Gun owners support appeals court's decision that felons can't have guns...

[spin]

Mark Anderson of Redding thinks everyone should be able to own and carry a gun in America.

Everyone, that is, except convicted felons.

"If you are convicted of felonies, you have shown you're not morally responsible and mentally mature enough to have a gun," said Anderson, a 49-year-old flight instructor and gun owner.

A federal appeals court this week agreed.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a ban on convicted felons possessing firearms, saying it's consistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment establishes the right to keep and bear arms.

"We are very glad they upheld the ban," Lauren Horwood, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento, said Wednesday.

Thrice convicted felon Peter Vongxay, 27, had appealed a prison sentence for possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun, Horwood said. Vongxay, whose felony convictions include car burglary and drug possession, argued that the federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms was unconstitutional.

In the 9th Circuit decision, a three-judge panel in San Francisco concluded that the right to bear arms doesn't extend to convicted felons.




Jack Reese, left, and Larry Smalley, both of Redding, practice skeet shooting Wednesday at the Redding Gun Club in Bella Vista. A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a ban on convicted felons possessing firearms, saying it's consistent with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. "Who would ever take that to the 9th Circuit," said Smalley, a lawyer, who was surprised that the ban had made it that far, but said he was not disappointed by the decision.
http://www.redding.com/news/2010/feb/11/appeals-court-rules-that-felons-cant-have-guns/ /div]

[Tim01]

1. Good. And I'm very pro 2nd amendment.nt

[rrneck]

2. If we were doing incarceration right

we would be able to give ex felons guns. Generally speaking the fact that they have gone to jail and they still are not responsible enough to own a firearm is more of an indictment of the system than the felon.

It seems like we own people for at least a year and often as not they come out worse than when they went in.

[jeepnstein]

9. It takes hard work...

to get yourself sent to prison. The system bends over backwards to give you a second chance. Problem is there is a growing population that can't seem to figure out the wages of a life of crime. I sat in on a hearing today with a fellow who is likely going to spend the next twenty some years in prison for a laundry list of felonies. He wasn't the least bit sorry for anything. As a matter of fact he was trying to argue with the judge about how she did her job. He also berated the Sheriff for being "stupid". His kind words for the prosecutor were also duly noted. Oh, and then told the judge he needed a public defender because he didn't have a job. Then he started moaning about how the public defenders were so incompetent. Everything about him indicated he had nothing but contempt for the legal system. Which begs the question; If he's so smart why was he wearing prisoner's stripes and not even trusted with shoelaces?

Don't blame the jails if the criminals aren't getting it. Blame the criminals.

[spin]

13. It's a shame that some people can't live in a civilized society ...

but the damage they inflict if allowed to run free is probably more than the cost of incarcerating them for a lengthy stay in prison.

It's fair to give a person a second chance but three strikes and you should be out. Period.

[DonP]

3. Hey wait ... has the NRA heard about this?

<sarcasm on>

I've been assured by a number of scholarly posters here that the NRA wants "everyone to have a gun". I'm sure they check the NRA home page regularly so it must be true. Right?

<sarcasm off>

[Hangingon]

11. I am pretty sure the NRA has and they agree

[DonP]

15. I'm sorry I must have missed your cite on the NRA favoring arming criminals

Perhaps you just forgot to include it in your post as an oversight.

But with all their material available online, I'm sure you can easily come up with at least one example of the NRA ever calling for that kind of irresponsible behavior of arming criminals, right?

[rd_kent]

16. Really? Can you provide evidence to back up that claim?

[Hangingon]

23. Sorry guys

meant to say that the NRA does not approve of criminals being armed/

[chibajoe]

4. This was a bad case to use to overturn that law

I believe that SOME people who have been convicted of a felony (it is theoretically possible to get a felony for too many outstanding parking tickets) should be allowed to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored, Peter Vongxay is DEFINITELY not one of them. It's a shame that this self serving scum sucker decided to throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus to try and save his own worthless hide.

[spin]

5. In the article was this statement ...

He said violent felons in particular are banned from having guns, although if a felon is convicted of a nonviolent crime he or she can take legal steps to regain gun rights.

I believe that if the gun control groups were to turn their efforts to pushing for the enforcement of laws that deny the right of violent felons to own or carry firearms, we would live in a far more peaceful society. If the gun control groups put their effort into this approach, they would have far more effect on the downside of firearms than any assault weapons ban will ever achieve. They also would have the full support of almost all gun owners and the NRA. We also need to attack the organized criminal drug gangs by legalizing some drugs and by treating these gangs as terrorist organizations (which they are). Drug gangs commit far more terror in our country than Al-Qaeda.

If you are a violent felon and you get caught carrying a firearm, you should get at least 10 years in prison or 10 more years tacked onto the sentence you receive for the crime you were committing when caught carrying. If a warrant is issued to search your home and a firearm is found you should face a 10 year sentence.

RKBA should be for honest people not convicted violent felons.

[Tim01]

7. I totally agree. nt

[gorfle]

6. I'm not too worked up about it.

Look, I'm sure there are some felonies where maybe it's not appropriate to take away 2nd amendment rights.

But I'm not too worked up about it.

For every felon who got his felony for parking tickets, there are probably hundreds more real thugs.

Besides. It's real simple: Live a good, upstanding life and you have nothing to worry about.

I'm just not terribly sympathetic.

I suppose I could advocate for a restoration of one's rights if you can stay out of trouble with the law after, say, 10 years.

[paulsby]

18. i agree

fwiw, over the years (especially at the fedeeral level), the types of crimes that are felonies has expanded to the point that there are SOME felonies that really shouldn't disqualify gun ownership. but it's nice to draw a bright line at all felonies.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Some felons should not have thier 2A rights stripped.

I believe non-violent non-sexual non-weapons non-drug felonies should retain 2A rights after probation/parole.

For example there are numerous "felons" because of tax laws, wildlife violations, or other violations that are in no way linked to firearms.
There are too many stupid laws on the books that should not be "felonies".

[TPaine7]

10. Agreed.

There should be a short list of offenses that are "gun rights felonies"

Off the top of my head:

1) All serious violent crimes
2) Treason
3) Criminal neglect with dangerous items (like drunk driving or operating heavy equipment or carrying guns in populated areas while under the influence)
4) Non-violent sexual abuse of a child or retarded person

And the non-felonious dis-qualifiers:

1) Lack of mental capacity (insanity, childhood, retardation, brain damage...)
2) Habitual lack of control over one's mental state that could lead one at any time to lack capacity (alcoholism, drug dependency, victimization by the gun control reality distortion field).

(OK, I was joking about the distortion field. Fortunately, the field's honest victims tend to hate and fear guns and thus require no laws.)

[spin]

14. I agree. I have no problem with non violent felons owning firearms ...

I only have a problem if a person has a tendency toward violent behavior. All too often the level of violence gradually increases until someone is severely injured or dead.

[Mike K]

19. I agree with one exception:

You've included drug offenses as being cause to prohibit. Why?

There are many thousands of otherwise law-abiding Americans who have felony records for nothing more serious than selling or possessing marijuana, which in the opinion of many is an injustice in and of itself.

There also are certain categories of felon whom I would prohibit from carrying, or even owning, a handgun but would allow to own hunting rifles and shotguns. For example, I know of a situation in which a fellow did six months for aggravated assault (he beat the hell out of his brother-in-law). But this guy is a hunter and he owned a few guns which he had to get rid of because of the felony conviction.

While his offense was violent its very nature proves he is not inclined to wrongfully use a firearm.

[Callisto32]

12. *Snort* dig on 9th Cir.

LOLZ

[rusty_rebar]

17. I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I agree that violent felons should not have firearms. There are lots of stupid non-violent felonies that it makes no sense to restrict that right. If strict scrutiny is applied in the upcoming McDonald vs Chicago case, I think this would be ripe for challenge.

On the other hand, if you have done your time, why must you continue to pay for the crime? I guess that is more the Libertarian in me.

I also don't agree with harsher punishments just because a crime is committed with a firearm. I could see if you commit a crime and threaten force with a weapon that could reasonably be assumed to be capable of inflicting great bodily harm. But why should someone get a harsher sentence if they have a .38 in the back seat of their car then if they walk in with a baseball bat?

You should be sentenced for what you were convicted of doing, not what you did it with.

So, if you rob a store with a handgun. You should be charged with robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. Same thing if you use a baseball bat.

If you rob the same store, but with no weapon, then just robbery.

When you have served your time then you should be done with it.

I think I have seen (although I cannot cite it) studies that have shown that violent felons are likely to have committed other felonies before they committed violent felonies. So maybe it makes sense from that standpoint.

