What happens when you arrest a convicted felon and he has a firearm? I’ve heard stories about how the firearms passion charge is usually dropped and they are back on the streets. How true is this? If this is the case why they hell don’t we enforce the laws we have instead of writing new ones? I say if a felon is got with a 22 rifle throw him back in jail, charge him with passion of a firearm and planning a crime. If he is charged with another crime add the firearm time to the additional time in jail.
Not an LEO just wondering.

I was on a jury for a man who went with his GF to the pawn shop to pawn her gun.  She waited in the car while he took the gun inside.  Just so happened that there was a LEO in the pawn shop doing something work releated (looking for stolen item IIRC) and recongized the shit bag and the fact the he had a gun in his hand.  Confirmed that he was a felon and that was that.  I can tell you he was not let off and back on the street.  He got a paid trip to the hotel.

Around here Felon's with just bullets get jacked.

They are using it right now in a big way.    

A felon in possession of a firearm is a crime on it's face, it is a felony. We make the arrest but it's the state's Atty that charges,we do our best but what happens in court is sometimes a crap game.

The main reason cases like this are dropped is a poor police report.

The feds are very strict in which cases they will take and prefer those meeting the armed career criminal requirement.

It is one of those things that cops just need to learn exactly what the DA wants for a case.

Of course, you can't leave out the weenie DA's that don't want to do their job!!

What I'm going to say is probably going to be a bit controversial.  They are my observations, and mine alone.

We make a lot of stink over firearm ownership.  We talk about firearm ownership being a 2nd Amendment right.  When another law comes out dictating how we can obtain or carry, we generally raise a hissy.  Well, when it comes to enforcing the law, everyone knows what their jobs are.  But, law aside, I would submit that we are making a lot of blanket statements regard "scumbags" and "POS".  This reveals an attitude that I would hope everyone might consider examining.

I've known several individuals who were convicted of felonies at some point in their lives.  Being from a rural area where deer season is regarded as a national holiday, no one would, or should, make an issue of them going hunting.  There are persons out there, who, one time were totally different.  Knowing them now, you wouldn't imagined what they were like then.  I'd say that I would trust them with a firearm before I would some folks that have never even received a traffic citation.

Now, to be fair, yes, there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm due to a crime that they have commited.  Those are the ones that shouldn't have been allowed to see the light of a free day once they were convicted in the first place.

As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense.

Story about felon charged with having ammo.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_089185734.html

The TX law MAY say that...but that is still a federal violation.

If you were convicted, have changed your ways, get your record sealed/expunged/rights restored. It isn't that difficult. Although each state is different, 10 years is the min. here.

The right to vote is also lost in most states.........they chose the crime, probably knew the punishment, so they can pay the price.

This is the Florida State statute for Felons in possession of a firearm.  L.E.O.'s arrest for the offence.  The State Attorney's Office sometimes, drops the ball.  

___________________________________________________________________________  

790.23  Felons and delinquents; possession of firearms, ammunition, or electric weapons or devices unlawful.--

(1)  It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device, or to carry a concealed weapon, including a tear gas gun or chemical weapon or device, if that person has been:

(a)  Convicted of a felony in the courts of this state;

(b)  Found, in the courts of this state, to have committed a delinquent act that would be a felony if committed by an adult and such person is under 24 years of age;

(c)  Convicted of or found to have committed a crime against the United States which is designated as a felony;

(d)  Found to have committed a delinquent act in another state, territory, or country that would be a felony if committed by an adult and which was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year and such person is under 24 years of age; or

(e)  Found guilty of an offense that is a felony in another state, territory, or country and which was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.

(2)  This section shall not apply to a person convicted of a felony whose civil rights and firearm authority have been restored.

(3)  Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.  


www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=firearm&URL=CH0790/Sec23.HTM

______________________________  

 

Quoted: .........................................As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense.

In my city, I have seen several cases filed federally for felon in possession of a firearm even though the person did not violate state law since five years had passed.

I do a lot of prohibited possessor cases and none of them get a walk.  I may drop that charge, but only becuase there's another one that sends them to prison.  And if there's not, I send 'em on that one.  And make sure whatever weapon they had is forfeited to the arresting agency.

Quoted: What I'm going to say is probably going to be a bit controversial.  They are my observations, and mine alone. We make a lot of stink over firearm ownership.  We talk about firearm ownership being a 2nd Amendment right.  When another law comes out dictating how we can obtain or carry, we generally raise a hissy.  Well, when it comes to enforcing the law, everyone knows what their jobs are.  But, law aside, I would submit that we are making a lot of blanket statements regard "scumbags" and "POS".  This reveals an attitude that I would hope everyone might consider examining. I've known several individuals who were convicted of felonies at some point in their lives.  Being from a rural area where deer season is regarded as a national holiday, no one would, or should, make an issue of them going hunting.  There are persons out there, who, one time were totally different.  Knowing them now, you wouldn't imagined what they were like then.  I'd say that I would trust them with a firearm before I would some folks that have never even received a traffic citation. Now, to be fair, yes, there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm due to a crime that they have commited.  Those are the ones that shouldn't have been allowed to see the light of a free day once they were convicted in the first place. As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense.

