Interesting purchase problem

I was at a gun store the other night and watched a fell being told he couldn't buy because of an answer on his paperwork. Finally he answered NO and got put on hold. I went outside with him and we spoke for a while, while smoking.

He was a convicted felon, had been pardoned, and both his rights by ATF and Va restored.

The paperwork asks for a yes no answer. It created a problem.

He got the gun eventually so I guess the NO answer worked.

IMHO - felons should have the right to defend themselves too. Some controls maybe, but not complete and absolute.

Good for him.

Grapeshot said:

IMHO - felons should have the right to defend themselves too. Some controls maybe, but not complete and absolute.

Good for him.

Click to expand...

+1

But what are the "some controls" you speak of?

davidmcbeth said:

+1

But what are the "some controls" you speak of?

Click to expand...

yeah... what kinda controls Grape? Isnt that sort of like DC's controls?

davidmcbeth said:

+1

But what are the "some controls" you speak of?

Click to expand...

Only one example for now:
Those convicted of violent crimes with the use of a firearm should IMO, be restricted from possessing.

Should such a person even be on the street? Recidivism is a problem.

Violent felons, no.

But can you imagine one with that right being stopped by an LEO? It would be chaos when he noticed the guy had a felony on his record, perhaps even being still on parole or just off parole. The LEO would go ballistic, and that could set the tone for other stops by regular LACs.

So it's a dicey proposition, imo. I don't think -any- LEO would be in favor of such a thing; heck they don't even like regular citizens carrying.

While I agree with the sentiment "If they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted without a custodian" (David Codrea, War on Guns blog), I think that the larger issue is that so many things are now counted as felonies that sooner or later, we may all be labeled as felons. A book I've been meaning to read (haven't gotten to it yet) is "Three Felonies a Day". The author makes the claim that due to the overarching (and intertwining) thicket of laws, we commit, on average, three felonies a day while going about our daily activities.

Thoughts?

SAvage410 said:

While I agree with the sentiment "If they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted without a custodian" (David Codrea, War on Guns blog), I think that the larger issue is that so many things are now counted as felonies that sooner or later, we may all be labeled as felons. A book I've been meaning to read (haven't gotten to it yet) is "Three Felonies a Day". The author makes the claim that due to the overarching (and intertwining) thicket of laws, we commit, on average, three felonies a day while going about our daily activities.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

That is precisely why many of us refer to "convicted of violent crimes."

That and the guilty of a crime restriction is directly from the anti's playbook.

Lots of felonies that aren't violent…,

there have probably more non-violent felonies committed in the financial field that really shouldn't preclude anyone from having access to or the ability to defend themselves with a firearm. Ever written a check knowing that there were insufficient funds in your account to cover it, but there would be in a couple of days, but did so anyway trying to take advantage of the "float time" (the time it takes from the time you actually utter the check and the time it's actually received and debited from your account by the bank)? Technically that's 'Kiting" and it's a felony, just one example of a financial though non-violent crime. Used to happen more in the recent past before things got sped up with the help of the internet and such which drastically cut down on "float time". You CAN go to jail for not being better at math, basically. Usually, cooler heads prevail, and what a person can be charged with gets reduced , or dropped completely. Just one example.

Tax evasion, doesn't have to be a lot, either. Running "Shine"…, and the hits just keep on coming.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Grapeshot said:

Only one example for now:
Those convicted of violent crimes with the use of a firearm should IMO, be restricted from possessing.

Should such a person even be on the street? Recidivism is a problem.

Click to expand...

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/111213a-lwop-complete-report.pdf


An interesting look at criminals in jail ... has a section defining "nonviolent crimes" ... so I thought it would relevant to what is a "violent" criminal.

Once you have restrictions ... the restrictions will grow like mold...


some courts have broadly defined violent crime to
include burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, drunk driving,
obstruction of justice, or fleeing a law enforcement officer,
among other offenses. .... from linked ACLU paper

We need User to provide the details, but iirc if he was granted an unconditional pardon it is as if the conviction never happened. If that was the case, he could honestly answer "No".

stay safe.

Actually if you read the back of both the state form as well as the federal form it will tell you how to answer the question. If you have had your rights restored, pardoned, or convictions set aside you may answer no to the felony question.

Just to add to the conversation:

Might it be appropriate to consider that part of a convicted felon's punishment for his/her crime will be the loss of some rights that law-abiding citizens enjoy, e.g., firearm possession, voting, etc.? Would it make any difference to a potential first-time felon if they realized that in addition to incarceration and/or fine, the illegal act will have other serious, lifetime affects on their rights?

Recognizing that this is a question of balance between creating "prohibited persons" and restoring a felon's rights after they have "paid their debt to society," where does one draw the line?

Since you proposed the question...

The loss of rights to felons has been the law for many years. Fat lot of good it has done! At the time of their criminal infraction they were not disuaded by law. (imagine such a thing, people engaging in activities KNOWN to be illegal) Once they have passed out of the jurisdictions of the penal system, they should have ALL rights restored. Bad people may have every bit as much (maybe more) need to defend themselves as good people have and if your personal defense is a significant factor in the application of the right to keep and bear arms for the individual, once they are fully back in society they are done. Some people do reform and some never will. Society tends to flush those out. The courts need to keep those off the streets anyway.

JamesCanby said:

Just to add to the conversation:

Might it be appropriate to consider that part of a convicted felon's punishment for his/her crime will be the loss of some rights that law-abiding citizens enjoy, e.g., firearm possession, voting, etc.? Would it make any difference to a potential first-time felon if they realized that in addition to incarceration and/or fine, the illegal act will have other serious, lifetime affects on their rights?

Recognizing that this is a question of balance between creating "prohibited persons" and restoring a felon's rights after they have "paid their debt to society," where does one draw the line?

Click to expand...

I draw the line at 'shall not be infringed.' Someone's Right to vote is not considered protected because the constitution does not specifically say the government isn't allowed to take that Right away. But your Right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated so as to keep the government from doing exactly what they are doing now. Nowhere does the constitution say the government has the power to restrict someone's Right to Arms simply because they are considered a felon.

As we can see, just with 'assault weapon' the definition of what is a felony always changes... meaning more and more laws make poeple a felon according to the whims of the politicians.

Isn't it a tenent of Marxism? To make a law then expand that law to include wider and wider definitions till most everyone falls under it? If felons cant carry, make everyone a felon. Just look at DC... felony for accidently bringing a peice of brass into DC.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk