In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Felons to maybe get guns.

grumpygygrumpygy Member Posts: 48,464 ✭✭✭
quote:Colorado State Rep. Perry Buck believes so much in the right to bear arms that she thinks even convicted felons should be able to own guns -- once they get out of the clink, of course. And only if they were convicted of, you know, "good felonies," which Buck defines as non-violent crimes. Guns for (Good) Felons is the gist of a new bill from Buck, who introduced legislation that would allow for certain felons to be able to possess firearms once again. Buck's arguments are that nonviolent offenders are unlikely to commit violent crimes so it would be "irresponsible" to deny them access to instruments of violence
«1

Comments

  • joker5656joker5656 Member Posts: 5,598 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Interesting notion. Not sure how I feel on this one. I kind of have to agree.
  • jeffb1911jeffb1911 Member Posts: 2,113 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If they were the "good" felonies, then it can be done on a case by case basis by asking for a PARDON from the Governor. Like it has been done for years. NOT just a blanket pardon in order to buy votes.
  • 11BravoCrunchie11BravoCrunchie Member Posts: 33,423 ✭✭
    edited November -1
  • Oso2142Oso2142 Member Posts: 2,940
    edited November -1
    I think that some folks should get a chance at redemption.
  • EhlerDaveEhlerDave Member Posts: 5,158 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by grumpygy
    quote:Colorado State Rep. Perry Buck believes so much in the right to bear arms that she thinks even convicted felons should be able to own guns -- once they get out of the clink, of course. And only if they were convicted of, you know, "good felonies," which Buck defines as non-violent crimes. Guns for (Good) Felons is the gist of a new bill from Buck, who introduced legislation that would allow for certain felons to be able to possess firearms once again. Buck's arguments are that nonviolent offenders are unlikely to commit violent crimes so it would be "irresponsible" to deny them access to instruments of violence


    So does this part mean a gun is nothing but an instrument of violence, an odd way of wording it if you are backing the 2nd.

    I have often wonderd, where in the 2nd Amd. is the clause for those who cant own arms.
    Just smile and say nothing, let them guess how much you know.
  • ChrisInTempeChrisInTempe Member Posts: 15,562
    edited November -1
    Felons should not be allowed to vote or own guns upon release. They should be required to prove their re-discovered trustworthiness. There should be a life-long component to punishment for a crime.

    If they cannot prove they can be trusted beyond the first phase of their punishment (that being prison), they can darned well suffer the consequences.

    Those consequences would include an armed and honest public ready for them should they transgress again.
  • DRP-AZDRP-AZ Member Posts: 2,318 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not all felonies are created equal.

    There's a myriad of Federal "felonies" which can range from illegal importation of wood (even though the forms have been properly approved) to mere possession of an unregistered machinegun conversion part.

    I think this move by Mr. Buck is to pave the way for all those pot users, dealers and traffickers to get their gun rights back once weed is fully and properly legal in CO. Most of them are non-violent offenders, and as anyone with any insight or contact with folks "in that world" the only reason to carry guns is because of the illicit nature of dat damn Debil weed!
  • MobuckMobuck Member Posts: 14,081 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had some friends/customers who got pinched in a stolen property scam. All three got probation for possession of stolen property and their records were expunged when their probation was completed. Two weeks after the papers were filed, one of the guys tried to buy a rifle from me but was denied. He called the lawyer who'd filed the papers and 2 days later I got a call back from ATF OKing the sale.
    In this case, I can't see that permanent loss of rights would have been a positive addition to their punishment. There was no violence although I'm sure it might have gone that way had they been able to access the guy who sold them the stolen goods. There aren't any GOOD felonies but sometimes the convicted are not as guilty as they might seem and what they did was nonviolent.
  • EhlerDaveEhlerDave Member Posts: 5,158 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Does the Second Amendment deny the right to own arms to anyone?
    Just smile and say nothing, let them guess how much you know.
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't think there should be any restrictions on firearm ownership against convicted felons released back into society.

    But then, I don't believe most people who are convicted of violent crimes should be "released back into society" in any condition where they'd be able commit crimes again.

    "One strike and you're out for life, or executed," is my policy for dealing with violent criminals.

