Jump to content


Photo

Restoration of 2A Rights Possible After Past Felony Conviction?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
97 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,447 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 27 August 2011 - 04:37 PM

The question was posed in another thread of how someone convicted of a felony might have their Second Amendment right restored.
This answer is from the BATFE website:


Q: I want information on relief of federal firearm disability? (I am a felon but want to own a firearm, how do I get my privilege restored?)

Persons convicted of a state offense may contact the office of the attorney general in the state where their conviction occurred, or the state’s Department of Justice, for information concerning restoration alternatives that may be available. (For example, the state may have a procedure for a gubernatorial pardon, a set-aside or expunction of the conviction, or a restoration of firearm rights.)

Persons convicted of a federal offense may elect to apply for a presidential pardon. Information on applying for a presidential pardon may be obtained at:
U.S. Department of Justice
The Pardon Attorney’s Office
1425 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 11000
Washington, DC 20530 USA
Voice (202) 616-6070


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,026 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 27 August 2011 - 05:04 PM

Seems to me the possibility of someone getting their 2A rights restored for a state offense from Lisa Madigan are very slim to more likely none. Of course this is just judging by her opposition to us non-felons having our full second amendment rights.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#3 lieut89

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 27 August 2011 - 06:37 PM

I would be willing to venture that my friend would have little problem in getting our current POTUS to grant a pardon to restore his 2A rights. :unsure: heck freezing over.

#4 F12Mahon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 10

Posted 27 August 2011 - 11:51 PM

In the 96th General Assembly SB 3421 was passed and became act 096-1368. This act allowed for the restoration of the right to a FOID card by petitioning the Dept of State Police.

Here is a link to the bill. http://ilga.gov/legi...p?Name=096-1368

Relevant portion.
(f) Any person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(4) and 922 (g)(4) of the federal Gun
Control Act of 1968 may apply to the Department of State Police requesting relief from such prohibition and the Director shall grant such relief if it is established to the Director's satisfaction that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

Section © may also be relevant in some situations.

Eugene

#5 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,746 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:26 PM

you can actually petition the State Police or go to Court as Section 10 of the FOID card Act allows. We re-wrote that several years ago to clean it up and ATF and some others are very upset with it.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#6 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,372 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 29 August 2011 - 12:02 AM

you can actually petition the State Police or go to Court as Section 10 of the FOID card Act allows. We re-wrote that several years ago to clean it up and ATF and some others are very upset with it.


Good for you. There are plenty of people that made mistakes in their youth and live good lives later. Nothing concerning a Constitutional right should be prohibited forever. Actually, I don't know why it is prohibited after all time, parole, and probation is discharged. One would think you could pay your dues and start clean. Once upon a time maybe.
Kurt on G+

#7 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 29 August 2011 - 06:15 AM

It is dubious as to the legality of anything other than an expungement that does not exist in IL for most cases, or a pardon that would allow gun rights to be restored after a felony conviction.

To me it seems unreasonable that there is no real option between pretending the crime never happened (expungement) and forgiveness that is rare (pardon) for restoring rights.

Maybe the answer lies in getting pardons handed out on a more regular basis, but in this state you can bet that would result mostly in them being sold.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#8 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,746 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 29 August 2011 - 07:20 AM

It is dubious as to the legality of anything other than an expungement that does not exist in IL for most cases, or a pardon that would allow gun rights to be restored after a felony conviction.

To me it seems unreasonable that there is no real option between pretending the crime never happened (expungement) and forgiveness that is rare (pardon) for restoring rights.

Maybe the answer lies in getting pardons handed out on a more regular basis, but in this state you can bet that would result mostly in them being sold.




Bob --your wrong.

Under ATF's guidlines, as explained to me by NRA leg. Counsel, if the right to vote and the right to hold office is restored, then ATF considers any restoration complete.

Parts of that are a bit fuzzy, as in Illinois you can vote once sentence is completed. The right to hold office varies a bit. But Illinois restoration process has been fought by the State Police at times and they lost in the Appellate Court in the 3rd Dist.

Additionally, Skoien talks about the fact he never applied for or sought relief. Implying that a relief process had he taken advantage of it, would have gotten him out of the charge at hand.

If Illinois relief process wasn't valid, the courts would have said so. But they haven't. And ATF has been very cautious about wading into this, even with people whom most of us may not want to defend. But it does work, and the State Police recognize it, and ATF grudgingly acknowledge it.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#9 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 08:05 AM

I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.

