View Poll Results: Is this a good thing or a bad thing

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good

    4 80.00%
  • Bad

    1 20.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Legal Open Carry for convicted felons

  1. #1
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Post imported post

    I am just posting the oddity I had discovered. I am neither condoning or condemning.

    It looks like the bill HB 1692 that is on the Governors desk right now and is predicted to be signed will give felons the right to own antique guns.There for opening them up to OC in any jurisdiction that legally allows OC without a CCW as they will be legal owner of said firearms. If there is something I have missed in my assessment please let me know.

    Doc

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Kansas city, Kansas United States
    Posts
    334

    Post imported post

    what would be considered an antique gun? is that any gun thats over 50 years old?

  3. #3
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687

    Post imported post

    goalseter88 wrote:
    what would be considered an antique gun? is that any gun thats over 50 years old?
    Right now, the State of Missouri defines them as:

    571.010. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall mean:
    (1) "Antique, curio or relic firearm", any firearm so defined by the National Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Title 26, Section 5845, and the United States Treasury/Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, 27 CFR Section 178.11:
    (a) "Antique firearm" is any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, said ammunition not being manufactured any longer; this includes any matchlock, wheel lock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type ignition system, or replica thereof;
    (b) "Curio or relic firearm" is any firearm deriving value as a collectible weapon due to its unique design, ignition system, operation or at least fifty years old, associated with a historical event, renown personage or major war;

  4. #4
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369

    Post imported post

    cshoff wrote:
    goalseter88 wrote:
    what would be considered an antique gun? is that any gun thats over 50 years old?
    Right now, the State of Missouri defines them as:

    571.010. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall mean:
    (1) "Antique, curio or relic firearm", any firearm so defined by the National Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Title 26, Section 5845, and the United States Treasury/Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, 27 CFR Section 178.11:
    (a) "Antique firearm" is any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, said ammunition not being manufactured any longer; this includes any matchlock, wheel lock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type ignition system, or replica thereof;
    (b) "Curio or relic firearm" is any firearm deriving value as a collectible weapon due to its unique design, ignition system, operation or at least fifty years old, associated with a historical event, renown personage or major war;
    i saw that Bill come up and didn't think twice about it. i never figured that it would make it very far, but i guess i was wrong.

    and ya know, i always knew that antique meant pre-1898 but i never actually read all the way thru MO's definition of antique in the law. the "or replica thereof" part makes it really interesting. instead of an old, possibly rusty or worn out firearm they could have this....

    http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...amp;hasJS=true


    even though it's black powder this little, well actually big and heavy, bugger would put a big friggin hole in whatever it hits. i know my Pietta Navy Dragoon replica does.


    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    i don't think it's a good thing...

    ...at least not OC wise...i think if you break the law to the extent that you're a felon....then perhaps you deserve to lose that right to carry at least....maybe own and keep at your own property for defesnse there but oc i dunno...guess i'm on the fence...

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    nrepuyan wrote:
    i don't think it's a good thing...

    ...at least not OC wise...i think if you break the law to the extent that you're a felon....then perhaps you deserve to lose that right to carry at least....maybe own and keep at your own property for defesnse there but oc i dunno...guess i'm on the fence...
    Being a convicted felon and not is the product of not getting caught or having the money to get out of it.

    The word felon has the stigma of some serious crime when in reality it means nothing close to that.

    If a man cheated on his taxes in the 70's with the stroke of a pen, why does that eliminate his right to protect himself and family now?

    how about the 45 year old man whom got a felony DUI when he was 21? Have you ever driven while drunk? Don't answer that on a public forum.

    Ever been in a fight, that can and does result in felony assault.

    The list goes on and on, Martha Sewart is a convicted felon, her crime that gave her inalienable rights away, selling stock she heard wrongfully was going south fast, so now she may not defend herself?
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    for one....it's martha stewart.....so that's speaks for itself...:celebrate

    second and what about those who felons who have committed such violent acts etc that landed them that title are we to just go ahead and say it's ok for all since a some didn't "deserve" that title?

    perhaps "felon" should be reclassified, maybe it shouldn't...one would think having such title would maybe go along with personal responsibility? i agree that some who are "felons" shouldn't lose that right, but other i don't...so perhaps there's more work that needs to be done instead of legalizing carry for felons and re-doing what constitutes one?

    back to what i originally said...i don't think i'd be against a felon being able to own firearms in their home etc for defense but carry...not sure about...i guess as you said...depends on what they did...but if that's the case it's not really a matter of legalizing open carry for them is it?

