Has anyone ever challenged non violent crime felonys being a bar to the 2A.

[BGutzman]

We as a nation allow our government to do all sorts of spending and we do things like buy stoves for other nations people.http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/0...h/21stove.html

Yet here we don’t fund the mechanisms to allow the return of rights to citizens? I’m not debating the politics I am making what I believe is a pretty clear point that the government is choosing to not fund such things because it does not want people to have these rights returned and that itself is to me at least a problem.

You define liberalization of the law which I appreciate but what is the definition of a system that chooses to not fund the return of rights even when the mechanism itself has already been passed into law?

Even if its 10,000 people US wide that fall into the category I am speaking of that’s still a goodly number of people. Im so frustrated with this subject and sad state of affairs.. uggh.. the whole system is inept and corrupt.. someone hit the reset button.

I will see about expungement for my brother and maybe its they way to go. I appreciate the information.

[BlueTrain]

Underfunded?

[heyjoe]

contact your republican congressman and/or senators if you have any and tell them to stop playing political games and get working on funding the mechanism to restore your rights as well as other things they should be working on.

[BGutzman]

Thanks Heyjoe..

The real problem is as I see it that anyone thinks this is acceptable in the first place... I agree that certainly violent crime may rise to the level of taking ones rights to own a firearm away.

I do not think however that just any crime qualifies to do this and I truly belive a lot of felonys are more about being some kind of gun control than anything having to do with the crime itself.

Even some of my friends of this forum seem to find nothing wrong with that but it doesnt sit so well with me..

[Double Naught Spy]

While it may be a form of gun control as you note, it isn't something necessarily done as a matter of gun control, just a result. As noted previously, a debt such as by your brother might have resulted in the loss of his life. That isn't gun control. Fortunately, things go toned down a bit.

Felonies are considered to be serious crimes, hence the loss of certain rights. You want to make the distinction that loss of 2A rights would be based on whether or not the crime was violent. Cool. What is a violent crime? Is it a violent crime if nobody got hurt? If nobody got hurt, how can it be a violent crime? Is the threat of violence enough to make a crime be considered a violent crime despite no injuries taking place, or would that be gun control as well?

There are folks who make a huge distiniction between types of violent crimes. Should you be disallowed from having firearms if you get a felony conviction for unarmed robbery? Why should you lose your rights for guns when you never did anything wrong with a gun, especially if nobody ever got hurt in the crime that you committed?

There are all sorts of gray areas in this notion of "violent crime." What standard is correct? Why does the crime being violent make it more relevant to loss of 2A rights if a gun wasn't even used?

The current standard skirts a lot of this nitpicking. If you don't want to play well with others in society to the point of committing a crime serious enough to be considered a felony, if you are willing to piddle away your 2A rights doing something stupid, then maybe you should not have them, huh? It isn't like these folks committed the crime and then all of a sudden the crime was recategorized as a felony on them and so now they are losing their rights for something that originally would not have resulted in a loss of their rights when they committed the crime. Nope. The rules were in place and yet they risked it all, in some cases, for a small amount of money. Bummer.

You don't like the current standard and want a different one. You don't like the current law. It does not sit well with you. You think it is wrong. You are frustrated. You keep arguing from emotion and emotion isn't a valid argument.

So, move away from the personal opinions and complaining and start deriving valid justifications. As near as I can tell from your complaints, you haven't done this. You aren't going to get a law changed by continually complaining you don't like it. You need to be able to convince folks and legislators why a change is needed and why the proposed changes will actually be appropriately beneficial or right for society or individual rights. Complaining doesn't cut it. We all complain. We all think some laws are poorly conceived. Complaining hasn't gotten them changed without valid justifications.

[Fish_Scientist]

It is unfortunate that there is no current legal remedy for those convicted of a federal felony to have their civil rights restored to them other than one that congress refuses to fund.

For those convicted of state felonious offenses, most times the process for the restoration of civil rights is straightforward. I don't like to admit this, even to perfect strangers (i.e., the members of TFL), but having been convicted of a non-violent felony, I was in the "system" for a long time. After the state-imposed sentence and after many years of being a productive member of society (went back to get my BS and MS degrees), I petitioned the court to have my civil rights restored. In other words, I worked the system to have my civil rights restored to me, even though it would have been easy to sit around and feel sorry for myself, and bitch about the system. The system works, but it's still the system and can take forever to get anything done.

Many states automatically restore citizenship rights to convicted felons once their sentence has been completed. Check into the laws of the state in which your brother lives to determine what the remedy is.

