Guns for felons?

[Casull]

Shootall, no disrespect intended.  I enjoy your posts and tend to agree with you more often than not.  I'm just telling you how it is, based on first hand experience, not based upon how it gets passed through the grapevine.  I'll say no more.

[yellowtail3]

I enjoy your posts and tend to agree with you more often than not.  I'm just telling you how it is, based on first hand experience, not based upon how it gets passed through the grapevine.

I'm curious... what is the nature/source of your first hand experience? Any in NC?

[SHOOTALL]

Shootall, no disrespect intended.  I enjoy your posts and tend to agree with you more often than not.  I'm just telling you how it is, based on first hand experience, not based upon how it gets passed through the grapevine.  I'll say no more.

No disrespect taken , to be completely honest often the experinces are from people that work with me. I have talked to  judges, lawyers and correctional personal in an effort to help them . I have written lettes to judges and taken responsiblity for them while out on work release . I believe this is first hand experince . I realize some areas of Va. are not as forceful as others in enforcement. And keep in mind some is local in nature .

[us920669]

I'm northern Virginia.  This is usually a pretty sane state, but the DV situation seems totally out of control.  I mentioned a situation earlier, not really a 2nd Amendment matter, but I wonder what would have happened to his gun rights if he owned one, or what happened to his basic rights anyway.  The people were Korean (totally legal), the guy's wife died and he answered an ad and got hooked up with someone.  I could see why, she was a babe and a half, but she was also a gambler - burned through all the money he had saved for a house in nothing flat.  He was not completely blameless, caught the bug himself and stopped going to church, but then he wised up, this led to an altercation and it came out out that he had pushed her.  He's a big athletic guy and he was with the secret police in Korea - no big deal, there is one on every corner.  I think they're selected from officers who can stay cool in a normal street situation, but if things get bad they have to be ready and they all have lots of martial arts training, so he could have killed her with his bare hands in a nanosecond if he wanted to, but instead he pushed her.  For that he had to sit in jail for a few weekends.  There was a bright spot - the judge was quite clear that since they weren't married, if he wanted her out she had best comply or face charges herself.  He is now happily married to someone from his church - in an apartment - and last we heard she was homeless in Atlantic City, but with her looks she has probably ruined 2 or 3 more men by now.  I just wonder why this required intervention by the entire criminal justice system.  If anything, she should have landed in some kind of therapy.  But what do I know?

[Casull]

Shootall, I know how things can differ regionally.  What I'm looking at is how it's done in my area and what the law actually says.  If what you've been told is true, some of those actions are definitely not sanctioned by the law.

us920669, I think the problem is often that people are afraid of what might happen.  Sometimes what starts as a push can escalate pretty quickly, and someone (usually a woman) gets badly hurt or killed.  Nobody wants to be the person that "blew it off".

Yellowtail, no experience with NC.  I'm involved with the judiciary and interact with LE daily.

[Doublebass73]

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.   

You got me there Casull, I must be really dumb because I keep reading this 2nd Amendment over and over and I can't seem to find the part that says "except for felons". Could you point it out to me please? Maybe just highlight it in red, I'd really appreciate it.

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.

[Casull]

You got me there Casull, I must be really dumb because I keep reading this 2nd
Amendment over and over and I can't seem to find the part that says "except for
felons". Could you point it out to me please? Maybe just highlight it in red,
I'd really appreciate it.

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.

Well, golly, you're right.  It also doesn't say anything about convicts either.  And did you know they don't let them have guns in prison?  It also doesn't say anything about 6 year olds not being able to bear arms either.  Huh, maybe they need to rewrite that to clear things up.   

[BUGEYE]

back when the 2nd was penned, I think most felons were shot during the commision of their crime or shortly after when they were caught.

[Casull]

Bugeye, I think you're probably right.  That way they didn't have to worry about re-arming them when they got out.   

[Hooker]

back when the 2nd was penned, I think most felons were shot during the commision of their crime or shortly after when they were caught.

Actually the felony thing is a modern term.
Back in the early years of this country criminals were tried for the crimes they committed.
They didn't group crimes into groups they called what they were and punishment dealt out accordingly.
The felony is a liberal thing used to separate people from their rights. And they keep expanding the area that the felony encompasses.
And they also keep making up new groups of crimes and giving them silly little names. so that they can carry a charge that is a felony.
The whole system reeks of liberal division and class warfare antics. The words "inalienable rights" either mean something or they don't.
The problem here is not felons with rights it's a judicial system that does not work and a government that feeds off of it.

