Would you find it alarming? - Page 2

BigD_in_FL · May 16, 2013, 07:52 PM

Most convicts released from prison have not served their full term due to overcrowding and rulings that say being crowded violates their "rights" . Recidivism among convicts is right around 85%, so no, giving folks with stats like that an even easier way to go out and commit further crimes is not warranted. If YOU want them in YOUR neighborhood, please adopt one and do so. I, however, do not

Nittespanker · May 16, 2013, 07:58 PM

Quote:

I would find it severely annoying. If the government, or even a private agency, can afford to give away firearms to felons, they can afford to give me one as well, and I am far more deserving.

That said, I'd like to see several changes to the current system: make it easier for felons convicted of non-violent crimes to have their rights restored; lower the bar for a temporary loss of rights to include some violent misdemeanors; and impose stiffer sentences for crimes committed with firearms. There are plenty of others, but that'll do for now.

Ok I posed that wrong,I didn't mean the government literally giving the ex-cons guns but rather allowing ex-cons to buy them or be given a gun by a friend family etc.

I think your answer is very sensible.

Now how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns? I'm not necessarily taking about new laws here.....I for one think the current laws should be more strictly enforced on violent offenders and as Brian said if your given 15 years then you should do all 15 if you have committed a violent offense.

**Shane Tuttle** · May 16, 2013, 08:00 PM

Yes, you are. I specifically stated generally speaking since you still don't want to provide a specific situation in order to provide a more accurate assessment. Trying to twist my general conclusion with a follow-up question like yours is what attorneys call "leading the witness". I'm not buying into that game.

Simplify the laws.

Enforce the simplified laws.

Nittespanker · May 16, 2013, 08:03 PM

This thread is not about tricking Shane Tuttle. Just for the record.

I just asked if the crime mattered or not. It seemed you said one thing and then stated the opposite. I just wanted clarification. Not a thread war and 50 posts talking about you or what you did or didn't mean or how my questions are not what you think are fair.

I think some felons should be able to buy guns and I think NO violent offender should ever be allowed to buy a gun period.

It seems we agree I don't understand the problem.....

Evan Thomas · May 16, 2013, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittespanker

Now how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns?

It's enough, as far as I'm concerned, that it's a crime for a prohibited person to possess a gun or to attempt to purchase one; it would help if those laws were better enforced. It's been pointed out here any number of times that criminals will get guns if they want to.

"Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" is a red herring, designed to distract attention from real, systemic problems. The trouble is that guns are sexy, even (especially?) for those who want to ban them. Their (and our) time would be far better spent working on ways to address the causes of violent crime: ending the "war on drugs" and putting more resources into treatment and rehab, legalizing and regulating illicit drugs, and changing policies that enrich the few while impoverishing the many would be good places to start.

But, heck, those would involve actual thought and hard work, not to mention money... it's so much easier to pretend to do something by going after guns.

lamarw · May 16, 2013, 08:14 PM

Yes, it would be nice to find a way to keep convicted felons from obtaining firearms. I think the concern by many of us is not making it more restrictive for us good folks to obtain a firearm or remove our rights by doing so.

If the convicted felons goes out and acquires a firearms by whatever means, he faces even more harsh punishment for this action if caught. If it can be proven someone knowingly gave or sold this felon a firearm, then they need to become a convicted felon through our judicial system.

Brian Pfleuger · May 16, 2013, 08:17 PM

It's completely impossible to keep firearms out of the hands of some who wants one BAD ENOUGH.

There's two sides of the equation.

I want it versus the penalty I could pay for having it.

Realistically, there's not much influence we can have on the "I want it" side. The variable we can effect is the penalty for having it.

It the penalty side sufficiently outweighs the want side, the criminal will not acquire the firearm and we don't have to "stop" them. It'll be "voluntary".

Nittespanker · May 16, 2013, 08:22 PM

I agree with most of what you say Vanya.

