Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire convicted felons being members of .....

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.