Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 136

Thread: Felons that lawfully carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Felons that lawfully carry

    In another thread in N.C. about the 4th Circuit's ruling on U.S. vs. Black that determined officers wrongfully violated Black's 4th Amendment protections by searching him and finding a firearm without probable cause or RAS, the discussion has digressed into a discussion about Black wrongfully having a firearm because he was a felon. (Irrellevant. The topic is 4th Amendment protections, not felons in possession.)This is not the point of the thread.

    Therefore, I decided to open a thread concerning felons in possession of firearms in order to not sidetrack the discussion of 4th Amendment protections in the N.C. 4th Circuit thread.

    There seems to be two divergent lines of thought on this.

    Some seem to think that once a person decides to use a firearm illegally, they should forfeit their right to posess a firearm in the future.

    The other camp seems to believe that, once a person has "paid their debt to society", they should be allowed to posess a firearm for self defense, reason being: If they were still considerd dangerous, why were they released from prison in the first place?

    Where do you stand on felons lawfully posessing firearms?

    I know here in Missouri, felons are lawfully allowed to posess muzzle loading firearms for the purpose of hunting. Are there any other states that allow felons to posess firearms?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    Felons that lawfully carry

    I oppose rearming violent felons. Property crimes, white collar crimes, and other offenses where physical harm or death was not threatened or caused, I support their right to bear arms.

    Recidivism is an interesting study.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Kudos you to you for proactively keeping two diverse discussions going and on-topic. Thanks.

    The Constitution allows for the denial of life, Liberty, or property as a result of due process of law. It is up to the People of any given State to determine whether a life is to be forfeit and what Liberty or property is to be given up as the result of conviction of any given crime. If the People of a State determine that one consequence of a particular class of crimes is the loss of the RKBA, so be it.

    However, that decision ought to be made carefully. Taking away someone's RKBA because of an excessive number of speeding tickets rising to the level of a felony would be stupid. Absolutely lawful and constitutional, but stupid.

    Removing the RKBA from someone who has demonstrated a propensity to commit violent felonies is reasonable--again, only after due process.

    Personally, I would also support a restoration process, the costs and the burden of proof being borne by the applicant. It would be up to him to show that he is a changed man, that he can once again be afforded the same presumption of other People: that there is no reason for the community to fear his exercise of the RKBA.

    Most States deny the RKBA to too many "felons" and provide no way for the restoration of the Right. That is the problem, not that some criminals have been denied the RKBA because a court has found them to be a criminal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I think felons convicted of a crime of cruel and wanton violence should not be allowed to own guns. Like rape, murder, some degrees of a assault, but degree of violence matters, I don't think gun rights should be restricted becuase someone burns down their truck to file a false insurance claim or because two drunks were scrapping it out over a girl at the bar... It should be a kind of felony involving intending to cause violence to someone else.....

    Everyone else, once they're out of prison and off of supervision from the DOC should automatically have rights restored IMO
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Black powder firearms.

    What felony(s) are we referring to? State level or federal level.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    It is way to easy for the goverment to make things felony's. Thus taking away your rights to own guns.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Felons that lawfully carry

    Then we need to be vigilant when it comes to laws that would remove the RKBA when someone is convicted of a crime. Work to change your State and federal laws either not to restrict the RKBA for convicted criminals, or to more narrowly define the crimes that would result in the loss of the Right.

    Again, I have no problem with laws that remove the RKBA for violent felons.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    I believe violent felons belong in prison/jail. There is nothing in the constitution about a person permanently forfeiting their rights because they are a felon. Any of those rights! Because YOU(general) think otherwise does not change the constitution, it is only for your own comfort level or touchy feel good that you can justify violating rights. Hitler was very good at getting otherwise good people to violate other good people's rights. Don't be surprised when the day comes your feet are in the oven.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I believe violent felons belong in prison/jail. There is nothing in the constitution about a person permanently forfeiting their rights because they are a felon. Any of those rights! Because YOU(general) think otherwise does not change the constitution, it is only for your own comfort level or touchy feel good that you can justify violating rights. Hitler was very good at getting otherwise good people to violate other good people's rights. Don't be surprised when the day comes your feet are in the oven.
    +1
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  10. #10
    Regular Member liberty404's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    20

    Felonies that should not be

    I think that origonally felony applied only to truly terrible crimes, such as murder or armed robbery. In the last several decades the legislatures, federal and state, have made tens of thousands of things into a felony. Tens of thousands of felonies have absolutely nothing to do with force or violence or any serious jeapordy to property or safety. Some legal experts claim that the typical law-abiding person commits about three felonies each business day, without being aware of it.

