User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 12:42:01 PM EDT
[#1]
if a person has paid his debt to society and his freedom is restored, why not give him all of his freedoms back
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 12:44:22 PM EDT
[#2]
using it for bad or illegal purposes This is the argument that the anti-s use. I say again, if we cant trust the guy to have a means to defend himself, why are we trusting him out in the public? Why would you allow a child molester out of jail if you think he has the proclivity to commit the crime again? Same for any felon, why allow them back on the street if you think there is a higher than normal chance that they will repeat, or increase in severity, their crime? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 12:47:06 PM EDT
[#3]
I don't know about convicted felons. Probably not a good idea but a better topic for debate might be misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. You can be charged and convicted for DV for a LOT less than actually striking someone. For any who don't know, a misdemeanor DV conviction bans a person from owning firearms
--RR |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 12:47:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Rickyj,
Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Its the same logic we fuss about all the time. If a person is going to use a gun to commit a crime, he will get a gun legally or illegally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 12:47:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: My opinion is that there are people that are dangerous enough that reasonable measures should be made to keep weapons away from them The question you must ask yourself then, is whether or not you believe the RKBA is a right or a privilege. I believe it's right guaranteed by the constitution, and thus applies to all. Thus, when your rights are legally deprived, as in prison, or on probation, you obviously can't have a gun. But when out and clear, your rights are restored. An ex-con doesn't give up his first ammendment rights either. Also, it's a bit naive to believe that because it's illegal, he won't do it. Any ex-con that wants to do commit more crimes will obtain what he needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 12:53:41 PM EDT
[#6]
I beleive that there are people who simply should not have guns. I would however support a law change that allowed persons with non violent convictions to bring a legal action to restore this right. Part of being a felon means that they lose some of their rights, it is part of the punishment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:02:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Consider this:
Prior to 86 if there was a paperwork error on a 4473 (ye ominous yellow sheet) it was a felony count [u]FOR EACH ERROR![/u] Now - For those of you who have actually bought guns thru retail channels, how often has the dealer doing the paperwork had to remind you to include the COUNTY as part of your address as required by the form. If the dealer were to forget this one point, only one time, do you think it fair that he loose his business, all personally owned guns, and his other rights such as being able to vote. A felony is a felony - once they have applied that scarelet letter [red][size=3][b]F[/b][/size=3][/red] you are screwed for life! - Never confuse [b]Justice[/b] with [b]the Law[/b] they are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:02:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: As an comparison I ask if a convicted child molester should be allowed to run a day care after he has served his time. I believe that this is absurd, he has proven himself a danger and should be kept away from children in vulnerable positions. This fact however is not enough to justify keeping him in prison for the rest of his life. That isn't really a good comparison, IMO. The question was in relation to felons, not murderers. That is where I draw a distinction. Besides, there currently isnt a law preventing convicted child molesters from having children of there own. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:07:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: using it for bad or illegal purposes This is the argument that the anti-s use. Except that the anti's use it in reference to law abiding citizens. Using it in reference to criminals is a different argument. I say again, if we cant trust the guy to have a means to defend himself, why are we trusting him out in the public? I think part of it is that you can never be 100% sure. This applies to law abiding gun owners as well. You never know if the person you just sold that handgun to will use it to kill someone. That is just a risk that comes with life. But if the person has broken the rule once they have proven themselves unreliable and should not be trusted anymore. Why would you allow a child molester out of jail if you think he has the proclivity to commit the crime again? Same for any felon, why allow them back on the street if you think there is a higher than normal chance that they will repeat, or increase in severity, [blue]their crime[/blue]? I think [b]their crime[/b] is an important part of what society should use when determining what not to trust a felon doing. A child molester may be no more likely statisticaly to repeat his crime* but now that you know that tendancy may exist you should keep him away from the situation. A child molester might be able to be trusted mining coal in the middle of nowhere but I wouldn't trust him around my kids. * I doubt that is anywhere near the truth of the matter but I was just using it as an example. A child molester may have a proclivity towards molesting children. A tax evader may have a proclivity towards forging numbers. A robber may have a proclivity towards stealing. All of these criminals or former criminals have a tendancy to commit a different type of crime. You could reasonable trust the robber around children, or the tax evader around banks. But all of the above people have a tendancy in common, a tendancy to [b]break the law[/b]. A firearm basically amplifies the force of the user, it can be used for good (societys values and norms) or evil (everthing that society does not agree with). If an "evil" person is using it then they are most likely using it for "evil" purposes. Why trust a person who has shown that they have a higher probability of commiting these acts with something that amplifies their power to commit them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:08:12 PM EDT
[#10]
I could see some kind of appeal process whereby a convicted felon could have his rights restored. But can't you do that now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:09:52 PM EDT
[#11]
If he is not worthy to be trusted with guns then he is not worthy to be trusted to be released!
