guns clubs, shooting ranges, etc.? What is everyone's opinion?
I believe background checks should be done on all members and if you are a convicted felon, you should not even have a firearm, much less be a member. Just wondering what everyone thinks.

Depends on the felony and how rehabilitated one has become.

according to the charge. Tax evasion and domestic violence are opposite ends of the spectrum. I wouldn't mind shooting beside someone who cheated on their taxes, etc.

Pretty sure you already do. They just ain't got caught . . . . .

BMT

This sort of thinking from the OP is how more and more gun control is passed.

Our club does do background checks. Also, I agree that it would depend on the felony and when it took place. It could have happened as a teenager and they are now 50+ and never had any more trouble. I believe it is better to forgive and forget.

I don't know how i feel about it, but it reminds me of a personal story. In the dark ages, when i was playing popo as a reserve i passed the oral interview which was a formality anyway as they all knew me, but i was approved to wear a uniform and go out on patrol. I had a hesitation that i brought up that i didn't want to do that not being armed. The question I got was "are you going to shoot anybody that doesn't need shooting?" I answered probably not, okay you can have a gun. The very next weekend i was facing down a drunk with a .357mag revolver behind whiskey row that was threatening to kill somebody. I am not even sure they RAN a background check on me.

I have a friend who got on pills when he was young. He sold a few to pay for a few for himself. Went to jail for 2 years. The system sets these guys up for failure but he did his probationary time, paid his officer, kept his nose clean and is now a really good dude. I'm in the mindset of most that have already posted,, depends on what they did. Tax evation cool, domestic violence not cool, child molester, yeah I'll shoot with you but I will probably have an accident that will result in a large hole in your head.

The bill of Rights does not restrict felons from owning firearms.

A right denied to one will become a right denied to all.

Agreed. If they can't be trusted with a full slate of rights, either don't release them from prison or bury them.

why not. in many states they can work in restaurants kitchens and serve food while they are treated for aids, hiv, impetigo, scabies, tb, herpes, lice, flu, colds etc.

I know guys in their 40's who got convicted of felony assault at the age of 20, served a little time, who are fine upstanding citizens.

Seems like there is a question on ATF Form 4473 that asks if the purchaser has ever been convicted of a felony. Not sure what happens if you answer yes...

Never heard of club membership being an issue. A firearm in hand, however, is another deal entirely.

It used to be that once a person "paid their debt to society" they had all of their rights. Now a felon never gets all of their rights back. Look at all the laws that make a person a felon if they violate them. It seems the bar gets lower all the time.

Our club does not perform background checks. We are not the police. Abide by the club rules and you are fine. As to felons, don't ask , don't tell is our unofficial policy.

Ernie

Completely disagree.

This is a private & voluntary club/association we're talking about, not the government.

Private clubs & associations should be free to operate in whatever fashion and under whatever rules the members deem appropriate.

As to the question... I am old school. If a person has paid his debt to society I have no problem shooting next to him.

Did a murderer who served 8 of a 24 year sentence serve his time?

Have a fight with your brother, get convicted of domestic violence.
Not all dv's are created equal.

If the individual can legally own a gun, IMHO he or she has every right to join a hunting or shooting club.

Gun clubs seem to be rife with busy bodies and doo gooders. Me thinks we'd be better off if folks spent more time minding their own business.

If he has not escaped from prison yeah.

depends

did he escape or get paroled?

if paroled, he can have civil rights denied to him until his paper sentence is served.

but I'm with 4ager and others, once your debt is paid, it's paid

the same logic that folks use to support denial should work for bankers

yeah you paid for your house, but we're still gonna charge you interest.

you've either satisfied your debt or you haven't.

I've seen nada to make me believe modern gov't and their laws are as fair and just as the gov't our FF's created. YMMV

Truth be known, most here would be felons if caught for all the sheit they pulled.

EXACTLY!!

The way we treat felons in this nation is appalling. If they have done their time, then they have paid their debt to society and their full rights ought to be restored. If they are not fit to be a full member of society, then they either stay in prison, or they get a needle full of happy juice.

