OT (SLIGHTLY) Convicted Felons and the 2nd Amendment.

[Paladin]

'WASHINGTON — Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386 ... premecourt

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS MAN ABOVE... BUT I AGREE THAT A ONE TIME FELON SHOULD HAVE ALL HIS RIGHTS BACK AFTER HE SERVES HIS TIME... IN ARIZONA A NON VIOLENT FELON CAN GET HIS GUN OWNING RIGHTS BACK... AS IT SHOULD BE.... THIS WHOLE DESASTER OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MISD LAW IS REAL BLIGHT ON OUR RIGHTS.... THE ANTIGUN JUNKIES WILL DO ANYTHING TO STOP GUN OWNERSHIP... NO MATTER WHO IT HURTS... PACO

[FWiedner]

Personally, I have always felt that if a man has comitted a crime, served his time, and returned to society having paid his restitution and completed his sentence, he should walk as a free man with all of his rights intact. If he stays honest.

Unfortunately, ...and I don't want to be a hypocrite, it's obvious a lot of times that some folks can't be trusted to own a Nerf-gun without close and constant adult supervision.

There are cases where the "reasonable regulation" rubber meets the road.

[Doc Hudson]

In the past I've had a pretty negative opinions about convicted felons and their firearms rights. But John Taffin and a few other incidents have changed my mind.

As has already been said, if a man pays his debt to society and behaves like an honest upright citizen, he should have his full rights restored.

I know a few folks who have done hard time simply because "the sumbitch needed killing" Defense did not work. they are good men, good husbands, and good citizens who make every effort to make the world around them a better place. But because they didn't have a good enough lawyer, or because of a technicality, they were convicted of felonies. They can't vote, they can't serve their country, and they can't own firearms. I hardly think this is right.

Some folks will tell us that these cases need to be judged on a case by case basis. But do you really trust Congress or a bureaucrat to create a fair and simple method for people to have their rights restored? I don't.

I'd much rather see us err on the side of mercy. If a man serves his full sentence, let him walk out of the prison a free man in every sense of the word, with all of his rights intact. But at the same time, let us implement a Two-Strikes and You Are Out Program, whereby if a person formerly convicted of a felony commits another felony, the prison doors get welded shut behind them, or they get the needle.

[Rusty]

Yep, I agree. It was pointed out to me that if a guy is a felon he can't even raise chickens. If you're gonna raise chickens you're going to attract foxes and without a shotgun you have no way to protect the hen house.

I know i this isn't popular but it's like the way they keep treating these "sex offenders." If they've done their time they should be let out and no restrictions. If they're bad enough that they can't be let out they shouldn't be let out. I just wonder why the ACLU hasn't taken this one up yet.

[rhead]

This is kinda at a tangent to the subject, but if someone is out on parole has the debt been paid yet? If a felon is out on parole and commits a violent act are the members of the parole board asseories befor the fact? if they aren't why not?

[Hobie]

A parolee has not completed his time...

Now, a way back in time a man who'd completed his time could own, carry and use weapons including guns so long as he committed no crime. Heck, some became outstanding lawmen. Worked the other way around more often though with lawmen taking advantage of their position to victimize others with relative impunity. Not much has changed, has it.

Frankly, I put no stock in thinking any person is unarmed. For one thing, how you gonna keep up with everybody's status, their personal willingness to adhere to the limitations, etc. For another if they'll rob you, why wouldn't they break any other law from simple possession of something illegal for them to possess to murder?

Whether or not a convicted felon has/can have a weapon is a moot point, if he's doing no crime it don't matter and if he is committing more crimes it is to be expected that he will have a weapon.

[AJMD429]

Whether or not a convicted felon has/can have a weapon is a moot point, if he's doing no crime it don't matter and if he is committing more crimes it is to be expected that he will have a weapon.

I totally agree.

. . . but it makes some people "feel better" that "there's a law" so I guess we're supposed to humor them. They're the same people we humor with "gun free zones" - I call them IDIOTS!

