Should non-violent first offense felons loose their gun rights?

[hkgonra]

Any crime serious enough to take away a person's right to carry a gun should also carry the death penalty.

[RobertNashville]

Any crime serious enough to take away a person's right to carry a gun should also carry the death penalty.

I've been stocking up on incandescent light bulbs in anticipation of all of them becoming illegal just as the 100w bulb will be in a few days...I'm sure, if things continue, that it won't only be illegal to sell them in the U.S. but illegal to possess them as well. Given the seriousness of the laws regarding my toilott I'm sure possess of the wrong kind of light bulb will also be a felony.

So...with your line of reasoning, I should be put to death, right???

Considering the number of people who have served years, even decades on death row only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, I'm thinking we should be reconsidering how often we impose a death penalty on anyone (but I guess that's a different discussion for another time).

[TMF]

I've been stocking up on incandescent light bulbs in anticipation of all of them becoming illegal just as the 100w bulb will be in a few days...I'm sure, if things continue, that it won't only be illegal to sell them in the U.S. but illegal to possess them as well. Given the seriousness of the laws regarding my toilott I'm sure possess of the wrong kind of light bulb will also be a felony.

So...with your line of reasoning, I should be put to death, right???

Considering the number of people who have served years, even decades on death row only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, I'm thinking we should be reconsidering how often we impose a death penalty on anyone (but I guess that's a different discussion for another time).

I think he was suggesting that a crime serious enough to strip a person of their 2nd Amendment rights should be pretty serious.

[RobertNashville]

I think he was suggesting that a crime serious enough to strip a person of their 2nd Amendment rights should be pretty serious.

Could well be.

[Oh Shoot]

If we are going to change the BATF laws to allow any felon to get his gun rights back, there's only one way to truly legislate it -- and that's to let ALL felons do it.

Once all sentences and probation periods are complete, I support that.

- OS

[hkgonra]

I think he was suggesting that a crime serious enough to strip a person of their 2nd Amendment rights should be pretty serious.

Exactly !

I also believe that anyone that has been released from jail should have their 2nd ammendment rights intact. The state has said that they are in control of punsihment for crimes. When they let a person out they are saying to us this person has paid for his crime and is now ready to go back into society. If they are letting someone out and telling us they can't have a gun then they are telling us that the person is dangerous. WHY would you put a dangerous person back on the streets ?

Edited December 16, 2011 by hkgonra

[Oh Shoot]

Exactly !

I also believe that anyone that has been released from jail should have their 2nd ammendment rights intact. ...

I agree but would add completion of parole period as a condition also.

- OS

[Guest oldslowchevy]

it is funny to me how mant people can not use common sence in threads of this nauture and there views have to be so extreme one way or the other. also i like how people post things that are felonies buy provide links to these things.

[RobertNashville]

Exactly !

I also believe that anyone that has been released from jail should have their 2nd ammendment rights intact. The state has said that they are in control of punsihment for crimes. When they let a person out they are saying to us this person has paid for his crime and is now ready to go back into society. If they are letting someone out and telling us they can't have a gun then they are telling us that the person is dangerous. WHY would you put a dangerous person back on the streets ?

Oh if that were only true...what they are really saying today in many cases is that "we don't have they money or the institutional fortitude (i.e. balls) to keep you in jail for as long as you really should be in jail. One of the reason we have so much violent crime today (and why we need to carry) is because our legal system keeps letting dangerous people back out onto the street.

[Oh Shoot]

...also i like how people post things that are felonies buy provide links to these things.

Want to take another stab at that one?

- OS

[Makiaveli]

I've been stocking up on incandescent light bulbs in anticipation of all of them becoming illegal just as the 100w bulb will be in a few days...I'm sure, if things continue, that it won't only be illegal to sell them in the U.S. but illegal to possess them as well. Given the seriousness of the laws regarding my toilott I'm sure possess of the wrong kind of light bulb will also be a felony.

So...with your line of reasoning, I should be put to death, right???

Considering the number of people who have served years, even decades on death row only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, I'm thinking we should be reconsidering how often we impose a death penalty on anyone (but I guess that's a different discussion for another time).

