Never allowed to own a gun,vote,etc.

[J Wilson]

I think if you get a dis-honerable discharge from the military,that you lose these rights.

[Keith B]

If you are convicted of a felony, you can not own a gun other than black powder. This is federal law. After 5 years, you can get your voting rights back (at least in Texas, not sure about other states). Had a nephew go through all of this.

And the black powder thing varies by state also. I know they have busted people in Missouri for being a felon in possesion of a black powder firearm.

[jimlongley]

He did admit to me that it was some pretty bad stuff. I am real curious of the specifics. He is a very likable person and I would think if it were to bad of a situation my company would not have hired him. Which is why I am wondering about the details and he has no problem telling me, he just didn't have time today. So, we will see.

That's what the neighbors always say about serial killers, right after the po-po take them away.

Just kidding........

I'm pretty much on the fence about loss of gun rights for felony convictions, and that alone is evidence that my attitudes have changed over the years. I used to be militantly against the idea of felons having gun rights, but I'm not so sure any longer. Although the justification for being able to take away someone's gun/voting rights for a felony conviction is based on the idea of due process, can due process have any validity when we start with the notion that a right is "natural" and "God-given?" If God (or "Nature's God," or however you want to phrase this) gives us a right, then who are puny humans to take a right away? Simply put, we can't. What we can do is suspend an individual's access to the expression of his right. I know that sounds like mere semantics, but it is an important distinction...... He still has the right; he's just no longer allowed to express it, because we forbid it. The problem with this, of course, is that the exact same arguments could be made, for various reasons, to suspend an individual's right to free speech, free association, religious preference, and so on. We can, using the same logic, invalidate the 3rd though the 8th Amendments, etc., etc. When that is the case, we no longer actually have rights. What we then have is permission. I don't like the sound of that.

Pretty much anyway.

I have a friend who I would categorize as an "Accidental Felon" due to her own kind hearted and overly trusting nature. The detail that I have are somewhat scant, but here is my understanding of how this came to happen.

A few years ago her friend and business associate (let's call her "Lil") was falling on hard financial times, and my friend (lets call her Barb) was pretty flush, so Barb loaned Lil some money, with no interest and really liberal payback terms. The first couple of payments were either cash or personal check, no problem, and then Lil called Barb and said she was at the bank, and would make a deposit directly into Barb's account, but it was in the form of a check and it was more than the payment Lil wanted to make, so could Barb send her the difference, and by the way, in order to deposit the funds in Barb's account, she needed Barb's account number.

Of course this makes me cringe, it sounds just like so many of the elderly or trusting scams I have heard of over the years, but again, Barb's trusting nature and years of friendship and business association led her to go ahead without much consideration.

Payments slowly moved to ALL being the same sort of deal, and long story short, then the cops showed up.

Even shorter - Lil was embezzling from her company, and was laundering the funds thru Barb's (business) checking account. Barb and her daughter, a partner in Barb's business, were arrested and charged with multiple counts, mostly felonies.

Lil turned state's evidence and testified against Barb and her daughter.

Barb and her daughter eventually plead to various counts, having been convinced that a jury trial would lead to worse punishment, and besides, since all of her funds were in her business accounts (including personal savings which she was plowing back into her business to build up her equity in anticipation of retirement) and the state (NY) blocked all of those accounts, she could not even afford an attorney.

Barb's daughter did misdemeanor jail time.

Barb did felony jail time and now cannot do any of the things that felons are not allowed to do.

She had just, in the previous five years, obtained a NY State (carry) Pistol Permit, and that was one of the first things to go, and the police, under NYState laws, confiscated her guns with no possibility of return.

Part of the reason Barb was plowing money into her business was that she intended to retire and sell it to her daughter, and move to Arkansas, her new husband's home.

After she was released, it was months before NY decided she could be paroled to AR.

No guns, no voting, no Notary license, no real estate license, no P&C insurance license.

My own synopsis of the multiple scenarios involved, and truncation necessarily left out possibly important details, but the upshot is that I will never see my friend Barb as a felon, but NY, and all of the other states do, and I think that is a miscarriage of justice, particularly since the chief witness against her cut a deal for her testimony and never did a minute of jail time, and Barb even winds up paying back restitution to Lil's company for Lil's embezzlement.

Names have been changed to protect the guilty along with the innocent.

Maybe we need to redefine what constitutes a felony.

[The Annoyed Man]

Although the justification for being able to take away someone's gun/voting rights for a felony conviction is based on the idea of due process, can due process have any validity when we start with the notion that a right is "natural" and "God-given?" If God (or "Nature's God," or however you want to phrase this) gives us a right, then who are puny humans to take a right away? Simply put, we can't. What we can do is suspend an individual's access to the expression of his right. I know that sounds like mere semantics, but it is an important distinction...... He still has the right; he's just no longer allowed to express it, because we forbid it. . . . When that is the case, we no longer actually have rights. What we then have is permission. I don't like the sound of that.

The most basic natural right is the right to life, yet I have no problem with capital punishment in appropriate cases.

That's a very good point, and that is one of the reasons why I am ambivalent about felony loss of rights. OTH, I've heard of cases in which a convicted felon has used a firearm which was "at hand" in legitimate self-defense and has not been prosecuted for using that firearm because his need was legitimate. How is it that we maintain a system in which the use of a firearm in self defense is deemed acceptable when the person defending him/herself is forbidden to have a firearm in his/her possession in the first place? There is a cognitive dissonance there which can only be explained if, in the eyes of the law, a person's right to life exceeds the state's authority to prevent him from defending it. And by the way, I am very much pro-capital punishment, but the above inconsistency is also inconsistent with capital punishment. How weird is that?

I guess I'm fence sitting because I spend more time thinking about rights today than I ever did before, and I can see both sides to the argument. One thing I would like to see.....I think.......is a less byzantine and murkey process by which a person can have their rights restored if they can prove themselves worthy of it. By that, I don't mean necessarily to make it easier to qualify, but rather to make it a standardized (and simplifyed where possible) procedure that all courts would have to follow (at least in the state of Texas). I don't know how this could be accomplished. I only know, primarily from reading this forum, that most people facing this don't seem to have any idea of how to get started in the process of having their rights restored, and/or if they even qualify for it—let alone what to do next when they get started.

I suppose that's what lawyers are for........but not everybody can afford legal representation, let alone competent legal representation. The state can take away their rights, whether or not they have competent representation. Should an applicant be required to hire representation to have them restored? It doesn't seem equitable to me somehow. I'm just grateful that I don't have to deal with this stuff myself.

[fishman]

A paper felon I guess is one thing. However a violent felon should never have a gun. Thats my opinion.

[Keith B]

He did admit to me that it was some pretty bad stuff. I am real curious of the specifics. He is a very likable person and I would think if it were to bad of a situation my company would not have hired him. Which is why I am wondering about the details and he has no problem telling me, he just didn't have time today. So, we will see.

That's what the neighbors always say about serial killers, right after the po-po take them away.

Just kidding........

I'm pretty much on the fence about loss of gun rights for felony convictions, and that alone is evidence that my attitudes have changed over the years. I used to be militantly against the idea of felons having gun rights, but I'm not so sure any longer. Although the justification for being able to take away someone's gun/voting rights for a felony conviction is based on the idea of due process, can due process have any validity when we start with the notion that a right is "natural" and "God-given?" If God (or "Nature's God," or however you want to phrase this) gives us a right, then who are puny humans to take a right away? Simply put, we can't. What we can do is suspend an individual's access to the expression of his right. I know that sounds like mere semantics, but it is an important distinction...... He still has the right; he's just no longer allowed to express it, because we forbid it. The problem with this, of course, is that the exact same arguments could be made, for various reasons, to suspend an individual's right to free speech, free association, religious preference, and so on. We can, using the same logic, invalidate the 3rd though the 8th Amendments, etc., etc. When that is the case, we no longer actually have rights. What we then have is permission. I don't like the sound of that.

Pretty much anyway.

I have a friend who I would categorize as an "Accidental Felon" due to her own kind hearted and overly trusting nature.
.............
Maybe we need to redefine what constitutes a felony.

I have a similar story. One of my cousins got into major trouble years ago when a 'friend' who was getting divorced needed a place to stay. Needless to say, the friend and my cousin both were not unaccustomed to smoking a little marijuana.

Anyway, they went across the state border to buy some marijuana from a guy. My cousin didn't know details of how much, but come to find out his friend was a middle man and planning on muling a large amount back for another guy, but keeping some for himself. Unbeknownst to them, the feds had been watching the seller they were going to buy from and had his phone tapped. My cousin had made the last call to the guy to get directions and tell them when they would be there, so they had him on tape.

When they got there, the friend went in to make the purchase and my cousin went across the street to get a soda from the quick stop. When he got back in the car, it got surrounded and they hauled them in. The 'friend' rolled over to save his skin and told them that my cousin was the brains of the deal, and that he was just a patsy. Since they had my cousin on tape making arrangements to meet for the buy, they tagged him and charged him with interstate drug trafficking. When they ended up in court, the other guy lied through his teeth and my cousin ended up taking the fall for all of it. They sentenced him to 8 years in Federal prison. Luckily (I guess) he got sent to FPC Montgomery minimum security prison and got released after half sentence for good behavior.

Since that time almost 30 years ago he has been totally clean and even manages a couple of large car tune-up/oil change businesses. However, he still has the felony history haunting him.

IMO, he got a raw deal. Was he guilty of being involved? Yes. Should he have made the call and been there? No. But I think after paying his dues and keeping your nose clean for a certain amount of time should entitle you to regain your rights on some non-violent crimes.

[Pawpaw]

I believe that for the first 150 or so years of this country's existence, a felon's rights were restored after he "paid his debt to society".

I don't clearly and fully understand why it changed.

[E.Marquez]

I don’t approve of a wayward youth riding a ATV or dirt bike in a place they should not have.. and 120 days of community service, cleaning park toilets, restitution of damages, and maybe being chained to real criminals in a cell for a few days, would likely fix the issues, and not leave them with a felony conviction for a dumb kid decision that means a felony hanging over there head forever.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/20 ... 978540.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://poststar.com/news/blotter/south- ... 03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don’t approve of teens, or anyone really assaulting another without cause..
But pre teens and teens,,, lets face it, they disagree and often handle it physically,,, I did, won a few, lost a few..But felony convections for an after school fight..??
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=activ ... 52&bih=683" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Or how about “Zero Tolerance” laws and our schools (zero intelligence leadership)
http://www.djj.state.fl.us/zero-tolerance/press.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don’t like thieves, but I know a few who in their youth made some really bad choices, had the wrong influences around them, and what most would say is an easy ethical choice was just not what they had been brought up to understand.. It was wrong, but they did it, and got caught,, ..car stereo, damages to the car, = Grand Larceny = felony and did a bit of community service, restitution, and got on and away from the idiots they were running with, being raised around. Said person I have in mind is one of the most honorable people I know, highly decorated military member, that has, literally laid down his life for others, never stolen a thing since back then, is a pillar of his community, raised strong and honest kids, and is respected for who he is TODAY..
He is a felon never the less… Our government has sent him to war with weapons, in charge of weapons, in charge of this countries youth in combat, but he cannot vote or own a weapon…
I could go on for pages on felons that should not be, or, perhaps they should be, but the 2nd and 3rd order effects should not be the same as the guy who cut his mothers throat when she told him to pick up his room.

[Rex B]

I have reservations similar to TAMs.
What troubles me is that most any of us can now be convicted of a felony.

Did you every drag race anyone from a stoplight? I did, many, many times. Got a ticket a few times . I understand that is now a felony.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/w ... felons-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A 2008 report from the Heritage Foundation estimates that at the federal level alone, Congress has been adding about 55 new crimes to the federal criminal code each year since the 1980s. There are now about 4,500 separate federal crimes. And that doesn't include federal regulations, which are increasingly being enforced with criminal, not administrative, penalties. It also doesn't include the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. And this is before we even get to the states' criminal codes. "
"In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day. "

google "we are all felons"

[puma guy]

Although the justification for being able to take away someone's gun/voting rights for a felony conviction is based on the idea of due process, can due process have any validity when we start with the notion that a right is "natural" and "God-given?" If God (or "Nature's God," or however you want to phrase this) gives us a right, then who are puny humans to take a right away? Simply put, we can't. What we can do is suspend an individual's access to the expression of his right. I know that sounds like mere semantics, but it is an important distinction...... He still has the right; he's just no longer allowed to express it, because we forbid it. . . . When that is the case, we no longer actually have rights. What we then have is permission. I don't like the sound of that.

The most basic natural right is the right to life, yet I have no problem with capital punishment in appropriate cases.

That's a very good point, and that is one of the reasons why I am ambivalent about felony loss of rights. OTH, I've heard of cases in which a convicted felon has used a firearm which was "at hand" in legitimate self-defense and has not been prosecuted for using that firearm because his need was legitimate. How is it that we maintain a system in which the use of a firearm in self defense is deemed acceptable when the person defending him/herself is forbidden to have a firearm in his/her possession in the first place? There is a cognitive dissonance there which can only be explained if, in the eyes of the law, a person's right to life exceeds the state's authority to prevent him from defending it. And by the way, I am very much pro-capital punishment, but the above inconsistency is also inconsistent with capital punishment. How weird is that?

I guess I'm fence sitting because I spend more time thinking about rights today than I ever did before, and I can see both sides to the argument. One thing I would like to see.....I think.......is a less byzantine and murkey process by which a person can have their rights restored if they can prove themselves worthy of it. By that, I don't mean necessarily to make it easier to qualify, but rather to make it a standardized (and simplifyed where possible) procedure that all courts would have to follow (at least in the state of Texas). I don't know how this could be accomplished. I only know, primarily from reading this forum, that most people facing this don't seem to have any idea of how to get started in the process of having their rights restored, and/or if they even qualify for it—let alone what to do next when they get started.

I suppose that's what lawyers are for........but not everybody can afford legal representation, let alone competent legal representation. The state can take away their rights, whether or not they have competent representation. Should an applicant be required to hire representation to have them restored? It doesn't seem equitable to me somehow. I'm just grateful that I don't have to deal with this stuff myself.

I don't have the code but a felon in Texas is allowed to have a firearm in the home only for SD five years from the end of the completion of the sentence. That's in conflict with Federal law. Also a muzzle loading weapon is not considered a firearm in Texas unless it is a cylindered/multi-chambered weapon. Again in conflict w/ Federal law.

[Rex B]

Also a muzzle loading weapon is not considered a firearm in Texas unless it is a cylindered/multi-chambered weapon. Again in conflict w/ Federal law.

First time I've heard about the multi-chamber thing.
IIRC it also has to be a replica of an antique, which eliminates modern BP arms such as inline muzzleloaders and possibly Ruger Old Army revolvers.

[cbucher]

Okay, he gave me the specifics today on his deal. He was living with a girl some time ago and she had a child (not his child). They broke up and he kicked her out so she filed charges for assault on her child. It went to court and nothing was really proved (innocents or guilt) but since the state got involved it was a felony situation. The lawyer he hired bargained fro a few months jail and probation. All of his probation has been served and he doesn't have the money to continue trying to clear this up so he can rebuild his life. He said since this happened there are several of the girls family members that are now willing to testify that the accusations (sp) were false, but he doesn't know if this would do any good towards cleaning his record and getting his rights back. He is also aware of the black powder stuff but worries there is too much gray area there to risk it. It sounds to me from all the responses that he is going to have to live with this forever. I will have to see if I can find some more info on getting the voting rights back after a five year period. Thanks for all the input and shared experiences. As always this was a learning experience for me as well.

[C-dub]

I believe that for the first 150 or so years of this country's existence, a felon's rights were restored after he "paid his debt to society".

I don't clearly and fully understand why it changed.

Huh, IDK? Maybe gangsters or organized crime or something and a lot of violent massacres by some really cold killers. Sounds like around that time and might have been a knee jerk reaction.

[urnoodle]

I've posted on another thread about how I feel about a felon getting a CHL. Instead of rehashing the whole story, suffice it to say I feel violent felons should never be able to carry a firearm. For the non-violent felons limit to open carry.

I've worked in an industry for many years that may have resulted in me becoming more cynical. Somewhere along the line, I arrived at the realization that more often than not when I'm told a story by someone where his/her involvement or actions would result in negative feedback or perceptions, the storyteller tends to minimize their actual involvement to preclude judgement. I lean towards the occam's razor principal; all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. I do see that this is a narrow point of view, but more often than not it's the most realistic. Where I feel the justice system fails is in equal representation regardless of financial status, punishments that fit the crime, applying punishment consistently, plea bargaining and making deals. I've watched many trials and equate them to "reality tv", more fiction than fact.

[Oldgringo]

Our actions have consequences. A lesson that should be learned, beginning at a very early age, in the home. There are no excuses for bad manners or bad behavior.