Legal Open Carry for convicted felons

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.

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?  If this person is still a threat, then he/she should remain in prison. 

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

Doc

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

Doc

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

FYI it is my understanding that what we call felons today is NOT the Original Intent in the Constitution.

Back then a felon was someone convicted of a crime that carried the death penalty. If the Constitution were followed then almost all so called felons could legally own fire arms.

imported post

tittiger wrote:

FYI it is my understanding that what we call felons today is NOT the Original Intent in the Constitution.

Back then a felon was someone convicted of a crime that carried the death penalty. If the Constitution were followed then almost all so called felons could legally own fire arms.

Click to expand...

Well felon is the word so often choose to associate with the law, unfortunately not only is the definition of felon changed, the law really never nor does it now read that way.

The language of the law "is found guilty of a crime punishable by 1 year or more in prison" so it is not just a felony that can get this "never own guns again" applied to you because a lot of fairly minor offenses can get a year.

It would in fact include 2 brothers in a fist fight as assault and battery is in fact punishable by 1+ years in prison.

You can read the federal statute I posted up earlier, it is fairly plain speak and defined.

imported post

Black powder firearms use to be the only way a felon could go hunting. I know of several people who have been arrested for being a "felon in possession of a firearm" here inMO when their federal parole officer told them it was legal. I have also seen felons charged for weapons violations because oftheir compound bows. Is anyone worried about felons OCing their bows?

My opinion is if it is a non violent crime or happened a significant time in the past they should be allowed to petitionto get the right to own a firearm back. I believe several states alreadyallowfelons to petitionto get the right to vote back. I see no difference here.

imported post

All felons have the right to petition for their firearms rights to be restored, however it is not a state law it is a federal law and the brady bunch successfully lobbied congress to pull the funding in 1992.

They did so by openly advertising that member xxx voted for funding criminals to have firearms.

Because the word felon stirs images that are not accurate, no one running for office is going to step out on that twig and try and restore the funding.

Be a real hard campaign if your opposition gets to say you tried to fund murder's to have guns, all you have to do is look at the reception this thread got, even those supporting 2a rights do not agree on it.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Anyone who has ever gotten a felony DUI deserves what they got and more.
I would never trust them with a firearm!

imported post

I agree that laws prohibiting "felons" or any other "convict" from owning firearms ever again should be struck down. Especially since they tend to include dismissed cases, sealed/expunged records etc.

It's very easy to get screwed over for life.:cuss:

imported post

Scottj wrote:

LMTD wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Anyone who has ever gotten a felony DUI deserves what they got and more.
I would never trust them with a firearm!

Click to expand...

Again, many of you are forgetting that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. If a felon (who has already served his time and is possibly reformed or maybe even INNOCENT) wants a firearm, will a law stop him??? Think people, that law will only stop reformed felons from having personal protection. And in a firefight, you might be better off with a felon at your side... hm? What if YOU were convicted on a "felony" weapons violation (like manslaughter for protecting your home), did your time and got out? Should you be allowed to have a gun? The best society is a FREE society and managed risk is part of the equation. Better to have armed bad guys than unarmed "good" guys because YOU CAN'T STOP THE FELONS FROM BEING ARMED hear me now, listen to me latah... ya....