• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
What about a sale to/from a known non-family member? An unknown person?

I like that too. I've sold a gun to a non family member before. If my friend didn't purchase it I may have cautiously sold it on the street.

I didn't feel like listing 30 + examples so I just gave one.

I see the NY law does not require a background check for sales to immediate family, I'm shocked they left that "loophole" open.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Is this the only reason? If the BGC didn't cost you anything, what would you say?

I'd say no. To make sure you understand where I'm coming from I'll elaborate.

There is no authority (only power) for background checks. There is no authority to ban fully automatic weapons made after 1980 whatever. There is no authority to deny convicted felons their 2a rights. They served their time.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
...There is no authority to deny convicted felons their 2a rights. They served their time.

Being convicted of a felony is more than "time." Felony status after time served is PART of the punishment, in addition to the time.

There are avenues in place to petition for restoration of rights for those who can demonstrate they are no longer deserving of the status.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Being convicted of a felony is more than "time." Felony status after time served is PART of the punishment, in addition to the time.

There are avenues in place to petition for restoration of rights for those who can demonstrate they are no longer deserving of the status.

Cite in common law or pre 20th century please?

ETA What you speak of being part of the punishment is referred to as PAROLE. Once the sentence is over it's over (should be).

ETA2. How can a God given (I'm atheist so natural) right be revoked?

ETA3. Notice how this was actually covered in the Constitution. That's for VOTING!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States


As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][4][/SUP] In July 2005, Democratic Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[SUP][3][/SUP] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of ex-convicts. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following their conviction. Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Unlike most other laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. In Richardson v. Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another. However, many critics argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment merely allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court did rule, however, in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state's felony disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact." A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.
Currently, over 5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement.[SUP][5][/SUP]

ETA 4: The only thing I can find supporting you is a Seventh Circuit ruling. (and it's in Chicago) bleh.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ADAM WILLIAMS . . .

www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=09-3174_002.pdf

ETA 5: Wow, look at this poll.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-convicted-felons-be-allowed-to-own-guns

Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns?

YES
79%

NO
21%
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Nitpicking

Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns?

I understand this is a quote but the phrase "convicted felon" is redundant. What other kind is there?

Federal law (state law would take a week to discuss) does not prohibit all felons from possession but does prohibit some misdemeanants (in addition to domestic violence types) from possession.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns?

I understand this is a quote but the phrase "convicted felon" is redundant. What other kind is there?

Federal law (state law would take a week to discuss) does not prohibit all felons from possession but does prohibit some misdemeanants (in addition to domestic violence types) from possession.

I believe it's ALL felons (even pardoned ones) unless they got their civil rights restored.

I'm looking for a cite.

ETA, I forgot the one year rule, but that's if it carries a penalty. You can never actually go to prison (probation) and still be denied the right to bear arms. I'm not aware of any states that consider a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 1 year or less a felony.



http://suite101.com/article/gun-ownership-by-convicted-felons-a71729

Pardons vary state to state.

Here's an example of being granted rights in one state after pardon but denied in another.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/09/28/should-pardoned-felons-have-gun-rights-restored/

Oh, convicted felon is not redundant.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/felonDefinition of FELON

1
: one who has committed a felony

2
archaic : villain

3
: whitlow

See felon defined for English-language learners »

See felon defined for kids »
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Cite in common law or pre 20th century please?

ETA What you speak of being part of the punishment is referred to as PAROLE. Once the sentence is over it's over (should be)....

I'm not sure how to cite this.

It seems rather obvious.

You are convicted of a felony AND sentenced to time to serve. When you finish your time, you are still a felon. It's why felonies are big deals, even if you don't serve any time.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
I'm not sure how to cite this.

It seems rather obvious.

You are convicted of a felony AND time to serve. When you finish your time, you are still a felon. It's why felonies are big deals, even if you don't serve any time.

This didn't become the standard until the gun control act of 1968. It's a recent development in our history. That's the point I tried to make. It's also unconstitutional and has never been brought to the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Legal Research Can Be Tricky

I believe it's ALL felons (even pardoned ones) unless they got their civil rights restored.

I'm looking for a cite.

ETA, I forgot the one year rule, but that's if it carries a penalty. You can never actually go to prison (probation) and still be denied the right to bear arms.

I'm not aware of any states that consider a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 1 year or less a felony.

Even if true, why is this important? And what is the "1 year rule"?

http://suite101.com/article/gun-ownership-by-convicted-felons-a71729

Pardons vary state to state.

Here's an example of being granted rights in one state after pardon but denied in another.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/09/28/should-pardoned-felons-have-gun-rights-restored/

The article is wrong. The cited section does not say "felon." It is also important to not read a section in isolation. Definitions are in 18 USC 921. "Felon" is not used there either. The test is the term of imprisonment to which the convict could have been sentenced (actual time irrelevant). Some offenses (even if categorized as a "felony") are excluded. Certain state misdemeanors are included.

Oh, convicted felon is not redundant.

You will have to explain this further. Your dictionary extract doesn't do it and definitions from general purpose dictionaries are often inadequate for legal purposes.

 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Even if true, why is this important? And what is the "1 year rule"?

If I have to explain why it's important there's a problem. I already addressed that above.

www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any
court of, a crime punishable by impris-
onment for a term exceeding one year;

skip a whole lot

(1) to receive, possess, or transport
any firearm or ammunition in or affect-
ing interstate or foreign commerce; or

I failed to look at the definition of "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" That's a mouthful and I didn't expect a whole term to be defined.

(20) The term "crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year" does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses
pertaining to antitrust violations, un-
5fair trade practices, restraints of
trade, or other similar offenses relat-
ing to the regulation of business
practices, or

(B) any State offense classified by
the laws of the State as a misde-
meanor and punishable by a term of
imprisonment of two years or less.

What constitutes a conviction of such a
crime shall be determined in accordance
with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction
which has been expunged, or set aside,
or for which a person has been pardoned
or has had civil rights restored, shall not
be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, ex-
pungement, or restoration of civil rights
expressly provides that the person may
not ship, transport, possess, or receive
firearms.

The article is wrong. The cited section does not say "felon." It is also important to not read a section in isolation. Definitions are in 18 USC 921. "Felon" is not used there either. The test is the term of imprisonment to which the convict could have been sentenced (actual time irrelevant). Some offenses (even if categorized as a "felony") are excluded. Certain state misdemeanors are included.

If you're referring to the suite101.com article they, like me, failed to look up the definition of "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year".


You will have to explain this further. Your dictionary extract doesn't do it and definitions from general purpose dictionaries are often inadequate for legal purposes.

I was speaking to english not legaleze. You can be a felon who never got caught, therefore convicted felon is proper U.S. english and not redundant.

Next time I fail with a cite please counter with the appropriate cite. :p
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
was speaking to english not legaleze. You can be a felon who never got caught, therefore convicted felon is proper U.S. english and not redundant.

Could be mistaken, but one doesn't earn the status of felon until one is assigned said status after a conviction. And the merry-go-round continues.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Could be mistaken, but one doesn't earn the status of felon until one is assigned said status after a conviction. And the merry-go-round continues.
I linked Meriam-Webster. That dictionary has been gold standard for centuries. It was more a shot at apjonas nitpicking though. If you spin to fast on a merry go round everyone flies off. :lol: Sorry for formatting but apparently this forum doesn't like Win 8, I can't add a line break with enter or the down arrow.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Helpful Info?

Mr. Sharkey,

You are correct. I could have provided more details. Since I want to be helpful (nitpicking for its own sake is of little use and annoys people), I am including a table that summarizes convictions that lead to prohibited person status. It doesn't cover every aspect (pardons, domestic violence, etc.) but incorporates information from both 18 USC 921 (definitions) and 18 USC 922 (offenses). I think we are all in agreement, as Trip20 suggested, that a person does not become a felon unless and until there is a final adjudication of guilt for a felony (or some other equivalent term) in a court of competent jurisdiction. Using the shorthand "(all) felons (=sentenced > 1 year) are prohibted persons," while technically incorrect does have the advantage of being concise and easily understood.


LEVELTYPE*PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT
FEDERALAny>1 year
STATEMisdemeanor>2 year
STATEOther than misdemeanor>1 year
*not relating to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.
 
Top