Food for thought on prohibited persons

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Gunguy45, Nov 23, 2014.

  1. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I do a very small (15 minute) segment in every gun class I teach on gun control.

    At the end, I ask every student to ask themselves this question:

    Have you EVER, used any drug other than alcohol not prescribed to you by a doctor? Used another persons prescription medicine (Even if it was antibiotics), Been less than 100% honest on any federal form EVER, in any way deceived a federal official, removed a label from a pillow while still in the store, etc etc, the list goes on.

    If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, YOU ARE A FELON. you just haven't been caught yet.

    So when someone suggests that ALL felons be debarred the use of arms, realize all the people that encompasses who have never harmed a soul nor stolen a nickel. Are you SAFER because they can't own guns?

    We have "felons" who's great crime was to be caught with a single joint in the wrong era/state, or selling a water pipe across state lines, or, like Martha Stewart, made an untrue statement under pressure to federal officials because she wasn't sure of the facts.

    It's not just the baby killers and mother-rapers who are on the "felon" list. Far from it. and it could be almost any one of us given a little bit of investigation and the malice of a prosecutor.

    -Food for thought.
  2. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles
    Grays Harbor, Washington
    Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Gold Supporter Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Hmmm....interesting chew...;)

    I am of the opinion that the "majority" of felons are not jaywalking grannies, but dangerous individuals. Thus, I can acknowledge that it is a reasonable effort on the part of our bloating government to keep folk safe. Nothing in the world is 100% foolproof, even laws.

    There is an old saying; "The young man knows the law, the old man knows the exceptions". I think the main issue is that legislators lack the understanding/recognition of an exception before them, and are unable to discern when the law probably doesn't and shouldn't apply. Ever. These days there seem to be fewer and fewer 'reasonable men' employed in our legal system. :eek::eek:

    Common sense just isn't a flower that grows in everybody's garden these days...:rolleyes:
    BoonDocks36, Dyjital, 3MTA3 and 2 others like this.
  3. Redcap

    Lewis County, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Most of us commit multiple felonies every day. Some more than others.
    Loptr, mjbskwim and IronMonster like this.
  4. The Heretic

    The Heretic
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Interesting point, but the wording most people use, and what almost all people mean is "convicted felon", and no, every time I have broken the law it would have been a misdemeanor, not a felony.
  5. IronMonster

    Free Idaho!
    Opinionated Member Lifetime Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Sometimes good people do bad/dumb things. Sometimes bad people dont get caught. The "prohibited" person is a pretty arbitrary thing and not well understood by most. The issue is they have to draw a line somewhere and "felon" seems like a pretty good line.

    There are programs and options in place for good people who get caught up in the legal system. I dont know how it is in other states but I know that in Idaho if you satisfactorily complete your state sentence (incarceration, parole, probation) for most non violent felonies your firearms rights are automatically reinstated after a period of time. For more serious offenses your rights are not and cannot be reinstated by the courts, But can be reinstated by a Governors pardon. Now if your rights are reinstated by the court, you still are a felon and cannot pass a background check, ( I think) however you are still as far as the state is concerned able to posses a firearm. Which sounds like a sticky spot to me, Its the state that took your rights, they should be able to reinstate them but I am not sure the FEDs recognize your rights after they have been restored. (Anyone?)
    The only way you can answer "no" on a 4473 is if you have been granted a pardon. Pardons are not easy to obtain but it is a possibility, After 5 years of having your nose clean you can apply and it takes 2-3 years to work through the pardon process. A handful are granted every year, usually 3-8 but sometimes none (anyone who is interested all the info is online.)

    In Washington if you have satisfactorily completed your sentience you must wait 5 years and then ask the court to reinstate your rights. My understanding is that if you meet the requirements (you complied with all the conditions of your sentience and have had no negative contact with law enforcement for a minimum of 5 years) that it is not up to the discretion of the court, You ask and they do it. But you have to ask, unlike Idaho its not automatic.

    I assume most states have some provision for reinstatement of rights. I am sure there are several where there is no chance as well.

    as the op stated "felon" can mean lots of things. Most everyone has committed a felonious act, Its real easy to pass judgment when you have not yet got caught :)

    REally though, we need to do everything we can to keep guns out o the hands of the evil mattress label desecrater. Do it for the children!
  6. Stomper

    I’m NOT a monster!
    I am NOT a monster! Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I understand the point you are making to your students. There's so many laws on the books that's it IMPOSSIBLE not to break some sort of law on a daily basis.

    There's the issue of "prosecutorial descretion" (that we've been bombarded with on the news lately) and how we're SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty by due process of law.

    Where most folks crumble and grovel at the feet of LEO is:

    -Getting arrested don't mean nuthin'
    -Getting booked into jail don't mean nuthin'
    -Getting arraigned don't mean nuthin'

    Ultimately, a dismissal, an acquittal or a conviction is all that matters. I know because I've had the "pleasure" (humiliation actually) of the experience as a result of my catching someone breaking into my house and breaking his back for his efforts.

