Jump to content

Felon Gun Rights


Ted Lange

Recommended Posts

So best I can tell, federal law prohibits felons from possessing or owning a firearm.  

Texas on the other hand disagrees.

KHOU 11 was able to Verify that Texas Penal Code Sec 46.04 allows for a person with a felony conviction to possess a firearm on the premises where he lives, five years after the disposition of his conviction. 

However, federal law does not allow for a convicted felon to possess a firearm under any circumstances, unless he has been pardoned.

“As I tell my students, it’s very simple,” said KHOU-11 legal analyst and South Texas Law School professor Gerald Treece. “Federal law always trumps state and local laws in terms of conflict.”

 

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-can-a-felon-legally-have-a-gun-in-texas/491829268

 

Should a felon be allowed to purchase a gun?  Personal opinion, violent felons no (or at least with extreme vetting, to use a trump term).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Felons should not be allowed to own guns.* Federal Law usurps State Law.

*A felon who gets his felon status "expunged" or whatever it's called is no longer a felon. He/she should be allowed to own a gun.

 

1 minute ago, immamac said:

state felons and federal felons are not the same thing

 

Didnt know that, thanks. 

As for “expunged” means too. If you are a violent felon, I think you have forfeited your right to own a firearm, at least without some sort of rigorous program to reinstate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't felons be able to buy as many guns as they want?  As long as they can never vote and can never be hired by any employer again we are all good.  Right?

Plus, a man has to put food on the table. If he can't even get a job sacking groceries because of that felony record, what is he supposed to do?  He is gonna need that gun. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that non-violent felons should be given the opportunity to get their gun rights back. However this is extremely low on the priority list. Personally I think you should have to petition to have the right restored and PROVE you’ve since led a responsible and law abiding  life.  Any arrest or problems since the last conviction should be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is that we have far too many felons in this country, particularly for drug crimes.  Felons shouldn't  ever have gun rights.  But the only people who should be felons, should be those who did things bad enough they should never have guns again anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, immamac said:

state felons and federal felons are not the same thing

For purposes of 18 USC 922(g) they are exactly the same.

Quote

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person

(1)who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

In our scheme, federal law has to trump (fuck) state law.  For this reason, federal legislators should be damned careful.  18 USC 922 embodies some good ideas, but is also laughably vague.

Moreover, I can't think of a real good reason that the State of Texas' judgment on this issue is not superior to the feds' judgment, for Texans.  The feds really mostly need to GTFO of the crime business.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nolacycling said:

I'm seeing a lot of posters talk about "violent felons", but I'm not sure the law distinguishes. My brother got popped for tax evasion and is a felon. The job applications don't seem to distinguish.

Yeah, it seems like an easy distinction at times.  In practice it's not.  And the federal definition of "crime of violence" is straight out of Alice in Wonderland.

Generally speaking, a real hardcore criminal is probably not going to be able to stay out of trouble for five years.  Only a person who has committed to changing their life is going to be able to stay out of trouble for five years, so that takes care of most of the "filtration," and is an easier category than "violent" or non-violent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Violent felons ?  Hell no, you lose that right forever unless pardoned. Non violent, regulatory type felonies sure why not.

Then only the bad violent felons will have guns.  The good violent felons should have the ability to defend themselves against the bad violent felons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LonghornJudas said:

If recidivism rates were 2%, then maybe I would be more open to this.

Perhaps recidivism rates are high because our society treats felons as second class citizens for the rest of their life.  Also, our prison system doesn’t rehabilitate well, it often pushes people down further into a criminal underworld. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps recidivism rates are high because our society treats felons as second class citizens for the rest of their life.  Also, our prison system doesn’t rehabilitate well, it often pushes people down further into a criminal underworld. 

I don’t disagree. Reforms need to be made, but until changes are made that show a significant drop in the rates, then I’m not supportive restoring those rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, immamac said:

state felons and federal felons are not the same thing

I thought Kramer already had a record?

Not a federal record...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeaaaaahhhhhh, nooooooooooo.

Then we need to stop pretending we’re a free society and edit the 2nd amendment to only apply to people without a criminal record.  

The irony of this debate is we often give criminals the option of going into the military instead of prison.  We are literally handing many of them a rifle right now.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2019 at 11:54 PM, cactusflinthead said:

Depends on the felony I suppose. 

If you are prone to being violent or have priors involving theft of an armed nature you don't get to make go boom or hunt. 

Felony weed? Yeah you can have guns.

This ain't one size fits all. 

They can actually own antique firearms (manufactured before 1899) or replicas of antique firearms manufactured before 1899 that do not use cartridge ammunition. So that Hawken Rifle is good to go, as is any replica cap and ball revolver. Let's of semi-modern firearms manufactured before 1899 as well. Smokeless powder started becoming popular in the early to mid 1890's with many manufacturers making guns designed to handle it's greater pressures. You can pick up a cheap H & R or Iver Johnson revolver from the era for under $200, but it might require a little fiddling to get to function reliably.

Obviously this hasn't been a huge issue, since we don't see a lot of bank robberies involving black powder guns, but there has been some push to change the date for antique firearms. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, the age to be classified as an antique was only 60 years old. Now it is twice that.

Edit: I mathsed wrong. An antique firearm was 70 years old at the time of the GCA. It's over 120 years old today, so not quite twice as old.

Edited by NotActuallyALonghorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...