|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 13:36:56 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! What part of "a felony is whatever the Government says it is" do you not understand Camby? What part of "it's not just "Felons" who are declared to be "prohibited persons" " do you not understand? Stop buying into the Anti-Gun rhetoric. It is a FELONY to spit on the Capitol Steps in DC. I guess some people just don't deserve to live after doing such a dasterdly act... Depriving non-violent people of their Right to Self Defense is depriving them of their Right to EXIST. If you are not allowed to defend your Life, then your life is WORTHLESS - and can be taken by the government at any time. I thought we fought a big war to defeat people who thought like that. |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 17, 2007 13:39:14 GMT -5
I understand that is the way it is Camby, that's not my issue; I'm considering the way it should be. I'm thinking along your lines OI.  |
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 17, 2007 13:41:06 GMT -5
It is a FELONY to spit on the Capitol Steps in DC. I guess some people just don't deserve to live after doing such a dasterdly act...
Can you point me to a web site to confirm this?
This post was about CONVICTED FELONS,....nothing else!
My opinion is:
If you are convicted of a felony you forfeit your right to keep and bear arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 17, 2007 13:53:12 GMT -5
The Joe Schmoe family is in dire straights. Sickness and an accident has depleted their little bank account and put them into debt way over their ears.
He then succcumbs and embezzles a thousand bucks from his employer to get the monkey off his back and he gets caught. He is tried and convicted as a felon and is given a light sentence or probation.
From that day forward he can not protect him or his family's life by owning a firearm.
Not right.
Violent felons or drug related crimes? Different story...
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2007 14:34:02 GMT -5
This part kinda bugged me.
Under our current system, a felony is a felony. Doesnt matter if the flavor is murder or check forgery. Unless it is decided to decide based on category of felony, I cant say I have a problem with felons not being able to possess a firearm.
But to make a legislative rule change making everyone undergo a background check to purchase a hunting license seems a bit invasive to the 99% of non-felon license holders.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2007 14:46:59 GMT -5
interesting ....... I had never looked at felony classifications and what falls into each range.
Im sure the list I looked at isnt the current "official" listing for the state of Indiana but with the current classifications it would be almost impossible to make any one classification as "the" gateway to no longer being able to possess a firearm.
In every class I looked at there was at least one infraction that screams "person does not ever need to own or possess a firearm".
So ... now we try and break it down to individual infractions under each classification of felony. Would never work ..... seems like the current system makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 17, 2007 15:09:12 GMT -5
HR2460 is far too loosely written, it has too many holes through which our rights may be eroded. I personally make no distinction between violent and non-violent felonies, screwing up is screwing up and the penalties are well known. If you break the law you should lose your priveleges.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 17, 2007 15:19:29 GMT -5
OI I have no opinion on your issue. I don't know enough about it one way or another.
Really the law won't protect anyone. A person who wants a gun to rob or murder someone probaly would get one legally or not. So to exclude some from getting them through a dealer just hurts the dealers and those who legally can not get one.
That is the beef with gun control laws right? It limits the law abiders and not the criminals...
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 15:20:32 GMT -5
Swilk: Sure there is. If whatever you are would give me the legal ability to shoot you (i.e. in legal self defense) then that is sufficient cause to add the prohibition of arms.
I can't shoot you for Slander or Libel, yet they are felonies.
I can't shoot you for copying a VHS tape, but that is a Felony.
I can't shoot you for stealing my car or writing a bad cheque, yet those are felonies.
You can't shoot me for inadvertantly leaving a 12ga slug out on my workbench - yet THAT IS A FELONY.
There's your criteria. If you can't get shot for it, you shouldn't be forced to give up you life (Right to Self Defense) for it.