    Depriving all persons convicted of a felony of their right to keep and bear arms is an injustice in many cases, but not all. The underlying problem is overuse and misuse of law by foolish voters and legislators.
    Don't make me hungry, you won't like me when I'm hungry.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    +1
    I did not see the post until you quoted it.

    There is indeed something in the Constitution that permits the removal of the RKBA. The Constitution prohibits the taking of life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. With due process of law, criminals in this country are routinely deprived of one, two, or all three of them, in some cases permanently.

    This is not a rights issue. It is a political policy issue. If you don't think that violent felons, once released from prison, should be denied firearms, campaign for the laws in your State to be changed. Personally, I am glad that folks who have a demonstrated propensity to committing violence on others are not allowed to legally possess or carry a firearm. Of course, I am not so foolish as to think that they won't anyway.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I did not see the post until you quoted it.

    There is indeed something in the Constitution that permits the removal of the RKBA. The Constitution prohibits the taking of life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. With due process of law, criminals in this country are routinely deprived of one, two, or all three of them, in some cases permanently.

    This is not a rights issue. It is a political policy issue. If you don't think that violent felons, once released from prison, should be denied firearms, campaign for the laws in your State to be changed. Personally, I am glad that folks who have a demonstrated propensity to committing violence on others are not allowed to legally possess or carry a firearm. Of course, I am not so foolish as to think that they won't anyway.
    There are a lot of felonies that are not violent and the first post says that those who are violent should be locked up.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I believe violent felons belong in prison/jail. There is nothing in the constitution about a person permanently forfeiting their rights because they are a felon. Any of those rights! Because YOU(general) think otherwise does not change the constitution, it is only for your own comfort level or touchy feel good that you can justify violating rights. Hitler was very good at getting otherwise good people to violate other good people's rights. Don't be surprised when the day comes your feet are in the oven.
    AZ had a law on the books for a long time that stated once a felon was released from prison they were to be given a shotgun and a (I think it was) mule.

    The only time I can see your rights being 'justly' denied in only while in custody. Once you're out a right that is unalienable needs to be recognized otherwise the right, if it can be denied, is not unalienable at all.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    AZ had a law on the books for a long time that stated once a felon was released from prison they were to be given a shotgun and a (I think it was) mule.

    The only time I can see your rights being 'justly' denied in only while in custody. Once you're out a right that is unalienable needs to be recognized otherwise the right, if it can be denied, is not unalienable at all.
    Agree!
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    There are a lot of felonies that are not violent and the first post says that those who are violent should be locked up.
    Again, lobby for changes in the law if you feel that the group of felons from which the RKBA is removed it too broad. It is a political policy issue.

    Violent felons are almost all eventually released. They don't stop being felons. And almost none of them stop being violent. I am absolutely down with them not being allowed to be armed until and unless they can establish that they are no longer a threat.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, lobby for changes in the law if you feel that the group of felons from which the RKBA is removed it too broad. It is a political policy issue.

    Violent felons are almost all eventually released. They don't stop being felons. And almost none of them stop being violent. I am absolutely down with them not being allowed to be armed until and unless they can establish that they are no longer a threat.
    Then go for the death penalty.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, lobby for changes in the law if you feel that the group of felons from which the RKBA is removed it too broad. It is a political policy issue.

    Violent felons are almost all eventually released. They don't stop being felons. And almost none of them stop being violent. I am absolutely down with them not being allowed to be armed until and unless they can establish that they are no longer a threat.
    If I were to be president I would be down with making felons out of those that diss the constitution. But I would just lock them up forever, IMO they are more dangerous than the most dangerous felon.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    I say let them keep their RKBA, but we need to reform the prison system to stop letting violent criminals back out on the streets. All felonies should not be subject to loss of a right, and the ones that should, they shouldn't be walking free in the first place.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I say let them keep their RKBA, but we need to reform the prison system to stop letting violent criminals back out on the streets. All felonies should not be subject to loss of a right, and the ones that should, they shouldn't be walking free in the first place.
    Are you advocating indefinite terms of imprisonment? That would be the only way to completely stop the release of felons who are still violent.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    There are a lot of felonies that are not violent and the first post says that those who are violent should be locked up.
    I didn't see this post until someone quoted someone who quoted you.

    An argument can be made that depriving someone the right to defend themselves is cruel and unusual punishment(Eighth Amendment). That is why it is NOT constitutional to take away someone's right to self defense because of successive speeding tickets.

    Controlling someone outside of state custody is the vehicle used to control everyone outside of state custody.

  21. #21
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    I know a man who, when he was much younger, committed several felonies, at least one of which was federal. None of his crimes involved violence. He served his time and completely turned his life around. Yet it is almost completely impossible for him to have his rights restored.

    Added to that is the fact that, once convicted of a felony, even after you have served your time, you have to notify the local police and you may not apply for a job without revealing your status as a convicted felon.

