Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/17/2002 8:03:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2002 8:14:38 AM EDT by Jetlag]
[red]Even though the SCOTUS has determined it needs to adjudicate on the Consitutional topic of felons and their gun rights, Senator Jon Corzine believes he should hurry up and ban the ATF from ever restoring such rights... you know, [i]just in case![/i][/red] By Mr. CORZINE: S. 3116. A bill to permanently eliminate a procedure under which the Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [Page: S10574] can waive prohibitions on the possession of firearms and explosives by convicted felons, drug offenders, and other disqualified individuals; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important gun control legislation that would shut down permanently the guns for felons program. For too many years the Federal Government spent millions of dollars a year to restore the gun privileges of convicted felons. Fortunately, for the last ten years, Congress has seen fit to defund the program, through annual funding restrictions. Congress was right to defund a program that, according to the Violence Policy Center, restored gun privileges for thousands of convicted felons, at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayer. As the Violence Policy Center demonstrated, a number of these felons went on to commit violent crimes. I believe strongly that we must do all we can to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I am pleased that every year Congress has renewed the funding ban, which prohibits ATF from processing firearms applications from convicted felons. Indeed, by introducing this legislation today, I do not in any way intend to imply that the annual funding bans are not sufficient to shut down the guns for felons program. Today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case that could jeopardize our efforts to ensure that convicted felons do not have access to guns by possibly giving Federal judges the power to rearm those felons regardless of the Congressional funding ban. I have been active in pushing for the funding ban, and it certainly was not my intention, nor do I believe it was anyone else's intention, to give judges power to unilaterally give felons their firearm privileges back. It is hard enough for ATF, after conducting an intensive investigation, to make judgments about an individual felon; for a court to do it on its own is completely inappropriate. To put it simply, courts will lack the resources to make an informed judgment in this regard. In any case, Congress' intent, and the appropriate rule, is that felons should be prohibited from owning guns period. Enacting my legislation will eliminate the guns for felons program permanently and prevent the need for Congress to revisit this issue every year. [red]The text of the bill is not yet available; stay tuned.[/red]
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:31:36 AM EDT
This is BS. I dont care if you are a felon or not. If you are free to walk the streets then you should be free to own a firearm. If you cant be trusted to walk the streets and own a firearm then you should still be locked up in jail. If they let you out your debt is paid and all rights should be restored.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:43:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RipMeyer: This is BS. I dont care if you are a felon or not. If you are free to walk the streets then you should be free to own a firearm. If you cant be trusted to walk the streets and own a firearm then you should still be locked up in jail. If they let you out your debt is paid and all rights should be restored.
View Quote
I tend to disagree. I don't think a violent felon ought to be walking the street IF he is still deemed to be a danger to society - but just how in the hell can you determine that? Read his mind? Call Ms. Cleo? Part of the sentence for felons is the permanent loss of certain rights. They will continue to "pay their dues" to society even after the prison part of their sentence is over.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:51:19 AM EDT
It so happens that the case before the court is about a local man. He was an FFL dealer and was at a gun show in south Texas. He and some friends went into Mexico to eat and he forgot that he had a few boxes of ammo in his trunk. He was arrested and had to spend a fortune on lawyers and bribes to Mexican officals to get back to the US. Since he was convicted of a felony in Mexico, he lost his right to have firearms in the US. He is (or was) an avid hunter and only wants to be able to possess a gun so he can hunt again. I know him from gun shows. He is a nice guy and there is no danger to the public to restore his rights. So, long story short, I don't particualarly like most felons, but each case should be considered on its own merits.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 10:15:12 AM EDT
I continue to see in the news that certain repeat felons commit crimes with guns. Most likely their "rights" were not restored but they got a gun and committed their next crime anyway. Some folks violate the GCA '68 and don't care because they are going to violate more laws. Let's keep the convicted felons unarmed as best we can.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 10:28:53 AM EDT
