Gun rights after you complete your sentence.

[Knocker of rocks]

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.

You are correct that someone opens themselves to scrutiny when they ask a question of this nature on any board.  But we don't even know if the OP is the person in question.  It could be his friend, brother, son, or wife who has paid their debt to society.

[stuckalot]

Curious how many here never got in a fist fight, scuffle, or threatened to kick someone's a$$? In today's world that could strip you of your gun rights for the rest of your life. Possibly even possessing a pop tart shaped like a gun anymore. Not all "felonies" are created equal in my mind, yet our "zero tolerance" mindset dictates that we use no common sense anymore.

[pianoman9701]

Curious how many here never got in a fist fight, scuffle, or threatened to kick someone's a$$? In today's world that could strip you of your gun rights for the rest of your life. Possibly even possessing a pop tart shaped like a gun anymore. Not all "felonies" are created equal in my mind, yet our "zero tolerance" mindset dictates that we use no common sense anymore.

Few of us said they are all equal. Most of us said it would depend on the circumstance of the felony. Not sure where you're getting all that. 

[Mike450r]

Curious how many here never got in a fist fight, scuffle, or threatened to kick someone's a$$? In today's world that could strip you of your gun rights for the rest of your life. Possibly even possessing a pop tart shaped like a gun anymore. Not all "felonies" are created equal in my mind, yet our "zero tolerance" mindset dictates that we use no common sense anymore.

Actually in almost every situation like you describe it would have to be domestic violence assault.  You really gotta whup someone bad to get a felony assault.  Weapons used is usually where felony assault comes into play,  at least when convicted.  What they arrest you for may start as a felony but not likely to end up as a felony conviction.  Fights usually end up as misdemeanors.  At least that's how it has worked for me, luckily maybe or just good attornies. 

[DOUBLELUNG]

I was recently surprised by a welcome change in the law that made it no longer a felony to possess a firearm in your vehicle in a post office parking lot.  Had no idea that until that point, that it could be a felony. 

[Fl0und3rz]

I was recently surprised by a welcome change in the law that made it no longer a felony to possess a firearm in your vehicle in a post office parking lot.  Had no idea that until that point, that it could be a felony. 

You are not alone in that surprise and there are many more waiting for the unwary and yet to be defined.

[NWHydroprint]

Also at what point do the state and feds become liable to a person for self protection? When gun rights are taken away how does one protect themselves against say a armed intruder.
I for one would not want to bring a bat to a gunfight. 

[bowbuild]

First off kfhunter YOU are getting on my nerves a bit. The question was a generalized question that had nothing to do with ME or anyone in my direct family.

I obviously don't agree with most of you, but that is no suprise to me. What does suprise me is the assumptions that are being put forth.

Now, here is where the question lies for me.....I have a person that I know that is a convicted felon, and yes the crime was not one that most would find even "reasonably" by any sense of the term reasonable. That being said....the wife being a faithfull wife to the end, has been rep remended by PO officers because she believes SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT HERSELF FROM ANY INTRUDERS, her felon husband of course is band from any such firearm in the house.

The meat of my question stems from the idea if a felon is such a threat to society then why let them out?? Is it fair to this woman because of her vows, and religious beliefs to be disarmed by the government?? Where are her rights??? She is not a felon???

The cop out on this is to say "she" makes this choice......those of you that are religious should clearly understand her dilemma.

So, not only does the felon have his rights revoked, but those that are in a marital situation are punished with them.  So, my feelings are.....if you are well enough to be in society, you are well enough to enjoy your gun rights.......and like has been already said....if a criminal is going to use a gun in a crime, HE/SHE will find a way privilege or not!

Bowbuild

[pianoman9701]

That's a whole new question. You're now talking about someone who's a non-felon who's basically lost her 2nd Amendment rights because her husband is. This never came up in the original post. New discussion.

[Knocker of rocks]

Curious how many here never got in a fist fight, scuffle, or threatened to kick someone's a$$? In today's world that could strip you of your gun rights for the rest of your life. Possibly even possessing a pop tart shaped like a gun anymore. Not all "felonies" are created equal in my mind, yet our "zero tolerance" mindset dictates that we use no common sense anymore.

Actually in almost every situation like you describe it would have to be domestic violence assault.  You really gotta whup someone bad to get a felony assault.  Weapons used is usually where felony assault comes into play,  at least when convicted.  What they arrest you for may start as a felony but not likely to end up as a felony conviction.  Fights usually end up as misdemeanors.  At least that's how it has worked for me, luckily maybe or just good attornies.

Yup,

Stuckalot is almost completely and utterly wrong in his allegations.  Probably just repeating what he heard or read on the web.

