PDA

View Full Version : Debt Paid?



Knimrod
06-27-2006, 11:34 PM
Should convicted felons have their gun rights restored once their sentence is complete?

Divegeek
06-28-2006, 05:34 AM
I voted yes, but I need to qualify it. I don't think that it should be automatic, and some felonies should never get them back, particularly if you commited a crime while using a gun-NOT HAD A GUN ON YOU, but actively using the gun. Once you have served your sentence, plus an extra year or two just for good measure you should be able to apply at the county clerks office to have them reinstated. When the application is received they should do a check to make sure that you haven't been in any more trouble, and that the crime wasn't one of the ones that would permanently disqualify you, they should automatically get it back. No judgement involved because then we get back to the whole patchwork BS where some counties grant them easily, and some don't.

This issue effects me because I have a family member who at 17 stupidly commited a felony. He gave a ride to a friend right after the friend had commited a B&E and robbery. They got him as an accomplice. When he was tried his lawyer tried to get him tried as a minor so that he wouldn't have a permanent felony record, but the judge wasn't hearing it. He was tried as an adult and then plea bargained to get a reduced sentence. The judge said that if he served his sentence and went 5 years with out anymore trouble, he would expunge is record. He has since tried to get the record expunged, but the judge is being obstinant. Apparently he doesn't remember the statement he made at the sentencing. So now 13 years later they are trying to find another judge who will expunge his record.

NickS
06-28-2006, 07:43 AM
Divegeek - Check out AG Opinion 7133. Good luck.

45 acp
06-28-2006, 08:59 AM
I voted not sure. It would depend on the felony commited and the circumstances. Each one should be condidered on it's own merits.

bluethunder
06-28-2006, 10:24 AM
I agree with 45 acp. A lot of variables to be considered.

Kouger
06-28-2006, 10:35 AM
way too many for a yes or no poll

Knimrod
06-28-2006, 12:30 PM
Not necessarily my opinion but an observation:

Is the life of a convicted felon no longer worth defending? Do they have the same right to own a gun as anyone else? Should they be allowed to vote? Which right is more important? Do we believe guns are integral to individual freedom or dangerous to those freedoms?

Back in the 1800s, felons completing their sentences were considered to have actually paid their debt to society, were given their clothes and their pistol when they got out of prison and told: ‘Go forth and sin no more’.

It's the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts, minors, mentally ill people, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship from buying or owning a gun.

karcent
06-28-2006, 12:53 PM
Then the question should not be whether felons should be allowed to own guns, but whether we should repeal the GCA of 1968.
All in favor, say AYE.

BigBink
06-28-2006, 03:30 PM
Then the question should not be whether felons should be allowed to own guns, but whether we should repeal the GCA of 1968.
All in favor, say AYE.

AYE!

45 acp
06-28-2006, 05:32 PM
Then the question should not be whether felons should be allowed to own guns, but whether we should repeal the GCA of 1968.
All in favor, say AYE.
AYE AND ALL GUN LAWS PASSED SINCE THEN ALSO

Mike Kelly
06-28-2006, 07:19 PM
As long as the guy who did a drive by on my neighbors house a couple weeks ago doesn't get to legally own a gun again for the rest of his (hopefully brutally short) life, I'm all for repealing the law.

Scoop
06-28-2006, 07:50 PM
Nope.

Divegeek
06-28-2006, 10:19 PM
Divegeek - Check out AG Opinion 7133. Good luck.

I was aware of that. Gotta like Mike!:)

My family is working with a friend in the DA's office to get a hearing with the other judge in their county. Hopefully he will expunge his record. Should be interesting since the other judge was his defense attorney 13 years ago.

lisasue
06-29-2006, 10:05 AM
Stalkers are people that have problems with the word NO and most will go to any length to supposedly avenge their right to change a person's mind about being with them including murdering family members. So I would much rather them not be given a gun. Not to say they won't come up with another weapon to kill you with but it is easier to run from a knife.

Craig
06-29-2006, 06:01 PM
I guess I read the thread alittle to lat eto reply but, I was somewhat surprised to see that not many people responded to it. With 5 saying yes, 7 saying no and 10 undecided.

The only thing I wanted to add to this was that someday, most everything will be a felony. More and more "acts" are being criminalized and it will be virtually impossible for people to escape the web of conviction. Hell they might make it a felony to not wear a seat belt.

Craig
06-29-2006, 06:05 PM
Amen

michigan
06-30-2006, 01:19 PM
I think those convicted of violent gun crimes should be banned for life. Those who rob a bank with a gun, those with try to kill a wife with a gun, those who try to make love to a gun....you get the idea.:hardhat:
However someone with a felony for smoking too much pot when he was 17 and is now 47 proablly would be ok to shoot a duck. Heck if they let the VP shoot qual still then think about it. I think those with violent but non gun related crimes such as assualt, battery, domestic violence should have to wait 7 years without repeat convictions. Those with non violent non gun crimes like urinating in public while drunk should only have to wait a year. Just my thoughts on it.

Done Deal
07-01-2006, 12:04 PM
I I think those with violent but non gun related crimes such as assualt, battery, domestic violence should have to wait 7 years without repeat convictions.

Violent?

My son got arrested for Resisting Arrest. It used to be perfectly legal to resist an unlawful arrest but guess what, not any more. After they arrested him forcefully (while trying to snatch his Marlboro in an apartment) they charged him with R&O. It was a trumped up charge but....are you saying that he shouldn't be able to hunt because of that? The fact that he is no longer able to get certain jobs is bad enough but...c'mon....hunt? Gimme a break...

Knimrod
07-01-2006, 12:47 PM
If a person released from prison is considered too dangerous to have a gun, why the hell was he released from prison? And if this person is prohibited by law from having a gun, does that somehow stop him from actually obtaining one? The premise is ridiculous just like most gun laws.

michigan
07-01-2006, 01:07 PM
I know. I merely meant that violent gun crimes likes assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder with a gun shouldnt be allowed to have them back. People with resisting arrest would be nonviolent and only have to wait untill off probation under my above suggestion. Those who actually assault an officer would have to wait 7 versus the forever right now. Some people dont realise this, but even misdomenors can take away your guns. Domestic violence misdomenor or csc4th degree misdomenor can have your guns taken away. Lots of cops lost their jobs after those laws were pasts since many have convictions for hitting wife, slapping chicks butt at bar while drunk. Not thats it good or bad, but its true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


If a person released from prison is considered too dangerous to have a gun, why the hell was he released from prison? And if this person is prohibited by law from having a gun, does that somehow stop him from actually obtaining one? The premise is ridiculous just like most gun laws.

Knimrod
07-01-2006, 01:36 PM
I wasn't responding specifically to your post, just the general predisposition that puts the focus on the gun rather than the person.

It's funny that some people don't have the same attitude about cars and crimes committed with cars. If someone intentionally commits a murder by running over someone else with a car, that person will not be forever banned from owning or driving car when he's released from prison. Why isn't the same true for guns?

As long as guns are treated as the root cause of crimes committed with guns rather than the person, We will always have a gun problem. It's a self-fulfilling hypothesis.

michigan
07-01-2006, 02:41 PM
Interesting point. A good counterpoint is that they actually do that. People convicted of multiple drunk drivings or vehicular manslaughter often loose their license for life, and legally you cant drive without one. Just an interesting side note is all.:hardhat:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


I wasn't responding specifically to your post, just the general predisposition that puts the focus on the gun rather than the person.

It's funny that some people don't have the same attitude about cars and crimes committed with cars. If someone intentionally commits a murder by running over someone else with a car, that person will not be forever banned from owning or driving car when he's released from prison. Why isn't the same true for guns?

As long as guns are treated as the root cause of crimes committed with guns rather than the person, We will always have a gun problem. It's a self-fulfilling hypothesis.

BigBink
07-01-2006, 03:08 PM
Interesting point. A good counterpoint is that they actually do that. People convicted of multiple drunk drivings or vehicular manslaughter often loose their license for life, and legally you cant drive without one. Just an interesting side note is all.:hardhat:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counterpoint doesn't wash. It isn't apples to apples. If it were, the driver of a getaway car from a 7-11 heist would be banned for life from riding in a car.

Knimrod
07-01-2006, 03:14 PM
Interesting point. A good counterpoint is that they actually do that. People convicted of multiple drunk drivings or vehicular manslaughter often loose their license for life, and legally you cant drive without one. Just an interesting side note is all.:hardhat:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe I worded the point poorly... Losing a license for life isn't the same as an outright and complete ban. Even if you lost your driver's license, you could still own, possess, buy or sell a car and you could still drive it on private property.

M1911A1
07-01-2006, 03:18 PM
I wasn't going to comment on this thread since it might be construed as official but I can no long resist.

The following statements are my opinion, not that of this or any other organization real or imagined.

