Convicted felon


Buster04

New member
Should a convicted felon be allowed to live in the same house with his wife who is a deputy sheriff and needs her weapons to do her job?
 

Sure...why not. I know federal and some state laws say that the felon cannot have constructive possession of a firearm, but people have been charged with constructive possession for merely being in someones house where a firearm was kept...and the guy didn't even know a firearm was in the house, he was just visiting. Pretty soon if you look at a firearm (no...not touch) in gander mountain you may get locked up. Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham and others of note are not allowed to own or possess a firearm because of their federal convictions.

Let's extend this same firearm prohibition to "felons" that never got caught or convicted...can someone say Bill Clinton...OJ Simpson. How about 20 years ago you passed a joint of pot to someone at a party...the statue of limitations is up for that crime but it was a felony. Just like a drunk driver is still a drunk driver whether he gets caught or not, a felony is the act of committing a crime and the label follows the person whether he gets caught or not. Juanita Broderick was violently raped by Bill Clinton but are we to say Bill Clinton is not a rapist simply because he was not caught or charged or convicted. Is a child molester no less dangerous because he hasn't been caught yet...or is he still a child molester. A conviction for a crime does not confer the label "criminal"...the action confers the label. The continuation of denying a person a right to self defense is for punishment, not public safety. Perhaps the right of possess a firearm should be part of the initial sentence but once the sentence has been served then the punishment should be over. Under certain circumstances a lifetime firearm ban would be appropriate, but if it is appropriate why is the person out of prison?
 
Yes, she just had to keep them out of reach. Some jurisdictions would force her to resign though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
First off- depending on the state and department- some departments require you to report that your spouse is a felon.

Secondly- you would need to check state law in regards to being a felon and being in a domicile where the spouse must have a firearm due to work.
 
Absolutely. Some states require gun owners who live with a person designated unsuitable for firearm ownership due to criminal or psychiatric past, keep their firearms locked when not at home.
 
Let's extend this same firearm prohibition to "felons" that never got caught or convicted...can someone say Bill Clinton...OJ Simpson. How about 20 years ago you passed a joint of pot to someone at a party...the statue of limitations is up for that crime but it was a felony. Just like a drunk driver is still a drunk driver whether he gets caught or not, a felony is the act of committing a crime and the label follows the person whether he gets caught or not.

Accusation and conviction are not synonymous for a reason. If all it takes is an accusation, what's the point of the Constitution recognizing due process and fair expedient trials?

Under certain circumstances a lifetime firearm ban would be appropriate, but if it is appropriate why is the person out of prison?

Agreed.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Accusation and conviction are not synonymous for a reason. If all it takes is an accusation, what's the point of the Constitution recognizing due process and fair expedient trials?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Lifetime ban for those convicted of a violent offense. Courts don't hand-down long enough sentences for many violent crimes. The perp is released to offend again. Just because a person has been released I'm not giving him back his gun rights. Not when he's a violent felon. Rather than support his rights I would submit that everyone understand when you commit violent crimes you do so WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that you lose your gun rights and voting rights for life. Now, if one chooses to commit the crime anyway? Screw them.
 
Lifetime ban for those convicted of a violent offense. Courts don't hand-down long enough sentences for many violent crimes. The perp is released to offend again. Just because a person has been released I'm not giving him back his gun rights. Not when he's a violent felon. Rather than support his rights I would submit that everyone understand when you commit violent crimes you do so WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that you lose your gun rights and voting rights for life. Now, if one chooses to commit the crime anyway? Screw them.

That has nothing to do with what you quoted...the part you left out where I agreed with what you and Jim said, would be more appropriate to respond to. If they are convicted of a violent crime, causing their 2A rights be oppressed for the duration of their life, they shouldn't be released from prison period.

As for the part you did quote. If you were accused of a violent offense, should you have all your rights taken away? Even without a conviction? That's what Jim was saying...without a conviction you are as guilty as with one...

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Lifetime ban for those convicted of a violent offense. Courts don't hand-down long enough sentences for many violent crimes. The perp is released to offend again. Just because a person has been released I'm not giving him back his gun rights. Not when he's a violent felon. Rather than support his rights I would submit that everyone understand when you commit violent crimes you do so WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that you lose your gun rights and voting rights for life. Now, if one chooses to commit the crime anyway? Screw them.

There is another way we need to look at this-

First- It's been proven over & over & over adnauseam that a criminal that wants a gun can/will get a gun regardless of any laws prohibiting the possession thereof.

Second- It would seem to me that allowing a person whom the law sees fit to allow to live freely in society to legally purchase a handgun or other firearm is a better way to keep track of what that person is doing; (even a convicted felon who has paid their debt to society).


Think about it for a second-
Right now any excon who is living among us freely can get almost anything they want out on the streets. These people know that and we all know that-

For them, the "only" choice when it comes to protecting themselves & their families with a firearm is to buy one illegally (probably a stolen one), or they could get a friend or family member to loan them one. In either case, the excon would have to commit further crimes or associate himself with people who are willing to commit crimes.​

(I ask you- knowing the above is true- is prohibiting excon from possessing firearms really doing any good?)