Agree except; if you are being released from prison you should be able to be trusted with all your rights back immediately. Passport, gun ownership to include concealed carry and your right to vote in all elections.

If we cannot trust you with those three things you shouldn't be leaving the gray hotel.

Quoted: What I'm going to say is probably going to be a bit controversial.  They are my observations, and mine alone. We make a lot of stink over firearm ownership.  We talk about firearm ownership being a 2nd Amendment right.  When another law comes out dictating how we can obtain or carry, we generally raise a hissy.  Well, when it comes to enforcing the law, everyone knows what their jobs are.  But, law aside, I would submit that we are making a lot of blanket statements regard "scumbags" and "POS".  This reveals an attitude that I would hope everyone might consider examining. I've known several individuals who were convicted of felonies at some point in their lives.  Being from a rural area where deer season is regarded as a national holiday, no one would, or should, make an issue of them going hunting.  There are persons out there, who, one time were totally different.  Knowing them now, you wouldn't imagined what they were like then.  I'd say that I would trust them with a firearm before I would some folks that have never even received a traffic citation. Now, to be fair, yes, there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm due to a crime that they have commited.  Those are the ones that shouldn't have been allowed to see the light of a free day once they were convicted in the first place. As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense.

They can get a bow and arrow for hunting.

Quoted: Agree except; if you are being released from prison you should be able to be trusted with all your rights back immediately. Passport, gun ownership to include concealed carry and your right to vote in all elections. If we cannot trust you with those three things you shouldn't be leaving the gray hotel.

Yep....just like the rapists, sex offenders, child molesters, kiddie porn producers, gang banging murderers, and gang bangers in general....

They do their time and they should have all their rights restored. That is why I am sure you don't mind sex offenders watching your kids.......even if they were convicted for a minor offense

That is what the liberals here have been pushing........they are doing it for the vote.

Quoted: In my city, I have seen several cases filed federally for felon in possession of a firearm even though the person did not violate state law since five years had passed.

Technically the states rule their own turf.  That was pretty much what the framers had intended originally.  Whether someone was handed up to the federal level would likely depend on what they did to hack off the locals.

Someone owning a firearm on their own property, and owning, oh...say....100 acres?  A situation such as that is what I would call, "much ado about nothing".  As the law reads, they are allowed to own 'on their own property.'  If they've done something to get the feds' attention in that case, then it's likely that they were doing something wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: In my city, I have seen several cases filed federally for felon in possession of a firearm even though the person did not violate state law since five years had passed. Technically the states rule their own turf.  That was pretty much what the framers had intended originally.  Whether someone was handed up to the federal level would likely depend on what they did to hack off the locals. Someone owning a firearm on their own property, and owning, oh...say....100 acres?  A situation such as that is what I would call, "much ado about nothing".  As the law reads, they are allowed to own 'on their own property.'  If they've done something to get the feds' attention in that case, then it's likely that they were doing something wrong.

I am not sure what you mean by "technically". Texas law says they can own a firearm five years after they have completed their probation/parole/time. Federal law says that they cannot. The state and the federal governments have the ability to file charges independent of the other. A district attorney cannot file charges in that case and the US Attorney can.

The bottom line is that the feds can charge you if you are a convicted felon and you are found in possession of a firearm. In the case of a person living on a 100 acre spread and he keeps his guns out of sight, no one will know they exist, hence no charges filed. If that is what you are saying then you are correct. As the saying goes, it is only illegal if you get caught.

Quoted: Quoted: What I'm going to say is probably going to be a bit controversial.  They are my observations, and mine alone. We make a lot of stink over firearm ownership.  We talk about firearm ownership being a 2nd Amendment right.  When another law comes out dictating how we can obtain or carry, we generally raise a hissy.  Well, when it comes to enforcing the law, everyone knows what their jobs are.  But, law aside, I would submit that we are making a lot of blanket statements regard "scumbags" and "POS".  This reveals an attitude that I would hope everyone might consider examining. I've known several individuals who were convicted of felonies at some point in their lives.  Being from a rural area where deer season is regarded as a national holiday, no one would, or should, make an issue of them going hunting.  There are persons out there, who, one time were totally different.  Knowing them now, you wouldn't imagined what they were like then.  I'd say that I would trust them with a firearm before I would some folks that have never even received a traffic citation. Now, to be fair, yes, there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm due to a crime that they have commited.  Those are the ones that shouldn't have been allowed to see the light of a free day once they were convicted in the first place. As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense. Agree except; if you are being released from prison you should be able to be trusted with all your rights back immediately. Passport, gun ownership to include concealed carry and your right to vote in all elections. If we cannot trust you with those three things you shouldn't be leaving the gray hotel.