    If you're too dangerous to be allowed to own a firearm, you're too dangerous to be released back into society.
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    Too many variables to make a blanket statement on this one, but in general, once you've paid your debt and served your time, I'm good with full restorations of your rights.

    My pause is, Joe is a gangbanger, used a gun in his crime, maybe even killed folks, gets a left wing liberal judge who thinks it's all because momma didn't breast feed him and only gives him 10 years, he joins the "human haters" gang in prison and causes trouble, but is set free after 5 years because the prisons are over crowded and he hasn't killed a guard, yet, then get's turned out in the public again.

    No, I don't want this Joe getting his gun rights back because, in my opinion, he did really pay the debt to society he really owed.

    Maybe they should attach restitution to the ability to get your gun rights back.
  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,886 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Federal law states that if you are convicted of a crime carrying a possible sentence of > 1 year in jail, you forfeit your right to vote & possess a firearm forever.

    This means that, even if given probation & you don't serve a day in jail, you have lost these rights forever. The only exception is if your governor gives you a pardon. (If convicted of a federal offense, there is a BATFE procedure for obtaining a pardon; however, every president since Clinton has prohibited BATFE from processing such pardons. So much for Christian forgiveness.)

    Some states have misdemeanors carrying a possible sentence of > 1 year. In Maryland, you can get as much as 6 years in jail for some misdemeanors such as CDS possession (not marijuana).

    So, obviously, the solution to all this unfairness is: ban assault weapons, ban hi-cap mags, & register all other guns.

    Neal
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,381 ******
    edited November -1
    I have no problem with it whatsoever. If they can be released from prison they should have their rights restored, and we can maybe end this background check nonsense.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • MMOMEQ-55MMOMEQ-55 Member Posts: 13,134
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by select-fire
    Oh yeah.. armed robbery, give them another chance to do it again. Once a crackhead, always a crackhead



    Coming from someone who has broken laws before. LOL Reading comprehension there Select. No one here has said anything about giving violent felons guns.

    I doubt if there is anyone on this forum that could, under the right circumstances, be arrested and convicted of a felony. All it would take is simply drink one drink and then drive a car. If you wreck you just committed a felony. Just one on many ways you could be convicted of a felony.
  • backcountryguybackcountryguy Member Posts: 89 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I work at a state prison and being around felons all day everyday, i have realized that all are different. I think it is a good idea to some degree, but should be determind on the charge.
  • Rocky RaabRocky Raab Member Posts: 14,429 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There are posters on this website who have slammed me hard when I asked if felons should be allowed to have guns after release. The "shall not be infringed" crowd want no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership, even for druggies, crazies, and violent felons. At least, that's what they posted when I suggested that some gun laws do in fact make sense.

    I'd not be terribly averse to allowing non-violent felons to once again have a gun, with a long probationary period. I'd also be in favor of keeping violent ones in prison forever, period.
    I may be a bit crazy - but I didn't drive myself.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,670 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Give em all Glocks upon release from prison.

    Half of them will shoot themselves before they get in the car.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • HavegunJoeHavegunJoe Member Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with him. Years ago we diluted the meaning of a felony. Some kids were faceing felony charges a few years agon in DC I think it was for throwing snowballs at a garbage truck. Should they never be allowed their right to bear arms? That's just stupid. Felonys use to be major crimes. Now you can get a felony for scratching your butt in public. We are so out of wack in this country it is crazy.
  • minitruck83minitruck83 Member Posts: 5,369
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    Too many variables to make a blanket statement on this one, but in general, once you've paid your debt and served your time, I'm good with full restorations of your rights.

    My pause is, Joe is a gangbanger, used a gun in his crime, maybe even killed folks, gets a left wing liberal judge who thinks it's all because momma didn't breast feed him and only gives him 10 years, he joins the "human haters" gang in prison and causes trouble, but is set free after 5 years because the prisons are over crowded and he hasn't killed a guard, yet, then get's turned out in the public again.

    No, I don't want this Joe getting his gun rights back because, in my opinion, he did really pay the debt to society he really owed.

    Maybe they should attach restitution to the ability to get your gun rights back.



