Gun rights after you complete your sentence.

[bowbuild]

So, your reply is....constitutional protected rights are out the window when you get married.....wow how intelligent is that! Thanks for the insight KFhunter.

Blacktail sniper, we ALL have families......what if your kid was a felon that could not be around guns?? Now what?? You because of someone elese's decision leaves you defenseless if you believe in armed protection?

I have found over time people to be extremely hypocritical as long as it does not effect them directly always wanting to be on the side of what they deem is the majority thinking, instead of thinking how in the long run it may effect you, by your own doing, or not.
 
Restricting firearms for ex-cons gives them the same chance to regain a piece of normality that most "good" citizens have. Telling someone they can't is like telling kids they can't drink they will do it because it is the tabboo thing to do. Like I said above single shot, no hand guns, after they complete ALL the terms of probation. Double the sentence for those that don't comply, no early release.

I personally feel this is what the forefathers would have felt was fair!

Bowbuild

[bigtex]

Here is an interesting loophole in revocation of firearms rights.

As most know a domestic violence conviction will result in the revocation of firearm rights. In Washington you can have firearm rights restored for felony or DV convictions.

HOWEVER, federally you cannot have your firearm rights restored after ANY misdemeanor DV conviction. So you wouldn't see yourself in state court. BUT the feds could go after you, even if WA said you are ok to possess firearms.

[seth30]

No

The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.

[bowbuild]

Here is an interesting loophole in revocation of firearms rights.

As most know ANY domestic violence conviction will result in the revocation of firearm rights. In Washington you can have firearm rights restored for felony or DV convictions.

HOWEVER, federally you cannot have your firearm rights restored after ANY misdemeanor DV conviction. So you wouldn't see yourself in state court. BUT the feds could go after you, even if WA said you are ok to possess firearms.

I sincerely hope you guys all have wifes, or girlfriends that won't drop the dime on you if you get in a arguement. My sister is a prosecutor....... once the police show you are screwed someone has to go! Big Tex just dropped another bomb in my opinion......I sure hope thinking changes in the future, as YOU have NO way of predicting it, or who you will deal with.

Bowbuild

[Sliverslinger]

Here is an interesting loophole in revocation of firearms rights.

As most know ANY domestic violence conviction will result in the revocation of firearm rights. In Washington you can have firearm rights restored for felony or DV convictions.

HOWEVER, federally you cannot have your firearm rights restored after ANY misdemeanor DV conviction. So you wouldn't see yourself in state court. BUT the feds could go after you, even if WA said you are ok to possess firearms.

I have no experience or knowledge related to the federal side of the equation, but the idea that ANY DV crime results in the loss of gun rights is a very common misconception. It is only when the DV tag is added to a crime against person - most commonly ASSAULT4(DV). For example, an individual doesn't lose gun rights on a MALMIS3(DV) conviction. edit:this is at the state level, don't know about federal.

[Blacktail Sniper]

I would do whatever I had to support my kid and help them get through and hopefully turn their life around. 

Would I like it?  No. 

My comments were not meant to be a personal attack.  Sorry if you were or are offended.  Bottom line is I feel the way I do and you feel the way you do, end of story.

It has been said before and I will say it again, if the original post you did had included the complete information instead of a general, round about question/topic, there may have been different comments, thoughts or responses...maybe, maybe not, but too late now.

I commend her for standing true to her beliefs and her husband and wish them both the best of luck. 

And if you really are that concerned about this subject, I encourage you to move off of an anonymous, public forum and become an activist for inmate rights and/or join one of the many groups out there that are working to make changes in how the system works.

As I said, the system sucks, plain & simple.  But this isn't the place to change it.

Good luck.

[bowbuild]

I would do whatever I had to support my kid and help them get through and hopefully turn their life around. 

Would I like it?  No. 

My comments were not meant to be a personal attack.  Sorry if you were or are offended.  Bottom line is I feel the way I do and you feel the way you do, end of story.

It has been said before and I will say it again, if the original post you did had included the complete information instead of a general, round about question/topic, there may have been different comments, thoughts or responses...maybe, maybe not, but too late now.

I commend her for standing true to her beliefs and her husband and wish them both the best of luck. 

And if you really are that concerned about this subject, I encourage you to move off of an anonymous, public forum and become an activist for inmate rights and/or join one of the many groups out there that are working to make changes in how the system works.

As I said, the system sucks, plain & simple.  But this isn't the place to change it.

Good luck.

I in no way felt you were personally attacking me to be clear, opinions are just that....opinions.

[Knocker of rocks]

Here is an interesting loophole in revocation of firearms rights.

As most know ANY domestic violence conviction will result in the revocation of firearm rights. In Washington you can have firearm rights restored for felony or DV convictions.

HOWEVER, federally you cannot have your firearm rights restored after ANY misdemeanor DV conviction. So you wouldn't see yourself in state court. BUT the feds could go after you, even if WA said you are ok to possess firearms.

I have no experience or knowledge related to the federal side of the equation, but the idea that ANY DV crime results in the loss of gun rights is a very common misconception. It is only when the DV tag is added to a crime against person - most commonly ASSAULT4(DV). For example, an individual doesn't lose gun rights on a MALMIS3(DV) conviction. edit:this is at the state level, don't know about federal.

