National Lifetime gun bans for non-violent felons

[v0lcom13sn0w]

every human has the natural right to self preservation. period.

. 'extra period'

 

[mhayd93]

In post #46 there is a link to the Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man and another link that goes beyond the charter to discuss the second phase of what people would do beyond that.

Hopefully this will stay up, but the deal is this: If you are relying on political strategies and you think that you can revive the Constitution (and I promise that as much as I'd like to say we can save it), it simply cannot be done. But, IF that is your plan, then you have to stick measures on the table that would reduce firearm violence without gun control. Critics claim the ideas would never get passed. And I would ask them, and your point is? Look, if you have a bill to reduce firearm violence without gun control, you introduce it as an alternative to background checks, registration, etc. The right doesn't do that. They try to duke it out with the gun control people on the basis of a popularity contest... and we lose our Rights incrementally. Now, if you're keeping up with this thread and checking out the material presented, you have to realize we have NO Constitution. We are the only a Republic until Biden enacts gun control and eliminates the Electoral College.

Put alternative legislation on the table and the gun control people would not want to consider the bills. So, if they cannot negotiate in good faith, their bills die a horrible death. Instead we play this game of giving the anti - gunners what they want and then say to gun owners "whew, it could've been worse." Screw that. If you don't walk away with constitutional carry in exchange for Biden getting the Universal Background Check, then you will have to realize that what you have are political propaganda prostitutes representing you and you might want to try plan B, beginning with supporting the charter. Of course, you could always do both. But if Biden / Harris walk away with their signature legislation and the gun owners get nothing as a consolation prize, then I will be back to say I told you so.

History proves there is but one way to reclaim our unalienable Rights. It's not like I thought this up in myself in 15 minutes. Rather others contributed in the spirit of those that helped ratify the Declaration of Independence and the charter is the culmination of many years of research, trial, and error with several people providing their expertise. It doesn't end with the charter. It merely begins there.

Not that I disagree with the charter and going on the offensive, but you are claiming that the Constitution is effectively dead. The Constitution is codified law and the ultimate foundation of this country. If they succeeded in pulling the Constitution out from under us, how would a charter be the solution?

It has no more legal power than a petition.gov initiative (like the one that got enough signatures demanding the government construct a Death Star).

 

[rogerwilco]

I think that if you are too dangerous to have the full rights of an America citizen, you are too dangerous to be out of prison or alive.

Your full sentence should be served behind bars, then you should be square. Creating second class citizens only encourages recidivism and makes no one safer.

Here's someone who was (prior to 2 days ago) a felon for a non-violent crime, possession of meth. He served his sentence, was released, and decided he should be allowed to possess firearms again. Then this happened.

Man accused of firing at passenger in another car who hit his Mercedes when opening door, prosecutors say

Police recovered five AR-15 rifles, three handguns and a so-called ghost gun from car after arresting Cole T. Miller, 32, on an attempted murder allegation, according to court records.

www.oregonlive.com

I'm leaning on the side of a blanket ban on felons owning guns. Just makes the rest of us look bad.

 

[slimmer13]

Here's someone who was (prior to 2 days ago) a felon for a non-violent crime, possession of meth. He served his sentence, was released, and decided he should be allowed to possess firearms again. Then this happened.

Man accused of firing at passenger in another car who hit his Mercedes when opening door, prosecutors say

Police recovered five AR-15 rifles, three handguns and a so-called ghost gun from car after arresting Cole T. Miller, 32, on an attempted murder allegation, according to court records.

www.oregonlive.com

I'm leaning on the side of a blanket ban on felons owning guns. Just makes the rest of us look bad.

Because that's a shining example of it working? He still easily aquired guns. Or he could have used his car, a knife, gas can and lighter etc.

Again, its the person that's dangerous. It's the person that shouldn't be in society. Prohibition from possession of an inanimate objects does nothing.

