When were ex-cons denied the Right to own a gun? [W:69]

[Kal'Stang]

That is my question. I know that it wasn't always the case so when did it start being illegal for an ex-con, now a free man, to own/carry a gun? For those smart alexs out there...I'm asking for a history lesson. IE dates, first law. I've tried to find it but with all the talk about guns and statistics and what not if it is out there then it is pretty much buried info.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is my question. I know that it wasn't always the case so when did it start being illegal for an ex-con, now a free man, to own/carry a gun? For those smart alexs out there...I'm asking for a history lesson. IE dates, first law. I've tried to find it but with all the talk about guns and statistics and what not if it is out there then it is pretty much buried info.

1968 (federally). a law passed by the democrats and LBJ mainly to

1) stave off the claims of nixon (who was hardly pro gun) and others that the dems were soft on crime-especially black street crime that was running rampant due to drugs in the inner cities

2) to show that "we did something" after JFK and Dr King were Killed.

 

[Kal'Stang]

1968 (federally). a law passed by the democrats and LBJ mainly to

1) stave off the claims of nixon (who was hardly pro gun) and others that the dems were soft on crime-especially black street crime that was running rampant due to drugs in the inner cities

2) to show that "we did something" after JFK and Dr King were Killed.

Thanks TD. Had a feeling it'd be you to answer the question.

 

[blaxshep]

1968 (federally). a law passed by the democrats and LBJ mainly to

1) stave off the claims of nixon (who was hardly pro gun) and others that the dems were soft on crime-especially black street crime that was running rampant due to drugs in the inner cities

2) to show that "we did something" after JFK and Dr King were Killed.

Typical symbolism over substance.

 

[TurtleDude]

Typical symbolism over substance.

the anti gun democratic turds in office didn't realize that their attempts to pretend they actually were tough on crime would result in the NRA becoming political and would push back against the dem's strategy. And of course, after the NRA did, Democrat gun control schemes went from staving off claims thy were soft on crime to punishing the NRA and its members for objecting to their strategy.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'm not even against violent felons being prohibited firearms for a period certain after release, or having conditions for reinstatement issued. My big problem is the catchall of any felonies committed with over a year incarcerated.

 

[Captain Adverse]

That is my question. I know that it wasn't always the case so when did it start being illegal for an ex-con, now a free man, to own/carry a gun? For those smart alexs out there...I'm asking for a history lesson. IE dates, first law. I've tried to find it but with all the talk about guns and statistics and what not if it is out there then it is pretty much buried info.

Although Turtledude is mostly correct, I'd like to provide a minor note: The first Federal prohibition on felon gun ownership actually occurred in 1938 with the passage of the Federal Firearms Act 15 U.S.C. Section 901, which expanded on the National Firearms Act of 1934 concerning possession, transport and sale of machine guns. "Congress has seen fit to add, " * * * and the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person (i.e. indicted or convicted criminal) shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this Act" The Federal Firearms Act. This was repealed in 1968 with the passage of 18 U.S.C. 901 which forbids all felons from possession.

The law also allows certain felons to regain their rights, if their felony charges are expunged, pardoned or granted other relief by the State where they were convicted, and State law returns the right. Most States where a crime can be expunged limit the return of gun possession to persons who were not convicted of a violent felony. Pardons in such States may return such rights, depends on the State.

Most state laws (where they exist) follow some variation of the 1968 Federal Law pattern.

 

[CRUE CAB]

That is my question. I know that it wasn't always the case so when did it start being illegal for an ex-con, now a free man, to own/carry a gun? For those smart alexs out there...I'm asking for a history lesson. IE dates, first law. I've tried to find it but with all the talk about guns and statistics and what not if it is out there then it is pretty much buried info.

How about dont be a felon first. Then its not an issue. Yea I know you and I dont see eye to eye on this but its real easy not to be a felon.
Also, how about LE going after the people that fail the instant back ground checks at gun shops.
They rarely do. If ever.