But we send someone to jail for 30 years, and then hand this stigma over their heads that prevents them from ever getting a job, renting apartments/housing, etc. We make it next to impossible for them to joint a normal society, and then wonder why they return to crime.

If they can't be a full citizen, we shouldn't let them out; simple as that.

Completely agree. It's a good idea as a private effort, public records checks are cheap and easy. But to legally impose that burden, and potentially liability criminal or civil, is not right. You just know the Brady bunch would be all over this one. A felon knows he cannot possess a firearm and it is HIS obligation to obey the law or suffer the consequences.

On felons in possession reform is needed. Met a guy a few years ago working at a furniture store. He said he was convicted of a felony during high school days and wanted to legally possess a shotgun for pheasant hunting with friends and family. The crime, forgot the specifics, was barely a felony and fell into the category of stupid kid stuff. Every indication he straightened out and is a good citizen.

Best I could tell him is to apply to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and hope for the best. Though often given by the governor to restore hunting privileges a pardon is absolutely discretionary and a long, involved process at best.

Sucks like a Dyson.

I don't feel to bad for them.

Some felons can have gun rights reinstated. Others, meh, fugg 'em.

Depends on what their occupation is. Per federal law, LE/MIL who have been convicted of felonies(not including domestic violence convictions of the felony or even misdemeanor varieties) can possess firearms for duty use so no reason they should not be able to join your gun club/shooting range.

It's not just felonies that can keep you from purchasing a firearm. I just purchased another toy and actually read the form this time. I was shocked to see that if someone has been convicted of a misdemeanor that could have placed them in jail for two or more years, they are restricted from making the purchase. They can still complete the form and then apply for an exception after the application has been denied. The gun dealer holds the firearm for up to 100 days while the appeal is being processed.

Give the gov an inch....

Amen, brother.

Good post. Bottom line is that people would rather live with criminals then pay for their incarceration.

The legal definition of a felony is a crime the penalty for which is more than a year in prison. Consequently, I never have seen a two year sentence for a misdemeanor.

Yup.

Yep, and if felons want to ever legally lay a hand on a firearm again they need to join the countries armed forces(.mil or LE) and they can have access to weaponry far beyond what can be trusted to civilians.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24243460/ns/us_news-military/t/more-felons-allowed-enlist-army-marines/

Fixed it for you. miles

If someone is a dangerous felon, why the fugg are they out of jail?

'Cause they had to make room for a new dangerous felon. That's how it works.

Our club requires a Concealed Carry Permit, in order to get that you have to be able to pass the states background check.

We don't want convicts in the gun club.

Mike

Why would you not want a soldier or police officer in your club simply because they were a felon?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24243460/ns/us_news-military/t/more-felons-allowed-enlist-army-marines/

I've been saying that for years but it falls on deaf ears. The government wants as many felons as possible for the government's own reasons and none of those reasons are good ones.

Is that a Long Island accent?

Holy Smokes,....

There I was, all cooled out for the evening.

Revolving door dittos, LT

GTC

It IS him, isn't it ?

GTC

So you think that if someone was convicted one time of income tax evasion, or, or growing marijuana, they should be denied forever the right to keep and bear arms?

Congratulations! You have joined Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. You are a Big Brother Gun Grabber! This is exactly how the big government liberals are, right now, going about the task of gun confiscation. They do it little by little.

In 1993 the feds managed to prohibit anybody who was convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from having firearms. That is, a guy who was arguing with his wife, and merely grabbed her arm, had committed domestic violence assault and battery, and no more guns for him.
Do you remember who was First Lady when this law was passed?

Bit by bit, the big government gun grabbers cut away at firearms rights.

Which group will be next? I predict that next will be anybody ever convicted of a DUI.

The notion that ANYONE who's been convicted of a felony shouldn't have a gun is stupid.

The notion that EVERYONE who's served their sentence should be redeemed in the sight of society is stupider.

My opinion agrees with yours.

However, my reality tells me it's $100/head to do background checks and I don't want to pay those kind of dues.