Society is scared of felons. Most people hear the phrase "convicted felon" and assume that those felons are violent, scary people. I imagine that many would be flabbergasted to hear that I, a PhD, CWP holder, and all around super guy am also a convicted felon. Tell your brother to work the system available to him; contrary to popular belief, it does work, and can help those who were at its mercy for many, many years.

Fish

[BGutzman]

You keep arguing from emotion and emotion isn't a valid argument.

This my friend is where you are wrong... This country was founded on natural law with certain inherent rights. You and I come at the problem from different positions to be sure but natural law is not subject to the governments whim.

Natural law is a regard for rights that exist with or without government and are inherent in human beings, the government does not create these rights.

You see my arguement as an emotion but the foundation of my arguement is natural law, the very basis of our nation... However I do see (rightly or wrongly) in your arguement that law is whatever the government makes it.

In my view of the world and the one I spent 21 years of my life fighting for that is not correct.... Im sure were not going to agree and I respect your opinion but I find little of the founding beliefs of this nation in your presentation. I see a government that has clear limits it should not pass and you and many others feel differently..

Were different people, for certain we will not agree on all things...

[deathrider]

I have known too many "felons" most were convicted of stupid minor offenses.

1 guy, a drunk driving conviction with property damage, when he was 17, he got bad moonshine & came to in jail, & didnt remember anything.

another was speeding on motorcycle, he decided to run, when he realised he couldnt outrun he pulled over, but was arrested, & convicted. poof there went his rights.

another was a 18 year old, that let friends store some stolen goods in a building on his property, that he rented, then his friends got caught, & named him, said he was in on it, & he ran, & they caught up with him 9 years later, & he served his time, & has not been in trouble in 12 years since then, but he lost his rights.

a kid I grew up with, was 16, was drunk in public, resisted arrest, & then assaulted the cop, he managed to break officers arm, & poof. a felon at 16, he says he was stupid, barely remember anything, he just tried to get away & the "fight" escalated.

another kid I know was 18, & girl was 16, her parents got him on a sexual offense. he is a felon.

I knew a kid that had several drunk driving offenses before he was 18, & was a felon, his last police rammed his moped, to get him to stop & he was riding moped, because no license from drunk driving offenses.

a guy I knew messed up, & had a couple traffic tickets, & then got a DUI, he lost his license, & was declared a habitual offender, he got caught driving, after being declared a habbitual offender, he was in construction, & his wife never learned how to drive, so he had to drive to get tool to work, well he pulled a year, & became a felon because of this, & due to 1 year in jail, he lost his house, he had under 2 years left to pay for it. his wife worked part time within walking distance, but she couldnt keep up. after conviction, he couldnt find work, & had to live in a rental house & had lost everything he worked for & drank himself to death, he died from accute alcohol injestion.

as for having rights restored, a guy that sold items at flea market had his rights restored, then they "the state" decided to revoke his rights without informing him, he found out when someone stole a gun he was selling at flea market, & he reported it to police & they ran him through the system, & found he once was a felon, & had rights restored, & then cancelled, but without notifying him. it seemed where he lived they would restore rights after a certain time, but then later decided to reverse their decision, & take away the rights again. I got this from an officer that worked security where I work, during when all that happened.

Randy

[BlueTrain]

Take your mind back about 40 years and you will realize where all this harsh punishment and strict laws are coming from. I don't think it is gun control necessarily, even though it may work out that way for some.

You may recall that gun laws were changed and became more restrictive and shall we say, conservative, after the Kennedy assassination in 1963 (with another in 1968). However, crime was a big issue in Nixon's elections and the net result was that the law simply became meaner. I can't think of a better word for it. And now, we are only second to China in the number of people who are in prison. I understand completely the attitudes people had in the late 1960s, so I guess we had it coming.

[Double Naught Spy]

You see my arguement as an emotion but the foundation of my arguement is natural law, the very basis of our nation... However I do see (rightly or wrongly) in your arguement that law is whatever the government makes it.

Okay, you want to argue theory. Cool. I want to argue reality. You are hoping to change reality with theory based in emotion, and you continue to do so. Every one of your treatises on the matter are pumped full of emotion and your emotions have nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. For example...

In my view of the world and the one I spent 21 years of my life fighting for that is not correct.... Im sure were not going to agree and I respect your opinion but I find little of the founding beliefs of this nation in your presentation. I see a government that has clear limits it should not pass and you and many others feel differently..