    Joe will just ignore the law and pick up one on the street!

    (criminals don't obey laws, that's why they're called criminals)

    Allen
  • andrewsw16andrewsw16 Member Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HavegunJoe
    I agree with him. Years ago we diluted the meaning of a felony. Some kids were faceing felony charges a few years agon in DC I think it was for throwing snowballs at a garbage truck. Should they never be allowed their right to bear arms? That's just stupid. Felonys use to be major crimes. Now you can get a felony for scratching your butt in public. We are so out of wack in this country it is crazy.

    Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head. Every "Chicken Little" is concentrating on the word "felony" without giving much thought to what actually constitutes a felony. As was mentioned, it used to be that the "felony" label was reserved for armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc. These days it takes a LOT LESS criminal activity to be labelled as "felony". As long as the crime was nonviolent, and the convict has served out his sentence AND probation period, I have no objections to that person having the right to protect himself and his family with a gun.
  • yoshmysteryoshmyster Member Posts: 21,858 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hunting or home safety I'll be okay with but I say nay to "good" felons for CCW. I mean what's the point in being good when felons are treated as good folks?
  • RTKBARTKBA Member Posts: 331 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, what you guys are saying is that a gun ban would in fact keep guns out of the hands of criminals, are you kidding me. Bottom line is that if your not in prison or jail you are a free man and should have all the rights the rest of us have.

    This would also cure a lot of the problems we have with the justice system and our over crowded prisons. Just think how the parole boards would react knowing that a violent felon could buy a gun the moment he was released. You would see these repeat offenders spending a lot more time behind bars and the people in there for small drug offenses or victim-less crimes would be out earlier.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There's so many things wrong with the justice system, I don't know where to start.

    Too many crimes are considered to be felonies...

    Too many felons don't serve anywhere near what their prison term is supposed to be.....

    Felons who are released are so handicapped by the label "felon" that they can't re-integrate into society....
  • rhythm_guyrhythm_guy Member Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by competentone

    If you're too dangerous to be allowed to own a firearm, you're too dangerous to be released back into society.




    It really should be that simple but that would require 1) doing work to change some laws and 2) upsetting some voters, therefore it will never happen.
  • catgunguycatgunguy Member Posts: 6,089
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by grumpygy
    quote:Colorado State Rep. Perry Buck believes so much in the right to bear arms that she thinks even convicted felons should be able to own guns -- once they get out of the clink, of course. And only if they were convicted of, you know, "good felonies," which Buck defines as non-violent crimes. Guns for (Good) Felons is the gist of a new bill from Buck, who introduced legislation that would allow for certain felons to be able to possess firearms once again. Buck's arguments are that nonviolent offenders are unlikely to commit violent crimes so it would be "irresponsible" to deny them access to instruments of violence

    I agree, there are to many people denied self protection because of government laws that were never ment to make people forever disarmed.
  • Colonel PlinkColonel Plink Member Posts: 16,460
    edited November -1
    I've met Perry Buck and spoken with her on several occasions during her and her husband's campaigns. I've always liked her no-nonsense, ordinary-folks sensibility.

    This topic is another one that my opinion has undergone some serious evolution on.

    I tend to agree with DRP and MMOMEQ on this.

    Except DRP seems to have Perry mixed up with her husband[8D].
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,173 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There certainly are alot of "non-violent felonies" out there, yes? Let's say a person lives their entire life hurting no one, not even a hint. And then they get pinched on one of those non-violent felonies. They do their time as a model prisoner. They report to the PO on time, every time - never a problem. Their right to own a gun should be restored, agreed?

    What if the harmless felony was having lots of kiddie porn? Not doing or buying, something they picked up on the internet?

    If felons do get gun rights returned we're going to have 99.9% agreeing on the line between getting & not getting, but that crossover point is going to be a PITA.
  • saserbysaserby Member Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That's a very good point. I was all in for giving them back their rights (non-violent offenders), but you're right it's a logistic nightmare of a slippery slope. I suppose all that would have to be spelled out in the law, and for me, I would err on the side of no rights if there is any controversy on the charges.
  • bambihunterbambihunter Member Posts: 10,765 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have always felt felonies were too common and used for too many things. I think they should be restricted to crimes of violence (either directly or indirectly).
    Fanatic collector of the 10mm auto.
  • o b juano b juan Member Posts: 1,941 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I didnt read all the posts but TEXAS Stipulates 10 Years after all time and probation served they may have a gun in their home only..
    For protetcion of the home.

