Poll: Felons and Firearms

[Spray-n-pray]

Some good posts here about this topic. I agree with not being able to consider all felonies equal. For example, I have two old friends that when they were 18, they threw some rocks at a plexiglass window at a MAX station. Usually, it would ust be minor vandalism, but since it was property of the public transportation system, it was considered a class C felony. All for throwing a few rocks!! Now 15 years later, they cannot own a gun. This question can never be answered with a simple yes or no, and is never cut and dried. Let the punishment fit the crime.

 

[Karma]

O.k. like I said, I understand some felons not having the right to bear arms. Here is another example for you though.

Another fairly recent thing added to the list of felonies is breaking the ecryption and copying dvd's! Even for lawfully purchased backup copies! How many people do you know who do that!? Should that really be a felony? But the powers that be say it is. So, should everyone who copies movies be stripped of their rights to own firearms? I would wager that more than one of you have done that!

Another example is a guy who was outside a coffee shop using their wifi connection without paying and was found guilty of a hacking crime that was a felony! How about that one. Does he sound like a danger to society in the making!?

There is a million cases like these. Too many things have been made felonies now to use this as a blanket rule. Someone listed the categories of felony crimes, but there is a ton of other b.s. that can be fit into these areas.

 

[swoop]

Lots of very good points made here. However I think that if a person does a felony crime with a gun, I would have to draw the line there.

 

[nathanh]

Lots of very good points made here. However I think that if a person does a felony crime with a gun, I would have to draw the line there.

Lets say someone robs a store using a gun. How much time should that person spend in prison/jail? When they are released and told they are not allowed to have a gun they will either: get a gun anyway in violation of the law OR will follow the law and not possess a gun. So in the first case the bad guy gets a gun anyway and in the second case a now law abiding person is disarmed.

If a person is such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted with a gun why would they be released into the public?

 

[Karma]

Lots of very good points made here. However I think that if a person does a felony crime with a gun, I would have to draw the line there.

I absolutely agree with that. I also think that a person could make a case for other felony crimes, just not all of them.

 

[Buddhalux]

I feel that the only felonies that should count are drug related, physical violence, and/or commiting a crime with any weapon. There are a ton of felonies, some were posted above, that shouldn't count.

 

[swoop]

When a person stick a gun in your face and demands money or anything else, he is one step away from taking your life. That's the line I am talking about, and that's why I carry.

 

[Mutoman]

There should be some sort of fail safe way to ensure those who do no represent a risk to society would be able to obtain certain rights back after they have did their time and probation.

 

[Zhivago]

I vote mandatory execution for all violent felonies then non-violent felons should be able to have a gun.

 

[Mutoman]

I vote mandatory execution for all violent felonies then non-violent felons should be able to have a gun.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

Motion passed.

 

[SimonJester308]

Currently 72.5% of the people who voted have just shown how ignorant of the law they are. There are already laws, in every state, that allow for the reinstatement of a convicted felons right to posses firearms. I am proof. Not only is that right recognized by the state, it is also recognized by the dept of justice. I have the letters to prove it. I also have a concealed carry permit, oodles of military style semi automatic rifles, pistols o'plenty, and a belt-fed semi automatic .30 cal browning with plenty to feed them with. I am a registered voter, who actually votes, and a member of the NRA, GOA, and the JPFO. I have also been instrumental in two other convicted felons getting their firearms rights restored to them, along with their concealed carry permits. Seems to me from my point of view I have done more for the rights of ALL firearms owners than those that would pass uninformed judgment and bigotry.

 

[Spray-n-pray]

Congratulations....

 

[emanon]

That's really great to hear Simon! I'd appreciate hearing your story and learning more about what people convicted of a felony must go through to legally own guns.

 

[SimonJester308]

Nobody is willing to say that they are for convicted felons having their firearms rights restored. It sounds like they are somehow soft on crime, but if you do not allow as a society a way for those that screwed up to become whole citizens again after paying for their crimes, then over time a large enough segment of that society becomes disenfranchised and an actual threat to the security of that society. Yes there are certain crimes that do not have this legal opportunity, and those have been decided, and they actually make sense, so please save the "yea but what about...." Look up the laws reguarding firearms rights restoration to convicted felons in your own state, and then decide on which way to vote in this poll. You'd be surprised how simple, and fair the laws are, and by all means if you still dont think its right, fine. But as for me, I will be busy helping everyone, no matter their race, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or whether or not they are convicted felons, exercise their Second Amendment rights, and stand up for them, because if they can have that right taken away from them, then we can have that right taken away from us.

 

[ghanderson10]

I say yes, but hear me out. If a person is violent by nature, they're not just limited to using guns to hurt people, not to mention they can still get a hold of one if they try hard enough.


I could be wrong, but it seems like taking away their gun rights is treating the symptom, not the cause. If a person is threat enough to society, they shouldn't be a part of it, because they'll still "live by the sword", no matter what the sword's range might be.

 

[SimonJester308]

When you look up the laws reguarding this for your state you will see that the obvious reasons why not to give violent offenders their firearms rights back has been addressed. Many crimes that a rational and reasonable person would agree do not merit the reinstatement of that right. To many laws exist based on emotion, and not reason. These particular laws have been thought out and in my opinion make sense.

