I understand that if you are on probation, that you are not allowed to posse a gun license. What types of checks do they perform on an individual. As f as I understand, you will only be turned down if you have felonies on your record (not misdemeannors)?
Still violates the 2 amendmant even with a felony. The right of the people t keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So why is the government telling felony people they cannot have a gun?
That's pretty simple... because when you've been convicted of a felony
many of your rights are suspended. You can get them back after you've served your time and convinced a judge to purge the record.
Any time you're tossedin prison a whole pile of your rights go poof.
beginning to NOT give back basic rights to felons. Once a felon is released the full Bill of Rights is *supposed* to be restored. I've often wondered h it is that felons are not allowed their 2nd Amendment.
I think you've hit the point pretty good here. The problem is our society is beginning to NOT give back basic rights to felons. Once a felon is released,
the full Bill of Rights is *supposed* to be restored. I've often wondered how it is that felons are not allowed their 2nd Amendment.
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Dreamer to Chris Trainor on Mon Sep 03 2012 07:46 pm
I think you've hit the point pretty good here. The problem is our societ is beginning to NOT give back basic rights to felons. Once a felon is released,
the full Bill of Rights is *supposed* to be restored. I've often wondere how it is that felons are not allowed their 2nd Amendment.
Yet, apparently, the right to bear arms isn't just taken from an ex-felon, b anyone living with a felon. As more and more people are processed through th criminal system, this sounds like another means to assist in disarming the public.
--pF
the full Bill of Rights is *supposed* to be restored. I've often wondered how it is that felons are not allowed their 2nd Amendment.
Yet, apparently, the right to bear arms isn't just taken from an ex-felon, but anyone living with a felon. As more and more people are processed through the criminal system, this sounds like another means to assist in disarming the public.
no guns. they misread it years ago.
they meant, We had the right to Bear arms.
not deer arms, not wolf arms, not boar arms. BEAR ARMS!
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Corey to Poindexter Fortran on Tue Sep 04 2012 10:06 am
no guns. they misread it years ago.
they meant, We had the right to Bear arms.
not deer arms, not wolf arms, not boar arms. BEAR ARMS!
i'm okay with that too.
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Starbase to Cruisefx on Mon Sep 03 2012 14:36:20
Still violates the 2 amendmant even with a felony. The right of the peopl keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So why is the government telling felony people they cannot have a gun?
That's pretty simple... because when you've been convicted of a felony
many of your rights are suspended. You can get them back after you've served your time and convinced a judge to purge the record.
Any time you're tossedin prison a whole pile of your rights go poof.
--Chris
------------------------------------------
| Chris Trainor - FleetHQ BBS
| telnet://bbs.fleethq.org
| http://www.facebook.com/FleetHQ
| +1-401-949-0465 (V.34/HST/CrankyAtTimes) ------------------------------------------
This discussion got me curious enough to look it up, and I came across this DR>story:
N.C. Supreme Court Reverses Felony Firearms Act ? Rules that 2nd. Amendment DR>Permits Convicted Felons to Possess Gun
It's written by Kim Lambert, and I found it at news.lawreader.com, written in
late 2009. Unfortunately, the judgement applied only in one felon's case, bu
it's a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
I've worked with and met more than a few felons in my life. Those whose live
crossed mine were rather peaceful people who messed up early in life, and wer
working rather hard to stay on the up and up. It's hard to believe that in o
country someone who committed a felony at 18 or 19 can't own a simple hunting
rifle for the rest of their lives.
live DR>crossed mine were rather peaceful people who messed up early in life, and wer DR>working rather hard to stay on the up and up. It's hard
to believe that in o DR>country someone who committed a felony at 18 or 19 can't own a simple hunting DR>rifle for the rest of their lives.
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Ed Vance to DREAMER on Sat Sep 08 2012 09:03 pm
live DR>crossed mine were rather peaceful people who messed up early in life, and wer DR>working rather hard to stay on the up and up. It's hard to believe that in o DR>country someone who committed a felony at 18 or 1 can't own a simple hunting DR>rifle for the rest of their lives.
a felony is a SERIOUS crime.
they just dont hand out felonies frivously. if they cant talk it down to a lesser charge usually they have it coming.
so now I cant ever vote or have a gun. and have to register where I live
for the rest of my life. yeah mormons, gods people.
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Corey to Mro on Sun Sep 09 2012 12:13 am
so now I cant ever vote or have a gun. and have to register where I live for the rest of my life. yeah mormons, gods people.
well you did choose to break the law, correct?
so now I cant ever vote or have a gun. and have to register where I live for the rest of my life. yeah mormons, gods people.
well you did choose to break the law, correct?
that is true. if I never showed them, they would have never handed me in.