I don't know if many do understand the law, and things may change shortly
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/01/2708061/supreme-court-to-review-whether-domestic-violence-conviction-barred-gun-possession/

[bigtex]

Here is an interesting loophole in revocation of firearms rights.

As most know ANY domestic violence conviction will result in the revocation of firearm rights. In Washington you can have firearm rights restored for felony or DV convictions.

HOWEVER, federally you cannot have your firearm rights restored after ANY misdemeanor DV conviction. So you wouldn't see yourself in state court. BUT the feds could go after you, even if WA said you are ok to possess firearms.

I have no experience or knowledge related to the federal side of the equation, but the idea that ANY DV crime results in the loss of gun rights is a very common misconception. It is only when the DV tag is added to a crime against person - most commonly ASSAULT4(DV). For example, an individual doesn't lose gun rights on a MALMIS3(DV) conviction. edit:this is at the state level, don't know about federal.

Yes sorry that is what I meant.

[csaaphill]

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
Although like other posters it has to be a case by case bases but for the most part yes I beleive they should be able to!

[KFhunter]

So, your reply is....constitutional protected rights are out the window when you get married.....wow how intelligent is that! Thanks for the insight KFhunter.

Blacktail sniper, we ALL have families......what if your kid was a felon that could not be around guns?? Now what?? You because of someone elese's decision leaves you defenseless if you believe in armed protection?

I have found over time people to be extremely hypocritical as long as it does not effect them directly always wanting to be on the side of what they deem is the majority thinking, instead of thinking how in the long run it may effect you, by your own doing, or not.
 
Restricting firearms for ex-cons gives them the same chance to regain a piece of normality that most "good" citizens have. Telling someone they can't is like telling kids they can't drink they will do it because it is the tabboo thing to do. Like I said above single shot, no hand guns, after they complete ALL the terms of probation. Double the sentence for those that don't comply, no early release.

I personally feel this is what the forefathers would have felt was fair!

Bowbuild

That's not my reply at all. 

The woman in your situation hasn't lost her rights, she just merely took on more responsibility by have a felon in her house.

[bobcat]

In the scenario given, I believe the wife does have the right to have a firearm in their house for self defense. I don't see how they can tell her she cannot have one. I would have one if I were her, and just wouldn't tell anyone about it.

If she were a hunter, she surely would need rifles and/or shotguns. In that case, lock them up in a safe. And as far as anyone else knows, she is the only one that has access to those guns in the safe. (even if that was not the case)

[billythekidrock]

In the scenario given, I believe the wife does have the right to have a firearm in their house for self defense. I don't see how they can tell her she cannot have one. I would have one if I were her, and just wouldn't tell anyone about it.

If she were a hunter, she surely would need rifles and/or shotguns. In that case, lock them up in a safe. And as far as anyone else knows, she is the only one that has access to those guns in the safe. (even if that was not the case)

I feel the same, but it seems to me that just a couple years ago a couple in Shelton was busted for this very thing. She legally owned a pistol, but her husband was a felon. I can't remember if I read it in the Daily Zero or online.

[bowbuild]

So, your reply is....constitutional protected rights are out the window when you get married.....wow how intelligent is that! Thanks for the insight KFhunter.

Blacktail sniper, we ALL have families......what if your kid was a felon that could not be around guns?? Now what?? You because of someone elese's decision leaves you defenseless if you believe in armed protection?

I have found over time people to be extremely hypocritical as long as it does not effect them directly always wanting to be on the side of what they deem is the majority thinking, instead of thinking how in the long run it may effect you, by your own doing, or not.
 
Restricting firearms for ex-cons gives them the same chance to regain a piece of normality that most "good" citizens have. Telling someone they can't is like telling kids they can't drink they will do it because it is the tabboo thing to do. Like I said above single shot, no hand guns, after they complete ALL the terms of probation. Double the sentence for those that don't comply, no early release.

I personally feel this is what the forefathers would have felt was fair!

Bowbuild

That's not my reply at all. 

The woman in your situation hasn't lost her rights, she just merely took on more responsibility by have a felon in her house.

How in the world do you think being told you CAN NOT have a firearm in your home is taking on "more responsibilty" instead of having her rights revoked? You have a strange way of thinking to me.

[KFhunter]

Here is what a whole bunch of atty's have to say on the matter as it pertains to Washington.

http://www.lawqa.com/qa/can-felon-live-in-home-with-gun-if-it-belongs-to-someone-else2


So my answer holds true, the Mrs. in this scenario has added responsibility by keeping the guns out of the felons hands. 
She needs to keep the guns locked up in a safe and not give the felon the combo, or on her person in her direct control at all times.

Now, can a guy live with that?  I dunno, that's the baggage she's taken on by keeping him in her house.  The constant threat of him being arrested if she doesn't keep her guns out of his reach.

I dunno what else to call it other than baggage and added responsibility on the part of the woman in this case - if you got kinder gentler words then go ahead and insert them in there.