We need to use the death penalty the way it should be used and then this wouldn't be an issue. BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:10:34 PM EDT
[#12]
I wonder who voted to allow prisoners to own guns...
Anyways... I feel any NON VIOLENT criminal should be allowed to posess when they get out. People with violent tendencies arent trustworthy unless they have a pretty damn good reason to own one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:12:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: I beleive that there are people who simply should not have guns. So sayeth Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Sarah Brady. I would however support a law change that allowed persons with non violent convictions to bring a legal action to restore this right. Erm you do that is ALREADY part of the law right? And it doenst just apply to non-violent offenses. All you have to do is petition the Secretary of Treasury (err maybe the Attorney General now, did they change this with the moving of BATFE to Justice, anyone know?) and if he/she feels that you should have your rights restored he can do so. This was added into the '68 GCA to allow Olin/Winchester to continue to be in the business of Ammunition/firearms production after the corp was convicted of/had pled guilty to a felony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:12:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: I don't know about convicted felons. Probably not a good idea but a better topic for debate might be misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. You can be charged and convicted for DV for a LOT less than actually striking someone. For any who don't know, a misdemeanor DV conviction bans a person from owning firearms --RR I have a friend that got a misdemeanor DV conviction for saying "fuck you" on his girlfriends answering machine. He was not even in the same building and he got a DV conviction. Bullshit. I don't think it would be as good of a discussion though because I am guessing that pretty much all of us are sitting on the same side of the fence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:12:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Rickyj, Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Its the same logic we fuss about all the time. If a person is going to use a gun to commit a crime, he will get a gun legally or illegally. If he can and will get the gun illegally then why does he need to buy it legally? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:15:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Most felons are f-ing idiots that I wouldn't trust with a daisy cap gun, keeping every felon in jail forever or killing them all would bankrupct every state in the nation within a decade. They (for the most part) ended up with a felony conviction because they are STOOOOPID.
I do think there should be a way for them to prove they are worthy of owning firearms again, unfortunately I think the Bush administration eliminated the ATF's funding for that so they are effectively screwed even though they have a legal remedy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:17:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I could see some kind of appeal process whereby a convicted felon could have his rights restored. [blue]But can't you do that now?[/blue] Only in theory, haven't you heard about the guy who drove into Mexico with ammo in his truck? Basically the Mexican police found some ammo (.22 I think) in his truck and arrested him. Its a felony down there so he went to jail. The USA worked out some exchange so that he could get out of jail and come back to the US but he still had the felony conviction on his record. This was kind of a problem because his livelyhood was as an FFL. Well lots of court fighting later and the courts basically said that the ATF could do it, but could not be forced to do it and that he could not be pardoned for it. Basically a screw you ruling. Somebody else can probably provide better details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:17:29 PM EDT
[#18]
" No Freeman shall be barred the use of arms".
