Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 09:21:09 AM
Bowbuild
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 09:25:38 AM
Just curious.....How many here believe that once a convict has served his time, deserves his gun rights restored?? I personally believe that as long as a firearm was NOT used in any way, there is NO reason not to fully have your rights restored.....On the other hand what's the point of "right to bear arms" when it turns out to be a privledge? :bash:
Bowbuild
I don't think there's a blanket answer and it depends on the crime. I'd never restore rights to a predator/child molester. Violent felons would be reviewed case-by-case. Some violent felons are much more likely to reoffend. Drug charges without violence, quite possibly. No simple answer for this question.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 04, 2013, 09:42:23 AM
I did some research a while back, and, in WA, you can easily get voting rights restored, once you complete the terms of your sentence, including financial terms. However, no similar statutory mechanisms exist regarding gun rights and crimes, at least at the time of the research.
I personally feel that for non-violent, non-repeat offenders, the same should be true (a statutory mechanism for restoration upon completion of the terms of your sentence, including financial terms), but that is a federal issue as well as a state issue.
I'd favor increasing hurdles to restoration for non-violent, repeat offenders and for violent (or weapons-related or other aggravating circumstances), non-repeat offenders (after considerable time and/or demonstrated acts of rehabilitation), although I am probably in the extreme minority on the latter.
For violent (or weapons-related or other aggravating circumstances), repeat offenders, forget it. These people should remain locked up, doing hard labor, along with many of the classes of sexual predators.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on October 04, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 09:51:02 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 04, 2013, 09:52:39 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 09:57:19 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not really. It'd be nice to have your comments on the OP. I appreciate your insights on things sometimes. :dunno:
Post by: woodman on October 04, 2013, 10:03:35 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Campmeat, I liked your comment and thought it was true and relevant. I thought pianoman was out of line with his comment.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on October 04, 2013, 10:04:51 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Have a look at the 5th amendment
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 04, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
People who come out of the corrections system are supposed to have paid their debt in full and we are supposed to treat them that way. Obviously, this does not happen and having a felony on your record is still a life sentence in a lot of ways. But if we can’t even trust them with their own constitutional rights, then we need to rethink the way we handle corrections.
Post by: Mike450r on October 04, 2013, 10:10:51 AM
That being said I feel certain felony convictions should receive all rights back after all probation and parole conditions have ended without the need to petition the court.
Post by: Humptulips on October 04, 2013, 10:11:13 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.
To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 10:21:40 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.
To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.
They've breached the public trust, committed a crime with turpitude they should loose their rights.
Most of them don't even serve half their time locked up and even then become worse while in jail.
nope - you don't have my vote. I'll settle for them obtaining Saturday night specials off the street, junk guns save lives.
Those broken POS guns they get off the street is just as likely to backfire as hit an innocent or cop. Restore their gun rights and they could purchase a nice new auto at BigR for use in their crimes for cheaper than a POS street gun.
When or if.....(probably never happen) we start seeing police arresting mostly new bad guys/gals instead of the same ones over and over and over...perhaps we can talk.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 10:24:19 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.
To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.
Bottom line then....there is no rights, funny watching how people are so willing to let them go. :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 10:25:59 AM
whats your beef? you pissed you lost your guns or something?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on October 04, 2013, 10:29:51 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.
To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.
Bottom line then....there is no rights, funny watching how people are so willing to let them go. :bash:
bowbuild
You asked for opinions and you got them.
Sorry the answers didn't agree with your sense of entitlement.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 10:30:17 AM
Bowbuild
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 04, 2013, 10:30:48 AM
Bottom line then....there is no rights, funny watching how people are so willing to let them go. :bash:
This is especially poignant in the face of an ever expanding federal government, both in money and laws regulating private behavior, of the willingness of those in power to punish its enemies with the federal bureaucracy (IRS/EPA versus Tea Party), and of the revelations regarding the NSA snooping on all of America.
The difference between a right and a privilege easily lost is merely the willingness of those in the majority to define your preferred behavior as a crime.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 10:30:53 AM
No
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.
To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.
There is an avenue. The governor of the state in which the crime was committed can pardon the felon, or he can be pardoned by the President. 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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 10:31:50 AM
No, my felony status is nonexistent.....I will explain more later that may make you think, but it is a bit drawn out, and I am late for work. :)
Bowbuild
ah - you got a DV
Post by: bobcat on October 04, 2013, 10:35:27 AM
So I see no reason to take away a person's gun rights. I feel that if they are deemed dangerous enough that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn't be set free.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 04, 2013, 10:35:39 AM
I think CAMPMEAT has hit the nail on the head, because whatever we as a society decide, the under laying issue is still, criminals don't care what we think or want, they will continue to do as they please. Yes, some can and do turn things around and learn from their experiences/mistakes, but some don't.
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.
There is no cut & dry answer, because you have people dealing with people. This is and always will be the weak link...interpretation, emotions, personal bias, etc., can all be a determining factor and a potential weak spot open for exploitation or manipulation.
If I remember right, there is a process where, after a 7 year wait, where if they meet all the requirements, they can apply to the courts to get firearms back legally. I think that is more than adequate. If someone is able to stay straight and law abiding for that length of time, it has shown to me anyway, a true effort and proof that they really want to turn their life around.
I also feel that someone convicted of an offense that makes firearm possession for them a crime has not had anything "taken" from them. They chose to commit the offense, they can live with the consequences, the victims certainly have to.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 10:36:47 AM
Post by: buckfvr on October 04, 2013, 10:40:13 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 04, 2013, 10:40:23 AM
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?
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 04, 2013, 10:46:15 AM
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.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 10:50:17 AM
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.
I unfortunately have known a felon or two, and the reason they are often treated like escaped animals, is that too often they act that way.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 10:50:47 AM
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?
I'm not concerned with the OP's situation.
Not only did the Forefathers not conceive of a DV complaint eliminating 2nd Amendment rights, many were guilty of it themselves and thought that was OK. Let's fast forward to today. As I understand, if someone is acquitted of a DV complaint, their 2nd Amendment rights are restored. I understand that this is contrary to "innocent until proven guilty", AND a great many women have been killed by abusive husbands while waiting for their day in court. There's a reason that this rule was adopted. Is it Constitutional? Probably not. Do the courts care? Probably not.
However, the OP originally posted about gun rights being restored "after you complete your sentence. So, for this thread only, DV accusations don't seem to be the focus of the OP, only convicted felons and convicted DV offenders.
Post by: h20hunter on October 04, 2013, 10:52:04 AM
Felon with a weapons charge.....no different than keeping a pedo away from kids.....
