# Nonviolent Felon Brings Gun Rights Class Action



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I wish this man good luck and do think that he should be able to own and bear firearms if his debt has been paid and he is law-abiding now.

CNS - Nonviolent Felon Brings Gun Rights Class Action


----------



## essdub (Feb 13, 2016)

I agree. I know from inquiring that it isn't only felons excluded from buying firearms. 
Misdemeanors too. If the misdemeanor has a potential sentence of more than two years and one day. The laws aren't good enough. They exclude people who don't even realize they're excluded until they're turned down. 
I know a guy who was turned down and discovered through requesting the reason for denial that it was because he got a misdemeanor as a teen while racing. Yes, it was stupid to be racing in the street. He received a three year probation and community service. He completed the community service and was released early from probation. He was eventually granted an expungement and now can own. Still can't get his concealed carry though. 
The laws aren't up to par. They need to be revisited and more specific concerning who can't buy, rather than the all encompassing two years and one day rule


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

There are many many laws that need revisiting and some done away with. There's lots of felons that shouldn't be barred from owning a firearm.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

I had friends who were out of a job when they made prohibited posessors out of anyone who had ever been convicted of domestic violence. Not that I condone DV, but any misdemeanor conviction under 13-3601, including disorderly conduct per domestic (got too loud) or criminal damage per domestic (broke something). Prior to that time it was common for people to just plead guilty to the misdemeanor to get it taken care of, but then one day they apply the law ex post facto (retroactive application) and these people found themselves no longer able to carry a firearm for duty.

One friend of mine had just made it into INS when it happened. You cannot be a federal officer if you are a prohibited possessor. All he ever did was have loud screaming matches with his wife at all hours of the night (actually it was mostly her screaming at him for cheating on her).


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

sHALL nOT bE iNFRINGED


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

AquaHull said:


> sHALL nOT bE iNFRINGED


And I think that we all agree it should be that way unquestioned.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

drug dealers and manufacturers are so called "non violent" .... screw giving that bunch of MFers and SOBs a gun right .... a felony is a felony - no difference


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Illini Warrior said:


> drug dealers and manufacturers are so called "non violent" .... screw giving that bunch of MFers and SOBs a gun right .... a felony is a felony - no difference


Disagree.

Felons should be able to carry.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Arklatex said:


> Disagree.
> 
> Felons should be able to carry.


just hope to hell that these felons you cherish sooooo much - come home to roost - YOU deserve to be their victim


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> drug dealers and manufacturers are so called "non violent" .... screw giving that bunch of MFers and SOBs a gun right .... a felony is a felony - no difference


The government should not decide what a man puts in his body. Drug or otherwise. If a man is stupid enough to do the thing, the man can pay the consequences. (weight gain, lost teeth, fired from their job, spouse leaving them, death, et al) -- If the only victim in your crime is yourself, there is no crime.

And before we get all righteous, if a man imbibes upon a substance and then harms another man, we already have laws to prevent the harming of another man. Just like "murder with a gun" shouldn't be a higher charge than "murder", "murder under the influence" should also not be a higher crime.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Gimble said:


> The government should not decide what a man puts in his body. Drug or otherwise. If a man is stupid enough to do the thing, the man can pay the consequences. (weight gain, lost teeth, fired from their job, spouse leaving them, death, et al) -- If the only victim in your crime is yourself, there is no crime.
> 
> And before we get all righteous, if a man imbibes upon a substance and then harms another man, we already have laws to prevent the harming of another man. Just like "murder with a gun" shouldn't be a higher charge than "murder", "murder under the influence" should also not be a higher crime.


if your felon buddies and relatives need an ammo donation - I'm up for a single bullet donation anytime


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Illini Warrior said:


> just hope to hell that these felons you cherish sooooo much - come home to roost - YOU deserve to be their victim


Gee, thanks for the personal attack. IMO the second ammendment says nothing about prohibiting felons from having guns. And we've all seen how well more gun legislation works. Like in your beloved city of Chicago...


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

High horse?
So a convicted drug felon can't turn their llife around?
You never smoked weed? 
What about the fact that people lost gun rights over drugs that are now deemed legal?
A twenty year clean drug felon mother has no right to be armed to protect her children?


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> if your felon buddies and relatives need an ammo donation - I'm up for a single bullet donation anytime


So you'd commit a felony.... Pretty smart.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I've talked about this stuff with a LEO I worked with, no need to trash the 2A, just expand the classes of restricted individuals. Back door gun control. jmho. Have we all behaved like angels all our lives?


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Recent studies show that the average citizen unknowingly commits three felonies per DAY


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Deebo said:


> High horse?
> So a convicted drug felon can't turn their llife around?
> You never smoked weed?
> What about the fact that people lost gun rights over drugs that are now deemed legal?
> A twenty year clean drug felon mother has no right to be armed to protect her children?


A friend of mine committed a drug felony 40 years ago, and was adjudicated guilty.
HOWEVER, the State of Florida has a pathway to get your rights restored.
He has been 100% law abiding since his youthful crime, petitioned the state after the required time (I don't remember how many years crime free, two, five?), got ALL his rights restored. 
Today he not only can bear arms, he also has a concealed firearm or weapon license (the Florida name for it).

So, yes, it can be done. But a convicted felon should have to satisfactorily prove they have been rehabilitated. It should not come automatically upon release. Because? Because life is a series of choices, and choices have consequences.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh its possible. I have a friend who is petitioning the parole board now, for her gun rights. 
She did the mandatory eight year wait, now two years into the petition process, with word due from parole board, then a one year wait on possible pardon from the governor, if parole board votes yes. 
It is possible.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Arklatex said:


> Gee, thanks for the personal attack. IMO the second ammendment says nothing about prohibiting felons from having guns. And we've all seen how well more gun legislation works. Like in your beloved city of Chicago...


hiding your REAL self behind the 2A is not only cowardly but an insult to absolutely EVERYONE that has fought and died defending The Constitution ....

if you want to defend yourself - How about telling us all your REAL reason advocating arming drug offenders, pedophiles, pornographers, con artists ect ect -


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Deebo said:


> So you'd commit a felony.... Pretty smart.


my trash gets picked up every Wednesday and taken to a landfill for disposal - a felon is lower than a molding banana peel .... it's all service to society to take out the trash ....

I bet you cried like Obammy over the likes of Trayvon and Mikey Brown ....


----------



## duncan1371 (Apr 27, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> hiding your REAL self behind the 2A is not only cowardly but an insult to absolutely EVERYONE that has fought and died defending The Constitution ....
> 
> if you want to defend yourself - How about telling us all your REAL reason advocating arming drug offenders, pedophiles, pornographers, con artists ect ect -


For what it's worth and obviously is isn't gonna be worth much to you...

I served this country to protect everyone's rights. I make mistakes everyday. You made a few by outright attacking a few people one here over an opinion.

I happen to be of the same opinion, if you can prove that after a reasonable time you are rehabilitated then fine. The felons that don't want to be legal already have guns FYI.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> A friend of mine committed a drug felony 40 years ago, and was adjudicated guilty.
> HOWEVER, the State of Florida has a pathway to get your rights restored.
> He has been 100% law abiding since his youthful crime, petitioned the state after the required time (I don't remember how many years crime free, two, five?), got ALL his rights restored.
> Today he not only can bear arms, he also has a concealed firearm or weapon license (the Florida name for it).
> ...


you're preaching common sense to those without any - if they did they wouldn't have to check that job killing little line on a job application .... to them arming a two time felony loser - so he's ready to gun down some cop that comes across their 3rd felony offense - makes sense .... I'm guessing all that time spent in a tiny little cell with those fellow losers is enlightening .....


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I've got a good friend who works as a mechanic.
One day, he was asked to come out to a field and get an old pickup running again.
While working on the truck, the Sheriff pulled up and arrested everybody present.
The truck was stolen.
He had no idea, but it made no difference.
He spent a few years in jail, received an unwanted tattoo(held down by a group), and has lost his right to bear arms.
Sound fair?

There should be a streamlined way to reacquire one's rights after a debt has been paid.
If someone is still considered a big enough threat to society that their access to a firearm is too risky, then they should NOT be back in society.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> So, yes, it can be done. But a convicted felon should have to satisfactorily prove they have been rehabilitated. It should not come automatically upon release. Because? Because life is a series of choices, and choices have consequences.


If one must prove that they are worthy of a right, it isn't a right.


----------



## duncan1371 (Apr 27, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> If one must prove that they are worthy of a right, it isn't a right.


I normally agree with you...

I agree that it isn't a right if you have to prove yourself. I also agree that they shouldn't be walking around if they are a threat to society.

There will probably never in my life time be a chance for rights to go back to being actually rights.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> my trash gets picked up every Wednesday and taken to a landfill for disposal - a felon is lower than a molding banana peel .... it's all service to society to take out the trash ....
> 
> I bet you cried like Obammy over the likes of Trayvon and Mikey Brown ....


You may be too arrogant to understand this, but I'll try anyway. 
First, my observation is about non violent drug offenders who have paid their dues. Be it jail time and or fees. 
They are now a citizen. 
You say any felon is lower than a rotten banana peel. Then you talk of committing a felony. 
You compare me to Obama and ask if I cried over the idiots who got what they deserved?
Really?
I'm very glad that your such an upstanding individual, and allow yourself to inflict punishment on a felon, after a judge inflicted their sentence. 
I will gladly debate with you. 
Gloves off.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> If one must prove that they are worthy of a right, it isn't a right.


And how does a repeat violent offender fit into your view?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I've got a good friend who works as a mechanic.
> One day, he was asked to come out to a field and get an old pickup running again.
> While working on the truck, the Sheriff pulled up and arrested everybody present.
> The truck was stolen.
> ...


Your friend obviously wasn't as pure as the driven snow, OR he had a lousy lawyer.
A first time, non-violent offender most often gets probation.


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

A felon has no right to have any weapon at all ,, a felon is just a felon .


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> just hope to hell that these felons you cherish sooooo much - come home to roost - YOU deserve to be their victim


I work with felons all of the time. I would judge most that I see to be rather harmless and not dangerous in a violent manner. More a matter of most making a one time mistake when younger.


----------



## Suntzu (Sep 22, 2014)

There is felony tax evasion, and then there's felony burglary. One is a much greater threat to me and my children.
Some felons should be able to appeal for full restoration of rights, but most should not.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> And how does a repeat violent offender fit into your view?


You description of "repeat" and "violent" fit my view just fine. They should be locked up for their natural lives, or executed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Your friend obviously wasn't as pure as the driven snow, OR he had a lousy lawyer.
> A first time, non-violent offender most often gets probation.


Good sir, do not question the moral character of a man I've known for 10 years and you've never met based solely on how you believe it should have turned out.
He was then, and is now, a good man only looking to make a living.
He was screwed over by a group of people who claimed he was involved when he wasn't.


----------



## essdub (Feb 13, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> And how does a repeat violent offender fit into your view?


Repeat Robbery, death penalty. Maybe First offense armed Robbery. Rape murder are first offense death. No death row. Just death. Second offense for anything lesser that's violent equals death. Non violent, I'll be flexible


----------



## essdub (Feb 13, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Your friend obviously wasn't as pure as the driven snow, OR he had a lousy lawyer.
> A first time, non-violent offender most often gets probation.


Probation means a sentence. My friend received sentence of probation for three years and couldn't buy a gun. He was racing. In a car. Stupid, yes. Teens are all stupid to one degree or another.
He pled no contest thinking he would get off easy since he'd never even had a ticket. Charges were misdemeanor failure to stop for blue light (now a felony, but apparently there were degrees back then and his was the lesser). Even though he stopped .


----------



## Slippy's-Attorney (Sep 23, 2015)

Gimble said:


> And before we get all righteous, if a man imbibes upon a substance and then harms another man, we already have laws to prevent the harming of another man. Just like "murder with a gun" shouldn't be a higher charge than "murder", "murder under the influence" should also not be a higher crime.


Agreed as a matter of fact... DUI is a stupid crime.. we already have driving to endanger... does it matter if you are drunk or stupid when you are driving bad. some people drive more careful when they got a snotful

using drugs - agreed, if you are not causing harm it is a victim-less event

why does it mater if you rob a person with a bat, gun, or knife

we need to dump about 15,000 laws


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

txmarine6531 said:


> There are many many laws that need revisiting and some done away with. There's lots of felons that shouldn't be barred from owning a firearm.


With the Clinton's history, I think they should be barred.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

How about a teenager in the 1970s who got bagged in NY for a small bag of pot under the Rockefeller drug laws and went to prison (not even jail)?


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

The Constitution doesn't have any provision for denying anyone's right to arms. 
If a person has done their time in jail and they're off probation, they should be able to have a gun.
A criminal (felon or not) with bad intentions will have a gun regardless of the law.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Once the debt has been paid and not on probation then your rights should be returned to you. If you have committed a crime so heinous that your right to bear arms are to be denied then you should never be out of prison in the first place.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Mad Trapper said:


> How about a teenager in the 1970s who got bagged in NY for a small bag of pot under the Rockefeller drug laws and went to prison (not even jail)?


I run into veterans whose only felony was this. We need to lighten up on folks similar to this and kick it down for the violent and repeat offenders.


----------



## darsk20 (Jun 1, 2015)

Slippy's-Attorney said:


> Agreed as a matter of fact... DUI is a stupid crime.. we already have driving to endanger... does it matter if you are drunk or stupid when you are driving bad. some people drive more careful when they got a snotful
> 
> using drugs - agreed, if you are not causing harm it is a victim-less event
> 
> ...


Got it in one. I swear if I ever became President I would walk into Congress for my State of the Union followed by interns carting in all the excessive laws in print. Drop them in the middle and then say "This is the state of the Union. Over governed. Please work to pare this down to just a few pages," while holding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then walk out.

Mic drop.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> You description of "repeat" and "violent" fit my view just fine. They should be locked up for their natural lives, or executed.


That's the entire point to me. I do NOT understand the concept of "Life in prison". If someone is sentenced to "life in prison" then they have been deemed to be too dangerous to ever be trusted to return to society. If they are too dangerous to return, then why not just execute them? Prison is a hell-hole anyway, and honestly a humane execution, such as a sedation-assisted nitrogen asphyxiation, is (in my opinion) a far superior and cost effective solution to the problems of prison over crowding AND recidivism of released hard-core felons.

If we were to reform our laws to...
1) Restore all rights to people released from prison.
2) Clamp-down on the BS that happens in prisons (gangs, corruption, violence, etc) to prevent people that go in for their first offense from getting further "criminalized".
3) Expand execution to cover a host of other crimes (murderers, repeat violent felons, rapists (power attack style), drug dealers that sell to kids, pedophiles, etc).

I know it's "pie-in-the-sky because our current political/legal climate would NEVER allow any of it, but if we did those things, I think we'd see a large scale reduction in the number of felons remaining. I think we'd see a reduction in crime in general, and less resistance to restoring the rights to felons that have been released.

Obviously, there are a TON more details that need to be worked out and changed, this is a grossly-oversimplified overview, but I think the general concept had merit.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Saw a few soldiers discharged due to domestic violence convictions and losing the right to be in possession of a weapon. Not that I necessarily disagree with them being prohibited , I think it is often a politically correct charge rather than a real one. On the other hand I know of 2 LEO that DA did not file the case because it would have cost the LEO their job. Justice is rarely equal .
Just because a crime is labeled nonviolent does not mean they are not . It also does not mean they should not be prohibited from having weapons.
Drug dealers should be shot on sight. Their crimes are very violent just visits the grave yards. 
But if you like your drugs you don't see it that way. Pretty how most things work. Our prison are over crowded because crime pays and is rarely punished.


----------