If he's paid his debt then by all means. If he's still a danger keep him in jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:17:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I don't know about convicted felons. Probably not a good idea but a better topic for debate might be misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. You can be charged and convicted for DV for a LOT less than actually striking someone. For any who don't know, a misdemeanor DV conviction bans a person from owning firearms --RR Domestic Violence laws/enforcement are a joke. It is so vague and unenforced/overenforced that it is ridiculous. It depends on where you are, who you are, which cop comes out, so many factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:20:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: As an comparison I ask if a convicted child molester should be allowed to run a day care after he has served his time. I believe that this is absurd, he has proven himself a danger and should be kept away from children in vulnerable positions. This fact however is not enough to justify keeping him in prison for the rest of his life. That isn't really a good comparison, IMO. The question was in relation to felons, not murderers. That is where I draw a distinction. Besides, there currently isnt a law preventing convicted child molesters from having children of there own. Food for thought. I will concede that that may not have been a good comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:25:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Most felons are f-ing idiots that I wouldn't trust with a daisy cap gun, keeping every felon in jail forever or killing them all would bankrupct every state in the nation within a decade. Isnt this what we basically do now? I mean the recidivism rate is so high all we seem to be doing now is put em in jail for a year or two, let em out, convict em again, put em jail for 5-10 years, let em out, convict em again, put in jail 15-20 (or life), etc etc. So maybe instead of releasing em the first time lets keep them in til we are sure they wont come back, would seem to save alot in court costs, but it would put alot of prosecutors/defense lawyers in the po-house. They (for the most part) ended up with a felony conviction because they are STOOOOPID. I agree I do think there should be a way for them to prove they are worthy of owning firearms again, unfortunately I think the Bush administration eliminated the ATF's funding for that so they are effectively screwed even though they have a legal remedy. Actually the funding, for the system set up by a previous sec of treas, was killed by congress a long time ago. But the Sec (or Attorney Gen?) can still do it by fiat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:29:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Generally, someone who is a felon has demonstrated two things that would make me want them to not have a gun:
a) a general contempt for and disregard of the laws of a civilized society; and b) a lack of judgment. The argument that "If we allow them on the street, then we should be able to trust them with guns" is, frankly, ridiculous. They may have paid their debt to society by serving whatever sentence they got, but that doesn't mean that they can be trusted. Recidivism is a reality. Felons re-offend. You can't, for obvious reasons, keep most felons locked up forever - they should have an opportunity to get out, get a job, have a life and contribute to society, if possible. But I can't make a blanket statement that just because they're out, they should be able to own guns. I was a prosecutor for too long, and saw too many repeat customers, to believe that. However, I do think that certain crimes should not be an automatic bar to gun ownership - so called "white collar" crimes, for instance. Offenses that are [i]malum prohibitum[/i], as opposed to [i]malum in se[/i]. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:30:15 PM EDT
[#23]
As to the restoration of rights, yes there is a section which allows for that. BUT Congress blocked funding for processing that type of request.
There was a rather comfortably well off individual who tried to petition for restoration of his rights and offered to pay the expenses. ATF responded that they had no way to properly track the expenses involved and refused. IIRC this then went to court, and the court sided with ATF - no way to force them to process such requests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:31:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: My opinion is that there are people that are dangerous enough that reasonable measures should be made to keep weapons away from them The question you must ask yourself then, is whether or not you believe the RKBA is a right or a privilege. I believe it's right guaranteed by the constitution, and thus applies to all. Thus, when your rights are legally deprived, as in prison, or on probation, you obviously can't have a gun. But when out and clear, your rights are restored. An ex-con doesn't give up his first ammendment rights either. Also, it's a bit naive to believe that because it's illegal, he won't do it. Any ex-con that wants to do commit more crimes will obtain what he needs. I believe that the RKBA is a right, where I would disagree with you is that I believe "if your a felon your a felon for life". The damage is done and it can never be repaid. An ex-con does give up his right to vote, and felons can legally be discriminated against. There is a whole bag of shit that comes with being a felon, and I think this is one of the facts that keeps many people from becoming felons. I do believe that a motivated person can do anything, illegal or legal, but that is not a good reason to provide them with support. Will a murderer get a gun if he wants one? Yes. Should we give him a gun on the day he gets out of prison? No. There are reasonable precautions that one can take to keep a murderer from getting a gun and they should be taken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:34:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Most felons are f-ing idiots that I wouldn't trust with a daisy cap gun, keeping every felon in jail forever or killing them all would bankrupct every state in the nation within a decade. They (for the most part) ended up with a felony conviction because they are STOOOOPID. I do think there should be a way for them to prove they are worthy of owning firearms again, unfortunately I think the Bush administration eliminated the ATF's funding for that so they are effectively screwed even though they have a legal remedy. Ditto...! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:35:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Generally, someone who is a felon has demonstrated two things that would make me want them to not have a gun: a) a general contempt for and disregard of the laws of a civilized society; and b) a lack of judgment. The argument that "If we allow them on the street, then we should be able to trust them with guns" is, frankly, ridiculous. They may have paid their debt to society by serving whatever sentence they got, but that doesn't mean that they can be trusted. Recidivism is a reality. Felons re-offend. You can't, for obvious reasons, keep most felons locked up forever - they should have an opportunity to get out, get a job, have a life and contribute to society, if possible. But I can't make a blanket statement that just because they're out, they should be able to own guns. I was a prosecutor for too long, and saw too many repeat customers, to believe that. However, I do think that certain crimes should not be an automatic bar to gun ownership - so called "white collar" crimes, for instance. Offenses that are [i]malum prohibitum[/i], as opposed to [i]malum in se[/i]. Why are felons that will repeat offend allowed out? What are the 'obvious reasons' that you cant keep someone that will commit another crime in jail? Why should they have the opportunity to 'get out, get a job, have a life and contribute to society' unless they are to be trusted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:36:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Most felons are f-ing idiots that I wouldn't trust with a daisy cap gun, keeping every felon in jail forever or killing them all would bankrupct every state in the nation within a decade. They (for the most part) ended up with a felony conviction because they are STOOOOPID. I think the person making the above statement is STOOOOPID! Hell, in some states possesion of small amounts of marijuana is a felony. But then I suppose you didn't inhale??? Maybe you should next time.... --RR |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:47:17 PM EDT
[#28]
If we don't trust a convicted felon with a gun, we shouldn't trust him to live in normal society.
