Guns for felons?

[Doublebass73]

Laws written to prevent felons from owning guns are about as useful as laws that prevent people from possessing drugs. A felon is someone who committed a crime AKA criminal. A criminal by definition is someone who doesn't follow the law. Could someone explain how a law will prevent a proven criminal (person who doesn't follow the law) from possessing a gun?

My thoughts are that it's always best to err on the side of the Constitution. Here's the 2nd Amendment, I guess the founding fathers weren't concerned about felons and guns since they didn't add a "felon" clause to the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess some people have a difficult time with the meaning of "shall not be infringed".

[Casull]

Laws written to prevent felons from owning guns are about as useful as laws that
prevent people from possessing drugs. A felon is someone who committed a crime
AKA criminal. A criminal by definition is someone who doesn't follow the law.
Could someone explain how a law will prevent a proven criminal (person who
doesn't follow the law) from possessing a gun?

Hell, by that logic, then we shouldn't have laws making it illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc.  You know them criminal types are going to do it anyways.  Wow.     

[Doublebass73]

Laws written to prevent felons from owning guns are about as useful as laws that
prevent people from possessing drugs. A felon is someone who committed a crime
AKA criminal. A criminal by definition is someone who doesn't follow the law.
Could someone explain how a law will prevent a proven criminal (person who
doesn't follow the law) from possessing a gun?

Hell, by that logic, then we shouldn't have laws making it illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc.  You know them criminal types are going to do it anyways.  Wow.     

Talk about missing my point completely.

[Hooker]

 All laws are for the law abiding people, criminals have no need for them.
I'm amazed at all the champions of liberty on here that want to make others go through life as second class citizens.
You see felonies, hate crimes , domestic violence, murder, speeding, jay walking, .... All have one thing in common they are committed by criminals.
But wait I was only doing 5 over the speed limit!! Makes no difference you broke the law your a criminal it's a choice you made and that charge of being a speeder is now going to follow you all the days of your life.

Pat

[Casull]

Yeah Doublebass73, I guess I did miss your point.  Particularly since you seem to state that once a felon always a felon, and then in the same breath state that we shouldn't take away their rights.   

[Casull]

But wait I was only doing 5 over the speed limit!! Makes no difference you broke
the law your a criminal it's a choice you made and that charge of being a
speeder is now going to follow you all the days of your life.

That was useful.       Problem is nobody is making that ridiculous claim.  Why is it that when we're talking about FELONS and FELONIES, somebody goes jumping off the deep end and trying to equate it to misdemeanors and, for Pete's sake, traffic infractions.  You just lost all credibility with that one. 
 

I'm amazed at all the champions of liberty on here that want to make others
go through life as second class citizens.

Make them go through life as second class citizens?  Really?  You're serious?  Did someone make them rape some 16 year old girl (or boy for that matter)?  Did someone make them murder the old lady next door?  Did someone make them rob the bank?  I give up.  Some just can't get it.   

[yellowtail3]

Why is it that when we're talking about FELONS and FELONIES, somebody goes jumping off the deep end and trying to equate it to misdemeanors and, for Pete's sake, traffic infractions.

I've been talking about misdemeanors and non-crimes (DV accusations) that result in loss of 2nd Amendment rights.

You just lost all credibility with that one. 

are you the decider on who has credibility?

[Redhawk1]

So one can't show his emoition ?

Come on, get real, showing emotions are not a felony. Are you serious? You at just being ridiculous with this now!

[mechanic]

I had a BIL, now deceased, that got a felony DUI.  After 20 years of sobriety, he still could not legally own a gun, or have one in his home. 
 
There should be some distinction in felonies IMO.  If a guy shot 5 people dead just for mean-ness, maybe.  But so many of these felonies are that just so they can get more money from the accused.
 
Ben

[Casull]

There should be some distinction in felonies IMO.

I tend to agree.  I believe that it should be limited to violent felonies.
 

 If a guy shot 5 people dead just for mean-ness, maybe. 

Maybe?  Are you serious?  A mass murderer should never see daylight, let alone ever possess a firearm.

[mechanic]

There should be some distinction in felonies IMO.

I tend to agree.  I believe that it should be limited to violent felonies.
 

 If a guy shot 5 people dead just for mean-ness, maybe. 

Maybe?  Are you serious?  A mass murderer should never see daylight, let alone ever possess a firearm.

 
Just illustrating the serious with the absurd.  If a man is bad enough to lose ALL his rights, he probably should be left locked up, or put down......
 