 

[Barefootdog]

A few decades ago liberals decided too many people were in nut houses. Decided they should be released to live independently in open society. Jump forward a few decades and we have millions of people with psychological problems living on the street.

Today we have Dems refusing to enforce laws in their urban plantations and throwing open the jail house doors releasing convicted felons into open society. Extrapolate forward 10 years......

Now overlay the "Gun Control Debate".

Can't dream this stuff up....Just keeps getting gooder and gooder.

 

[rogerwilco]

Because that's a shining example of it working? He still easily aquired guns.

He's a shining example of someone who doesn't get to purchase firearms legally anymore. Meth dealers and meth users have demonstrated poor judgement.

Didn't realize we had so many ex con lovers on here.

 

[slimmer13]

He's a shining example of someone who doesn't get to purchase firearms legally anymore. Meth dealers and meth users have demonstrated poor judgement.

Didn't realize we had so many ex con lovers on here.

But you'd be ok with him operating a motor vehicle around your family? Owning a chainsaw?

Don't you see, the answer isn't handing people that have proven themselves unfit to be in society guns. The answer is removing them from society..... because they're unfit.

 

[Devneck]

He's a shining example of someone who doesn't get to purchase firearms legally anymore. Meth dealers and meth users have demonstrated poor judgement.

Didn't realize we had so many ex con lovers on here.

So people are incapable of making a mistake and then being rehabilitated or making amends?

You've never done anything wrong in your own life ... maybe just didn't get caught? Never made poor judgement on anything ... must be nice to be on the same level as Jesus.

 

[rogerwilco]

But you'd be ok with him operating a motor vehicle around your family?

Nope. That's why they revoke your license if you get a DUII.

Owning a chainsaw?

I'll take my chances against a chainsaw, gas can, etc. Can't tuck those into your belt. Most people don't have the stomach to do anything but point and shoot.

The answer is removing them from society..... because they're unfit.

Who do you trust to make that decision? The government? Law enforcement?

 

[The Resister]

Nope. That's why they revoke your license if you get a DUII.


I'll take my chances against a chainsaw, gas can, etc. Can't tuck those into your belt. Most people don't have the stomach to do anything but point and shoot.


Who do you trust to make that decision? The government? Law enforcement?

If you get a DUI where I live, you ultimately get beyond it and can be a normal citizen. Repeated offenses become a felony and then you do have your license confiscated and permanently suspended.

The most recent confirmed figures I found about homicides says that in 2013, 1115 people were beaten to death with hands or feet while another 1,490 were stabbed to death. Those killed by rifles and shotguns numbered 593. I wonder how many were intentionally drowned, poisoned, or suffocated.

Who makes the decision? To answer that, I'd like to return to the foundations of our Republic:

" That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

The key to understanding why we have such a high rate of firearm violence means we have to admit that gun owners are reactionaries NOT activists. We could prevent a lot of firearm violence and we could insure that people let out of prison don't pose a significant threat to society if we did our jobs, but we'd rather debate gun control than to solve the problem. We allow the government to make drug addicts out of children and then do nothing to curb the "legal" drug trade. When those drug addicts turn 26 and are taken off mommy's insurance, they feed their habit with illegal drugs - and even if they don't, most have a criminal record before they could be old enough to finish college.

We don't have a rehabilitation protocol in this country; we ignore the mentally ill; we just keep turning criminals back into the streets. It's a viscous cycle. As a result we have the most people in prison than any country on the planet (in raw numbers and per capita). Over half will be recidivists and yet we do nothing except debate gun control instead of solving the problem. For every drug addict in a mental health facility you have more than TEN in prison. Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, but here we are debating gun control and whether attacking the Liberties of the people is a solution to any problem.

 

[Xaevian]

A few decades ago liberals decided too many people were in nut houses. Decided they should be released to live independently in open society. Jump forward a few decades and we have millions of people with psychological problems living on the street.