I don't agree with legalizing all drugs however. Totally different subject though.

Ok here is what I do to keep guns(my guns anyway) out of the hands of criminals.
1. I keep my guns locked up in a safe unless its the one I'm using for protection.
2. I will not sell a gun to anyone without a FFL dealer transferring it for me. I'll pay the fee no problem.
3. I never leave my gun in a vehicle.
4. I don't tell people I have guns or talk much about what I have. Some people like to talk and they tell the wrong people or people are listening that could try and steal my guns. It's better no one knows what I have or where it is.

While its true a criminal that wants a gun can get a gun,I for one am not going to make his quest an easy one.

zxcvbob · May 16, 2013, 08:24 PM

1967

Newton24b · May 16, 2013, 10:01 PM

well this is how the system goes.

a person sent to pokie for 10 years for home invasion, can get a degree in locksmithing.

a person sent to the pokie for hacking the bank system and enhancing his bank account has teh ability to get a degree in computer programming and computer systems.

to just let any of them get a gun is like saying, "sure the local pervert served their ten years for fondling little children. of course they can be bathroom/playground monitor at the local kindergarten"

wayneinFL · May 17, 2013, 12:30 AM

I don't want a likely recidivist out of prison, be it a violent crime or a property crime. Period. Whether they are allowed to legally own a firearm is irrelevant.

A criminal doesn't need a weapon to overcome my wife, my mother, or one of my children. If he wants a weapon, there are plenty of other legal weapons out there. If he wants to obtain a gun illegally, there really isn't a whole lot stopping him.

BumbleBug · May 17, 2013, 01:41 AM

The issue here is, does the punishment match the crime. If someone gets 3 years for a felony, serves 18 months & is paroled, he should be denied legal firearm acquisition for his parole period, which we hope is at least equal to his remaining jail period, 18 months. Someone guilty of a serious crime, receives 20 years, is paroled in 15 years should be denied his rights hopefully for a very long parole period, at least 5 years. So only after a person serves all of his jail time & parole time & assuming the courts are fair, is his debt to society paid. Then his rights, including 2nd amendment, should be restored.

IMHO...

...bug

**44 AMP** · May 17, 2013, 02:41 AM

People who did really bad things only came out of prison one way, in a box. Those who hadn't been quite so bad, generally served their full sentences, outside of rare cases.

And those people who got out, (in theory, at least) were allowed the means to defend themselves, if they desired.

I think part of the problem with the discussion is the virtual stock acceptance that all "prohibited persons" should, and ought to be forever prohibited persons.

There are a LOT of decent people in our nation that at one point in their lives got a case of felony stupid. Some of them would like to be able to legally own a gun, for that "just in case". Unfortunately, the legal mechanism provided by law for this purpose is broke. As in not working, because Congress does not give it any money.

Many things that were once minor disturbances of the peace are now much more serious in the eyes of the law. And more of them carry the lifetime prohibited person label attached to the other penalties than ever before.

Our system is not working very well, and many people suffer from its flaws. But I don't think giving some one a gun when they get out of prison is a good idea. Not unless you are going to give everyone else in the country the same gun. Do that, and at least we'll all start equal.

wayneinFL · May 17, 2013, 04:11 AM

Quote:

I don't think a convicted violent felon should have the right to own a firearm. If he been to prison and served his time to me that sounds like a rapist or child molester do his time and I need a baby sitter and this person needs a job do you think I should think about leaving my child. Lol-surely not.

Okay. would you let a convicted murderer babysit your child as long as he didn't have a firearm? Does that make him safe?

Quote:

And if I was ever so stupid or situation got crossed on me and I ever did get a felony would I ever own a firearm again -always. I will always have one no matter what.

Which is exactly what felons do.

Metal god · May 17, 2013, 04:57 AM

No you never get a gun and you never vote . You chose to commit the crime and society has chose the penalty . It's called a consequence for your actions . This is only how I feel to your yes or no only question . If I was only given a yes or no choice for all criminals it would have to be NO NEVER .

Quote:

Now how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns?

We can't , not under are current way of governance . Laws are not there to stop crime . They are there so the state can punish you for the crime . Laws are at best a deterrent and because of that if anybody wants to do anything there is very little any of us can do about it . Thinking there is a way to stop someone from getting a gun , speeding , or buying illegal drugs under are current way of governance is naive . Many drugs have been illegal for quite some time and at times the penalty for possession was quite severe . How did that whole war on drugs thing work out ?

Alabama Shooter · May 17, 2013, 08:20 AM

Quote:

I think some felons should be able to buy guns and I think NO violent offender should ever be allowed to buy a gun period.

Ok, so if you go to a party and someone insults your girl, spills some beer on you and then you.... punch them in the face and you..... then you get convicted of misdemeanor assault you should never be allowed to own a gun again?

I can't say I agree with you on that point but if that is your opinion....

Skans · May 17, 2013, 08:42 AM

Quote:

If not alarmed do you support the right to bear arms unconditionally? Simple yes answer would be appropriate for this opinion and no explanation needed.

Sorry, a simple answer "yes" is not possible. I believe that once a person is released from prison, all rights, including the right to own firearms, should automatically be restored. I believe this unconditionally as I find any type of caste system, where citizens have partial rights, abhorrent.

However, I also believe that murders, people who commit grossly violent crimes with weapons, and serial rapists should be swiftly and publicly executed. Only idiots would turn a violent criminal loose into society and tell him: "Ok, Chuck - you're free, but no guns..." Only bigger idiots feed, house, clothe and care for murderous animals.

Corrections Cop · May 17, 2013, 08:44 AM

I work in a correctional facility and I just wanted to say that 99% of the people incarcerated their have no right to ever posses a firearm ever again in their life. These people are bad people, murders, pedophiles, rapists, robbers and run of the mill street thugs. Most of these people could give a crap about you or me, or anyone else but them selves. Just because they go to prison for robbing someone doesn't mean that, that is their only crime they have ever committed. Most of these people will also get out of prison, and go back to the same neighborhood, and get right back to the same thing that got them incarcerated. The fact the some people here think that some of these people should have their rights reinstated is crazy. These people are convicted felons, if you want their rights restored and these people be given guns, then by all means move in next doo to them, I won't. They don't need guns to defend their self, that is a bad argument, people defend themselves without guns all the time. We do it in correctional facilities all the time. Having a gun is a right, felons gave up that right.

Armorer-at-Law · May 17, 2013, 08:58 AM

Quote:

So far no one has given any ideas to how we can keep guns out of the hands of people who we think shouldn't have them.

I'm certain we could come up with a few good ideas if we try. What do you guys think?

If the goal is to reduce violent crime, whether by first offenders or former inmates, it would be much more effective to infringe other of their rights. Eliminate their 4A right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, their 5A right against self incrimination; their 6A right to a speedy trial, their 7A right to a jury trial, their 8A right against excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment . . . But that is not acceptable (nor should it be). Denying the right to legally keep and bear arms appears to be acceptable to most here, but really isn't very effective.

Brian Pfleuger · May 17, 2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law

If the goal is to reduce violent crime, whether by first offenders or former inmates, it would be much more effective to infringe other of their rights. Eliminate their 4A right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, their 5A right against self incrimination; their 6A right to a speedy trial, their 7A right to a jury trial, their 8A right against excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment . . . But that is not acceptable (nor should it be). Denying the right to legally keep and bear arms appears to be acceptable to most here, but really isn't very effective.

Actually, we do almost all those things and only one of them (denying a speedy trial) is "unintentional".

During their entire trial and prison sentence, a sentence that "violates" all that persons "rights" were they not convicted of a crime, they are denied their freedom in almost every respect. No privacy, no search restrictions, no freedom to travel... nothing.

