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.
Under certain circumstances a lifetime firearm ban would be appropriate, but if it is appropriate why is the person out of prison?
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.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
Let's extend this same firearm prohibition to "felons" that never got caught or convicted...can someone say Bill Clinton...OJ Simpson.
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.
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.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.
-
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.
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.
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.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.
The Country is not ours. Get a grip or believe in your fantasy and aid the progressives.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.
That's why I think only those convicted of violent felonies should be disarmed
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.