You make the call

[accidentalfelon]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

 

[The_Outlaw]

"He went berserk and murdered someone"? NOT GOOD.
"He tried to 'hide the body' and fled"? NOT GOOD.
He probably should not be carrying a sidearm and he should also face a judge and jury for his crimes.
If he is not found guilty, then 'maybe' he can be allowed to bear arms again.
Just my .02 cents.

 

[The_Outlaw]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it. Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.
Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.
1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?
2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

There is no statute of limitations for murder.

 

[Deserteagle]

Stop trolling and posting stupid things like this.

 

[Bighouse Doc]

Another idiotic troll!

Is this hotti or pustic?

-Doc

 

[Rich_S]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

Is this more of your sordid tale in Chicago? Why is is that every time we discuss law and disqualifiers in a class it's always "this guy I know has X on his record".......

 

[NCIC105]

1. He should not have run. That just made him appear to be guilty.
2. He will face a jury, and they should make all other decisions.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Needs to serve his sentence for murder. After he spends his time, he can fight for his rights back.

 

[Caribou]

I will answer your questions in reverse order.

2- The weapon has nothing to do with his being arrested. An outstanding warrant for murder requires the arrest of an individual. I would suggest that having a gun on his hip might marginally reduce his chances of surviving an arrest.

1- It is ultimately the jury that would decide. I know of no State that would issue a permit to someone under inditement. To be legal it would have to be in a State where it was legal to open carry without a permit. I might also suggest that being arrested for murder while carrying a gun might not be seen favorably by a jury. I can see the prosecutors closing statement including something like, "he wants us to believe he is a changed man. Yet, when he was arrested he was carrying a gun, ready to kill in an instant."

Interesting post, especially by someone called accidentalfelon.

 

[BC1]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

Is this a joke? I don't believe anyone who commits a violent murder can ever be trusted free in society again. I've seen too many re-offend.

Absoltely no firearms for those who commit a violent murder. Considering there is no statute of limitations for murder he needs to be locked up forever. If sentenced to life there is no longer a question on firearms ownership.

 

[localgirl]

If you're asking me to sit on the jury for this one, I need more info. Probably more than can fit in a little internet thread window.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Is this a joke? I don't believe anyone who commits a violent murder can ever be trusted free in society again. I've seen too many re-offend.

Absoltely no firearms for those who commit a violent murder. Considering there is no statute of limitations for murder he needs to be locked up forever. If sentenced to life there is no longer a question on firearms ownership.

It's funny how we will trust "them" to walk unhindered in the public streets of society, and yet we deem "them" too dangerous to possess a firearm, but at the same time we trust "them" to obey the law that prohibits "them" from possessing firearms. I'm not making this statement about your post in particular, I am making this statement about our society and lack of justice system.

 

[BC1]

It's funny how we will trust "them" to walk unhindered in the public streets of society, and yet we deem "them" too dangerous to possess a firearm, but at the same time we trust "them" to obey the law that prohibits "them" from possessing firearms. I'm not making this statement about your post in particular, I am making this statement about our society and lack of justice system.

The purpose is to find ANYTHING I can put them away for. Once a violent felon, more than likely always a violent felon. Few rehabilitate.

 

[Warbirds]

Let me guess.......

The person is someone highly respected and important to our country. Thus proving:

Felons need guns
Rapists need Viagra
Child molesters need access to schools

Same troll...different day. Quit trying to con the people here. You want you're guns back. The people that know your story say no. Troll elsewhere.

 

[walt629]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

NO to 1

YES to 2

 

[Treo]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

Seems like I've read this before...

Kid Colt and his horse Steel first appeared in Kid Colt #1 (August 1948), from Marvel predecessor Timely Comics. Originally his cover logo was subtitled "Hero of the West" but by issue three this was changed to "Outlaw". His origin, as told in Kid Colt #11 (Sept. 1950), involved Colt being wrongly accused of murder (he killed his father's murderer in a fair gun battle) and becoming a fugitive from the law, along the way engaging in heroic good acts in an effort to restore his reputation. This origin is similar to that of the Rawhide Kid, another Western character from Marvel's 1950s iteration, Atlas Comics.

Kid Colt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sound familiar?

 

[FN1910]

Who said he committed murder? Now if he did murder someone then lock his butt up however before we do that he needs to be tried and convicted. If found guilty then treated just like any other criminal no matter what he has done since then. Until a jury decides he committed murder then you need to quit trolling for the answer you want so you can start an argument.

 

[accidentalfelon]

All of you who believe there is no justice in a life that has been changed by the passage of time and a humbling of heart have just changed history. Your Savior would not have been born in Bethlehem. The Jews would not have occupied the promised land and they would have never been able to cross the Red Sea.

You just disarmed and imprisoned...






Moses.


I hope you are proud of your high and mighty stances against "Ex felons".

 

[BIGJOHN621]

Someone has way too much time on their hands. What's you next waste of our time?

 

[walt629]

Who said he committed murder? Now if he did murder someone then lock his butt up however before we do that he needs to be tried and convicted. If found guilty then treated just like any other criminal no matter what he has done since then. Until a jury decides he committed murder then you need to quit trolling for the answer you want so you can start an argument.

From the OP:

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy.

You DO read the OP before jumping in, right? Just kidding! :agree: