Felons of any crime shouldn’t own guns

By Jerrod Huber

October 8, 2010

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing any firearm or ammunition. Specifically a person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 USC 922(g). These gun laws were created for a reason, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. People with felony convictions claim these laws are unfair taking into consideration the nature of their crime. A person with a felony stealing charge doesn’t deserve a gun anymore than a person convicted of murder. Allowing felons of white collar crimes to own guns would only create loop holes for the violent criminals to crawl through and legally obtain a firearm. There’s no way to balance the laws equally and be fair about it. Enforcing these laws is hard enough as it is and criminals will always be able to buy a gun where supply meets demand, but there’s no sense in making it easier for them. Most felons who have a gun illegally are more likely to carry and conceal. If they already have a felony conviction and own a gun illegally they don’t have much to lose. Some felony convicted criminals claim they want a gun to go deer hunting or competition skeet shooting, but how would anyone truly know that’s what they wanted it for. It’s something they should have considered before making bad decisions, and I don’t feel sorry for them. Nothing much can be done to stop a criminal from acquiring a gun, but the laws are there to protect the people. Criminals don’t care about a book full of statutes. They’re not concerned about the law. They may have to pay more for a gun, but it’s available and the higher prices create an incentive to steal more. Unfortunately, these laws are creating an artificial underclass of people in this country. Felons have a hard time finding a decent job. They can’t vote or defend their own lives as well as their families. They may even have problems renting a home considering most places do background checks these days. As far as the law is concerned, felons have handed over their civil rights forever, but only the criminal is to blame. These laws are great and serve a purpose for the common good shared by society. It’s impossible to monitor the type of felony committed when deciding what felony constitutes the right to bear arms. It may seem unfair to some and, in a sense, probably is. However, if felons are allowed to have guns after paying their debt to society, then terrorists are allowed to have bombs after serving their sentence.

Comments

  1. mike sneller says:

    Maybe, like most clueless liberals, you should do some research before showing your biased stupidity.The reality is that you are talking about a constitutional right, which is guaranteed, whether it is “deserved” or not. There is much case law precedent to make the case that all restrictions to gun ownership, even those laws you seem to love so well restricting gun ownership of felons, are patently unconstitutional for a number of reasons that the courts are now considering. If you knew what you were writing about, you would be aware of some of these legal issues, and you would comment on them instead of polly parrotting gun banner biased bullshit such as this gem: “As far as the law is concerned, felons have handed over their civil rights forever, but only the criminal is to blame.” ” These laws are great and serve a purpose for the common good shared by society.”, particularly since the evidence is now overwhelming that gun control, if nothing else, is a feel good fantasy and has never kept even one gun out of the hand of even one person determined enough to get one.

    1. Gordon Gekko says:

      “A person with a felony stealing charge doesn’t deserve a gun anymore than a person convicted of murder.”

      So you’re saying a thief is the same exact threat to society as a psychopathic empathy lacking killer?

      “Allowing felons of white collar crimes to own guns would only create loop holes for the violent criminals to crawl through and legally obtain a firearm.”

      I hope you do realize that white collar crimes are non-violent. How can a violent felon legally obtain a gun if he was convicted of a violent felony, and not a white collar offense?
      This remark is so fallacious I don’t know how to approach it.

  2. Pat Stevens says:

    Once a person has completed their sentence All their Rights Should be Restored!

    1. C Dennis says:

      Are you serious? Once a person has paid their debt for their crime their rights should be restored. You’re out of your mind. If we took your statement to heart then all convicted child molesters would no longer be required to register as a sex offender. Come on! Felons committed their crime knowingly and willingly. They knew the consequences if caught. The laws are there for a reason and are good laws. Sorry that convicted felons can no longer legally skeet shoot or deer hunt, but that’s the price you pay when you commit a felony and that’s the way it needs to be.

  3. Jerrod Huber says:

    “Unfortunately, these laws are creating an artificial underclass of people in this country. Felons have a hard time finding a decent job. They can’t vote or defend their own lives as well as their families. They may even have problems renting a home considering most places do background checks these days.”

    Wow man, doesn’t this show that I do have some sympathy about this issue without crossing the fence. Don’t pour wine in a brown paper bag full of cheese.

    “Nothing much can be done to stop a criminal from acquiring a gun, but the laws are there to protect the people. Criminals don’t care about a book full of statutes. They’re not concerned about the law. They may have to pay more for a gun, but it’s available and the higher prices create an incentive to steal more.”

    I did say that nothing will stop a determined person from getting a gun.

    “Enforcing these laws is hard enough as it is and criminals will always be able to buy a gun where supply meets demand.”

    Woop, there it is again.

    “However, if felons are allowed to have guns after paying their debt to society, then terrorists are allowed to have bombs after serving their sentence.”

