National Lifetime gun bans for non-violent felons

[Devneck]

My understanding is that if the felon does not have access to the weapon, it's okay. I never checked the law. When relatives with a felony record want to try and live with me, I tell them they have a felony record. I have a firearm.

But, really, I don't agree with those people who insist on denying people the Right to keep and bear Arms due to a felony record. In a perfect world, people would earn their release from prison by becoming rehabilitated. Rehabilitation could be taken into consideration for early release. Behind that, when a felon is first let out, they would be in a half way house and readjusted to a regular life while working a job and proving that they can adapt.

Making sure people that people in prison get a G.E.D., transferable job skills, drug rehabilitation (if applicable) and take courses in finding a job, interviewing for a job, balancing a checkbook, establishing credit, planning a family budget, keeping a house maintained, maintaining family relationships, etc. then their successful completion of such courses should be an indicator that they are rehabilitated. Even the Cliff's Notes are too long for this board. Glad to share them in PM

I don't disagree with your points on how felons should be reintroduced into society. There are also many many cases of felons, especially first time convictions, where no prison time is even included in sentencing. It's entirely possible for somebody to never even see the inside of a jail (beyond initial arrest) and only receive probation.

As for living in a home with a firearm. I think that technically a spouse or roommate can legally own a gun. But there are 2 possible jeopardy issues.

The felon could be at risk unless they can defend they never ever ever ever could ever have access to the firearm.
The legal owner could be at risk for not securing the firearm from prohibited person.

Also, now that I think of it. Isn't ammunition illegal for a felon to have possession of? If so, then the family member would be responsible for securing the ammo to the same level of absolute certainty as a firearm.

I have seen articles of people living in the same house though and winning a case of felon in possession. However why take the risk ... especially if you have a conviction and are in the subset of people who made a mistake and are trying to do the right thing moving forward.

 

[Devneck]

Good points.

IIRC (?) you can't have a gun in the house if a felon lives there because they could have access to the gun. So if a felon serves their time, and then comes home to his/her family, they are truly unprotected as nobody in that home can have a gun there?

Also to extend on this point. Many people coming out of prison don't have a ton of options of where to go. Leaning on family may be important (or a detriment in many scenarios I'd imagine) in determining path forward.

 

[Alexx1401]

Good points.

IIRC (?) you can't have a gun in the house if a felon lives there because they could have access to the gun. So if a felon serves their time, and then comes home to his/her family, they are truly unprotected as nobody in that home can have a gun there?

Many "push this gray area". One of the watergate boys used to brag about this. That he could no longer own a gun but his wife could and some of her guns happened to be on his side of the bed. Assuming he was not joking, which being the character he was I doubt he was joking. Sure they could have come in and charged him. Guessing the Fed's just did not think it was worth it. So yes, I am sure if you asked the Fed's they would say no one in the home could have a gun if the felon is there. To actually charge someone? They would have to be doing something to get the attention of the LE's first.

 

[The Heretic]

Many "push this gray area". One of the watergate boys used to brag about this. That he could no longer own a gun but his wife could and some of her guns happened to be on his side of the bed. Assuming he was not joking, which being the character he was I doubt he was joking. Sure they could have come in and charged him. Guessing the Fed's just did not think it was worth it. So yes, I am sure if you asked the Fed's they would say no one in the home could have a gun if the felon is there. To actually chargeout t someone? They would have to be doing something to get the attention of the LE's first.

Parole officers could come in and violate someone easily enough, and repeat offenders usually get into trouble again. My point was more about the innocents; to have "daddy" home again and trying to go straight, they have to give up having a gun in the house so "daddy" doesn't go back to prison.

 

[baker3gun]

If you think gun control legislators care about the sentencing of gun owners...

Well, let's just say that I don't think they give a fig.

Ha.
Your reply is a copout.
You quit a point, then you resorted to fallacious distraction.

Here is the summary:

I made some comments about gun rights for felons, see #79 & #81.

You replied in #83: unconstitutional laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens are bad laws.

I replied in #86: there is a difference between sentencing laws that deprive acknowledged criminals of RKBA, vs unconstitutional laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

You replied in #87: in places, the distinction is academic, the result is the same, it is not an issue of sentencing a felon to loss of rkba but rather an issue of some laws that sentence a felon to loss of rkba.

What?

Despite your weak reply, I responded anyway in #90: I maintain that there is a difference between societally-accepted laws that deprive felons of the rkba vs hypothetical (or extant) unconstitutional laws that deprive otherwise law-abiding citizens of natural human rights or freedom. The latter is what I meant by "convicting contrived felons."

I expected you to reply in response to that specific point, and to read my words in the context of that point. Such argument represents an opportunity for advancement.

Instead, you posted the legislators red herring. A distractive fallacy.

This is the same kind of meaningless refusal to prove or concede a specific point that I mentioned while dismantling nearly every assertion that The Resister made in his huge inalienable vs unalienable thread that got locked.

A gun forum has the potential to serve as a vehicle for uniting like-minded people who are presently obviously disunited and therefore losing the political battle that they want to win.

At some point, we have to stop looking for meaningless barbs and bumper sticker quotes to throw at each other, and start seeking common ground.

My #90 acknowledges the central issue you broached in this thread, and concurs with the apparent need to re-evaluate our classifications of crime so that we are not mindlessly and sweepingly depriving citizens of rights without justification.

If I could go back and do it all again, i would take a slightly different approach, but I would make the same points. Importantly, i would still call you out on the singularly small and not-important disagreement about whether sentencing laws that remove RKBS for felons are the same thing as unconstitutional laws that deprive law-abiding citizens of freedom and natural rights, but I'll point out that your response to that point was a weak distractive dodge, so I'm not sure any of this is worth the time.

Read my #90 again. I have no objection to reconsideration of the methods we use to classify crimes. But, I also don't consider a criminal's loss of rights to be a central concern in the bigger picture of preserving natural rights for law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, I think a pro-2A org that focuses on protecting the rights of criminals is not only focused on the wrong issue, but is also destined to fail.

I'm gonna reply to a couple of other people.
If you wanna have a discussion, let's pick an issue and see if we can focus on that issue until we find common ground, then move on to another issue. But no more weak copouts. They make the discussion fruitless.

This is a discussion forum.
If discussion is unfocused and unregulated by the boundaries of logical argument, it's unproductive. Nothing gets accomplished.

 

[Tye]

Why Are Lifetime Gun Bans Being Imposed on Tax Cheats? | National Review

Non-violent crimes unrelated to guns shouldn’t deprive people of their right to bear arms for the rest of their lives.

www.nationalreview.com

We're either subjects of the Emperor and his Corporation or we make a decisive and purposeful decision to "Live Free" within the bounds of the first moral code and except that they will by any means attempt to make us kneel and we shall by every means resist.

 

[baker3gun]

IF the Constitution were in force, you would not have the authority to create these multiple classes of citizens you are trying to create.

Hi Resister. There is no logical connection between my post and your reply.
I don't know what you are trying to say.
Perhaps you are only throwing barbs.

In post #10, slimmer made rational observations about "2nd class citizens."
In post #81, I quoted him and posted some ideas in response.

At some point, you portrayed me as having authority, and made comments about multiple classes of citizens that I am trying to create.

You lost me.

Pick a specific item and post an argument. If I agree, i will say so. If i disagree, i will refute your argument.
Eventually, one argument will prevail.
Wise men will accept a prevailing argument and move forward. That simple process is the foundation for the advancement of human civilization, and has been since Aristotle.

Try to focus.

 

[Tye]

Hi Resister. There is no logical connection between my post and your reply.
I don't know what you are trying to say.
Perhaps you are only throwing barbs.

In post #10, slimmer made rational observations about "2nd class citizens."
In post #81, I quoted him and posted some ideas in response.

At some point, you portrayed me as having authority, and made comments about multiple classes of citizens that I am trying to create.

You lost me.

Pick a specific item and post an argument. If I agree, i will say so. If i disagree, i will refute your argument.
Eventually, one argument will prevail.
Wise men will accept a prevailing argument and move forward. That simple process is the foundation for the advancement of human civilization, and has been since Aristotle.

Try to focus.

I actually see you both are on the same page just a difference in perspective of the bullet points.

 

[MichaelH]

The Second Amendment enumerates a right and prohibits the gov from infringing on it. The right exists outside of the US Constitution, not because of it.

Before laws asserted that felons lost the freedom to exercise their rights to vote and possess firearms, they still had that freedom. I am not willing to put in the effort to research when those laws were enacted, but I would assume that the laws were enacted sometime in the 20th century, most of them anyway. So, what was once normal - having the freedom to exercise their rights - became abnormal in the 20th century, and we might be slowly returning to "normal" now, or trying to anyway.