[jnyork]

I have only met two convicted felons that I know of. I dont want to be in the same county knowing either one had a firearm in his possession.

[AmBraCol]

I have only met two convicted felons that I know of. I dont want to be in the same county knowing either one had a firearm in his possession.

Laws don't keep guns out of their hands. I know at least one convicted felon, no telling how many I've rubbed shoulders with over the years. And the one I DO know was convicted of a non-violent crime. Since he got out of the pen he's been living a decent life, has been working hard and has/is raised/raising a brood of kids more numerous than you can shake a stick at. I'd be more afraid of his airhead wife holding a weapon than him.

But back to my first point - laws do nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to do harm to others. If you want a weapon you can get a weapon - even down in this neck of the woods where EVERY WEAPON is officially "state property". The state has NO idea how many weapons are actually in the country, many of which have been around for decades prior to the current law and were never registered and others which arrived in country thanks to US based companies smuggling them in and others thanks to marxist neighbors airdropping them to to rebels and still others which have been carried in one way or another by private individuals. Laws are "made to be broken" - at least that's the attitude that many take and for that reason they will never ensure that your violent acquaintances will be unarmed. In the meantime, there are folks who've goofed up one way or another or who fell afoul of the system and are then disbarred from owning weapons. Yes, they can obtain a weapon "off the books" as easily as the next guy, but if they ever DO do so and if they ever DO have to use it then it's two more strikes against them.

If someone can't be trusted with a weapon in his possession then he should be strung up. Plain and simple.

[kimwcook]

I deal with felons almost on a daily basis and when I'm dealing with them it's because they either know someone who is committing felonies or they committed one themselves.

As doc said, just because there's a law prohibiting a felon from carrying it doesn't stop them from doing so. Patrol is constantly dealing with mopes for a current crime and finding firearms. It doesn't stop those that way to carry from carrying. They take their odds and do it anyway.

IMO, the percentage of people who've commited a felony, did their time and straightened up their act is pretty slim compared to those that remain in that lifestyle.

Most states have a provision for allowing convicted felons to get their rights back. They have to petition the court and have a hearing. It's not like they don't have an option. Most won't go through the hassle and take their chance.

[slimster]

In an ideal world, where the judicial system worked the way it should, if a man does his time all rights should be restored. But it seems like every day you will hear about people committing crimes who have previous offense records as long as your arm. Our criminal justice system is broken and offers no deterrent to repeat offenders. Firearms embolden the perpetrators and facilitate the crimes they commit, so it seems to be for the best under our current circumstances. J.M H O. though I wish it were different.

[AmBraCol]

In an ideal world, where the judicial system worked the way it should, if a man does his time all rights should be restored. But it seems like every day you will hear about people committing crimes who have previous offense records as long as your arm. Our criminal justice system is broken and offers no deterrent to repeat offenders. Firearms embolden the perpetrators and facilitate the crimes they commit, so it seems to be for the best under our current circumstances. J.M H O. though I wish it were different.

So, if someone ignores laws anyway, of what value is another law? If they ignore the oldest and most basic law, "Thou shalt not commit murder." (a law that's common to all civilizations in one form or another) - how will a law that states "You can't have a firearm" prevent them from obtaining one? Again, if they can't be trusted with a firearm they should be put down permanently. Merely fulfilling the ancient law of life for life would cut down on the rate of violent crimes tremendously - simply be eradicating repeat offenders.

[RSY]

Come on, people. Paul couldn't have put it any better (twice, even). This is basic thinking for anyone who is pro-gun: Laws do not impede those bent on violence. Sheesh!

Scott

[adirondakjack]

The law is an butt. It is stubborn and stupid and a blunt stick approach to social ills.

Should a 55 yr old person who was convicted of felony cocaine possession when he was 19 (small amount, personal use) or was caught messing with a 16 yr old girl (willing partner) when he was 20, and who has had no issues whatsoever since be kept disarmed today? How about a person in his forties who had a run-in with a GF and a "domestic violence" conviction that consisted of breaking up a TV and coffee table twenty years ago but has had no other issues? How about a person who had a tax evasion rap when they tried to open a restaurant and were going broke, then have had twenty or thirty years of no issues?

