http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruits_waivers

I don't understand.  Is there some legal loophole for convicted fellons?

Thanks in advance.

Someone has GOT to have an opinion on this.

If you have a problem with a felon being more patriotic than yourself then maybe you should enlist and serve your time.

You do realize that all felonies are not created equally. Here in the good old PRI it is a felony to float a title on an automobile. Yepper you don't pay the state to transfer the title and they catch you they can charge you with a felony. A bit different than armed robbery but you lose your rights either way.

Quoted: A bit different than armed robbery but you lose your rights either way.

Thats right!  They waiver or they don't, but you can't possess no guns if you could do 1 year +.  I gots to know.  How do they do this or do they make up the rules as they go?

Quoted: If you have a problem with a felon being more patriotic than yourself then maybe you should enlist and serve your time.

I don't have any such problem.  I want to know how the convicted felon is lawfully permited to possess a firearm, as that would obviously be the need for any enlisted patriot.

Strange how you have read that into my post.  Perhaps your question of my patriotism is really a question of your own?

No matter.  The question stands.  How is it that the United States Military can allow a convicted felon to possess a firearm?

Not sure I'm getting all of what your wanting to say here.  But, I wouldn't have a problem with someone being able to possess weapons after Military Training and only during they're time in the military and not as a civilian.

If its was a higher felony offense then I say no!  But for lesser offenses why not.

I've seen it done at mips in the navy One moment this guy has a felony and comes in with a dirty piss test   and POOF   Its gone.  He said he had gta, assault, possesion of a firearm.
Why did he say they let him in   He said because he got 92 on the asvab test,  he said he cheated on it.
throughout history people have had the option to join up or go to prison under certain conditions. I think when they got out their record is expunged.

Its a second chance for the criminal.  You don't like it  JOIN-UP  and they wont have to resort to the undesirables.

Quoted: Not sure I'm getting all of what your wanting to say here.  But, I wouldn't have a problem with someone being able to possess weapons after Military Training and only during they're time in the military and not as a civilian. If its was a higher felony offense then I say no!  But for lesser offenses why not.

I'm not complaining about felons getting guns.  I am asking WTF?  If I bounced a check and got convicted, there is NO WAY for me to own a gun.  The GCA is quite clear.  No felons.  Amended to crimes punishable by more than a year.  HOW does the military circumvent the law?  Where is the loophole?  If they can do it, what keeps the rest of the railroaded and disenfranchised from doing it?

You guys are misreading me on this.  I don't personaly disagree with the situation, I just want to know, given the law, HOW do they do it?

Members of the military may be using guns in the line of duty, but being issued a weapon for duty is not ownership or possession of the weapon, any more than a UPS driver posesses or owns the UPS truck.  A soldier takes the weapon to the range, or into combat, or whatever, but he is under orders, not acting on his own as a private individual or using the firearm for his own purposes, and of course must turn in the weapon immediately after his duty is completed.

So, a GI, felon or not, is not in possession or ownership of his M16 - which, of course, would be illegal under the NFA.  Uncle Sam is the owner and possessor of the firearms.

Quoted: Members of the military may be using guns in the line of duty, but being issued a weapon for duty is not ownership or possession of the weapon, any more than a UPS driver posesses or owns the UPS truck.  A soldier takes the weapon to the range, or into combat, or whatever, but he is under orders, not acting on his own as a private individual or using the firearm for his own purposes, and of course must turn in the weapon immediately after his duty is completed. So, a GI, felon or not, is not in possession or ownership of his M16 - which, of course, would be illegal under the NFA.  Uncle Sam is the owner and possessor of the firearms.

I call - bullshit.

Quoted: Quoted: Members of the military may be using guns in the line of duty, but being issued a weapon for duty is not ownership or possession of the weapon, any more than a UPS driver posesses or owns the UPS truck.  A soldier takes the weapon to the range, or into combat, or whatever, but he is under orders, not acting on his own as a private individual or using the firearm for his own purposes, and of course must turn in the weapon immediately after his duty is completed. So, a GI, felon or not, is not in possession or ownership of his M16 - which, of course, would be illegal under the NFA.  Uncle Sam is the owner and possessor of the firearms. I call - bullshit.

+1.  does that mean that if I get pulled over in a company car, I can claim I'm not in possession of the company car???????????


My take on the situation is this:  the law only applies to the government when they want it to.