Pat

[Doublebass73]

You got me there Casull, I must be really dumb because I keep reading this 2nd
Amendment over and over and I can't seem to find the part that says "except for
felons". Could you point it out to me please? Maybe just highlight it in red,
I'd really appreciate it.

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.

Well, golly, you're right.  It also doesn't say anything about convicts either.  And did you know they don't let them have guns in prison?  It also doesn't say anything about 6 year olds not being able to bear arms either.  Huh, maybe they need to rewrite that to clear things up.   

Imagine that, the 2nd Amendment means what it says. The founders of this country considered it an inalienable right, it's too bad people like yourself and others here think that it only applies to certain people. You have no problem letting the government decide who has this "right" and who doesn't.

[Casull]

You have no problem letting the government decide who has this "right" and who
doesn't.

That's where you're wrong.  The felons themselves decide that WHEN THEY COMMIT FELONIES (for Hooker, that means serious crimes). 
Seriously, do you have a problem with someone losing their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Because every time someone is sentenced to prison or death, they are losing those inalienable rights, whether for a period of years or forever.  Why are you OK with that, but all bent out of shape over the same criminals losing their 2nd amendment rights?   Just makes no sense.   

[ironglow]

  While I don't think all felons should have their 2nd amendment rights restored..I do realize it is easier to be declared a felon these days.  Case by case before sensible board perhaps.
    As usual though, liberals are exacerbating the situation. It has only been recently that a complaint of domestic violence is enough to endanger your 2nd amendment rights.  Now that they have that nailed down..they are reaching to take 2nd amendment rights from someone who has has been accused of mistreating a dog or cat by some bunny-huggers in the animal protection business.

[Casull]

You're right IG.  The problem is not the concept of felons losing those rights, but more a matter of that group becoming too broad.  I've already said a couple of times that I would prefer to see it limited to violent felons, but apparently there are a couple of people here that have a problem with not allowing murderers, rapists and various thugs to have firearms.

[Redhawk1]

I agree Casull. I have said the same thing as well. I truly believe their are people that should not have guns, and felons are one of them.  I think the domestic violence laws may go to far, but just look how many people get killed due to domestic violence. It is hard to predict when someone is going to snap, but they should not take guns from them, unless they exhibit a pattern of being violent toward a family member. Not just for a common argument.

[guzzijohn]

Quote by Hooker:
Actually the felony thing is a modern term.Back in the early years of this country criminals were tried for the crimes they committed.
They didn't group crimes into groups they called what they were and punishment dealt out accordingly.

The felony is a liberal thing used to separate people from their rights

Hooker, please show how you came up with the above and see below from Wiki:


 A felony is a serious crime in the common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors.
GuzziJohn
 

[BUGEYE]

I don't think the term "felony" was widely used here until the recent times.
it's like "hate crimes".  if I kill a white man, it's murder.  if I kill a black man, it'a a hate crime with a harsher penalty.
many modern-day liberal judges like to legislate from the bench and the felony term gives them the opportunity to restrict gun rights.
look at my sig at the bottom.

[SHOOTALL]

You're right IG.  The problem is not the concept of felons losing those rights, but more a matter of that group becoming too broad.  I've already said a couple of times that I would prefer to see it limited to violent felons, but apparently there are a couple of people here that have a problem with not allowing murderers, rapists and various thugs to have firearms.

Yep !

[Doublebass73]

You have no problem letting the government decide who has this "right" and who
doesn't.

That's where you're wrong.  The felons themselves decide that WHEN THEY COMMIT FELONIES (for Hooker, that means serious crimes). 
Seriously, do you have a problem with someone losing their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Because every time someone is sentenced to prison or death, they are losing those inalienable rights, whether for a period of years or forever.  Why are you OK with that, but all bent out of shape over the same criminals losing their 2nd amendment rights?   Just makes no sense.   

When you can point out the clause in the 2nd Amendment that says "except for felons" then I'll declare myself wrong. Until then I'm right.