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Well I took a bit of a beating here over immigrants partially because of ignorance on my part, the rest lays with those whom turned it into something it never was at all. I had not processed that they could legally own firearms and I most certainly was not aware they could swear and oath to this country and serve in our military, which I in fact learned in PMs here on this board.

    i might take a beating on this too, however, I have never heard a felon instantly is no longer a citizen and the bill of rights clearly is for all citizens.

    Does the crime matter? Perhaps, but perhaps not. No double jeopardy, and serving the punishment for the crime is the penalty, what makes it right for it to continue to punish them through their death?

    Lets get down and dirty, at 21, armed robbery, served his 7, does it go on? How about when he turns 51, 61, 71 aka 30 40 and 50 years since he broke the law, he still may not protect him self?

    If he has money when he is 21, he never faces the felon title, if he is of modest means he does.

    Whom are you or I to strip him of is rights as a citizen of this country after he has served his sentence?
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    BTW there is huge irony in this for me, I have finished my internal debate and am posting it this evening.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    Well I took a bit of a beating here over immigrants partially because of ignorance on my part, the rest lays with those whom turned it into something it never was at all. I had not processed that they could legally own firearms and I most certainly was not aware they could swear and oath to this country and serve in our military, which I in fact learned in PMs here on this board.

    i might take a beating on this too, however, I have never heard a felon instantly is no longer a citizen and the bill of rights clearly is for all citizens.

    Does the crime matter? Perhaps, but perhaps not. No double jeopardy, and serving the punishment for the crime is the penalty, what makes it right for it to continue to punish them through their death?

    Lets get down and dirty, at 21, armed robbery, served his 7, does it go on? How about when he turns 51, 61, 71 aka 30 40 and 50 years since he broke the law, he still may not protect him self?

    If he has money when he is 21, he never faces the felon title, if he is of modest means he does.

    Whom are you or I to strip him of is rights as a citizen of this country after he has served his sentence?
    that's going on the assumption that prison magically rehabilitates EVERYONE that does time?

    that's kinda like saying it's ok to let a child molester run a daycare after he/she has gone thru "rehabilitation" or the catholic church has moved em to a new city....

    my point...you can't assume that just because someone has done time that they have learned their lesson or changed...also, last i understood...the point of doing time was supposed to be a consequence to an action just as a title from a crime being part of said consequence?

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    So you would strip them of the right to self defense for life. There is nothing wrong with saying it, a lot of folks agree with your position.

    I just never noticed where it said such a thing in the constitution and I have a great deal of trouble imposing my will on others.

    Ms Brady says none of us should have guns, you say felons should not have guns or if they can have them they should not carry them, I am simply saying that without regard for any of our opinions, the law of the land says everyone had the right to em.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    BTW sohighly

    Yes, a felon will be able to own a black powder type weapon and can again participate in things like deer hunting and have a cap and ball pistol as well. Under the guise that if it is not illegal it is legal, they could indeed carry that weapon legally INHO however they should contact a lawyer first for official legal advice regarding it as I am not a lawyer but I know of no other restrictions put into place.

    You also may consider that bill pretty much law, even if Jay does not sign it it will go into law in August unless he veto's it and since it passed by more than a 90% margin, that is not likely as he does not want to be over ridden
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    nrepuyan wrote:
    that's kinda like saying it's ok to let a child molester run a daycare after he/she has gone thru "rehabilitation" or the catholic church has moved em to a new city....
    No, its a lot more like the argumentative question I would pose to a Brady. What exactly is it you think is preventing any felon whom has chosen to turn back to crime from having a gun illegally?

    If you think convicted felons do not have guns because there is a law that says they can not carry black powder rifles and pistols, I would like to see what it is exactly that it is you think sends so many of them back to prison.

