Gun rights after you complete your sentence.

[KFhunter]

The founding fathers knew that there would always be "bad" people. That's why they made our rights conditional on being a law-abiding citizen/non-felon. I would imagine the 2nd Amendment was foremost in their minds when they wrote that in.

Yes, but, it is arguable whether they conceived that mere allegations of DV might be used as a bludgeon against otherwise law-abiding citizens or that such people would be included in the class of "bad" people.  They certainly could have in the sense of a developing tyranny, but that gets exactly at the point.  In a tyranny, you have to ask the tyrant for your "rights." 

Bobcat nails it above, much more succinctly.   

And cannot people just participate without assuming anything about the OP's situation.  Does it matter?

It matters in the context he has a beef with the system, but doesn't spell out his problem.
He's alluded to a loss of gun rights but has no felony's or and no DV - so does he have a mental problem?

It's absolutely relevant and if he doesn't want me guessing then perhaps he can let us in on it...if he wanted privacy then he could have used the old line    "I know a guy........" 

[pianoman9701]

Just about every single one will look you in the eye an say that they have "Learned their lesson" and never again will they be a problem...please let me go and leave me alone....I'll be good, I PROMISE.

Going to prison and serving your sentence is supposed to be a slate-wiping act. Whatever they did is paid for in that time served. Obviously that’s idealism, I wouldn’t hire a convicted embezzler to manage my financials, but we should at least think about corrections in those terms and strive for forgiveness.

Treating felons like wild animals just let out of a cage does nothing to help them get their lives back on track and does society zero good.

You don't drive at night with those rose-colored glasses on do you? Some felons are completely unreformable, such as sociopaths and child molesters. Forgiveness maybe. Give them back their gun rights? You've got to be kidding.

[pianoman9701]

The founding fathers knew that there would always be "bad" people. That's why they made our rights conditional on being a law-abiding citizen/non-felon. I would imagine the 2nd Amendment was foremost in their minds when they wrote that in.

Yes, but, it is arguable whether they conceived that mere allegations of DV might be used as a bludgeon against otherwise law-abiding citizens or that such people would be included in the class of "bad" people.  They certainly could have in the sense of a developing tyranny, but that gets exactly at the point.  In a tyranny, you have to ask the tyrant for your "rights." 

Bobcat nails it above, much more succinctly.   

And cannot people just participate without assuming anything about the OP's situation.  Does it matter?

It matters in the context he has a beef with the system, but doesn't spell out his problem.
He's alluded to a loss of gun rights but has no felony's or and no DV - so does he have a mental problem?

It's absolutely relevant and if he doesn't want me guessing then perhaps he can let us in on it...if he wanted privacy then he could have used the old line    "I know a guy........" 

The question commences a valid discussion whether or not it applies to the OP. His question is simple and he made no statement of his own when asking it. I understand that someone asking opens themselves up to scrutiny by doing so. That doesn't mean that it makes any difference in the discussion.

[KFhunter]

Just about every single one will look you in the eye an say that they have "Learned their lesson" and never again will they be a problem...please let me go and leave me alone....I'll be good, I PROMISE.

Going to prison and serving your sentence is supposed to be a slate-wiping act. Whatever they did is paid for in that time served. Obviously that’s idealism, I wouldn’t hire a convicted embezzler to manage my financials, but we should at least think about corrections in those terms and strive for forgiveness.

Treating felons like wild animals just let out of a cage does nothing to help them get their lives back on track and does society zero good.

You don't drive at night with those rose-colored glasses on do you? Some felons are completely unreformable, such as sociopaths and child molesters. Forgiveness maybe. Give them back their gun rights? You've got to be kidding.

not only that but who serves their full sentence?

In most all circumstances they are let out early, serve parole and have a ton of stipulations put upon them in lieu of serving full term.

[Fl0und3rz]

So, for this thread only, DV accusations don't seem to be the focus of the OP, only convicted felons and convicted DV offenders.

Agree.  It's an aside, in some sense.  However, to the point that, paraphrasing (probably poorly at that) rights are baseless if you have to ask for them, laws are worded to the effect that a restraining order, which can be continued indefinitely, can subject you to being of the status of a prohibited purchaser/possessor denying your 2A rights. 

When faced with the prospect of maintaining the status quo (re: continuing a restraining order for past conduct) or risking that a subject might re-offend (regardless of how baseless the initial case was), how would a judge come down on the issue that continues to prevent a subject from enjoying his/her right to self-defense?

This is not just some wild hypothetical either. 

KFH: Re:full sentence, being let out on parole and not being caught re-offending counts as completion of terms of the sentence regarding voting rights, as a point of perspective.

[KFhunter]

The founding fathers knew that there would always be "bad" people. That's why they made our rights conditional on being a law-abiding citizen/non-felon. I would imagine the 2nd Amendment was foremost in their minds when they wrote that in.

Yes, but, it is arguable whether they conceived that mere allegations of DV might be used as a bludgeon against otherwise law-abiding citizens or that such people would be included in the class of "bad" people.  They certainly could have in the sense of a developing tyranny, but that gets exactly at the point.  In a tyranny, you have to ask the tyrant for your "rights." 