#10 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,269 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 08:56 AM

I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.


So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#11 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:20 AM


I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.


So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?



IMO Yes! Being a crook and sneeking in and stealing is one thing, but being boldfaced with a gun and FORCING someone to give you their posessions is IMO just as deplorable as rape. They are litterally raping you of your posessions. There is no good reason for anyone of sound mind to rob someone at gun point.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#12 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,269 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:37 AM



I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.


So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?



IMO Yes! Being a crook and sneeking in and stealing is one thing, but being boldfaced with a gun and FORCING someone to give you their posessions is IMO just as deplorable as rape. They are litterally raping you of your posessions. There is no good reason for anyone of sound mind to rob someone at gun point.


So there is no such thing as rehabilitation? forgiveness?

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#13 202s

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 10

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:51 AM

Just my 2 cents, forgiveness does not release you from the consequences of your actions. If you rob someone at gun point I don't have a problem with you loosing your gun rights.
ITWTC #2

#14 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:58 AM


I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.


So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?

Absolutely! I don't care if it was 100 years ago. Think about it another way - Just because a pediphile did his time, should he be able to babysit EVER?

#15 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,269 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 11:50 AM



I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.


So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?

Absolutely! I don't care if it was 100 years ago. Think about it another way - Just because a pediphile did his time, should he be able to babysit EVER?


Apples and Oranges, I don't recognize a pedophile's right to life, period. There is no rehabilitation for such offenders who, like rapists, have an extremely high recidivision rate. You can't cure someone's sexual preference.

However, other criminals can be rehabilitated. I'm not so sanguine about saying they have no right to life.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#16 stm

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 11:53 AM



I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.


So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?



IMO Yes! Being a crook and sneeking in and stealing is one thing, but being boldfaced with a gun and FORCING someone to give you their posessions is IMO just as deplorable as rape. They are litterally raping you of your posessions. There is no good reason for anyone of sound mind to rob someone at gun point.

If I am not mistaken, burglary, armed robbery and rape are all forcible felonies in Illinois, and a law-abiding citizen would be justified in using deadly force against the assailant. If RTC were recognized in this state, our hypothetical criminal may not be around to have his rights restored.

In any case, violent felons should not have their 2A rights restored, IMHO. If they want to defend themselves, they have other means.

[sarasm]

Perhaps a tongue depressor?

[/sarcasm]

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#17 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,173 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 12:12 PM

If I am not mistaken, burglary, armed robbery and rape are all forcible felonies in Illinois, and a law-abiding citizen would be justified in using deadly force against the assailant. If RTC were recognized in this state, our hypothetical criminal may not be around to have his rights restored.
[/sarcasm]


If it's a burglary, Illinois State law states "Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry." Therefore, if it happens on your own premisis, it doesn't matter if the felony is violent or not, as long as you "believe the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry."
NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH
ISP Certified Firearm Concealed Carry License Instructor

#18 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 01:45 PM

[quote name='Federal Farmer' date='29 August 2011 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1314640244' post='288768']
[quote name='mrmagloo' date='29 August 2011 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1314633505' post='288738']
[quote name='Federal Farmer' date='29 August 2011 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1314629774' post='288718']
[quote name='mrmagloo' date='29 August 2011 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1314626745' post='288714']
I'm going to stick my neck out there to say, I don't in principle have a problem with restoration of rights in situations where it was a Non-Violent crime ONLY. I'm not sure of the situation in this specific case that brought the original post, but especially if the crime included a firearm, that should be a show stopper, perminently. My .02 fwiw.
[/quote]

So commit an armed robber 20 years ago and still you have no right to life?
[/quote]
Absolutely! I don't care if it was 100 years ago. Think about it another way - Just because a pediphile did his time, should he be able to babysit EVER?
[/quote]

Apples and Oranges, I don't recognize a pedophile's right to life, period. There is no rehabilitation for such offenders who, like rapists, have an extremely high recidivision rate. You can't cure someone's sexual preference.

However, other criminals can be rehabilitated. I'm not so sanguine about saying they have no right to life.
[/quote]

You've entered a very gray area my friend. While I share your dislike for rapists, and especially pedophiles, they are felon's just like armed robbers. I don't think case law allows for likeliness for rehabilitation in distinguishing what felonies warrant more leniency. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far as to guess that UNARMED sex offenders probably end up with lighter sentences than ARMED robbers, and other offenders, so that comparison is lopsided.

