Yes I did bring it up. You mind pointing out where I was trying to minimize the role I had in it?
Last edited:
"Felons, mentally ill, etc. should not have guns"
- Thread starter LouisianaCarry
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes I did bring it up. You mind pointing out where I was trying to minimize the role I had in it?
Dear Mr. Simon:
I had resolved to refrain from any further contributions to your "poor little felons need their rights restored" comments. But you win - I'll post once more.
We all understand, assuming we been given the entire story, that it is reasonable to restore rights to a convicted felon who pulled a stupid stunt and stole 4 cases of beer at age 19. But to take that argument and try to apply it to the entire convicted felon population is naive and asinine.
Your rants make me wonder if you've really learned all that much since you were 19. You cry because convicted felons lose some of their rights/privileges (gun ownership). But, there does exist a process whereby deserving, rehabilitated convicted felons can have their privileges restored. And, on the flip side, the convicted felons who should never have theirs restored don't get theirs back.
Sounds like a good system to me. It didn't work to your satisfaction in your particular case, but that doesn't come close to providing a valid reason to allow all convicted felons to get fully restored rights/privileges. I happen to think beer thieves are different from serial rapists, pedophiles, serial killers and those who plant bombs. Hence some convicted felons may deserve to have their rights/privileges restored while others don't.
Charles Manson is eligible for parole ............. but I would not want to see him with a gun. You inaccurately whine that you are somehow being compared to "violent repeat offenders are well armed while they are raping children, and that machine guns and schizophrenics in a mall." But at the same time you try to convince us that all convicted felons should somehow get their rights/privileges restored. If anyone has tried to lump you with the others, sir, it was you yourself......by promoting the concept of blanket amnesty for convicted felons who have served their sentences.
I do empathize with your situation. I do agree that you are probably one of the convicted felons who wouldn't pose a threat as a gun owner. And I hope you get your status changed successfully. But I do not in any way agree with any sort of blanket restoration of rights/privileges for convicted felons simply because they have served their sentences.............that net is way too wide.
Now .............. can we be sisters ??
Last edited:
mcinfantry
*Banned*
you make it sound as if stealing 4 cases of beer is all you did. i asked WHAT were you charged with. again. stealing 40 cases of beer wouldnt get your gun rights revoked in louisiana. unless you BROKE into a place and stole them....
LouisianaCarry
Tactibilly
Let's look at a few cold facts.
We will never have a gun control law that works for the good. This is a basic concept.
- The main problem is that sentences are too weak, and people are let out too early. I would go further and say that things that should be capital crimes are not treated as such. Someone who rapes a baby should lose their breathing privileges, as far as I am concerned. Anyone disagree with that? The real problem here is a revolving door justice system.
- If a hardened criminal is let out of prison and wants a gun, he is going to get one. Anyone disagree with that? No law is ever going to make bad guys be good.
- Just like ALL other gun laws, the only thing being accomplished here is that people who pulled a stupid AND people who only committed malum prohibitum offenses (things that are illegal simply because they are illegal [like insider trading], a opposed to malum in se things that are illegal because they are in fact wrong) who are actually trying to follow the law are defenseless. The BAD guys still have guns, as always, and the GOOD guys (those that are trying to follow the law- in this case the prohibition on firearm ownership) are the ONLY ones who are disarmed.
We will never have a gun control law that works for the good. This is a basic concept.
LouisianaCarry
Tactibilly
I don't want to see Charles Manson with a gun any more than anyone else does. What I am saying is that it is a no-brainer that there is no law you could write on a book anywhere in the world that would stop him from getting one if he is set free and wants one. That's a fact.
The only thing being accomplished here is that the people who have done their time and who are NOT the Mansons of the world are being made susceptible to the Mansons of the world.
The only thing being accomplished here is that the people who have done their time and who are NOT the Mansons of the world are being made susceptible to the Mansons of the world.
Not saying this was the case w/ Jester, but it is quite common that 17-21 year old have numerous arrests before they are ever convicted. And quite often there are plea bargains and suspended sentences and purged juvenile records in existence LONG before someone is convicted of a felony.
It's possible a guy (not referring here to Jester or any one else in particular) only steals 4 cases of beer.........possibly it's the first time he ever commits felony................or possibly there is more to the story.