    Nothing in life is fair, including the law, but sometimes you have to research to see if a person did their research.

    “right to bare arms.” this writer clearly means bare arms, hands, and feet (check spelling).

    “As a result of this felony, I’m not allowed to possess a weapon of any sort. I can’t have a handgun, a knife longer than six inches, or a bow and arrow.” this statement is inaccurate.

    “I’ve never had a violent crime of any sort in my life but because someone left a couple of Jay-Z CD’s in my car, I’m not allowed to protect my family.” A couple of Jay-Z CD’s in a car, even stolen, is not a felony, there’s more to the story. Wait a minute, here’s the truth, ” I have a felony for receiving stolen property. The property that I received was a BOOK of compact discs.”

    “Murderers and other violent offenders should not be able to possess firearms because they have the potential to endanger lives but they should be placed in a separate category than non-violent offenders.”

    Try arguing this one in congress-tax-tax-tax-that innocent people will pay to screen these people and create more loop holes.

    Wow, who, I say, WHO really did their research here.

  4. adam smith says:

    Wow, you don’t seem to have a clue. A few decades ago Blacks couldn’t marry Whites and could go to jail for it. Or worse. So if someone Black got caught and killed for it, you’d say they had only themselves to blame, the laws are the laws?

    The Second Amendment says the right shall not be infringed. That means you can’t take it away. Martha Stewart is never allowed to legally defend her life with a firearm ever again. You really mean to tell me that Martha Stewart is the type of person we don’t want to have guns, but the guy who drowns puppies for fun is the model gun owner? Drowning puppies doesn’t lose your right to bear arms. How about people who get charged with misdemeanor shoplifting? They get to have guns. But if one of their friends takes an item that’s worth $1 more than one of their friends, they might lose their right to own a gun for life. So someone who steals $599 of goods is a model gun owner, but someone who steals $600 worth should lose that right for life?

    I blame the laws and the idiots who support those laws. The felons who are still active criminals will still carry guns. It’s only the ones who are trying to live law-abiding lives that are pissed because they can’t legally get a gun. Illegally getting a gun is easy. You see the point there: if they wanted to break the law they could. They are choosing to respect it and being pissed on.

  5. BVLJ says:

    I think violent felons, such as murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, and kidnappers, and any violent crime with an injured victim, should be forbidden from having any weapon, but as one user said, one who steals, could be a responsible gun owner, where his friend took something that made the theft a felony, now he is treated like the violent felons and forever banned, Also too many crimes are considered felonies. For example, in VA if one is dealing marijuana, and it’s more than an ounce, it’s a felony, but anything less is a misdemeanor, why should the one who sold more be a felon? I wouldn’t trust either category of dealer or shoplifter, but it’s unfair that one forever loses there right to vote and have a firearm, when the misdemeanor offender has the same intent and mindset and can still acquire firearms.

  6. adam says:

    Plus, don’t forget that there are millions of Americans who commit crimes all the time and just don’t get caught, so it’s really a game of semantics. I have a friend who smokes weed every day. He’s never been caught. I have another friend who does coke all the time and she’s never been caught. We have the last two presidents that admitted to using weed and coke, and they carried the “football” controlling our nuclear arsenal. But if you have the bad luck to get caught you shouldn’t own a gun? Screw that. How many pedophiles are out there molesting little kids while LEGALLY owning guns? Now how many women who had one fight and got arrested for domestic violence are banned forever from having a gun? That’s right? The law was meant to work that way? Part of the reason criminals who get caught don’t respect the laws is the laws are stupid. They’re not applied equally.

  7. BVLJ says:

    If I had it my way all felons could still retain firearms. Hey if they were able to purchase them on their own, at least law enforcement could better trace them to the crook. When have you ever heard of somebody like the VA tech shooter saying “It is illegal for me to bring these guns to this campus and to commit homocide so I won’t shoot anyone”. How about a bank robber saying “hey robbing the bank is illegal so I am not going to rob this bank” Banning felons from having guns is stupid. All it does is affect the ones who have gone straight and have chosen to respect the law and live law abiding lives. One user says if felons can have guns after there debt is paid then terrorists can have bombs after there sentence. There is no comparison with a common felon and a terrorist. Many felonies don’t even involve a firearm, yet they are all lumped in together. What about Martha Stewart? Or the one homeless woman who was convicted of a felony for enrolling her child in a better school? People like these two shouldn’t be equated with people like O.J. Simpson or Jeffery Dahmer. Non violent felons should be able to own guns or the dumb lawmakers should re decide what constitutes a felony. Anything can be a felony, from burning a DVD movie, to writing a hot check, to shoplifting, to cocaine possession, to murder or arson. I understand why the violent ones are banned. This is because the nature of their crime. Like one user said, “I blame the laws and the idiots who support those laws”. I feel the same way.