    The fact is, the bad guys have guns without regard for the law, only the law abiding felons do not have guns, is there a good reason not to allow them to defend themselves from the bad guys?
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    I think that everyone regardless of who you are should be able to own a gun. If an individual breaks the law with the gun punish him/her for the crime committed not for the weapon used. For example: use a gun to rob a place, go to jail pay restitution for robbery; use a knife to mug a person, go to jail pay restitution; use a gun to murder, the death penalty; use a knife to murder, the death penalty. This way the focus is not on the tool used but the crime committed. Nobodyshouldloose a God given right to self defens or to use the best tool for the job for life unless in prison.

    A felon that is a criminal, ie. gang bangers, is going to carry anyway.

    A felon that, as was posted before, simply made a mistake and broke the law and is other wise a law abiding citizen never has the God given right to self protection?


    A felony charge is the easiest way forgovernment to take away a person's rights, so why not make every law a felon?


    IMHO It is yet another case that a law only stops those who want to be law abiding.




    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Reverend BCal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    Let's look at it from this standpoint:

    If convicted felons are allowed to have (and potentially carry) weapons, isn't that going to put us law abiding citizens in a position of higher scrutiny from LEO's and the public? Why would we want to give any government entity or agent any more reason to detain, harass or question us about our legal rights as a citizen? We have enough to prove already as activists for a controversial cause, and we don't need any more wrenches thrown into the equation. You've heard the excuses, "How do I know you aren't a felon?" Well, this would open up more doors to rights violations, and cops will have yet another excuse (this time a valid one) to act first and verify later. "Headline news today, felons are now legally able to carry firearms. Let's stop everyone we see carrying a gun and make sure it can't carry currently manufactured ammo and, while we're at it, let's run serials to see when the guns were indeed manufactured." Nope, nope, nope.

    If you're a felon and you need to defend yourself, take some Krav Maga lessons and learn how to chew your bubblegum LEGALLY.
    "Before all else, be armed." -Nicolo Machiavelli

  16. #16
    Regular Member Reverend BCal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    How can a bill like this get pushed so far, but our representatives can't do much more than throw post-it notes around about preemption?
    "Before all else, be armed." -Nicolo Machiavelli

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Reverend BCal wrote:
    Let's look at it from this standpoint:

    If convicted felons are allowed to have (and potentially carry) weapons, isn't that going to put us law abiding citizens in a position of higher scrutiny from LEO's and the public?
    Actually, if felons were allowed to have guns, it would completely and 100% eliminate that excuse for stopping anyone, cops can only stop you for illegal behavior and while many do carry revolvers, nothing including a revolver looks like a black powder weapon.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Senator Bcal, it has been nearly 150 years since anyone committed a crime in Missouri with a cap and ball pistol.

    Not to mention this is a single line change in a HUGE bill.

    If you want my thoughts on why OC has issues in mo, I have linked my opinion in this forum.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  19. #19
    Regular Member Reverend BCal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:

    If you want my thoughts on why OC has issues in mo, I have linked my opinion in this forum.
    I just finished reading all 1,478 pages on MOCarry's site AND I agree with you on several popularly contentious points.

    I should've clarified: I'm okay with felons owning guns, just not carrying them in the same capacity as WE here in these forums do. It's an image thing for us, and I believe that it lumps us into an even more controversial category than we could understand.

    Cap and ball pistols are inconvenient now, that's why nobody's been killed with one since someone shot that cannonball into the courthouse in Lexington. But suddenly that's all you could carry legally? Makes it pretty convenient then...
    "Before all else, be armed." -Nicolo Machiavelli

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Reverend BCal wrote:
    LMTD wrote:

    If you want my thoughts on why OC has issues in mo, I have linked my opinion in this forum.
    I just finished reading all 1,478 pages on MOCarry's site AND I agree with you on several popularly contentious points.

    I should've clarified: I'm okay with felons owning guns, just not carrying them in the same capacity as WE here in these forums do. It's an image thing for us, and I believe that it lumps us into an even more controversial category than we could understand.

    Cap and ball pistols are inconvenient now, that's why nobody's been killed with one since someone shot that cannonball into the courthouse in Lexington. But suddenly that's all you could carry legally? Makes it pretty convenient then...
    The only thing I would counter that with sir is any felon deciding to return to crime cares neither what you, I, the gonvernment think or even what the law says.