    In the end the Judge dismissed the case, and I've NEVER had an issue with background checks. Even full-blown FBI checks for access within their own sensitive areas in their facilities.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
    BoonDocks36 and Redcap like this.
  7. deen_ad

    Vancouver, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    < Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
    Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

    Martha Stewart was aware of the circumstances, which made it a lie. That's why she went to "club med" for a while!

    Removing a tag from a pillow or mattress is NOT a crime if you bought it. It's against the law for the retailer to do it however.
    NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
    "Defender of Freedom" award
    NRA Golden Eagle member
    WAC member

    "Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"
    BoonDocks36, Caveman Jim and mjbskwim like this.
  8. chariot13

    Near Eugene/Springfield
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Well if we're talking strictly about gun laws, then the basis of all gun control laws like I594 etc... creates a new criminal act, with said law. Which in turn creates more criminals by enacting whatever gun control law they have enacted (self fulfilling prophecy).

    People are not going to comply in great numbers with I594, the same as they haven't in Connecticut. Gun control laws are about infringing on the rights of the innocents for the deeds of the guilty. And that is what makes a tyrannical government, tyrannical.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2014
    BoonDocks36, Sgt Nambu and Mongo1 like this.
  9. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I would not, for practicality's sake, recommend allowing blanket ownership by felons. It will never happen for one, and for another it's the only half-way reasonable restriction on firearms ownership of which I understand and generally approve.

    But the fact is, that the overwhelming majority of felony convictions in this country do not involve violent behavior. Most are property crimes or drug crimes. Serious, deserving of punishment, by all means but not necessarily dangerous.

    I'm not proposing anything.
    It really is just food for thought.
    theRedSkull, Joe13 and Monica Cowles like this.
  10. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    When you let one side control the language you allow them to set the standards. How many are branded racist all the time yet they are no where near being hateful of other races? So I guess that same side thinks we are all felons and we all want to destroy the planet and we hate children on old people. Comes a time people should get smart and quit listening to the cra p....
  11. chemist

    Beaverton OR
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Monica, this one's going in the bank:
    "The young man knows the law, the old man knows the exceptions."

    But common sense? C'mon, few attributes are less common. I prefer calling it "horse sense."
    “Common sense is for commoners, and I happen to be a royal a$$hole."

    [I can't claim credit for that quote. It's from The Modern Drunkard.]
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  12. slimer13

    Deer Park
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    If one is too dangerous to be allowed firearms ownership, they are too dangerous to be loose and should be executed. There are plenty of things felons can and do kill with including illegally obtained firearms.

    When your sentence has been served, your debt to society should have been paid and your full rights as a citizen should be reinstated, but say a repeat violent offender should have drastically increased sentences with each offense until it is clear they can never be rehabilitated.

    The stigma of being a "felon" keeps people in a lower class which makes it very difficult to be a contributing member of society or find a decent job and I believe helps create career criminals.
  13. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    In PRINCIPLE, I agree with you 100%.

    Making those things happen, however, is a political question that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

    I was trying to bridge both my "principled" objections to "felon" with my PRACTICAL understanding that the world IS, how it IS, not how I might like it to be.

    The first step is to educate the general populace that "felon" doesn't necessarily mean baby-raper et al. It could be the good neighbor you've known for many years. It's inherently subjective and a matter of where you live and (in all honesty) the race to which you happen to belong.

    The Second step is to get the authorities (Particularly in WA State, which means the legislature) to adjust the sentencing guidlines to keep VIOLENT offenders in jail for a VERY long time. (Every criminology study in the last 30 years tells us that criminals kept in jail past age 35 are MUCH less likely to re offend with a violent crime).

    Look, it would really suck to have my car ransacked or stolen, but it's not what I lose sleep over. I worry about the SOB who is going to break into my occupied house or mug me on the street. Those are just wildly different offenses and VERY different kinds of offenders.

    It's a VERY small percentage of people in jail who are actually willing to hurt you to make a dollar.

    THOSE are the people we should really be concentrating on putting in jail for a LONG time (10-years and up).

    Property crime sucks, and I've been a victim of it. -Complete with having virtually everything I had of real value stolen absent my car. It's serious and should be treated seriously. But the two punks (they caught them) who robbed my house were not in the same category as a home-invader or armed robber.

    Sure, I would have shot them if I'd been home, but it's NOT the same thing. We seem to have lost all sense when it comes to "let the punishment fit the crime."

    If Gunguy45 ruled the US, Perjury or political bribes or similar influence would be the only two crimes I'd make a death penalty. They do more harm than anything else. To EVERYONE, not just one family and their friends.

    I'd put away anyone who does felony-level violence for 10 years or MORE, depending on their history. (and I mean DO ten years, not just get sentenced to it).

