Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Open carry black powder firearms...for felons....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    I work with a man convicted of a felon (don't know which one) but he says the court determined it was considered non-violent. He is allowed to purchase and own black powder weapons and we got into a conversation when he saw me carrying. I didn't have any information about his rights (or lack there of) to open carry his gun like I do. He might be able to buy it, but open carry? I have no idea.

    Anyone come across anything like this?

    I know...he's a felon...



    Yes I know.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    i've also heard that you can still own black powder if you're a excon..

    honestly imo.. my understanding of the constitution rather you're a felon or not should not be restricted from gun ownership once freed.

    then again firearm laws are unconstitutional as well that does'nt seem to stop them.. except withholding from the mentally ill i believe that is constitutional.

    lets face it what we have today is already a shell of the 2nd-A, we're just trying to keep what shreds we have left..

    it's damn sad when you really stop and ponder it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    Joe Sixpack wrote:
    i've also heard that you can still own black powder if you're a excon..

    honestly imo.. my understanding of the constitution rather you're a felon or not should not be restricted from gun ownership once freed.

    then again firearm laws are unconstitutional as well that does'nt seem to stop them.. except withholding from the mentally ill i believe that is constitutional.

    lets face it what we have today is already a shell of the 2nd-A, we're just trying to keep what shreds we have left..

    it's damn sad when you really stop and ponder it.
    Very true, totally agree with both statements, except maybe for certain repeat violent offenders, decided on a case by case system. Of course, that still doesn't come close to keeping things constitutional, but I'm not going to try to figure out the perfect system right now.

    Thanks for sharing your opinion.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,197

    Post imported post

    Joe Sixpack wrote:
    ithen again firearm laws are unconstitutional as well that does'nt seem to stop them.. except withholding from the mentally ill i believe that is constitutional.
    You may feel/think/believe disarming the "mentally ill" is right/good/OK but such a Constitutional argument cannot be made.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Joe Sixpack wrote:
    except withholding from the mentally ill i believe that is constitutional.
    I agree with Doug, there is no constitutional basis for diarming the "mentally ill." Firstly, who gets to determine who is mentally ill and who isn't and who gets to determine just what mentally ill actually means? The answer would be government and you know where that could go. The same argument could be used for terrorists. If the government determines that the NRA is a "terrorist" organization and confiscates all the membership data to disarm 4 million citizens, all hell would break loose. We can't pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't. We all do. The 2nd amendment doesn't say shall not be infringed except in the case of felons and the mentally ill. If there are criminal elements and mental patients out there and we are worried about them getting guns, then maybe they shouldn't be out there. Maybe they should be receiving treatment and serving their full times and getting their rights back when and ifthey are released.

    I agree that If someone did their time they should be able to defend themselves as well as anyone else. It's just another form of disarmament and feel-good legislation to disarm felons for life but still allow them to stroll thoughout society and drive cars.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,802

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    ...If the government determines that the NRA is a "terrorist" organization and confiscates all the membership data to disarm 4 million citizens, all hell would break loose...
    Beyond the darkest imaginings of hell....



  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,288

    Post imported post

    Mental illness and diminished capacity obviously was not understood in the 1700s even remotely to the degree or in the manner it is now. Most mentally ill people back then would never have a chance to own a firearm because they would have been locked up in an alms house or one of it's later iterations for the insane/poor and other unable to care for themselves. Firearms were fairly expensive compared to income when the Constitution was written and since most mentally ill persons would not have been able to maintain gainful employment at a level beyond basic sustenance, I think it unlikely that many would have one unless obtained from a family member. So basically, I don't think it was a scenario that would have been imagined by the founders when writing the 2A.