Personally I wish for the immediate death penalty for any perverted crime involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and heineous sexual crimes against women. However, the fact remains a felony is a felony, and in this discussion, I remain of the opinion that only Non-Violent Felons should be elegible for restoration of rights after say 10 years or something significant enough to proven they have learned their lesson AND are walking the straight and narrow. By non-violent, I'm saying white collar crime that incurs a sentence of less than 5 years. (Sentenced not served)

Again, just my humble opinion.

#19 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 02:10 PM

i agree with the violent/ nonviolent crimes. That is why I mentioned a burglary as apposed to a robery, the only difference is if you get caugt in the act and decide to continue. As a burglar if caught will flee, a burglar caught that ops to stay and force the burglary just became a robber. There is a very distinct difference in the mental capacity required to perform both as well. For example if someone lost their job and was starving to death and had starving babies at home I could sympathise with trying to break into a grocery store after hrs in order to get their family some food, I could not however phathom forcibly stealing someone's wallet on the street at gun point to go buy food.



It's is literally the same difference as an 18 yr old who gets arested for rape when caught having consentual sex with his 17 yr old girlfriend and someone who forces himself on top of a woman and makes her have sex with him. Just like burglary/robbery the illegial act is stealing the illegial act in the latter case is sex. only one is performed by a horny teanager and the other a pervert. Although both illegial, there is a deffant difference in the mental intent.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#20 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,372 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 29 August 2011 - 02:25 PM

A lot of crimes that used to be misdemeanors are now felonies now. Drug "crimes" in particular. I can see the point of not letting some one who committed armed robbery have a gun, but what about all those victimless crimes, or "crimes" that make no sense on why they are even illegal in the first place.

Example: Some one calls a person in Michigan and blocks their caller ID. That is a Class 3 felony in Michigan. Does anyone here believe they should lose their 2A rights for life because of this? Really?
Kurt on G+

#21 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 29 August 2011 - 04:29 PM


It is dubious as to the legality of anything other than an expungement that does not exist in IL for most cases, or a pardon that would allow gun rights to be restored after a felony conviction.

To me it seems unreasonable that there is no real option between pretending the crime never happened (expungement) and forgiveness that is rare (pardon) for restoring rights.

Maybe the answer lies in getting pardons handed out on a more regular basis, but in this state you can bet that would result mostly in them being sold.




Bob --your wrong.

Under ATF's guidlines, as explained to me by NRA leg. Counsel, if the right to vote and the right to hold office is restored, then ATF considers any restoration complete.

Parts of that are a bit fuzzy, as in Illinois you can vote once sentence is completed. The right to hold office varies a bit. But Illinois restoration process has been fought by the State Police at times and they lost in the Appellate Court in the 3rd Dist.

Additionally, Skoien talks about the fact he never applied for or sought relief. Implying that a relief process had he taken advantage of it, would have gotten him out of the charge at hand.

If Illinois relief process wasn't valid, the courts would have said so. But they haven't. And ATF has been very cautious about wading into this, even with people whom most of us may not want to defend. But it does work, and the State Police recognize it, and ATF grudgingly acknowledge it.



I said it was dubious. I just didn't know and I suspect no one could really be sure until the courts weigh in. The whole situation seems pretty murky to me. Consider what happened in WY a few years ago when they came up with the idea of expunging felonies but not the records of the felonies as a means of restoring rights. The ATF did not buy into that. I am not even real sure what ended up happening there.

Has the restoration of rights via this ISP review process ever resulted in someone actually regaining his/her rights and subsequently purchasing a firearm?

This is an agency that has almost routinely ignored judicial expungement orders it consdiered invalid.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#22 bhannah

    Member

  • Banned
  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 05:39 PM

I can not beleive what I see ...

Just my 2 cents, forgiveness does not release you from the consicounis of your actions. If youe rob someone at gun point I don't have a problem with you loosing your gun rights.


For one thing after you have done your time you are an x-felon..like and x-wife, sure it haunts you but it isn't yours anymore.
Why don't you loose your 1,3,4,5 etc?

In my eyes for anyone to come on here and say they get to choose who gets a gun is doing exactly the same thing this state is doing to us..

You don't think someone should have a gun so it's wrong...

That is why we are were we are today, people have no problem with giving away rights.. well other peoples rights that is..
illinoisgunrights.org


God and the Soldier, all men adore,
In time of danger and not before.
When the danger is passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten, and the Soldier slighted.


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."
Alan Ladd, in the movie Shane (1953).