I tend to agree in theory.  Maybe not so much in practice.  Here in the US, we don't punish properly.  Technically, once you have been punished for the crime that you committed, you should be restored to society.  The problem is that under our touchy feely criminal justice system, many people never go to prison, just get probation.  We really don't punish criminals like we should.  Prison isn't punishment.  People who commit heinous crime should get heinous punishments.  But they don't.  I have many horror stories about bad people being released when they should never see the light of day again(child molesters come to mind).  

I think we have increased punishments for lesser crimes but are hesitant to use severe punishments on true violent felons.  It's all part of the weakening of the American public.  The public are too weak to face true, proper punishments for evil people.  

Punish people who commit crimes properly and we wouldn't have a lot of these issues.

Quoted: Quoted: Agree except; if you are being released from prison you should be able to be trusted with all your rights back immediately. Passport, gun ownership to include concealed carry and your right to vote in all elections. If we cannot trust you with those three things you shouldn't be leaving the gray hotel. Yep....just like the rapists, sex offenders, child molesters, kiddie porn producers, gang banging murderers, and gang bangers in general.... They do their time and they should have all their rights restored. That is why I am sure you don't mind sex offenders watching your kids.......even if they were convicted for a minor offense That is what the liberals here have been pushing........they are doing it for the vote.

Dude you have no idea who I am or what I want, so let me inform you.

Rapist should be given the death penalty. Get it? No chance for parole or getting any right back. Rape my wife or daughter I may kill you myself.

Sex offenders? Could you be any more vauge? So if I get caught pissing in public I should never have a gun, ever again. Wake up parther, people are getting convicted of sex crimes for pissing in the back lot of a Wal*Mart.

Child Molesters should be given the death penalty. Get it? No chance for parole or getting any right back.

Kiddie porn producers should be given the death penalty. Get it? No chance for parole or getting any right back.

Gang Banging murderers should be given the death penalty. Get it? No chance for parole or getting any right back.

For a gun rights board there sure are ALOT of anti gunners here.

Let me be clear NON VIOLENT offenders should not have their gun ownership rights infringed at all.

I'm far from being a liberal there pal.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What I'm going to say is probably going to be a bit controversial.  They are my observations, and mine alone. We make a lot of stink over firearm ownership.  We talk about firearm ownership being a 2nd Amendment right.  When another law comes out dictating how we can obtain or carry, we generally raise a hissy.  Well, when it comes to enforcing the law, everyone knows what their jobs are.  But, law aside, I would submit that we are making a lot of blanket statements regard "scumbags" and "POS".  This reveals an attitude that I would hope everyone might consider examining. I've known several individuals who were convicted of felonies at some point in their lives.  Being from a rural area where deer season is regarded as a national holiday, no one would, or should, make an issue of them going hunting.  There are persons out there, who, one time were totally different.  Knowing them now, you wouldn't imagined what they were like then.  I'd say that I would trust them with a firearm before I would some folks that have never even received a traffic citation. Now, to be fair, yes, there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm due to a crime that they have commited.  Those are the ones that shouldn't have been allowed to see the light of a free day once they were convicted in the first place. As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense. Agree except; if you are being released from prison you should be able to be trusted with all your rights back immediately. Passport, gun ownership to include concealed carry and your right to vote in all elections. If we cannot trust you with those three things you shouldn't be leaving the gray hotel. I tend to agree in theory.  Maybe not so much in practice.  Here in the US, we don't punish properly.  Technically, once you have been punished for the crime that you committed, you should be restored to society.  The problem is that under our touchy feely criminal justice system, many people never go to prison, just get probation.  We really don't punish criminals like we should.  Prison isn't punishment.  People who commit heinous crime should get heinous punishments.  But they don't.  I have many horror stories about bad people being released when they should never see the light of day again(child molesters come to mind).   I think we have increased punishments for lesser crimes but are hesitant to use severe punishments on true violent felons.  It's all part of the weakening of the American public.  The public are too weak to face true, proper punishments for evil people.   Punish people who commit crimes properly and we wouldn't have a lot of these issues.

Completely agree. My statements were made considering how I would mete out justice. Perhaps I should have been more clear, however I don't have time to write a book every time I post.