The only value to laws prohibiting felons from having guns is that it gives police a reason to arrest them--but this is value added only so if the felon shouldn't have been walking free in the first place. The fact is, laws banning felons from owning guns can not be effectively enforced, since they can steel guns or have friends & family obtain guns for them. If a released felon wants to obtain a gun & commit more crimes, he will. So, a simple answer: 1) let released felons have guns 2) don't release felons that you can't trust with guns |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:55:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Rickyj, Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Its the same logic we fuss about all the time. If a person is going to use a gun to commit a crime, he will get a gun legally or illegally. If he can and will get the gun illegally then why does he need to buy it legally? He doesn't need to buy it legally. Using it to, say, defend himself is another matter. One of the gun rags printed an interesting story of a convicted felon, who a local drug dealer put a hit out on. The felon found out and obtained--illegally--a .357 S&W. He was subsequently attacked by the drug dealer and two or three henchmen. In the fight, the dealer was killed. The felon killed someone while committing a felony (felon w/ gun)--and was convicted of murder, although the situation was clearly self defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 2:00:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Most felons are f-ing idiots that I wouldn't trust with a daisy cap gun, keeping every felon in jail forever or killing them all would bankrupct every state in the nation within a decade. They (for the most part) ended up with a felony conviction because they are STOOOOPID. I think the person making the above statement is STOOOOPID! Hell, in some states possesion of small amounts of marijuana is a felony. But then I suppose you didn't inhale??? Maybe you should next time.... --RR In California, transporting an unregistered AR is a felony. As is selling 20 rounds magazines. There are way to many felonys--and laws--on the books. People who commit violent felonies should be locked up for life. Most non-violent felonies shouldn't be felonies, or in many cases shouldn't be violations of the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 2:02:11 PM EDT
[#31]
I think that felons should have all their rights restored once they have been rehabilitated and have returned to the taxpayers the money spent for the felon's food housing and "rehabilitation" while they were lounging in the can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 2:10:36 PM EDT
[#32]
I have been a law enforcement officer most of my adult life and many of my postings have almost gotten be banned from the "Brothers of the Shield" forum, so here we go again.
I have found that Justice and The Law are only distant cousins, they haven't spoken in years. Many so-called crimes on our books have put The Scarlet Letter on innocent persons who engaged in victimless (yes, I said victimless) crimes. I do not think that VIOLENT offenders should EVER be able to even be in the same house with a firearm, much less own or possess one. Also, many cops were fvcked recently when it was mandated that anyone with even a MISDEMEANOR conviction for domestic abuse could not own a firearm. That put HUNDREDS of otherwise good cops in the breadline because they had a spouse file a bogus charge of slapping them 20+ years ago, usually during a divorce proceeding, and their attorney advised them to plead guilty and save the money of defending the allegation. I'm not advocating wife-beating which has a tangible victim, but taking a person's constitutional rights based upon a MISDEMEANOR that was not punishable as such when the sentence was handed down is borderline double-jeopardy and PURE BULL SHIT!!! No, it didn't happen to me, but I saw a lot of good cops loose their jobs when this crap got passed. edited to add: The Texas State Constitution was said to have carried a clause saying that all persons released from a state prison were to be given $2 and a horse and a RIFLE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 2:14:29 PM EDT
[#33]
does the bill of rights have asterisks next to each amendment?
