It's the ever changing definition of what a felon is that's new.  It's also the ever changing definition of what crimes, that aren't a felonies, but still keep you from possessing a firearm, are.  I work with several guys that are former police officers, because they can't legally possess a firearm.  As far as I know, none of them have been convicted of a felony.  If they have, they were hired only because they lied on the application.z

In the state of Florida a domestic problem that creates paperwork can be reason to deny ownership of a firearm. Simply walking in a construction site after hours can be a felony trespass. Don't believe it? Just read the small print on the signs......

No, I don't think it's a new thing. You act as if once all felons have their guns taken away, the gov't will let the rest of us keep ours. Once the felons aren't a concern any more, the gov't will merely find or invent another group of people to disarm through legislation and public opinion. 34 years ago it was felons, now it's people charged with domestic violence (or simply mentioned in a DV police report but not charged), and who knows who the next target will be?

And sometimes people do stupid things like illegally convert weapons to fully automatic fire, possess bomb-making materials, and possess guns when they are true felons.

What *should* we do with them when they're caught?  

Let them off because they happen to like guns like we do?

Its interesting to see the opinions fall along two basic lines.

A law enforcement officer is just like a security dog. His job is to bark everybody back to the fence. He really doesn't understand the job of the surveyor that put the fence there. He's just a set of teeth and claws tearing at your ass on his side of the fence. Pat him on the head and give him a donut, and he's happy.

 Your basic citizen wonders how long it will be before fences are outlawed, and dogs are ruling the neighborhood, like fenceless Kalifornia.

YES! I FVCKING KNEW IT!

Looks like Ann Coulter was right again.

However, the BS could have originated from the ATF, the LEOs, or the media, so it's difficult to tell. But the media reported it and showed green tips, so in the end it's their responsibility to report the news correctly.

Gasoline is explosive, so they probably got him on that, as well as all of the other explosive contents in his home... I wonder if he has natural gas in his home?

What zoom and NH2112 said.

And I would add that California is the prime example of taking it beyond felonies. We have a list of perhaps 30 misdemeanors that result in the loss of RKBA. Most result in a 10-year loss, but I believe some are treated as felonies in terms of owning firearms, which means you can never own firearms.

Plus, virtually every new law they pass these days in a felony, especially for firearms violations. Pretty soon 10% of the population of this state will be felons.

Think about it. If you want to take away people's rights, make them all felons. They can't own guns, vote, many won't find employment, etc.

God, I love this state.

See the story and video of the "arsenal" here: [url]http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=787383[/url]
[img]http://manage.kron.com/Images/50315_G.jpg[/img]

Somehow, I get the feeling those are "practice" grenades. If they have blasting caps in them they may be "expolsive devices". Unless modified a training grenade isn't that dangerous.

Someone has 1 in his drawer at work.........

in california certian knives are illegal

ie auto knives aka switchblades, "gravity knives" wtf that is. and Butterfly knifes

A gravity knife opens with the push button.  Basically, you point the blade down, push the button, and the blade slide out and locks.  I saw one at a gun show, they open about as fast as an auto.

I viewed the video in the link provided above.  The report says the grenades are inert and not explosive, but doesn't it sure improve ratings by showing the pictures for the sheeple to gasp at.

[(:|)]

In it's never ending boughts of wisdom, about 6 years ago the kaliban made possession of training or toy grenades a felony. What a screwed up state.

So we have inert grenades characterized as explosives, M855 as "armor piercing", and an M1919 they say is fully auto, but they have not tested. They said they tested the AR15 and it's fully auto, but for all we know they were bump firing it.

It should be a crime for such a nice collection go to waste.

Anyway, if the guy is a felon, he rolled the dice and lost, but that doesn't justify all the half truths coming out of their mouths.

Some of you guys kill me... "He got what he deserved...he was converting to full-auto illegally...Blah, blah, blah" ILLEGALY??? The 1934 law regarding Full-auto is illegal (read unconstitutional). Slavery was legal, what the hell does the law have to do with it? Was he in the act of harming someone or their interests? No, he was doing what we all do, having fun with a hobby and supporting the 2nd. The mere possession of a weapon as a criminal charge is ludicrous! He was hurting no one. Freedom is truly dead if even the people on this board do not support the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Just because a law is unconstitutional does not negate the fact that it [b]is still a law, and is still punishable[/b].  And all your saying-so won't change that.  When/if the law is repealed or ruled in a court of law (and not the court of your mind) to be unconstitutional, then your point will hold true.  Until then, it is just mind-numbing drivel.