The founding beliefs, as you call them, didn't all work so well. That is why it immediately (several years later) became apparent that the Constitution had some major shortcomings and some changes had to be made. You see, natural law wasn't working so well.

With that said, you keep rattling your founding fathers saber and spouting emotions, but that isn't going to change diddly. Just how is it that you are going to take your emotion laden views about how things were and use them to change reality of how things are? So far, I just hear a lot of complaining - flash in the pan with no musket balls flying.

[BGutzman]

Double Naught - My change was proposed in possibly writing a paper to the NRA on this issue. I say what I see and believe to be true and apparently you do the same from a position I find hard to fathom.

I think your dialogue clearly proves that in the future any new amendments will need to be multi page if not volume affairs otherwise our legal system will continue to make laws infringing at any time that it makes political sense at the moment.

This thread has strayed far from its intent. I dont really care if you agree with me or my views or my apparently emotional opinions. It seems to me your just bored and have little to offer, I can hopefully be more generous. I will not respond to further baiting and I thank you for your time and input and if you make it to MN I will be happy to buy you lunch, I dont think the limits of text is helping this conversation.

I appreciate the input from everyone on this thread even those I may not have answered specifically. If you have any links you feel may help me in researching this subject I would be grateful, if not thats ok...

[AirborneMosinFan]

If you can make the right choices by the time youre a man then it deserves to be on your record, if it's a felony then you messed up and don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us

[SlimTheMan]

18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code - Section 921:

(a)(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.

and the case law to support it:

(date 1990)899 F.2d 543 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calvin CASSIDY, Defendant-Appellee.

(date 1990)911 F.2d 219 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baldemar GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1991)932 F.2d 1330 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodore Albert GEYLER, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1991)938 F.2d 131 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lee DAHMS, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1991)947 F.2d 914 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David SWANSON, Defendant-Appellee.

(date 1992)967 F.2d 1349 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl Rodney CARDWELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1993)992 F.2d 218 - UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael A. CAPITO, Appellant.

(date 1994)20 F.3d 1066 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Clinton HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1995)45 F.3d 340 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Danny S. HERRON, Defendant-Appellee.

(date 1996)74 F.3d 615 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary August DUPAQUIER, Defendant-Appellant.

(date 1996)87 F.3d 1333 - UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael T. BOST, Appellant.ad Document

(date 1996)77 F.3d 1 - UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerald R. CARON, Defendant, Appellant.

(date 1999)198 F.3d 808 - UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bob Gene FOWLER a.k.a. Bobby L. Fowler, Defendant-Appellant.

[JerryM]

There are consequences of one's actions. Some crimes/mistakes do not cause lifelong problems. Committing a felony does cause lifelong troubles.
I do not think that all punishments fit the crime. I do not think that something like a domestic violence arrest should bar one from owning a gun depending upon the situation.

But a felony is serious, and I do not have a problem with the current laws relating to those crimes. Young and old get into trouble, and each must pay the price. If you do the crime then you must do the time. One lapse of judgment can cause lifetime damage.

I just cannot work up much sympathy for one who commits a felony regardless of his age.

Regards,
Jerry

[SlimTheMan]

@JerryM:

Between the ages of 12 and 21 I was a very responsible hunter and had a lot of respect for firearms. Some family disputes lead me down the road of alcoholism, at which time I did not have any guns. Suffice it to say I got a few dui's, the last one being a felony. I did my time and on completion received a certificate stating, "is hereby restored to full rights of citizenship subject to the provisions of SDCL 22-14-15 and SDCL 22-14-15.1." Those two codified laws refer to drug felonies and violent crimes....therefore I can legaly own a firearm.

Also I have been sober since my last arrest in the early part of '06. For any one to say that I would be a danger to the community by having a firearm just because of the felony dui is just plain ignorant...in the immortal words of Charlton Heston two quotes, "Here's my credo. There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people." and “I have only five words for you: From my cold, dead hands.” That's when the gov't can attempt to take my firearms away from me...

Regards
I to am Jerry...lol.

[Double Naught Spy]

For any one to say that I would be a danger to the community by having a firearm just because of the felony dui is just plain ignorant.

Good for you that you got your rights restored and being sober. Are you a danger because of your felony DUIs? Nope, the felonies aren't what would make you dangerous. They just represent the times you got caught endangering other people in the community that admittedly was due to being an alcoholic. I don't doubt that you are fine, so long as you remain sober. Most alcoholics that I have met are that way.

