Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just found this story. It sure doesn't take the lawyers long to find some law to fight. Kinda like lil kids: "Lets push dad's rules, and see what we can get away with"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080719/ap_on_go_su_co/guns_legal_challenges

I agree that if the charges were non-violent and long time ago, let ex-crimanal defend themselves, but anything else would just be legally putting guns in the BG's hands. :mad: :???:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

Thats not a home defense gun (or two) so I think he's screwed. Now it if had been just a shotgun or a larger size handgun (say a PT92) he might have had a chance.

And didn't Scalia specify that the ruling didn't apply to convicted felons?

Besides, convicted felons can still posses black powder weapons. A couple of repro BP 45 revolvers (since reloading time sucks), carefully stored to keep the power dry, could probably deal with most issues. Now if you still have active enemies, well, sucks to be you.

Steelheart
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,630 Posts
hmmm.....and I wonder how this guy came about getting his hands on all of these guns......did he legally purchase them in a gun shop? Highly doubtful. Most likely, he bought these guns on the black market - otherwise, THAT would have been the story, not that criminals are trying to use the 2nd amendment to have guns, but that somebody convicted of a felony went into a gun shop and got around the background check. The liberal media spins their web and alot of people believe them......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
this is a difficult issue for me to form an opinion.. im flexible here..

on one hand any free man should be allowed to arm them selves, on the other hand they are felons..

so do you restore their rights as soon as they are released? or do you have a time period afterwords?

my understanding is currently felons can never own a gun reguardless of the crime..

someone who robs a bank is definitely less trust worthy then someone who stole a parked car.

like i said im flexible and open minded on this issue.. if i had too choose i guess i'd have to lean towards yet exfelons should be allowed to own guns after they have been released..

if you release a man from prison he is suppose to have learned a lesson.. reformed, i do not think a felon should be punished their entire life even after they've served their time..

other wise it's like saying the system does'nt work.. that you could release someone from prison and let them walk the streets but are'nt trustworthy enough to own a firearm.. that seems to be a counter diction imo.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,630 Posts
I'm not as open minded as Joe.....in my opinion, if you're stupid enough to have a felony, you don't deserve to have the privilege extended by the 2nd amendment......there is a good chance that you used a gun to abuse your privileges anyway. If you have a felony conviction, it should be another felony if you are caught with a gun.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
22,058 Posts
like i said im flexible and open minded on this issue.. if i had too choose i guess i'd have to lean towards yet exfelons should be allowed to own guns after they have been released..
Depends on the felony.

I could be flexible on some felonies. Non violent stuff and maybe some white collar things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
ya i can see where you're coming from airwrench, but heres the thing.. rather i like it or not i'd have to lean towards felons being able to possess guns because if someone has paid their debt to socity is it really fair to then say you can have your rights back.. except the right to bear arms.

to me it seems hypocritical that we release prisoners as free men that have been reformed, learn their lesson.. paid their debt.. but are'nt reformed or learned ENOUGH of a lesson to not beable to own a firearm..

so then i must ask does this not suggest that even after someone has been deemed to be fit to be a citizen again that the reality is that they are a danger to society and should be kept unarmed?

my thing is if someone has paid their debt and been deemed fit for release then they should have all their rights restored, if they are still to dangerous to possess guns after being released then imo they are not actually fit for reintegration into society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,043 Posts
Let me put it to you this way: Would any of you want a convicted felon who served 30 years for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl to have a firearm when he is released from prison?

Let's not get into the judicial part by arguing he should have been sentenced to life or death---I've seen bad mothaf'ers just as described above do 20-30 years and then are released.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,801 Posts
Just a question would it make a difference if it was a non-violent crime, white collar or fraud as opposed to rape and murder. should someone that got caught with $10 of cocaine be forever srtipped of there right to bear arms even if he was 18 and now in his 50's. I don't know the answer but there seems like it has to have some common since to it then just black and white. And no I don't support drugs as its ruined some vary old friends lives. That I refuse to have anything to do with. Like NYPD said those guys have been fighting for there lives on a daily basis and are not guys you'd welcome into your house. troubling thing to consider.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,630 Posts
Funny, Texas prisons make no qualms about 'reform' - doctrine states that they aren't there to reform, they are there to keep bad people off the streets. Yes, they may have paid their debt to society, however most likely they are on probation for years......its just very difficult to draw some kind of delineation between "this felon' and 'that felon' - you know today that if you commit a felony, ANY felony, and are convicted, then you have just forfeited your 2nd amendment rights, as well as many others. If you choose to commit the felony, no matter what it is, then you knew the penalty going in.