The date this particular law was enacted is in the article posted....

Until the 2008 Heller decision the question of whether the 2nd amendment applied to individuals or well regulated militias was still not clear. One of the first people to assert it was an individual right was Huey Newton--who helped found the Black Panther Party--after the white folks in the legislature became uncomfortable with a bunch of armed black guys watching police pull over black people in Oakland. The CA legislature (Republicans had a narrow majority) then enacted one of the first modern gun control laws and Ronald Regan signed it. That's when the individual rights thing started to take off.

Anyway, I find the headline misleading. The headline makes it sound like the law that is the subject of the piece was signed last month.

 

[baker3gun]

@baker3gun - I have a couple questions for you.

I understand your points about not caring for somebody who committed a crime. I assume you are perfectly fine with law abiding citizens being able to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their family.

The family question scenario is what I'd like to know about. You don't care about a violent felon being able to protect themselves, if they have family should their family not be able to be protected as well?

For the sake of argument let's say this were somebody convicted AND released from prison (or never went to prison) 20-30-40+ years ago. They were 18 or 20 and have lived much more time since then, completely crime free.

Is there not something they could do that would convince you they are not a danger, they are rehabilitated and should be able to protect their family? Or are they and their family 2nd class citizens forever.

For the record, I don't think anybody should have rights restored immediately. There should be requirements to rebuild trust. I don't agree with "you bubblegumed up, so bubblegum off" mentality.

Hello Devneck. Thanks for your response.

I care about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I care less about protecting the rights of law-breaking citizens.

Other people will do the work necessary to protect the rights of criminals.

So i don't have to worry about it.

No one is doing effective work to protect public security, or the rights of crime victims, or the rights of law abiding citizens, or the rule of law, or our Constitution.

So I want to focus on those things. And not the rights of criminals.

It's just personal preference.

Thx.

 

[Alexx1401]

Parole officers could come in and violate someone easily enough, and repeat offenders usually get into trouble again. My point was more about the innocents; to have "daddy" home again and trying to go straight, they have to give up having a gun in the house so "daddy" doesn't go back to prison.

Been a long time since I worked with them but, unless it's changed. When on parole the person has almost no, or no 4th rights. The PO can come in and search anytime without consent or warning. Obviously the clown from the Watergate days must have been off parole when he was making the statements about his wife and her guns. Given how many convicted felons there are in the country there has got to be a hell of a lot of homes where one adult is no longer allowed to have a gun, yet guns are in the home. So as I said unless someone in the home is doing something to get the attention of the police? I would guess they are not going to get LE's showing up to search for said guns. So I am sure a lot of homes where either Mom or Dad gets out of the joint and comes home there is guns in the home. Unless Mom or Dad do something to get the attention of authorities they would probably never have them show up at the door. Guess if they ever had to use the gun to defend themselves they would then have to deal with the possibility of being charged with the gun being there. I guess they would have to decide if the risk of having nothing but dial a prayer to protect them, or the gun, was worth it and make the choice.
given how many active criminals are armed while still active criminals? Anyone who was convicted and is now living the life of the law abiding seems that they would be a low priority to be trying to "catch" with a gun they should not have. Not a lawyer and no Holiday Inn stays here but have to "guess". Maybe if Dad has a record Mom could have a gun in a safe at the home. Claim Dad did not have the combination to the safe so no "access" to the weapon. Again though it's hard to see the Police ending up searching for and finding this unless they had some good reason to be there. Again though no law degree here so just guessing.

 

[Devneck]

Hello Devneck. Thanks for your response.

I care about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I care less about protecting the rights of law-breaking citizens.

Other people will do the work necessary to protect the rights of criminals.

So i don't have to worry about it.

No one is doing effective work to protect public security, or the rights of crime victims, or the rights of law abiding citizens, or the rule of law, or our Constitution.

So I want to focus on those things. And not the rights of criminals.

It's just personal preference.

Thx.

I apologize, I'm still not clear on your position.

The child of a felon is, unless and until they themselves commit a crime and are convicted, a law abiding citizen.

The felon does not have the right to defend their child, possibly leaving the child defenseless ... even if they have proven themselves rehabilitated for decades?