I dislike the laws just as much as you.  However, I will have no sympathy for someone who is busted possessing illegally modified weapons AND is a convicted felon and therefore shouldn't be possessing firearms in the first place according to our current laws.

It has nothing to do with harming anyone.  It has nothing to do with supporting the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  It has to do with the current laws of our country.  This guy broke 'em.  He got busted.  He's going to jail.

More activism and less bullshit on our part could get those laws changed.  Getting ourselves arrested because we "believe in the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment" isn't going to help.

the_reject

[img]http://manage.kron.com/Images/50315_G.jpg[/img][/quote]

Proudly showing off the "booty".  What?...no exclamation points?

Gotta love the way the POS media float's that "cache" word around.  Whatever float's their boat.

The Second Amendment means what it says and I fully support unlimited exercise of Second Amendment rights by free men and women (which was the understanding of the Founders).

That being said some people are not free by the founder's standards and that included felons, slaves and some other classes.  Granted also that the Founder's clearly held that once a person had served their sentence for a crime their free status was returned.

It is my personal belief that persons who have been convicted of violent crimes including rape and domestic violence, should be barred from possessing firearms for an extended period of time even after released from jail. Restoration of those rights should only be granted to a violent felon after they complete probationary periods without difficulties and probably with the endorsement of a number of unrelated people with clean criminal records.

It is a high bar to set, but for someone who so greviously broke the compact with their felon citizens, the standard should be set high.

Mere drug possession felonies should not be prohibitive unless there is a pattern of recidivism present.  A person who otherwise holds down a job and is considered a stable individual should be able to recover his or her Second Amendment rights following normal judicial punishment and probation.

Patterns of violent juvenile behavior should probably be prohibitive (not the kid busted for a single fist fight or even a couple fist fights, but the gang bangers who rape, assault and murder their way through their childhood, then hide behind the juvenile system.)

Getting in a barfight once twenty years ago, or even ten years ago should not be prohibitive, but getting arrested in 15 bar fights is pretty indicative of poor impulse control and a tendancy toward violent confrontation.

Mentally disturbed people (those with serious problems such as Schizophrenia with psychotic breaks and dementia, and a limited number of conditions wherein judgement is impaired or lost are also an unsafe bet for firearms ownership.  

Standard depression doesn't count here, neither do the myriad "illnesses" that psychiatrists come up with to label people with so they don't feel responsible for coping with their lives.

Now, if you aren't a violent criminal or a mentally imbalanced individual then you should be able to own guns of whatever type that you find practical or desireable to own so long as you do so in a responsible manner.  

Obviously in my scheme the boundaries would have to be carefully and clearly drawn with as little wiggle room left for case law and precedent to water it down as possible.

It simply is not practical or preferable to have hardened criminals allowed to walk into a gun store and buy the tools for their next crime. Certainly such laws will not stop them from buying a gun, but it puts a barrier up to make it harder and potentially more hazardous for them to do so.  It also adds a charge to increase their jail time when they get caught.

But again, aside from this limited group of violent offenders and mentally disturbed people, I am in favor of highly liberalized gun ownership.

Perhaps he hit someone in the eye with a spitball.  Isn't that a felony in CA now?

Sure is nice how they focused on the weapons, and not the POS that had them.

I hope the BRC gets that kind of coverage!!!

Wooohoooo!  Imagine.  A bullet that can go through a vest!  Or even a 'deadly' machine gun!

EDITED FOR BREVITY BY ME


I believe he means "fellow citizens", if that is the case I agree.



We'll get to this one in a second.



It may also not be a felony. In WI it's not Battery, if both people involved "consent" to the fight, unless ther is signifigant injury.



Impaired judgement, you mean like being on drugs?



Did you really think that through? So depressed people and people that feel it's not their responsibility for dealing with their own lives should be packing heat?



I disagree on some of that, a white collar criminal that embezzeled $1,000,000 from elderly clients has "greiviously broken the compact with their fellow citizens". And I would suggest that their judgement is seriously lacking. If the get caught for that felony, no guns for them.