Sure there are exceptions to every rule but the exception doesn't exclude the majority from the rule.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 10:55:28 AM
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........" :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 10:55:53 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 10:57:41 AM
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........" :chuckle:
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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 10:59:49 AM
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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 04, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 11:07:11 AM
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........" :chuckle:
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 11:10:46 AM
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. :dunno:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 04, 2013, 11:10:54 AM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 11:21:11 AM
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. :dunno:
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 :chuckle:
Post by: Mike450r on October 04, 2013, 11:28:34 AM
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.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 04, 2013, 11:44:06 AM
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....
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 04, 2013, 11:53:00 AM
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.
Post by: Mike450r on October 04, 2013, 11:55:59 AM
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.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 04, 2013, 11:58:10 AM
Post by: Mike450r on October 04, 2013, 12:04:25 PM
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/06/closing-arguments-heard-case-unlawful-firearm-poss/?print=1 (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/06/closing-arguments-heard-case-unlawful-firearm-poss/?print=1)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 12:39:50 PM
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.
Post by: stuckalot on October 04, 2013, 12:56:52 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 01:02:20 PM
Curious how many here never got in a fist fight, scuffle, or threatened to kick someone's a$$? In today's world that could strip you of your gun rights for the rest of your life. Possibly even possessing a pop tart shaped like a gun anymore. Not all "felonies" are created equal in my mind, yet our "zero tolerance" mindset dictates that we use no common sense anymore.
Few of us said they are all equal. Most of us said it would depend on the circumstance of the felony. Not sure where you're getting all that. :dunno:
Post by: Mike450r on October 04, 2013, 01:30:32 PM
Curious how many here never got in a fist fight, scuffle, or threatened to kick someone's a$$? 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.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 04, 2013, 01:44:26 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 04, 2013, 01:46:40 PM
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.
Post by: NWHydroprint on October 04, 2013, 03:55:31 PM
I for one would not want to bring a bat to a gunfight.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 05:09:56 PM
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
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 05:26:41 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 05:34:15 PM
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.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 04, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
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.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 05:47:17 PM
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
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
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.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 04, 2013, 06:06:52 PM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 07:08:23 PM
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.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 08:08:47 PM
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
Post by: bigtex on October 04, 2013, 08:18:55 PM
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.
Post by: seth30 on October 04, 2013, 08:21:12 PM
No:yeah:
The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 08:26:13 PM
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
Post by: Sliverslinger on October 04, 2013, 08:28:02 PM
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.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 04, 2013, 08:28:14 PM
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.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 08:33:47 PM
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. :)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 08:36:04 PM
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/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/01/2708061/supreme-court-to-review-whether-domestic-violence-conviction-barred-gun-possession/)
Post by: bigtex on October 04, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
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.
Post by: csaaphill on October 04, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
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!
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 08:49:48 PM
So, your reply is....constitutional protected rights are out the window when you get married.....wow how intelligent is that! :bash: 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.
Post by: bobcat on October 04, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
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)
Post by: billythekidrock on October 04, 2013, 08:57:28 PM
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.
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 08:58:39 PM
So, your reply is....constitutional protected rights are out the window when you get married.....wow how intelligent is that! :bash: 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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 09:04:56 PM
http://www.lawqa.com/qa/can-felon-live-in-home-with-gun-if-it-belongs-to-someone-else2 (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.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 09:12:52 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on October 04, 2013, 09:26:56 PM
that's california - let's keep this to either Washington or Federal
Seriously? Your going to post this after posting an out of state article and then deleting it?
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 09:30:38 PM
\that's california - let's keep this to either Washington or Federal
Seriously? Your going to post this after posting an out of state article and then deleting it?
That's why I deleted it :tung:
it's confusing enough don't you think?
Post by: billythekidrock on October 04, 2013, 09:32:01 PM
\that's california - let's keep this to either Washington or Federal
Seriously? Your going to post this after posting an out of state article and then deleting it?
That's why I deleted it :tung:
:tup:
Post by: bullcanyon on October 04, 2013, 09:44:20 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 09:54:29 PM
One of my best friends got into one of those "young dumb moment" car accidents before he was 21 years old. All that kid did was hunt and fish 24 7. They gave him a class a felony and he will never be able to hunt with a firearm again. No guns anywhere near the scene, but his ability to do what he loved is gone. Now he gets to bowhunt the rest of his life. Lucky for him he really loves to bowhunt, but it's still a bunch of crap that he can't be around guns. Would love for him to accompany the rest of us on our out of state mule deer hunts.
To get a felony out of a car accident kind of involves more than being young and dumb. Did someone else die cause of your friend? Were the innocent maimed? Was your friend drunk or just three kinds of stupid and four kinds of reckless?
Lets save our sorrow for the innocent
Post by: yorketransport on October 04, 2013, 09:58:55 PM
So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.
Andrew
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 09:59:14 PM
One of my best friends got into one of those "young dumb moment" car accidents before he was 21 years old. All that kid did was hunt and fish 24 7. They gave him a class a felony and he will never be able to hunt with a firearm again. No guns anywhere near the scene, but his ability to do what he loved is gone. Now he gets to bowhunt the rest of his life. Lucky for him he really loves to bowhunt, but it's still a bunch of crap that he can't be around guns. Would love for him to accompany the rest of us on our out of state mule deer hunts.
To get a felony out of a car accident kind of involves more than being young and dumb. Did someone else die cause of your friend? Were the innocent maimed? Was your friend drunk or just three kinds of stupid and four kinds of reckless?
Lets save our sorrow for the innocent
:yeah:
blunt painful truth - I like it
Post by: bowbuild on October 04, 2013, 10:28:53 PM
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 (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.
She was told no guns locked, or not. This included a BB gun, which by state law to my knowledge is NOT considered a firearm....going way to far in my opinion.
Post by: fastdam on October 04, 2013, 10:36:10 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 10:43:58 PM
They should get thier guns back when they are done with thier sentance. It is way too easy to become a felon and all humans make mistakes so we are all at risk. There needs to be more emphasis on respect in society. An armed society is a respectful society.
I think it is not too easy to become a felon. It takes effort of doing the wrong thing and making the wrong decision multiple times
Post by: fastdam on October 04, 2013, 10:47:23 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 10:47:49 PM
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 (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.
She was told no guns locked, or not. This included a BB gun, which by state law to my knowledge is NOT considered a firearm....going way to far in my opinion.
Well then she was fed a line of crap.
I can see the cops point of view, pretty hard to believe a felon wouldn't have access to her guns, or that she wasn't proxy buying them for them.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 04, 2013, 10:49:29 PM
No it doesnt, it happens everyday. everyone has different cicumstances. A rotten woman can ru ok n your life with the help from the state and a lawyer. Happens to good people all the time.
How many decisions did it take to get stuck with this rotten woman? How many rum and cokes? How many kids?
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 12:02:26 AM
This included a BB gun, which by state law to my knowledge is NOT considered a firearm....going way to far in my opinion.
