|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 15, 2007 16:13:53 GMT -5
What do you think about this ?
Probe of felons with hunting licenses leads to 19 arrests (Minnesota)
Agencies join to fight illegal gun possession
In a new initiative with the Department of Natural Resources, state probation agents have arrested 19 felons who purchased hunting licenses this fall for possible firearms violations, officials said Thursday.
Dozens of felons bought gun deer hunting licenses last year despite laws banning them from possessing firearms. Convicted felons are not asked to disclose their criminal history when seeking a hunting license, and the state has no tracking methods. Rep. Terry Musser (R-Black River Falls) said he will draft legislation requiring criminal background checks on firearm hunting license applicants.
Beginning Nov. 12, state probation agents made home visits to 62 felons on probation or parole to check whether they were in possession of firearms. So far, 19 of the felons targeted in the initial sweep were taken into custody and investigated either for firearm possession or unrelated rule violations, said Department of Corrections spokesman John Dipko.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 15, 2007 16:49:03 GMT -5
On the one hand, they are not supposed to have guns, but it feels kind of "big brother" to me. How long before they cross-reference for parking tickets or tax bills or Lord knows what else?
|
|
|
Post by MIG on Dec 15, 2007 16:52:23 GMT -5
Sounds like good police work to me. A similar thing was done here a few years ago and was met with similar results, actually there were several more arrests than Minnesota.
|
|
|
Post by ActionPoint on Dec 15, 2007 17:35:08 GMT -5
The last I knew a felon could still hunt with a muzzleloader during firearms season (in Indiana). This type of "investigating" may yield a few arrests but it seems like a very sketchy tactic when a felon can legally purchase a license and hunt during firearms season.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 15, 2007 18:15:04 GMT -5
Sounds like good police work to me. A similar thing was done here a few years ago and was met with similar results, actually there were several more arrests than Minnesota. And this is EXACTLY my problem with HR2460. A quick check of CCW/Hunting permits correlated to the NICS database = a list of homes to search for "illegal possession/violation of storage requirements". BY US LAW it is ILLEGAL for me to keep a SINGLE ROUND OF AMMUNITION "unsecured". BY US LAW it is ILLEGAL for me to keep my CCW sidearm next to my bed while I sleep. Why? Because of the Rule of "constructive possession" - wich says that, since my wife is a "prohibited person" any firearm/bullet that is not strapped to my body or in a safe is "in her possession" and in violation of 1968 GCA. All because my wife was "committed" when she was a teenager. So when pepole tell me that "that type of use of databases won't happen" all I have to do is show them how it HAS - and how I/we, honest people, could get screwed by it.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Dec 16, 2007 6:06:04 GMT -5
It would be all fine and dandy if the law was changed to effect only violent felons. As it is right now you could be charged with a felony for walking down the street backwards and angering the officer that sees you. If you get caught driving at .08 enough times your hunting days are over. Every single thing they can make a felony they have and then some. It's ridiculous and it's all about money. The more serious the crime/crimes you can be charged = more fine money in the public coffers. Minnesota was probably running a little low on cash so they decided to harass a few felons that the public didn't really give a darn about to begin with. Easy money and no votes lost just harassing a few "low life scumbags" that don't mean nothing to society as a whole just to make a good headline and makes people feel good about their elected officials and to feel more secure. Sad thing is they probably spent a few million dollars to catch 19 people of which more than likely half are drunks that probably don't have a pot to pee in. I'm pretty dang sure the founding fathers of this country are rolling over in their graves. We've taken a pretty good thing and totally screwed it up.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 16, 2007 6:56:29 GMT -5
Sounds like good police work to me. A similar thing was done here a few years ago and was met with similar results, actually there were several more arrests than Minnesota. I agree! When a person is convicted of a felony they loose certian liberties the rest of us enjoy. If they checked on a convicted felon and they were only in possession of a bow or muzzleloader then I'm sure they were not charged. Good Police Work!
|
|
|
Post by joen on Dec 16, 2007 8:12:02 GMT -5
It would be all fine and dandy if the law was changed to effect only violent felons. As it is right now you could be charged with a felony for walking down the street backwards and angering the officer that sees you. If you get caught driving at .08 enough times your hunting days are over. Every single thing they can make a felony they have and then some. It's ridiculous and it's all about money. The more serious the crime/crimes you can be charged = more fine money in the public coffers. Minnesota was probably running a little low on cash so they decided to harass a few felons that the public didn't really give a darn about to begin with. Easy money and no votes lost just harassing a few "low life scumbags" that don't mean nothing to society as a whole just to make a good headline and makes people feel good about their elected officials and to feel more secure. Sad thing is they probably spent a few million dollars to catch 19 people of which more than likely half are drunks that probably don't have a pot to pee in. I'm pretty dang sure the founding fathers of this country are rolling over in their graves. We've taken a pretty good thing and totally screwed it up. Well I have had 2 close friends on two different occaisions killed by drunk drivers. I have no simpathy for someone that gets a DUI.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 16, 2007 8:47:19 GMT -5
I agree on the drunk driving...
However I do belieev that non-violent felons should be allowed to possess guns. I don't think the 2nd said anything about felons not being able to have guns.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Dec 16, 2007 9:49:59 GMT -5
Woody - I'm sure you aren't advocating that felons have guns?
Jack
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 16, 2007 10:07:19 GMT -5
Please describe a non-violent felony.
Child molesting?
Multi DUI?
Embezzelment?
felonies are the severest crimes a person can commit, if we can't trust them to behave in a civil way, how can we trust them with firearms?