    They are not going to carry it openly, they are going to deep conceal it without regard for license requirements and they are going to do their crimes irregardless of the additional weapons charge that shall be imposed on top of the criminal one.

    Bottom line remains the same for the convicted felon as it does us, only the law abiding ones will be impacted at any level.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  21. #21
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687

    Post imported post

    If a person who has committed a felony and has served his/her time cannot be trusted to enter back into society at the conclusion of his/her sentence, then why in the world are we releasing him/her back into society? If this person is still a threat, then he/she should remain in prison.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    cshoff wrote:
    If a person who has committed a felony and has served his/her time cannot be trusted to enter back into society at the conclusion of his/her sentence, then why in the world are we releasing him/her back into society?Â* If this person is still a threat, then he/she should remain in prison.Â*
    you know as well as anyone does that this statement as true as it is, doesn't have any meaning whatsoever in the judiciary process...

    ...having been a correctional officer myself, i can tell you that this happens EVERYDAY...messed up system...lack of funding to continue to hold someone...NAACP...blah blah blah..i guess

    LMTD...just curious but, can you explain why it would be ok for someone who murders someone to continue to carry...from what you are saying....no matter what you do, you should always be allowed to have a firearm? how can anyone be expected to have any type of accountability if there are no repercussions for ones actions? I understand this right and understand that this applies to all...but at what point is it not ok for someone to possess and carry firearms? is there a point?

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    nrepuyan wrote:
    LMTD...just curious but, can you explain why it would be ok for someone who murders someone to continue to carry...from what you are saying....no matter what you do, you should always be allowed to have a firearm? how can anyone be expected to have any type of accountability if there are no repercussions for ones actions? I understand this right and understand that this applies to all...but at what point is it not ok for someone to possess and carry firearms? is there a point?
    All I can say to that nrepuyan is where is the document that says I get to make that call?

    While I most certainly do have my own opinion and I am fee to express it, I have yet to find where it says I am allowed to impose it on others and force them to accept it.

    Where do you find that it says you are allowed to do so yourself?
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  24. #24
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    nrepuyan wrote:
    LMTD...just curious but, can you explain why it would be ok for someone who murders someone to continue to carry...from what you are saying....no matter what you do, you should always be allowed to have a firearm? how can anyone be expected to have any type of accountability if there are no repercussions for ones actions? I understand this right and understand that this applies to all...but at what point is it not ok for someone to possess and carry firearms? is there a point?
    All I can say to that nrepuyan is where is the document that says I get to make that call?

    While I most certainly do have my own opinion and I am fee to express it, I have yet to find where it says I am allowed to impose it on others and force them to accept it.

    Where do you find that it says you are allowed to do so yourself?

    Well I think The Fifteenth Amendment kind of saysNrepuyan gets a say in the laws of the land.

    Doc


  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    sohighlyunlikely wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    nrepuyan wrote:
    LMTD...just curious but, can you explain why it would be ok for someone who murders someone to continue to carry...from what you are saying....no matter what you do, you should always be allowed to have a firearm? how can anyone be expected to have any type of accountability if there are no repercussions for ones actions? I understand this right and understand that this applies to all...but at what point is it not ok for someone to possess and carry firearms? is there a point?
    All I can say to that nrepuyan is where is the document that says I get to make that call?

    While I most certainly do have my own opinion and I am fee to express it, I have yet to find where it says I am allowed to impose it on others and force them to accept it.

    Where do you find that it says you are allowed to do so yourself?

    Well I think The Fifteenth Amendment kind of saysNrepuyan gets a say in the laws of the land.

    Doc
    The document the 15th amendment comes from IS the law of the land. No where within that document or that amendment does it indicate that Nrepuyan, you, or myself are allowed to strip the rights of any other citizen.

    He doesn't have to worry too much though, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison.

    So while Missouri RSMO standards indicate YES to the muzzle loader, the federal law still applies. Similar to CA's pot laws.

    They can seek relief but Congress eliminated that by defunding the program.

    Like I said, it is not an unpopular opinion.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

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
  •