should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[Barbecue]

I'm not a huge fan of it, but I don't see the big deal with a non-violent felon owning a rifle. Some crimes do not make people incapable of handling a firearm safely.

 

[88GT]

Out of curiosity, did you even read my post?

Why did you get a felony for a fist fight? And yes to your question.

Now, I have to wonder what someone who uses a screen name of a "felon" is wanting to do here? Are you proud of being a felon or something?

Well, that answers that.

I knowingly battered a police officer? I defended myself from a belligerent drunk who took a swing at me. So because he's a police officer by occupation, that precludes him from accepting the circumstances of his actions when his judgement is clouded by what was obviously too many drinks? That's an interesting perspective.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[ihateiraq]

illegal in my state.

you cant own crossbows? was ny having a lot of problems with knights getting shot off their horses?

 

[NYFelon]

you cant own crossbows? was ny having a lot of problems with knights getting shot off their horses?

I'll look into that, but yes, I'm fairly certain crossbows are illegal here. And, this is the part I find funny, in order to own a black powder pistol here (because I looked into it as my only defensible option) you need a valid pistol permit. For a gawddam percussion cap, blackpowder revolver.

JUst finished printing out my paper. I'm going to bed for 3 hours now, before work time.

 

[42769vette]

Man, I don't know what to think of this thread. I can understand why you are bent out of shape about not being able to own a firearm, but there are way more felons out there who did way worse than you and I would not want them to legally own a gun. If they get one illegally, well then thats their bad. I CC 98% of the time, and if I ever had to use that gun I understand that there will be consequences. Thats just the law, right or wrong, thats the way it is.

i dont know why folks think its bad to make guns legal for all felons. do you really think they could not get there hands on a gun if they really wanted to? do you think they will say "well i was going to murder ____ but damn it im not allowed to have a gun"

i can see the argument of not allowing them to carry out in public, but not the argument that says they cant have a gun in there home for hunting or defense

 

[Rookie]

i dont know why folks think its bad to make guns legal for all felons. do you really think they could not get there hands on a gun if they really wanted to? do you think they will say "well i was going to murder ____ but damn it im not allowed to have a gun"

i can see the argument of not allowing them to carry out in public, but not the argument that says they cant have a gun in there home for hunting or defense

It's called an elitist attitude.

 

[PatriotPride]

No, I am saying he should not have been an idiot an commited a felony in the first place. Also, his wife or girlfriend can still have a firearm since you are talking about his family. That is unless they are a family of felons.

Good grief. Lay off the sarcasm, name-calling, confrontational tone and ignorance sir. NYFelon comes here expecting a reasonable and mature discussion of the issue at hand, and instead he gets this gem of a post (among others).

I see no reason why felons should not be restored fully to their prior level of rights before their conviction and incarceration. From a moral standpoint I can find no issue either.

Would I be comfortable with many of the felons under my supervision being restored their RKBA? No. Should that matter? No. A person's rights should NOT be contingent on my nor your comfort level.

That being said, the last time I checked, we still maintain some semblance of freedom. Do what you will, and keep your business yours

 

[jsgolfman]

Nice post patriot.

 

[PatriotPride]

Nice post patriot.

Thank-you

 

[Bill of Rights]

NYFelon,

Yours is precisely the type of scenario I and others have described as the reason why the absolutist "felons should not own guns!" makes no sense. I would suggest that since you cannot apply for post-conviction relief for this, perhaps you could look into either a gubernatorial pardon or even write a letter and ask Barry Hussein for one. Democrats [strike]all[/strike] mostly seem to be proponents of the school of thought that the justice system is too strict on criminals; make that work for you. Apply for the full pardon, but don't say anything in your letter about wanting a gun permit/license/whatever. Just address it in terms of not wanting the stigma over your head anymore and tell the part about how you've changed your life as proven by years since the events for which you were convicted. Once fully pardoned, you can move on and do what you want with your life.

Good luck and
Blessings,
Bill

 

[Chevans]

Since a lot of felons keep committing crime , I say I 5-10 yr. Wait is in order to fully know if they are rehabilitated.