Now, take that same excon who has already paid their debt to society and because of that, they are allowed back out in public. Most excons may still have enemies on the street and they may have people who would be willing to harm their families. So, what if instead of forcing them to commit further felonies or endanger their families further, we allowed them to legally walk into a GS and buy a firearm to keep around home for protection?

What if we allowed them to get training and take a CWP course so the could protect their families while on the street?

Wouldn't a record or receipt of legal purchase be a much better way to know of the possibility of an armed ex-felon?

Wouldn't allowing an excon to get a carry permit be a better way to track what a person may be doing after prison?


Right now excons have no choice except to illegally purchase & carry a firearm if they feel they need one for protection and that's what a LOT of them do.

But, what if we allowed them to go through channels like the courts, report to parole officers & ask to get CWP training so they can legally own & carry wouldn't that offer a better avenue of tracking them? (At least the ones who are willing to participate.)

Personally, I believe if a man is allowed to walk around free, a man should be able to have his 2nd Amendment rights just like the rest of us. I feel if they are to violent to own a gun, then they shouldn't be out on the streets with innocent people.


-
 
There is another way we need to look at this-

First- It's been proven over & over & over adnauseam that a criminal that wants a gun can/will get a gun regardless of any laws prohibiting the possession thereof.

Second- It would seem to me that allowing a person whom the law sees fit to allow to live freely in society to legally purchase a handgun or other firearm is a better way to keep track of what that person is doing; (even a convicted felon who has paid their debt to society).


Think about it for a second-
Right now any excon who is living among us freely can get almost anything they want out on the streets. These people know that and we all know that-

For them, the "only" choice when it comes to protecting themselves & their families with a firearm is to buy one illegally (probably a stolen one), or they could get a friend or family member to loan them one. In either case, the excon would have to commit further crimes or associate himself with people who are willing to commit crimes.​

(I ask you- knowing the above is true- is prohibiting excon from possessing firearms really doing any good?)

Now, take that same excon who has already paid their debt to society and because of that, they are allowed back out in public. Most excons may still have enemies on the street and they may have people who would be willing to harm their families. So, what if instead of forcing them to commit further felonies or endanger their families further, we allowed them to legally walk into a GS and buy a firearm to keep around home for protection?

What if we allowed them to get training and take a CWP course so the could protect their families while on the street?

Wouldn't a record or receipt of legal purchase be a much better way to know of the possibility of an armed ex-felon?

Wouldn't allowing an excon to get a carry permit be a better way to track what a person may be doing after prison?


Right now excons have no choice except to illegally purchase & carry a firearm if they feel they need one for protection and that's what a LOT of them do.

But, what if we allowed them to go through channels like the courts, report to parole officers & ask to get CWP training so they can legally own & carry wouldn't that offer a better avenue of tracking them? (At least the ones who are willing to participate.)

Personally, I believe if a man is allowed to walk around free, a man should be able to have his 2nd Amendment rights just like the rest of us. I feel if they are to violent to own a gun, then they shouldn't be out on the streets with innocent people.


-
Make no mistake, there is no debt to society to be paid. These people don't owe society, they owe their victim who is now dead. It's permanent. They can never make that victim whole again. Death demands accountability.
.
If you read the autopsy report on ----- you would never give the murderer a gun legally, right? Just because a perp didn't do life doesn't mean he's safe to re-enter society. I don't care what a judge, jury or psychiatrist says... he's dangerous. When the reality of a violent murder invades one's home they will NEVER agree to give the guy gun rights upon his release. Real experience changes opinions greatly. It's not TV. There's no closure. No "debt" is paid because the victim is dead. Anything other than dead is cake for the criminal. To hell with his rights, He's lost the trust of society.
.
Yes, we all know he can get a gun; but now I have another reason to put him back in jail. Convicted murderers, rapists, kidnappers or those with violent felony assault convictions MUST lose their gun rights. They commit their crimes knowing they will lose their gun rights.
 
Anyone that is willing to commit a crime felonious or otherwise must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, period. Being convicted and sentenced to serve time is not where the consequence ends, once returned to society they must abide by the laws which restrict them from being whole ever again. Victims and/or their families will never be whole again and there is NO reason in this world that a convicted criminal should ever be whole ever again.
~
The justice system is broken and has been so for many years, punishment hasn't fit the crimes committed and all to often criminals do not serve the time commensurate with their sentencing. With that in mind, how can anyone want to give them their rights back, I find that very disturbing (YES, I am disturbed daily when I hear about plea bargains and early releases), if they decide to break the rules after release to protect themselves, they can go back to jail and finish any prior time and some new time for more criminal activity, after all it is only logical.
 
Anyone that is willing to commit a crime felonious or otherwise must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, period. Being convicted and sentenced to serve time is not where the consequence ends, once returned to society they must abide by the laws which restrict them from being whole ever again. Victims and/or their families will never be whole again and there is NO reason in this world that a convicted criminal should ever be whole ever again.