    Bottom line: For whatever reason, we continue to punish those who have been convicted even after they have "paid their debt to society".

    Granted that there are men and women who should never see the outside of a prison again, but I do think we need a better system than we have for those people. Something like Devil's Island, but more secure and under less barbaric conditions.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    Felons that lawfully carry

    We really need to reform our penal code in regards to what constitutes a felony and the punishments attached. I do not see the equity in embezzler and a rapist receiving the same sentence and loss of rights.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    If someone can't be trusted with their rights then they shouldn't be released. That isn't to say that one's sentence can't include some type of probation where you're out of prison but haven't had all of your rights restored in order to make sure that you have become a functioning member of society (which is the proper goal of the "Justice" system. It simply doesn't do this in actuality). But instead society stigmatizes those people which makes it that much harder for them to proper reintegrate into society.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    In another thread in N.C. about the 4th Circuit's ruling on U.S. vs. Black that determined officers wrongfully violated Black's 4th Amendment protections by searching him and finding a firearm without probable cause or RAS, the discussion has digressed into a discussion about Black wrongfully having a firearm because he was a felon. (Irrellevant. The topic is 4th Amendment protections, not felons in possession.)This is not the point of the thread.

    Therefore, I decided to open a thread concerning felons in possession of firearms in order to not sidetrack the discussion of 4th Amendment protections in the N.C. 4th Circuit thread.

    There seems to be two divergent lines of thought on this.

    Some seem to think that once a person decides to use a firearm illegally, they should forfeit their right to posess a firearm in the future.

    The other camp seems to believe that, once a person has "paid their debt to society", they should be allowed to posess a firearm for self defense, reason being: If they were still considerd dangerous, why were they released from prison in the first place?

    Where do you stand on felons lawfully posessing firearms?

    I know here in Missouri, felons are lawfully allowed to posess muzzle loading firearms for the purpose of hunting. Are there any other states that allow felons to posess firearms?
    Considering that "across the board" the recidivism rate averages 80%, I am not in favor of felons convicted of a violent crime having legal access to firearms. I understand the Constitutional legitimacy of the "served his time" argument, but because of the statistically high return to previous (or the acquisition of more destructive forms of) behavior, I wouldn't campaign for the restoration of the RKBA. Just my thoughts on the subject. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I know a man who, when he was much younger, committed several felonies, at least one of which was federal. None of his crimes involved violence. He served his time and completely turned his life around. Yet it is almost completely impossible for him to have his rights restored.

    Added to that is the fact that, once convicted of a felony, even after you have served your time, you have to notify the local police and you may not apply for a job without revealing your status as a convicted felon.

    Bottom line: For whatever reason, we continue to punish those who have been convicted even after they have "paid their debt to society".

    Granted that there are men and women who should never see the outside of a prison again, but I do think we need a better system than we have for those people. Something like Devil's Island, but more secure and under less barbaric conditions.
    That is the flaw with the statement "paid their debt to society." Prison terms are not paying a debt. For most criminals, their misdeed cannot be undone, and nothing can pay society back for what they have taken from it. The purpose behind imprisoning criminals can be argued, but it does not involve paying back a debt that is miraculously paid in full upon release. One can argue that it is for punishment, for rehabilitation, or simply to remove the thug from the streets. But there is no "debt to society" being paid.

    That phrase implies a finality to the consequences that does not necessarily exist. One particular consequence has ended, the one in which the offender is locked away from the law-abiding folk. There are other consequences--of varying terms--that remain in force. In some jurisdictions and for some crimes, that includes other rights beside the freedom of movement, such as the RKBA.

    In the case you cite, it clearly sounds as if the criminal has been rehabilitated and never posed a violent threat to anyone. It is silly, and just plain wrong, that he is denied his RKBA. However, the solution is not to automatically restore the RKBA to all felons upon the end of one part of the consequences for their crimes.

    We need to consider and change our laws regarding carry by felons, but they serve a purpose and, as I have pointed out above, have all the constitutionality as imprisonment itself does. Tossing them completely sends a valuable baby flying with the undesired dirty water.

    A law that respects Liberty, but still retains the removal of the RKBA as another possible consequence for law-breaking, would limit that particular punishment to felons from whom violent recidivism can be expected--such a murderers, rapists, and other "violent felons." It would also have a provision for restoration of the Right that puts all the cost and burden on the individual trying to restore the Right. It would also be reasonable for that punishment to have a time limit, after which it is reasonable to assume that no recurrence so far means that there most likely won't be one.

    But the above requires that we stop thinking of the prison term as "paying a debt" or as defining the term of ALL of the rights forfeit after due process as the result of having committed a felony. It isn't and doesn't.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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