The U.S. Gun Grab: You won't believe who has lost their right to own firearms.

[Drizzt]

The U.S. Gun Grab

by Frank Miniter

You won't believe who has lost their right to own firearms.

You might think only murderers and rapists get their firearms taken away. Well, think again. Here are just a few things that could lead to the confiscation of your deer rifle: drag racing in Pennsylvania (it’s a felony in the Keystone State), becoming a fugitive from justice (not showing up for traffic court counts), having a protection order placed against you (a shoving match with your neighbor can result in one of these) and getting convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (a fist fight with your brother qualifies).

Basically, if you plead guilty to or are convicted of any federal law that can be punished by one year or more in jail, your state has the right to confiscate your .30/06. Likewise, if you plead guilty or are convicted of a state misdemeanor that is punishable by two years in prison, the state can take your Winchester.

Still feel invulnerable? So did Donald G. Arnold, a private investigator who was named a “citizen of the year” in Maryland in 2000 for his work helping the police to stop drug dealers in Baltimore. Arnold recently went to renew his carry permit in Maryland and was denied, because in 1969, after returning from Vietnam, he got into a scuffle with a college student who called him a “baby killer.” Arnold went to court without a lawyer and received a 60-day suspended sentence and unsupervised probation.

What Arnold didn’t know was that 30 years later the Maryland Attorney General would claim that a 1996 decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals allows the state to disqualify a person from possessing firearms based on the sentence he could have received. (At press time two separate bills designed to restore gun rights to people like Arnold were in committee in the Maryland House of Delegates.)

In another case, Thomas Lamar Bean, a Texas resident and former gun dealer, was arrested in Mexico after a box of ammunition was found in his vehicle. Bean was convicted, spent time in a Mexican prison and then came home to find that he could not possess a firearm in the U.S. because of the felony conviction. When Bean petitioned to gain his rights back, he ran into a bureaucratic logjam: a decade ago Congress axed the budget for these requests. Bean, however, won a Texas lawsuit to force the ATF to renew his gun rights, but that didn’t end his battle. At press time the U.S. Supreme Court was due to decide whether federal judges can even restore gun rights.

So before you plead guilty to any criminal violation, get the facts. (In some states public exposure—tinkling on the rose bushes, for example—carries a one- to five-year sentence.) How vulnerable do you feel now?

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/n...233793,00.html

Good, this should help some of those hunters who think that the infringements on the 2nd Amendment won't affect them, see that we are ALL in this together.

[WyldOne]

You won't believe who has lost their right to own firearms.

= People who commit crimes.

What about this am I missing? If gun owners are, as I believe them to be, law abiding citizens, then this article wouldn't apply to them. This would be a non-issue.

Right?

[DAVID NANCARROW]

and of course, Wyldone, the courts are always fair and just (so long as you have the money for a good lawyer). I personally know of a couple of kids (mid 20's) who were convicted under questionable circumstances, but used court appointed attorneys who plea bargained the sentence down to zero, but they also lost their right to firearms ownership forever. In my book, if a person commits a violent crime, you may not want them in possession of a firearm ever, depending upon the circumstances. A felony does not necessarily mean the person is violent, and even felons can now vote in Texas-something about no taxation without representation. The arguement is whether or not the government can take away a Constitutional right forever yet release them back into society, and more importantly-are we safe as a society because of this? The law should be applied individually-the old saw having the punishment fit the crime still has a lot of merit.

[Christopher II]

It depends on what the State says is a crime. Often doing the right thing and obeying the law are not the same.

- Chris

[buzz_knox]

= People who commit crimes. What about this am I missing? If gun owners are, as I believe them to be, law abiding citizens, then this article wouldn't apply to them. This would be a non-issue.

Right?

Wrong. Not only are nonviolent offenders being stripped of their rights, but people who have bench warrants and orders of protection against them. Either of these can be issued without any finding of guilt on the part of the "offender." In many areas, you can get a restraining order simply by showing up, and that will make the subject of the order a felon if he attempts to buy a firearm during that period, even absent knowledge of the restraining order.

[3 gun]

I was given, fought and won a "drag racing" ticket in Ohio. The officer didn't like how quickly I reached the speed limit. No wheelie, no burn out, no peeled rubber, he just didn't like my motorcycle. If I had just paid the ticket, pleading guilt by doing so, why should that affect my ability to own firearms?

What we have here is a linking of laws in a fashion to deny ownership to the largest possible group of people thru laws that in no way effect anyone else. Who would think that by paying a ticket at 20 you'd be banned from owning firearms later? They have even made it a crime to smoke in your own home in this country.

A government gains control over it's people by making and enforcing laws. Think of all the laws on the books that meet the very low standards of 1 or 2 years of jail time. You don't have to serve that or anytime just be guilty in the eyes of the court.

[Drizzt]

This would be a non-issue.

