Florida’s ban on felon gun ownership challenged

true, mainly because the felon is not prosecuted for lying on the 4473

 

yeah the concept of innocent until proven guilty, really rubs the gun banning crowd the wrong way. then again, the concept of a free society does as well

 

That's what I hear, but I wonder why a felon would even try knowing FFL will run background check.

 

Hi, Turtledove.

In the instance of a death by gunshot, the proof of guilt comes along a tad late for the person killed. I know of no effective remedy/restitution for death within the power of the law.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un-shot.

 

well I actually read a report on this years ago and here is what i recall (we are talking over 20 years ago and I doubt I could find it now since it was a DOJ or related agency report)

1. Lots of denied applicants had minor felonies that had -since conviction -been downgraded into misdemeanors and those denied applicants didn't think they had a felony

2. In one case (one of my colleagues actually lost a "felon in possession" case against the mope) the defendant had done state time in NC for a felony and in that state (IIRC), once the person was freed and completed his probation, he was given a document by the STATE saying his rights were restored. The jury believed that while this DID NOT prevent his prosecution under 18 USC 922 (felon in possession), his reliance on the STATE document was justifiable

3. Some hoped they wouldn't be caught

4. and believe it or not, some claimed they didn't remember being convicted

for most though, it was minor felonies from decades ago

 

Having worked in this field, I know there are two ways laws are supposed to deter improper behavior

1) the threat of punishment

2) the imposition of punishment.

If 1 doesn't work then there is 2. But until someone violates a law, you cannot punish them. You gun banners want to ban guns before people do something wrong. that is fascist and a good reason for honest people to be well armed

 

I'll bet #3 is the lions share.

 

Hi, Turtledude, for the last time on this thread.

I am not a 'gun banner' and responding to derogatory personal comments is one of my no-no's.

Best wishes to you and yours.

 

I can understand if a former felon was convicted of a white collar crime, but any violent ex-cons should never have access to a gun.

 

Our justice system is 250 years old and still needs tweaking. I agree with Darthcervantes that linking non violent felons with violent felons is like punishing the whole class for the acts of a few. Even among violent felons, there are mitigating circumstances that might preclude restricting their second amendment rights. It should be tailored to the individual/circumstance rather than using a broad brush approach. For now I think that everyone is doing the best they can in this imperfect world filled with imperfect people. There are radical solutions such as banning all guns or putting all violent felons to death. But these are born of exasperation for the want of convenience and a measure of peace. The bottom line is that freedom is not only not free, but requires a great deal of faith, sacrifice, and work, to maintain. I think I will go for a walk.

 

OK whatever, so you claim you don't want to ban guns while most of your posts are designed to smear legal gun ownership.

 

early on that was most likely true. some actually didn't even knew a check would be run.

 

The future is not known about anything. We need to learn from the past and live with the present.

 

When it comes to 'criminals' (which covers a lot of various circumstances), I have always endorsed the idea that it should be a part of a person's sentence... For example, I (the Judge) sentence you to 5 years in prison, 2 additional years probation, and 10 years with lost firearm rights.

However, if you want something any tougher than the current standard (adjucated mentally unfit), then you have to explain what, precisely, is your proposal. One problem I have with any sort of requirement for exams is who is to judge, and what is the standard? It could be used like the 'May Issue' gun permits have been historically used by places like NYC and LA where you essentially had to be politically connected to get a permit, no matter what your story or reasoning is, and even a single rogue anti-gun shrink could tie up or deny the gun rights of potentially hundreds of people for no real reason other than they can. When someone has that kind of 'power', it makes my butt clench up.

 

You just quoted my proposal and now you are asking what it is

"I support peoples right to own guns, and here I am saying even many ex convicts (non-violent) should be able to have that right re-instated after they have served their sentences."

and

"Those who were convicted for a violent crime, especially involving firearms, should not be allowed to own guns, but if its DUI, theft, drug offence, fraud, or other non-violent crime, then there is no reason to ban it."

 

Banning ammo that will 'penetrate police vests' pretty much means no rifles will be permitted in civilian hands. Because it's not the round, it's the velocity, and with rifle rounds typically traveling at supersonic speeds, and 3x the speed of a typical pistol, almost every rifle ever made, save the lowly .22lr that you give 12-year-olds to learn with, will penetrate the soft vests that police typically wear. So, that's a non-starter.

 

I'm asking for specifics about how to prevent 'crazies' (as you called them) from owning firearms. Like, who defines it, who determines it, do we have to open our medical records, etc., etc.

 

Read the thread title and discuss the topic.

 

The thread title is about felons. I was responding to what you said about preventing "crazies" from being armed. I'm good with the way it is, which is being adjudicated as a mentally defective person. Due process and all that jazz, and no requirements to have screenings prior to buying a gun, or violating people's privacy in the process. If you are in agreement, then the conversation is over, if you want something else or different, I would like you to explain.

 

Well let's think about this rationally for a minute if you can't know what they're going to do with the legally owned gun then you can't know what they're going to do with an illegally owned gun and then they shouldn't be released because they can get one.

Remember we're not talking about whether or not they are able to own a gun it's whether or not they're able to own one legally.

I would say if they want to go about it the lawful way then sure.

 

If the sex offenders are so dangerous you must make of them second class citizens why in the **** are you inflicting them on the public? Give them life without parole and have done, or ****ing kill them and get them off the damn books and stop them breathing my ****ing air.

 

You're not listening. Make. The. Sentence. Longer. If. They're. That. ****ing. Dangerous.

 

Chances are nothing will come up in your background check. People put too much faith in the background check. But what they do is they run you through the nics database. And only about 20% of criminal offenses are even reported to it.

This is why the stricter backgrounds check thing is absolutely not common sense.

 

But what about muh copkilla bullets!!!!!?!?!?!?!

THEY"RE TEFLON COATED!!!!! I SAW IT ON LETHAL WEAPON THEY'LL SHOOT THROUGH A BULLDOZER PLOW!!!!

 

when people make that assertion-it demonstrates to those of us who are well informed about firearms, that the person asserting such ban-is clueless about ballistics