FTR, that isn't what I was suggesting either. I didn't say all felonies should be capital. Just that if you commit a crime so heinous, that permanently taking away your ability to defend yourself (assuming it covers all weapons and not just firearms) is a justifiable option, then it was such a serious crime you should have forfeited your right to life.

To be clear, I am not talking about asinine crimes like toilets, I am talking about rape, murder etc.

[Guest JHansonLPN]

So, if you buy a used car, get pulled over at a traffic stop and a drug dog happens to find a hidden baggie of cocaine in your car, it's OK for you to lose all of your rights? It's happened more than once. Or, how about the SWAT team goes to YOUR place based on the testimony of a paid informer, conducts a raid during which you shoot at a cop breaking down your door. You survive, but go to jail for 'attempted homicide'. This has also happened more often than you would think.

Also, there are a LOT of laws that make violators felons that almost all folks would never guess. How about installing a classic toilet when you redecorate your house? If it flushes 2 gallons, you are a felon. Ever spilled oil while changing the oil in your car? In some places, it's a felony.

I'm not gonna be convicted for a bag of dope found in a new car...I can prove I recently bought the car, I can have hundreds of character witnessess testify my antidrug stance, I have no history of drug use, much less abuse, and I can prove that I'm living inside my means and not dealing. I'm not going to have a SWAT team at my front door, I make a point of not knowing anyone who would be in a position to be a paid informer, and I'm known by enough of the LEO's in the area that if my name did come up there would have to be some serious Corroborating evidence, thats just not going to happen. It's been my experience that due to plea bargains, lesser charges, acquttals, and mistrials, its stupid hard to become a felon. It not only requires means, motive, and oppurtunity, but also a history as well. Sure accidents happen but really few of them. It's also my experience that first time felons become career felons in very short orders with a high degree of escalation involved in criminal enterprises. Bottom line, even if a person is wrongly convicted of a felony they still had to show poor judgement, and irresponsibility to be in the position in the first place. Either way them carrying a firearm in public is a bad idea.

[1gewehr]

I'm not gonna be convicted for a bag of dope found in a new car...I can prove I recently bought the car, I can have hundreds of character witnessess testify my antidrug stance, I have no history of drug use, much less abuse, and I can prove that I'm living inside my means and not dealing. I'm not going to have a SWAT team at my front door, I make a point of not knowing anyone who would be in a position to be a paid informer, and I'm known by enough of the LEO's in the area that if my name did come up there would have to be some serious Corroborating evidence, thats just not going to happen. It's been my experience that due to plea bargains, lesser charges, acquttals, and mistrials, its stupid hard to become a felon. It not only requires means, motive, and oppurtunity, but also a history as well. Sure accidents happen but really few of them. It's also my experience that first time felons become career felons in very short orders with a high degree of escalation involved in criminal enterprises. Bottom line, even if a person is wrongly convicted of a felony they still had to show poor judgement, and irresponsibility to be in the position in the first place. Either way them carrying a firearm in public is a bad idea.

I'm certain that you are such a shining pure light of innocence that you will never be convicted of wrong-doing. Even by someone who takes a dislike to you.

But there are other people who may still be innocent and not have your celestial connections. Likewise, it has been known to happen that some jurisdictions have been known to have 'bad cops', or even prosecutors who want to make an example or win a reputation. But the most likely case is the Federal Agency that has an agenda. We know that only real violent career criminals have ever been convicted by the IRS, ATF, FDA, OSHA, EPA, or any other alphabet agency, don't we? Just for fun, some time, why don't you look up the EPAs arrest and conviction history. And ATF? There are entire webpages devoted to that agency's abuses.

As for SWAT teams, there have been hundreds of documented cases where SWAT teams did a 'dynamic entry' on a residence that had no criminals in it. Informers make up addresses, get them wrong, or just plain lie. Paperwork gets addresses mis-spelled or numbers written down wrong. And sometimes, the SWAT team just plain gets the wrong house. And sometimes people die or go to jail as a result.

