TexasCHLforum.com

So I was reading law about a felon not even being allowed to have a gun until 5 years after and even then they may only have it in their home.

Is that literally all they can do? They can't take it to the range or to a gunsmith if need be? Seems you would want anyone with a firearm to be proficient with it. It would suck if they had to defend themselves but ended up making things worse b/c they can't hit a target after not having shot for 5+ years.

Texas law allows a felon to have a firearm at home after five years of clean living, but federal law overrides it. A felon cannot possess or even touch a firearm under federal law, unless pardoned.

- Jim

So much for states rights. [political rant] I can't wait to get to vote for Ron Paul. No not because I want felons running around with guns but I wish states had more individual power to make their own laws. [/political rant]

atxgun wrote:So much for states rights. [political rant] I can't wait to get to vote for Ron Paul. No not because I want felons running around with guns but I wish states had more individual power to make their own laws. [/political rant]

I don't with not allowing Felons to own firearms, yes there should be a time period after they are released (5 years), but if they are deemed to be productive and safe to society, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?

If they're so dangerous, why let them out?

flb_78 wrote:

atxgun wrote:So much for states rights. [political rant] I can't wait to get to vote for Ron Paul. No not because I want felons running around with guns but I wish states had more individual power to make their own laws. [/political rant]

I don't with not allowing Felons to own firearms, yes there should be a time period after they are released (5 years), but if they are deemed to be productive and safe to society, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?

If they're so dangerous, why let them out?

Agreed. Also there are some things that are felonies I don't think should be.

seamusTX wrote:Texas law allows a felon to have a firearm at home after five years of clean living, but federal law overrides it. A felon cannot possess or even touch a firearm under federal law, unless pardoned.

- Jim

Federal Law does not override state law. It simply means that the person can be prosecuted under federal law, but not state law.

My city does not have laws against MANY things that are proscribed ny state law. That does not mean that state law overrides local law, they are just different jurisdictional laws.

atxgun wrote:So much for states rights. [political rant] I can't wait to get to vote for Ron Paul. No not because I want felons running around with guns but I wish states had more individual power to make their own laws. [/political rant]

Texas can and does have its own laws. It is just that a person can be prosecuted under federal law for a violation of federal law.

The only way to change this would pretty much be to remove all federal laws.

flb_78 wrote: I don't with not allowing Felons to own firearms, yes there should be a time period after they are released (5 years), but if they are deemed to be productive and safe to society, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?

No law makes them unable to defend themselves.

txinvestigator wrote:

flb_78 wrote: I don't with not allowing Felons to own firearms, yes there should be a time period after they are released (5 years), but if they are deemed to be productive and safe to society, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?

No law makes them unable to defend themselves.

I just makes them unable to have access to one of the most effective tools for defense.

txinvestigator wrote:

The only way to change this would pretty much be to remove all federal laws.

Well, not quite. You don't need to remove federal laws in areas where the States do not have jurisdiction, e.g. immigration, border control, defense of the country. Those do not "over-ride" state law because there IS no state law for those areas.

In areas where Federal law overlaps State law -- such as firearms -- it is fair to say the Feds override state law, and I think that is the intention in many instances (firearms being one of them). Yes, theoretically/legally Federal and State (and Military) law operate independently, but the reality for the individual is that Federal law (especially when it is "stiffer") trumps. Thus the life-long ban on felons legally possessing arms (with a small exception for certain white collar crimes). "Over-ride" may not be a legal technical term that you find in the law or the Constitution ("asserting jurisdicton" is probably more like it), but when the Texas legislature says "we're comfy with felons having firearms after five years" and the US Congress says "We are not," that is overriding the wishes of Texas.

As far as the desirability of felons being allowed to possess firearms, or vote, or whatever, after they have "paid their debts;" I would have to see the whole judicial/penal scheme upended and rebuilt before I would be comfy with this. There are far too many felons who could care less whether they have paid their debt or not, and go right back to their wicked ways. However, I also agree there are too many things that are classified as felonies. For example, I have no use for Martha Stewart, and I think she probably fibbed about some things, but to put her in the same "felon" class as rapists and Timothy McVeigh is nuts.

elb

txinvestigator wrote:No law makes them unable to defend themselves.

For most, felon or not, the firearm is, far and above, the most effective option available.

Regarding the felon issue, I think the prohibition should apply to violent felonies only.

ELB wrote:You don't need to remove federal laws in areas where the States do not have jurisdiction, e.g. immigration, border control, defense of the country. Those do not "over-ride" state law because there IS no state law for those areas.

If we were to run the country the way the founding fathers intended, there would be very, very few federal laws/regulations. The great majority of power was to be with the individual states, not the central government. Lincoln and the Civil War took care of that...

atxgun wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

flb_78 wrote: I don't with not allowing Felons to own firearms, yes there should be a time period after they are released (5 years), but if they are deemed to be productive and safe to society, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?

No law makes them unable to defend themselves.

I just makes them unable to have access to one of the most effective tools for defense, which is only legal for use in a limited capacity as per chapter 9 of the penal code.

there ya go.

ELB wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

The only way to change this would pretty much be to remove all federal laws.

Well, not quite. You don't need to remove federal laws in areas where the States do not have jurisdiction, e.g. immigration, border control, defense of the country. Those do not "over-ride" state law because there IS no state law for those areas.

Agreed and excellent point!

Photoman wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:No law makes them unable to defend themselves.

For most, felon or not, the firearm is, far and above, the most effective option available.

Regarding the felon issue, I think the prohibition should apply to violent felonies only.

And compounded for any/all repeat offenses