For those who think convicted felons should never be able to own guns again

[Doublebass73]

  The warning shot was stupid and unnecessary. With that said I know of several people that are convicted felons and can no longer own or use guns. None of them are or were ever dangerous. One of them was convicted of killing a stray cat with a golf club. The cat was fighting with his dog. Rabies? I have also known of convicted felons that were dangerous and the laws did not stop them from carrying guns. It seems that only law abiding convicted felons have their second amendment rights violated.

Good post LF, I agree the guy made a dumb mistake but to call this man a felon and take away his 2nd Amendment rights would be an atrocity. I live about 45 minutes from where this happened and NH is a small state so from everything I've heard about this guy he sounds like a neighbor I'd like to have.

[Doublebass73]

Good News! Charges have been dropped, it looks like the AG didn't want to deal with all the national attention this story received.
http://www.wmur.com/news/30524687/detail.html

[SHOOTALL]

So some like myself at one time believe when you finish your prision time your debt is paid. In reality it isn't paid until all aspects of the law are filled. One being no voting.

[Empty Quiver]

So some like myself at one time believe when you finish your prision time your debt is paid. In reality it isn't paid until all aspects of the law are filled. One being no voting.

Prison time is many times just a part of the punishment for a crime. Upon release most are also part of a conditional parole. As further punishment, revocation of voting rights and gun possession.


I think that there are many felony offenses that should be revisited and some sort of middle ground offense possibly or perhaps a non violent felony be treated differently as regards gun possession. Judicial review of cases is an idea, with the exception that many judges are very biased against private gun ownership. Your rights would be subject to the whims and personnel bias of individual judges.


I'm glad to hear the subject of the post is not being charged. My faith in fellow citizens being well founded ... this time.

[SHOOTALL]

That said if you commit a felony it's you that caused the trouble.

[coyotejoe]

I like the old westerns where the guy gets out of prison and the warden hands him back his gun at the gate. He has paid his debt to society and is entitled to all rights of citizenship. In the case of that homeowner, he fired a shot which harmed no one and caught a crook which benefited all. It's silly to say "but what if the bullet had ricocheted and hit someone else?" Well it didn't, no harm no foul. Every time you get into your car you can say "but what if I had struck and killed a pedestrian?" You didn't so why should you be punished for a "what if"? The guy said he feared he couldn't handle the crook physically so he fired a shot into the ground. So he was in fear of physical assault and thus would have been justified to shoot the crook. Why is he being punished for taking a less deadly tactic?

[Empty Quiver]

None of were there. It might well make sense if we were.


Shooting into the ground is a bit Hollywood for my taste. Verbal warning " I am armed, stop where you are, get on the ground " IMO is a much more reasonable approach. If at that point you are attacked? well, you do what has to be done to defend yourself.


  Secondly I don't exactly subscribe to the citizen /law enforcement officer school of thought. I am of the opinion that deadly force is warranted if you believe your life is in danger, clearly a burglar leaving a neighbors house does not meet MY criteria. A reasonable attempt to detain them, yes. Being armed in that attempt, again yes. Shooting at a fleeing "suspect"? I don't think so. That just does not meet the feeling of imperilment standard.


Again I was not there. Those most familiar with the case decided he was golden. I'm happy for all involved.

[Swampman]

It's not that hard to get your rights reinstated.

[Richard P]

I believe it is proper to review whether a felon is likely to be a violent person. There are many people who commit a non violent act that is judged a felony. If it was not a violent act and the person not likely to commit a violent act, they should have a path to regaining their 2nd Amendmenr rights.  Will someone who may have input as to restoration of 2A rights please post it.

[r29l20]

You might as well not have a personal defence weapon. We 'd be better of just letting law enforcement protect us. Can you smell that Homer that's sarcasum.

[BUGEYE]

At the very least, a person who has done their time should have a gun in their home.
maybe limit them to a shotgun.  it could be used for HD and hunting.

[Empty Quiver]

At the very least, a person who has done their time should have a gun in their home.
maybe limit them to a shotgun.  it could be used for HD and hunting.

I can't agree whole heartedly. The way sentencing has been bastardized you have no idea what time has been served. John Hinkley has "done his time" if memory serves me, should that abomination be allowed to possess a shotgun?


By and large I can agree to non violent felons being allowed to own guns. A drunked up teenager, knocking over tombstones can do a felony's amount of damage pretty quickly. In no way does that equal an armed robbery conviction in my mind. A review every five years or so might be in order but immediate reinstatement of rights is not called for in every case.


We tend to forget that laws were arrived at because of society feeling the legitimate need.  When overdone these laws do deserve review though.

[Cuts Crooked]

There's an old saying among cons, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
 
Part of "the time" is loss of certain rights if you get caught doing the crime. In short, you make that choice yourself. Everyone pretty much knows what happens when you commit a felony, and those that make the choice to do so anyway have no room to B**(h about it.......if you can't stand the thought of living without yer lil pistol, then don't commit a felony! It's pretty simple really!

[r29l20]

Most criminals know the BS and red tape we would have to go through, if we take action. That's why they are pushing the envelope, and taking bigger risks. That is just my opinion though.

[BAGTIC]

Laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons are laughable. If they had any respect for the law they would not have become felons in the first place.
 
There are only two ways to guarantee they don't arm themselves. Execute them, or keep them locked up for life and even that isn't absolutely certain.

[GH1]

Let me add this. He is expected to live within the laws of the state in which he resides. If you find the laws governing your behavior abhorrent ... move.

Or better yet, get involved and work to change them.
GH1