Felonies are increasing!

A friend that was a political prisoner told me something. He told me that the government is making an unfair amount of citizens felons so that less people can own firearms. Do you agree? I say yes and no. Most felons (and I am included) have no business possessing dangerous weapons. But is the government abusing the legal system in regards of restricting gun rights to decent citizens?

From what I understand if you spend 1 year or more in a jail/prison, you loose your 2nd amendment rights. (I may be wrong,or it could only apply in my state WA)

I would have to agree that that is probably the case. I think they will do whatever they can so they can control with as little resistance as possible.

A friend of mine had his rights taken away, when they were in the court they pulled out his firearms and the "over 100,000 rounds of ammo" just to make him seem like a bad guy.

It's a complicated yet petty confluence of a fear-ridden dependent population ruled by both politicians eager to cater to votes and politicians drunk with power being backed by police associations that will always accept more power and control regardless of the damage to liberty and a lack of promised results filling for profit prisons who are always hungry for more.

Whether or not the loss of 2nd Amendment rights is planned as some great conspiracy it is the reality being a side-effect of an ever increasingly corrupt and insane justice system being pushed over the edge by a fearful and dependent public.

I should add it isnt just for felonies. Misdemeanor assault will cost you your gun rights as well.

Ifs what the prison industry needs, more pointless laws, more people in the system, a stronger arm to subjugate the masses, more profit

I don't understand why non violent felons can't own firearms? I also don't understand why Felons do not have the right to vote?

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree but what is the legal argument made in those cases?

reply to post by Fitch303


I understand that it is fair to take gun rights away from violent felons. My charge in 2005 was once and I deserve that. But I have friends with petty crimes that can no longer enjoy hunting as a hobby because of possession of exactly 3 hydrocodone pain killers for a legitimate reason because he could not afford to visit the doctor at the time. That is ridiculous. As for voting, I know that here in Nebraska a felon can vote once 2 years from the completion of the sentence passes. I think that ANY competent adult should have a say in who is running the State and/or Country. Also, I am not allowed to travel due to that old charge. Things are getting restrictive.

I think you may be on to something. I say as long as you are responsible, and not a psychopath, keep a weapon, no one needs to know about it, and keep it well hidden. The world is to messed up of a place today to not be somewhat armed. Keep safe, and watch out for big brother. If you look up how many laws the US has, it says there is no way to tell, because there are so many out there. So ya, I would have to agree that this seems too much like a conspiracy to keep people in trouble someway, somehow, to keep freedoms from being had.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
snip
I should add it isnt just for felonies. Misdemeanor assault will cost you your gun rights as well.

edit on 28-12-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

Right, Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban.
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

Effects on law enforcement officers The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) sent a notice to every law enforcement agency when this law went into effect. Police officers with prior misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence from years earlier were no longer permitted to possess firearms under the new federal law. Several officers were fired for such misdemeanor offenses committed before the law was passed. Several of the gun magazines printed a copy of this new ATF order at the time. In Speller vs. VA, Cpl. Dontae Speller of the Hampton University Police Department plead guilty to domestic assault and received anger management with 2 years of probation. Cpl. D. Speller was allowed to return to work carrying his firearm during the 2 year probationary period.

en.wikipedia.org...

So I would say yes to your question.
If I lived with my brother and slapped him up side the head for whatever reason and convicted, I could not own a firearm.

It's nothing like the old days any more.

Man I'm glad Martha Stewart can't carry anymore, I'm sure she would wind up shooting someone...

reply to post by Badkro


You dont even have to hit your brother for a DV charge. Just drop a vase or a plate and it's DV.

And they have to arrest you and take you in. No discretion. Doesnt matter if the whole thing was on film and nobody wants to press because the state will press and you will be charged.

Another assinine product of a fearful dependent population looking to politicians who in turn always get police support for any measure that increases their ability to control.

They have to go around obviously ruining lives left and right because one time a DV victim died. So the entire country has to suffer.

I can't believe this thread has only 2 flags. People are losing their rights in America and the sheep just watch.
What a disgrace...

Just to add that I know that we don't have rights in America, we have privileges, and this poster from ATS has it down to pat.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What makes us think we have rights? I hear people say things like, "Stand up for your rights!" or "It's my right!" or "He has no right to do that!" and of course, "God given rights.". We all walk around thinking this way, but isn't it a really just a false sense of security? In reality, what we actually have are privileges. Not given by God, but rather a man made illusion. That man is the federal government and they can, and do, take them from us whenever they find it useful to their cause. Following the Pearl Harbor incident, thousands of Japanese Americans began to lose their privileges. In Feb.,1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt began doing this by signed Executive Order 9066. This was the first of what would be a series of orders, devised by one mans authority, created to deny citizens of their privileges. Japanese American internment refers to the forcible relocation and internment in 1942 of approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans to housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps", in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[1][2] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast of the United States were all interned, whereas in Hawaii, where more than 150,000 Japanese Americans composed nearly a third of that territory's population, only 1,200[3] to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned.[4] Of those interned, 62 percent were United States citizens.[5][6] President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps.[7] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders,[8] while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings. Eventually between 100,000-120,000 American citizens, most of whom were born in the US, had lost everything, including their assets. They were locked away in internment camps and you can imagine how they were treated. Though the Constitution states only Congress can change it's protections, Roosevelt did it quite easily? The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066. - Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." but the clause's location implies this authority is vested in Congress, rather than the President. President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt followed in his footsteps by signing Executive Order 9066, permitting exclusion of persons from wartime military zones. Three times now in our history a president has been able to suspend, or disregard, our supposed constitutional rights? Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WWII, and Bush in the War on Terror. Worse yet is the fact that many of these laws are still in place today? Several significant legal decisions arose out of Japanese American internment, relating to the powers of the government to detain citizens in wartime. Among the cases which reached the Supreme Court were Yasui v. United States (1943), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), ex parte Endo (1944), and Korematsu v. United States (1944). In Yasui and Hirabayashi the court upheld the constitutionality of curfews based on Japanese ancestry; in Korematsu the court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion order. In Endo, the court accepted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ruled that the WRA had no authority to subject a citizen whose loyalty was acknowledged to its procedures. It is important to note that the rulings of the US Supreme Court in the 1944 Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases, specifically, its expansive interpretation of government powers in wartime, were not overturned. They are still the law of the land because a lower court cannot overturn a r