And while you may be right that in most cases it still takes bad judgement to get convicted of a felony, do you really want to take that chance? Don't just think of yourself. Think of everyone else out there, who lives a quiet, decent life. Do THEY deserve to lose their rights if they run afoul of a silly law or rogue law enforcement? You make the argument that you are proof against wrongful conviction. But we are not discussing you. We are talking about other people. And not all of them were really criminals or violent.

[Guest conditionZERO]

I'm certain that you are such a shining pure light of innocence that you will never be convicted of wrong-doing. Even by someone who takes a dislike to you.

But there are other people who may still be innocent and not have your celestial connections. Likewise, it has been known to happen that some jurisdictions have been known to have 'bad cops', or even prosecutors who want to make an example or win a reputation. But the most likely case is the Federal Agency that has an agenda. We know that only real violent career criminals have ever been convicted by the IRS, ATF, FDA, OSHA, EPA, or any other alphabet agency, don't we? Just for fun, some time, why don't you look up the EPAs arrest and conviction history. And ATF? There are entire webpages devoted to that agency's abuses.

As for SWAT teams, there have been hundreds of documented cases where SWAT teams did a 'dynamic entry' on a residence that had no criminals in it. Informers make up addresses, get them wrong, or just plain lie. Paperwork gets addresses mis-spelled or numbers written down wrong. And sometimes, the SWAT team just plain gets the wrong house. And sometimes people die or go to jail as a result.

And while you may be right that in most cases it still takes bad judgement to get convicted of a felony, do you really want to take that chance? Don't just think of yourself. Think of everyone else out there, who lives a quiet, decent life. Do THEY deserve to lose their rights if they run afoul of a silly law or rogue law enforcement? You make the argument that you are proof against wrongful conviction. But we are not discussing you. We are talking about other people. And not all of them were really criminals or violent.

Very well said sir!

[Alleycat72]

If it is too dangerous for someone to own a gun, they shouldstill be in prison.

[tnhawk]

it is funny to me how mant people can not use common sence in threads of this nauture and there views have to be so extreme one way or the other. also i like how people post things that are felonies buy provide links to these things.

This may be felony use of Engish!

[redfsr]

I've been stocking up on incandescent light bulbs in anticipation of all of them becoming illegal just as the 100w bulb will be in a few days...I'm sure, if things continue, that it won't only be illegal to sell them in the U.S. but illegal to possess them as well. Given the seriousness of the laws regarding my toilott I'm sure possess of the wrong kind of light bulb will also be a felony.

So...with your line of reasoning, I should be put to death, right???

Just FYI, the incandescent light bulb ban was just repealed. You're safe.

[Oh Shoot]

Just FYI, the incandescent light bulb ban was just repealed. You're safe.

Nope, wasn't. Phaseout is proceeding.

- OS

[Guest oldslowchevy]

This may be felony use of Engish!

hey i may not be real smart but i can lift heavy things.....

[Stegall Law Firm]

There's always diversion, which can be used to avoid a conviction on most non-violent first offenses, including felonies. But if memory serves me there have been cases where people who successfully completed diversion still had trouble buying a gun from an FFL. (Another reason to buy through private sale...sorry, gun shop owners.)

Another problem is that I'm not even sure diversion existed 20, 30 years ago, so the guy who received a non-violent conviction back then had no recourse. At least today you have that opportunity.

There's also restoration of rights but I think that's all over the place. State law, federal law, ATF ruling, who knows. There was a case in Nashville a year or so ago about that but I don't know what happened.

[redfsr]

Nope, wasn't. Phaseout is proceeding.

- OS

Yep, was. Repeal was packed into the 1200 page spending bill passed mid December.

Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban - Washington Times

[Oh Shoot]

Yep, was. Repeal was packed into the 1200 page spending bill passed mid December.

Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban - Washington Times

Didn't overturn law, from your article:

"The spending bill doesn’t actually amend the 2007 law, but does prohibit the administration from spending any money to carry out the light bulb standards — which amounts to at least a temporary reprieve."

Today's standards for incandescent bulbs are still on phase-out. New performance standards must be met. Really more of a semantic debate.

Topic was moved to:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/67097-truth-about-new-light-bulb-law.html

- OS