    The rest? You're always going to have. Making a lot of currently illegal acts into misdemeanors or no crime at all would help. The rest, Some sanction, Maybe even serious sanction of multiple years in prison.

    But let's get this straight: The HUMAN RIGHT of self defense trumps EVERY other right. Because without it, the others make no difference.

    We ought to be looking long and VERY hard at removing that right from ANYONE.

    That's where we ought to be heading, not where I think we can go tomorrow, no matter who is in office. Politics is messy and in a Republic, takes a long time.

    But your post is that of an idealist, not a realist. IDEALLY, I agree 100%. In REALITY, it's not going to happen in my lifetime, which is at best, 30 years or so. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be working hard to get there. The first step is to educate and work with gun owners, the most law-abiding of all groups, to grasp that crime is complicated and multi-faceted. Because WE GET what it means to lose our rights more than anyone else. Coincidentally, this is also a predominantly very CONSERVATIVE group, which might otherwise be inclined to disagree.

    If we can get the constituency of the "Law and Order DAMMIT" group to see the nuances, we can get to the rest. First step is to realize that almost ALL OF US ARE "FELONS." -We just didn't get caught.
    theRedSkull likes this.
  14. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim
    West of Oly
    Springer Slayer Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer 2017 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    You hit the nail squarely on the head There!!!!

    Oh and gunguy45, you are not a Felon unless you are convicted of a felony... Due process.
    Sgt Nambu and U201491 like this.
  15. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    The day this country goes to "Pre Crime" Is the day this country ends for good and the day Total and Complete Chaos begins.
    FortRock and Sgt Nambu like this.
  16. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    [QUOTE=" gunguy45, you are not a Felon unless you are convicted of a felony... Due process.[/QUOTE]

    What if the "felony" is ripping off a tag at Bed, Bath and Beyond?
    I'm not questioning that you did it, I'm questioning what we call "felony."

    At the founding, Rape, Robbery, Burglary, Murder, Perjury, Treason and REALLY serious assault were felonies. Not much else. These days it's a "FELONY" if you misprint a label on your milk products.

    Nor did our founders ever envision a system in which your previous crimes would follow you everywhere, forever.

    You seem to be saying that "The law is the law." I agree with that to large extent. But "Let the punishment fit the crime" is also a part of what informed our founders, from Moses to Hammurabi, to Shakespeare.

    We seem to have lost all proportion of that. For instance, some BDSM devotees were arrested and charged with felony assault charges in Mass. a few years ago. They were spanking and whipping entirely consensual adults who WANTED and ASKED FOR what happened and weren't complaining. -In Private. (A neighbor snitched).

    By the LAW, they were guilty. Any reasonable person who looked at it just laughed at the charges.

    You really think these guys should be prohibited from a fundamental human right for five minutes, much less the rest of their lives?

    Because they like kinky sex with consenting adults? But hey, it's the law, so throw them under the bridge.

    Please don't tell me you think that's either just OR what the founders would have agreed to.

    I'm a pretty conservative guy in most respects. I vote "R" (often holding my nose) in most elections. But seriously? People who harm not a soul, with no victim at all, should lose fundamental human rights on the principle that "The law is the law" with no regard for the fact that the law is frequently wrong and clearly unjust? Gimme a break.

    If jury nullification were still allowed to be argued, you might have a point. But it isn't. So now we need to adjust what we think of as "Felonies" because the majority produce no victim nor complainant. They're made-up "felonies" because some unelected bureaucrat says they are. Usually with blanket authority under a law that congress passed without even reading it.
    Stomper likes this.
  17. Stomper

    I’m NOT a monster!
    I am NOT a monster! Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Without even reading it..... BINGO!
  18. Mongo1

    Santiam Canyon
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    When a criminal gets past the point of rehabilitation, their organs should be harvested and an entry into their permanent record that they paid their debt to society.
  19. billt

    Glendale, Arizona
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    You don't have to be a felon. You can simply be convicted of a misdomeaner crime of domestic violence against your spouse, AND YOU WILL LOSE YOUR GUNS, AND YOUR GUN RIGHTS! You don't even have to lay a finger on her. Many states have laws that if someone calls the police and reports an incidence of domestic violence and the police show up SOMEONE IS GOING TO JAIL.

    Police have been reassigned to desk jobs because they can no longer carry a firearm because of nonsense like this. (Cops have one of the highest divorce rates of any profession). One temper tantrum by an unstable, pissed off, infantile woman, and in many states you can kiss your guns goodby.
  20. JRuby

    St. Helens Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    You expect me to feel sorry for "convicted" felons and the loss of their rights. Maybe, just maybe those felons should have thought of the consequences of their actions first. Life is a one way trip from cradle to grave and whether it is fair or not ones actions follow them through that journey as they should.

Share This Page