[SlimTheMan]

Like I said in my previous post, I voluntarily gave my guns to a family member while I was an alcoholic, I did not hunt nor possess at anytime. One who has complete respect for firearms should never be denied the "right to bear arms"...being behind the wheel of a car is always a danger to the community, being a delivery driver I've seen it every day...people not using a turn signal, speeding, talking on a cell phone, texting, and of course being intoxicated...had a buddy of mine get caught poaching, did his rights get revoked??? Of course not, that to me would be a disrespect of firearms.

[Buzzcook]

Millions?

Yes millions. The US has the highest number prisoners both as a persent of the population and probably in total numbers.

USA and territories.[8]
Incarcerated population Number of inmates

in 2008
Total 2,424,279
Federal and state prisons 1,518,559
Territorial prisons 13,576
Local jails 785,556
ICE facilities 9,957
Military facilities 1,651
Jails in Indian country 2,135
Juvenile facilities[9] 92,845
--- Additional:
Foreign and secret prisons [10] ~400-20000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarce..._United_States

That's just one year. I suspect that over the decades there may have been more prisoners that have sense been released.

7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[15] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes.[15] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge.

With the exception of state prisons, violent offenders are in the minority.
2,424,279 - 52% is still over one million non-violent offenders. Once again there might have been one or two that have cycled through the system over the decades and returned to the general population.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that millions of people have lost their rights because of a single stupid mistake.

The odds of returning the right to own firearms to people who have "paid their debt to society", is small. It would open the door to returning the right to vote as well. That ain't happening.

[BGutzman]

The courts may and have found "shall not be infringed" to be something other than uninfringeable but take that phrase and apply it to some other item and ask the general public what shall not be infringed means as a literal definition. i think you will find the general interpertation of the public would disagree even if you applied it to something other than guns.

Further it seems there were few if any anti gun laws prior to the 1800's, why? could it be they felt it was unconstitutional? Could it be that guns were though to be so protected that they truly felt it was uninfringeable? Why is it some places you were required to own a gun and ammuniton and what does that tell us about the origional beliefs of this nation concerning Constitutional rights and rights in general?

The arguement above is the "millions" of people arent being held back from hunting and shooting by felony convictions and yet I bet you would be hard press to find anyone in this forum or any other gun forum who doesnt know someone who lost thier right to own a gun over some trival matter that did not involve any sort of violence or threats. We are in a society that hands out felonys like bubblegum.

I have both a younger brother and a younger sister that use to own guns and shoot and both have felonys for things that caused no physical harm nor any sort of violence nor threat of violence to anyone.

Inalienable rights means rights that do not go away and I would argue that if you are not in prison or jail or awaiting trial or under arrest then you have these rights under our Constitution and Bill of Rights and it would seem if you werent put to death for a given crime (at the time of the founding of our nation) they when you finished serving your sentence you got your rights back because they were inalienable.

[D-Nied]

A friend of mine owns a gunshop and tells me that a person has to petition to get his record cleared after a specified period of time, but even if he's cleared at the federal level, he may not be allowed at the state or county level to own

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that millions of people have lost their rights because of a single stupid mistake.

Very few people are actual first time offenders. They may be first time porsecutees, but they are not first time offenders, like Slim with his multiple DUIs. They weren't the only times he drove drunk, just the only ones where he got caught.

[Wildalaska]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that millions of people have lost their rights because of a single stupid mistake.

I'm sorry to say this, and it say it with the utmost respect, but in almost every criminal case the whine is either I didnt do it, someone else did it, it was a mistake or it wasnt my fault

Is the rule against felons unfair? probably in some cases. Is it constitutional? Yes. Can the rule be made less stringent? probably. It that a high priority? Probably not in these days of budget problem.

But one cannot say one is deprived of the rights forever due to a "single stupid mistake" (cough)..one can petition your state governor for a pardon (in many states after 10 years).

WildwhyisntthatsufficientAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Tom Servo]

Very few people are actual first time offenders. They may be first time prosecutees, but they are not first time offenders

Ask any probation or parole officer. Folks don't get busted back the first time they violate the terms--they get busted back the first time they get caught.

[Buzzcook]

WildwhyisntthatsufficientAlaska

It is insufficient because having your rights restored is readily available to Charles Colson but not so much to John Doe.
It would be interesting to see the demographic breakdown of former felons that have had their rights fully restored.

[Wildalaska]

It is insufficient because having your rights restored is readily available to Charles Colson but not so much to John Doe.

Really? Are you saying there is a bar to the average felon petitioning for a pardon?

WildtellmehowAlaska ™©2002-2011