None of these folks can LEGALLY own so much as a .22 rifle, yet yer darned skippy the crackhead down the block has a gun NOW, regardless of the law.....

Gun control laws are almost ALWAYS a sop to the fearful populace offered up (often with public approval or little resistance) as an "easy fix", however ineffective, by legislators. Even when they don't believe it will help, who wants to stand in the way of "making our children safe" initiatiatives? To do so would be political suicide. Thats how we get assinine laws like the way they are going nuts over "sex offenders" most of whom at 20somethings with teen girlfriends and mommy gets unhappy about it.... No politician will stand in the way of draconian "non-fix" laws.

[slimster]

Paul I guess I should have worded that differently, as I'm definitely pro 2-a. I don't think it's fair, but the man who is convicted of a crime, even if the crime was non-violent, or justified in most sane and reasonable persons' opinions, and has served his sentence, still ends up suffering the consequences of a broken system which serves as a revolving door for a series of violent repeat offenders. The point I was trying to make is that our CJS has room for some major improvements.

[Old Ironsights]

...Most states have a provision for allowing convicted felons to get their rights back. They have to petition the court and have a hearing. It's not like they don't have an option. Most won't go through the hassle and take their chance.

The STATES do, (by in large) but the FED has steadfastly refused to fund the ONE office designated to handle Restoration of Rights. Therefore it matters squat what the States do.

In the eyes of the BATFE, once a "Prohibited Person" forever a Prohibited person.

Once you are on the NICS you're hosed.

[AmBraCol]

The point I was trying to make is that our CJS has room for some major improvements.

You'll get no argument from me on THAT matter...

[Bruce Scott]

IMO, the percentage of people who've commited a felony, did their time and straightened up their act is pretty slim compared to those that remain in that lifestyle.

I spent eight years in the WA prison service from 1996-2004. During that time the recidivism rate hovered around 45%. I understand that it is about 60% in the US.

[1894cfan]

I think I've got a perfect example for you guys.
My nephew was convicted of felonys, did his time and completed parole. A few months ago, my Father died and my oldest brother was co-executor and was in charge of the estate sale. He had a .38 revolver stashed for protection just in case. Sometime during the sale it disapeared. Just a couple weeks a neihbor(sp?) saw the nephew carrying a bag into his house with a rifle barrel sticking out of it and called the cops. Among the guns the cops grabed was my brother's .38. On top of that, he also had a silencer for one of the guns. Several people had warned him to get rid of the guns MONTHS ago, but he didn't listen. Now he's got some SERIOUS prison time to look forward to.

[Old Ironsights]

And yet, there are many types of felonies. Not all felons are violent, anti-social scumbags.

At one time, a "Felony" meant a crime where you could reasonably expect to be killed if you were caught in the commission.

Crimes of Violence. Crimes of Mayhem. Treason.

Now you can be a "felon" for screwing up on your taxes... or Jaywalking (look it up) or any number of other stupid, non-violent things.

How many of those people could "reasonably expect to be killed" for/while doing those things?

Taking away a man's RKBA is taking away a man's right to LIFE. You are saying that he has no Right to the means of, and therefore no Right to, Self Defense. That his life is worth less than the lives of anyone else. For screwing up on his Taxes? We are going to tell someone that his life is worthless for that?

Worse, we are going to tell him that no one in his family/household can have firearms either? That is EXACTLY what the BATFE says in Title 18 922 (GCA'68).

We seem to have a real penchant for punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty in this country...

[Andrew]

I think Hobie and OI have said it pretty well already. For me I think it's just ridiculous to think that officially prohibiting something/anything from a convicted law breaker is going to make one shred of a difference to them.