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Dec 16, 2007 10:55:42 GMT -5
The issues of firearms and hunting license rights for felons are things I have been thinking deeply about lately due to working in a forensic setting. Yes, I agree with this. This is what I don't know how I feel about, because I can see both sides of the issue. How "blurry" is the boundary between violent (such as murder) and non-violent (such as some types of sex offenses) felonies? How easily can an individual who commits a non-violent felony swing into committing a violent felony? By definition, someone who commits any felony has committed a serious crime with very significant probability of harming another person--is losing their right to own a firearm necessary to protect the public in light of their decision to commit a felony-grade crime? Does the prohibition of owning firearms felons face significantly discourage individuals from committing a felony (my guess is probably not)? I also know that making too many "exceptions" to the second amendment can be hazardous, as it might lead to discrimination of certain types of "marginalized" individuals (such as felons--and I'm not saying felons shouldn't be "marginalized") in denying them the right to protect themselves or hunt using a firearm. Are we making too much of a generalization when we group in the non-violent felons with the violent felons in terms of consequences, or is this a good and necessary measure to take to protect the public and deter individuals from committing felonies? Someone play devil's advocate here, please, so I can better make up my mind.
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Dec 16, 2007 14:51:51 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but I believe when a muzzleloader is loaded it is considered the same as a modern firearm in Indiana. There was an instance where a gang member was packing a ML pistol and they still busted him for carrying without a permit. If you are the class of felon that can't hunt with a firearm, too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 16, 2007 16:29:35 GMT -5
DAMMIT PEOPLE! IT'S NOT JUST FELONS WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE! That's what the Anti's want you to think... and it's working!
IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE WITH TREATABLE MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND EVERY FAMILY MEMBER IN THE HOUSEHOLD THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS KIND OF "Good Police Work"... and that's exactly what the Anti's want!
A "violent felon" is someone who PHYSICALLY HURTS OTHER PEOPLE.
But you can become a "Prohibited Person" by getting sick... or punching your brother in law at the family reunion... or by having your PO'd Ex Wife decide to claim you are "dangerous", or ANY NUMBER OF ABSURD SITUATIONS.
A "Felony" can be ANY crime over a matter of more than $500 in some places.
I'm sure someone deserves to DIE (because they are forever prohibited from defending themselves from real VIOLENTcriminals/animals) over $500 or got caught having (mutual/consentual) sex as a teenager.
READ THE LAW. It PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION of ANY "Firearms " OR AMMUNITION.
POSSESSION, by LAW means "unsecured and in the same space".
This is NOT about "good police work". It is about GUN CONTROL - and denying the possession of firearms to as many people as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 16, 2007 16:47:35 GMT -5
Sounds like good police work to me. A similar thing was done here a few years ago and was met with similar results, actually there were several more arrests than Minnesota. I agree! When a person is convicted of a felony they loose certian liberties the rest of us enjoy. If they checked on a convicted felon and they were only in possession of a bow or muzzleloader then I'm sure they were not charged. Good Police Work! When did RKBA become LKBA? Rights are Rights. They preexist. Liberties are granted or denied by Government on a whim. Don't fall for the Gun Ownership = government granted liberty Lie. A "felony" is whatever the Government wants it to be. "Violent" is an objective criterion. The only reason a Violent Felon is alive in the first place is because they preyed on person(s) unwilling or unable to defend themseves. That is why "violent felons" lose, and should lose, the Human Right of Self Defense... because they shouldn't have survived their crime in the first place. Maybe when/if you people have to live with being forced to take the decision to either violate "federal law" or give up gun hunting/armed self defense, you will look at the situation differently. I, for one won't sacrifice my life or the life(s) of those around me for some stupid "law" that shouldn't apply to me or mine in the first place. I'm an Ex LEO Vet with a Top Secret Security Clearance who happens to be married to a "prohibited person" with a treatable, but incurable, medical contition. If that makes me a "criminal", so be it. So I'm a Federal Criminal. Molon Labe.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Dec 16, 2007 19:27:14 GMT -5
If a person is such a threat to society that we have to deny them one of their most basic human rights then they need to be locked up for life or just taken out and hanged, electrocuted, shot or lethally injected or killed by any other means society dubs honorable at that time.
Once a person has satisified his obligation to society by serving his time and meeting all his probation/parole obligations all his basic rights should be reinstated including the right to self defense.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Dec 17, 2007 7:27:49 GMT -5
Interesting posts OI.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 8:27:49 GMT -5
The fact of the matter is, I would be quide dead - beaten to a pulp on the side of the road by a psychotic with a tire iron (among other incidents) - if not for my decision to ignore Federal Law and keep firearms despite being married to a "prohibited person".
People who think that cross-refrencing databases is just "good police work" don't see the unintended consequences.
That "possession" law in the GCA, if I were to follow it, deprives me of the Means of Self Defense.
Depriving me of the Means of Self Defense deprives me of the RIGHT of Self Defense.
That is, the Government wants to deprive me & my wife ofour RIGHT to LIFE.
In short, the Government wants us DEAD. Her because her illness makes her an "undesireable", and me because I support her.
So you can see why I take this stuff VERY seriously/personally.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 17, 2007 8:50:19 GMT -5
I'm all for keeping firearms away from violent felons; however I'm with Woody and OI etc. We need to look at who's being denied ther rights and address the issue.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 17, 2007 13:30:11 GMT -5
I'm all for keeping firearms away from violent felons; however I'm with Woody and OI etc. We need to look at who's being denied ther rights and address the issue. If you have been convicted of a felony, then you no longer have a right to keep and bear arms!
|
|