Okay, I'm going to throw the BS flag on this one. If someone can't figure out that a BB gun does not meet the definition of a firearm, well I don't know what to say.
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 10:24:42 AM
Thats's what they were told, and he said he would cart him off to jail if they had one.....I personally would have said get the cuffs ready! Po officers are cops that couldn't make the grade in my opinion. :rolleyes: I suspect the judge lawfull, or not, would look at it as not being cooperative with the officer......and we know how the judge would most likely react to that.....don't we. :rolleyes:
Bowbuild
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 10:31:08 AM
It doesn't matter what a judge's reaction is. A BB gun is not a firearm by definition.
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 10:35:25 AM
No it doesnt, it happens everyday. everyone has different cicumstances. A rotten woman can ru ok n your life with the help from the state and a lawyer. Happens to good people all the time.
How many decisions did it take to get stuck with this rotten woman? How many rum and cokes? How many kids?
Damn dude you must be DON JUAN of women, you have them that figured out....sounds like you should write a book letting the rest of us know when to turn and run.....bet you will have quite the following! Now you just sit back and tip back another rum and coke while typing in your wisdom!
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 10:45:43 AM
Regardless of what the PO officer said, anyone with a law degree that they purchased in Sri Lanka or Honduras could defeat that charge in all of about 60 seconds. Possibly less.
It doesn't matter what a judge's reaction is. A BB gun is not a firearm by definition.
Jls,
Come on guy, you know a felon pulled in front of a judge is NOT going to see his PO get his butt handed to him. Let's not forget the costs invovled with having your lawyer fight a bogus charge! The smartest thing for him to do was to hand him the definition of a firearm, but this PO is about as smart and arrogant as they come!
Bowbuild
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 10:49:07 AM
Regardless of what the PO officer said, anyone with a law degree that they purchased in Sri Lanka or Honduras could defeat that charge in all of about 60 seconds. Possibly less.
It doesn't matter what a judge's reaction is. A BB gun is not a firearm by definition.
Jls,
Come on guy, you know a felon pulled in front of a judge is NOT going to see his PO get his butt handed to him. Let's not forget the costs invovled with having your lawyer fight a bogus charge! The smartest thing for him to do was to hand him the definition of a firearm, but this PO is about as smart and arrogant as they come!
Bowbuild
If they are just willing to accept this, I don't know what to say.
(7) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
I've had my azz handed to me by a judge before when I was wrong, I don't know why a PO would be any different.
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:07:36 AM
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.Your right Bobcat, She is perfectly within her rights to still have a firearm, But just like KFhunter said, She just taking on more responsibility. For both her and him both. Me and the Lady have talked to law enforcement regarding this and as long as its secured in some type of safe with limited access, or Its secured on person (i.e. concealed)
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'm beginning to think bowbuild is in some weird state of delirium tbh.
Also to add to KFhunter's comment, A guy should be able to live with that perfectly fine. Its not hard to be responsible.
Unless I'm missing something here... I chose not to read the whole thread, Seems like lots of bickering.
Post by: coachcw on October 05, 2013, 11:09:52 AM
I had a discussion about this with my Father in Law a few weeks back. In my mind, every action taken is a choice and every action has a consequence. In this scenario the felon made the decision to commit the crime. Then the wife made the decision to stay with the felon.very good answer , choices where made. I don't want any felon living near me to have a gun , what's one more poor choice ( maybe a bullet headed towards and innocent victim ). There are exceptions I'm sure but do we want more government to figure it out and police it ? (not me). It seems to me like these folks just want a gun in the house for some reason. there are plenty of forms of protection other than fire arms . what about a tazzer , alarm , dog. motion lights , billy clubs ex. really if she wants a firearm it sounds like she can have one just not in the house that her felon husband resides in . no reason she cant store them elsewhere.
So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.
Andrew
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
"she could have a tazer" guess who some of you folks are sounding like now?
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
FYI, They're not called PO's anymore, Its called a community custody officer.Regardless of what the PO officer said, anyone with a law degree that they purchased in Sri Lanka or Honduras could defeat that charge in all of about 60 seconds. Possibly less.
It doesn't matter what a judge's reaction is. A BB gun is not a firearm by definition.
Jls,
Come on guy, you know a felon pulled in front of a judge is NOT going to see his PO get his butt handed to him. Let's not forget the costs invovled with having your lawyer fight a bogus charge! The smartest thing for him to do was to hand him the definition of a firearm, but this PO is about as smart and arrogant as they come!
Bowbuild
Also, a Felon is 100% perfectly within his legal rights to own ANY air rifle (including a bb gun), even an air rifle that shoots .357 slugs like the Benjamin Rogue .357
http://www.crosman.com/airguns/rifles/pcp/BPE3571 (http://www.crosman.com/airguns/rifles/pcp/BPE3571)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crosman.com%2Fimg%2Fproducts%2Ffull%2FBPE3571.jpg&hash=5dd9c66cd54533ac0838ec0772a0475eca76a849)
A muzzleloader defined by the Fed's is not even considered a firearm, but In the state of Washington it is, Therefor a felon may not possess a muzzeloader in the state of Washington but he may in a different state that do's not consider it a firearm.
Post by: coachcw on October 05, 2013, 11:14:05 AM
Post by: snowpack on October 05, 2013, 11:15:05 AM
This included a BB gun, which by state law to my knowledge is NOT considered a firearm....going way to far in my opinion.
Okay, I'm going to throw the BS flag on this one. If someone can't figure out that a BB gun does not meet the definition of a firearm, well I don't know what to say.
Well the BATFE seized a big shipment of airsoft guns, they were convinced they were firearms. Their claim was that airsoft guns had parts that were identical and unregistered to the parts of firearms. (For one model, they claimed the lower on an airsoft M4 could be mated with an AR upper and make a full auto M4.) :dunno:
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:15:08 AM
By marrying and living with a convicted felon, she should not and does not give up HER constitutional rights. She obviously takes on higher obligation of responsibility.100% right JLS :tup:
"she could have a tazer" guess who some of you folks are sounding like now?
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:16:11 AM
the facts are that once someone has committed a violent crime he or she is more likely to reoffend at some point . I really don't see our system rehabbing most felons . I believe that the ones that change have done so on there own .Yup, There is not very much "Correction" In the correctional facilities. You can take my word for that one. The person has to want to change and live a different lifestyle.
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:17:59 AM
That's all bologna, That whole airsoft parts thing was a myth like saying a potato works as a suppressor. :rolleyes: Not possible.This included a BB gun, which by state law to my knowledge is NOT considered a firearm....going way to far in my opinion.
Okay, I'm going to throw the BS flag on this one. If someone can't figure out that a BB gun does not meet the definition of a firearm, well I don't know what to say.