The system does work. My rights have been restored for firearms possession, and their are no prohibitions for me to purchase firearms. I have all the papers, and a special number all my own with the dept of justice. When I get back home after this hitch my application for a CCP goes in. Would have it already but I had to establish residency. As for the angle of attack dawg23 and mcinfantry keep sniffing around for with the snide inuendos. I was riding around with some friends of mine, we had been drinking and nobody was old enough to buy more. We were celebrating a buddy heading for basic. Yes the driver was sober. We happen to drive past a distributors warehouse on the way back to my house, I saw the night shift had the doors rolled up. Why let a great time end so soon right? I was the hero that saved the party. Security cameras are a bitch. My idea, i was showing off and made an impulsive decision. Did the booze make me do it? No. Was it peer pressure? No. Was I hanging with a bad crowd? Four high school ROTC students doesn't fall under my definition for Thugalicious. Of the three out of four people in the car that night, the driver had joined the Marine Corp and was killed in Iraq. His good friend became a medic in the army and is a real estate investor. My good friend served in the 10th mountain division in Somalia, and Haiti. He has been in law enforcement ever since. My slot for BUDS went to someone else. I was charged with burglary in the 2nd degree. My public defender said he had never seen a first offender get nailed like that. Theres a first for everything, **** happens.
But what you are also doing is not limiting the punishing powers due a felon. We can all say that if a person wants a gun they will get a gun. However, the government has a duty to society as a whole to provide due diligence in restricting access to those guns by a felon. Using an analogy; if I want in your house I'm going to get in your house. Why then would you bother putting locks up? The same goes for felons. However, there is a reason why you would do that. If a violent felon gets out of jail after 20 years and then he goes to a pawn shop and gets a pistol and kills 2 kids that afternoon, do you think that anything could have been done to stop him from killing? Well, you could have restricted his legal access to guns. Spare the theory that he can get a gun anywhere. If that is the only argument, then just give him a gun when he gets out to beat him to the punch of having to search for one. The government can only work in the contraints of the law. The felon doesn't have to. That mean, to the defense of the government, they have to do what they can within the powers they have to ensure access is limited.
mcinfantry
*Banned*
jester, i concur. that IS too harsh for first offense and first time...... i re-iterate, i was not attacking you..... ive been privy to FAR to many cases where what people say they did is a far far cry from what they actually did.....
the issue, as I see it, and speaking for MYSELF, is laws really only deter those "on the fence" about committing a crime. the people who are going to do it, are going to do it.
i really dont think the justice system is as broken as our family/value structure. thats where it starts. at home......
the issue, as I see it, and speaking for MYSELF, is laws really only deter those "on the fence" about committing a crime. the people who are going to do it, are going to do it.
i really dont think the justice system is as broken as our family/value structure. thats where it starts. at home......
LouisianaCarry
Tactibilly
I agree, but my solution is to make people serve their whole senteces, instead of letting them out early with the excuse that "they can't have a gun."
I wouldn't even have as big of a problem if this stuff was cut as a deal on a case by case basis.
Example: First timer is serving a multi-year sentence. He beat up a guy that was screwing his girlfriend in his apartment. Inside, the judge, jury and prosecutor were thinking "I can't really blame him," but, of course he did beat someone up and did break the law. He gets a 5 year sentence. After a couple years of good behavior, taking into account that he was a productive member of society and not a criminal, save for his crime of passion, those in charge say, "Look, we will let you out early, but you have to agree not to own guns, keep a job, not leave the State, whatever/etc. for the rest of what would have been your term." He voluntarily agrees to this. If he breaks his word, send him back to jail, fine. If he keeps his word- it sucks that he can't have a gun, but it is better than jail. This is a case of someone duly convicted, and consentually agreeing to a deal. Everything is moral in this case.
When we reach the point where we are now where MANY things that are not even wrong (from a strictly moral perspective) are felonies by the federal definition (and even misdemeanor domestic assaulters) and there is a huge blanket rule that denies many people their rights that should otherwise have them, while still letting the truly bad guys out to rape and kill again... I believe anyone who thinks that is a good and moral system has their head up the State's butt.
LouisianaCarry
Tactibilly
True.
(I just thought I would accentuate something we agree on, since we seem to be "at odds" in this thread, and that is not my intention.)
No disagreement here. This country could use at least 10,000 Red Foremans.
Thanks Spanky. That is a better number. Well this has been a great thread, and in my opinion some excellent points made from both sides of the playground. Some like to play a little rougher than others, but if I picked up my marbles and ran home everytime I got some dust in my eyes, well then that would make me a (rhymes with ussy and starts with puh) . Moms calling me for dinner on this one, so Im out.
Criminals will get guns if/when they want them. I have known of a number of both mentally unstable and convicted felons who have guns, some were gang members, others were people that simply wanted to protect their families. I know of Veterans that need help but refuse it because they are afraid of having their gun rights taken, some of them would have their rights taken & some wouldn't. It's a complex issue, making blanket rules for such things is unjust.
The Federal government isn't competent enough to decide if people should have rights, they should guarantee rights and allow local/state laws to dictate what rights their citizens will be able to retain. That is one of the most beautiful things about the Constitution.
I didn't keep up with this thread, didn't want to get into it b/c I knew who was arguing what.
Mc, grow a set if you're going to slander me. This is a small community and your false accusations really aren't subtle to regular readers. It's pretty disrespectful to falsely accuse someone of committing a felony on a public forum. I would think that only a cowardly and weak man would do such a thing, not very fitting of a respected veteran.