Maybe I should change my handle to Steelheart II...... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
NYPD if you're asking me if i'd like it? well probably not, but see i said i dont have a solid opinion on the subject, i am flexible.. but i like i also said if you push me into solidifying my opinion then i would have to favor them getting their 2a rights restored when released regardless of the crime.

i dont really LIKE the idea of a murder having guns.. on the other hand there are a lot of things i do not like, there is a lot of things being said under the 1st i dont like.

but if you push me i'd favor ex felons having firearms because i think from a constitutional standpoint they should have their rights restored when released.

not half their rights, not just the rights we pick and choose but all of them.

they are either fit to be released and renter the community as a member of society with all rights restored or they are not fit to be released at all.

with that said someone on parrol it would be ok to forbid them their 2a rights because they're getting out of their full sentence, however those that are released without parrol are as free as you and me imo and should not have any restrictions.

otherwise i find the system hypocritical, how can you release someone who is to dangerous to own a gun but somehow not dangerous enough to remain incarcerated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,043 Posts
I'm not asking anyone specifically. Just putting it out there.

My opinion----non-violent felons should be able to have a firearm to protect themselves.

Ones such as I described above---NO----because statistics show that the majority of violent felons are not reformed and will commit the same crimes (or worse) that put them in prison in the first place.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,801 Posts
Something tells me that the hardcore criminals will carry anyway. After 2 episodes of cops that seems to be the thing to do. And they've learned to be more dangerous in crime school um Prison! My point exactly NYPD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Bud said:
How about the other rights he's denied as a felon? Voting etc.
did'nt they do away with that? i thought the right to vote was restored after 4 years of release?

er anyway yes i would be in support of restoring that along with every other right as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
For non-violent offenders, I can see restoring their 2nd Amendment right; AFTER probation.     For violent offenders I don't think one can say they've ever repaid their debt, some things can't be undone.

BTW, I have a friend who was busted on a drug charge around ten years ago.  He'll never be able to legally own a firearm.  I met him at my church and he has turned his life around.  So I can see being flexible, to a point.  Not with violent offenders though, I have a hard time believing that once you cross the line to intentionally harm someone that you can be trusted again.

My opinion, YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
im for instant reinstatement. if they have truely paid their debt and learned their lesson, there isnt a problem. if they are just going to commit another crime, you can get a gun for a couple hundred bucks at several street corners in any town of 5000+ population.

the problem with selective reinstatement is that you would have to prove to a judge/commission that you are responsible or sane enough to own a firearm. its not too much of a step to go from that to everyone has to prove themselves able to own a gun. not to mention who would set the req's to "prove" yourself.

blanket denial of their rights is just as bad. if we keep guns away from certain groups of people for society's safety...then why not keep all guns away from everyone for society's safety?


laws only restrict the lawful. someone intent on murder isnt going to care that they didnt have a concealed weapon permit, or if they can own a gun or not, when they are pulling the trigger. it aggervates me that i have to jump through hoops and pay the state to exercise my right to bear arms for personal protection yet the lawless do it for free and only get caught when committing a different crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Gunman77 said:
I have a hard time believing that once you cross the line to intentionally harm someone that you can be trusted again.

My opinion, YMMV.
yet they're trusted enough to walk the streets, see the counter diction here?

i can accept that pov but only if it accompanies the opinion that they should not be released from custody either.

i mean it's your opinion to do what you will with it of course every one is entitled to there's.

I just think it's a counter diction to call them free men, let them walk the streets, yet they can't own a gun cause they can't be trusted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,918 Posts
excellent debate....depends on the crime for me. white collar crime yes/maybe. violent...NEVER.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top