Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: FELONS WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    In another post regarding a ‘National CCW permit’, there was a reference to a quote from Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He stated "There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits." He went on to say that Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits. There was no source given for these statements, so except for the Brady spokesman statement, I have no way of judging their validity.

    I wonder if anyone has any factual knowledge regarding the statements, or if anyone knows how facts behind these statements can be researched?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    1CITIZEN wrote:
    In another post regarding a ‘National CCW permit’, there was a reference to a quote from Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He stated "There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits." He went on to say that Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits. There was no source given for these statements, so except for the Brady spokesman statement, I have no way of judging their validity.

    I wonder if anyone has any factual knowledge regarding the statements, or if anyone knows how facts behind these statements can be researched?

    Well, being that it is illegal for felons to even possess firearms, I would find it very difficult to believe that a permit to carry wouldn't have been revoked in any state. EvenIf that was the case, it wouldn't matter whether they had a permit or not,it is a moot point. They couldn't purchase, use, or possess firearms per the GCA of 1968.

    Additionally, it isn't necessary to have a permit at allto carry in Alaska and Vermont. But felons are still not legal to possess, so it's irrelevant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

    Peace through superior firepower

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

  3. #3
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    How can you tell when someone from the Brady Bunch is lying?

    Their lips are moving.

    Seriously, I am guessing that he is screwing up his interpretation of the facts. It is probably just a case of someone who had Concealed Carry License ended up on death row.

    I would very much doubt that they applied for the permit from death row.

    If they didn't revoke it, then I say provide him a handgun and one bullet, save the taxpayers a lot of money.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    I could see the case where they forgot to revoke the permit after they were convicted. But lets assume that them having the CHP still, if they even have a gun they are committing a crime. So them concealing IS a felony due to the fact THEY CAN'T HAVE A GUN!

    Sure, let them have a CHP, doesn't mean they can carry a gun

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I've read that it's true (it may not be) that in some jurisdictions, background checks for permits are only performed for the initial awarding of one, not for renewals. In theory, someone could get a valid permit, commit some heinous crime, get it renewed, and end up in prison with the thing still listed as valid. However, nobody actually gets to death row in any hurry, so this is possibly just made up altogether - as you mentioned, they don't give a source for this tidbit. As I said in a post elsewhere, it really hardly matters if it is true, given that they aren't in a position to use a gun or permit if they're already incarcerated. So - not really a problem, even if true, given a moment of thought. This is just propaganda to inflame the impressionable. It sounds bad, therefore it is bad, apart from the patent absurdity of it all.

    -ljp

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    While I basically agree with what the previous replies say, my question remains: what source can an individual access to get factual information on statements made by the Brady bunch or others like them. In other words, when they state 'this gun caused the death of lebenty-nine people', how can we obtain factual proof to refute their statements? Otherwise it ends up like two kids; 'that’s not true' - 'is too' - 'is not'!

    There must be some way to access state and/or federal records to track down some of the alleged statements – isn’t there?





  7. #7
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    I've done a search on this claim by Hamm about Florida death row inmates with CCW permits and they all come back to his statement, no source.

    However, when you consider that the Brady Bunch's outlook on statements is "we say it's true so thereforeit is" it's no surprise that they post no sources.

    Peter Hamm's reputation for truth and facts aint exactly steller so dont take his word for anything. I sure dont.

    http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=peter+hamm
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    1CITIZEN wrote:
    While I basically agree with what the previous replies say, my question remains: what source can an individual access to get factual information on statements made by the Brady bunch or others like them. In other words, when they state 'this gun caused the death of lebenty-nine people', how can we obtain factual proof to refute their statements? Otherwise it ends up like two kids; 'that’s not true' - 'is too' - 'is not'!

    There must be some way to access state and/or federal records to track down some of the alleged statements – isn’t there?



    There are ways to check their facts, and it is generally the arduous task of taking what they say and comparing it to government published data tables.

    An example would be when they say that 7230 children die each year from gun violence. (2005) This sounds terrible.

