Any opinions about Felons and Firearms?

SPC Charles Griffith — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:01:34 -0500

I am of the mind that the 2A is not so much about Firearms as it is about our Right to be able to defend our selves in the most efficent manner possible. That being said does a person who has been released not have the same need for defense as the next?
I don't want to start a pissin match here but I don't really care if they committed murder with a bazooka if they are deemed "safe" to let out they NEED to be allowed to defend them selves.
If they can't be trusted with that responsibility then we have no reason letting them out IMHO.

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Feb 8 at 2015 8:25 PM

TSgt Kevin Buccola — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:25:30 -0500

Anyone with a record of violence should NOT be allowed to have a firearm or weapon of any kind. I was stabbed by a 4 time convicted criminal that was allowed to get out due to overcrowding...All I was doing was enjoying a few drinks with 2 other friends, we were jumped by 6 - we stood our ground, I turned my head for a moment when a friend of mine was hit over the head with a pipe - I never noticed i was stabbed until I got to the hospital and doctor asked if i wanted to keep that....4 of the 6 went to jail after they were released from the hospital.

again anyone with a criminal record should not be allowed to have any type of weapon

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 2:03 AM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:03:45 -0500

Someone who is going to commit a crime whether it be with or without a weapon, violent or non violent, is going to get their hands on the tools they choose whether it's legal or not, because last I checked they had no care for the legality while they were committing the act or previous acts and will be caught eventually and charged accordingly. So I agree with SPC Charles Griffith why not let those deemed safe enough to free from confinement do what they see fit to protect them and theirs?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 3:30 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 03:30:27 -0500

A man should never have the right to defend himself taken away...you create an even worse of an animal...by making him feel helpless.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 3:33 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 03:33:01 -0500

I believe any man that has a domestic violence charge on his record in Oregon eliminates his ability to purchase or own any firearms...what about in your state, is it a federal law now.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Feb 9 at 2015 8:31 AM

SFC Collin McMillion — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 08:31:03 -0500

In my time of being in law enforcement, many studies were done in criminal behavior and the end result was that approximately 80-85% of convicted felons were back in jail within 2 years of release. Maybe a considerable wait time (say 5 to 10 yrs) for non-volient crimes may be somewhat justified, but on violent offenders I would say never let them have a firearm, just asking for trouble.

Response by MSgt Bj Jones made Feb 9 at 2015 8:45 AM

MSgt Bj Jones — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 08:45:57 -0500

In reference to this part of your comment, "I don't really care if they committed murder with a bazooka, etc." If the person committed murder, as in intent to kill, not manslaughter, then why is such a person set free anyway? The way I see it, a person who deliberately takes an innocent life forfeits his/her own right to live. If not executed, that person should spend the rest of his/her life in prison without parole. I'm a firm believer in the right to self defense with lethal force if necessary, but when it comes to convicted felons and larcenists, it would have to be a case by case basis for who gets to own firearms post conviction/post prison. I agree with you that if they can't be trusted with the responsibility of firearms, they shouldn't be released.

Response by Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP made Feb 9 at 2015 9:04 AM

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:04:56 -0500

SPC Griffitth, I think it critical to examine the way you've framed this question, specifically you say, "...deemed "safe" to let out they NEED to be allowed to defend them selves.
If they can't be trusted with that responsibility then we have no reason letting them out IMHO."

In other words, you seem to be addressing a parole situation where some person/persons assess the convict and, as appropriate, approve early release.

I think the assumption that "release = safe" is demonstrably flawed. For example, the over-crowding situation is such that, in many jurisdictions, it's not whether to let people out, it comes down to which criminals will be released simply because they must reduce numbers.

Also, there are a significant percentage of felons who simply complete their sentence and are released - there is no assessment of their relative "safe-ness," either actual or implied.

All in all, I favor an individual approach, though I'll acknowledge this is more difficult. I agree that a felon returning to society having completed their sentence merits consideration for having their full rights restored, but the fact they've been convicted and imprisoned is a clear indication that we, as a society, need to approach them with more deliberation than with citizens who play by the rules.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 9 at 2015 9:47 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:47:03 -0500

Former gun dealer here.