Actually, no.

The point is, that any little thing you do can be used to take away you right to own a firearm.

Can you honestly say you have never broken any law, anywhere?

What if you make 1 little slip-up, just a misdemeanor, that years later is suddenly declared to be a felony? All of a sudden, you are a convicted felon, and have no right to self-defense under the current legal system.

Many have been saying all along that we need no new gun laws, just start enforcing the ones on the books. Many of the gun-grabbers are now calling our bluff on this, deciding that they can use those laws to start disarming all those who have chosed to not be a victim.

I consider myself to be a law-abiding citizen of at least average intelligence, but I could never honestly say that I have never broken a law. I do believe that I can honestly say, though, that I do not know of any felonies I have committed. But who is to say that something I may have done a long time ago will not eventually be seen as a felony, through changes in the laws?

If you consider someone too dangerous to own a gun, how is it that they are not too dangerous to be walking about the streets freely? If someone makes a mistake, but learns from it and goes on to a productive, law-abiding life, why should that person not have the same right to defense of self and family that any of the rest of us see as an inherent right?

Wyldone, please don't think that I am criticizing you in any way with this reply, because your question is valid, and is one that has been asked by many others in many other places. The danger with having so many laws on the books, is that many have not thought them out to any "logical" conclusion.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws". Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_

[dZ]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want
them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then
you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows
were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the
kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation
of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and
once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged"

[Bear Flare]

WO:

EVERYBODY makes mistakes. A moment's indescretion involving a MINOR offense results in permanent revocation of a constitutional right? That does not compute with me.

All this does is disqualify a large population segment on a technical violation. How many laws do you think you broke so far today? Roll through a stopsign? Flip somebody off (racial intimidation)? Spit on the sidewalk? Speed to work today?

If you total up the minor OOPS! type infractions that could get your guns taken away (assuming you had some) the law might seem a little broad. Ain't nobody perfect and everybody that breaks a law is not a "Criminal" (one who CHOOSES to live OUTSIDE the law). They are just a "criminal" on a technicality, meaning if Deputy Dawg had not been watching, no harm would be done.

The guy who got busted in Mexico did something that is not even illegal here. How the heck is THAT fair? You're an activist and advocate at heart, look at it from our perspective.

Bear Flare

[Oleg Volk]

WyldOne,

Let's look to the unintended (?) consequence of such a law. Many states (my former state of Minnesota included), criminalized sodomy sometime back in the 1890s. The laws are still on the books. Enforced? Usually not...but the issue does come up during child custody battles. A lesbian couple (if I recall rightly) was held to be unfit to adopt due to their criminal practice of non-procreational sex.

The state or its particular representatives could easily decide to extend the same reasoning to denying gun ownership to GLBTs, for example. When evaluating any law, consider what happens if your worst enemy mis-interprets it in a malicious manner. The particular law this thread discussed definitely lends itself to grievous misuse.

[Bear Flare]

Even more important, ever heard of the term "ex post facto"?

Bear Flare

[KSFreeman]

ex post facto? What's that?

BF, inapplicable to these types of gun laws. EPF was raised after `38, `68, and the Lautenberg amendment. No dice. I'll get technical if you want (no, Kirk, shut up already!).

Like Benny Franklin said, if you want to see the injustice of any law, enforce it as hard as you can. More laws, less justice.

Oh, yeah, just to make TFLers really upset--not ALL convicted felons are barred from firearms ownership under federal law. Anyone guesses? Class? Bueller?

[snubby]

All who love freedom and individual liberty should prepare to become outlaws one day!

[Bear Flare]

Well, since EPF is dead, so are we.

Bear Flare

[Futo Inu]

Yep, that's Lautenberg.

The way the framers envisioned it, however, was this:

Convicted FELON: Lose your fundamental RKBA.

Convicted of MISDEMEANOR: Get sentenced; Lose some rights, but NOT fundamental ones (speech, RKBA, etc.)

Lautenberg= Wrong and violative of the Const. Like the examples point out, a fist fight with your brother is a violent, misdemeanor, domestic crime, and you can lose your RKBA for that. That's like losing your speech rights for that. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Now IF State X has a HUGE problem with brother fistfights, or traditional domestic violence for that matter (wife-beating), or any other crime for that matter which is a misdemeanor is most states, then State X can and should, through its legislature, make such crimes FELONIES, not misdemeanors, and then the felon gun ban would apply. But the federal Lautenberg law is violative of both the 10th Amendment (state's rights to choose what crimes are important enough to be felonies, and what crimes are not, BASED ON THAT STATE'S CITIZENS' NORMS AND VALUES), and violative of the 2nd Amendment - only FELONS lose gun rights, as the terms of the right pre-existed the Bill of Rights.