Well the BATFE seized a big shipment of airsoft guns, they were convinced they were firearms. Their claim was that airsoft guns had parts that were identical and unregistered to the parts of firearms. (For one model, they claimed the lower on an airsoft M4 could be mated with an AR upper and make a full auto M4.) :dunno:
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 11:19:19 AM
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 11:24:53 AM
By marrying and living with a convicted felon, she should not and does not give up HER constitutional rights. She obviously takes on higher obligation of responsibility.
"she could have a tazer" guess who some of you folks are sounding like now?
Bet Obama will endorse the tazer idea..... :tup:
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
Thanks Smossy! ;)I'm just saying from experience. I spent a nice chunk of time incarcerated and I was convicted of a class A felony which prevents me from every owning a firearm. So I've done my talk time with LE and researched enough to know what I'm allowed to have and what I'm not.
Post by: snowpack on October 05, 2013, 11:27:24 AM
I had a discussion about this with my Father in Law a few weeks back. In my mind, every action taken is a choice and every action has a consequence. In this scenario the felon made the decision to commit the crime. Then the wife made the decision to stay with the felon.very good answer , choices where made. I don't want any felon living near me to have a gun , what's one more poor choice ( maybe a bullet headed towards and innocent victim ). There are exceptions I'm sure but do we want more government to figure it out and police it ? (not me). It seems to me like these folks just want a gun in the house for some reason. there are plenty of forms of protection other than fire arms . what about a tazzer , alarm , dog. motion lights , billy clubs ex. really if she wants a firearm it sounds like she can have one just not in the house that her felon husband resides in . no reason she cant store them elsewhere.
So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.
Andrew
This country at times seems to just give out felonies like candy. Here is an interesting story about a man being charged with a felony for releasing hot air balloons for his girlfriend. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks) If this was this guy's only felony, I don't think having him next door and armed would be a big deal.
Post by: Smossy on October 05, 2013, 11:34:21 AM
I'm not just talking "doing your time with dignity and paying back all your fines" That should just go hand in hand with doing your crime whatever it be regardless.
I'm talking no "WEAPON'S" charges period (That show's irresponsibility with weapons), drug testing, employment history, mental disorder testing, full criminal history check's (NO chance for repeat offenders).
Things of this nature. I believe there could be a reasonable balance, But I'm not going to argue with how things are ran now. It is what it is and I'm managing just fine. :tup:
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 11:43:26 AM
I had a discussion about this with my Father in Law a few weeks back. In my mind, every action taken is a choice and every action has a consequence. In this scenario the felon made the decision to commit the crime. Then the wife made the decision to stay with the felon.very good answer , choices where made. I don't want any felon living near me to have a gun , what's one more poor choice ( maybe a bullet headed towards and innocent victim ). There are exceptions I'm sure but do we want more government to figure it out and police it ? (not me). It seems to me like these folks just want a gun in the house for some reason. there are plenty of forms of protection other than fire arms . what about a tazzer , alarm , dog. motion lights , billy clubs ex. really if she wants a firearm it sounds like she can have one just not in the house that her felon husband resides in . no reason she cant store them elsewhere.
So my short answer is no, a felon's gun rights should not be restored. It's all about actions and consequences/ cause and effect. The individual chose to violate the law, so he/she also chose to accept the consequences that go with it. The spouse chose to stay with the felon, so he/she chose to accept the consequences of that decision.
Andrew
This country at times seems to just give out felonies like candy. Here is an interesting story about a man being charged with a felony for releasing hot air balloons for his girlfriend. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks) If this was this guy's only felony, I don't think having him next door and armed would be a big deal.
Someone is starting to catch on! :) I have been to florida once, and after being there with a friend who lives there......I have NO desire to go back.....they do give out felonies like candy.....Texas isn't far behind!
I was told by my friend that to trespass, and have a pocket knife in Florida was considered ARMED TRESSPASS a felony....whether you know where you are at , or not. I have not confirmed this, but that was enough for me.
The comments I see that say "I don't want some felon living next to me with a gun" ......you scared of a pocket knife carrying felon? :dunno: The problem can stem from WHAT the felony is for, but I still believe you serve your time...your rights should be restored with a few restrictions that I have already said. :) Like someone said it won't be solved here, or possibly ever....was just trying to compile opinions.
Bowbuild
Post by: biggfish on October 05, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 05, 2013, 11:59:28 AM
I was told by my friend that to trespass, and have a pocket knife in Florida was considered ARMED TRESSPASS a felony....whether you know where you are at , or not. I have not confirmed this, but that was enough for me.
Quote
810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.--
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention by such person, if done in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, shall not render such person criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.
(3) As used in this section, the term "person authorized" means any owner or lessee, or his or her agent, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner or lessee, or his or her agent, to communicate an order to depart the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare.
A pencil or hammer could be a dangerous weapon. It is all in intent, and your pen knife argument is specious
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 05, 2013, 12:00:59 PM
This country at times seems to just give out felonies like candy. Here is an interesting story about a man being charged with a felony for releasing hot air balloons for his girlfriend. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222_1_helium-balloon-fhp-trooper-wood-storks) If this was this guy's only felony, I don't think having him next door and armed would be a big deal.
It is unknown how this case ended, if it is indeed over. A final outcome as a felony does not seem likely
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 12:25:01 PM
I was told by my friend that to trespass, and have a pocket knife in Florida was considered ARMED TRESSPASS a felony....whether you know where you are at , or not. I have not confirmed this, but that was enough for me.Quote810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.--
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention by such person, if done in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, shall not render such person criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.
(3) As used in this section, the term "person authorized" means any owner or lessee, or his or her agent, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner or lessee, or his or her agent, to communicate an order to depart the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare.
A pencil or hammer could be a dangerous weapon. It is all in intent, and your pen knife argument is specious
Specious?? Seems we read that much different in (c) paragragh there is NOTHING that say anything about intent. It clearly leaves the owner to the words "reasonably believes" nothing about intent.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 05, 2013, 08:03:49 PM
Quote
Florida law defines a " '[w]eapon' " to "mea[n] any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife." §790.001(13). Florida has excepted the " 'common pocketknife' " from its weapons statute since 1901, and the relevant language has remained unchanged since that time. See 833 So. 2d, at 743.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-8636 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-8636)
Post by: fastdam on October 05, 2013, 10:09:37 PM
Post by: bowbuild on October 05, 2013, 11:11:19 PM
So sorry, your pocket knife is not a dangerous weaponQuoteFlorida law defines a " '[w]eapon' " to "mea[n] any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife." §790.001(13). Florida has excepted the " 'common pocketknife' " from its weapons statute since 1901, and the relevant language has remained unchanged since that time. See 833 So. 2d, at 743.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-8636 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-8636)
Nice find!! Did you read it all? :) Seems as though the gentlmen in question WAS convicted for a pocket knife (a weopon charge). For whatever reason although you pointed out the definiton of law on the knife, they still upheld the conviction for weopon while in the act of a burglary. He apparently appealed, and was given the shaft anyway. Finally in the last paragraph it lists a female judge that said she would have reversed that conviction....but it did not say she did??? Am I reading this wrong?