    Having worked in the mental health profession, I can say with surety that there are people who should not ever, under any circumstances, be provided with a firearm even if living out in the community. The problem is making the determination as to who those people are and what criteria is used to identify them. It is pretty much a case by case basis which leaves far too much room for abuse. The other issue is the effectiveness of certain psychotropic medications. Some people function normally when on their medication, but when off their meds, they are a much higher than the general population threat with a firearm. There is no way to ensure that such people continue taking their medications. So where is that line drawn? It is a difficult topic and I don't have a pat answer. It may be a case that until the mental health field progresses further, the needs of the many have to out weigh the rights of a few and blanket adjuducations as to the mental fitness of people have to be made. Not a satifying answer on many levels.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    first off by "mentally ill" i guess i should be more clear but i did'nt feel like writing out a detailed description of who that would be.. obviously someone who's depressed or something would'nt qualify..

    i specifically had in mind people who have Paranoid Delusions, Schizophrenia, are Incompetent, or otherwise have lost touch with reality.

    We already deny the "rights" of people who are declared Incompetent, this is not a new concept.

    Im simply stating i do not believe this to be unconstitutional.. remember we pass laws (ideally) that are constitutional.. you do not need specific wording to SUPPORT the law.. only wording not specifically forbidding it, in order for it to be constitutional.

    I am not a expert or a lawyer, in fact no one seems to be on the constitution because it's debated all the time.


    on a personal note i dont know if you have ever had any dealings with someone with paranoid delusions or schizophrenia, i pray you never do..

    a friend of mine i grew up with developed schizophrenia when he was 19, it's a genetic defect usually only shows up between the years 18-25.. if you make it to 26 without it developing you're usually safe.

    we did everything together his mother also has schizophrenia, in fact she is what they call paranoid schizophrenic which is quite common that the two walk hand in hand.

    she believes the fbi are tapping her phone.. a neighbor a few houses down brought their company van home 3 days in a row.. she claimed it was the fbi, she claimed she sees me on tv & movies, she claims there are no female actresses except in old movies.. anything made in the last 20 years is actually male actors dressed like a woman.. she thinks her ex husband is outside in the bushes with a rifle waiting to kill her when she steps outside.. so she would'nt leave the house (oh btw she still goes to sears apparently it's safe to goto sears), she says the radio talks to her, here dog died.. she claims the neighbors poisoned it.. never mind the fact it's a inside dog only going out for 15mins at a time to goto the bathroom, she claims my brother is a police informant.

    oh ya and she does'nt take her meds.. why? because she thinks they're trying to poison her.. how does she get away with it? because she dumps them in the toilet so they're not around with full bottles, then she tells her case worker what she wants to hear.. she knows how to manipulate people.

    oh did i mention she took a box cutter to her ex husband?.. he lived though.

    my friend was a normal person.. then when he turned 19 he started acting weird.. at that same time i kinda lost touch with him he got heavily into drugs..

    i figure he must have been trying to self medicate.. it did'nt work.. he got off drugs been in and out of mental institutions several times, stabbed a cop with a pen when they tried to arrest him for body slamming his sister.

    i went to visit him once.. he just laid in bed.. no sheet.. chain smoking and not much else huge ash tray filled to the brim.. he would'nt talk to me, i had'nt seen him after that for a while.. apparently he claims the cops came and dragged him out of the house for no reason and threw him in a mental institution.. again.. he got medicated. and i could see some of my old friend coming back.. he was still talking off the wall sometimes.. he was talkative but could'nt really do anything he use to.. he's tired.. can't focus.. and other then talking and sleeping is'nt able to do much else.. his mother fought with the doctors to get his meds changed.. he slipped back into a vegetable.. last i heard he tends to get angry and violent if anyone says anything to him..

    it's hard to see a shell of my former friend, i can tell you though i would never EVER hand him a gun.. not even a unloaded one, i would'nt even hand him a large knife.

    people with Schizophrenia are unstable.. even with medication they are not what i would call "normal" in the sense they still have episodes, and ain't it funny the voices are never nice?, did you know it's not just voices they can here it can actually be visual as well, he told me once he see's demons and dead people.