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Corey to Mro on Sun Sep 09 2012 09:13 am
so now I cant ever vote or have a gun. and have to register where I live for the rest of my life. yeah mormons, gods people.
well you did choose to break the law, correct?
that is true. if I never showed them, they would have never handed me in.
but you do realize that it is not their fault that you broke the law? that started with your actions. things didnt play out as you expected and they turned you in. that does not make it any less your fault.
when someone decides to break the law they have to live with the consequence I'm not being preachy, but i hope you realize that it starts with you and th is why you have that felony.
Yet, apparently, the right to bear arms isn't just taken from an ex-felo anyone living with a felon. As more and more people are processed throug criminal system, this sounds like another means to assist in disarming tI agree this is government at it best to disarm us. The people living with
a felony is a SERIOUS crime.Felony is a serious crime but that still should not suspend a person 2nd amendment right to bear unless it is stated in black and white in the constitution
they just dont hand out felonies frivously. if they cant talk it down to lesser charge usually they have it coming.
Felony is a serious crime but that still should not suspend a person 2nd amendment right to bear unless it is stated in black and white in the constitution.
Misdemeanors are going the way of the middle class, it seems. Felonious protesting? Really?
Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Starbase to Mro on Sat Sep 15 2012 04:44 pm
Felony is a serious crime but that still should not suspend a person amendment right to bear unless it is stated in black and white in the constitution.
Misdemeanors are going the way of the middle class, it seems. Felonious protesting? Really?
--pF
I've worked with and met more than a few felons in my life. Those whose liv crossed mine were rather peaceful people who fucked up early in life, and we working rather hard to stay on the up and up.
some of their rights. The fact that they are not legally allowed to have guns is great in my book. Puts things a little into my favor should they ever screw up again and enter my house uninvited. That is one thing the local legal system does get right.
We're not allowed to drive without a valid license, or drunk, or with certain safety items out of code. There's tons of things citizens are not allowed to do, but they do it anyway.
Subject: Re: Firearms Background Check
@VIA: SYNCNIX
@MSGID: <51195373.1102.dove-gun@nix.synchro.net>
@REPLY: <510590DF.93.dove-gun@setxchat.net>
@TZ: 41e0
Re: Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Dreamer to Dumas Walker on Sun Jan 27 2013 02:41 pm
We're not allowed to drive without a valid license, or drunk, or with certain safety items out of code. There's tons of things citizens are no allowed to do, but they do it anyway.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be drivers testing or laws against drunk driving? Or maybe that there's no point in suspending the drivers license o drunk driver?
Re: Re: Firearms Background Check
By: Dreamer to Dumas Walker on Sun Jan 27 2013 02:41 pm
We're not allowed to drive without a valid license, or drunk, or with certain safety items out of code. There's tons of things citizens are
not allowed to do, but they do it anyway.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be drivers testing or laws against
drunk driving? Or maybe that there's no point in suspending the drivers license of a drunk driver?
Are you saying that there shouldn't be drivers testing or laws against
drunk driving? Or maybe that there's no point in suspending the drivers license of a drunk driver?
We're not allowed to drive without a valid license, or drunk, or with certain safety items out of code. There's tons of things citizens are not allowed to do, but they do it anyway.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be drivers testing or laws against drunk driving? Or maybe that there's no point in suspending the drivers license of a drunk driver?
No, I'm saying there's many people out there who are going to do what they want to do, blast the law.
Now, as to what that has to do with my reply regarding licenses and people ignoring laws? If a person has homicidal intent, I don't think he is going to care about gun laws. If he can't get a gun, he'll get a knife. If he's intent on harming lots of people and can't get a gun, he'll build a bomb or blow a truck.
I still don't quite see what point that speaks to though. Are you saying that limiting guns makes sense just like limiting driving does, or are you saying something else entirely?
I should probably expand on my previous reply a little bit. We have existin gun laws that already fairly limit the fire power the average citizen can ha
I still don't quite see what point that speaks to though. Are you
saying that limiting guns makes sense just like limiting driving does,
or are you saying something else entirely?
I'm trying to point out that the laws we have now make sense. More legislation, taking away more gun rights, makes no sense as it harms law abiders more than those who are intent on breaking the law.
Purely a digression here, but did you read the article or hear on any
of the faux news channels about how when NYC was doing their first buyback of this whole ordeal that somebody actually showed up with an AT-4 (anti-tank/armor single-fire rocket) to turn in?
Ok, I guess I just don't get the similie then. Thanks for the
explination.
LOL, that's awesome! I wonder how they got their hands on it?
I'd be surprised if you can buy that surplus. hehe
Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
---|---|
Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
Users: | 94 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 09:57:35 |
Calls: | 5,138 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 8,491 |
D/L today: |
1 files (279K bytes) |
Messages: | 352,562 |