Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: New to posting here and justed wanted to say Hi and explain what I want to do.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8

    New to posting here and justed wanted to say Hi and explain what I want to do.

    I'm starting a new organization for gun rights.. We intend on taking on gun issues one at a time.
    One of the first things we will be focusing on isn't the most popular but affects millions of people and that is gun rights for non violent ex offenders. You notice I didn't say people with felonies because their are plenty of misdemeanors that DQ you from gun ownership in this country. Their is a lot of signs out their if we can get this issue far enough it will be over turned. Odd punishment for a non violent person to lose their firearms rights don't you think?

    I will post the website if the mod's allow.. It's just a singlepage site for now but just trying to get the word out and get some funds going.
    Last edited by Brndnh721; 05-04-2012 at 05:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870

    Thumbs up

    I have a family member who made a bad choice in the midst of difficult times in her young life a quarter of a century ago that resulted in her being forevermore branded with an "F" restricting her firearm right.

    I am proud of the fact that Colorado law - at least Colorado's Constitution - provides for the restoration of ALL rights of citizenship following incarceration, probation, or parole following criminal conviction.

    Unfortunately Colorado law enforcement does not respect that provision of State law, and since 1994 previously unaffected nonviolent offenders have been covered under the same statutory restrictions as violent offenders.

    Such laws only succeed in disarming the rehabilitated previous offenders while the dangerous habitual offenders are undeterred. Many on this forum - perhaps most of us - agree with your stated position.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    I'm not familiar with Coloroda law but I'm assuming it does not lift the federal prohibition , the ATF only recognizes a handful of states.

    That brings up another issue with the system.. If a state restores your rights in most cases the Feds don't recognize it as a restoration. If it was a state conviction the state should have the authority to restore any rights lost due to the conviction including firearms rights. Which isn't the case. MA being a prime example of this mess of a system issuing FID cards to federally prohibited people.

    I'm happy to hear most will agree.. Our objective isn't to restore rights to violent offenders , that is a different issue that probably will never be over come. The Heller case may help us win this battle and as mentioned some lower courts already believe this is a issue that will be challanged and possibly won.
    Last edited by Brndnh721; 05-04-2012 at 06:32 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    And really more then anything we are trying to educate people about what prohibits people from owning guns and who some of these people are.. They are your neighbors,friends, family, people at church and many others. As mentioned above people with non violent convictions tend to have convictions from when they were young and stupid and now later in their life they are still paying for it.

    Restoring rights for these people who truly deserve it will only further the greater cause of gun ownership.
    Last edited by Brndnh721; 05-04-2012 at 06:43 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870
    The U.S. DOJ is bound by the consistent holdings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver pertaining to the restoration of the firearm right under Colorado law. ( U.S. v Hall )

    The 10th Circuit has consistently taken a TOTALITY of Colorado law view on the cases before it such as U.S. v Hall. This totality of Colorado law view encompasses the State's general restoration of rights provision under Article VII, Sec. 10 of the CO Constitution, and CRS 18-12-108 which has consistently been interpreted by the 10th Circuit as prescribing only a 10 year penalty period following release from incarceration, probation, or parole.

    This issue must be approached on a case by case basis, and presently only addresses application of federal law (18 USC 921/922) to convictions under Colorado law.

    The 10th Circuit decisions pertaining to application of federal law have specifically held that the PRIOR restoration of rights under Colorado law was not affected by the 1994 amendment of CRS 18-12-108.

    Those who are not subject to federal restrictions still have a tight rope to walk regarding the extent to which they are entitled to the bear arms under Colorado law, and they have the right to invoke the constitutional affirmative defense. In other words their firearm right is only restored for the purpose of defense of home, person or property, and they are not eligible for a Colorado concealed handgun permit - meaning they may only open carry, and thereby placed at risk of being hassled by law enforcement. Still, the constitutional affirmative defense is available, and the State has the burden of proving otherwise.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 05-04-2012 at 07:09 PM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    8,935
    Good luck to you.