    Now i realize the constitution is the constitution.. you take it all or nothing.. you can't simply ignore the parts you dont like.

    with that said i see nothing in the constitution that says someone who is mentally defective can bear guns, in fact i dont see anything in the constitution that mentions the mentally ill at all, obviously the "all men are created equally" can't be true or there would not be murders or other criminals unless ALL men are criminals and murders.. just like some "MEN" have mental defects, and most people are'nt born deranged.

    there for it is my opinion it is not unconstitutional to restrict firearms from "mentally ill (see my definition above)"

    also i dont find the government declaring NRA a terrorist is even remotely a realistic or fair comparison .. there is already a system in place for declaring the mental illnesses i already stated.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Sixpack - "with that said i see nothing in the constitution that says someone who is mentally defective can bear guns, in fact i dont see anything in the constitution that mentions the mentally ill at all, obviously the "all men are created equally" can't be true or there would not be murders or other criminals unless ALL men are criminals and murders.. just like some "MEN" have mental defects, and most people are'nt born deranged."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You have just made my point for me. The constitution doesn't distinguish the difference between the "mentally ill" and us "regular folk". All in this country have rights no matter what chemical imbalances or whatever the deal is may be the case. My entire point is that if there are criminals or mentally ill people that are not safe for the rest of society, then they shouldn't be out in society. Letting them stroll around the country with every right except the right to defend themselves is preposterous. If they can be trusted with cars and baseball bats, then they should be trusted with guns. You said it yourself, you can't pick and choose what parts of the constitution we like or don't like. It's an entire package.

    My second point was that who gets to decide what "mentally deranged" is? Frankly, I could make the argument that some of the people that would make that decision are deranged... What if the politicians decide that all that are crazy enough to carry a gun in the open are mentally ill?

    It needs to be clearly defined and I am not sure I trust them to do that. In fact, I know I don't.

    Oh, and I wanted to also refute your comment in your quote. We are all created equal under God, whether we are mentally ill or sane. What the founders wrote was not perfect, but It was better than anything the haplessscum bags in congress could write now.

    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,197

    Post imported post

    Good argument.

    But isn't his fifty-ish lines more pursuasive than your twenty, all things being equal? <<--That's irony (for the obtuse).

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,617

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    ....snipped
    [line]
    You have just made my point for me. The constitution doesn't distinguish the difference between the "mentally ill" and us "regular folk". All in this country have rights no matter what chemical imbalances or whatever the deal is may be the case. My entire point is that if there are criminals or mentally ill people that are not safe for the rest of society, then they shouldn't be out in society. Letting them stroll around the country with every right except the right to defend themselves is preposterous. If they can be trusted with cars and baseball bats, then they should be trusted with guns. You said it yourself, you can't pick and choose what parts of the constitution we like or don't like. It's an entire package.


    [line]
    ...snipped
    This is true....

    Those that are a danger to the people should NOT be out in society. If "We the People" KNOW that someone is dangerous and allowing him to be out will lead to the death or injury to another... Are we not culpable for allowing that danger to walk among the people???

    But there are many other groups that will argue with you as those that have paid the dept or committed no crime should not be locked away.

    Sowhat do you do to at least TRY to keep that dangerous person from harming someone else?

    • You cannot lock them up
    • You cannot cut off their hands
    • You cannot follow them 24 hours a day
    So all you can do is try tokeep them from buying afirearm.

    They have the right to keep and bear arms.... but the people also have a right to go about their lives and not be murdered, right?

    So how else do we solve this dilemma??


  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,197

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    They have the right to keep and bear arms.... but the people also have a right to go about their lives and not be murdered, right?

    So how else do we solve this dilemma??
    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the same Right, one from the DoI and the other from the BoR

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Unalienable means that these Rights cannot be made alien ('stranger') to We the people nor alien to the other unalienable Rights. These Rights are an integral whole and indivisible.

    Kind'a like 3-in-One HOLY Oil, the Big Guy, His Spirit and their Incarnation - they're multiple aspects of the same Unity.

    Among these unalienable Rights are certain listed Rights that are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Later, other unalienable Rights were enumerated as the First through Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

    Amendments subsequent to the Tenth are not enumerating unalienable Rights because they are not of the BoR, Amendments First through Tenth.

    There is no 'else' and there is no 'dilemma.'

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

Posting Permissions

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