Why? Because the laws that have been passed allow all those freedoms to be abridged and they have to, don't they? If we couldn't ever violate anyone's "rights", we couldn't punish criminals, could we?

Denying their access to firearms (and voting) is simply a penalty that extends beyond jail time. It's part of the debt that must be payed. When they're released, society has deemed that their other rights are restored. Society has deemed that voting and arms are rights that are NOT restored.

The real trouble is not that "felons" are denied these rights forever, it is the ever growing list of what constitutes a "felony", which has even now extended to serious misdemeanors.

lcpiper · May 17, 2013, 12:04 PM

As was said earlier here;

Quote:

Society has decided that the price of being a felon is prison time AND lifetime loss of firearms. That's the price. It's not prison. It's not no firearms. It's prison AND no firearms.

We, society, could CHANGE the debt but the debt is currently both, not one.

It's more then just loss of their 2A rights, they can't vote either. In essence a person who commits a felony offense has removed themselves from our society. I am not so quick to forgive and forget. Coddling criminals is much of why it's all so messed up to begin with.

I strongly believe in the death penalty. I strongly feel we give criminals too much in the way of putting off their demise. Our justice system is no longer swift nor sure. I do not favor rehabilitation. If prison were really prison again, harsh and definitely not comfortable, fewer would be so cavalier in risking it.

And before I would ever be sold on the idea of changing it, we need to get back to doing it right to begin with. The current system is broken in how it is executed. Fix it first, then you can look at reform.

The simple fact that we have so many prisons and felons is proof enough to me that we have been doing it wrong. Fix it first, then you can look at how you treat felons after release.

Armorer-at-Law · May 17, 2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Actually, we do almost all those things and only one of them (denying a speedy trial) is "unintentional".

During their entire trial and prison sentence, a sentence that "violates" all that persons "rights" were they not convicted of a crime, they are denied their freedom in almost every respect. No privacy, no search restrictions, no freedom to travel... nothing.

I'm taking about infringing those rights of people not in prison -- those who have not (yet) committed a crime and those who have been released. All of the recently proposed restrictions on the 2A would not affect those in prison, only the rest of us.

Brian Pfleuger · May 17, 2013, 01:11 PM

Those who have not been convicted is a different question.

My point is that a sentence that includes a lifetime prohibition on firearms even after release from prison is no more unconstitutional than is the prison sentence.

I don't understand why we think getting out of jail is some sort of end-point. It's simply the end of one portion of the debt that must be payed. Society has deemed that the debt includes a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms. Getting out of jail is just that, getting out of jail. Imagine if it was deemed that someone convicted of a felony had to pay a $50,000 fine. Should they be freed from that fine when they're released from jail? They're out of jail, their "debt is paid"? No. The fine is separate and distinct and unrelated to jail. So is the lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms.

thallub · May 17, 2013, 02:55 PM

Quote:

It's more then just loss of their 2A rights, they can't vote either.

This is a popular myth.

Convicted felons vote in at least 38 states. Maine and Vermont allow incarcerated felons to vote by absentee ballot.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.r...resourceID=286

Quote:

I don't understand why we think getting out of jail is some sort of end-point. It's simply the end of one portion of the debt that must be payed.

Bingo!!

We law abiding US citizens are having a very hard time maintaining our Second Amendment rights. We would greatly complicate matters by demanding felons be allowed to own guns: That one is a sure loser.

Gun ownership by felons will not change anytime soon.

manta49 · May 17, 2013, 03:15 PM

I think it depends on the crime the law in the UK.

Section 21 of the 1968 Act sets out restrictions on the possession of firearms by certain categories of persons convicted of crimes. In short, persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more are never allowed to possess firearms and persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than three years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release. Having served a custodial sentence, upon release, a person is informed of the provisions of section 21 of the Act.