I have no problem with people losing their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they commit a crime worthy of going to prison. You're right, they made a choice to commit a felony. However, if the crime is so severe that they can't be trusted with their inalienable 2nd Amendment right after they leave prison then they should not leave prison in the first place.

Prison either rehabilitates you or it doesn't. There is no in between because you either will or won't commit more crimes when you leave prison. The court is essentially saying "OK Mr. felon, we feel you're rehabilitated enough to leave prison but we still don't trust you enough to own a gun."
Really? So we're supposed to expect that this felon who the court doesn't trust enough to own a gun will not go out and get another gun and commit more crimes just because there is a law that says so?

This is foolish thinking, it's sacrificing essential liberty for safety so as usual we get neither.  You know as well a I know that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. To make the 2nd Amendment out to be something other than what it is a slippery slope to travel down. It leaves the door open for all kinds of liberal gun control.

[Casull]

When you can point out the clause in the 2nd Amendment that says "except for
felons" then I'll declare myself wrong. Until then I'm right.

Well, in addition to being wrong, you can't read very well either.  What I was responding to was this:

You have no problem letting the government decide who has this "right" and who
doesn't.

Non mention of anything in the 2nd amendment allowing it.   

The court is essentially saying "OK Mr. felon, we feel you're rehabilitated
enough to leave prison

Who told you that fairy tale?  Once they've served their sentence, they are released.  No question of rehabilitation.  If that were the case, they wouldn't get a sentence of x number of years, it would be "until rehabilitated".

This is foolish thinking,

No, the foolish thinking is that it's ok to re-arm a known and convicted violent felon.   

[Doublebass73]

When you can point out the clause in the 2nd Amendment that says "except for
felons" then I'll declare myself wrong. Until then I'm right.

Well, in addition to being wrong, you can't read very well either.  What I was responding to was this:

You have no problem letting the government decide who has this "right" and who
doesn't.

Non mention of anything in the 2nd amendment allowing it.   

The court is essentially saying "OK Mr. felon, we feel you're rehabilitated
enough to leave prison

Who told you that fairy tale?  Once they've served their sentence, they are released.  No question of rehabilitation.  If that were the case, they wouldn't get a sentence of x number of years, it would be "until rehabilitated".

This is foolish thinking,

No, the foolish thinking is that it's ok to re-arm a known and convicted violent felon.   

I see haven't found that "except for felons" clause in the 2nd Amendment yet so you might as well keep changing the subject and rolling your eyes.

[Casull]

I see haven't found that "except for felons" clause in the 2nd Amendment yet so
you might as well keep changing the subject and rolling your eyes.

Changing the subject, huh?  That's funny since I was responding to YOUR points.  Oh well, not much danger of that happening again.   

[Doublebass73]

I see haven't found that "except for felons" clause in the 2nd Amendment yet so
you might as well keep changing the subject and rolling your eyes.

Changing the subject, huh?  That's funny since I was responding to YOUR points.  Oh well, not much danger of that happening again.   

That's good since arguing about this with you is useless. The whole crux of your argument is based on the Gun Control Act of 1968. It must make you feel good to be on the same side as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence when it comes to this issue.

The crux of my argument is based on the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights, United States Constitution, ratified in 1791. It's written in plain English. You ought to spend some time studying it someday.

[LabRat2k3]

Casull, I have a question for you. Just what is it that you do? You have been very vague about it. If you are a lawyer, judge, court reporter, baliff, or the guy who empties the trash at the courthouse just say so. At first I thought you were a police officer from the way you were talking. Later however you say you enteract with LEO's daily. So how is your experiance first hand if you are hearing about it from the LEO's?
 

[SHOOTALL]

 One thing not mentioned so far , as it might show support either way is in some states after a period of time after being released from jail a non violent felon can seek to restore his privlages . He can get permission to own a gun. I worked with such a person . He had gone thru. the process and was allowed to own a shot gun and could only have a limited number of shells containing fine shot for hunting. He was allowed this only in Va.
 I dare say felons are not addressed in the 2nd amn because most felons back in the day we hung . Steal a horse - hung , rape a woman - hung , rob a bank - hung and so on . Back in the day there must have been few liberals .