Look very carefully at this thread, all of the thread. Look at how different ideas have been presented on who should or should not have their gun rights restored and/or if GCA'68 should be repealed. Regardless of how any argument has been presented for the limit of gun rights being restored and also regardless of how "valid" an argument for further restriction may seem it does indicate that gun rights will never be totally unrestricted.
There have been other threads on this board that have said things like getting the Michigan "safety inspection" repealed should be a main focus and yet others want less CEZs out there.
Perhaps this thread is an indication of why those things either never come to pass or are so bargained down as to mean nothing.
Have I made myself clear? Probably not, so I will spell it out in plain english.
The enemy knows exactly what they want i.e. the total restriction of all firearms. Make no mistake! That is the ultimate goal of the anti gun groups out there. All of them, everywhere from U.N. to the soccer mom down the street. They hide behind words like "reasonable restriction" and "public safety" but their leader's stated goals are clear and absolute. Read what Pete Shields, Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, and the like have said. They have never hidden the fact that their ultimate goal is no firearms in the hands of the public, period.
Now look again at this thread. Some say there are "reasonable restrictions" other aren't so sure but think there should be a public safety concern and a few think that there is no reasonable restriction. Even on this thread alone, the alleged pro gun concern is unclear on their ultimate objective.
Just on that, tactically there is no way the pro gun community can win.
Sure, we can hold back some of the onslaught but it is like kicking crap again the tide with a snowshoe. Our goal is unclear, theirs is clear.
How many of you have had a CPL class, teach one or have had any advanced training? Did you not learn that mindset is the foundation of the defensive triangle? Do you not know that without the will to prevail, your cause is all but lost? Any yet that is strictly from a defensive position!
By our nature, we have been so trained to react rather than act. Aggression is not in our nature but only the will to resist aggression. In the fight for gun rights, the will to resist some of the attack will not prevail. The will to resist ALL attacks on gun rights would be a better guard against the onslaught of the enemy but it will still not prevail. Only by concerted effort towards an absolute goal can true progress really be made.
Are these things that I have come up with out of my own profound brilliance? Not hardly! I wish I was that profoundly brilliant but truth be told the study of history and the mindset of battle are the teachers that must be heeded. Insert your favorite champion of liberty here as there are many to choose from starting with Cicero and working up through the ages.
In other threads on these fora some have posed whether it might be time for some form of revolt. While I can understand their frustration I cannot see where a revolt would do any one any good. From my perspective, a clarity of purpose is what the pro gun community needs. Until all pro gun people can agree that all restriction is abhorrent to the constitution and every law passed to that end is an abomination, starting with the Sullivan act of 1911 in New York right through the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986 that forbade you to own any new full automatic and all "restrictions" in between and since, then no real progress toward further liberty can be made. If the pro gun goal was as clear and absolute as the enemy's then revolt will not nor ever be needed. Until then, Lord, save me from my friends. My enemies? I know who they are.


This rant has been brought to you by me. The opinions expressed are my own. I state them without fear of threat. force or retaliation. You are free to disagree, agree, violently disagree and even flame the stuffing out of me to your hearts content but I serious doubt you will change my mind and I seriously doubt I will debate this any further.

Thank you for your time.

Done Deal
07-01-2006, 05:54 PM
Look at how different ideas have been presented on who should or should not have their gun rights restored and/or if GCA'68 should be repealed. Regardless of how any argument has been presented for the limit of gun rights being restored and also regardless of how "valid" an argument for further restriction may seem it does indicate that gun rights will never be totally unrestricted...........

Just on that, tactically there is no way the pro gun community can win.


Yup, sad isn't it? But, like any issue, there is division and it is that division that weakens the overall strength...same for hunting issues...too bad but...reality nonetheless.

Knimrod
07-01-2006, 08:31 PM
From my perspective, a clarity of purpose is what the pro gun community needs. Until all pro gun people can agree that all restriction is abhorrent to the constitution and every law passed to that end is an abomination, starting with the Sullivan act of 1911 in New York right through the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986 that forbade you to own any new full automatic and all "restrictions" in between and since, then no real progress toward further liberty can be made. If the pro gun goal was as clear and absolute as the enemy's then revolt will not nor ever be needed. Until then, Lord, save me from my friends. My enemies? I know who they are.