Lautenberg and the Useful Defensive Weapons Ban MUST BE repealed or struck down as Unconst. Unfortunately, Emerson UPHELD Lautenberg as I understand it, and failed to apply strict strutiny, so it may already be time for the revolution - it's BS.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Don't forget those WWII and Korea Vets (you know, the folks with the chest full of medals?!) that are now discovering that a long forgotten bar fight that cost them a $50 fine and a night in the drunk tank 50 years ago, now means they can't have firearms, based on a newer law.

Thats the retroactive part that has many folks upset.

[Dagny]

What about this am I missing? If gun owners are, as I believe them to be, law abiding citizens, then this article wouldn't apply to them. This would be a non-issue.

Especially if you own a gun and ammo
and
If you have ever done your own income taxes
or
If you have ever had a small business
or
If you have a car and drive
or
If you have children
or
If you own your own home.

I can darn near guarantee you that you are guilty of a felony
or some other crime that would disqualify you as a "law abiding gun owner".

There are so many laws on the local, state and federal books that they could find something if they looked deep enough.

[Solitar]

Dagny and WyldOne

You've ingored an entire class of born felons.
Guys!
We are felons for just being male or behaving as such.
Teachers, social workers and courts drive this home all our lives.
We are presumed guilty until proven guilty.


Futo Inu, regarding your lengthy "signature statement" (longer than most posts).
Okay, Ruger is guilty.
But I'll be darned if I am going to sacrifice my buying a quality firearm because of it and because some here hold a grudge forever.
I'd bet every darn gun manufacturer is guilty of at least some of the same.
Ruger is often the best I can afford.
I can not afford a Sig or Dan Wesson
(and I bet they are guilty of complicity too).

Are there ANY gun manufacturers who are squeaky clean in your eyes?

[WyldOne]

You've ingored an entire class of born felons.
Guys!

Huh?

Okay, I was understanding things until this point. What on earth are you talking about?

[bastiat]

Solitar, sig and dan wesson haven't done anything to save their hides that has endangered our 2nd amendment rights.

If you haven't read the story, bill ruger came up with the 15 round limit idea to save his butt. Rimfire rifles were to be exempt (the ruger 10-22 being the top rimfire repeater). Newfangled Glocks with more than 15 round capacity were eating into his market share. Bill ruger wrote a law. He was warned of the consequences. His reply was that he just wanted to save his 'little guns'.

His effort to save his own skin gave rise to the high cap magazine ban that we are all saddled with. Sig and wesson have no such skeletons in their closets. Any bad decisions they made affect only them and their customers, not every gun owner in the country.

[Jeff Thomas]

WyldOne, you're kidding, right? Or are you testing the naivete scale limits?

Regards from AZ

[WyldOne]

Jeff Thomas,

The response seemed to come out of absolutely nowhere. I am very intent on learning about this stuff, but if even the gun community can't take these issues seriously, what am I to do?

Yes, I am serious that I would like an explanation as to what being male has to do with the issue at hand. Seems like a non-sequitor to me.

[bastiat]

Well, I do know someone who was told by the SBA that he wouldn't get SBA backing for a loan because it was a 'healthy white male'.

Luckily, he suffered a disability a few years later and is now elligible

[WyldOne]

what is SBA?

People need to get a loan to exercise their second amendment?

You're confusing me worse than ever.

[F4GIB]

(1) Until the 20th Century, "felony" meant a truly serious crime. There were very few federal crimes. To "make a federal case" out of something really implied a very serious matter. With the New Deal every administrative infraction became a new federal crime. There are very few, in any, federal misdemeanors. To compound the problem, states (Minnesota, for example) have been felonizing everything in sight because the criminal justice system won't enforce any lesser laws. Making it a felony get's the Legislature off the hook and costs nothing but more time on probation. It's a cheap whitewash for political failure.

(2) SOMEONE SAID EARLIER: "I personally know of a couple of kids (mid 20's)who were convicted under questionable circumstances, but used court appointed attorneys who plea bargained the sentence down to zero, but they also lost their right to firearms ownership forever."

Only the exceptional "public defender" or court appointed attorney has any knowledge at all of state or federal firearms laws. [In Minnesota you can't even sue them for this incompetence according to our Supreme Court - you get what you pay for!] The entire CJ System (including these people) depends on fast, "efficient" plea bargaining. A defendant who knew he was going to lose his firearms rights for life might refuse to plead and the system would clog up. No one in it (not even your PD) wants that, so ... . [Hear the water flushing?]

(3) This is another good reason to NEVER, NEVER consent to a search of your person, car, house, or other property. And, of course, say only the Golden Words - "I want an attorney before any questioning." Then KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!! Many dumbies think they can babble without fear once they ask for an attorney. Not so, YOU must keep silent. You, and only, you. When I was doing criminal defense full-time, most of my clients had already guaranteed their conviction before I even met them - by their own mouths. If you consent and/or you babble, no one on Earth can help you.