Well, I know that If I were to be convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or any other disqualifier, I would not longer be able to carry a weapon in the line of duty.  In fact, due to my job (Gunner's Mate in the Coast Guard) I would loose my rating as a Gunners Mate.  I would also lose my Boarding Team qualification.  So I know my service has rules in place to prevent prohibited persons from having possesion of firearms.

If they are not in prison what difference does it really make?  

I mean, if they were a threat to public safety, they would be locked up.

Right???  



And I seriously think ANYONE who completes a REAL combat tour in the US Armed Forces should have their slate wiped clean.  They've done more for the cause of Liberty than many of us who have not served.  

Quoted: My take on the situation is this:  the law only applies to the government when they want it to.

Welcome to... uh... 1984

Quoted: If they are not in prison what difference does it really make?   I mean, if they were a threat to public safety, they would be locked up. Right???   And I seriously think ANYONE who completes a REAL combat tour in the US Armed Forces should have their slate wiped clean.  They've done more for the cause of Liberty than many of us who have not served.

What you think and what the law states are totaly different, weather I agree or no.  The law is what it is.  How do these convicted felons possess a gun?

Quoted: Quoted: If they are not in prison what difference does it really make?   I mean, if they were a threat to public safety, they would be locked up. Right???   And I seriously think ANYONE who completes a REAL combat tour in the US Armed Forces should have their slate wiped clean.  They've done more for the cause of Liberty than many of us who have not served.   What you think and what the law states are totaly different, weather I agree or no.  The law is what it is.  How do these convicted felons possess a gun?

Well, for one, not all Felony convictions disqualify you from gun ownership

Sure, but we're not talking about securities fraud here.

Quoted: Sure, but we're not talking about securities fraud here.

Remember, the only AUTOMATIC disqualifier under Federal Law is a conviction for a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence.  

Quoted: Quoted: Members of the military may be using guns in the line of duty, but being issued a weapon for duty is not ownership or possession of the weapon, any more than a UPS driver posesses or owns the UPS truck.  A soldier takes the weapon to the range, or into combat, or whatever, but he is under orders, not acting on his own as a private individual or using the firearm for his own purposes, and of course must turn in the weapon immediately after his duty is completed. So, a GI, felon or not, is not in possession or ownership of his M16 - which, of course, would be illegal under the NFA.  Uncle Sam is the owner and possessor of the firearms. I call - bullshit.

+1 on bullshit. A member can't possess/fire/clean a weapon or even walk into an armory if they have any felonies or domestic violence instances on their records. I was at a command where I handled this information for 3000+ people.

Quoted: Quoted: Not sure I'm getting all of what your wanting to say here.  But, I wouldn't have a problem with someone being able to possess weapons after Military Training and only during they're time in the military and not as a civilian. If its was a higher felony offense then I say no!  But for lesser offenses why not. I'm not complaining about felons getting guns.  I am asking WTF?  If I bounced a check and got convicted, there is NO WAY for me to own a gun.  The GCA is quite clear.  No felons.  Amended to crimes punishable by more than a year.  HOW does the military circumvent the law?  Where is the loophole?  If they can do it, what keeps the rest of the railroaded and disenfranchised from doing it? You guys are misreading me on this.  I don't personaly disagree with the situation, I just want to know, given the law, HOW do they do it?

I see what your getting at now.  Not sure how this is allowed.  I would think that GCA would trump anything else.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure I'm getting all of what your wanting to say here.  But, I wouldn't have a problem with someone being able to possess weapons after Military Training and only during they're time in the military and not as a civilian. If its was a higher felony offense then I say no!  But for lesser offenses why not. I'm not complaining about felons getting guns.  I am asking WTF?  If I bounced a check and got convicted, there is NO WAY for me to own a gun.  The GCA is quite clear.  No felons.  Amended to crimes punishable by more than a year.  HOW does the military circumvent the law?  Where is the loophole?  If they can do it, what keeps the rest of the railroaded and disenfranchised from doing it? You guys are misreading me on this.  I don't personaly disagree with the situation, I just want to know, given the law, HOW do they do it? I see what your getting at now.  Not sure how this is allowed.  I would think that GCA would trump anything else.

Well, for at least 2 of the 5 services, it isn't. Methinks it's not allowed for all 5.  Someone made a boo-boo somewhere.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Members of the military may be using guns in the line of duty, but being issued a weapon for duty is not ownership or possession of the weapon, any more than a UPS driver posesses or owns the UPS truck.  A soldier takes the weapon to the range, or into combat, or whatever, but he is under orders, not acting on his own as a private individual or using the firearm for his own purposes, and of course must turn in the weapon immediately after his duty is completed. So, a GI, felon or not, is not in possession or ownership of his M16 - which, of course, would be illegal under the NFA.  Uncle Sam is the owner and possessor of the firearms. I call - bullshit. +1.  does that mean that if I get pulled over in a company car, I can claim I'm not in possession of the company car??????????? My take on the situation is this:  the law only applies to the government when they want it to.