Bobcat nails it above, much more succinctly.   

And cannot people just participate without assuming anything about the OP's situation.  Does it matter?

It matters in the context he has a beef with the system, but doesn't spell out his problem.
He's alluded to a loss of gun rights but has no felony's or and no DV - so does he have a mental problem?

It's absolutely relevant and if he doesn't want me guessing then perhaps he can let us in on it...if he wanted privacy then he could have used the old line    "I know a guy........" 

The question commences a valid discussion whether or not it applies to the OP. His question is simple and he made no statement of his own when asking it. I understand that someone asking opens themselves up to scrutiny by doing so. That doesn't mean that it makes any difference in the discussion.

Well without a specific direction to take this thread we are just all pizzin in the wind on this, there is just too many different directions to take this.
felons
DV's
Mental

It's all different and warrant their own discussion and mega thread, one person may agree with felons getting guns back but not DV.....or adjudicated mental patents. 
what about mental patents who've done nothing wrong? or cured? 

[pianoman9701]

So, for this thread only, DV accusations don't seem to be the focus of the OP, only convicted felons and convicted DV offenders.

Agree.  It's an aside, in some sense.  However, to the point that, paraphrasing (probably poorly at that) rights are baseless if you have to ask for them, laws are worded to the effect that a restraining order, which can be continued indefinitely, can subject you to being of the status of a prohibited purchaser/possessor denying your 2A rights. 

When faced with the prospect of maintaining the status quo (re: continuing a restraining order for past conduct) or risking that a subject might re-offend (regardless of how baseless the initial case was), how would a judge come down on the issue that continues to prevent a subject from enjoying his/her right to self-defense?

This is not just some wild hypothetical either. 

KFH: Re:full sentence, being let out on parole and not being caught re-offending counts as completion of terms of the sentence regarding voting rights, as a point of perspective.

 I agree that the restraining order and the accusation being enough to take away rights is certainly a slippery slope to abuse of power by the government or courts, and certainly as a weapon used by an ex or separated spouse bent on retribution. That's a really difficult question and does denying a truly abusive husband (or wife) the right to exercise their 2nd Amendment actually make the victim any safer? And on a bigger scale, does it make society any safer? IDK. 

[DOUBLELUNG]

I don't think there is a blanket answer.  The Constitution defines individual rights that cannot be taken away without due process; they are not without strings.  Otherwise, incarceration would be unconstitutional, as would the death penalty (those "life" and "liberty" rights).

I would never support automatic restoration upon release from prison.  Recidivism is too high, and regardless of the crime, incarceration results in a changed person upon release.  At a minimum, I would require a period of time where your behavior demonstrates you can be a productive, stable and safe member of society.  After 3,5,7 or ?? years post-release, with no parole violations or criminal convictions - opportunity to petition to have those rights restored.  I do not support automatic restoration at any time, without a review.

[KFhunter]

So, for this thread only, DV accusations don't seem to be the focus of the OP, only convicted felons and convicted DV offenders.

Agree.  It's an aside, in some sense.  However, to the point that, paraphrasing (probably poorly at that) rights are baseless if you have to ask for them, laws are worded to the effect that a restraining order, which can be continued indefinitely, can subject you to being of the status of a prohibited purchaser/possessor denying your 2A rights. 

When faced with the prospect of maintaining the status quo (re: continuing a restraining order for past conduct) or risking that a subject might re-offend (regardless of how baseless the initial case was), how would a judge come down on the issue that continues to prevent a subject from enjoying his/her right to self-defense?

This is not just some wild hypothetical either. 

KFH: Re:full sentence, being let out on parole and not being caught re-offending counts as completion of terms of the sentence regarding voting rights, as a point of perspective.

 I agree that the restraining order and the accusation being enough to take away rights is certainly a slippery slope to abuse of power by the government or courts, and certainly as a weapon used by an ex or separated spouse bent on retribution. That's a really difficult question and does denying a truly abusive husband (or wife) the right to exercise their 2nd Amendment actually make the victim any safer? And on a bigger scale, does it make society any safer? IDK. 

We're pretty much in agreement P-man - I just can't figure out a fail safe system of restoring 2A rights to the right people.
So we've resorted to a blanket system, and that's clearly a tool for the gun grabbers.  It's the low hanging fruit.

In this case, the rotten apples have ruined it for the bad apples 

[Mike450r]

I would wager there are a large number of people out there right now that were convicted of non violent felonies as juveniles who do not even know they are not allowed to possess firearms but still do.  Leading perfectly normal law abiding lives but unknowingly committing a class B felony. 

I personally know a guy that had a felony burglary conviction when he was 14 (early 80's), being a stupid kid him and some buddies broke into a summer cabin and partied, one of the kids decided to steal some stuff and they all got nailed, as they should have.  Stupid thing to do for sure, he did a little time, got fined, probation, all that stuff. 

