should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[iChokePeople]

A person who commits such actions should have their freedom to commit further actions against society taken away.
To assume that barring the legal possession of arms will make them less likely to commit another robbery if they are freed is nonsense.
If that assumption is any basis for deciding whether or not they can be released from incarceration, they should not be freed.

Completely agree with all three of these points.

 

[jeremy]

I find it ironically amusing that a group of fairly intelligent Persons will focus so intently on Firearms as a stop for Violent Crimes, but give a free pass to Hand Tools and Vehicles...

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

This makes sense! - A person convicted of armed robbery 3 times should not be able to legally have a firearm. Is there any reason to believe there would not be a 4th? (he shouldn't be out - but that's another post)

The problem with that, is although it sounds good - it does not keep them from committing a fourth armed robbery.

If a felon wants to purchase a handgun, they will find a way to obtain it.

If a felon wants to rob someone with a firearm, they will find a way.

If someone previously convicted of a felony wants to legally possess a firearm only to defend themselves - they may not.

Although it sounds good saying "make felons owning firearms illegal" - it does not truly deter the crime that they will commit with them. Those who commit crime, do so against the law. Do you think writing down another law will then deter crime?

 

[Bill of Rights]

But by that logic, we'd also eliminate the law against armed robbery. I get what you're saying, but I don't agree with the conclusion. I don't agree with eliminating a law simply because a few people don't obey it, even if they break it repeatedly. I agree with focusing more on the actions than on the tool, but not to the extent that we eliminate the law. If this offender committed an armed robbery again, he would be punished for both the robbery and possessing the firearm. I have no problem with that. I also can appreciate the fact that the law against his possessing a firearm gives law enforcement officers some teeth if they happen to catch him in a dark alley with a Glock (because bad people would never use 1911s...) stuck in his pants wearing a ski mask. You know, just minding his own business, having done nothing wrong.

I'm quite certain that if officers found him in a dark alley as you describe prior to the first armed robbery, they would have a way of "applying some teeth", so to speak. ( will add more later, on iPod now)

Edit:The crime with armed (or unarmed) robbery is that the perp is using force (or threat of force) to take the property of someone else without either permission or compensation. The "crime" in possession of a firearm is that a particular group or "class" of people is being treated as if they've done something wrong solely because they own a particular item. To illustrate, let's use your example of the guy in the dark alley. Suppose that LEOs or his parole or probation officer happened to go search his home (because a condition of his being on parole or probation is that he waive his Fourth Amendment rights) and in his dresser drawer, they find one item out of place. That one item is either a ski mask or a pistol. Why would he get in more trouble for one and not the other? One would protect his face in the cold. The other would protect his family if harm was to come their way.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

( will add more later, on iPod now)

iMod

 

[GunsNstuff]

I know a lady that is in her late 40's. When she was 18, her boyfriend at the time & his brother brought over several bags of pot to her apartment. They were all arrested and made felons. This was the only time she has ever been in trouble with the law. She works, has 4 children, has owned her own home for 20 years, but has no right to protect herself with a firearm. I think that is sad and it's wrong.

 

[iChokePeople]

I know a lady that is in her late 40's. When she was 18, her boyfriend at the time & his brother brought over several bags of pot to her apartment. They were all arrested and made felons. This was the only time she has ever been in trouble with the law. She works, has 4 children, has owned her own home for 20 years, but has no right to protect herself with a firearm. I think that is sad and it's wrong.

We can all come up with examples of when a rule/law/system failed and had the wrong outcome. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or that you eliminate it, just that we need to do a better job of using reason, electing reasonable people to the positions that can influence, etc. There was a great example posted earlier in this thread of a guy who dealt with this type of issue (in general terms) and how it should work.

Edit, add: I debated with myself about saying this, and finally decided yes. I hate even throwing this particular cat into this dogfight, but I also suspect that if the woman in question DID choose to obtain a gun, as we all know she could, and if one dark stormy night she used that gun to defend herself or her children from a home invasion, you would have a very difficult time finding a prosecutor who'd take it to court or a jury that would convict or punish her...

I'm all for a little more reason in the designation of a "felony", or in changing the law so that only certain types of crimes subject someone to the loss of the right to possess or carry a firearm. I don't think we have it exactly right. But I'm definitely not with those of you who would give them back to everyone once they're released, at least until we can get THAT part right... What's the recidivism rate in Indiana these days? (rhetorical, not really expecting an answer)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Although it sounds good saying "make felons owning firearms illegal" - it does not truly deter the crime that they will commit with them. Those who commit crime, do so against the law. Do you think writing down another law will then deter crime?

While I agree with you on the subject at hand, I disagree with you on your above post. By that reasoning, that making something illegal doesn't stop the person from doing it, the law should be removed. Murder is against the law and people do it, same with robbery, rape, assault, etc. The law doesn't stop people from doing those, so the law should be removed to make it legal, right?

My reasoning for it being legal for felons to own firearms is this, possessing anything should be legal, until it harms someone else. And that self defense is a right every person is born with, and that the tool that is best suited for the job should be allowed. Whether that is a knife/bat/golf club or a firearm.

If a felon wants to own a firearm, great let them. If they use that firearm or any other thing to harm someone, lock them up.

I find it ironically amusing that a group of fairly intelligent Persons will focus so intently on Firearms as a stop for Violent Crimes, but give a free pass to Hand Tools and Vehicles...

iMod

Can someone rep the two above? I'm all out.

I know a lady that is in her late 40's. When she was 18, her boyfriend at the time & his brother brought over several bags of pot to her apartment. They were all arrested and made felons. This was the only time she has ever been in trouble with the law. She works, has 4 children, has owned her own home for 20 years, but has no right to protect herself with a firearm. I think that is sad and it's wrong.

While it isn't a perfect solution, your friend may be able to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor. From what I've heard the process isn't that difficult for cases like this.

 

[Bill of Rights]

iMod

Rep this man, someone. I have to share the INGO love.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

While I agree with you on the subject at hand, I disagree with you on your above post. By that reasoning, that making something illegal doesn't stop the person from doing it, the law should be removed. Murder is against the law and people do it, same with robbery, rape, assault, etc. The law doesn't stop people from doing those, so the law should be removed to make it legal, right?

Quite the contrary - laws making murder, robbery, rape, and assault illegal do deter the crime. The chance that a crime will be deterred by a law is tied directly to the chance of being caught. Since the chance of being caught for murder is high - the law itself does deter murders.

The difference, in this case, is it is an attempt to target those that will commit crime. Those that are not deterred by laws, will not obey laws.

Making it illegal for felons to own handguns will only deter the felons that obey the law. Since those with felonies on their record that have changed their ways and no longer commit crime are not those we are afraid of (and would obey the law and not possess firearms) - that only leaves those people who are willing to commit crime with firearms. Those people, since they have already chosen to commit crime, will not be deterred because we make a law banning them from having firearms.

Since this situation is specifically attempting to keep firearms out of the hands of people that will commit crime and will not be deterred by laws, it will not be able to deter people that intend to break the laws from possessing firearms.

It is like expecting a "no guns" sign on a school to deter a psychotic shooter from entering a building - since that person will not obey the law, the only people who do not take guns past that point are the law abiding citizens.

 

[.40caltrucker]

I don't understand why you would be willing to deprive them of their second amendment right. Why not their first, fourth, and fifth while we're at it?

Why the second? Because guns are dangerous? Words are more dangerous any day of the week.

The second seems very clear to me. "... shall NOT be infringed" there's no exceptions.

We don't go after the first, fourth, or fifth because people don't abuse those rights to infringe on the rights of others. (except maybe the first but it doesn't kill people) Hopefully any rational person can see the difference in that.

Yes it says "shall not be infringed" but that doesn't mean someone can't willfully give it up does it. It's not an infringement if it's willfully given up. Don't forget they made the choice to give up their second amendment right kinda like you can waive a few other rights.

Who said locking them up would be the best way to deal with them? If we are only talking about people that have been granted their three appeals, and are already deemed too violent to be released in society...

The failures of our penal system does not justify other failures.

There are plenty of posters in this thread alone saying if we can't trust them with guns they should be locked up.

Quite the contrary - laws making murder, robbery, rape, and assault illegal do deter the crime. The chance that a crime will be deterred by a law is tied directly to the chance of being caught. Since the chance of being caught for murder is high - the law itself does deter murders.

The difference, in this case, is it is an attempt to target those that will commit crime. Those that are not deterred by laws, will not obey laws.

Making it illegal for felons to own handguns will only deter the felons that obey the law. Since those with felonies on their record that have changed their ways and no longer commit crime are not those we are afraid of (and would obey the law and not possess firearms) - that only leaves those people who are willing to commit crime with firearms. Those people, since they have already chosen to commit crime, will not be deterred because we make a law banning them from having firearms.