Here's the "legalities" of possessions & ownership. Below is the ATF 4473
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

This is the standard form which is filled out whenever you transfer a firearm from a FFL Dealer to an Individual. A person to person transfer cannot bypass the "restrictions" as presented. I'll get into that in a second.

But the gist of it is this.

You cannot be a Felon, someone who has been convicted of a crime which can result in serving more than 1 year in jail, or a "Domestic Violence" crime. (Questions 11c and 11i).

We can go round and round about the Bill of Rights Protections being "Absolute" however, the Supreme Court has ruled there are exceptions to each of them whether it is 1a, 2a, 4a, 5a, etc.

In DC vs Heller it is explicity stated that the 2a is tied to the natural Right of Self Defense, however,

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

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

Now, as for personal opinions (Mine).

I am a firm believer in the "Debt to Society" concept. Once you have paid it, you are back to a blank slate. As long as the crime committed was non-violent in nature, the prohibition on firearms does not make sense. Restricting a specific Right which is unrelated to the crime committed doesn't make sense to me. But that is just my opinion.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 10:09 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:09:13 -0500

I think that there should be a process whereby a felon upon release may petition for a return of both their 2A rights and their right to vote.

Some people are imprisoned over the most ridiculous non-violent, even victim-less crimes. I think that there should be an avenue for those types of people to regain their rights, however small and narrow that avenue may be.

As libertarian as I am, it would be hard for me to hand a violent criminal his gun back.

In principal I see where you are coming from, I just think in reality it'll never happen.

Response by PO2 Christopher Morehouse made Feb 9 at 2015 11:03 AM

PO2 Christopher Morehouse — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:03:21 -0500

I'm not sure how uniform the laws involving felony possession of a firearm is, but in general anyone with a felony, be it a violent crime or not, falls under that law. I believe that is too broad. It is entirely conceivable that you can have someone convicted with a felony white collar crime, and then they will lose their right to possess a firearm. I think it is unnecessary for the law to apply to anyone who has not committed a violent felony. Perhaps they should still lose their right to vote, but I don't see why we should believe they will develop violent tendencies simply because they are now a felon in the eyes of the law.

Regardless, there is a process by which felons can petition to have their rights reinstated, though I'm not sure of the success rate.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Feb 9 at 2015 11:06 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:06:54 -0500

One of the punishments of being a convicted felon is the loss of the right to own firearms. They cannot vote in most states nor sit on a jury. Why you would want a convicted murderer to own weapons is beyond me.

They may have served their prison sentence but societies leniancy on time in prison should not be a green light to gain access to rights they forfeited by being a criminal. Most felons are not one time losers either, they likely have a rap sheet a mile long.

Response by SSG John Erny made Feb 9 at 2015 11:14 AM

SSG John Erny — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:14:52 -0500

In some states a felon can own a black powder firearm for hunting. With the right paper work a pardon is also an option. A good friend of mine threw a brick through a window that costed several thousand dollars to replace. He was 18 at the time and was charged with a felony criminal mischief. He applied for a pardon in his 30's and it was granted.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Feb 9 at 2015 1:39 PM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:39:29 -0500

Since I see you like Humble Opinions, IMHO, and working with convicted felons in an attempt to reduce recidivism-
You analogy of "if they can walk the steets again why not let them defend themselves". What percentage of felons are currently incarcerated vs who is released? If you have a non-violent felony, and you have not re offended, why not Peterson the court to expunge your record and ask for your right to own firearms back? That is what a law abiding citizen would do. For those that continue to violate the law, they will obtain a fire arm one way or another. Now, when they do, and they have the gun, it's an additional charge or an enhancement to get them to stay in prison longer.
I have worked hard my whole life and have no felonies. Why should the guy who commits crimes get the same right and privileges?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 1:47 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:47:17 -0500

I think the whole felon thing is bs. Most felons I have met don't care what the laws says. That being said a right should never have restrictions.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Feb 9 at 2015 3:54 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:54:12 -0500

Felon = No weapons in my mind, unless the courts reinstate that right. I think it is a needed check and balance. A reasonable one that is no overly burdensome and just part of the price paying one must do in order to become a respected person in society after release.