 

[joko104]

But of course someone convicted of a large hot check should not be able to protect her/his children ever again. That's the punishment for not correctly using a pesticide as stated on the label or stealing from your employer - your children die.

 

[Kal'Stang]

How about dont be a felon first. Then its not an issue. Yea I know you and I dont see eye to eye on this but its real easy not to be a felon.
Also, how about LE going after the people that fail the instant back ground checks at gun shops.
They rarely do. If ever.

Why should being a felon deny you a Right for your entire life once you have paid your debt to society? Simply saying "just don't be a felon first" ignores the reality that people are people. And people **** up.

And why should LEO's go after everyone that fails a background check? I would bet that most of the time that a person fails a background check it is because they forgot to fill a part out or put down a wrong date or some other innane thing. Indeed, even if they failed due to a criminal history check why punish them more? Isn't the whole idea behind background checks to stop criminals from getting guns? Isn't it "Mission Accomplished" at that point? If the LEO's should go after anyone it is those that purposely lied on the background checks. I see no point in punishing those that tell the truth.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Why should being a felon deny you a Right for your entire life once you have paid your debt to society? Simply saying "just don't be a felon first" ignores the reality that people are people. And people **** up.

And why should LEO's go after everyone that fails a background check? I would bet that most of the time that a person fails a background check it is because they forgot to fill a part out or put down a wrong date or some other innane thing. Indeed, even if they failed due to a criminal history check why punish them more? Isn't the whole idea behind background checks to stop criminals from getting guns? Isn't it "Mission Accomplished" at that point? If the LEO's should go after anyone it is those that purposely lied on the background checks. I see no point in punishing those that tell the truth.

Because while you may have "paid your debt", you have also proven that you are not a trustworthy, reliable, upstanding person.
You have proven that you are not willing to play by society's simplest rules and cant be trusted.
And guess what, being stripped of rights is part of the punishment.
As far as LEO going after denied back ground checks.
If you mis spell, wrong date or other wise typo the form, you can straighten that out right there at the shop.
If you fail the back ground based on arrest / conviction records. The police have every right to come to your home and ask why you are trying to buy a gun.

 

[joko104]

How about dont be a felon first. Then its not an issue. Yea I know you and I dont see eye to eye on this but its real easy not to be a felon.
Also, how about LE going after the people that fail the instant back ground checks at gun shops.
They rarely do. If ever.

There are few people who have not committed at least 1 felony in your life. Do you read all labels for chemicals - kitchen, pesticides, automotive?

I find it truly hypocritical for MOST people to declare people with a felony conviction should be denied legal rights, since for most it is only a question of who got caught and who didn't. Claiming a felony conviction costs a person lost of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights - such as voting, owning a firearm etc - means the sentence for ANY felony is a life sentence. Personally, I believe if a person is denied the right to vote then the person should no longer have to pay any taxes - "no taxation without representation."

 

[CRUE CAB]

There are few people who have not committed at least 1 felony in your life. Do you read all labels for chemicals - kitchen, pesticides, automotive?

I find it truly hypocritical for MOST people to declare people with a felony conviction should be denied legal rights, since for most it is only a question of who got caught and who didn't.

Well dang, call 911 for my bottle of Windex.
And show me the statutes for not reading a label on my car.
Wanna protect your rights, dont be a screw up.

 

[joko104]

Because while you may have "paid your debt", you have also proven that you are not a trustworthy, reliable, upstanding person.
You have proven that you are not willing to play by society's simplest rules and cant be trusted.
And guess what, being stripped of rights is part of the punishment.
As far as LEO going after denied back ground checks.
If you mis spell, wrong date or other wise typo the form, you can straighten that out right there at the shop.
If you fail the back ground based on arrest / conviction records. The police have every right to come to your home and ask why you are trying to buy a gun.

OK, you are a self-professed perfect behavior person and have been since birth.

And since law is the simplest of rules - to you, you should go to law school because you'd be #1 in the class without cracking a book - according to you anyway.