I may stand corrected.  Congressional intent of the machinegun ban:

from Farmer v. Higgins (see bold text):

**********************************************************************

[23] The legislative history of section 922(o) also supports our conclusion that Congress intended to prohibit the private possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986. On April 10, 1986, Congressman Hughes introduced section 922(o) as a last minute amendment in the House of Representatives. See 132 Cong. Rec. H1750-53 (April 10, 1986). When Congressman Hughes introduced the amendment, he requested "an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned," observing that "I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns." 132 Cong.Rec. H1750 (April 10, 1986) (statement of Rep. Hughes).

[24] In the subsequent Senate floor debate on May 6, 1986, various Senators addressed the machine gun amendment adopted by the House. Senator Metzenbaum explained that the intent of the amendment is to ban the possession of machine guns, except as provided by the "grandfather" clause:

[T]he House version, which we are about to vote on here, has a very important improvement from the bill the Senate adopted last July, and that is to ban the transfer, possession of any machinegun not lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.

[25] 132 Cong.Rec. 9602 (1986) (statement of Sen. Metzenbaum) (emphasis added). Similarly, Senator Lautenberg expressed approval of the improvements added by the House noting that the bill "bars future sales and possession of machineguns by private citizens." 132 Cong.Rec. 9605 (1986) (statement of Sen. Lautenberg) (emphasis added).

[26] Senators Dole and Hatch discussed the scope of the "somewhat ambiguous" first exception to the prohibition covering machine guns transferred or possessed "under the authority of, the United States . . . or a State." 132 Cong.Rec. 9600 (statement of Sen. Dole). Senator Hatch explained:

In the case of the military, the manufacturer would be transferring to the United States or a department . . . the machinegun would be possessed by the United States, and these sales and other transactions would clearly take place under the authority of the United States ... . Any local police would be specifically covered by the language in this provision permitting the transactions and possession to or by or under the authority of a subdivision of a State.

[27] 132 Cong.Rec. 9600 (1986) (statement of Sen. Hatch) (emphasis added).

[28] Senator Dole subsequently asked Senator Hatch how the provision would affect the sale of weapons to foreign allies or other exports permitted by the Department of State:

MR. HATCH: Once again, these should be considered transfers under the authority of the United States. The United States itself . . . would be authorizing this transfer. . . .

[29] 132 Cong.Rec. 9600 (1986) (statement of Sen. Hatch).

[30] Senators Dole and Hatch further discussed whether the "under the authority of" language would allow a local police force to authorize its officers to purchase machine guns to be owned by the officer rather than the police. 132 Cong.Rec. 9601 (statement of Sen. Dole). Senator Hatch responded that:

possession or transfer of those weapons would cease to enjoy the authorization of the State agency or subdivision when the officer was no longer on the police force. The police force would then have to exercise its authority to guarantee that the machinegun was transferred to another entity authorized by the State or the United States to possess such weaponry.

[31] 132 Cong.Rec. 9601 (statement of Sen. Hatch) (emphasis added). Senator Durenberger thereafter thanked Senators Dole and Hatch for clarifying "a very important issue surrounding the amendment to ban the future sale and possession of machineguns." 132 Cong.Rec. 9605 (1986) (statement of Sen. Durenberger).

**********************************************************************

Admittedly, when reading further, the whole thing becomes vague again, but the intent seems clear.  Opinions?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Members of the military may be using guns in the line of duty, but being issued a weapon for duty is not ownership or possession of the weapon, any more than a UPS driver posesses or owns the UPS truck.  A soldier takes the weapon to the range, or into combat, or whatever, but he is under orders, not acting on his own as a private individual or using the firearm for his own purposes, and of course must turn in the weapon immediately after his duty is completed. So, a GI, felon or not, is not in possession or ownership of his M16 - which, of course, would be illegal under the NFA.  Uncle Sam is the owner and possessor of the firearms. I call - bullshit. +1.  does that mean that if I get pulled over in a company car, I can claim I'm not in possession of the company car??????????? My take on the situation is this:  the law only applies to the government when they want it to.

BINGO!