I am friends with a few that are convicted felons, they paid there debt to society, were released (not paroled) and went on to become a respected person in their community.
I have no issue with those two in possession of a weapon. I know other felons I cannot say they same about.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 4:26 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 16:26:05 -0500

I strongly agree with you. I feel that being barred from your right to bear arms to a felon should be assessed by the type of crime. I feel it should be attached to your sentence so those who had a felony with a non violent crime shouldn't be punished from defending themselves.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 4:30 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 16:30:52 -0500

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Feb 9 at 2015 5:55 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:55:21 -0500

Mixed opinions:
1. We high rates of recidivism. This means to me that sentences do not adequately correct the criminal propensity.

2. Martha Stewart is a convicted felon.

3. Crime rates continued to increase following the GCA in 1968 and didn't really turn around until the mid 90's.

If we are to prohibit ownership, it would probably be a better idea to make it a deliberate part of the sentence rather than a side effect for all felonies.

Response by CPL Rick Stasny made Feb 9 at 2015 6:26 PM

CPL Rick Stasny — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:26:58 -0500

The best way an ex-convict can defend themselves, is to stay out of trouble. Stay home, be a parent, go to work. Believe it or not, it is amazing how little trouble a person will encounter while engaged in pro-social activities.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 9:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:33:58 -0500

Here's my take on this:

1) a person who commits a felony, has specifically proven that they are NOT a productive member of society - at least not at that time.
2) once they are released from prison/have completed their "punishment", they are NOT necessarily a productive member of society. They have already violated that trust. Just like with a liar, you do NOT believe a liar is telling the truth until they show a propensity to not lie. You would not automatically trust the liar just because they have been punished, until you can verify that they no longer lie.
3) All people have a right to defend their lives, provided they are not in the process of committing a crime! If they are in the process of committing a crime, they are forfeiting their rights simply by the fact they are committing a crime.
4) someone who has been released from prison, has to PROVE they are a productive member of society. This is why EVERY felon is on probation once they are released, even if they have completely fulfilled their prison term. In fact, all felons are pretty much on probation for a LONG time - perhaps even for life depending on the crime.
5) If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. I don't care who you are. Don't want your right to carry taken away? Don't commit a felony.
6) There are ways around SOME laws prohibiting a felon from owning/possessing a weapon (for example G. Gordon Liddy, a convicted felon - look up Watergate - is not allowed to own a weapon. But his wife, is. She has never been convicted of any crime. So, there are weapons in his home, and if someone were breaking in, he would have every right to retrieve one of his wife's weapons and use it to protect himself. He could also secure a weapon if someone attacked him on the street - for example, if his wife was down, he could retrieve a weapon from her and use it to protect himself and her).
7) While I am against felons in general being able to own/possess a weapon, I would not be against a board of review that could "reinstate" that right after five, or even 10 years if the felon has proven to be reformed and is a productive member of society. The problem is the board would be composed of attorneys and judges or some sort of government flunky who really didn't give a damn about their job - and I hate how much government is inserting itself already into our lives.

All that being said: I am against most felons being able to own a weapon until MANY years after they are are released - basically, my thought is: If you can't afford to do the time (or the punishment - including losing your rights) then don't do the crime!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 10:15 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:15:12 -0500

That right is waived for felons because they have proven they cannot be trusted to judiciously exercise said rights.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 10:20 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:20:11 -0500

Hi, SPC Griffith.

Actually, they can. Sort of. Federal law states that those convicted of a felony or those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence can own black powder weapons. They must either have percussion caps or 209 primer, and can not be readily converted to use modern ammo.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 20 at 2015 2:49 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:49:29 -0400

I agree with you, SPC Charles Griffith.

The easiest part of this topic is that non-violent felons should not be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.

It's more difficult with the violent felons, but as you say, if they are walking among us they should not be legally prevented from having guns.
Someone who has committed felonious violence before and is likely to do so again is not likely to be hindered from carrying a gun or using it in felonious violence just because there's a law that says he can't have one.

Response by MGySgt Rick Tyrrell made Jul 13 at 2019 7:41 AM

MGySgt Rick Tyrrell — Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:41:43 -0400

Simple they can get a rifle. No pistol, I feel they lost that right when they went to jail. But in the end if I was a bad guy I would get weapons no matter what the law says.