Concerning your statement I've highlighted in red, when drug addicts get and do almost as much time as murderers, we've got problems with our justice system.

Another part of the failings of the American church. Allowing the state to handle and pay for things that are at the root spiritual in nature. Oh crap did I just say that outloud......

Quoted: Quoted: What I'm going to say is probably going to be a bit controversial.  They are my observations, and mine alone. We make a lot of stink over firearm ownership.  We talk about firearm ownership being a 2nd Amendment right.  When another law comes out dictating how we can obtain or carry, we generally raise a hissy.  Well, when it comes to enforcing the law, everyone knows what their jobs are.  But, law aside, I would submit that we are making a lot of blanket statements regard "scumbags" and "POS".  This reveals an attitude that I would hope everyone might consider examining. I've known several individuals who were convicted of felonies at some point in their lives.  Being from a rural area where deer season is regarded as a national holiday, no one would, or should, make an issue of them going hunting.  There are persons out there, who, one time were totally different.  Knowing them now, you wouldn't imagined what they were like then.  I'd say that I would trust them with a firearm before I would some folks that have never even received a traffic citation. Now, to be fair, yes, there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm due to a crime that they have commited.  Those are the ones that shouldn't have been allowed to see the light of a free day once they were convicted in the first place. As I've said before, in Texas, a person is allowed to own a firearm on his/her property once five years has passed from the date of discharge of their sentence.  Maybe that seems backward to most.  I'll admit that I was a bit shocked when I first learned about it.  I guess what I'm saying is this...if the context in which a firearm is discovered lends itself to a likely misdeed, then the attitude is justified.  I guess I probably still believe that a human being has the right to provide for his/her self defense. They can get a bow and arrow for hunting.

Are they to protect their property, wife and children with that same bow and arrow?

Yep, they sure could.

If they didn't want to lose their right, they shouldn't have committed the crime.

Sorry, but I disagree with the liberal  "everyone needs a hug and they'll be alright" type of philosophy.

What has happened is that the criminal justice system fails to punish people properly for their crimes.  What has happened is that the prosecutors want to get violent felons sent off but due to overcrowding in the prison system, the violent offenders often get released.  As a result, in order to keep them locked up, we see prosecutors file as many charges as possible.  If we would punish people properly, we wouldn't have such problems.  I say again, prison isn't punishment.  I have some ideas on how to punish properly but most (especially liberals)would find them barbaric perhaps.  

The general public as well as LE officers shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a criminal or sued if they shoot someone who is endangering their lives or their family's lives.

For all those who are against felons owning firearms, what do you think should happen if you shot and killed a home invader.  You live in a super liberal area and are charged with murder.  After the case goes to trial, you are found innocent of murder but convicted of possession of a specific type firearm (a felony in some areas)  Should you lose your rights to own a firearm in the above case?  You will under our current system.  Your best hope is to live in a conservative area.  In my area, if a weapon is used lawfully to defend yourself or others, you will never be prosecuted.  But if you live in a liberal area you just might face the scenario above.  

I'm not for violent felons getting out and owning firearms.  I'm not for them getting out period.  I think rapists and child molesters should get the death penalty(after conviction at a fair trial).  Look at what has happened with sex offenders.  The studies have shown that sex offenders can't be cured.  They will molest again.  I've seen it all too often and have horror stories about it.  Well the system started releasing them and they started molesting again.  So we register them and prohibit them from living near schools.  How did we solve the problem?  They are molesters and won't change.  So we release them and then tell everyone who they are and where they live.  How does that protect the general public?

It's a mess.  I don't have all the answers but I do believe that the original intent of punishment for a crime was to punish the defendant and once punishment is complete, the offender should be restored to society with full rights.  After all, they were punished for their crime....should they continue to be punished??  Certain crimes should never see the suspect released because the crime was too heinous for him/her to ever see free air again.  But we see the released all the time.

As long as we don't punish people properly for their crimes we won't see a change.  At the present time, I don't think we need to give felons guns.  However, if the system was ever changed we could see a time in the future where a "felon" could have his/her rights to own firearms restored.  That time isn't anywhere near because we have too many bleeding heart liberals...and that includes some people who call themselves conservatives!!!

And you support your theory even with the guy that molested your daughter, raped your mother, shot your wife during a robbery??

If you have never been a victim, talk to someone that has. A criminal act isn't an accident....it is a deliberate act against an innocent party (exclufing ones where the govt. is the victim)

Quoted: The feds are very strict in which cases they will take and prefer those meeting the armed career criminal requirement.

Feds have nothing to do with State charges .  Under FSS 790.23(1)(a), I can charge a Felon with a Second Degree Felony and the case is handled through our local court.

Ya, thanks for tip...I didn't know that