    "Put that in your pipe and smoke it"

    I LOVE TEXAS

    Texan by BIRTHRIGHT
  • IdahoRedneckIdahoRedneck Member Posts: 2,699
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
    Felons should not be allowed to vote or own guns upon release. They should be required to prove their re-discovered trustworthiness. There should be a life-long component to punishment for a crime.

    If they cannot prove they can be trusted beyond the first phase of their punishment (that being prison), they can darned well suffer the consequences.

    Those consequences would include an armed and honest public ready for them should they transgress again.


    This is ludacris......if they have payed there debt to society and are infact being released there rights should be restored. Otherwise they should not be released... Right.

    If they cannot prove they can be trusted....they should not be released.... Lets enforce the laws on the books to the fullest extent.....my 2 cents

    As far as the life long punishment..............Swift justice.....violent offenders death row straight away...now more wasted tax dollars. Where the line is is a valid debate........the guy who serves time for a good felony...and is deemed safe,has payed his debt to society, and is released, gets his rights back.
  • GUNFUNCOGUNFUNCO Member Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Our constitution guarantees certain rights. You don't (or at least shouldn't) get to pick and choose which ones you will uphold.

    Just because someone committed a felony doesn't mean they can be searched without a warrant or be denied due process or any other right recognized under the constitution.

    After the person has served their time and all conditions of their probation and/or parole have been met, their rights should be restored. Bad guys will always get guns anyway. Honest people with guns could still stop them if they misuse them.

    When in doubt, we should always lean toward the side of more freedoms, not less. Failure to do so has brought us to where we are now.
  • shilowarshilowar Member Posts: 38,811 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In Virginia a convicted felon can request that the Governor restore their rights.
  • skicatskicat Member Posts: 14,431
    edited November -1
    I agree that felony is now an overused word. The govt seems to have embarked upon a crusade of turning citizens into criminals. Just look at our tax laws. Nobody, not even IRS employees can file a return the same as another IRS employee. Too easy to become a felon these days.

    If convicted of violent crime keep them in jail. If the jail is too full, decriminalize drugs and the freed pot smokers would leave plenty of room. No need for NICS checks if the violent ones are still in prison. Look at all the govt we would get rid of if we did that.

    If you are free, you are free. Simple as that.
  • Buck EBuck E Member Posts: 56 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Finally a legislator who makes sense! It is insane to deny fundamental rights of citizenship to those who commit non-violent crimes. The ridiculous myriads of crimes that are classified as felonies today include way to trivial offences to justify suspension of your rights as a citizen.
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Is Bill Clinton a felon?
    Perjury is a felony.
    He lost his license to practice law.
    Can he VOTE?
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by o b juan
    I didnt read all the posts but TEXAS Stipulates 10 Years after all time and probation served they may have a gun in their home only..
    For protetcion of the home.

    "Put that in your pipe and smoke it"

    I LOVE TEXAS

    Texan by BIRTHRIGHT

    DITTOS.
    i have a problem with someone with a felony mag conviction moving here and being denied.
  • decadudedecadude Member Posts: 12
    edited November -1
    I will have to disagree with this for the simple fact that our judicial system typically gives so many chances especially on felonies.

    Hell I know first hand I had gotten in trouble years ago was charged with nine drug related felonies I had a wild life in my 20s. The charges got rolled into one then since I had not been in trouble before I got a pretrial diversion and that was that after 5 years it is dismissed and then file to expunge.

    Just my two cents on this I think the right should be taken away for repeat screw ups simply bc more times often than not they never learn anyway.
  • todd311todd311 Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    They did there time. Felons blood is just as red as the next mans'. They deserve to protect Themselves and their family, just as you and I.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 37,717 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    all these felons to be released should spend the first 30 days of freedom living at this IDIOTS house..with him being legally and financially responsible for their actions
Sign In or Register to comment.