Maybe this is what my friend was thinking of when he made the statement???
Bowbuild
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 06, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
Quote
The Florida Supreme Court also rejected Bunkley's claim. It held that the L. B. decision did not apply retroactively. Under Florida law, only "jurisprudential upheavals" will be applied retroactively.
So the definition of a deadly weapon, and the pocket knife exception should not be effected.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 06, 2013, 06:57:11 AM
Finally in the last paragraph it lists a female judge that said she would have reversed that conviction....but it did not say she did???
It did say
Quote
Justice Pariente, joined by Chief Justice Anstead, dissented.
Quote
Because she thought the L. B. decision "correctly stated the law at the time Bunkley's conviction became final," she would have vacated Bunkley's conviction.She is speaking for the whole of the court. She herself did vote to vacate the conviction
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2013, 09:14:27 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Campmeat' s statement was totally appropriate and on topic. It speaks directly to "CATEGORIZED OPTIONS". Since it is a fact that criminals will always get a gun(s) when they want them, why bother excluding them. When judgment fails and rights are returned to a non-violent perpetrator and he then later commits a crime with a gun, what do you say then? OOOPs......
There may be a blessing in this. I don't know for sure but I understand that if you lose your right to vote, you also lose your right to pay taxes. Gosh what a shame
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2013, 09:16:21 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2013, 10:10:45 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Campmeat' s statement was totally appropriate and on topic. It speaks directly to "CATEGORIZED OPTIONS". Since it is a fact that criminals will always get a gun(s) when they want them, why bother excluding them. When judgment fails and rights are returned to a non-violent perpetrator and he then later commits a crime with a gun, what do you say then? OOOPs......
There may be a blessing in this. I don't know for sure but I understand that if you lose your right to vote, you also lose your right to pay taxes. Gosh what a shame
You are partially right, there is a black market for guns. What you don't know is the quality and price of those guns. I would MUCH rather face a street purchased saturday night special than a brand new Glock from bigR. According to the FBI, the bulk of guns obtained on the street and used in crimes are very sub-par, many of them inoperable and in many cases stuffed with the wrong ammo or mixed ammo. I think you guys are assuming they pick up a fully operational high quality autos off the street and that's not the case in most instances.
They are usually revolvers and what we'd consider garbage.
Also if said felon had that gun contrary to law they are going back in to serve more time. Pretty much everyone in this thread was in agreement criminals do not serve enough time as it is and pretty much in agreement there is no correction in correctional facilities. How someone can suggest allowing violent felons the right to purchase guns is beyond me.
I can't disagree with you more on this issue.
Post by: bowbuild on October 06, 2013, 11:29:43 AM
Doesn't matter if they get their gun rights back. Criminals will always find a way to get them.
Campmeat, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The OP is asking about lawfully being able to procure firearms after serving a sentence. Why don't you comment on that, CM?
Ya happy ? I removed my comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Campmeat' s statement was totally appropriate and on topic. It speaks directly to "CATEGORIZED OPTIONS". Since it is a fact that criminals will always get a gun(s) when they want them, why bother excluding them. When judgment fails and rights are returned to a non-violent perpetrator and he then later commits a crime with a gun, what do you say then? OOOPs......
There may be a blessing in this. I don't know for sure but I understand that if you lose your right to vote, you also lose your right to pay taxes. Gosh what a shame
You are partially right, there is a black market for guns. What you don't know is the quality and price of those guns. I would MUCH rather face a street purchased saturday night special than a brand new Glock from bigR. According to the FBI, the bulk of guns obtained on the street and used in crimes are very sub-par, many of them inoperable and in many cases stuffed with the wrong ammo or mixed ammo. I think you guys are assuming they pick up a fully operational high quality autos off the street and that's not the case in most instances.
They are usually revolvers and what we'd consider garbage.
Also if said felon had that gun contrary to law they are going back in to serve more time. Pretty much everyone in this thread was in agreement criminals do not serve enough time as it is and pretty much in agreement there is no correction in correctional facilities. How someone can suggest allowing violent felons the right to purchase guns is beyond me.
I can't disagree with you more on this issue.
Most people would consider a High point 9mm to be junk.....you can get them for around $170. I would bet there are some people that would think that a easy way to make a quick $100.(very stupid) I have a high point 9mm, although they are cheap, heavy, they are very accurate. I have seen more than one high point guns on cops (the show) both in pistol, and semi-auto rifle. I am sure there are many more brands that unscrupulous people can obtain...I am not a pistol guy...so I am sure others could tell the cheap brands.
Bowbuild
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2013, 11:36:41 AM
Post by: bowbuild on October 06, 2013, 11:42:59 AM
Finally in the last paragraph it lists a female judge that said she would have reversed that conviction....but it did not say she did???
It did sayQuoteJustice Pariente, joined by Chief Justice Anstead, dissented.QuoteBecause she thought the L. B. decision "correctly stated the law at the time Bunkley's conviction became final," she would have vacated Bunkley's conviction.She is speaking for the whole of the court. She herself did vote to vacate the conviction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting_opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting_opinion)
Because she thought the L. B. decision "correctly stated the law at the time Bunkley's conviction became final," she would have vacated Bunkley's conviction. 833 So. 2d, at 747.
Key words...would have.
Post by: csaaphill on October 06, 2013, 05:13:10 PM
Um not sure on what someone saying about Federally I've heard of people getting thier rights back and clearing the FBI background check. SInce they know your buying or getting a gun after being a felon they should come after you then?
From some of my research on this when you get your rights back in a state they are back federally as well.
Again if someone pases the background check when purchasing the gun or whatever and the FBI knows this they shoul come after them then if it's still federally against the law! again beleive I am correct on this for I have done some research on this!
Post by: Scvette on October 07, 2013, 06:14:58 AM
Post by: bowbuild on October 07, 2013, 10:06:23 AM
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.
Response to the post above...
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 07, 2013, 10:46:18 AM
Quote
Q: Is an individual who has been pardoned, or whose conviction was expunged or set aside, or whose civil rights have been restored, considered convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
No, as long as the pardon, expungement, or restoration does not expressly provide that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
The issue seems more likely one of no Washington state mechanism to expunge a misdemeanor DV
Quote
(2) An applicant may not have the record of conviction for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense vacated if any one of the following is present:
..........