That's not quite what took place. Real journalists did some very dangerous undercover work to expose the abuses of the practice of involuntary commitment without due process and the resulting rampant and extremely cruel mistreatment of the committed by the professed bleeding hearts that were supposed to make them better.

Fast forward 40 plus years and viola, red flag laws are the 21st century version of tyranny by progressives. Unfortunately, the media is now on their side. So much from learning from history.

 

[ma96782]

A few decades ago liberals decided too many people were in nut houses. Decided they should be released to live independently in open society. Jump forward a few decades and we have millions of people with psychological problems living on the street.

Today we have Dems refusing to enforce laws in their urban plantations and throwing open the jail house doors releasing convicted felons into open society. Extrapolate forward 10 years......

Now overlay the "Gun Control Debate".

Can't dream this stuff up....Just keeps getting gooder and gooder.

It's all a part of THEIR......

GREAT PLAN.



Aloha, Mark

 

[The Resister]

That's not quite what took place. Real journalists did some very dangerous undercover work to expose the abuses of the practice of involuntary commitment without due process and the resulting rampant and extremely cruel mistreatment of the committed by the professed bleeding hearts that were supposed to make them better.

Fast forward 40 plus years and viola, red flag laws are the 21st century version of tyranny by progressives. Unfortunately, the media is now on their side. So much from learning from history.

A balance should be struck. Under Red Flag gun laws, anybody can call and label you a nutcase and your Rights are gone. The flip side is, we don't treat mentally ill people and they commit crimes, giving the liberals a pretext for gun control.

The way it should work is to start with kids. The conservatives wanted National ID. I'm against it, but since we have it, use it. If a child in school becomes a problem and that means generating police reports, suspensions, etc. the system has a duty at some point to step in and evaluate the problem. Keep up with their records via their National ID Card. I'm not talking about taking children out of the home, confiscating firearms, warrant less searches, etc. I'm saying that there should be a procedure where the parents are contacted and made aware that their child has a problem. If it persists, then the child is evaluated and assessed. If further treatment or interaction is needed, the child would go to a family court and be appointed counsel. It may result in the parents submitting to an assessment and parenting classes required - maybe drug and / or alcohol rehab for the parents if that is the problem. Maybe the child should be in a mental health facility.

You don't shut the family down over a single interaction, but come on - when a person has a dozen interactions every month with school officials, innocent people who are threatened, and police reports being generated, something needs to be done and probable cause to do it is met at some point.

 

[03A3Sporter]

We started down this road when we went from the model that after a man served his time his debt to society was paid to making a person who is convicted of a crime a permanent criminal.


No I am not a soft on crime person just the opposite, but creating a permanent and perpetual felon class of citizenry is not a good thing.

 

[Tyler2011106]

theft of a firearm is technically a violent felony. The court sees it as you broke in to steal guns so in fact you had a gun during the burglary. You'll also most likely have either a burglary 1st degree or a residential burglary which are both strikeable offenses.

Lots of what-ifs. A violent felony is one that has "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another."

What if a burglar waited until you left your house, broke in, and stole your firearms? That's a non-violent felony. Should they have their rights restored?

What do you guys think about restoring voting rights to felons?

 

[The Heretic]

As I recall, it was the Reagan regime that pulled a lot of the people out of institutions and put them in "independent" living situations.

Mental Health Systems Act of 1980

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Barefootdog]

That bill was the culmination of work undertaken since the early/mid 1960's. There were good reasons for creating the legislation. There were also unintended consequences.

 

[The Heretic]

That bill was the culmination of work undertaken since the early/mid 1960's. There were good reasons for creating the legislation. There were also unintended consequences.

My point was that it wasn't just "liberals" (if any) who pushed people out the door of mental health institutions. I just can't get over the tendency of the right and left to blame the other side of the aisle for something that was primarily their own fault, and I have to point that out - especially when it is so easy and it is one of their heroes in history.

 

[baker3gun]

Lots of what-ifs. A violent felony is one that has "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another."