Since this situation is specifically attempting to keep firearms out of the hands of people that will commit crime and will not be deterred by laws, it will not be able to deter people that intend to break the laws from possessing firearms.

It is like expecting a "no guns" sign on a school to deter a psychotic shooter from entering a building - since that person will not obey the law, the only people who do not take guns past that point are the law abiding citizens.

Agreed the laws don't stop any person felon or otherwise from getting a gun or taking a gun somewhere the law says we're not supposed to. 100% agree with that if they did we wouldn't have crime.

Having the laws forbidding them from owning firearms enables prosecutors to add another charge when they become a repeat offender with a firearm. Felons have between a 40%-60% recidivism rate depending on state. That means most crimes are committed by felons, right?

This is the ONLY spot I think the laws forbidding a certain person from owning firearms are OK. Like I've said many times it was a choice they made, and a right they choose to give up willfully. All other laws disarming people should be abolished.

The best option I see is restricting felonies to crimes with a victim. Since so many keep referring to drug offenses. I do believe no victim, no crime. But we know the current laws and we follow them even though they are unconstitutional because we don't want a felony. The way to change the law is through politicians. Not breaking the law and whining about it later.

 

[springfieldfan42188]

The only person taking away someones right to own a gun is the person who commits the crime. I dont feel sorry for felons not being able to own a firearm, they had the right and they pissed it away. You can say its a god given right that everyone should have a gun , well its voters god given right to decide that felons dont get them. If you dont like the laws change em , if you dont like the politicians vote em out out. When you bring god given rights into a conversation about felons and guns your messing with fire. Where were you to defend the god given rights of life and liberty to those who had crimes committed against them.

[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica]Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.-- Winston Churchill[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

i dont think u get the point, theres more felonies than just comitting a murder, alot are non violent and have nothing to do with a gun, therefore why should your rights be taken away?

 

[springfieldfan42188]

also some people dont realize there comitting a crime. for example, my brother was charged with a class d felony for criminal mischeif when he was 14 for going into a house that was being built but had no doors or anything, it was kind of the norm we lived in a subdivision with new housed being put up everywhere. anyways, now hes 26 and has 2 kids and a wife and no way to protect them, and on top of that my house was broken into a couple of years ago, luckily i wasnt home but if i was i would hope to have a way to defend myself.....so everyone who disagrees .. to bad its my right to have an opinion but i guess not my bro's cause hes a felon right..?pshh sometimes this law system kills me

 

[.40caltrucker]

also some people dont realize there comitting a crime. for example, my brother was charged with a class d felony for criminal mischeif when he was 14 for going into a house that was being built but had no doors or anything, it was kind of the norm we lived in a subdivision with new housed being put up everywhere. anyways, now hes 26 and has 2 kids and a wife and no way to protect them, and on top of that my house was broken into a couple of years ago, luckily i wasnt home but if i was i would hope to have a way to defend myself.....so everyone who disagrees .. to bad its my right to have an opinion but i guess not my bro's cause hes a felon right..?pshh sometimes this law system kills me

So who paid for the damage your brother done to that house?

 

[springfieldfan42188]

he didnt do any damage , his friend did but he got grouped with them and he was the only one to cooperate, but no money was paid on his behalf from him or my parents. the charge stuck with him and his lawyer recomended to just plead guilty to all since it was his first offense and got him off the lline with only 6 months probation

 

[springfieldfan42188]

i would like to kno the real way to get a firearm after being a felon or if its really only muzzleloaders u can have. all i kno is i miss my shootin buddy lol when we were younger all we knew was respect your gun thx to my dad for being a vietnam vet lol

 

[.40caltrucker]

he didnt do any damage , his friend did but he got grouped with them and he was the only one to cooperate, but no money was paid on his behalf from him or my parents. the charge stuck with him and his lawyer recomended to just plead guilty to all since it was his first offense and got him off the lline with only 6 months probation

Yep always blame the other people there with ya.

Ya don't go into a house with your friends to watch them cause damage. You go in there to cause damage with your friends. For it to be a class D felony there had to be at least $2,500 worth of damage to that house. You said "friend" so it was just him and someone else. I bet the other kid was blaming it all on your brother right?