How about when it becomes a felony to own an AR15? Of course... most people who wont give up their AR's aren't gonna give up the rest of their guns, either... Will it be another felony to own a gun if you're a felon? I think that it should be viewed per case, and a decesion made depending on the circumstances of the felony. I for sure dont want violent felons, or repeat offenders to still have their rights... but lets face it, not every felony charge is the same.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 10:31:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 10:48:01 AM EDT
The loss of certain rights for felons who have already served the prison time is sort of a personal "scarlet letter" that they carry for life. I don't think that ALL felons should lose the RKBA or the right to vote, just the violent ones who've already served their FULL time in prison. It's simply a matter of trust. We (the public) no longer FULLY trust violent felons even after they've done their time. But we DO give them a chance to show they've been rehabilitated by releasing from prison after their time is up. But they are still "guilty" of a violent felony and will always have to pay that price.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 2:09:09 PM EDT
What i dont understand is why Felons can be trusted to vote (for dems) but not trusted with a weapon. If you cant be trusted with a Gun, you cannot be trusted to elected public officials. No Gun, No Vote!!! IMHO lib
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 2:14:59 PM EDT
Well the existing regulation is fucked up. But this new bill is assinine. If you are convicted of a felony in a STATE court it should be the job of that STATES courts or chief executive to provide relief. If you are convicted of a federal felony its the job of the Federal courts to provide relief or the President to pardon you. It is NOT the job of some buracrat.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 3:22:17 PM EDT
Alot of non violent white-collar WEALTHY people are felons,....how else do you think this came up?...[;)]What do you call a Lawyer gone bad?...................................[red]senator![/red]
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 3:53:11 PM EDT
Sorry, you screw up, you screw up! Lose your RKBA along with your right to vote, your right to sit on a jury, your right to run for most public offices, your right to sit for the Bar, your rights to become a Notary Public, your right to be bonded, a whole lotta rights. So what? These are not new laws, these laws have been on the books quite a while. Forgive me if I don't feel like allowing felons to vote on folks who will make laws by which both criminals and law abiding citizens are bound. Jesus forgives, Uncle Sam keeps rap sheets. Eric The(Honest)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 4:35:40 PM EDT
The founders thought the Bill Of Rights were God given.[b]No man can take them away.[/b] So a felon cannot have a gun protected under the 2nd. How would you feel if it was the 1st? Or the 4th? hmmmm? Change your mind? Its bullshit. If you paid your debt then its just that. [b]PAID!![/b] If not, you still belong in jail. Bottom line!!
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 4:51:48 PM EDT
Post from RipMeyer -
If you paid your debt then its just that. PAID!! If not, you still belong in jail. Bottom line!!
View Quote
So, I suppose that you are against 'habitual offender' statutes and 'three strikes, you're out' laws, eh? I mean, why use the last felony you committed, just to enhance the range of penalties for the current crime with which you've been charged? If you 'paid your debt to society', whatever that might mean, then should you have it count against you that you did the very same thing again? I mean, you [u]have[/u] paid your previous debt, after all.... Eric The(Jeepers,YouGuysScareMeAtTimes)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 4:59:18 PM EDT
ETH - what if its some poor fella who bought a post 09/14/94 mag at a gunshow unknowingly?
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 6:09:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2002 7:35:02 PM EDT by RipMeyer]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from RipMeyer -
If you paid your debt then its just that. PAID!! If not, you still belong in jail. Bottom line!!
View Quote
So, I suppose that you are against 'habitual offender' statutes and 'three strikes, you're out' laws, eh? I mean, why use the last felony you committed, just to enhance the range of penalties for the current crime with which you've been charged? If you 'paid your debt to society', whatever that might mean, then should you have it count against you that you did the very same thing again? I mean, you [u]have[/u] paid your previous debt, after all.... Eric The(Jeepers,YouGuysScareMeAtTimes)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Your missing my point. If someone continues to abuse socitey they sould [b]not be allowed out at all[/b]Fry`em or throw away the key. However if you are given 20 years in jail and serve your time (20 years) you should get out a [b]TOTALLY FREE MAN[b]. If you contiue to do the same thing again and again. Lock`em up forever. Why should they be allowed out if they continue to commit felon crimes? 3 times/strikes is more than enough. I also think non violent offenders should not be in jail. They should be made to work for the city or county they commited the crime in to pay their debt. I dont have all the details planned out but something along these lines.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 6:12:41 PM EDT
The libs must be scared. Their argument in the Bean case is exactly the opposite of their voting rights for blacks and reproduction arguments.
Top Top