May 16, 2013, 08:00 PM	#28
Shane Tuttle Staff Join Date: November 28, 2005 Location: Montana Posts: 9,443	Yes, you are. I specifically stated generally speaking since you still don't want to provide a specific situation in order to provide a more accurate assessment. Trying to twist my general conclusion with a follow-up question like yours is what attorneys call "leading the witness". I'm not buying into that game. Simplify the laws. Enforce the simplified laws. __________________ If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

May 16, 2013, 08:03 PM	#29
Nittespanker Junior member Join Date: May 9, 2013 Posts: 70	This thread is not about tricking Shane Tuttle. Just for the record. I just asked if the crime mattered or not. It seemed you said one thing and then stated the opposite. I just wanted clarification. Not a thread war and 50 posts talking about you or what you did or didn't mean or how my questions are not what you think are fair. I think some felons should be able to buy guns and I think NO violent offender should ever be allowed to buy a gun period. It seems we agree I don't understand the problem..... Last edited by Nittespanker; May 16, 2013 at 08:11 PM.

May 16, 2013, 08:17 PM	#32
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	It's completely impossible to keep firearms out of the hands of some who wants one BAD ENOUGH. There's two sides of the equation. I want it versus the penalty I could pay for having it. Realistically, there's not much influence we can have on the "I want it" side. The variable we can effect is the penalty for having it. It the penalty side sufficiently outweighs the want side, the criminal will not acquire the firearm and we don't have to "stop" them. It'll be "voluntary". Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; May 17, 2013 at 09:54 AM.

May 16, 2013, 08:24 PM	#34
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	1967 __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

May 17, 2013, 01:41 AM	#37
BumbleBug Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2013 Location: Near Heart of Texas Posts: 870	If the punishment matches the crime... The issue here is, does the punishment match the crime. If someone gets 3 years for a felony, serves 18 months & is paroled, he should be denied legal firearm acquisition for his parole period, which we hope is at least equal to his remaining jail period, 18 months. Someone guilty of a serious crime, receives 20 years, is paroled in 15 years should be denied his rights hopefully for a very long parole period, at least 5 years. So only after a person serves all of his jail time & parole time & assuming the courts are fair, is his debt to society paid. Then his rights, including 2nd amendment, should be restored. IMHO... ...bug

May 16, 2013, 07:52 PM	#26
BigD_in_FL Junior member Join Date: December 20, 2012 Location: The "Gunshine State" Posts: 1,981	Most convicts released from prison have not served their full term due to overcrowding and rulings that say being crowded violates their "rights" . Recidivism among convicts is right around 85%, so no, giving folks with stats like that an even easier way to go out and commit further crimes is not warranted. If YOU want them in YOUR neighborhood, please adopt one and do so. I, however, do not

May 16, 2013, 08:14 PM	#31
lamarw Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2010 Location: Lake Martin, AL Posts: 3,311	Yes, it would be nice to find a way to keep convicted felons from obtaining firearms. I think the concern by many of us is not making it more restrictive for us good folks to obtain a firearm or remove our rights by doing so. If the convicted felons goes out and acquires a firearms by whatever means, he faces even more harsh punishment for this action if caught. If it can be proven someone knowingly gave or sold this felon a firearm, then they need to become a convicted felon through our judicial system.

May 16, 2013, 08:22 PM	#33
Nittespanker Junior member Join Date: May 9, 2013 Posts: 70	I agree with most of what you say Vanya. I don't agree with legalizing all drugs however. Totally different subject though. Ok here is what I do to keep guns(my guns anyway) out of the hands of criminals. 1. I keep my guns locked up in a safe unless its the one I'm using for protection. 2. I will not sell a gun to anyone without a FFL dealer transferring it for me. I'll pay the fee no problem. 3. I never leave my gun in a vehicle. 4. I don't tell people I have guns or talk much about what I have. Some people like to talk and they tell the wrong people or people are listening that could try and steal my guns. It's better no one knows what I have or where it is. While its true a criminal that wants a gun can get a gun,I for one am not going to make his quest an easy one.