Didn't get into any other legal trouble after that.  His info never went to NICS so he was always able to purchase guns without a problem.  Hunted with him a lot.  Somebody asked him one time if his past precluded him from owning a gun so he checked into it and found out he could get arrested and charged with unlawful possession so he petitioned the court and had his rights restored.

A scenario such as this is what I am talking about where certain non violent felonies should have serving time, completing probation etc.... qualify the person for restoration of rights without having to petition the court or get a pardon.

[Blacktail Sniper]

I would wager there are a large number of people out there right now that were convicted of non violent felonies as juveniles who do not even know they are not allowed to possess firearms but still do.  Leading perfectly normal law abiding lives but unknowingly committing a class B felony. 

I personally know a guy that had a felony burglary conviction when he was 14 (early 80's), being a stupid kid him and some buddies broke into a summer cabin and partied, one of the kids decided to steal some stuff and they all got nailed, as they should have.  Stupid thing to do for sure, he did a little time, got fined, probation, all that stuff. 

Didn't get into any other legal trouble after that.  His info never went to NICS so he was always able to purchase guns without a problem.  Hunted with him a lot.  Somebody asked him one time if his past precluded him from owning a gun so he checked into it and found out he could get arrested and charged with unlawful possession so he petitioned the court and had his rights restored.

A scenario such as this is what I am talking about where certain non violent felonies should have serving time, completing probation etc.... qualify the person for restoration of rights without having to petition the court or get a pardon.

I am curious how, if his info was never in the NCIC system, and he was apparently able to pass a purchase check, how is it that he could have gotten into trouble??? 

Seems if he could have gotten into trouble for having a firearm, he would have not been able to purchase a firearm when checked by the dealer?

Could it be the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of offense and an adult now?   I know the check system is far from perfect, but is seems more errors are made towards denial of people who can have firearms than allowing those who can't to pass....

 

[magnanimous_j]

Just about every single one will look you in the eye an say that they have "Learned their lesson" and never again will they be a problem...please let me go and leave me alone....I'll be good, I PROMISE.

Going to prison and serving your sentence is supposed to be a slate-wiping act. Whatever they did is paid for in that time served. Obviously that’s idealism, I wouldn’t hire a convicted embezzler to manage my financials, but we should at least think about corrections in those terms and strive for forgiveness.

Treating felons like wild animals just let out of a cage does nothing to help them get their lives back on track and does society zero good.

You don't drive at night with those rose-colored glasses on do you? Some felons are completely unreformable, such as sociopaths and child molesters. Forgiveness maybe. Give them back their gun rights? You've got to be kidding.

That’s kind of my point. People who can’t be reformed should never be allowed back into the community. But there are a lot of people who can, and in a lot of ways, we treat them all the same. I’m not saying many of us would refuse to be friends with someone who got a felony for a bar fight that got out of control, but try getting a job with that on your record. If someone absolutely can’t be reformed, then they are a danger to society and should be locked away for the rest of their lives. But let’s say there is a guy who has a chance to get back on track. He does his time and is released. Then we make it difficult to find employment and good housing and whatnot. How is this helping him in any way? How is it helping society, who now has put this person in a desperate situation where returning to crime is the most appealing option?

The punishment is the punishment. We shouldn’t keep punishing them after the fact.

[Mike450r]

I would wager there are a large number of people out there right now that were convicted of non violent felonies as juveniles who do not even know they are not allowed to possess firearms but still do.  Leading perfectly normal law abiding lives but unknowingly committing a class B felony. 

I personally know a guy that had a felony burglary conviction when he was 14 (early 80's), being a stupid kid him and some buddies broke into a summer cabin and partied, one of the kids decided to steal some stuff and they all got nailed, as they should have.  Stupid thing to do for sure, he did a little time, got fined, probation, all that stuff. 

Didn't get into any other legal trouble after that.  His info never went to NICS so he was always able to purchase guns without a problem.  Hunted with him a lot.  Somebody asked him one time if his past precluded him from owning a gun so he checked into it and found out he could get arrested and charged with unlawful possession so he petitioned the court and had his rights restored.

A scenario such as this is what I am talking about where certain non violent felonies should have serving time, completing probation etc.... qualify the person for restoration of rights without having to petition the court or get a pardon.

I am curious how, if his info was never in the NCIC system, and he was apparently able to pass a purchase check, how is it that he could have gotten into trouble??? 

Seems if he could have gotten into trouble for having a firearm, he would have not been able to purchase a firearm when checked by the dealer?

Could it be the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of offense and an adult now?   I know the check system is far from perfect, but is seems more errors are made towards denial of people who can have firearms than allowing those who can't to pass....

 

The RCW spells out who can and can't possess a firearm.  If you are disqualified per the RCW you are guilty of a class B felony. 

He was told that a lot of pre 90's conviction records have never been provided to NICS but the fact that a person passes the background check does nothing in regards to them being guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Interesting, thank you for the additional info!

[Mike450r]

Here is a story I remembered reading a few years back.  Ignorance of the law is of course no excuse but I think this guy got a raw deal given the circumstances.


http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/06/closing-arguments-heard-case-unlawful-firearm-poss/?print=1