Freedom is something that dies unless it's used"
Hunter S. Thompson

We have the best government money can buy...

#23 202s

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 10

Posted 29 August 2011 - 07:24 PM

bhannah, sorry if I struck a nerve. However I really have no sympathy for the felon who feels "haunted" by what they did. What I do have sympathy for is the victim who has to learn to forgive someone who harmed their family or themselves each day so that they can get through each day and rebuild their lives. I personally am sick of violent criminals being given a second chance to do it again. Committing a crime while using a gun is definitely violent. The consequences of this action is you have given away/forfeited, not had them taken away or had them given away by someone else. The RTC is all about being able to defend your family and yourself in this situation. The criminal is lucky to be alive. What the state is doing to everyone is entirely different, they have taken away the RTC because you might commit a crime, the violent felon who used a gun during a crime, has committed a crime.
ITWTC #2

#24 bhannah

    Member

  • Banned
  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 08:21 PM

bhannah, sorry if I struck a nerve. However I really have no sympathy for the felon who feels "haunted" by what they did. What I do have sympathy for is the victim who has to learn to forgive someone who harmed their family or themselves each day so that they can get through each day and rebuild their lives. I personally am sick of violent criminals being given a second chance to do it again. Committing a crime while using a gun is definitely violent. The consequences of this action is you have given away/forfeited, not had them taken away or had them given away by someone else. The RTC is all about being able to defend your family and yourself in this situation. The criminal is lucky to be alive. What the state is doing to everyone is entirely different, they have taken away the RTC because you might commit a crime, the violent felon who used a gun during a crime, has committed a crime.


I personally am sick of violent criminals being given a second chance to do it again

No argument there, how about not letting them out in 6-8 months on a 15 year sentance?

The RTC is all about being able to defend your family and yourself in this situation. The criminal is lucky to be alive.


Agree with that, but the difference is I believe all have the right.

Why is sticking up a place with a gun any different than a bat?
If the guy bashes in someone’s head with a bat does he loose his bat privileges, how about all these Face book posts that "make" the kids kill themselves, should the poster loose his right to free speech?
Knives?
Cars?
The list goes on and on.
No I do not feel sorry for them, not one bit. They did commit a crime, they did their time "paid their debt"
Make the sentence stick,20 years is 20 years..no early release.

I hope you realize the list of felonies is getting longer and longer, you would be surprised what a felony is these days.

Sorry man in my book rights denied is rights denied...

If a felon wants a gun to commit another crime, he sure isn't going to get a FOID, fill out a 4473, have his name called into NIC's and wait 24-72 hours.

No nerve struck, it just bothers me that some come on here and say I support the 2nd, and they do not.
They support what they think the 2nd says, show me where it says in the 2nd a felon cannot own a gun.

the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Either you agree or you don't.
It is that simple...
illinoisgunrights.org


God and the Soldier, all men adore,
In time of danger and not before.
When the danger is passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten, and the Soldier slighted.


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."
Alan Ladd, in the movie Shane (1953).

Freedom is something that dies unless it's used"
Hunter S. Thompson

We have the best government money can buy...

#25 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,447 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 29 August 2011 - 08:42 PM

it just bothers me that some come on here and say I support the 2nd, and they do not.
They support what they think the 2nd says, show me where it says in the 2nd a felon cannot own a gun.

the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Either you agree or you don't.
It is that simple...

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled certain individuals can be prohibited from possessing/carrying
firearms. The rest of your comment is personal opinion. It may be that simple to you but you cannot say
because someones does not agree with you that they do not support the 2nd. Amendment.
It's that simple. . .
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#26 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:04 PM

the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Either you agree or you don't.

It is that simple...


Sorry, it isn't that simple, and civilized, and intelligent folks should be able to distinguish beyond black and white. Just because one individual ABUSES his 2nd ammendment rights, doesn't mean he didn't have the opportunity to exercise those rights appropriately prior to the violent feloneous incident. The Violent Felon F'd up and he looses, period. Just another deterent if you want to look at it that way.

I think the problem is, we have a severe problem in society today where we accept inappropriate behavior, make excuses for the perpetrator, and most get slapped on the wrist, time after time, after time. We've created a culture where bad guys are taught that does crime pay, and it is definitely worth the risk. There should NEVER be ANYBODY classifed as a career criminal or we even know what the term rap sheet means. Once someone is deemed a threat to society, that individual should be done, period. How can we possibly tolerate people who have been arrested 50 or more times? At what point is enough enough?