What if a burglar waited until you left your house, broke in, and stole your firearms? That's a non-violent felony. Should they have their rights restored?

What do you guys think about restoring voting rights to felons?

IMO:
We tend to look at this issue from an "after the fact" perspective: what happens after you do your time and get released from prison?

I prefer to look at it from a "before the fact" perspective.

A goal of the criminal justice system is to discourage crime by making the penalties for crime known to all.

Ex: If you murder someone, you will be punished for that crime by imprisonment. You will also lose your constitutional protection of your right to arms.

These things are known in advance to all reasonably informed citizens, and we don't tolerate murder committed by uninformed citizens who didn't know that murder was illegal, because ignorance of the law is not an accepted excuse for violating the law, for most crimes, especially crimes committed against other persons.

So, if it is known in advance that the punishment for murder is prison, and loss of constitutional protection of the right to vote for a period of time, and loss of constitutional protection of the right to arms for life, then why is post-release restoration of a murderer's right to arms even an issue?

Felony loss of RKBA is a rational and justifiable legislated component of this society's system for discouraging and punishing crime. It's a current reality.

Why then do we question it after it happens?

It's like grounding a kid for a week for lying or refusing to do chores. You ground the kid until next Saturday, but you wake up tomorrow and question why the kid has to be grounded for the next 6 days.

IMO.

My perspective is based on the broadly recognized idea that the purpose of incarceration is threefold:
Punishment - you pay a penalty for violating criminal law.
Safe storage - dangerous persons are warehoused in a safe location so that they cannot harm citizens.
Rehabilitation - ideally, at least some convicts are trained/educated to an extent that they no longer wish to commit crimes after they are released.

I'm not saying that our present criminal justice system is effective at accomplishing these goals, but rather that these are the ideal goals.
On this vein, a felon's loss of RKBA is a pre-advertised punishment and a potential mitigator of future violence.

I don't see how wanting to change a felon's punishment after the felony sentence provides any benefit to the rest of society.

 

[The Heretic]

IMO:
We tend to look at this issue from an "after the fact" perspective: what happens after you do your time and get released from prison?

I prefer to look at it from a "before the fact" perspective.

A goal of the criminal justice system is to discourage crime by making the penalties for crime known to all.

Ex: If you murder someone, you will be punished for that crime by imprisonment. You will also lose your constitutional protection of your right to arms.

These things are known in advance to all reasonably informed citizens, and we don't tolerate murder committed by uninformed citizens who didn't know that murder was illegal, because ignorance of the law is not an accepted excuse for violating the law, for most crimes, especially crimes committed against other persons.

So, if it is known in advance that the punishment for murder is prison, and loss of constitutional protection of the right to vote for a period of time, and loss of constitutional protection of the right to arms for life, then why is post-release restoration of a murderer's right to arms even an issue?

Felony loss of RKBA is a rational and justifiable legislated component of this society's system for discouraging and punishing crime. It's a current reality.

Why then do we question it after it happens?

It's like grounding a kid for a week for lying or refusing to do chores. You ground the kid until next Saturday, but you wake up tomorrow and question why the kid has to be grounded for the next 6 days.

IMO.

My perspective is based on the broadly recognized idea that the purpose of incarceration is threefold:
Punishment - you pay a penalty for violating criminal law.
Safe storage - dangerous persons are warehoused in a safe location so that they cannot harm citizens.
Rehabilitation - ideally, at least some convicts are trained/educated to an extent that they no longer wish to commit crimes after they are released.

I'm not saying that our present criminal justice system is effective at accomplishing these goals, but rather that these are the ideal goals.
On this vein, a felon's loss of RKBA is a pre-advertised punishment and a potential mitigator of future violence.

I don't see how wanting to change a felon's punishment after the felony sentence provides any benefit to the rest of society.

All true for violent felons, but the OP, title and theme of this thread is NON-violent felons.

How is the public protected when an accountant serves time for embezzlement and is then denied their right to self-protection with a firearm??