    To check the facts yougo to the national death statistics to check it out. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

    You go to the final data for 2005 and then on the left hand column you chose list of tables and chose table 10, which contains data for all caused of death by age.This is the source of their data too as it is the only national source.

    You find the following cause of death facts for guns;

    Accidental discharge of firearm under 1 years 1, 1-4 years 22, 5-14 years 52 and 15-24 years 203.

    Suicide under 1 years 0, 1-4 years 0, 5-14 years187 and 15-24 years 1962.

    Assault under 1 years 6, 1-4 years 37, 5-14 years 52 and 15-24 years 4499.

    Legal Intervention under 1 years 0, 1-4 years 0, 5-14 years 1 and 15-24 years 83.

    Discharge of firearm unknown intent under 1 years 0, 1-4 years 3, 5-14 years12 and 15-24 years 77.

    Several things are obvious from the above data;

    1. The total deaths from the real group of children is 406. (ages 14 and under)

    2.The15-24 group is reallyyouths and young adults and looking at the trend in data, most of the deaths in this group is probably from the young adults. This group totals 6824 deaths.

    3. You can disregard Legal intervention (shot by cops), assaults (more guns have been shown to reduce assaults) and suicides (statistics show the suicidal will use means at hand), which leaves you with a total of 90.

    Any death of a child is sad, but looking at the data shows the difference between what they use and what really needs to be addressed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Just cause a person is convicted of a Felony, doesn't exclude them from owning firearms for life, it all depends on the type of charge the person is convicted of. and depends on how good the felons lawyer is.

    But in some instances or cases, a convicted felon can petition the judge upon succesfully completing probation to have thier felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor with a not guily plea enter by the judge and ultimately dismissed under Penal code 1203.4

    thus it basically restores the persons right to own and possess a firearm, and can also be eligible for a CCW permit.

    so its possible the author is manipulating the facts to push his own agenda.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Even that's not always so simple - it varies considerably with jurisdiction. Some states do not permit expunction of felony convictions. Others limit it to nonviolent offenses. Even where those are permitted, you may only have partial restoration of civil rights - depends on the jurisdiction and the court's discretion oftentimes. They may specifically exclude gun ownership if they think it serves the needs of justice. That leaves pardons, gubernatorial or presidential (depending whether it was a state or federal charge), which may be partial as well. Anyone with a felony conviction of any kind who does not have his/her civil rights reinstated is barred forever from even possessing ammunition, let alone any firearms. They don't have to call in dedicated black powder guns on a NICS check, but even those are legally "firearms" and felons are prohibited from having them.

    Anyone with a question about getting a record expunged is advised to call the clerk of courts office in the county you were convicted in. They can walk you through the process. I suggest NOT hiring a lawyer to perform this function for you. It only costs $50 to file pro se in Ohio, and a laywer will not affect the result, or even speed it up, but one will cost you an extra several hundred dollars above and beyond this.

    As for vetting information from Brady Center or whoever - I don't know that it's possible to prove something wasn't ever said. You might find something fundamentally similar which was taken out of context or misquoted, but I suspect they deliberately skew information. Talking about "deaths by firearm" and including police shoots and suicides is grossly misleading, for example, but not literally false, necessarily.

    -ljp


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    .....As for vetting information from Brady Center or whoever - I don't know that it's possible to prove something wasn't ever said. You might find something fundamentally similar which was taken out of context or misquoted, but I suspect they deliberately skew information. Talking about "deaths by firearm" and including police shoots and suicides is grossly misleading, for example, but not literally false, necessarily.

    -ljp
    My point exactly

  12. #12
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    You could get a list, as available, from all jurisdictions in the U.S. that issue permits. Then run a background check on all persons that had permits issued to them Compare their criminal records against the date they were issued the permit to see if, in fact they were a felon when they received their permit.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Thought this was relevant, posted in another thread,

    http://www.wisn.com/news/15934188/detail.html

    "The 23-year-old clerk involved was convicted of a felony drug charge in 2004, according to the the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office"

    wish we had more detials..

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    With the kinds of crimes considered felonies these days, the ban on possession and carrying of guns by felons is an ad hominem argument made into law.