If prosecuting attorney's and especially judges ensured appropriate sentences - and the bad guys were forced to serve them 100%, perhaps this entire discussion would be a non-issue. I mean if a red-handed child molester (torturer) was promptly executed, we sure wouldn't be wasting time worrying whether his 2nd ammendment rights are being violated, right? If someone proves to be a dangerous predator, that should be a permanent deal breaker.

Yep, I'm all about personal responsibility and this patty-cake justice system is exactly why we're all riled up about RTC.

#27 bhannah

    Member

  • Banned
  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:10 PM


it just bothers me that some come on here and say I support the 2nd, and they do not.
They support what they think the 2nd says, show me where it says in the 2nd a felon cannot own a gun.

the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Either you agree or you don't.
It is that simple...

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled certain individuals can be prohibited from possessing/carrying
firearms. The rest of your comment is personal opinion. It may be that simple to you but you cannot say
because someones does not agree with you that they do not support the 2nd. Amendment.
It's that simple. . .



No molly,
I stand by my statement.
The 2nd says nothing about a felon owning a gun. It says shall not be infringed.
Saying that someone cannot own one is in fact not agreeing with the 2nd, that would be agreeing with the other ruling.

It is only as complicated as one chooses to make it, by adding in this other ruling you have changed the context of my post.
And this still does not change the fact, the simple fact that nothing in the 2nd says anything about felons owning firearms.
Until they change the wording in the 2nd, we must stop assuming something is written into it and all laws passed that attempt to change the context of the 2nd are unconstitutional.
That's how we got to where we are now, slowly accepting that little things one by one will make no difference, well they add up and leave us asking what happened.
We need to stop, now.
We need to take it as written.
If the Court said women could not vote in national elections would you accept that as not being in violation of the 19th?
You can still vote in the local elections so your right is not violated.
illinoisgunrights.org


God and the Soldier, all men adore,
In time of danger and not before.
When the danger is passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten, and the Soldier slighted.


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."
Alan Ladd, in the movie Shane (1953).

Freedom is something that dies unless it's used"
Hunter S. Thompson

We have the best government money can buy...

#28 Chiburbian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:12 PM

Well, my opinion is that if it is safe for society for you to be released it should be safe for society for you to have your full rights under the constitution. If you are released before it is safe for society, then in my opinion it is a failure of sentencing and rehabilitation (in cases where rehab is applicable).

Here is an interesting talk on criminal justice and the brain:


http://reason.tv/vid.../eagleman-panel


Lots more at:
www.neulaw.org
Formerly known as 'Cogz'

#29 bhannah

    Member

  • Banned
  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:27 PM

Sorry, it isn't that simple, and civilized, and intelligent folks should be able to distinguish beyond black and white. Just because one individual ABUSES his 2nd ammendment rights, doesn't mean he didn't have the opportunity to exercise those rights appropriately prior to the violent feloneous incident. The Violent Felon F'd up and he looses, period. Just another deterent if you want to look at it that way.


So seeing as I am uncivilized and unintelligent.( I think there may be a rule about personal attacks,but it may only apply to certian people)
please explain why this same guy when he gets out gets his other rights back...
What happens if you commit voter fraud?
You still get to vote in the next election...
illinoisgunrights.org


God and the Soldier, all men adore,
In time of danger and not before.
When the danger is passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten, and the Soldier slighted.


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."
Alan Ladd, in the movie Shane (1953).

Freedom is something that dies unless it's used"
Hunter S. Thompson

We have the best government money can buy...

#30 bhannah

    Member

  • Banned
  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 07

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:46 PM

Thinking about this more I am in fact the only one who has not expressed an opinion.

The 2nd as written states "shall not be infringed" fact not opinion.

If you do not agree with it you do not support the 2nd. Again fact not opinion. Explain to me how you can argue that.

It is in black and white. Fact not opinion.
If you don't agree with that and think you can read into the 2nd, that is opinion.

Lets stick to the facts.

No one wants dangerous people doing bad things with anything, be it a knife, bat, stick or gun.
But it does not change the fact that the 2nd says nothing about it.

Saying it does is pure opinion...
illinoisgunrights.org


God and the Soldier, all men adore,
In time of danger and not before.
When the danger is passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten, and the Soldier slighted.


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."
Alan Ladd, in the movie Shane (1953).

Freedom is something that dies unless it's used"
Hunter S. Thompson

We have the best government money can buy...