Running a club is similar to being a Gov't official - the best mgrs are the ones who don't spend the $$ to make everything perfect.

You nailed it brother.

My question has nothing to do with taking anything from anyone or those who are good people who made a mistake and either it was a considered a felony at one time, but now is only a misdemeanor (happened to one person I know, his lawyer tells him he cannot touch a gun of anykind at anytime, he had marijuana in a pocket in high school and it was enough that at the time it was considered a felony and he did not even do any jail time and now it is a misdemeanor, heck it is probably not even a crime at all in some states), or a felony that is not of a violent nature.

I was more thinking of if you commit a crime with a gun, i.e. rob or threaten someone at gunpoint or commit a crime (murder, rape at gunpoint, kidnap, etc.) with a gun and convicted, then yes you give up your legal ability to own a gun for the rest of your life. Only to way to protect a law abiding persons right to a gun is to punish those who commit a crime with one, no matter the age or time served.

One of my friends had a guy working for him, construction, the guy did not show up for work for a month or so, he got a DUI, he served 30 days or so in jail for whatever was worked out with the court. When he showed back up to work (he was a great worker and talented at working with wood), my friend asked him what happened and he could have paid whatever it was and not went to jail, but he told my friend that 30 days or so in jail was nothing, he said a year or two was nothing, he would rather keep the money, do the jail time, get a free place to stay with food and cable tv.

Same probably applies to someone who commits a crime with a gun, not enough punishment to those who break the law with a gun to help protect those who abide by the all the crazy laws the idiots on the left come up with.

Another question is what happens if the person who committed a crime with a gun, gets caught with a gun or guns and is connected to the club and that the club has knowingly allowed him to possess, shoot, etc. guns at the club?

I think background checks should be enforced for the above reason. I agree with many of the above about letting people get on with their lives, but if the worst case scenario happened, I understand it is a class 6 felony if you let a convicted felon hold, shoot, possess, etc a gun, of any kind.

I agree with you, should have clarified more, I should have added people who are convicted of crimes with a gun. As you say the guy who grabs his wifes arm, that should go away (that is why when a woman has gotten upset with me, for the most I walk away and let things cool off, if they don't cool off, there are million of women in the world), the guy who holds a gun to her head and threatens her life, loses his legal ability to own a gun for the rest of his life.

My personal opinion, (yours may differ, and that's OK), is that there should be no restrictions, regardless of whatever crime they have been convicted of. If they are deemed ready to return to society as productive members, then let them return as full members; gun rights included. If they are too dangerous to allow them to return to society, then allow them to take a one way ride with Ol' Sparky. You can't have it both ways, they're rehabilitated, or they ain't........

I agree and have said that for years too. Many stand around with that DUH look because the recidivism rate is so high but we do everything possible to make sure once a criminal always a criminal.

This. Busy bodies should just STFU.

I think the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree with you.

Blue, keep resorting to logic and you will confuse many.

mike r

I think we should make every citizen an automatic felon from birth then all guns could be confiscated.

That's better.

I typed before I thought it out, maybe you missed my recent posts. If you commit a crime with a gun, meaning, rape, murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc. (not making a mistake and having a gun in your possession at the wrong place at the wrong time or breaking one of the many idiotic laws there are in existence in this country), but a crime with a gun, you give up your legal to own firearms for the rest of your life.

I was not being jocular. That is pretty much what the Federal laws, with the exception of Family Violence, say.

Huge portion of the problem is to many control hungry lawmakers making to many rules and laws and to many folks enforcing them. It's has become a completely out of control industry.

...and that is a result of a society that is irresponsible and doesn't want to be accountable. It's always somebody elses fault.

And just like now only the trustworthy law-abiders will be gunless. You disarmed the good guys.

If the person can legally own the firearm no problem with him shooting. As to the other part about busy bodies and do gooders you are spot on. Basic safety rules then mind your own bees wax. We have that situation at our club and it is costing members. They regulate rate of fire,number of rounds in the firearm etc. I inquired how to load three rounds in my Garands Em block and got a blank stare. The biggest joke is the power tripping blowhards who are thinking up all the new rules don't know their azz from a mine shaft about the majority of firearms. They shoot trap, and that is about all they know or care about.