Heck, look at honest people. How many of you guy's took stuff to school that was prohibited? What about taking stuff to work that's not allowed? I've done it. What more could a person of less character care about details like prohibition? I say just drop the rule and consider them armed at all times, like most of you are.

[AJMD429]

And yet, there are many types of felonies. Not all felons are violent, anti-social scumbags.

At one time, a "Felony" meant a crime where you could reasonably expect to be killed if you were caught in the commission.

Crimes of Violence. Crimes of Mayhem. Treason.

Now you can be a "felon" for screwing up on your taxes... or Jaywalking (look it up) or any number of other stupid, non-violent things.

How many of those people could "reasonably expect to be killed" for/while doing those things?

Taking away a man's RKBA is taking away a man's right to LIFE. You are saying that he has no Right to the means of, and therefore no Right to, Self Defense. That his life is worth less than the lives of anyone else. For screwing up on his Taxes? We are going to tell someone that his life is worthless for that?

Worse, we are going to tell him that no one in his family/household can have firearms either? That is EXACTLY what the BATFE says in Title 18 922 (GCA'68).

We seem to have a real penchant for punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty in this country...

+1 +1 +1 !!! That is one problem I have with the stereotypic Republican "law and order" platform - we're so stupid that we say it's OK to ban gun ownership for "felons" but we seem to forget that all the government has to do is declare owning a certain gun or part a "felony" and they neatly eliminate gun ownership without any work. Some of the laws involving the "assault weapon" fiasco were so nonsensical that nobody could interpret them - do you want to have YOUR gun ownership rights PERMANENTLY removed just because you don't have a receipt to PROVE you bought your folding stock (AND attached it) before the ban? Get real!

[Hobie]

In an ideal world, where the judicial system worked the way it should, if a man does his time all rights should be restored. But it seems like every day you will hear about people committing crimes who have previous offense records as long as your arm. Our criminal justice system is broken and offers no deterrent to repeat offenders. Firearms embolden the perpetrators and facilitate the crimes they commit, so it seems to be for the best under our current circumstances. J.M H O. though I wish it were different.

So, if someone ignores laws anyway, of what value is another law? If they ignore the oldest and most basic law, "Thou shalt not commit murder." (a law that's common to all civilizations in one form or another) - how will a law that states "You can't have a firearm" prevent them from obtaining one? Again, if they can't be trusted with a firearm they should be put down permanently. Merely fulfilling the ancient law of life for life would cut down on the rate of violent crimes tremendously - simply be eradicating repeat offenders.

I've pointed that out so often that it is like my other mantra ("attention to detail") that the kids hated to hear. Yet the simple to understand logic embarasses most folks so much they won't concede the point then and there.

[El Chivo]

I have mixed feelings about this, but most felons are people who don't consider the consequences of their actions, either to their victims or themselves. That's NOT the type of person we want to own guns.

If a law-abiding former felon wants to raise chickens, they can use an airgun. If part of the penalty for cheating on your taxes or striking your girlfriend is loss of your gun rights, then think ahead and don't do those things.

How many felons go back in for carrying a gun rather than an actual crime? It's a way to get them off the street.

[Old Ironsights]

I have mixed feelings about this, but most felons are people who don't consider the consequences of their actions, either to their victims or themselves. That's NOT the type of person we want to own guns.

If a law-abiding former felon wants to raise chickens, they can use an airgun.

Have you ever tried to defend your life with a BB gun?

If part of the penalty for cheating on your taxes or striking your girlfriend is loss of your gun rights, then think ahead and don't do those things.

A lot of people lost their jobs because of the ex-post-facto implications of the idiotic Lautenberg Amendment...

How many felons go back in for carrying a gun rather than an actual crime? It's a way to get them off the street.

The "way to get them off the street" is to shoot them in commission of the crime.

If you can't legitimately/ethically shoot them in the commission of, then they shouldn't be disarmed once they are out of custody.

If they can't be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn't be out of custody period.

Bad people who want guns will get them... if they have to make them they will get them.