 

[tionico]

Some activities listed as felonies (state or federal level) are non-violent and non-dangerous to the general populace. One example.... in Thurston County, Washington, it is a felony to shoot ANY cat. I learned this after having dealt with some feral cats in my rural neighbourhood. I COULD have been run in for a felony, never able to own a firearm again... for shooting wild nuisance housecate left to their own devices, who then bred profusely (as cats will do....). Funny thing, had they been after my (non-existent) chickens, no crime (state stock laws). Nor is it a crime for me to dispose of the coyotes presently ruling the area. I also happen to know (a friend's recent experience) that if two people get pretty drunk and end up in the sack, HE can be charged with felony rape, even if SHE initiated the obvious activity. She is legally considered "too drunk to consent" (never mind he is, as well.... and that they both were driving the situation from the git go), but HE is not considered too drunk to be responsible. Such a person, like me the cat-shooter, can never own a firearm again. Many states also have very low possession limits for "controlled substances" which result in many felony charges. Some one-third of prison occupants nationwide are non-violent drug "offenders" who post no threat to society. They oughtn't be proscribed from firearm ownership. Now, if they were irresponsible enough to be under the influence and harmed someone, or even put someone at serious risk (driving stoned, for example), then hey, they've shown a lack of responsibility and clear thinking that MIGHT warrant being forbidden firearm ownership. I'm just glad no officials learned of my cat reduction activities... else I'd certainly not be a legal gun owner. (long enough ago the statute of limitations has well run out, so I'm safe......)

 

[korntera]

I say NO NO and NO
I am sure that the deadly weapon crime rate is much higher amongst convicted felons than it is everyday people, and with all the anti gun bills, felons with guns would just add fuel to the fire.

BTW can speeding over 100MPH be considered a felony? I thought I saw something about that somewhere.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

BTW can speeding over 100MPH be considered a felony? I thought I saw something about that somewhere.

A speeding ticket over 100mph cannot be considered a felony alone. But some of the charges that might go along with it (reckless driving/endangerment) might have a felony level to them, but I am not certain. Usually it is at the officers discretion if they want to issue more citations on top of the speeding ticket.

ETA: I just looked it up, and it appears that reckless driving is not felony, but reckless endangerment is.

http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/2-PenalLaw/120/120-25.pdf (yeah I know it a NY penal code)

here's a Tennessee source: <broken link removed> (misdemeanor unless a deadly weapon is involved, and a car is considered a deadly weapon.)

 

[tionico]

In Washington, driving more than, I think it's 25 mph over posted speed not only gains the driver the speeding ticket, but a "negligent driving" and/or "reckless endagnerment". Of course, the cop has some discretion, but most will give no tolerance. If nothing happens, a gross misdemeanor is the likely charge, but if anyone is injured or killed, its a felony. And that's just for 25 over. I do believe there is another "level" when it comes to what are considered "high speeds", such as over 100 mph. Most situations, such speeds are neither safe nor wise. However, some cars, some drivers, some situations, 100 mph is NO PROBLEM, and in fact is far safer than the typical daydreaming cell-phone wielding citizen in commute traffic at 55, following twenty feet behind the one in front, who is also following at twenty feet. Interesting thing is, the one at 100+ who is convicted will not be able to own a firearm..... whilst the lughead following at twenty feet on the freeway and hits someone, seriously injuring them, can........ seems we have our "unforgivable sins" as a society, hey?

Agreed, trying to press for some felons being allowed to regain the right to possess firearms might not be politically wise at this point in time. However, that does not mean it would not be a right thing to do, in the overall picture and in light of our Constitution. Many non-violent ex-felons who are no more likely to misuse a firearm than any of us here are proscribed from ownership. Then, there is the situation where someone was "young, dumb, and stupid" or simply ignorant of some inane law (such as Thurston County's felony rap for shooting feral nuisance cats..... who'd a thunk on THAT one, hey?) and falls into that category... later wising up and, again, is no more likely to misuse a firearm than any of us..... or, how about ignorantly buying a firearm interstate as a private citizen, not knowing it is a federal felony? Sort of like chutes and ladders... land on THAT spot and its all over. It wasn't until I started a thread here and asked very pointed questions that I got the real deal... private sales can ONLY legally occur between residents of the same state. And here I'd thought I could buy a long gun from an Oregon resident privately, just as I can from an Oregon dealer. Had I persisted in that ignorance and BOUGHT one, well, kiss goodbye to all my guns forever. Never be able to buy another, no, not even from a dealer in this state. I'd have become a felon. And again, having concluded such a transaction in ignorance would make me no more likely to offend with a firearm than if I'd bought it from a dealer in Portland. Is this right, fair, legal, moral? Particularly when the restriction at federal level is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution prohibiting the restriction of interstate commerce..... yet, how often is this felony committed across the country? Guy visiting cousins in Tennessee goes to a gun show, likes an old Browning, lays down cash, no one asks for paperwork (I've bought long guns and pistols in precisely this manner, but only in my own state) buys it, perhaps a cop in Georgia happens across the gun, asks how long he's owned it, replies "I bought it last week in Franklin at a gunshow". No clue it is illegal...... 'STEP AWAY FROM THE CAR, HANDS OVER YOUR HEAD, FEET SPREAD APART.... YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT....... " away goes the Browning, and his Constitutional right to own firearms as long as he's a US resident.
No, not ALL felons should be forbidden the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Though some should be.... bump a liquor store packing a barker, you've PROVEN you are not able to handle the right/responsibility. But the above scenarios? Get real......