    1. Jerry Christiansen says:

      Thank God someone has a brain.

  8. Bert says:

    I feel the same way. The second amendment is a “right” that you can’t take away. Look at the Martha Stewart case. You people mean to tell me that she shouldn’t have firearms, but the person who neglects or abuses their pet dog is the great gun owner? What about misdemeanor embezzlement or shoplifting? They can own firearms, but the felon embezzler or shoplifter is banned for life? So if someone shoplifts or embezzles $999 dollars worth of money or merchandise they can be the model gun owner, but the person who does the same with $1000 should lose that right for life? Also in many states possession of a Schedule I or Schedule II drug is a felony. Why should someone who got caught with a little coke or heroin years ago be lumped in with violent offenders? In Arizona mere possession of marijuana is a felony, so someone who gets caught with a single joint here should lose the right to own guns for life, but the person who is caught in Virginia or California can be the model armed citizen? I blame our politicians, the laws, and the other idiots who support these laws. Too many victimless actions are crimes and too many of them are felonies. In some gun control states like New Jersey, merely possessing a semi automatic AK-47 is a felony charge but one can possess the same item in Virginia or Texas and be the model gun owner?? It is straight up b.s.

  9. Jerry Christiansen says:

    I have felony convictions: FROM YEARS AGO. I was a young adult, mislead by my own personal decisions that today don’t effect me except the fact that I want to hunt with a rifle and can’t. I never held up a bank and didn’t shoot anyone, didn’t endanger anyone’s life. There is a difference in some felons lives that justifies the fact. There are many ignorant individuals that don’t deserve the right to bare arms that can simple because they haven’t been convicted of a crime, sometimes, it just hasn’t happened yet.

  10. Bert says:

    It’s so stupid. Nothing can stop a determined person from obtaining a firearm. I just cannot understand why a felon convicted of a crime such as shoplifting, drugs, or forgery is equated with a rapist, kidnapper, or murderer. The non violent felons should be able to retain their firearm “rights”. I feel that nothing says they would harm anybody, however anyone who makes a so called “straw purchase” for a violent offender whether they are a non felon or non violent felon should be executed or imprisoned for life.

  11. Bert says:

    Also, to the author of this biased article, too bad ignorance, being biased, and outright stupid isn’t a felony so you can’t get locked up for it. I wish it was, then maybe your dumb ass would change your tune.

  12. imasonuhbich says:

    The author is clearly making good points. If you ease the law on lesser felonies to allow those certain felons to own guns, it creates a ton of paperwork and screening that “we” the taxpayers will pay for. Bert needs to consult Ernie with a Big Bird in his face.

  13. JP bartelt says:

    (However, if felons are allowed to have guns after paying their debt to society, then terrorists are allowed to have bombs after serving their sentence.)

    I don’t think I have ever heard a more absurd analogy. The neither the terrorists or any average citizen is allowed to have the bombs.

    The out rite ban on felons being able to have firearms started in 1968 and was all because of one incident. Every year new laws are passed making it easier for the average person to be convicted of a felony. If these so called felons are so dangerous why are they allowed out of prison? Why not ban all felons from driving cars they kill more people then guns? Ban them from owning any sharp instruments not even a pencil and make them ride around strapped to a wheelchair so they cannot punch or kick anyone. Like it or not most felons go to work, pay taxes, and have family responsibilities like everyone else. The ban on felons being able to vote and own firearms is just another unconstitutional infringement.

  14. Joe D. says:

    Dude really i am an avid outdoors man and because
    i received a few to many DUI convictions i received a class D felony WTF. I have never mixed
    the two nor ever had the thought too. So why should i lose my gun rights? Maybe if i was drinking and driving while shooting out the vehicle window. This is one part of a felony charge that needs to be looked at.i committed no crime with a gun!!!!!!

  15. Jammie says:

    I think that felons should have their gun rights, especially if their crime had nothing to do with a gun. This thing of terrorists being allowed to have bombs is crazy. There is a HUGE difference here… Guns are our constitutional right, no where in it does it say “you have the right to bare bombs” It isn’t even a comparison. The whole thing of bash the felon is largely media hype. When a person is convicted of a crime, a judge will sentence them… If he didn’t feel that person couldn’t be rehabilitated, then he has it in his power to put him away for longer. While there are a lot of ‘hardened’ criminals in jail, the percentage of those that will do their time then go home and never do anything illegal again is greater than those that get out and hurt people.

    If you don’t give a person a fair shake in life, how can you expect them to succeed? A person convicted of a crime clearly did something bad, but how many of us have done things that we never got caught for, large or small. None of us knows the circumstances of a person that gets in trouble, so who are we to judge.