 

[CRUE CAB]

OK, you are a self-professed perfect behavior person and have been since birth.

And since law is the simplest of rules - to you, you should go to law school because you'd be #1 in the class without cracking a book - according to you anyway.

I would be, I have alot of schooling that would lend well to being a lawyer already. But that is beside the point.
And if you bothered to read, I fully admit Iam far from perfect. Yet I can go all these years and not be a felon. Crazy I tell ya.
But you are willing to tell me, you would be ok with someone kicking in your door, beating your wife half to death, raping her, stealing whatever they could fit in a pillow case, doing a few years in the joint if caught, getting out. Then go buy a gun at will.
I mean he paid his debt, right?
And dont start back tracking and making it non violent felons. That is a weak arguement too.

 

[joko104]

Well dang, call 911 for my bottle of Windex.
And show me the statutes for not reading a label on my car.
Wanna protect your rights, dont be a screw up.

So you are claiming you never threw an empty quart of oil into a trash can and follow all federally required instructions on labels. I don't believe you. Nor do I believe you have never committed a regulatory offense that technically falls into the felony category nor any other felony.

However, this forum does - in various ways - have many people who boast of their self-declared perfection.

However, you are not the only person who believes every person who commits any violation of any of the 10,000,000 pages of criminal, penal and regulatory laws at the local, county, state and federal levels should automatically receive a life sentence - and even better that they and their children a death sentence too.

By your messages, you are not a person I'd want to spend any time with. Too timid, too dull, too much an omega personality and too judgmental. We really are opposite. I'm not someone would ever declare my superiority because I do exactly everything anyone and any politician with any authority tells me to do and limit my life as everyone else and every politician tells me that I must.

To each his own.

 

[joko104]

I would be, I have alot of schooling that would lend well to being a lawyer already. But that is beside the point.
And if you bothered to read, I fully admit Iam far from perfect. Yet I can go all these years and not be a felon. Crazy I tell ya.
But you are willing to tell me, you would be ok with someone kicking in your door, beating your wife half to death, raping her, stealing whatever they could fit in a pillow case, doing a few years in the joint if caught, getting out. Then go buy a gun at will.
I mean he paid his debt, right?
And dont start back tracking and making it non violent felons. That is a weak arguement too.

Reducing your argument to the ludicrous is not persuasive, nor is your claim of superior based upon being luckier at evading the law.

Since I have often posted that rapists should be executed, your message is a fail.

"Non-violent felonies" is exactly the issue, isn't it? In fact, I have only mentioned non-violent felonies in my messages -so while will maybe you read a lot, that appears to lack even simplistic comprehension of what you read. No, by your messages you'd make a rotten lawyer. Do not read anything for content nor can distinguish between a hot check writer and a serial rapist-murderer.

 

[CRUE CAB]

So you are claiming you never threw an empty quart of oil into a trash can and follow all federally required instructions on labels. I don't believe you. Nor do I believe you have never committed a regulatory offense that technically falls into the felony category nor any other felony.

However, this forum does - in various ways - have many people who boast of their self-declared perfection.

However, you are not the only person who believes every person who commits any violation of any of the 10,000,000 pages of criminal, penal and regulatory laws at the local, county, state and federal levels should automatically receive a life sentence - and even better that they and their children a death sentence too.

By your messages, you are not a person I'd want to spend any time with. Too timid, too dull, too much an omega personality and too judgmental. We really are opposite. I'm not someone would ever declare my superiority because I do exactly everything anyone and any politician with any authority tells me to do and limit my life as everyone else and every politician tells me that I must.

To each his own.

Iam not asking you if you would spend time with me, Iam sure you couldnt hang anyway.
Life sentence? Way to over dramatize it.
And please, where have I declared superiority over anyone? Are you some butt hurt felon fresh out of the joint that cant stand to live by society's rules?
There are no felons out there for not reading a label on a can of Raid either. But keep streching it out all you can.
What were you arrested for that you feel so much sympathy for felons and their presious rights?