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* *[red]unless you're a felon[/red]** **[blue].gov determines what is and is not considered a felony[/blue] should someone lose the right to free speech on becoming a felon? howbout not having soldiers living in your house? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 2:31:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: I have been a law enforcement officer most of my adult life and many of my postings have almost gotten be banned from the "Brothers of the Shield" forum, so here we go again. I have found that Justice and The Law are only distant cousins, they haven't spoken in years. Many so-called crimes on our books have put The Scarlet Letter on innocent persons who engaged in victimless (yes, I said victimless) crimes. I do not think that VIOLENT offenders should EVER be able to even be in the same house with a firearm, much less own or possess one. Also, many cops were fvcked recently when it was mandated that anyone with even a MISDEMEANOR conviction for domestic abuse could not own a firearm. That put HUNDREDS of otherwise good cops in the breadline because they had a spouse file a bogus charge of slapping them 20+ years ago, usually during a divorce proceeding, and their attorney advised them to plead guilty and save the money of defending the allegation. I'm not advocating wife-beating which has a tangible victim, but taking a person's constitutional rights based upon a MISDEMEANOR that was not punishable as such when the sentence was handed down is borderline double-jeopardy and PURE BULL SHIT!!! No, it didn't happen to me, but I saw a lot of good cops loose their jobs when this crap got passed. edited to add: The Texas State Constitution was said to have carried a clause saying that all persons released from a state prison were to be given $2 and a horse and a RIFLE. Amen..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 2:35:15 PM EDT
[#35]
if they have done thier debt, and are released in society they should get thier rights back, if they are still a threat to society then they should be locked up.
Parole board members and governers etc. should be held responsible when released criminals go bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:14:51 PM EDT
[#36]
I think part of the problem with the thread's question is that prison time does not really relate to 'paying one's debit to society.' Our current system is based on the old world when prisons actually made tons of money. Unions stopped that. Now prisoners sit around taking drugs, lifting weights, learning how to be better criminals, networking, and let's not forget the sodomy. Your typical prison is no better than an Enron executive retreat.
Whatever 'prison' should be, I would like the end of a con's sentence to mean he/she returns to society as a full member. Maybe Silence and Old Painless can collaborate on a new system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:17:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rickyj, Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Its the same logic we fuss about all the time. If a person is going to use a gun to commit a crime, he will get a gun legally or illegally. If he can and will get the gun illegally then why does he need to buy it legally? He doesn't need to buy it legally. Using it to, say, defend himself is another matter. One of the gun rags printed an interesting story of a convicted felon, who a local drug dealer put a hit out on. The felon found out and obtained--illegally--a .357 S&W. He was subsequently attacked by the drug dealer and two or three henchmen. In the fight, the dealer was killed. [blue]The felon killed someone while committing a felony (felon w/ gun)--and was convicted of murder, although the situation was clearly self defense.[/blue] I may just be an insensitive son of a bitch but [b]so what?[/b] The guy put himself in that position. First he becomes a felon. Then he commits another felony by having a gun. Then he kills someone. Personally I don't want to hear his story. [b]Fry his ass[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:20:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: In California, transporting an unregistered AR is a felony. As is selling 20 rounds magazines. There are way to many felonys--and laws--on the books. People who commit violent felonies should be locked up for life. Most non-violent felonies shouldn't be felonies, or in many cases shouldn't be violations of the law. I agree that the above should not be felonies, or even crimes for that matter. But that said, they [b]are[/b]. If people in Kalifornia don't like it, CHANGE IT!!. Don't break the law and [b]then[/b] decide you don't agree with the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:23:08 PM EDT
[#39]
I said yes, but I say no to any who have been convicted of a violent crime, or any crime with any weapon, or involving the illegal use of a weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:28:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: if they have done thier debt, and are released in society they should get thier rights back, if they are still a threat to society then they should be locked up. Parole board members and governers etc. should be held responsible when released criminals go bad. You do realize that would mean that all crimes carried life sentences? No one in their right mind would let a criminal out of jail if they could later he held accountable for the convicts actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:31:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: I may just be an insensitive son of a bitch but [b]so what?[/b] The guy put himself in that position. First he becomes a felon. Then he commits another felony by having a gun. Then he kills someone. Personally I don't want to hear his story. [b]Fry his ass[/b] 1) We don't know what his original felony was. 2) If he committed a violent felony like rape or murder, he should have never been released. 3) If he committed a non-violent felony, he should have been able to legally aquire a gun. 4) The person he killed deserved to die, and it was really self defense. 5) [b]Released felons should be allowed the means to defend themselves; if they pose too much danger to society to be allowed this, then they shouldn't be released.[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:36:48 PM EDT
[#42]
It depends on the Felony. In Oregon, if you are on probation, for a traffic misdemeanor, with a suspended license, and get caught driving, You WILL be convicted of [b]Felony driving while suspended![/b], and you WILL lose your RKBA...