[Blacktail Sniper]

That would be a tough spot to be in, no question about that.  I'd say that is another example of how the commission of a crime affects other people's lives.

I think our system is horribly flawed, but having to wait and prove that someone has changed their ways is a better alternative than the keep'em locked-up then just turn'em loose ideology.

While there is a supervision situation actively in place, ie: probation, I think it is fair to say that most can manage to successfully complete their period of supervision and those that don't just bring more grief on themselves.

However, I believe the truest test of whether there has been a real change in the person is when the "leash" of probation has been removed and now they are subject to no different type of outside authority than any other person.

That is why I agree with having to wait and prove one's self to have walked away from the lifestyle and bad choices they made that got them into trouble in the first place.

As has been said by many in this thread, there isn't a clear yes or no answer.     

[bowbuild]

Not so.....If the convicted felon were restored his rights, there would be no second question. If a felon is to be turned loose on society without constant oversight, he/she could commit any crime, gun rights or not. To think that telling a child molester don't touch has worked......is a dream. To think that saying ....you can't have guns....is going to keep a determined crimminal from reoffending is a pipe dream. Face it, it is nothing more than a way to control those that society has no control over, and taking gun rights is a society "feel good" power trip.

Let me be very clear.....if you use a gun in a crime, I think that you should spend every bit of your time....no get out early, and once your sentence is complete any firearm you obtain must be of a single shot rifle, no handguns. Any infractions would be a automatic double of your original sentence. Sound fair?

Bowbuild

[Knocker of rocks]

First off kfhunter YOU are getting on my nerves a bit. The question was a generalized question that had nothing to do with ME or anyone in my direct family.

I obviously don't agree with most of you, but that is no suprise to me. What does suprise me is the assumptions that are being put forth.

Now, here is where the question lies for me.....I have a person that I know that is a convicted felon, and yes the crime was not one that most would find even "reasonably" by any sense of the term reasonable. That being said....the wife being a faithfull wife to the end, has been rep remended by PO officers because she believes SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT HERSELF FROM ANY INTRUDERS, her felon husband of course is band from any such firearm in the house.

The meat of my question stems from the idea if a felon is such a threat to society then why let them out?? Is it fair to this woman because of her vows, and religious beliefs to be disarmed by the government?? Where are her rights??? She is not a felon???

The cop out on this is to say "she" makes this choice......those of you that are religious should clearly understand her dilemma.

So, not only does the felon have his rights revoked, but those that are in a marital situation are punished with them.  So, my feelings are.....if you are well enough to be in society, you are well enough to enjoy your gun rights.......and like has been already said....if a criminal is going to use a gun in a crime, HE/SHE will find a way privilege or not!

Bowbuild

She is decidedly not disarmed.  It is her ex-con hubby who can't be around guns. 

[Blacktail Sniper]

I think I get where you are coming from here.  Not trying to offend you, but it seems you have some degree of personal connection or first hand knowledge of the man and/or woman in this situation.

If that is correct, then that gives you a unique perspective to this that the rest of us do not have, which results in more general or blanket type responses covering many different scenarios. 

As was pointed out, the part about the effect on the wife, completely changes the focus of the discussion and severely narrows down the subject from all felons in general to a felon's family member's rights and how they are affected.

[KFhunter]

First off kfhunter YOU are getting on my nerves a bit. The question was a generalized question that had nothing to do with ME or anyone in my direct family.

I obviously don't agree with most of you, but that is no suprise to me. What does suprise me is the assumptions that are being put forth.

Now, here is where the question lies for me.....I have a person that I know that is a convicted felon, and yes the crime was not one that most would find even "reasonably" by any sense of the term reasonable. That being said....the wife being a faithfull wife to the end, has been rep remended by PO officers because she believes SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT HERSELF FROM ANY INTRUDERS, her felon husband of course is band from any such firearm in the house.

The meat of my question stems from the idea if a felon is such a threat to society then why let them out?? Is it fair to this woman because of her vows, and religious beliefs to be disarmed by the government?? Where are her rights??? She is not a felon???

The cop out on this is to say "she" makes this choice......those of you that are religious should clearly understand her dilemma.

So, not only does the felon have his rights revoked, but those that are in a marital situation are punished with them.  So, my feelings are.....if you are well enough to be in society, you are well enough to enjoy your gun rights.......and like has been already said....if a criminal is going to use a gun in a crime, HE/SHE will find a way privilege or not!

Bowbuild

You could have started this thread with that information so we wouldn't all have to guess at the problem.



I guess my answer is we've all got baggage in some form, when you take someone into your house and marry them you marry all their baggage too.