How is a murderer, rapist, kidnapper, or a robber who robs and uses a gun to do it, etc. a good guy?

Ohh, man. Good one.

What are unalienable rights?

Which I believe does not have to involve either family or violence.

The Founding Fathers did not establish a legal mechanism whereby Free Men lost their 2nd Amendment right. If a Free Man should, by the will of Congress, lose his right to own a gun then shouldn't he also give up his right to speak out in a public forum, act in a stage play/movie, write books/speeches/etc.?? As I get older the erosion of our rights becomes more egregious every day.

Funny how some that "love freedom" are all for passing a new law for this, or a new law for that.... As long as they agree with the law.

Nearly 250 years of a bunch of azzhole politicians passing laws for whatever pops into their small minds results in what we have now. Hardly ANY freedom at all. But it sure doesn't take long in day to day life to violate one or more of them, or step over a civil line that will get you sued...

Every time someone passes a new law, or files a lawsuit, we all lose that much more freedom.

Entitlements are expected now. They are written into the laws. Politics and political favors are written into the laws and lawsuits.

And we wonder why the blacks riot, and seem so ignorant in what they believe? Entitlements. Legal ones.

Wonder why your kid is expelled from school for drawing a picture of a gun, or saying a prayer?

We'd better get back to basics. Soon.

Quit worrying if the guy shooting next to you at the gun club wrote a hot check when he was in college. Damn. We got bigger fish to fry...

If you are deemed safe enough to be in society all Constitutional rights should be restored in my opinion.




Travis

All proponents of any form of gun control should go read the definition of inalienable, then rights, then liberty.

The sad thing is many if not most so called conservatives couldn't handle the freedom and responsibility it carries as envisioned by the founders.

One of the costs of freedom is that everyone is alloted those freedoms, even if they don't look like you, vote like you, shoot the same type of gun as you, drive the same brand of truck as you, root for the same football team as you, go to the same church as you, speak like you or think like you. Unless and until one can accept that even ex-cons, morons and (fill in the blank)'s have the same rights as you, you aren't ready to be free.

That's another place we have failed...

Giving our kids a proper upbringing, and teaching them right from wrong and what to do and not do. Family structure is diminished.

It's no surprise to see various acts and behaviors that we witness today, given that the kids are now adults.

ATF used to have a program to restore firearms rights. The guy had to complete his jail time, and his probation. He had to pay all fines.
Then he applied to ATF and they did an investigation. It helped his case considerably if he had not broken any more laws, including DUI, and if he had a job and was self supporting.

Under this law ATF restored firearms rights to thousands of convicted felons. Anybody who had been convicted of using a firearm robbing a bank, etc, had no chance of getting gun rights restored.

In 1993, the President pushed Congress to de-fund this program, and it was de-funded.
Do you remember who was First Lady, and by her husband's account, "co-President" at that time?

The program still exists, but with no funding, it has gone out of existence. Nobody has had federal firearms rights restored since 1993.

Georgia has a program to restore firearms rights. Basically same thing as the now-defunct ATF program, person has to be a one-time offender, no firearms involved in their felony, and has to have completed jail and probation and paid all fines, and gun rights are restored.

What does released have to do with rehabilitated ?

Go back and read what the Lt said about being released.

I'd say a gun club, where everyone is armed, is the least likely place in the world for violence to break out.

Background check him if he wants to work in a compulsory government confinement school, where everyone is guaranteed by the State to be a hapless victim.

Gun clubs can make any rules they want, but in mine, the most important question would be whether he was capable of handling a gun safely.

I read the entire thread. Hasn't changed my view on anything.