(b) The offense was a violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 or an attempt to commit a violent offense;
So while it would be a Federal Offense, the remedy would be a change in state law to treat misdemeanor convictions similarly as with felony convictions
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.96.060 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.96.060)
Post by: returnofsid on October 07, 2013, 12:09:52 PM
An 18 year old shoplifts an amount of items equaling $250.00 or more. In Washington, this can be charged as a felony. The kid serves his sentence, does his probation, pays his restitution and pays all of his court fees and fines. This kid will live the rest of his live with a felony on his record, unable to vote (unless he petitions to regain his right to vote) and unable to ever own a weapon. In fact, 20 years down the road, if he marries someone who owns a weapon, it has the possibility of putting him at odds with the law, even if he never touches that weapon.
I'll admit that I'm in this category, though I wasn't 18. From the age of 13-30, I was a very avid and responsible, gun owner, hunter and eventually a father. I taught my children to safely handle guns and hunt At the age of 30, I made a very stupid decision, a decision that amounted to approximately $275.00. I was charged with Felony theft. Because I am a responsible father, when offered a plea deal, I refused, choosing to accept full responsibility for my actions. In fact, I could have had all of the charges dropped, due to tainted evidence. I also refused to take this option. I felt that I needed to set the proper example for my children. "Getting off on a crime" because of a technicality, wouldn't have set the proper example, in my opinion. So, I am now a felon. I'm now 45 and have never re-commited. However, I'll always be a felon.
In the research I've done, I've found that there are two options for regaining my gun rights.
1. Petition the court to have my gun rights restored.
This option very rarely results in success, from what I've been able to discover. Very few convicted felons have ever been successful and those that have were previously law enforcement or judges.
2. Petition the court to have my felony expunged. Once a felon has served out their sentence, and met all financial responsibilities and terms of release, it is possible to have the felony expunged, under certain circumstances. (Non violent, non drug or gun related, etc) However, this option usually requires an attorney and an average of about $10,000.00. If successful, this option results in a felon becoming a non-felon, as if it never happened.
So, now I archery hunt. I will always regret the decision I made, however, I'll always take responsibility for it.
Post by: jackmaster on October 07, 2013, 12:19:07 PM
Post by: bowbuild on October 07, 2013, 02:06:48 PM
Bowbuild
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2013, 03:10:30 PM
Ah, Finally some examples of the reality of loosing your rights. To be quite blunt it pisses me off to see SO many people so willing to think (and classify) all felons the same.....that's what the LAW does, just proves how people can't reason on their own! When you hear felon....why not ask what for....instead of classing them all together! :bash:
Bowbuild
Again, I think very few of us on this thread threw them all in one pile, but you seem extra sensitive about the topic. Most of the people posting in this thread have said that it depends on the situation and I think that's fair. Yes, when I hear someone's a felon, I do think "wow". First off, I don't ask "what for" because it's none of my business. Secondly, I've never been in trouble with the law so hearing someone's a felon puts me on alert. It's not something I'm very familiar with. Get pissed off all you want, but I suggest if you're looking to change how felons are dealt with, you should probably try another approach than being pissed off.
Post by: bowbuild on October 07, 2013, 04:47:10 PM
Ah, Finally some examples of the reality of loosing your rights. To be quite blunt it pisses me off to see SO many people so willing to think (and classify) all felons the same.....that's what the LAW does, just proves how people can't reason on their own! When you hear felon....why not ask what for....instead of classing them all together! :bash:
Bowbuild
Again, I think very few of us on this thread threw them all in one pile, but you seem extra sensitive about the topic. Most of the people posting in this thread have said that it depends on the situation and I think that's fair. Yes, when I hear someone's a felon, I do think "wow". First off, I don't ask "what for" because it's none of my business. Secondly, I've never been in trouble with the law so hearing someone's a felon puts me on alert. It's not something I'm very familiar with. Get pissed off all you want, but I suggest if you're looking to change how felons are dealt with, you should probably try another approach than being pissed off.
Yes, you just confirmed what pisses me off.....instead of asking to confirm your fears, your response is "WOW" must be a killer, rapist, child toucher ect. the implication is there whether you said it , or not. Maybe YOU should take the time to respectfully ask, rather than assume the worst.....just maybe. :tup: It would really suck to be on the other side having people assume your crime.....rather than being asked outright. A guy that kicks the crap out of another man for sleeping with his woman, like stated above, and when you think "felon" what would be running through your mind I wonder??? Would it be fair? Seems like we have a couple of felons here that were willing to tell their deeds, and they at face value do have the ability to be reasonable citzens to me, from what I read. There was no need for them to reveal their history here. :)
I am extra sensitive about what I feel is fair, and just....not just this thread. :rolleyes:
Bowbuild
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2013, 06:58:48 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 07, 2013, 09:44:26 PM
To me, it's no big deal, and I don't think these people should be prohibited possessors. That's just one example of why the felon brand does not mean so much to me, unless the circumstances are violent, repetitive, sexually predatory in nature, or otherwise infamous.
Post by: csaaphill on October 07, 2013, 10:58:43 PM
ok here is a scenerio that actually happened, short version, my buddy came home to his wife mounted up on some other fella, other fella got beat down marine style, cops came cheating wife told the cops that he held dude at gun point which never happened, they were still locked safely away in his gun safe, he didnt need a gun on this degen, anyways he loses his rights to bare arms :dunno: does he deserve them back? damn right he does!!!! he is a more stand up person than 95 % of the people i meet.... i think it should only come down to the actual crime itself, with the way are sorry arse justice system works there are plenty of guy and gals that have their rights lost that never truly deserved to lose them in the first place........ :tup:eventually yes by all means sounds like second degree assault and after ten years they can!
his case may be a bit less if it's just simple assault, or you stated his wife lied and said he used a gun then would be first degree assault then no he wouldnt' but he should be able to since his was more a crim of passion over robbing a bank or rape or something!
Post by: returnofsid on October 08, 2013, 06:30:44 AM
Post by: jackmaster on October 08, 2013, 06:45:20 AM
it flat doesnt matter, he didnt deserve to lose his rights,period. he lost them because his cheating wife lied, he is an honorable veteran, he tried telling the cops that his wife was lying, its nice to see that most on here beleive you should only lose them do to the severity of the crime, thats my belief as well. a real criminal wouldnt care if he ever got his gun rights back or not. if someone is truly fighting to get there rights restored, which from whatt i have heard and seen it takes alot of time and money, so if i was betting man, i would have to say that their crime was either B.S or not that big of deal in the first place :twocents: :tup:ok here is a scenerio that actually happened, short version, my buddy came home to his wife mounted up on some other fella, other fella got beat down marine style, cops came cheating wife told the cops that he held dude at gun point which never happened, they were still locked safely away in his gun safe, he didnt need a gun on this degen, anyways he loses his rights to bare arms :dunno: does he deserve them back? damn right he does!!!! he is a more stand up person than 95 % of the people i meet.... i think it should only come down to the actual crime itself, with the way are sorry arse justice system works there are plenty of guy and gals that have their rights lost that never truly deserved to lose them in the first place........ :tup:eventually yes by all means sounds like second degree assault and after ten years they can!
his case may be a bit less if it's just simple assault, or you stated his wife lied and said he used a gun then would be first degree assault then no he wouldnt' but he should be able to since his was more a crim of passion over robbing a bank or rape or something!