Ben

[Hooker]

That was useful.       Problem is nobody is making that ridiculous claim.  Why is it that when we're talking about FELONS and FELONIES, somebody goes jumping off the deep end and trying to equate it to misdemeanors and, for Pete's sake, traffic infractions.  You just lost all credibility with that one. 
 
 
Make them go through life as second class citizens?  Really?  You're serious?  Did someone make them rape some 16 year old girl (or boy for that matter)?  Did someone make them murder the old lady next door?  Did someone make them rob the bank?  I give up.  Some just can't get it.   

First I was not comparing felonies to misdemeanors I was comparing criminals to criminals.
Oh I'm serious .  There are some crimes that warrant that society should not let the perpetrator continue to be among us. Let's take the rapist in your reply.  . He should be worm food therefore he has no need of any guns or rights.
The same with who ever kill the sweet old lady next door.  Now lets get to the bank robber he is tried found guilty and sentenced he does his time and is released. Go forth sin no more and be a productive member of society but you must do so without the rights of other citizens. No one forced these into a life of crime but I don't see how holding them back for the rest of their lives will turn them from that life.
Yeah I get it some folks when they get someone down they will kick them to keep them down. And then thump their chests with righteous indignation as if they were some how superior to these others because they did not commit the same crime.

Pat

[Casull]

Let's take the rapist in your reply.  . He should be worm food therefore
he has no need of any guns or rights.
The same with who ever kill the sweet
old lady next door.

It doesn't matter if the rapist or murderer should be worm food, because he won't be.  He'll serve a sentence and then be released.  At which point, I guess you'd be fine with arming him and setting him out.   

[Redhawk1]

I sure am glad some of you are not elected officials. Some of you sound like the liberal's that want to get the voting rights back to felons so they get more votes. The hell with the people, we need votes! Next you will say sex offenders should not have to register, seeing how they did their time, they should be let back into society right. But wait, you would change your mind quick if one moved in next to you, or maybe your grand child's parent's house!!!!!   As I said before, their are some felonies that should not be listed as felonies, so work with your elected officials, and get them changed to misdemeanors. But until then, I still stand on no guns or voting for felons.

[SHOOTALL]

So one can't show his emoition ?

Come on, get real, showing emotions are not a felony. Are you serious? You at just being ridiculous with this now!

Really ? Here if someone calls the police to a domestic disturbance someone has to go to jail for a min of 24 hrs and a charge . And with a DD charge you can't own a gun.
 So if you live in an apartment building and raise your voice , a neighbor calls the police you most likely will lose your right or at the min spend alot of money defending yourself.
So yea I got real . I suggest you open your eyes to what is going on in America today.

[yellowtail3]

Some here just don't pay attention.

Here if someone calls the police to a domestic disturbance someone has to go to jail for a min of 24 hrs and a charge . And with a DD charge you can't own a gun.

Big, big problem, that should be upsetting to all here... when the mere charge makes you, guilty. That's the the way it is in the current 'DV' reality... and it ain't about actual domestic violence.

I suggest you open your eyes to what is going on in America today.

I did, and I haven't liked what I've been seeing.

[SHOOTALL]

Yellow it should send up alarms but the libs like it they control people .

[Redhawk1]

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788).

[Casull]

Really ? Here if someone calls the police to a domestic disturbance someone has to go to jail for a min of 24 hrs and a charge . And with a DD charge you can't own a gun.
 So if you live in an apartment building and raise your voice , a neighbor calls the police you most likely will lose your right or at the min spend alot of money defending yourself.

 
Shootall, if I recall correctly, you live in Virginia.  If that is accurate, I can tell you that what you posted is NOT true.  Nobody HAS to go to jail for ANY minimum just because there has been a call to the police about a domestic disturbance.  In fact, even when charges are issued, more often than not, the aggressor will receive bail and be released within an hour or so.  And, with a DD charge, you can most definitely still own a gun.   What you may be thinking about is where an emergency protective order is issued.  In that case, during the time the order is in effect (generally 72 hours) the aggressor cannot transport any firearms.  In other words, they can remain in his or her residence, but they cannot take them out.

[yellowtail3]

And, with a DD charge, you can most definitely still own a gun.   What you may be thinking about is where an emergency protective order is issued.  In that case, during the time the order is in effect (generally 72 hours) the aggressor cannot transport any firearms.  In other words, they can remain in his or her residence, but they cannot take them out.

Not the case in NC; see my previous post about the ramifications of a DVPO, let alone any criminal charge. Automatic, immediate revoking of 2nd Amendment rights - is it even a right if it can be revoked, without even the fig leaf of a trial?