[piller]

Didn't Jesus Christ say something about forgiving and forgetting the past. If someone has paid their societal law required debt, then let them have another chance. Remember when Judges would give young men the choice of going to the Marines or going to jail? When they got out of the Marines with an Honorable Discharge, they had their old record wiped clean. I kind of think that idea had merit. If what they did was so bad that the Marines couldn't straighten them up, then maybe we should send them to prison for 40 years hard labor.

[Bruce Scott]

If they can't be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn't be out of custody period.

I wonder how you would determine their firearm trustworthiness?

[reo]

Once the price has been paid it's over. The government is the only one that still charges us for living in our home after it is paid off.

[slimster]

Personally, I feel that for the first violent offense, a person ought to have to EARN any early release, instead of automatic reductions in sentences. If they are convicted again, they should have to do every day of a sufficiently longer sentence to make them understand that this kind of behavior is unacceptable to society. By that time, if he's not [smart enough to know better than/too old to] do it yet again, then it's time to throw away the key. I'm only 49, and I know it's been quite a while, but I believe this is the way it used to work and there were a lot less blights to society back then. Oh yeah, for cold blooded murder, a few volts or a bullet or a noose would be called for if guilt was a certainty! This would go a long way towards making sure that a previous offender or anybody else would think twice about misusing their right to own a firearm. Stop filling up our jails with people who have smoked a little pot or sawed their rifle barrel a little too short or carried their cased firearms into a hotel or gambled or made a "business deal" with a prostitute and use them for what they were built for and there would not be an overcrowding problem for long! Sorry for the rant! Slim

[AmBraCol]

If they can't be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn't be out of custody period.

I wonder how you would determine their firearm trustworthiness?

It's simple. If they're trustworthy enough to be on the street, they should be allowed to carry a weapon. Remember, WEAPONS DO NOT CRIMINAL ACTS COMMIT. If you can't trust him on the street with a weapon he should not be allowed back on the street. Period. Why? Because no matter what law is passed HE CAN GET OR FABRICATE SOME KIND OF WEAPON. If passing of laws worked, we'd have NO illegal aliens, NO marijuana/cocaine/heroin/opium/meth/etc on the streets, NO murders committed, NO rapes and no traffic tickets would ever be issued.

So, if he can't be trusted with a weapon, lock him up or put him down. Plain and simple. We're talking about folks that have been convicted of a felony. And not all felonies are violent crimes any more. If you steal enough money from the cash register where you work - it's a felony - even though you never threatened anyone nor intended to harm (other than the harm caused by depriving the company of their income) anyone - you just took what wasn't yours and all of a sudden you're on the same level as a rapist/serial killer/child pornographer. Once time has been served and restitution made, you should be a free man. Plain and simple. If you take an innocent life, your life should be forfeit. If you rape someone, your life should be forfeit. But we, as a society, think we're smarter than that and keep turning folks back out on the street who have committed heinous crimes - and act surprised that they can obtain weapons in spite of the laws we've passed to prohibit them from having them. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T RESPECT THE ANCIENT LAW "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER" - what little inconvenience such as a "felons can't buy weapons" is going to keep them from buying or obtaining in other means the weapon of their choice?

I've said it once, but perhaps it got lost in my verbose response. If they can't be trusted with a weapon they should not be allowed back on the street because sure as the sun comes up in the east, they're gonna obtain a weapon if they want one. Don't believe me? Then what about all the folks in Britain who obtain handguns - even though NO ONE BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO LEGALLY OWN THEM FOR OVER A DECADE.

[1894]

I wonder how many convicted felons still vote ?
I bet a background check would eliminate a lot of votes.

[PaulB]

"No guns for convicted felons" is just more gun control hokum. Just laws operate to punish actual crimes, not to (allegedly) prevent crimes.

[cubrock]

My personal opinion - if a convicted felon can't be trusted to own a gun, he shouldn't be walking the streets - PERIOD! If he can be trusted to own a gun, then by all means he should be allowed to. The 2nd Amendment is, after all, a GOD given right, not one given by man. Our Constitution, which every politician is sworn to uphold, says so in black and white.