Post by: jackmaster on October 08, 2013, 06:47:50 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 08, 2013, 06:59:22 AM
Just to throw some more fuel on the fire: Even though pot is legal in WA, you are prohibited possessor as per federal law if you are a regular user or have a med MJ card, and thus, a felon in waiting, if the circumstances should arise.
To me, it's no big deal, and I don't think these people should be prohibited possessors. That's just one example of why the felon brand does not mean so much to me, unless the circumstances are violent, repetitive, sexually predatory in nature, or otherwise infamous.
As are drunks and those prescribed a whole slew of medications under Doctors orders, including sleep aids, anti-depressants and ADHD meds.
Quote
e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
ATF Form 4473
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 08, 2013, 07:02:27 AM
it flat doesnt matter, he didnt deserve to lose his rights,period. he lost them because his cheating wife lied
Good point. The issue in that case is not an unfair law, it is an unfair prosecution for a crime (felony assault 2 or 3) which did not happen.
Post by: haugenna on October 08, 2013, 07:35:18 AM
Just curious.....How many here believe that once a convict has served his time, deserves his gun rights restored?? I personally believe that as long as a firearm was NOT used in any way, there is NO reason not to fully have your rights restored.....On the other hand what's the point of "right to bear arms" when it turns out to be a privledge? :bash:
Bowbuild
I vote NO as well. If you are stupid enough to commit a felony once, chances are it will happen again. Not always but quite possible. The system is full of reoffenders. I don't want my rights as a law abiding citizen jeopardized by a felon who has trouble making smart decisions. The political garbage around guns is so hot right now. The last thing we need as gun owners is start putting them in the hands of felons.
Post by: returnofsid on October 08, 2013, 07:59:19 AM
Just curious.....How many here believe that once a convict has served his time, deserves his gun rights restored?? I personally believe that as long as a firearm was NOT used in any way, there is NO reason not to fully have your rights restored.....On the other hand what's the point of "right to bear arms" when it turns out to be a privledge? :bash:
Bowbuild
I vote NO as well. If you are stupid enough to commit a felony once, chances are it will happen again. Not always but quite possible. The system is full of reoffenders. I don't want my rights as a law abiding citizen jeopardized by a felon who has trouble making smart decisions. The political garbage around guns is so hot right now. The last thing we need as gun owners is start putting them in the hands of felons.
Maybe you should take the time to read the entire thread before making such a blanket statement...
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 08, 2013, 08:06:09 AM
Just curious.....How many here believe that once a convict has served his time, deserves his gun rights restored?? I personally believe that as long as a firearm was NOT used in any way, there is NO reason not to fully have your rights restored.....On the other hand what's the point of "right to bear arms" when it turns out to be a privledge? :bash:
Bowbuild
I vote NO as well. If you are stupid enough to commit a felony once, chances are it will happen again. Not always but quite possible. The system is full of reoffenders. I don't want my rights as a law abiding citizen jeopardized by a felon who has trouble making smart decisions. The political garbage around guns is so hot right now. The last thing we need as gun owners is start putting them in the hands of felons.
Maybe you should take the time to read the entire thread before making such a blanket statement...
It doesn't seem to matter to the OP whether you make a blanket statement or not.
Post by: Mike450r on October 08, 2013, 08:35:56 AM
Here's a "for instance," to think about...
An 18 year old shoplifts an amount of items equaling $250.00 or more. In Washington, this can be charged as a felony. The kid serves his sentence, does his probation, pays his restitution and pays all of his court fees and fines. This kid will live the rest of his live with a felony on his record, unable to vote (unless he petitions to regain his right to vote) and unable to ever own a weapon. In fact, 20 years down the road, if he marries someone who owns a weapon, it has the possibility of putting him at odds with the law, even if he never touches that weapon.
I'll admit that I'm in this category, though I wasn't 18. From the age of 13-30, I was a very avid and responsible, gun owner, hunter and eventually a father. I taught my children to safely handle guns and hunt At the age of 30, I made a very stupid decision, a decision that amounted to approximately $275.00. I was charged with Felony theft. Because I am a responsible father, when offered a plea deal, I refused, choosing to accept full responsibility for my actions. In fact, I could have had all of the charges dropped, due to tainted evidence. I also refused to take this option. I felt that I needed to set the proper example for my children. "Getting off on a crime" because of a technicality, wouldn't have set the proper example, in my opinion. So, I am now a felon. I'm now 45 and have never re-commited. However, I'll always be a felon.
In the research I've done, I've found that there are two options for regaining my gun rights.
1. Petition the court to have my gun rights restored.
This option very rarely results in success, from what I've been able to discover. Very few convicted felons have ever been successful and those that have were previously law enforcement or judges.
2. Petition the court to have my felony expunged. Once a felon has served out their sentence, and met all financial responsibilities and terms of release, it is possible to have the felony expunged, under certain circumstances. (Non violent, non drug or gun related, etc) However, this option usually requires an attorney and an average of about $10,000.00. If successful, this option results in a felon becoming a non-felon, as if it never happened.
So, now I archery hunt. I will always regret the decision I made, however, I'll always take responsibility for it.
Someone may have responded to this already, I am referring to you thinking reinstatement of rights rarely happens. you are very very wrong, it happens all the time. It will cost you as an attorney is the best person to file everything and represent you correctly but with non violent felonies they get it done more often than not.
If felony theft is the only thing precluding you from possession I would think you have a 90+ percent chance of getting your rights back.
Post by: returnofsid on October 08, 2013, 08:48:14 AM
Here's a "for instance," to think about...
An 18 year old shoplifts an amount of items equaling $250.00 or more. In Washington, this can be charged as a felony. The kid serves his sentence, does his probation, pays his restitution and pays all of his court fees and fines. This kid will live the rest of his live with a felony on his record, unable to vote (unless he petitions to regain his right to vote) and unable to ever own a weapon. In fact, 20 years down the road, if he marries someone who owns a weapon, it has the possibility of putting him at odds with the law, even if he never touches that weapon.