So, according to you, this guy should never be whole again?

In 2009, Bruce Abramski went to a gun store at his home in Virginia and purchased a firearm. He filled out all the required federal paperwork providing his own name and identifying information and passing a federal background check. He then traveled to his uncle’s home in Pennsylvania and delivered the firearm to a licensed gun dealer there. Abramski’s uncle then filled out the same federal paperwork and passed his own background check before he could take possession.
As part of that paperwork, Question 11a on Form 4473—created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)—asked whether you are the actual purchaser of the firearm (versus buying for another person). Abramski spoke to more than one gun dealer who said he could say he was the actual buyer.

Supreme Court Affirms Police Officer's Felony Conviction for Buying Gun for Law-Abiding Uncle
 
Certainly. And once a convicted felon is released, he/she should be "whole" again and be able to possess a firearm for him or her self.

IMO, once you've done the time,all your voting, jury duty, gun rights, etc., should be restored.

In some states, this can be accomplished in short order. In others, it is difficult to almost impossible. And with a Federal conviction, only a Presidential pardon can restore your rights.
 
Difficult line to draw. My first thoughts is that if you're a convicted Felon, then there it is. Pay the penalty which is time served AND any Lawful penalties that come with the conviction.
On the other hand, years ago a good friend of mine was convicted of a white collar crime while working for the Feds. NON violent, circumstance was questionable and his superior had it out for him. This was a GS-13 that did contractual approvals and had been a stellar performer for years. His felony conviction lead him to give his guns away. He served no time, no community service but was fired from the agency. Is it right that he be denied the Right to bear Arms? I say no but again, that's what the Law stipulates.
I see both sides. He did have avenues to reapply for his rights after a certain time but don't remember the details.
 
Difficult line to draw. My first thoughts is that if you're a convicted Felon, then there it is. Pay the penalty which is time served AND any Lawful penalties that come with the conviction.
On the other hand, years ago a good friend of mine was convicted of a white collar crime while working for the Feds. NON violent, circumstance was questionable and his superior had it out for him. This was a GS-13 that did contractual approvals and had been a stellar performer for years. His felony conviction lead him to give his guns away. He served no time, no community service but was fired from the agency. Is it right that he be denied the Right to bear Arms? I say no but again, that's what the Law stipulates.
I see both sides. He did have avenues to reapply for his rights after a certain time but don't remember the details.

Please don't make the mistake of hanging your hat on "it's the law". We are in a constant fight to try to keep the second amendment alive and well. California has lots of laws...most of them not worth a bucket of spit. New York, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and so on. I wouldn't give you a bucket of spit for any of their laws. The firearm prohibition for convicted felons needs to be revisited. It is wearing out its welcome. How many "convicted" felons are actually terrific law abiding citizens now. How about Martha Stewart...I forgot...it's the law. We are not automatons, we can think. This country is ours. We need to have a rebirth of our liberty.
 
Difficult line to draw. My first thoughts is that if you're a convicted Felon, then there it is. Pay the penalty which is time served AND any Lawful penalties that come with the conviction.
On the other hand, years ago a good friend of mine was convicted of a white collar crime while working for the Feds. NON violent, circumstance was questionable and his superior had it out for him. This was a GS-13 that did contractual approvals and had been a stellar performer for years. His felony conviction lead him to give his guns away. He served no time, no community service but was fired from the agency. Is it right that he be denied the Right to bear Arms? I say no but again, that's what the Law stipulates.
I see both sides. He did have avenues to reapply for his rights after a certain time but don't remember the details.
That's why I think only those convicted of violent felonies should be disarmed.
 
Please don't make the mistake of hanging your hat on "it's the law". We are in a constant fight to try to keep the second amendment alive and well. California has lots of laws...most of them not worth a bucket of spit. New York, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and so on. I wouldn't give you a bucket of spit for any of there laws. The firearm prohibition for convicted felons needs to be revisited. It is wearing out its welcome. How many "convicted" felons are actually terrific law abiding citizens now. How about Martha Stewart...I forgot...it's the law. We are not automatons, we can think. This country is ours. We need to have a rebirth of our liberty.
The Country is not ours. Get a grip or believe in your fantasy and aid the progressives.
My comment was Federal Law, again "Get a grip or believe in your fantasy and aid the progressives"
As for buckets of spit; we can't talk about that due to Ebola.
 
That's why I think only those convicted of violent felonies should be disarmed

If that violent, then either kill them or never release them. That is the flaw is this endless argument. BC1's friend is a classic case in point. Give this man his rights back!

Think of that friend as a father, son, a daughter. Are your "never allowed weapons, voting, jury " ideas the same? A "white collar", one time error crime? I think not.

Not even to mention the unalienable rights of self defense once released from incarceration.
 
The Country is not ours. Get a grip or believe in your fantasy and aid the progressives.
My comment was Federal Law, again "Get a grip or believe in your fantasy and aid the progressives"
As for buckets of spit; we can't talk about that due to Ebola.

The country is ours...we just surrendered it to "the law".
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top