    Hell, you can be banned for life from carrying firearms for... illegally carrying a firearm.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    I recently heard Paul Helmke(of the Brady Bunch) say on national TV something to the effect of "CHL holders shoot people everyday". I wouldn't believe anything they say.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qJuqa-hQWE at 3:35 is where he says it.

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    And that's not such a bad thing if the shooting every day was a justifiable self defense shooting.

  17. #17
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Peter Hamm must be taking a page out of Adolph's book.

    A big lie is more easily believed than a small one.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    1CITIZEN wrote:
    In another post regarding a ‘National CCW permit’, there was a reference to a quote from Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He stated "There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits." He went on to say that Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits. There was no source given for these statements, so except for the Brady spokesman statement, I have no way of judging their validity.

    I wonder if anyone has any factual knowledge regarding the statements, or if anyone knows how facts behind these statements can be researched?

    Well, being that it is illegal for felons to even possess firearms, I would find it very difficult to believe that a permit to carry wouldn't have been revoked in any state. EvenIf that was the case, it wouldn't matter whether they had a permit or not,it is a moot point. They couldn't purchase, use, or possess firearms per the GCA of 1968.

    Additionally, it isn't necessary to have a permit at allto carry in Alaska and Vermont. But felons are still not legal to possess, so it's irrelevant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
    Except Florida's permit is a "Concealed Weapon or Firearm License". There is a laundry list of weapons it lets you carry concealed besides just firearms.

    Maybe he's concerned that the felons in jail can carry concealed sharpened-spoons legally. That'd be an interest argument with the jail guards....

    'But I've got a concealed carry permit! You can't take it!'



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The assertion by the BCPHGV is a trivial trick of rhetoric; make an unfounded universal statement, they cannot be proven false using common logic. 'All birds are white' requires that every bird be examined. If the statement is denied then they retort, "you missed such-and-so."

    "All felon's CWPs have not been rescinded." requires that each felon's CWP be examined and that's not likely possible for any number of reasons.

    Once upon a time such a statement here on OCDO would be challenged for an authoritative source.

    It's kinda like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The only proper response is to ignore it.

    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 LEOXXX ****

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    806

    Post imported post

    It's illegal for a felon to own a firearm from my understanding. Thus it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a felon to have a gun. PERIOD.

    Remember, laws physically prevent actions.

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The assertion by the BCPHGV is a trivial trick of rhetoric; make an unfounded universal statement, they cannot be proven false using common logic. 'All birds are white' requires that every bird be examined. If the statement is denied then they retort, "you missed such-and-so."

    I would think to prove the statement about all birds are white, you need only find one bird that is not white. Why would you have to look at all birds? What am I missing?

    As for the death-row inmatewith a CPL, one would only have to find one, to make true the statement that some death-row inmate's received a CPL. Yes, no?
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Hmm, knowing how these cats roll. It was probably due to someone being convicted on bad evidence and then being vindicated by DNA at a later time. So if they were cleared and the record expunged. It could be true that they were indeed on death row and now are now free, including free to own a firearm. Kind of an old post but throwing my cents around.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Yes and yes.

    You examine all birds, there are too many birds for me to examine. If I reported that I had examined all birds and found them white then their retort would be that I must have missed the one black one.

    Similarly, "no felon has a CWP," "aww, you must missed one."

    In neither case do they specify the one existing that meets their requirement, just suggest that one exists.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Yes and yes.

    You examine all birds, there are too many birds for me to examine. If I reported that I had examined all birds and found them white then their retort would be that I must have missed the one black one.

    Similarly, "no felon has a CWP," "aww, you must missed one."

    In neither case do they specify the one existing that meets their requirement, just suggest that one exists.
    Exactly. Such assertions attempt to force us to prove a negative which is essentially impossible. This is why the burden of proof in fair, intelligent debate is upon the one making the assertion. Unfortunately, in the matter of 2A we are dealing with liberals and the MSM (I know, redundant) and therefore neither fair not intelligent is typically a part of their debating method.

    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •