Now THIS is gonna make for an interesting gun control thread.....

**Lunk1** · 01-23-2013, 01:50 PM

Dan...while I wont argue Ill law I will say that my best guess is that speeding over 25 is not a felony unless there is a reason to charge the greater crime. LOTS of ppl speed 25 mph over and that would mean the state of Ill would be pumping out felons all day everyday!

Bouncing a check is theft...here in order to be a felony it would have to be for an amount over $5000..not to mention it isn't likely someone will be CONVICTED of the felony they were charged with since it's not a crime against persons

I have seen alot of ppl go to prison and considering the amount of ppl there I never see anyone that has gone for speeding or bounced checks or any other minor crime. Hell the reality is that often felony drug charges, forgery, assaults and many other crimes or pled down FROM afelony more often than someone is ever CONVICTED of a felony. Those in prison are there for a damn good reason and fuk em if they can never own a gun again!

**ElDude** · 01-23-2013, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

In the state of IL... speeding 25 over is wreckless endangerment; a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Do you find bouncing a check for $200.00 a "major crime"? Its a felony in most state and they do in fact enforce it. Reality is that there are a lot of PETTY crimes that are felonies; none which should remove a citizens right to bear arms.

The problem with "some states" being where your rights get restored is that the feds do NOT see it that way. Once you are convicted of a felony per Federal Law you are not legally allowed to own a firearm regardless of what the state does with your rights. The fact that most states use the FBI NCIC instant check system at gun sale points means that a convicted felon cannot purchase a firearm because the fed system will tell the dealer to deny the sale. So, the state may say yes but the feds say no. Which is it? THAT is where the gun laws must be re-written at the federal level otherwise the citizen is the one that's gonna ultimately pay the consequences.

Well the driving thing is crazy. Are you talking about bouncing a check (Not sufficient funds)? They can only prosecute you for a felony for bouncing a check if they have proof you wrote those checks to commit fraud. I just don't think a GOOD person would do that. I have bounced check over $500 because I just fell on hard times. It happens.

I dont think any type of thievery is a trivial crime, whether its $1 or $1,000,000. If someone steals $200 (steals a check for $200), or steals anything from me I would want them to get punished for it. They deserve what they get. If it is a felony so be it.

**dan991** · 01-23-2013, 02:07 PM

Each state is different. In MI and GA its $500.00. Regardless... "selective prosecution" happens and one can EASILY get charged and possibly convicted of a felony which doesn't necessarily mean they are going to go to prison. A majority of felons never actually see a prison. Typically they are put on probation or do county jail time; or a combination of both. I did a paper on this back in college for Sociology class. Most people that end up with a prison sentence are either a habitual offender or caused significant injury to others (regardless of if its physical harm or white collar crime). If you argue with your wife and a nosy neighbor calls the cops on you; one of you is going to jail. If the cops show up and charge you with Domestic Violence... you aren't getting a gun unless the case gets dismissed. Any conviction of Domestic Violence even misdemeanor means your right to bear arms has been stripped away.

In theory, every single person on this forum that has done a cycle without a prescription from a doctor HAS committed a felony. Per Federal Law- you do not have the right to bear arms. You just didn't get caught..... and if you do.... you're handing in your guns and cannot vote? There has to be a real sanity check by the government on existing gun laws... period. They are outdated and need to be re-written from the ground up. The first thing that needs to happen is that state and federal gun laws should coincide with each other and most of the time they don't.

**dan991** · 01-23-2013, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by ElDude

Well the driving thing is crazy. Are you talking about bouncing a check (Not sufficient funds)? They can only prosecute you for a felony for bouncing a check if they have proof you wrote those checks to commit fraud. I just don't think a GOOD person would do that. I have bounced check over $500 because I just fell on hard times. It happens.

I dont think any type of thievery is a trivial crime, whether its $1 or $1,000,000. If someone steals $200 (steals a check for $200), or steals anything from me I would want them to get punished for it. They deserve what they get. If it is a felony so be it.

They can prosecute you for whatever they want. I prosecuted someone for writing me a bad check (NSF) for $800.00 for an old 4 wheeler they bought from me. I called the cops to find out what I could do. I got a copy of the bad check, sent him a Certified Letter telling him the check was bad and he had 30 days to make good on it. He didn't and the case went to the DA whom charged him with a felony. 7 months later when the cops caught up with him I went to court and he ended up taking a plea bargin, no jail time and 2 years probation. He was then a convicted felon. I was the victim in it; and I still don't think that because of a 4 wheeler this dude doesn't deserve the right to vote, own a gun, etc.

I don't disagree with punishment. I disagree with a life long ban on your right to protect yourself, vote, etc. if the crimes you are convicted of are non-violent crimes.

**Lunk1** · 01-23-2013, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Each state is different. In MI and GA its $500.00. Regardless... "selective prosecution" happens and one can EASILY get charged and possibly convicted of a felony which doesn't necessarily mean they are going to go to prison. A majority of felons never actually see a prison. Typically they are put on probation or do county jail time; or a combination of both. I did a paper on this back in college for Sociology class. Most people that end up with a prison sentence are either a habitual offender or caused significant injury to others (regardless of if its physical harm or white collar crime). If you argue with your wife and a nosy neighbor calls the cops on you; one of you is going to jail. If the cops show up and charge you with Domestic Violence... you aren't getting a gun unless the case gets dismissed. Any conviction of Domestic Violence even misdemeanor means your right to bear arms has been stripped away.

In theory, every single person on this forum that has done a cycle without a prescription from a doctor HAS committed a felony. Per Federal Law- you do not have the right to bear arms. You just didn't get caught..... and if you do.... you're handing in your guns and cannot vote? There has to be a real sanity check by the government on existing gun laws... period. They are outdated and need to be re-written from the ground up. The first thing that needs to happen is that state and federal gun laws should coincide with each other and most of the time they don't.

I think your argument is flawed...if I'm caught with AAS I know it's a felony. I know I lose my right to own a firearm! It's not the gun law that needs to change...it's the AAS law (whole nother discussion). My point is that we all know the risks of committing whatever crime it is we choose to committ. Coming back and whining later that the loss of rights to possess a firearm is to harsh well, I guess one should think about that first not last if it's important enough to you!

**dan991** · 01-23-2013, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

I think your argument is flawed...if I'm caught with AAS I know it's a felony. I know I lose my right to own a firearm! It's not the gun law that needs to change...it's the AAS law (whole nother discussion). My point is that we all know the risks of committing whatever crime it is we choose to committ. Coming back and whining later that the loss of rights to possess a firearm is to harsh well, I guess one should think about that first not last if it's important enough to you!

How is it flawed? How does possessing AAS justify removing your right to protect yourself? I don't have a 40 cal for anything than protection. I have no intention of ever using my gun or pulling it out for any reason other than to protect myself and/or my family from harm. You're saying because you have possessed AAS and got caught for example; that I lose the right to protect myself and/or family. How does that makes sense?

**Lunk1** · 01-23-2013, 02:21 PM

It makes perfect sense...do you know its a felony? YES! Do you know that getting caught and convicted will result in your right to bear arms being stripped away? YES! Do you proceed anyhow? YES!

Other than arguing what should and shouldnt be a felony this makes no sense! You know the outcome for the crime and are willing to committ said crime anyhow! GUN GONE!

**dan991** · 01-23-2013, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

It makes perfect sense...do you know its a felony? YES! Do you know that getting caught and convicted will result in your right to bear arms being stripped away? YES! Do you proceed anyhow? YES!

Other than arguing what should and shouldnt be a felony this makes no sense! You know the outcome for the crime and are willing to committ said crime anyhow! GUN GONE!

That's exactly it... the sentence does not justify the crime. Essentially the government is saying that if you've ever committed a felony of any kind; you don't have the right to protect yourself. That can be a death sentence in the future..... which is why the gun laws need to be revisited and rewritten. I completely agree that violent crime convictions should exclude you from owning a gun. I agree crimes against children should exclude you from owning a gun. I don't agree that ALL felonies should exclude you from owning a gun. I also don't agree that Federal Law supersedes State Law and that State can't charge you with a crime but the feds can. That makes no sense; even in the current marijuana law fight going on in CO and WA.

**ElDude** · 01-23-2013, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

I think your argument is flawed...if I'm caught with AAS I know it's a felony. I know I lose my right to own a firearm! It's not the gun law that needs to change...it's the AAS law (whole nother discussion). My point is that we all know the risks of committing whatever crime it is we choose to committ. Coming back and whining later that the loss of rights to possess a firearm is to harsh well, I guess one should think about that first not last if it's important enough to you!

Exactly, gun laws are out there for a reason, unfortunately AAS are a scheduled drug, possession without a prescription is a felony. I believe that drug laws are way too harsh, depending on the drug. But at the same time I am totally conscience about the fact that if I get caught, I am fvcked. I am willing to take that risk. That includes my right to vote and bear arms. I may not agree with it. I think AAS should be regulated, definitely, but not as much as they are currently. If someone who is older (Adults 25+) wants to use them, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Same thing goes for smoking (18+).

If a guy gave me an $800 check that bounced and the guy knew it was gonna bounce, then preceded to run so as to not get caught for it, I would happily sit in a court room and smile as I saw his rights get taken away. Because this is probably not the first time that he has done something like that, it is just that this time he got caught. No pity felt for that dude...

Maybe I am just an asshole

**Lunk1** · 01-23-2013, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

That's exactly it... the sentence does not justify the crime. Essentially the government is saying that if you've ever committed a felony of any kind; you don't have the right to protect yourself. That can be a death sentence in the future..... which is why the gun laws need to be revisited and rewritten. I completely agree that violent crime convictions should exclude you from owning a gun. I agree crimes against children should exclude you from owning a gun. I don't agree that ALL felonies should exclude you from owning a gun. I also don't agree that Federal Law supersedes State Law and that State can't charge you with a crime but the feds can. That makes no sense; even in the current marijuana law fight going on in CO and WA.

Example: Dan speeds knowing that if caught he could get a ticket, Dan continues to speed knowing that if he gets another ticket he loses his license. Dan knows very well that if he loses his license he will lose his job that requires he have a valid drivers license. Dan knows that if he loses his job he will not be able to pay his mortgage or feed his family. Dans wife leaves him for good because he is a dunmb ass that made the decision to speed knowing full well that it would have negetive and long lasting effects. You feel sorry for Dan....I sure as hell don't!

**evander87** · 01-23-2013, 04:14 PM

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

**dan991** · 01-23-2013, 05:01 PM

There is a reason Captial Punishment only applies for certain crimes. There is a reason that Sex Offenders get put on a list.

What reason EXACTLY is there for someone to lose their rights to a gun and to vote for an offense that is not punishable by death, life long incarceration, or is a violent act?

We're not talking about "take away privileges" like not allowing them to hunt. Fine- you get convicted of a felony; no hunting license... I can agree with that. I can agree with the punishment fitting the crime as well as taking away "optional" things. BUT.. I do not agree with taking away someones CIVIL RIGHTS because Civil Rights are not optional.

**evander87** · 01-23-2013, 05:47 PM

Because locking someone away for any given time isn't taking away their civil rights?

**dan991** · 01-23-2013, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by evander87

Because locking someone away for any given time isn't taking away their civil rights?

It is... FOR A FIXED TERM. The term is based on the crime as well as other factors. The ban on voting and guns upon felony conviction is indefinite- till your dead.

**--->>405<<---** · 01-23-2013, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

There is a reason Captial Punishment only applies for certain crimes. There is a reason that Sex Offenders get put on a list.

What reason EXACTLY is there for someone to lose their rights to a gun and to vote for an offense that is not punishable by death, life long incarceration, or is a violent act?

the REASON is because the freaking govt says so! thats the freaking reason! the govt says so.. whether u think they should or not.. what they say goes.. period..

**Lunk1** · 01-23-2013, 06:51 PM

We never have to agree with the laws...just follow em. If you choose not to then the penelties are known in advance and so be it!

**RaginCajun** · 01-23-2013, 07:12 PM

Can I have a cookie?

**Metalject** · 01-23-2013, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

We never have to agree with the laws...just follow em. If you choose not to then the penelties are known in advance and so be it!

I disagree. Although there may be penalties to breaking a law your comment implies that we should follow them because they exist and simply accept the outcomes...again, I disagree.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Jefferson
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK

This is one of the primary problems in the U.S. today IMO. We have become too accepting. We accept all laws and ways of life on the basis of their existence and nothing more. It's no wonder we are continually losing liberty.

**Lunk1** · 01-24-2013, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Metalject

I disagree. Although there may be penalties to breaking a law your comment implies that we should follow them because they exist and simply accept the outcomes...again, I disagree.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Jefferson
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK

This is one of the primary problems in the U.S. today IMO. We have become too accepting. We accept all laws and ways of life on the basis of their existence and nothing more. It's no wonder we are continually losing liberty.

Hence the second part of my sentence..."if you choose not to then the penelties are known in advance and so be it"!

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

We never have to agree with the laws...just follow em. If you choose not to then the penelties are known in advance and so be it!

The penalties for every single felony that exist should not be death by hanging or deportation from your country. Killing off two the most important civil rights of a Citizen is the equivalent of deportation minus the physical removal of a body. Somewhat extreme considering there are plenty of felonies that don't fit the punishment.

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by 00ragincajun00

Can I have a cookie?

NO!!!!!

Let the adults talk.... go play in your room.

**Lunk1** · 01-24-2013, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

The penalties for every single felony that exist should not be death by hanging or deportation from your country. Killing off two the most important civil rights of a Citizen is the equivalent of deportation minus the physical removal of a body. Somewhat extreme considering there are plenty of felonies that don't fit the punishment.

Dan...do a bit more research. Felons were given the right to vote (can't remember if it was Bush or Clinton that changed it) they simply need to fill out a piece of paper upon registration.

A felon may also have their rights to own firearms restored. This is done through the President or his appointee (normally the gov. of your state of residency) and it restores your Fed rights as well as state!

Sooooo...whats the fukin problem lol?

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

Dan...do a bit more research. Felons were given the right to vote (can't remember if it was Bush or Clinton that changed it) they simply need to fill out a piece of paper upon registration.

A felon may also have their rights to own firearms restored. This is done through the President or his appointee (normally the gov. of your state of residency) and it restores your Fed rights as well as state!

Sooooo...whats the fukin problem lol?

Dude... do you know what the chances are of getting a Pardon from the President are? Are you serious? You're gonna email Obama and he's gonna just say okay? Same goes for a Pardon from the Governor. I don't care what the conviction is for; ain't gonna happen. If it was even a potential solution.... most "rehabilitated" felons would do it. There are felons that are educated, have money, and are more than capable of retaining an attorney to file for a Pardon. Its not even close to a solution. Do you think that the dumb shit you did at 18 years old which would've been a felony had you got caught is enough to take away your civil rights for life? We all did dumb shit; pretty sure. Do you think at 18 years old you understood the full impact of things you were doing and the true repercussions if you got caught?

Some states automatically restore a felons right to own/posses a firearm. Doesn't matter- the federal government says so and will charge you federally. Furthermore, a convicted felon CANNOT buy a firearm legally at any FFL that uses the FBI's Instant Check System. The FFL will get a "deny" message with no explanation. So how does a convicted felon purchase a firearm legally even if the state has automatically restored his/her right to own one?

The problem is that the "system" is broken; beyond the discussion of how many rounds a clip should hold or what type of gun you can own. The entire gun law needs to be rewritten from the ground up. I don't disagree that SOME felons should be excluded from owning a firearm or having one in their possession. I think that those excluded felons should get body slammed with a mandatory minimum sentence that puts the fear in them to not want to posses a firearm. If you've been convicted of armed robbery and you get caught with a gun at any point in your life; 20 years minimum. You get caught using a firearm in a crime; 20 years minimum. Then you will see crime rates start to fall.

**Lunk1** · 01-24-2013, 08:33 AM

I know of a guy who did it after being convicted of sexual assault of a child (one of those he was young but she was TOO young things. Wasnt that hard

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

I know of a guy who did it after being convicted of sexual assault of a child (one of those he was young but she was TOO young things. Wasnt that hard

That's because you're in Iowa.... that shit is normal there.

**jasc** · 01-24-2013, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

That's because you're in Iowa.... that shit is normal there.

Meth makes people do crazy sh*t...

**Lunk1** · 01-24-2013, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

That's because you're in Iowa.... that shit is normal there.

I just think it's not as hard to get ones rights restored as you make it out to be. PPL would just rather sit around and bitch than get off of their ass and do the work that it takes!

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

I just think it's not as hard to get ones rights restored as you make it out to be. PPL would just rather sit around and bitch than get off of their ass and do the work that it takes!

The federal government does not accept "restoration" by the state as valid. The only way the federal government will grant a full restoration is via Presidential Pardon. Some states, such as Michigan; automatically reinstate your right to bear arms 5 years after your sentence has been served. You don't even have to apply- its automatic. The federal government doesn't care and will charge you federally with "felon in possession" which is mandatory 5 year prison sentence. You have to have a full Presidential Pardon. There are 5.85 million convicted felons in the United States. You think that Obama is gonna pardon even 1% if they applied? The government doesn't have time for that and to review every single application case by case to see if restoration of rights is even possible.

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 09:13 AM

Reality is- the laws regarding firearms are broken, outdated, and don't even coincide with the state laws half the time. Since federal law supercedes state law; you must abide by the federal law regardless of what the state says and therefore its damn near impossible to legally own a firearm the second you are reported to the FBI database as a convicted felon.

**RaginCajun** · 01-24-2013, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Reality is- the laws regarding firearms are broken, outdated, and don't even coincide with the state laws half the time. Since federal law supercedes state law; you must abide by the federal law regardless of what the state says and therefore its damn near impossible to legally own a firearm the second you are reported to the FBI database as a convicted felon.

i am glad i live in Texas!!!!!!!!!!

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by 00ragincajun00

i am glad i live in Texas!!!!!!!!!!

Well that explains a lot!!!!

**Lunk1** · 01-24-2013, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

The federal government does not accept "restoration" by the state as valid. The only way the federal government will grant a full restoration is via Presidential Pardon. Some states, such as Michigan; automatically reinstate your right to bear arms 5 years after your sentence has been served. You don't even have to apply- its automatic. The federal government doesn't care and will charge you federally with "felon in possession" which is mandatory 5 year prison sentence. You have to have a full Presidential Pardon. There are 5.85 million convicted felons in the United States. You think that Obama is gonna pardon even 1% if they applied? The government doesn't have time for that and to review every single application case by case to see if restoration of rights is even possible.

I don't believe that is true at all. We are not talking about a "pardon" we are talking about certain rights being restored. The way the law reads is ( Applications can be approved by the President of the United States OR his designee) by designee they mean the Gov. of each state and it carries the same authority as if signed by the Pres. himself.

I would be curious to know how many of those apps actually are submitted. Most would rather sit around and cry some more about how they were wrongfully convicted and treated un-fairly by the system.

The bottom line is...you know the penalties for the crime....just don't fukin do it! Seems simple enough. Same logic we teach a 2 year old! Maybe spankings should be reconsidered huh Dan?

**Lunk1** · 01-24-2013, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by 00ragincajun00

i am glad i live in Texas!!!!!!!!!!

Were they still have shootouts...at colleges lol!

**evander87** · 01-24-2013, 10:45 AM

Hey Dan you say felons need to be able to protect their family. But if they are incarcerated how are they providing for their family, let alone protecting them?

**dan991** · 01-24-2013, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by evander87

Hey Dan you say felons need to be able to protect their family. But if they are incarcerated how are they providing for their family, let alone protecting them?

They aren't while incarcerated, they harmed their family. However, incarceration isn't indefinite (and if it is then the need for a gun is a null topic) yet civil rights removal is. Makes no sense.

**RaginCajun** · 01-24-2013, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Well that explains a lot!!!!

explains what exactly?

not born there, live there

**RaginCajun** · 01-24-2013, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Lunk1

Were they still have shootouts...at colleges lol!

yes, actually that wasn't too far from me, bout 30 miles

i need to go get my CHL now that i hae a handgun (Ruger SR40c - holds 15 and 9)

**jasc** · 01-24-2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by 00ragincajun00

explains what exactly?

not born there, live there

Just ignore Dan

He lives in Chicago.. they can't even make pizza right

**evander87** · 01-24-2013, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Makes no sense.

0_o

There are consequences for the choices you make. If you "choose" to commit a felony and are convicted you have chosen to give up your civil rights to vote and own a gun. As it's been pointed out you can get both abilities back. Pretty sure nobody forced you to commit the felony in the first place. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.