 

[wag1911]

Since a lot of felons keep committing crime , I say I 5-10 yr. Wait is in order to fully know if they are rehabilitated.

If the intended idea behind denying the 2A rights of a free man, ex-con or not, is to keep them from using a firearm to commit violent crimes, then I would submit to you that this policy is time tested and has failed miserably.

Those intent on committing violent crimes are not walking into Joe's Gun Shop to buy a handgun. Criminals are not following the law....shocking I know They are stealing them, buying them on the street, trading drugs for them, and obtaining them through straw purchases.

Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths - check out that research on Page 40. The BATFE shows that 93% of the guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.

I'd submit to you that an ex-con intent on committing more crimes after they get out of prison, isn't going to be affected by these laws one iota.

It's a 'feel good' measure. Frankly, our system has so many 'feel good' measures made at the whim of politicians who want to 'feel' like they are actually doing something, that it is now part of the problem. In reality they are doing nothing to stop the problems at its root. Pile on the 'feel good' measures all you want, but it won't do a damn bit of good in stopping those intent on committing more crimes.

 

[irishfan]

Good grief. Lay off the sarcasm, name-calling, confrontational tone and ignorance sir. NYFelon comes here expecting a reasonable and mature discussion of the issue at hand, and instead he gets this gem of a post (among others).

I see no reason why felons should not be restored fully to their prior level of rights before their conviction and incarceration. From a moral standpoint I can find no issue either.

Would I be comfortable with many of the felons under my supervision being restored their RKBA? No. Should that matter? No. A person's rights should NOT be contingent on my nor your comfort level.

That being said, the last time I checked, we still maintain some semblance of freedom. Do what you will, and keep your business yours

If you don't like the laws then get them changed. However, the law here is what it is and if you don't like it then don't break it.

 

[42769vette]

If you don't like the laws then get them changed. However, the law here is what it is and if you don't like it then don't break it.

i dont think anyone is debating what the law is, the debate is weather or not its right. nyfelon is obviouly following the law as its written.

just because its a law doesn't make it right. it just make you follow it anyways

 

[NYFelon]

NYFelon,

Yours is precisely the type of scenario I and others have described as the reason why the absolutist "felons should not own guns!" makes no sense. I would suggest that since you cannot apply for post-conviction relief for this, perhaps you could look into either a gubernatorial pardon or even write a letter and ask Barry Hussein for one. Democrats all seem to be proponents of the school of thought that the justice system is too strict on criminals; make that work for you. Apply for the full pardon, but don't say anything in your letter about wanting a gun permit/license/whatever. Just address it in terms of not wanting the stigma over your head anymore and tell the part about how you've changed your life as proven by years since the events for which you were convicted. Once fully pardoned, you can move on and do what you want with your life.

Good luck and
Blessings,
Bill

Appreciate the candor. The gubernatorial pardon route is going to end up being my only option, but as of now, I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm a solid fact type of guy, who likes to have all his ducks in a row before he goes for a walk, you know what I mean? So I do my research, read case law and such, and other information about the application process.

Long story short, I'm in NY for at least 2 more years while my wife finishes her doctorate. After that, we intend on moving out west. There is a certain state there which allows persons convicted of felonies their right to own firearms, barring their conviction is expunged or cleared by whatever mechanism their state uses, should they be from out of state. Time is a factor, but not a gigantic one. I've been this long without the right, and though it frustrates me, I can bear a touch longer.

Since a lot of felons keep committing crime , I say I 5-10 yr. Wait is in order to fully know if they are rehabilitated.

That's perfectly reasonable. Most recidivists are reconvicted within 1 to 3 years after their initial release. If a person can go for (we'll use your high example) 10 years without getting into trouble, and can demonstrate evidence of true rehabilitation, why not restore their rights?

If the intended idea behind denying the 2A rights of a free man, ex-con or not, is to keep them from using a firearm to commit violent crimes, then I would submit to you that this policy is time tested and has failed miserably.