As far as him removing it and having it expunged he can try.
Indiana Expungement Law - Expungement of Criminal Records - Expungement

I have a friend who got his class C felony reduced to a class a misdemeanor in 09.

On the other hand my little brother has tried to do it with no luck.

 

[springfieldfan42188]

Yep always blame the other people there with ya.

Ya don't go into a house with your friends to watch them cause damage. You go in there to cause damage with your friends. For it to be a class D felony there had to be at least $2,500 worth of damage to that house. You said "friend" so it was just him and someone else. I bet the other kid was blaming it all on your brother right?


As far as him removing it and having it expunged he can try.
Indiana Expungement Law - Expungement of Criminal Records - Expungement

I have a friend who got his class C felony reduced to a class a misdemeanor in 09.

On the other hand my little brother has tried to do it with no luck.

sorry meant friends.. and if i remember correctly they broke a door that was inside against the wall. i guess it was a really expensive set of doors. thx for the links ill have to let him know about all this

 

[GeneralCarver]

Personally, I think that if someone is not in jail they should have all their rights back. Including guns. To be honest, if a felon wants a gun, I'm sure they would have no problem getting them. There are stolen weapons everywhere. So, if you think that our current laws are keeping weapons out of the hands of felons who have harmful intentions, you are living in a dream world.

I think that our current justice system is seriously broken in the country. People who should be getting the death penalty for murder don't, and guys who do serious violent crimes don't do near the time they should.

 

[NYFelon]

New user casts thread necromancy.

I came across this forum while doing some research for a term paper. I was interested in the topic, and surprised by some of the posts. I'd like to share my story. I know some of you won't believe me, but whatever.

It's December of 1997. I, and some of my friends are celebrating our buddy's graduation from Parris Island. We're at our local bar, and we're all regulars. There's 8 of us, and we're drinking and snacking on some bar grub. We're just generally having a good time. Maybe an hour or so after we sat down, some loud mouth guy that's obviously already 3 sheets to the wind comes over, and starts causing problems. Yelling and telling us we're disturbing "his bar". I get up from the booth we're in, and try and talk with the guy. I explain to him why we're there, and we're all just exuberant to see our pal again, and proud of him for what he's accomplished. The guy seems to accept this and goes his own way.

About half an hour later, he comes back with the same schpiel. Someone had told a long time inside joke, and we all laughed pretty uproariously. He's up in our buddy's face, screaming at him, in his dress blues and all. At this point it's obvious the guy is looking for a fight. I'm not usually a fighter, but I get up and confront him. He takes the first swing, but he's so drunk it may as well have come in the mail. So, I proceed to toss him an ass whuppin'. In the process (according to the police report) I broke his nose, and knocked out one of his teeth.

The cops are called, and I figure there really shouldn't be any trouble. After all, I'm a regular here, the guy took the first swing, and I have 7 other witnesses to corroborate my story. The cops come, start asking questions, and making a report. It's at this time, the guy whips out his shield. Turns out I just beat the snot out of an off duty NYPD officer. With no hesitation whatsoever, I'm tackled, pepper sprayed, handcuffed and arrested. The charge is Assaulting a Police Officer. A Class B felony in NY, punishable by 5 - 25 years in prison, judge's discretion. The DA agrees to plead it down to Assault II, a Class D felony, 1 1/2 - 7 years. My lawyer tries for an Assault III plea, which is a class A Misdemeanor. The DA says no dice. So I'm convicted, and sentenced to one year in prison. I do my time, and get out. But now I'm a felon.

Fastforward 12 years. I'm 34. I'm married with a 9 year old son. I own a home, and work as a public safety auditor for a utility company. I go to school at nights, working on my degree in Engineering Technology. I coach my sons soccer team. I pay my taxes every year. Are you honestly going to tell me that justice was served in this case? I obey the law. Since that time my only interaction with law enforcement has been the occasional traffic ticket, and to file a police report for a cell phone stolen out of my car.

Do I sound like a threat to society? But yet, I'm a violent felon. IMHO, we're too quick to judge in any situation where the term "felon" is involved. Frankly, there are so many laws on the books in this country, and they vary from state to state, odds are every single person on this board has committed a felony. You just weren't caught, or charged.

I own no firearms, I am proscribed by both state and federal law, because I am a felon. But I have a home and a family to protect. How do you propose I do that? Have I not paid my debt? Why should I, as a free man, not retain the same rights as every one of you?

Just food for thought.