I'll admit that I'm in this category, though I wasn't 18. From the age of 13-30, I was a very avid and responsible, gun owner, hunter and eventually a father. I taught my children to safely handle guns and hunt At the age of 30, I made a very stupid decision, a decision that amounted to approximately $275.00. I was charged with Felony theft. Because I am a responsible father, when offered a plea deal, I refused, choosing to accept full responsibility for my actions. In fact, I could have had all of the charges dropped, due to tainted evidence. I also refused to take this option. I felt that I needed to set the proper example for my children. "Getting off on a crime" because of a technicality, wouldn't have set the proper example, in my opinion. So, I am now a felon. I'm now 45 and have never re-commited. However, I'll always be a felon.
In the research I've done, I've found that there are two options for regaining my gun rights.
1. Petition the court to have my gun rights restored.
This option very rarely results in success, from what I've been able to discover. Very few convicted felons have ever been successful and those that have were previously law enforcement or judges.
2. Petition the court to have my felony expunged. Once a felon has served out their sentence, and met all financial responsibilities and terms of release, it is possible to have the felony expunged, under certain circumstances. (Non violent, non drug or gun related, etc) However, this option usually requires an attorney and an average of about $10,000.00. If successful, this option results in a felon becoming a non-felon, as if it never happened.
So, now I archery hunt. I will always regret the decision I made, however, I'll always take responsibility for it.
Someone may have responded to this already, I am referring to you thinking reinstatement of rights rarely happens. you are very very wrong, it happens all the time. It will cost you as an attorney is the best person to file everything and represent you correctly but with non violent felonies they get it done more often than not.
If felony theft is the only thing precluding you from possession I would think you have a 90+ percent chance of getting your rights back.
Since my original post I've received information verifying that's it's more likely than I'd originally led to believe. Eventually I'll make the attempt!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 08, 2013, 09:14:46 AM
Post by: bowbuild on October 08, 2013, 09:21:31 AM
And you missed the whole part about that most of us said this was a case by case situation. You've got a real chip on your shoulder.
The point of the thread was to try to make people think, before they have a knee jerk reaction to hearing felon.......if that's a "chip" on my shoulder I wear it with honor.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with anything I am currently dealing with.....other than the woman I described and her husband. I think this thread has wore itself out, moving on.... :tup:
Bowbuild
Post by: Dan-o on October 08, 2013, 09:41:53 AM
the example above (shoplifting as an 18 year old) is a good example of someone who doesn't necessarily need to forfeit their rights.
having said that, I no longer have any faith in judges to make sound case by case decisions, so...... IDK.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 08, 2013, 04:18:28 PM
......you scared of a pocket knife carrying felon?Yes. His name is O.J. Simpson
Post by: Scvette on October 08, 2013, 04:19:53 PM
There is no "after 10 years" in Washington.
Your right it's not 10 yrs,it's 5 yrs. as long as it was non-violent and not against a person. That and you only have one felony conviction.
Post by: returnofsid on October 08, 2013, 05:12:49 PM
There is no "after 10 years" in Washington.
Your right it's not 10 yrs,it's 5 yrs. as long as it was non-violent and not against a person. That and you only have one felony conviction.
It's also far from automatic.
Post by: Scvette on October 08, 2013, 05:48:51 PM
There is no "after 10 years" in Washington.
Your right it's not 10 yrs,it's 5 yrs. as long as it was non-violent and not against a person. That and you only have one felony conviction.
It's also far from automatic.
Not that far. 1800 bucks with an attorney and about a month. Less than $500 if a person did it on their own.
Post by: csaaphill on October 10, 2013, 11:10:26 PM
There is no "after 10 years" in Washington.ya there is do your research most certainly if I get what you mean.
if your saying no one has to wait 10 years to get their rights back your wrong!
If your talking dv cases or lesser non violent charges then your right it is 3-5 years, but for say second degree assault or some other felon that is only sentenceable to less than one year then no you have to wait at least ten years.
That is if they havent' changed it. If they have then who knows.
Post by: csaaphill on October 10, 2013, 11:38:13 PM
In Alaska,after 10 yrs if you have no other convictions,your rights are fully restored,for non violent felonies,a person could also get a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and your rights are restored after probation. In Washington,if you stay out of trouble for 5 yrs you can go to the court and get your gun rights back,again as long as it's not a crime against a person,once they are restored by the court they are sent to WSP and they send the restoration into NICS and you can legally own and purchase firearms.:yeah:
exactly
Post by: Scvette on October 11, 2013, 06:17:34 AM
There is no "after 10 years" in Washington.ya there is do your research most certainly if I get what you mean.
if your saying no one has to wait 10 years to get their rights back your wrong!
If your talking dv cases or lesser non violent charges then your right it is 3-5 years, but for say second degree assault or some other felon that is only sentenceable to less than one year then no you have to wait at least ten years.
That is if they havent' changed it. If they have then who knows.
This is from a lawyers web site
Restoration requires a period of crime-free time since conviction or release from custody on the underlying conviction. For eligible felonies, the law requires five years without any criminal offenses. For misdemeanors like Assault in the Fourth Degree (Domestic Violence) the period is three years.
Someone with a class A felony cannot get their rights back( murderers,rapist)
8)
Post by: returnofsid on October 11, 2013, 06:40:26 AM
Post by: Hermit on October 11, 2013, 11:01:21 PM
Post by: csaaphill on October 11, 2013, 11:20:51 PM
ya that's true, someone with a felon that was punishable for up to more than a year can never get their gun rights back. Rapist class a felon like you stated. others can though class b felons assault second degree or lesser crimes can and takes up to ten years.There is no "after 10 years" in Washington.ya there is do your research most certainly if I get what you mean.
if your saying no one has to wait 10 years to get their rights back your wrong!
If your talking dv cases or lesser non violent charges then your right it is 3-5 years, but for say second degree assault or some other felon that is only sentenceable to less than one year then no you have to wait at least ten years.
That is if they havent' changed it. If they have then who knows.
This is from a lawyers web site
Restoration requires a period of crime-free time since conviction or release from custody on the underlying conviction. For eligible felonies, the law requires five years without any criminal offenses. For misdemeanors like Assault in the Fourth Degree (Domestic Violence) the period is three years.
Someone with a class A felony cannot get their rights back( murderers,rapist)
8)
Post by: csaaphill on October 11, 2013, 11:27:00 PM
What I meant was, in some states, like Alaska, there's an automatic statute that includes 10 years, where rights are restored, pretty much without any process. In Washington, no such statute exists. A process has to be gone through, petitioning the courts to restore one's rights, that isn't automatically successful.ah ok then ya thats cool. I think were going to cut our own throats keeping the laws as they are. One day people will not be able to own or use because they have some kind of lame conviction on there record, and then the ones who defend it this way will be like WTF. I'll/we that have faught against this sort of thing will just smile and say we told you so! :hello:
Post by: Scvette on October 12, 2013, 01:01:51 AM
If it was a violent felony then no way
Post by: MessMaker on November 08, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
Post by: csaaphill on November 09, 2013, 11:36:14 PM
we wont have much of a right soon!