You law and order types, keep in mind, the communists use this shit for retro active gun control, too. Look at the "domestic violence" thing, and how they made it "ex post facto"... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:41:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: I agree that the above should not be felonies, or even crimes for that matter. But that said, they [b]are[/b]. If people in Kalifornia don't like it, CHANGE IT!!. Don't break the law and [b]then[/b] decide you don't agree with the law. I usually only break the law after I've decided I don't agree with it, except when I don't know something is against the law before I do it. I don't write the laws in California by the way; the legislature does that. So far, they haven't paid much mind to my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:47:59 PM EDT
[#44]
I believe that a convicted VIOLENT felon should never be able to legally own a gun and if caught with one, 10 years, period.
Don't even think of comparing that to the anti's because I am talking about people who have shown a proven propensity for violence. As for 'paying their debt to society', they should have thought of that before they committed the deed. Mind you, I am only talking about VIOLENT felons, one has perpetrated violence onto another soul. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:48:24 PM EDT
[#45]
I almost said always, since time was served, but violent criminals must then die.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:53:09 PM EDT
[#46]
I think they should be denied this freedom as an incentive to keep people on the straight and narrow.
Fear of losing my right to own/buy guns has kept me on the straight and narrow more than one time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 3:54:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: My opinion is that there are people that are dangerous enough that reasonable measures should be made to keep weapons away from them, but keeping them in prison is impractical and expensive. 1) Most felons will never commit a violent crime, so why keep weapons away from them? 2) Those that do commit violent crimes are a small subset; lifelong incarceration is not too expensive for this subset. 3) Releasing potentially violent criminals is expensve -- much more so than keeping them in prison. Rape, robbery, and murder have huge costs for society. 4) You can not keep guns away from the violent felons that have been released from our prisons--gun control does not work. 5) There are lots of very stupid laws on the books, laws that would make many, many people into felons, if these laws were really enforced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 4:03:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: I believe that a convicted VIOLENT felon should never be able to legally own a gun and if caught with one, 10 years, period. I don't think things are that simple. In most cases, violent felons should never be released back into society. However, there are exceptions. For example, let's say some young Marine gets into an argument with some Cholo, 'cause the Cholo felt up the Marine's date. They then get into a fight--and during the fight the Marine calls the Cholo something, uh, [i]nasty and racial[/i]. And the Marine gets a felony conviction for a [i]hate crime[/i] as a result. I'm thinking the [i]Zootsuit Wars[/i] of the '40s meet [i]modern legal concepts[/i] here. Should the Marine loose his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 4:10:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: I said yes, but I say no to any who have been convicted of a violent crime, or any crime with any weapon, or involving the illegal use of a weapon. Do you mean a crime with a weapon, like owning a post '89 FAL that doesn't contain 7 or more US made parts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 4:36:47 PM EDT
[#50]
This is a GREAT example of why our RKBA is getting more and more fragile as time goes on.
I'm utterly appalled that 26% of 80 people (so far) who frequent a gun board chose to say ALL felons should lose their RKBA forever......WHEN the alternate choice "Sometimes, nonviolent felons should be allowed to own guns." is available as an optional choice. Do you really think violent criminals follow the law that says they can't obtain a weapon ANYWAY???? Does the Constitution say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except if you do this or do that"? You who voted no need to think for a minute. How many of you if you were really honest have NEVER done ANYTHING that if you were caught doing it would make you a felon......see how easy it is? Unbelievable! I'm so frustrated I can't even think to type anymore. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