Travis

Back ground checks, in one form or another, are required to purchase a firearm, take out loans or apply for credit and to work in certain jobs. These checks use your social security number and/or drivers license number etc. I will not give either of these to the good old boy at the shooting range to log into his card file or Windows 95 computer. What is, or is not in my file....is none of his and his buddy's business. There are laws disallowing convicted felons from firearm possession in many states. Parole officers and the Police are expected to make sure the ex-felon complies with the laws in that state, not the retired guy working at the range. Besides, after retiring from the Department Of Corrections I'm more concerned about the guy returning from war with PTSD and 9 year olds at the range than ex-felons.

Would you be OK with a sex offender moving in next door to you after his release (rehabilitation) as well ?

Not exactly sure what you mean. If it can be proven that they're rehabilitated, then they should be released, with ALL of their rights intact. If it can't be proven, then they shouldn't be released, period. PROVEN is the key word, though, as it's about impossible to do. I'll go ahead and throw another log on the fire, though. I don't believe ANYONE should be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. If their crime is so heinous that the courts feel that a criminal should not be allowed to rejoin society for a longer period than that, if ever, then they should walk them out the back door of the courthouse and put them down.

That's my point. To my knowledge, there isn't any test, evaluation or measure required prior to release. If they severed their sentence, they are free to go. Some, not all obviously, suffer from bad mental wiring and will never be safe to roam amongst us, yet are released anyway.

Whether someone is or is not rehabilitated has nothing to do with whether we should or should not be required to submit to a back ground check at our local shooting ranges. Which I believe is what the original post asked.

And surely we are all smart enough to know that Prisons are warehouses and not rehabilitative. Sentences are largely governed by state budgets and not the crime. We also know society does not have the stomach to "put down" those we find deserving.

+1

You have to be a serious turd in Georgia to be a felon, you have negotiations prior to plea, then the First Offender Act and Conditional Discharge Statute opportunities to avail yourself of.

Then there remains a possibilty of having your record expunged or restricted as they call it now after you successfully complete Parole or Probation..

So yes I don't want Felons in my gun club.

Mike

So you have no probem giving up your right to privacy and giving your gun club/range your social security number, DL number,address, date of birth etc? Since in most states felons cannot own or possess firearms, do you really think they are going to flaunt their guns at a public shooting range where half the members may be leo? Wow lol.

Is this a real question?



Travis

Absolutely...as long as I knew he was a sex offender. I'd much rather have him close where I can keep an eye on him, than watching me and mine from a distance.

I'll tell you a secret: sex offenders are handy people to know. The sex offender community, so to speak, is fairly tightly connected, and having an ear in it can be very helpful when it comes to protecting your own people. Probably you won't want to introduce him to your daughters, though.

If it is a public range any and everyone should have access.

If it is private the club they should be able to ban anyone for any reason at anytimne.

I asked Travis as I believe he does have children and to your point, it doesn't matter (possibly) whether there are young daughters or sons. Perhaps I've misunderstood his point as to the distinction between "free man" and safe to the public.

No. I don't want them living near me or in my community (although I've never lived anywhere they didn't) but if society says they're safe enough to be free, they should be afforded the same rights as everybody else.

Now if you're asking if I think they should be free? No. I don't.


Travis

Jayzus!

No I give my info the Georgia Bureau of Investigations and they tell Probate Court Judge "OK" and they mail me my Concealed Carry Permit. I show the card to the gun club and it's filed along with my application.

Mike

And no I don't think most would attempt to join anyway but y'all asked the question about gun clubs.

Mike

"Society" has no say in their release and we have no way to measure rehabilitation. So my point is not all "free men" should be given the same rights (gun ownership) as you and I if they have a history of violence toward others. If they want o hurt themselves......so be it. Folks with a history of robbery, for example, are released all the time with no intention of changing their behavior and use incarceration to fine hone their skills and network with like minded folks.

Sure glad I live in Montana and do not have to go through all that crap to shoot at the range.

"Range" ? I thought you guys just shot up street signs..............

They do that too but not so much around here. I haven't seen a shot up sign in a long time.

Okay, yes, don't introduce them to your sons either.

Sorry, I thought that'd be obvious.