    I am not trying to put down your efforts in any way, but would like to know why you are starting a new organization instead of attempting to get one of the established ones to take their head out of the sand on this issue.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Good luck to you.

    I am not trying to put down your efforts in any way, but would like to know why you are starting a new organization instead of attempting to get one of the established ones to take their head out of the sand on this issue.

    stay safe.
    You said it best they have their heads in the sand over the issue and it is almost impossible to get them to even speak about the issue. And most of the smaller organizations wouldn't even think of touching the issue. Keep in mind most of these organizations work to improve gun laws for people who currently are gun owners. Gun Owners Of New Hampshire wont even allow you to join their organization if your a prohibited person so they could careless.

    MA has Comm 2A which does good work and they are pretty young but their only victory and focus was on resident aliens being able to purchase handguns. MA didn't allow resident aliens to have or purchase handguns till this ruling.. That is a good win but it doesn't affect that many people and on top of the people that aren't even citizens. The thing with allowing people that are born in this country to be able to purchase firearms is you really don't know their background. Do you really think they are able to track down good criminal records on these people? Records in this country aren't even that good. I'm sure their are a lot of people that are citizens now or resident aliens that have convictions from other countries that would DQ them from owning a gun in this country.
    Last edited by Brndnh721; 05-04-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    The U.S. DOJ is bound by the consistent holdings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver pertaining to the restoration of the firearm right under Colorado law. ( U.S. v Hall )

    The 10th Circuit has consistently taken a TOTALITY of Colorado law view on the cases before it such as U.S. v Hall. This totality of Colorado law view encompasses the State's general restoration of rights provision under Article VII, Sec. 10 of the CO Constitution, and CRS 18-12-108 which has consistently been interpreted by the 10th Circuit as prescribing only a 10 year penalty period following release from incarceration, probation, or parole.

    This issue must be approached on a case by case basis, and presently only addresses application of federal law (18 USC 921/922) to convictions under Colorado law.

    The 10th Circuit decisions pertaining to application of federal law have specifically held that the PRIOR restoration of rights under Colorado law was not affected by the 1994 amendment of CRS 18-12-108.

    Those who are not subject to federal restrictions still have a tight rope to walk regarding the extent to which they are entitled to the bear arms under Colorado law, and they have the right to invoke the constitutional affirmative defense. In other words their firearm right is only restored for the purpose of defense of home, person or property, and they are not eligible for a Colorado concealed handgun permit - meaning they may only open carry, and thereby placed at risk of being hassled by law enforcement. Still, the constitutional affirmative defense is available, and the State has the burden of proving otherwise.
    So you can have a firearm for home defense but can't get a concealed permit correct?

    If that is the case then any one that falls under that needs to watch out for the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Caron case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-6270.ZO.html). In which the court applied the unless clause in which they said for your rights to be restored under federally law all of your civil rights had to be completely restored including your firearms rights, if their is any restriction applied then the rights are not considered restored under federal law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,396
    Good luck.
    I'm sure there are plenty of prohibited people who would be happy to support you.

    I'm going to suggest [and please take this in the nicest possible way - I'm not trying to be mean] that before you put up a webpage or publish materials or start writing letters to public officials it would be a good idea to get a proofreader. You're making some pretty consistent & basic errors in language usage, & your message would probably be taken more seriously with correct English.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brndnh721
    The thing with allowing people that are born in this country to be able to purchase firearms is you really don't know their background.
    Since good people won't harm anyone without cause, & bad people won't be buying from dealers & getting background checks no matter what the law says, what's the problem with some good people not having a thorough background check in order to exercise their rights?
    Why do we put up with it at all?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Good luck.
    I'm sure there are plenty of prohibited people who would be happy to support you.

