Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: possession by felones

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I posted this in the subject to an article here http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/29636.html

    and thought I would throw it out here for comments.

    I have been reading messages on this site for sometime now. This is the first time I have posted.

    When I read this part of this article I thought I would comment on it:

    'Benton also recommended checking with local law enforcement agencies to determine eligibility for "open carry." Felons, even if they have served their time, may not carry. The same is true for people convicted of domestic violence.'

    This subject made me think, how does one lose one of his constitutional rights from being convicted of a certain class of criminal act?

    Now, I know the relational behind laws like this, that someone who has shown a propensity for criminal behavior should be restricted from possessing the means to assist in that behavior. However, I think there are constitutional means to achieve the same ends. Like added years to a sentence for current or future criminal convictions.

    I mean, think about it, would anyone stand-by and allow the government to say a man losses his first amendment right because he has a felony or domestic violence conviction. Or, how about his fourth amendment right, or his fifth, or sixth, or eighth?

    So, why the easy acceptance of the loss of the second amendment?

    Well just my thoughts on the subject.

    Morgan

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    There are some that say that after the term of incarceration is up, ones right to possess firearms should not be restricted.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    If sentenced to 20 years for murder and you are paroled in 7, your sentence is still not up for 13 more years, after which you should be able to exercise all your rights.
    The law does allow it but not automatically, you must apply for a grant of relief to the BATFE which will not act on the request. It is the US Congress that is responsible for denying literally a few million people their fundamental rights.

    If a person convicted should not have arms for the rest of their lives, the sentence should reflect it. If there is a danger to society proven by their actions then why are we letting them off with such light sentences? And why are we depriving persons of there rights for offenses we are not even willing to attach time in prison?

    I believe it is more about people control than criminal justice.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Plus you need a convicted felon who will probably need to sit in jail for years
    while he challenges the law. Add to that judges get to make up laws on the fly,
    and DA's who only help their buddies, you just compound the crimes against the citizens.
    Kommifornia might be the best place as the judges have ordered the prison doors
    be thrown wide open. So you can be free while you appeal.


    So best advice is`to not get caught the first time.
    And always show up for jury duty to stop them from doing it to your neighbors.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I'm of similar mind that once a person is released from prison/jail they should have all their rights restored. If they cannot be trusted to behave in a civil manner then they shouldn't have been released in the first place. And if the system is not doing its job of reforming the prisoners then the system needs to be reformed rather than restricting the rights of the newly released person.

    Can you imagine if a condition of the release of prisoners was that they are subject to random home inspections by the state for the rest of their life?

    The thing that really irritates me is that domestic violence can cause your right to own and possess a firearm to be restricted. Yea beating your girlfriend is bad but it's a misdemeanor! I don't even know if you can get a trial by jury for that conviction since trial by jury is usually reserved for felony charges.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    I'm of similar mind that once a person is released from prison/jail they should have all their rights restored. If they cannot be trusted to behave in a civil manner then they shouldn't have been released in the first place. And if the system is not doing its job of reforming the prisoners then the system needs to be reformed rather than restricting the rights of the newly released person.

    Can you imagine if a condition of the release of prisoners was that they are subject to random home inspections by the state for the rest of their life?

    The thing that really irritates me is that domestic violence can cause your right to own and possess a firearm to be restricted. Yea beating your girlfriend is bad but it's a misdemeanor! I don't even know if you can get a trial by jury for that conviction since trial by jury is usually reserved for felony charges.
    I believe that just being accused/charged with domestic violence is enough to have your right temporarily restricted. Response?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    My response would be to accuse you of domestic violence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Delta Junction, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    I'm of similar mind that once a person is released from prison/jail they should have all their rights restored. If they cannot be trusted to behave in a civil manner then they shouldn't have been released in the first place. And if the system is not doing its job of reforming the prisoners then the system needs to be reformed rather than restricting the rights of the newly released person.

    Can you imagine if a condition of the release of prisoners was that they are subject to random home inspections by the state for the rest of their life?

    The thing that really irritates me is that domestic violence can cause your right to own and possess a firearm to be restricted. Yea beating your girlfriend is bad but it's a misdemeanor! I don't even know if you can get a trial by jury for that conviction since trial by jury is usually reserved for felony charges.
    I believe that just being accused/charged with domestic violence is enough to have your right temporarily restricted. Response?

    Yata hey
    You are correct if there has been a PFA issued you are automaticly disqualified.





Posting Permissions

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