 

[Devneck]

... Anyone who was convicted and is now living the life of the law abiding seems that they would be a low priority to be trying to "catch" with a gun they should not have....

I agree with the majority of your premise, however this jumped out at me.

Any felon that is living the life of the law would make sure to not toe the line of possessing a firearm when they know they are prohibited. Otherwise they aren't exactly law abiding. Though I agree LE isn't likely to seek them out

 

[kempoguy70]

Back in the day a released felon was to receive, a rifle, horse, saddle and a 20 dollar gold piece when released from prison in the 1800's. That's the story anyways. No idea if true.

I was stationed at Ft Huachuca in southern Arizona a number of years. The base is about a half hour drive from Tombstone (yes, THAT tombstone lol) and I spent many a day there reliving my days of 'playing cowboy'. Anyway, there was a proclamation hanging in the Tombstone Marshall's office that reads almost exactly as you stated. I've no idea if it was a law or a local or even state or county proclamation or ordinance (or whatever they may have called them in those days) but can confirm for fact that it did exist at least there in the late 1800's. Cool bit of history!!

 

[The Heretic]

So as I said unless someone in the home is doing something to get the attention of the police? I would guess they are not going to get LE's showing up to search for said guns.

This is true of active criminals with outstanding warrants; unless the LEOs stumble across someone and run a warrant check, or the criminal is caught doing something illegal, then no, the LEOs won't be coming into the house and checking for guns.

But my point is that it is a lot to risk (going back to prison), so someone trying their best to go straight, would maybe decide to not have guns in the house. This can put the family at risk, and it denies the family of their right to self protection.

Yes, putting the gun in a safe that only the non-felons have access to might be a defense, but in today's courts, with today's DAs and juries? I would not want to risk it.

These are things to think about going forward when some of us might find ourselves in this situation due to gun control laws.

 

[Alexx1401]

This is true of active criminals with outstanding warrants; unless the LEOs stumble across someone and run a warrant check, or the criminal is caught doing something illegal, then no, the LEOs won't be coming into the house and checking for guns.

But my point is that it is a lot to risk (going back to prison), so someone trying their best to go straight, would maybe decide to not have guns in the house. This can put the family at risk, and it denies the family of their right to self protection.

Yes, putting the gun in a safe that only the non-felons have access to might be a defense, but in today's courts, with today's DAs and juries? I would not want to risk it.

These are things to think about going forward when some of us might find ourselves in this situation due to gun control laws.

Yep, I certainly do NOT agree with the law making it so someone who screws up one time is banned for life but, majority of gun owners do not agree with me and have long told law makers they are fine with more laws.
If it was me? I have to guess I would have a gun at home and take the risk, over depending on dial a prayer. Everyone would of course have to make their own choice on something like this. I do feel bad for some who may have made some stupid mistake, often decades before, who are now faced with that choice. Risk being jailed and charged for a gun or hope dial a prayer can show up in time if they need help. What a poor damn choice to have to make.
I guess those who are "stuck" and do not want the risk could look at other options that are not a firearm. Just like those who can own a gun and refuse to do so. I have one kid who is still rabid anti gun. I have given her some OC and an Asp baton. Wish she would let me buy her a gun and classes but, sadly not happening
Tried to buy her one of those Burnya pepper ball pistols a good while back when I heard of them. Place would take your money then months later still not send it and I got a little worried and just took the money back. If they ever actually have them for sale I will buy her one. Looks like it would be better than dial a prayer and I hope to god she never has to find out she made a poor choice not accepting the gun
It would of course just make my damn day if they ever called and said she has "seen the light" and wants to learn to shoot and have a gun.

 

[The Resister]

I don't disagree with your points on how felons should be reintroduced into society. There are also many many cases of felons, especially first time convictions, where no prison time is even included in sentencing. It's entirely possible for somebody to never even see the inside of a jail (beyond initial arrest) and only receive probation.

As for living in a home with a firearm. I think that technically a spouse or roommate can legally own a gun. But there are 2 possible jeopardy issues.

The felon could be at risk unless they can defend they never ever ever ever could ever have access to the firearm.
The legal owner could be at risk for not securing the firearm from prohibited person.

Also, now that I think of it. Isn't ammunition illegal for a felon to have possession of? If so, then the family member would be responsible for securing the ammo to the same level of absolute certainty as a firearm.