When you prohibit a person from possessing arms you are setting them up to be killed - just as surely as if you had shot them yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 15:25:56 GMT -5
HR2460 is far too loosely written, it has too many holes through which our rights may be eroded. I personally make no distinction between violent and non-violent felonies, screwing up is screwing up and the penalties are well known. If you break the law you should lose your priveleges. When did gun ownership become a Privelege? The 2nd Amendment says nothing about Priveleges. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 15:28:44 GMT -5
...That is the beef with gun control laws right? It limits the law abiders and not the criminals... Bingo. Laws that make "felons" out of honest people won't stop bad people from doing bad things. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2007 15:31:18 GMT -5
Would it have made you feel better if he put "If you break the law you should loose your rights"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 15:35:08 GMT -5
Would it have made you feel better if he put "If you break the law you should loose your rights"? Then they aren't Rights, are they? If you can't be shot for it, why should you be given a Death Sentence for it? It's that simple really. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2007 15:36:28 GMT -5
Swilk: Sure there is. If whatever you are would give me the legal ability to shoot you (i.e. in legal self defense) then that is sufficient cause to add the prohibition of arms. I can't shoot you for Slander or Libel, yet they are felonies. I can't shoot you for copying a VHS tape, but that is a Felony. I can't shoot you for stealing my car or writing a bad cheque, yet those are felonies. You can't shoot me for inadvertantly leaving a 12ga slug out on my workbench - yet THAT IS A FELONY. There's your criteria. If you can't get shot for it, you shouldn't be forced to give up you life (Right to Self Defense) for it. When you prohibit a person from possessing arms you are setting them up to be killed - just as surely as if you had shot them yourself. Im not going to say that wouldnt work .... but it would open up a lot of grey area. I was really surprised when I started reading through different offenses and their classification .... like many things it just didnt make sense. Its almost like someone started throwing darts and wherever it landed is where it was classified. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2007 15:39:21 GMT -5
OI - contrary to many previous blogs between us I actually think that you are right this time. I just cant think of a foolproof way to implement what you would like to happen.
Brandishing a weapon against someone else, and actually using that weapon, in self defense is largely open to interpretation of the situation. Using that alone as the cornerpost would be a disaster IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Dec 17, 2007 15:51:11 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. OIS, I am 10000% completely on your side on this discussion. A person should not be banned from owning a firearm because they committed a felony with an ink pen and a forged check or because your wife divorces you and knows your passion for firearms and decides that she is going to nail you one last time before she splits. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2007 16:16:56 GMT -5
OI - contrary to many previous blogs between us I actually think that you are right this time. I just cant think of a foolproof way to implement what you would like to happen. Brandishing a weapon against someone else, and actually using that weapon, in self defense is largely open to interpretation of the situation. Using that alone as the cornerpost would be a disaster IMO. I understand - but Justifiable Homicide is a fairly clear area. In every case where I have been forced to point a gun, I would have been justified in shooting. In those cases where I only displayed, it would have been a tougher call for a Jury had I shot. In two cases I was directly, explicitly and unequivocably threatend with a weapon. I produced, and they backed down - instantly. In both cases had an LEO been there they would have been charged with Violent Felonies. In the other instance, my wife & I were menaced by a group who surrounded us after dark. Those who manaced had not yet reached the point of explicit threat. I do agree it would be difficult to implement, but consider the consequences. The Blogger convicted of Libel or the Election worker who doen't put up a Voting Booth Screen properly (IC 3-14-4) a gets killed in front of his kids because he couldn't defend himself. Where's the Justice in that? |
|
|
|
Post by ActionPoint on Dec 17, 2007 16:17:05 GMT -5
Put the "what should/shouldn't be a felony" aside for a moment. As a hunter in this state I have a problem with our DNR, it's law enforcement division, and it's resources being used for outside purposes. It's not good police work, it's nothing more than taking a shot in the dark based on a completely legal purchase and a whole bunch of assumptions. Not too mention that it specifically targets hunters that are most likely well within their legal rights. IMO, the IDNR should be focusing on DNR issues, let the state's parole and probation officers handle these issues since they should be checking all convicted felons, not just hunters with a prior felony conviction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Dec 17, 2007 17:00:48 GMT -5
I have a friend who I grew up with since we were young children. This friend is at deer camp every year with us and hunts with us. He use to be a drug dealer when he was young kid (18-19) and was stupid and got caught and served a fair amount of time. He has long learned his lesson on dealing drugs and is now a normal person living a normal life. He is a convicted felon and still buys a deer license every year and still hunts with the same 12ga he has for 20 years. I think he has every right to hunt maybe not legally but in my mind he is no different than I am except for he made a big mistake when he was a "kid".
I think violent felons should not own firearms but I don't agree that all felons should not be allowed to own them.
|
|