 

[CRUE CAB]

By the way joko, what is the "Natural West Coast of Florida".
Lakeland? St Pete? Clearwater? But hey I am right here on the east coast. Melbourne to be exact.

 

[joko104]

Iam not asking you if you would spend time with me, Iam sure you couldnt hang anyway.
Life sentence? Way to over dramatize it.
And please, where have I declared superiority over anyone? Are you some butt hurt felon fresh out of the joint that cant stand to live by society's rules?
There are no felons out there for not reading a label on a can of Raid either. But keep streching it out all you can.
What were you arrested for that you feel so much sympathy for felons and their presious rights?

Desperate to divert from the topic a little? :lamo

And as I stated, would be a rotten lawyer - now unable to distinguish between arrest and conviction. I've was detained, arrested and sometimes jailed many times in the past. All were violence related. Not one conviction however.

And now I am a LEO (supervisor even) in the regulatory area of the environment and wildlife. Pretty every day, I could arrest someone in nearly very boat I see for some regulatory offense - and often find a felony charge if I really wanted to. Just finding any oil in their bilge plus a bilge pump - which is in every boat made - I could arrest them for a felony environmental offense. Could likely arrest 1 of 3 hunters for a misdemeanor and 1 of 6/7 for some felony.

Many people have felony convictions for violations of regulations - particularly family farmers and ranchers. I seriously doubt 1 in 5 felony convictions, and more likely less than 10% have anything to do with violence.

Your using "butt hurt felon" in your now rage and attempted diversion reveals to me in my opinion you're a rather low-rent sort of guy. Do you also advocate rape as punishment for the single mother who kites a hot check for rent? Or just lifelong denial of fundamental civil and parental rights?

 

[joko104]

By the way joko, what is the "Natural West Coast of Florida".
Lakeland? St Pete? Clearwater? But hey I am right here on the east coast. Melbourne to be exact.

Yankeetown, Crystal River, Homosassa, Inverness... a couple of distractors on the forum tend to refer to me as the manatee guy - thinking that is an insult. :2razz:

And that is an example. If a snorkeling tourist touches a manatee in a way I don't like? I could insure that person never owns a firearm or votes again for the rest of his/her life. The "Greenies" got all sorts of laws like that passed. Hell, moving a box turtle off the highway so it isn't run over is a felony offense. A felony for you anyway, not for me - I'm "the government." Literally a felony to touch one even to save its life. And not 1 in 100 people know that or 99% of the other such felony environmentalist offenses against animals, sea life or even plants.

Do you TRULY believe that is right? I could "felony" arrest people day and night for such environmental and wildlife/sealife laws. Some guy on a tourist vacation from Ohio in a rented barge - for which I declare "OMG! LOOK AT THIS SPECIES OF FISH YOU HAVE!" and charge him with 7 felonies for having 7 small tarpon, for which he has no clue what a tarpon is - its just a little fish to him.

I have no problem denying rapists and murders, those who do aggravated assault with a weapon, any rights, since I am ok if they are executed and generally would prefer they were. MAYBE we aren't as far apart in our views as it seems so far.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Desperate to divert from the topic a little? :lamo

And as I stated, would be a rotten lawyer - now unable to distinguish between arrest and conviction. I've was detained, arrested and sometimes jailed many times in the past. All were violence related. Not one conviction however.

And now I am a LEO (supervisor even) in the regulatory area of the environment and wildlife. Pretty every day, I could arrest someone in nearly very boat I see for some regulatory offense - and often find a felony charge if I really wanted to. Just finding any oil in their bilge plus a bilge pump - which is in every boat made - I could arrest them for a felony environmental offense. Could likely arrest 1 of 3 hunters for a misdemeanor and 1 of 6/7 for some felony.

Many people have felony convictions for violations of regulations - particularly family farmers and ranchers. I seriously doubt 1 in 5 felony convictions, and more likely less than 10% have anything to do with violence.