[BUGEYE]

One thing not mentioned so far , as it might show support either way is in some states after a period of time after being released from jail a non violent felon can seek to restore his privlages . He can get permission to own a gun. I worked with such a person . He had gone thru. the process and was allowed to own a shot gun and could only have a limited number of shells containing fine shot for hunting. He was allowed this only in Va.
 I dare say felons are not addressed in the 2nd amn because most felons back in the day we hung . Steal a horse - hung , rape a woman - hung , rob a bank - hung and so on . Back in the day there must have been few liberals .

"after a period of time"..... that should be the key right there.  so many violents felons commit other felons after release.  but if he works to straighten out his life and keeps his nose clean for a few years, then restore his rights.  if he then breaks that trust, back to jail for life with no parole.

[Redhawk1]

I see haven't found that "except for felons" clause in the 2nd Amendment yet so
you might as well keep changing the subject and rolling your eyes.

Changing the subject, huh?  That's funny since I was responding to YOUR points.  Oh well, not much danger of that happening again.   

That's good since arguing about this with you is useless. The whole crux of your argument is based on the Gun Control Act of 1968. It must make you feel good to be on the same side as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence when it comes to this issue.

The crux of my argument is based on the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights, United States Constitution, ratified in 1791. It's written in plain English. You ought to spend some time studying it someday.

Why do you feel that a felon should have the right to own guns? Yes I know what the second amendment says. But the moment we allow felons to buy guns and own guns, and they commit more crimes while using a gun. We the law abiding gun owners will pay worst then we are already. A felon does not have the ability to follow the rules, hence the felony charge. So why should they be allowed to own guns? Also just because we do not agree with you, does not mean we don't support the second amendment, or are part of the Brady campaign. Common sense tells me a felon is not someone I want owning guns or voting. You can keep saying it over and over, but you will not convince me otherwise.

[SHOOTALL]

What you are saying is that felons who got caught shouldn't vote    there may very well be more felons who have not got caught than who did . Think about that .

[nw_hunter]

I see haven't found that "except for felons" clause in the 2nd Amendment yet so
you might as well keep changing the subject and rolling your eyes.

Changing the subject, huh?  That's funny since I was responding to YOUR points.  Oh well, not much danger of that happening again.   

That's good since arguing about this with you is useless. The whole crux of your argument is based on the Gun Control Act of 1968. It must make you feel good to be on the same side as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence when it comes to this issue.

The crux of my argument is based on the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights, United States Constitution, ratified in 1791. It's written in plain English. You ought to spend some time studying it someday.

Right on Doublebass I grew up living next door to an man that had served time for manslaughter.
When he was a young foolish man, he killed another young foolish man in a bar fight.I think he was around 18 at the time and this was in the early 1900's.talk was, he served 10 years.I met him as a middle age man. All the kids in the neighborhood thought the world of him, and even though he never had kids, he loved all children. He took me on my first rabbit hunt and belonged to a deer camp that had a big cookout every year and all the neighbors were invited. He was an avid hunter as most were in my neck of the woods, and no one ever feared him owning a gun because he was an ex-con.

This was back before the government and some gun group (1968) decided so called ex-felons should not be able to defend themselves.Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their loved ones.

 Cold bloodied murderers and Violent rapists should be executed if found guilty.
Common sense will tell you that.If the courts are too stupid to protect the citizens with the death penalty, then the armed citizen will have to protect themselves . ALL!! Citizens "IMO"

The cold bloody killer and rapist won't honor any law on the books anyway and will be armed.
I swear! Today's Republican's are sounding more Liberal every day.Just more chipping away at the Second, and thinking it's a good thing
 
 

[yellowtail3]

Right on Doublebass I grew up living next door to an man that had served time for manslaughter. When he was a young foolish man, he killed another young foolish man in a bar fight.I think he was around 18 at the time and this was in the early 1900's.talk was, he served 10 years.I met him as a middle age man. All the kids in the neighborhood thought the world of him, and even though he never had kids, he loved all children. He took me on my first rabbit hunt and belonged to a deer camp that had a big cookout every year and all the neighbors were invited. He was an avid hunter as most were in my neck of the woods, and no one ever feared him owning a gun because he was an ex-con.

This was back before the government and some gun group (1968) decided so called ex-felons should not be able to defend themselves.Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Some folks would like ex-cons to remain... cons. Much easier than thinking.