The Federal government isn't competent enough to decide if people should have rights, they should guarantee rights and allow local/state laws to dictate what rights their citizens will be able to retain. That is one of the most beautiful things about the Constitution.
I didn't keep up with this thread, didn't want to get into it b/c I knew who was arguing what.
Mc, grow a set if you're going to slander me. This is a small community and your false accusations really aren't subtle to regular readers. It's pretty disrespectful to falsely accuse someone of committing a felony on a public forum. I would think that only a cowardly and weak man would do such a thing, not very fitting of a respected veteran.
LouisianaCarry
Tactibilly
mcinfantry
*Banned*
ill put my set against yours any day. ANY day. i dont smoke weed. never have and dont think its cool.
4473 section c subsection e, applies to medicinal marijuana. since the feds dont recognize it.
if it applies to you. then it applies to you.
4473 section c subsection e, applies to medicinal marijuana. since the feds dont recognize it.
if it applies to you. then it applies to you.
If I'm not mistaken it refers to Illegal and/or Habitual use. While it may be federally illegal I was legal according to the state, and it was prescribed by a Dr. It could be a Gray Area, but I have submitted numerous forms of paperwork to the Feds since then and I think they Feds would have said something if they have an issue with it. I have -never- been a Habitual user of -any- substance, legal or illegal. Unless soap and shampoo counts.
I don't really care what you do in your time or what you think is cool. As far as putting your set against mine, pass but you can nibble on mine, thanks.
You should go on personal quest, to get educated.
I don't really care what you do in your time or what you think is cool. As far as putting your set against mine, pass but you can nibble on mine, thanks.
You should go on personal quest, to get educated.
Last edited:
I have a family member who is mentally ill. Depending on which admit to a psych hospital she had and depending on her sypmtoms at the time, her treating doctors have given her a laundry list of diagnosis. She has never been adjudicated as mentally ill by the courts. The fact remains though that from time to time she has psychotic episodes and is extremely paranoid most of time. If she wanted a handgun all she would have to do is fill out the paperwork and she gets a gun. She has no criminal record and her mental illness, though thoroughly documented from dozens of psych admissions, her application would pass. All she would have to do is lie about the mental illness part on the background check form. Who's to know? With her psychotic episodes and constant paranoia she should never have a firearm. When she has come by my place she always starts in on me about selling or giving her a handgun for self-protection. That's just not going to happen. She has now subscribed to some CCW website, receiving their newsletter and is thinking about buying her own handgun. I could go to the gunshop and tell them about her mental illness but the fact remains she could buy one on her own with her not telling the truth on the form about her illness. I understand that my word alone is not enough for the gunshop to refuse to sell her a handgun as long as her background check comes back clean, which it will.
There are many felons who were convicted from back in the 1970's that are elidgeable to purchase firearms, get CCW permits and after their terms of incarceration and parole were completed had all their civil rights restored. This was done under the Federal sentencing law called the Youthful Offenders Act. If one comitted a crime and was under the age of 21 at the time the crime was comitted the sentencing Federal Judge could, at his discression, give the defendant the choice between being sentenced as a Youthful Offender or as an adult. If sentenced under the Youthful Offenders Act the defendant would receive an indeterminent prison sentence, generally around 6 years, and their arrest/conviction would be "sealed" by the Feds when the term of sentence was completed. If sentenced as an adult then the arrest/conviction would stay with the defendant for life but they would probably receive less prison time than the person sentenced as a Youthful Offender. I don't know if this Youthful Offenders Act is still on the books. In many cases this Youthful Offenders Act worked as intended and there was no reoffending, but then there is the other side of that coin. This type of sentencing was a one time offer and if that person comitted another crime the offer of a Youthful Offender Act would not be an option.
There are many felons who were convicted from back in the 1970's that are elidgeable to purchase firearms, get CCW permits and after their terms of incarceration and parole were completed had all their civil rights restored. This was done under the Federal sentencing law called the Youthful Offenders Act. If one comitted a crime and was under the age of 21 at the time the crime was comitted the sentencing Federal Judge could, at his discression, give the defendant the choice between being sentenced as a Youthful Offender or as an adult. If sentenced under the Youthful Offenders Act the defendant would receive an indeterminent prison sentence, generally around 6 years, and their arrest/conviction would be "sealed" by the Feds when the term of sentence was completed. If sentenced as an adult then the arrest/conviction would stay with the defendant for life but they would probably receive less prison time than the person sentenced as a Youthful Offender. I don't know if this Youthful Offenders Act is still on the books. In many cases this Youthful Offenders Act worked as intended and there was no reoffending, but then there is the other side of that coin. This type of sentencing was a one time offer and if that person comitted another crime the offer of a Youthful Offender Act would not be an option.