Your using "butt hurt felon" in your now rage and attempted diversion reveals to me in my opinion you're a rather low-rent sort of guy. Do you also advocate rape as punishment for the single mother who kites a hot check for rent? Or just lifelong denial of fundamental civil and parental rights?

Divert? When, and you are a cop? Please I call BS on that. One of my arrests was for beating a cop in Daytona. I won the trial because everyone saw him hit me in the face with a flashlight first, while his partner was choking me.
That crybaby's excuse, he had just had a vasectomy and was scared I was going to kick him. Faggot.
That was 25 years ago.
So if you really want to trade war stories, PM me. Other wise I really dont care who you are or what you say you do.
And how do you figure I cant distinguish between arrest and conviction? Please answer that seeing as you cant answer anything else.
Rage? Aw, sorry pointed questions make you feel someone is raging.
You say you are a cop, yet all you got is insults like "low rent" and asking if I advocate rape as a punishment. Can you be any dumber. Oh wait you are a local yokel "enviro cop", so yea. I can see you being that dumb.
Any way, outside of your "tales". How about you offer up some proof of all these felonies being commited that people are scoffing at the law over.
You cant. Or you wont. Which is it officer? Or is the whole officer thing a load of BS too? And I also wonder about what drunks you were fighting in what crappy bars you frequented to get arrested "many times".

 

[CRUE CAB]

Yankeetown, Crystal River, Homosassa, Inverness... a couple of distractors on the forum tend to refer to me as the manatee guy - thinking that is an insult. :2razz:

And that is an example. If a snorkeling tourist touches a manatee in a way I don't like? I could insure that person never owns a firearm or votes again for the rest of his/her life. The "Greenies" got all sorts of laws like that passed. Hell, moving a box turtle off the highway so it isn't run over is a felony offense. A felony for you anyway, not for me - I'm "the government." Literally a felony to touch one even to save its life. And not 1 in 100 people know that or 99% of the other such felony environmentalist offenses against animals, sea life or even plants.

Do you TRULY believe that is right?

I have no problem denying rapists and murders, those who do aggravated assault with a weapon, any rights, since I am ok if they are executed and generally would prefer they were. MAYBE we aren't as far apart in our views as it seems so far.

Crystal River, Hmosassa, Inverness. Yea, thanks for playing, tells me everything.
Yea, I stop traffic to get live turtles out of the road. Come get me, coppa. Oh, wait even had a cop turn his lights on and stop the other lane once. Gee, no convictions there.
And I know all the manatee laws to, imagine that. Seeing as I graduated from the academy in 1982, I kinda keep up with that stuff too.
But being in law enforcement, so you say, why the sympathy for felons? I asked that before and all you have given is insults and telling me you are marine patrol officer.
Hey, going to buy a boat. Better call over here to Brevard County to make sure my bilge is clean. The boat will be named the "Carol Ann".

 

[joko104]

I rarely even write a ticket and some of this all seems totally lost to perspective? Given the choice between shooting a human or shooting an alligator, shoot the human. You can claim self defense for shooting a human. There is no self defense right against a 14 foot alligator coming after you (or your kid).

 

[joko104]

Crystal River, Hmosassa, Inverness. Yea, thanks for playing, tells me everything.
Yea, I stop traffic to get live turtles out of the road. Come get me, coppa. Oh, wait even had a cop turn his lights on and stop the other lane once. Gee, no convictions there.
And I know all the manatee laws to, imagine that. Seeing as I graduated from the academy in 1982, I kinda keep up with that stuff too.
But being in law enforcement, so you say, why the sympathy for felons? I asked that before and all you have given is insults and telling me you are marine patrol officer.
Hey, going to buy a boat. Better call over here to Brevard County to make sure my bilge is clean. The boat will be named the "Carol Ann".

I withdraw my prior message to you of us having anything in common. You're messages are increasingly off the deep end and it sounds like you're cracking up in your old age.

Sympathy for felons? Never wrote that once. However, I am a particularly strong supporter of the Bill of Rights.