I have seen articles of people living in the same house though and winning a case of felon in possession. However why take the risk ... especially if you have a conviction and are in the subset of people who made a mistake and are trying to do the right thing moving forward.

The laws vary by jurisdiction and I've been too lazy to deal with it. Allow me an example. Suppose you are a legal gun owner and you are in your work truck. One day you stop and take off your coat, leaving it in the cab with a day laborer. Now, as fate would have it, you parked in a no parking zone and a cop comes along. You have some bullets in your coat, a day laborer in the cab of your truck and the cop decides that your infraction is worthy of probable cause. If your helper has a criminal conviction, what happens at this point?

There is too much room for error the way the laws are written and I know of a case where, in another state, a man was at his brother's house and heard a noise. His brother's coat was close by so our hapless victim puts on his brother's coat and goes out to see what the noise is about. The noise is a police officer answering a call of suspicious activity. So, our victim is searched and there are a couple of shotgun shells and .22 caliber bullet in his brother's coat. This guy has a felony record. A couple of shotgun shells and a .22 LR bullet netted this poor guy 19 years in prison. I don't know if he ever won an appeal.

 

[The Resister]

Ha.
Your reply is a copout.
You quit a point, then you resorted to fallacious distraction.

Here is the summary:

I made some comments about gun rights for felons, see #79 & #81.

You replied in #83: unconstitutional laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens are bad laws.

I replied in #86: there is a difference between sentencing laws that deprive acknowledged criminals of RKBA, vs unconstitutional laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

You replied in #87: in places, the distinction is academic, the result is the same, it is not an issue of sentencing a felon to loss of rkba but rather an issue of some laws that sentence a felon to loss of rkba.

What?

Despite your weak reply, I responded anyway in #90: I maintain that there is a difference between societally-accepted laws that deprive felons of the rkba vs hypothetical (or extant) unconstitutional laws that deprive otherwise law-abiding citizens of natural human rights or freedom. The latter is what I meant by "convicting contrived felons."

I expected you to reply in response to that specific point, and to read my words in the context of that point. Such argument represents an opportunity for advancement.

Instead, you posted the legislators red herring. A distractive fallacy.

This is the same kind of meaningless refusal to prove or concede a specific point that I mentioned while dismantling nearly every assertion that The Resister made in his huge inalienable vs unalienable thread that got locked.

A gun forum has the potential to serve as a vehicle for uniting like-minded people who are presently obviously disunited and therefore losing the political battle that they want to win.

At some point, we have to stop looking for meaningless barbs and bumper sticker quotes to throw at each other, and start seeking common ground.

My #90 acknowledges the central issue you broached in this thread, and concurs with the apparent need to re-evaluate our classifications of crime so that we are not mindlessly and sweepingly depriving citizens of rights without justification.

If I could go back and do it all again, i would take a slightly different approach, but I would make the same points. Importantly, i would still call you out on the singularly small and not-important disagreement about whether sentencing laws that remove RKBS for felons are the same thing as unconstitutional laws that deprive law-abiding citizens of freedom and natural rights, but I'll point out that your response to that point was a weak distractive dodge, so I'm not sure any of this is worth the time.

Read my #90 again. I have no objection to reconsideration of the methods we use to classify crimes. But, I also don't consider a criminal's loss of rights to be a central concern in the bigger picture of preserving natural rights for law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, I think a pro-2A org that focuses on protecting the rights of criminals is not only focused on the wrong issue, but is also destined to fail.

I'm gonna reply to a couple of other people.
If you wanna have a discussion, let's pick an issue and see if we can focus on that issue until we find common ground, then move on to another issue. But no more weak copouts. They make the discussion fruitless.

This is a discussion forum.
If discussion is unfocused and unregulated by the boundaries of logical argument, it's unproductive. Nothing gets accomplished.

You are a legend in your own mind and nobody has ever refuted my analysis of unalienable versus inalienable. It hasn't been done on any board and NEVER in a court-room. Your points are a lot of semantics that cannot be responded to logically, so maybe Heretic didn't want to have a philosophical debate with you.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Everything the nazis did to the jews, by enacted codified German law, was legal.

 

[MichaelH]

They should do a lifetime ban on any mentally ill people from owning a gun.

That would exclude about half the people on this forum, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, who is mentally ill is a loaded question (unintentional pun), and that could potentially be unfair too. Does depression count? ADD? Brief periods of mania? Don't some people completely recover?