[Casull]

North Carolina statutes provide as follows:
 
§ 50B‑3.1.  Surrender and disposal of firearms; violations; exemptions.
(a)        Required Surrender of Firearms. – Upon issuance of an emergency or ex parte order pursuant to this Chapter, the court shall order the defendant to surrender to the sheriff all firearms, machine guns, ammunition, permits to purchase firearms, and permits to carry concealed firearms that are in the care, custody, possession, ownership, or control of the defendant if the court finds any of the following factors:
(1)        The use or threatened use of a deadly weapon by the defendant or a pattern of prior conduct involving the use or threatened use of violence with a firearm against persons.
(2)        Threats to seriously injure or kill the aggrieved party or minor child by the defendant.
(3)        Threats to commit suicide by the defendant.
(4)        Serious injuries inflicted upon the aggrieved party or minor child by the defendant.
 
So, appears that it definitely takes more than just a complaint.

[yellowtail3]

North Carolina statutes provide as follows:.....
So, appears that it definitely takes more than just a complaint.

No, it simply takes a complaint by the woman (usually the woman) and the order will be issued; they are almost never refused, esp. if the plaintiff has been coached by one of the DV advocacy groups (in NC, INTERACT is the big one). The accused isn't there to defend hisself/herself (almost always, hisself).

None of the four points you list has to be proven - they're simply alleged. For a woman coached by INTERACT, it's a near-sure thing. Why do this? Control, control, and control. Some lawyers recommend it as a means of gaining an advantage in a planned divorce. And it is effective.

Subj of thread was should felons have guns. I've brought this up to illustrate that you don't even have to be a felon, to lose your 2nd Amendment rights. Keep in mind, all the above happens without any criminal charge - the accused has not been heard from - we're not even in misdemeanor territory, let alone felony. Them is the facts. So again - if the state can take it away, without even the pretense of a trial - is it really a right?

[Casull]

Apparently some have difficulty with reading comprehension.   

[yellowtail3]

Apparently some have difficulty with reading comprehension.   

...and apparently others have more in common with the Divorce Industry bunch... the lawyers, judges, court hanger-ons, and various other beneficiaries of the system, all suckling the gov't tit and milking their 'customers' - than they do with fellow gun owners & free men. Their job security is much more highly valued, than our rights.

The business of the law, is to make more business for the law.

[Redhawk1]

Apparently some have difficulty with reading comprehension.   

You got that right!

[SHOOTALL]

Really ? Here if someone calls the police to a domestic disturbance someone has to go to jail for a min of 24 hrs and a charge . And with a DD charge you can't own a gun.
 So if you live in an apartment building and raise your voice , a neighbor calls the police you most likely will lose your right or at the min spend alot of money defending yourself.

 
Shootall, if I recall correctly, you live in Virginia.  If that is accurate, I can tell you that what you posted is NOT true.  Nobody HAS to go to jail for ANY minimum just because there has been a call to the police about a domestic disturbance.  In fact, even when charges are issued, more often than not, the aggressor will receive bail and be released within an hour or so.  And, with a DD charge, you can most definitely still own a gun.   What you may be thinking about is where an emergency protective order is issued.  In that case, during the time the order is in effect (generally 72 hours) the aggressor cannot transport any firearms.  In other words, they can remain in his or her residence, but they cannot take them out.

You must have been out of the loop for some time as in both Richmond and Chesterfield that is exactly what happens . And when they come to the call in most cases they remove all firearms . In most cases its the male who leaves and he can't return for a period of time .

[Casull]

You must have been out of the loop for some time as in both Richmond and Chesterfield that is exactly what happens . And when they come to the call in most cases they remove all firearms . In most cases its the male who leaves and he can't return for a period of time .

Shootall, I don't know where you're getting your info, but that is NOT how the law is written.  It does NOT make any provision for confiscation of firearms. 

[SHOOTALL]

Where are you getting your info ? This is what happens here often. It is policy. I get my imformation from several men I work with who have had to deal with it. One got in an argument with his wife and left the house on wed. The report was filed they got it worked out and sunday morning two cops came to the door and took him to jail . He got out monday morning but could not go home for 24 more hrs. His wife went to the jail and explained everything but was told policy is policy. She called because he raised his voice to her. He had to go to court and have the case dismissed. This is one of several.

[Casull]

Where are you getting your info ? This is what happens here often. It is policy. I get my imformation from several men I work with who have had to deal with it.

 
I get mine first hand, not second hand.

[SHOOTALL]

Really , I guess you need to look in the other hand ! We were also told these things in our Self defense classes and classes for conceled handgun permit.