Eloquently put Marty... :clap:

michigan
07-01-2006, 09:21 PM
Not everyone knows that but after 5 years you can apply for restoration of rights to vote and guns. In Michigan we can vote as long as not in jail even if on probation, but the restoration of rights still applies to gun ownership and cpl.

michigan
07-01-2006, 09:32 PM
I forgot to add this to my last post. It may help if anyone is interested in learning more about it.

http://michigan.gov/documents/NSL600_17151_7.pdf

Knimrod
07-01-2006, 10:14 PM
Not everyone knows that but after 5 years you can apply for restoration of rights to vote and guns.

Yea.. Here's how that works: A convicted felon can apply to the BATF to have his gun rights restored...except the BATF is prohibited by law (act of Congress, 1992) from spending money for such purposes. A convicted felon can appeal this to the federal courts but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled (UNITED STATES ET AL. v. BEAN (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf)) in 2002 that the federal courts did not have the authority to restore gun rights to convicted felons and that convicted felons must go through the BATF to have their gun rights restored, even though that agency has been prohibited by Congress from processing such requests since 1992.

Nice system, huh?

Maranatha
07-01-2006, 10:39 PM
I voted NO,
my brother is a Convicted felon, and he should never be able to own a Firearm.

But, then the only interaction he should have with a firearm is, 2 to the body and 1 to the head.

Mike Kelly
07-02-2006, 02:28 PM
<...>



<steps out into the open, ignites the pilot light and squirts some stuff out of the flame thrower>

You're right of course. Guns for everyone. Especially the fine upstanding convicted felon who was firing his illegally obtained 9mm into my next door neighbors house two weeks ago.
Precisely what part of the 'defensive triangle' was going to intervene on the behalf of my kids if this guy twitched and sent a couple rounds into my house?
Or do you think I was supposed to come running out of the house shooting?

I know he got the gun even though he wasn't supposed to own them. But having the gun in his possession, AND using it to commit a felony is padding his bill and he's going to head off to prison for a exquisitely long sentence.

You don't suppose that there is any chance we can repeal most of the onerous gun laws and leave the good ones in? And by "good ones" I mean the ones that tack on extra time to the sentence of convicted felons.

michigan
07-02-2006, 07:23 PM
wow.....its been awhile since I've heard a sister say that about a brother. He must have done something horrible, was it to you? Is he in prison right now?


I voted NO,
my brother is a Convicted felon, and he should never be able to own a Firearm.

But, then the only interaction he should have with a firearm is, 2 to the body and 1 to the head.

Maranatha
07-02-2006, 08:22 PM
I'm his brother not his sister, I don't really want to see him dead, life in prison would be good. But since they let him out.....

michigan
07-02-2006, 09:19 PM
ok I admit, I'm curioius. What did he do? And why the callsign "marantha" I named a boat after an ex once, is yours the same deal?


I'm his brother not his sister, I don't really want to see him dead, life in prison would be good. But since they let him out.....

Quaamik
07-11-2006, 05:27 PM
You don't suppose that there is any chance we can repeal most of the onerous gun laws and leave the good ones in? And by "good ones" I mean the ones that tack on extra time to the sentence of convicted felons.

There are no good gun laws.

I'll say it again, in case someone might think there is some room for debate on this within me. There are no good gun laws.

A person cannot be "partialy" free. They are either free, or a prisoner. Any law that prohibits a free person from possessing the means to defend that freedom is evil, pure and simple. It reduces people to the status of slaves.

Is there a chance, even a good chance, that a convicted felon may commit a crime with a gun after release from prison? Yes. So what. Show me how the law stating they cannot posses a firearm stops the repeat offenders now. It doesn't.

Punish the crime. Punish the action. Put the people who rape & murder in jail and weld the door shut. Double or triple the penalties for a repeat offender of ANY violent crime. Weld the door shut on thier cell after three convictions for violent crimes. But don't ask me to support telling a man or woman who is free to walk the streets that they aren't free to defend thier own lives.

dmharvey
07-12-2006, 01:41 AM
I'd say it depends on the crime. Violent crimes...never.

BlueMalibu
07-20-2006, 11:11 AM
I justed voted YES. Because:

No law will stop a felon from getting and using a gun after they are released.

If they are of a character that I would not trust them with gun ownership then we NEED TO LEAVE THEM IN JAIL as that is the only way I can be reasonably assured they won't have access to a gun.

IMO, to be let of jail we need to be able to trust a felon with gun ownership - if we can't they need to stay there.

Letting felons out of jail and thinking the felon in possession law will prevent a felon from committing another felony with a gun is pure stupidy. This is proven every day as felons use firearms in repeat felonies.