Difference between gun club (private) and Range (public)

We have had convicts take guns to pawn shops and then get new felony charge of possessing firearm by convicted felon

It's not the smartest individuals we are dealing with sometimes.

Mike

Well our range is a public private range I guess. I purchase a membership, which includes a key to the locked gate, every year. It's a family membership which in my case includes the wife only. We also have 7-day guest passes that allows a guest to go with a full fledged member to the range for up to 7 days.

The range is owned by a non-profit sportsmen's association although the land is leased from the Forest Service.

I have no idea of what this makes us. A public private range, private public range?

Gun control is stupid and ineffective. I don't care what demographic you try to apply it to.




Travis

I agree with regards to civil, law abiding citizens who conduct themselves accordingly. At least you are honest about being OK with criminals maintaining weapons so they are free to go about their business as well.

Amazes me how folks will gladly take rights away from others, then justify it because the rules were not followed.

18 year old arguing with his girl on the beach pushes her into the sand gets a life sentence of no gun ownership.

Only a mentality akin to what eventually happened at places like Auschwitz or what ISIS is doing now, can condone this.

I feel that one gives up their rights by the way they conduct themselves.

Then your OK with a life imposed sentence for a simple misdemeanor?

"Rights" must not mean much to some.

Hell no. I'm talking about violent criminals that use guns to commit crime (violence) against others. Not talking about the guy who comes home and finds some guy shagging his wife and snaps and blows the guy away.

Trouble is the law only see's in black and white, grey area's are not allowed, and there is never a shortage of people that will agree with any law if presented in the "right" way, and enforce that black and white law to the fullest.

Just ask the poor bastid in Calioto that had his guns confiscated because his ol' lady was angry and got a restraining order.

You can be a civil, law abiding citizen after a conviction.

The only thing a blanket "no guns if criminal" law is going to do is keep law abiding citizens from being armed. That's all any form of gun control does.

I'm prone to say "guns for all" loooong before I'm prone to say "guns for some."




Travis

Mark Fuhrman cannot own a firearm legally.

That's what all forms of gun control will get you.



Travis

I hear what you're saying and I agree with most of it. I believe I was pretty clear about the group I feel that shouldn't be allowed through their own behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104�208,[1] 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(9)[2]) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).

Under the federal law governing possession of firearms by police or military while on duty (18 U.S.C. � 925(a)(1)), an officer under a current protection order, or even one who has a conviction for murdering a spouse, may legally be in possession of a service firearm, but a person convicted of one of the misdemeanor violations listed in the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(9)) is prohibited from possessing any firearms or ammunition at any time under any circumstances.[7]

As a result, a number of police officers and military personnel have been dismissed as a result of domestic violence crimes, some of which were committed before the law was passed. This is not due to the letter of the law, but is a side effect of their loss of access to the firearms needed to carry out their duties.
/////////////////////////////////////

This so-called "law" still chaps my @ss to this very day, and to hell with Congress for not repealing it.

I can't believe this law has not been ruled unconstitutional. Actually I can believe it but it's still unconstitutional. They are restricting someones constitutional rights without their even being convicted of anything. Even if you are convicted it's usually a misdemeanor which should never result in your being prohibited. I agree, my ass is chapped right along with you for every American, not just LE. ( and I am a retired LEO)

If you knew anything about the douche bag who wrote the bill you wouldn't be surprised at all.

Remember, Finn is a cop from NJ. He has no idea of the concept or idea of liberty and freedom. It's not his fault as NJ gave the concept eons ago.

I don't like it but it's what the majority of We the People want so we have it.

States have their own legal procedures for the restoration of Rights after a felony conviction...
Depending on the crime, the victims, how long ago the offense occurred, and most especially whether the person is reformed...then I have no issue with considering their Rights being restored.

If he can get hired on with another police department then he could possess a firearms and be in compliance with Federal Law. That is one of the many good things about GCA 68 since it provides an exemption for .MIL & LE. Unfortunately police did not get the exemption they wanted and deserved when the Lautenberg Domestic Violence law went in to effect.