I firmly believe that non-violent felons should have all of their civil rights restored after they have served their full sentence.

[TPaine7]

20. "Their full sentence"

I firmly believe that non-violent felons should have all of their civil rights restored after they have served their full sentence.

The full sentence in some cases extends beyond incarceration. If you hack the Pentagon, your sentence may be X years in prison and the rest of your life without access to computers. In that case, I guess you could say that full First Amendment rights are restored after the hacker has served a full sentence--that is to say posthumously.

If Charles Manson were ever released, old and feeble in a wheelchair, perhaps, I would appreciate his not being allowed to keep and bear arms. Unless, of course, he chose to be buried with a musket or something.

Bottom line: I think lifelong loss of Second (or First) Amendment rights is justified for certain crimes. At the very least, the reformed thug should have to convince someone that she (or he) is actually reformed.

[Euromutt]

21. In an ideal world, I'd agree

I've been of the opinion for quite some time that I don't care much care for limitations placed on the freedom of ex-convicts that extends beyond the completion of their sentence. Notionally, once you've served your debt to society, that should be the end of it, without being further deprived of the right to vote, being listed in sex offender registries, and yes, being deprived of the right to keep and bear arms.

However, we have the problem that the American criminal justice system is, by and large, not particularly interested in rehabilitating offenders (to a large extent because the voters don't seem to be), and focused almost wholly on punishing them. There's only so much punishment we can give for most offenses before it becomes disproportionate, and thus "cruel and unusual," so the offender is going to have to be released at some point, and in all likelihood (barring minimum-security types), what he's going to be most suited for is resuming or even redoubling criminal activity.

And so we have ex-convicts on the street, many of whom still cannot be trusted not to re-offend. So there is a case to be made for preventative measures in the interest of public safety. In my view, depriving ex-cons of the vote isn't one of them, and sex offender registries don't do much good either (rearrest data indicates some 65% of sex offenders are extremely unlikely to reoffend, some 30% might reoffend, and about 5% could reasonably be described as dangerous; even then, only about 1/10 of the last group, about 0.5% of the total, are classed as "predators," i.e. compulsive offenders). Prohibiting those convicted of violent felonies, felonies involving firearms, and gang-related offenses* from possessing firearms, on the other hand, seems reasonable, as these would seem to be people at high-risk not just of reoffending, but of reoffending with a firearm. There have been a few too many mass shootings committed by people who, under the law, could have been deprived of their firearms before they committed the mass shooting, but for various reasons were not (including managing to plead a firearm-related felony down to a misdemeanor).

Come to think of it, better add burglars to the list; burglars are the group of offenders most likely to reoffend; something in the order of 70-80% get rearrested within three years. Precisely the kind of people we don't want to have thinking about eliminating witnesses.

That said, I'm not against having an appeals process, whereby after a probationary period of, say, five or ten years, the former offender could have his rights restored if he's managed to keep his nose clean in the interim.

* - Even non-violent gang-related offenses, since drug gang members frequently move up the ranks from being lookouts, runners, etc. to becoming muscle.

[jeepnstein]

22. It's that way now.

I have a friend who is a convicted felon. He wrote a very large bad check to try to save his company and then he tried to weasel out of it. That is in the past, he's done his sentence, paid restitution, and is very successful. Thing is, he still has to pay a lawyer to try to get his case expunged. I'm pretty sure the judge will do it given his track record over the last several years.

I also know people who repeatedly and habitually get themselves arrested for everything under the sun. They just don't seem to understand or care about what they're doing to their lives and the lives of everyone around them. Their judgment is lacking and I have no problem with the state limiting their access to arms.

My point is that a felon can petition to have their record expunged. It can only happen one time and only for certain crimes. ORC 2953 spells it out and I'm not going to do a dissertation on it here. After that you're just another frequent flier.

[aliendroid]

24. gun control doesn't work

I think it is useless to deny a felon the right to own guns, but at the same time I think that they can get their guns anyway and being denied the right to own guns could be another punishment, although the idea of a felony is being watered down, soon we'll all get felony charges if we disagree with our federal government.

That being said. I think the pro-gun crowd are slightly split on this issue, although I think most do not really consider this to be much of an issue anyway. It isn't clear the firearms act of 1968 was the cause of the increase in crime, it appears that the increase in violent crime were the idiotic gun control laws that have passed at the state level.