Those intent on committing violent crimes are not walking into Joe's Gun Shop to buy a handgun. Criminals are not following the law....shocking I know They are stealing them, buying them on the street, trading drugs for them, and obtaining them through straw purchases.

Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths - check out that research on Page 40. The BATFE shows that 93% of the guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.

I'd submit to you that an ex-con intent on committing more crimes after they get out of prison, isn't going to be affected by these laws one iota.

It's a 'feel good' measure. Frankly, our system has so many 'feel good' measures made at the whim of politicians who want to 'feel' like they are actually doing something, that it is now part of the problem. In reality they are doing nothing to stop the problems at its root. Pile on the 'feel good' measures all you want, but it won't do a damn bit of good in stopping those intent on committing more crimes.

So many of our laws are knee-jerk simplistic measures designed to artificially assuage fears, and boost politicians electability. I could easily attain a gun if I so chose. The secondary market presents me ample opportunity to purchase a firearm if I so chose. But is is against the law, and barring the instance of which I have told you, I am not a criminal. I'm not willing to risk my life and my family over a desire to have my natural rights restored. The law says no guns. Therefore I have no guns.

sucks. But that's life.

 

[42769vette]

There is a certain state there which allows persons convicted of felonies their right to own firearms, barring their conviction is expunged or cleared by whatever mechanism their state uses, should they be from out of state. Time is a factor, but not a gigantic one. I've been this long without the right, and though it frustrates me, I can bear a touch longer.





.

wich state is that. as i understand it (i could easily be wrong as im no lawyer) but indiana allows certain felons to have just, however its still a viloation of federal law and will land you in the jail house.

somone speak up if im mistaken

 

[NYFelon]

No, it technically would still be a violation of federal law. But I would be permitted the right to own blackpowder revolvers without needing to apply for a discretionary issue permit.

 

[irishfan]

wich state is that. as i understand it (i could easily be wrong as im no lawyer) but indiana allows certain felons to have just, however its still a viloation of federal law and will land you in the jail house.

somone speak up if im mistaken

In Indiana if your felony is a non-violent or minor felony you can have it lowered and can have a firearm.

 

[nate1865]

I'm sorry, but I just feel I'm not getting the whole story here, and that we're setting up a straw man argument with rabbit trails about farmers' cattle getting away and what not.

We have a guy who admitted to committing a felony - assault - a violent felony.

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.

This isn't a felony like stealing a bunch of money, taking a car, or what not - it is getting angry and getting into a fight.

I'm sorry - but I have a hard time believing that 7 people saw it go down this way, the cop was drunk, and it didn't get tossed when it was 8 against 1 at the first hearing when all your buddies showed up to testify on your behalf. 8 people say "he was drunk and threw the first punch". 1 person says "He threw the first punch."

Did you self-incriminate before the plea?

I'm struggling to see how there isn't another angle to the story.

----------------------------------------------

I think the general public is going to find it appropriate that someone who admitted they assaulted someone, broke their nose, and knocked out teeth, does not get to carry firearms like people who haven't.

 

[irishfan]

I'm sorry, but I just feel I'm not getting the whole story here, and that we're setting up a straw man argument with rabbit trails about farmers' cattle getting away and what not.

We have a guy who admitted to committing a felony - assault - a violent felony.



This isn't a felony like stealing a bunch of money, taking a car, or what not - it is getting angry and getting into a fight.

I'm sorry - but I have a hard time believing that 7 people saw it go down this way, the cop was drunk, and it didn't get tossed when it was 8 against 1 at the first hearing when all your buddies showed up to testify on your behalf. 8 people say "he was drunk and threw the first punch". 1 person says "He threw the first punch."

Did you self-incriminate before the plea?

I'm struggling to see how there isn't another angle to the story.

----------------------------------------------

I think the general public is going to find it appropriate that someone who admitted they assaulted someone, broke their nose, and knocked out teeth, does not get to carry firearms like people who haven't.

Be careful or you will make to much since of this whole thing