May 16, 2013, 10:01 PM	#35
Newton24b Junior member Join Date: February 10, 2009 Posts: 974	well this is how the system goes. a person sent to pokie for 10 years for home invasion, can get a degree in locksmithing. a person sent to the pokie for hacking the bank system and enhancing his bank account has teh ability to get a degree in computer programming and computer systems. to just let any of them get a gun is like saying, "sure the local pervert served their ten years for fondling little children. of course they can be bathroom/playground monitor at the local kindergarten"

May 17, 2013, 12:30 AM	#36
wayneinFL Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2004 Posts: 1,944	I don't want a likely recidivist out of prison, be it a violent crime or a property crime. Period. Whether they are allowed to legally own a firearm is irrelevant. A criminal doesn't need a weapon to overcome my wife, my mother, or one of my children. If he wants a weapon, there are plenty of other legal weapons out there. If he wants to obtain a gun illegally, there really isn't a whole lot stopping him.

May 17, 2013, 02:41 AM	#38
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,824	When the world was simpler.... People who did really bad things only came out of prison one way, in a box. Those who hadn't been quite so bad, generally served their full sentences, outside of rare cases. And those people who got out, (in theory, at least) were allowed the means to defend themselves, if they desired. I think part of the problem with the discussion is the virtual stock acceptance that all "prohibited persons" should, and ought to be forever prohibited persons. There are a LOT of decent people in our nation that at one point in their lives got a case of felony stupid. Some of them would like to be able to legally own a gun, for that "just in case". Unfortunately, the legal mechanism provided by law for this purpose is broke. As in not working, because Congress does not give it any money. Many things that were once minor disturbances of the peace are now much more serious in the eyes of the law. And more of them carry the lifetime prohibited person label attached to the other penalties than ever before. Our system is not working very well, and many people suffer from its flaws. But I don't think giving some one a gun when they get out of prison is a good idea. Not unless you are going to give everyone else in the country the same gun. Do that, and at least we'll all start equal. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

May 17, 2013, 08:44 AM	#43
Corrections Cop Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2012 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 390	I work in a correctional facility and I just wanted to say that 99% of the people incarcerated their have no right to ever posses a firearm ever again in their life. These people are bad people, murders, pedophiles, rapists, robbers and run of the mill street thugs. Most of these people could give a crap about you or me, or anyone else but them selves. Just because they go to prison for robbing someone doesn't mean that, that is their only crime they have ever committed. Most of these people will also get out of prison, and go back to the same neighborhood, and get right back to the same thing that got them incarcerated. The fact the some people here think that some of these people should have their rights reinstated is crazy. These people are convicted felons, if you want their rights restored and these people be given guns, then by all means move in next doo to them, I won't. They don't need guns to defend their self, that is a bad argument, people defend themselves without guns all the time. We do it in correctional facilities all the time. Having a gun is a right, felons gave up that right.

May 17, 2013, 01:11 PM	#48
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Those who have not been convicted is a different question. My point is that a sentence that includes a lifetime prohibition on firearms even after release from prison is no more unconstitutional than is the prison sentence. I don't understand why we think getting out of jail is some sort of end-point. It's simply the end of one portion of the debt that must be payed. Society has deemed that the debt includes a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms. Getting out of jail is just that, getting out of jail. Imagine if it was deemed that someone convicted of a felony had to pay a $50,000 fine. Should they be freed from that fine when they're released from jail? They're out of jail, their "debt is paid"? No. The fine is separate and distinct and unrelated to jail. So is the lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

May 17, 2013, 03:15 PM	#50
manta49 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2011 Location: N Ireland. UK. Posts: 1,809	I think it depends on the crime the law in the UK. Section 21 of the 1968 Act sets out restrictions on the possession of firearms by certain categories of persons convicted of crimes. In short, persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more are never allowed to possess firearms and persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than three years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release. Having served a custodial sentence, upon release, a person is informed of the provisions of section 21 of the Act.