These days in America, no criminal ever truly "pays his debt to society." Our society makes people keep paying and paying and paying the rest of their lives. If jail time didn't reform them, then we might should consider whether they should be let out or even allowed to live.

[ByronG]

The 2nd Amendment is, after all, a GOD given right, not one given by man. Our Constitution, which every politician is sworn to uphold, says so in black and white.

OK, I'll buy it. Where?

[cubrock]

The 2nd Amendment is, after all, a GOD given right, not one given by man. Our Constitution, which every politician is sworn to uphold, says so in black and white.

OK, I'll buy it. Where?

D'oh! That is what I get for posting when I should have been in bed. The Declaration of Independence states that we are created with unalienable rights. These rights were later enumerated in the Constitution. Neverthless, the founding fathers agreed that our rights are given by God. The Constitution was simply a listing of those rights, not a human granting of them.

[Old Ironsights]

"No guns for convicted felons" is just more gun control hokum. Just laws operate to punish actual crimes, not to (allegedly) prevent crimes.

Yep. Not until the Nazi-law inspired (look it up) GCA '68 was it nationally "illegal" fo felons to "posess" firearms.

Not even the NFA of '32 did that.

[Doc Hudson]

I have only met two convicted felons that I know of. I dont want to be in the same county knowing either one had a firearm in his possession.

Then you need to move.

Because if they are that bad, they are probably packing iron on a regular basis.

FWIW, I feel the same way about some folks who have never even gotten a parking ticket, much less a felony conviction.

[cubrock]

I have only met two convicted felons that I know of. I dont want to be in the same county knowing either one had a firearm in his possession.

Then you need to move.

Because if they are that bad, they are probably packing iron on a regular basis.

FWIW, I feel the same way about some folks who have never even gotten a parking ticket, much less a felony conviction.

For that matter, I've left a shooting range before when certain members showed up. I would have been safer with an armed felon.

[Doc Hudson]

Most states have a provision for allowing convicted felons to get their rights back. They have to petition the court and have a hearing. It's not like they don't have an option. Most won't go through the hassle and take their chance.

You are correct about the restoration of rights. However, that costs money, lots of money. You can't just file a form and get a yes or no answer in most cases. It requires the services of an attorney, and money. Not everyone can afford the effort.

I know one guy who did time for attempted murder. If his side of the story is true, he was acting in self-defense, but the "victim" was a crooked cop who worked the system and got my friend sent away for attempted murder. He served his time and has turned his life around and is doing his level best to be a productive member of society, fwiw, he even has earned a PhD in Philosophy. But thanks to his youthful conviction, he is barred not only from owning firearms, but from voting. And he simply can not afford to apply for restoration of his rights.

Have you ever considered that the recidivism rate might drop if we treated former convicts as citizens rather than convicts? Thanks to our treatment of convicted felons who have served their time, many are unable to build productive lives because our system will not permit them to be anything but convicted criminals.

I am not saying that all former convicts will go straight if they are treated to the benefits of full citizenship. But I will say that the 50%+ (I don't know current figures) recidivism rate probably will not get any worse.

[cubrock]

Most states have a provision for allowing convicted felons to get their rights back. They have to petition the court and have a hearing. It's not like they don't have an option. Most won't go through the hassle and take their chance.

You are correct about the restoration of rights. However, that costs money, lots of money. You can't just file a form and get a yes or no answer in most cases. It requires the services of an attorney, and money. Not everyone can afford the effort.

You don't have to file a petition to get your right to free speech or freedom of religion back. You don't have to file a petition to get your 4th or 5th amendment rights back. If you have truly "paid your debt to society," you shouldn't have to go to court to get any of your rights back. Part of the "due process" of the incarceration system should be full restoration of rights upon release from prison. I'll say it again - if you can't trust a convicted criminal to own a gun, you can't trust them on the streets, period.