    I'm going to suggest [and please take this in the nicest possible way - I'm not trying to be mean] that before you put up a webpage or publish materials or start writing letters to public officials it would be a good idea to get a proofreader. You're making some pretty consistent & basic errors in language usage, & your message would probably be taken more seriously with correct English.


    Since good people won't harm anyone without cause, & bad people won't be buying from dealers & getting background checks no matter what the law says, what's the problem with some good people not having a thorough background check in order to exercise their rights?
    Why do we put up with it at all?
    Thank you! Getting PP on board and supporting this is really the goal. PP usually don't support any organization since they can't legally own firearms and these organizations do nothing for them in regards to restoring their rights. I believe our best bet is to go though the federal court system. I have seen enough info that suggest this could be overturned though that process. I think it would be very difficult if not impossible to get the law changed though a act of congress.

    Like you said bad guys don't go to a gun store to buy a gun to commit a crime but some people just don't get that and the LE community want people to believe that is the case. I know a bunch of people that had no idea they were prohibited from owning a firearm till I explained the whole thing to them. They thought just felons couldn't own firearms!

    Yes you are a 100% correct about the errors! Half my fault for rushing and thinking about 20 things at once and my IPad changing things or unknowingly deleting words..

  11. #11
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870
    The 10th Circuit decisions cited do in fact hold that felony convictions under Colorado law are not predicate for 18 USC 921/922 application. That is because the 10th Circuit holds that Colorado law does in fact restore the RIGHT. That fact is not in dispute. Concealed carry is not a right of citizenship under Colorado's constitution. Neither is hunting.

    The restored RIGHT is to keep & bear arms for the purpose of defense of one's home, person, or property - but not to carry a concealed weapon, which is a privilege under Colorado law.

    The feds rely upon the policy on a state by state basis.

    The Colorado situation is complicated with many nuances. I've been delving into the subject for about 4 years now.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 05-05-2012 at 12:09 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    The 10th Circuit decisions cited do in fact hold that felony convictions under Colorado law are not predicate for 18 USC 921/922 application. That is because the 10th Circuit holds that Colorado law does in fact restore the RIGHT. That fact is not in dispute. Concealed carry is not a right of citizenship under Colorado's constitution. Neither is hunting.

    The restored RIGHT is to keep & bear arms for the purpose of defense of one's home, person, or property - but not to carry a concealed weapon, which is a privilege under Colorado law.

    The feds rely upon the policy on a state by state basis.

    The Colorado situation is complicated with many nuances. I've been delving into the subject for about 4 years now.
    Still have to be careful becuase if some wants to push the issue they could still use the Caron case as example. MA allows any with one FID card to possess a long gun or a handgun in their home or business but can't carry it outside of those boundaries. So some ex felons can apply for a FID five years after a offense but can't not apply for a LTC license which allow people to carry on their person, class A concealed and class B not concealed and no large capacity weapons. So basically what the court is saying if their is any restriction placed on the person their rights are not restored. So if normal person can get a concealed permit and a ex felon can't it that triggers the unless clause. Concealed carry in MA isn't a right either so it really the same thing. But it appears you guys lucked out because no one pushed it further then the appeals courts. That is just my non lawyer opinion, I could be wrong or just reading it wrong.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8
    MA is just as complicated I'm sure. Another issue between federal and state law is the state has a licensing review board which can restore your firearms rights if you have a misd. conviction that prohibits you from obtaining a LTC in the state. The issue is a lot of misd. crimes in MA have a max sentence of 2 1/2 years in jail so that makes you a PP under federal law. So if the board restores your rights you are still federally prohibited and can't buy a firearm from a dealer and you risk arrest. The reason the Feds don't consider your rights restored are because for misd. crimes you don't lose any civil rights so you can't have them restored which is one of the things needed to restore your firearm rights federally.. Now supposedly the ATF has said they won't prosecute any one who went though this process but I would never go by that!
    Last edited by Brndnh721; 05-05-2012 at 05:29 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •