point is - If a man has done his time then why is his RKBA being infringed?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top