Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[JB357Mag]

This is fine with me:

IC 35-47-4-5
Unlawful possession of firearm by serious violent felon
Sec. 5. (a) As used in this section, "serious violent felon" means a person who has been convicted of:
(1) committing a serious violent felony in:
(A) Indiana; or
(B) any other jurisdiction in which the elements of the crime <a name="IC35-47-4-5">
for which the conviction was entered are substantially similar to the elements of a serious violent felony; or
(2) attempting to commit or conspiring to commit a serious violent felony in:
(A) Indiana as provided under IC 35-41-5-1 or IC 35-41-5-2; or
(B) any other jurisdiction in which the elements of the crime for which the conviction was entered are substantially similar to the elements of attempting to commit or conspiring to commit a serious violent felony.
(b) As used in this section, "serious violent felony" means:
(1) murder (
IC 35-42-1-1);
(2) voluntary manslaughter (<a name="IC35-42-1-3">IC 35-42-1-3);
(3) reckless homicide not committed by means of a vehicle (IC 35-42-1-5);
(4) battery as a:
(A) Class A felony (<a name="IC35-42-2-1">IC 35-42-2-1(a)(5));
(B) Class B felony (<a name="IC35-42-2-1">IC 35-42-2-1(a)(4)); or
(C) Class C felony (<a name="IC35-42-2-1">IC 35-42-2-1(a)(3));
(5) aggravated battery (<a name="IC35-42-2-1.5">IC 35-42-2-1.5);
(6) kidnapping (<a name="IC35-42-3-2">IC 35-42-3-2);
(7) criminal confinement (<a name="IC35-42-3-3">IC 35-42-3-3);
(8) rape (<a name="IC35-42-4-1">IC 35-42-4-1);
(9) criminal deviate conduct (<a name="IC35-42-4-2">IC 35-42-4-2);
(10) child molesting (<a name="IC35-42-4-3">IC 35-42-4-3);
(11) sexual battery as a Class C felony (<a name="IC35-42-4-8">IC 35-42-4-8);
(12) robbery (<a name="IC35-42-5-1">IC 35-42-5-1);
(13) carjacking (<a name="IC35-42-5-2">IC 35-42-5-2);
(14) arson as a Class A felony or Class B felony (IC 35-43-1-1(a));
(15) burglary as a Class A felony or Class B felony (IC 35-43-2-1);
(16) assisting a criminal as a Class C felony (<a name="IC35-44.1-2-5">IC 35-44.1-2-5);
(17) resisting law enforcement as a Class B felony or Class C felony (<a name="IC35-44.1-3-1">IC 35-44.1-3-1);
(18) escape as a Class B felony or Class C felony (IC 35-44.1-3-4);
(19) trafficking with an inmate as a Class C felony (IC 35-44.1-3-5);
(20) criminal gang intimidation (<a name="IC35-45-9-4">IC 35-45-9-4);
(21) stalking as a Class B felony or Class C felony (IC 35-45-10-5);
(22) incest (<a name="IC35-46-1-3">IC 35-46-1-3);
(23) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1);
(24) dealing in methamphetamine (<a name="IC35-48-4-1.1">IC 35-48-4-1.1);
(25) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);
(26) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
(27) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-4).
(c) A serious violent felon who knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm commits unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.
As added by P.L.247-1999, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.14-2000, SEC.76; P.L.17-2001, SEC.17; P.L.222-2001, SEC.5; P.L.151-2006, SEC.21; P.L.126-2012, SEC.58.

 

[KLB]

I was going to make a separate thread, but I quite honestly didn't know where to put it. So I'll just stick it here, as it seems just as practical a place. The wife and I were having a discussion spurred on by a NY Times article a friend of ours linked to on FB. So, for pure poop and laughter I decided to do a little research and use my stunningly honed ability to count.

Get a load of this. There are a grand total of 638 criminal offenses on the books in The People's Democratic Republic of New York. Of these:

446 are Felonies
147 are Class A Misdemeanors
45 are Class B Misdemeanors

This makes for 254 more Felonies than Misdemeanors on the books in this state.

Does this sound appropriate to anyone at all? Especially considering that several of the laws share the exact same language. What's that saying about no way to rule just men?

Have a look for yourself if you'd like.

New York Crimes by Offense Level - New York Penal Law

Of course There are your inherent felonies, or Malum in se laws, but so many of these laws don't transgress the rights of any individual at all. They violate only some arbitrary boundary set by the state.

Wow. That is a lot. Hopefully you can get out of there soon.

 

[richardraw316]

Incest is a felony? dont get me wrong it is nasty, but a felony?
O wait these are indianas laws not kentuckys.

 

[richardraw316]

This is fine with me:

IC 35-47-4-5
Unlawful possession of firearm by serious violent felon
Sec. 5. (a) As used in this section, "serious violent felon" means a person who has been convicted of:
(1) committing a serious violent felony in:
(A) Indiana; or
(B) any other jurisdiction in which the elements of the crime <a name="IC35-47-4-5">
for which the conviction was entered are substantially similar to the elements of a serious violent felony; or
(2) attempting to commit or conspiring to commit a serious violent felony in:
(A) Indiana as provided under IC 35-41-5-1 or IC 35-41-5-2; or
(B) any other jurisdiction in which the elements of the crime for which the conviction was entered are substantially similar to the elements of attempting to commit or conspiring to commit a serious violent felony.
(b) As used in this section, "serious violent felony" means:
(1) murder (
IC 35-42-1-1);
(2) voluntary manslaughter (<a name="IC35-42-1-3">IC 35-42-1-3);
(3) reckless homicide not committed by means of a vehicle (IC 35-42-1-5);
(4) battery as a:
(A) Class A felony (<a name="IC35-42-2-1">IC 35-42-2-1(a)(5));
(B) Class B felony (<a name="IC35-42-2-1">IC 35-42-2-1(a)(4)); or
(C) Class C felony (<a name="IC35-42-2-1">IC 35-42-2-1(a)(3));
(5) aggravated battery (<a name="IC35-42-2-1.5">IC 35-42-2-1.5);
(6) kidnapping (<a name="IC35-42-3-2">IC 35-42-3-2);
(7) criminal confinement (<a name="IC35-42-3-3">IC 35-42-3-3);
(8) rape (<a name="IC35-42-4-1">IC 35-42-4-1);
(9) criminal deviate conduct (<a name="IC35-42-4-2">IC 35-42-4-2);
(10) child molesting (<a name="IC35-42-4-3">IC 35-42-4-3);
(11) sexual battery as a Class C felony (<a name="IC35-42-4-8">IC 35-42-4-8);
(12) robbery (<a name="IC35-42-5-1">IC 35-42-5-1);
(13) carjacking (<a name="IC35-42-5-2">IC 35-42-5-2);
(14) arson as a Class A felony or Class B felony (IC 35-43-1-1(a));
(15) burglary as a Class A felony or Class B felony (IC 35-43-2-1);
(16) assisting a criminal as a Class C felony (<a name="IC35-44.1-2-5">IC 35-44.1-2-5);
(17) resisting law enforcement as a Class B felony or Class C felony (<a name="IC35-44.1-3-1">IC 35-44.1-3-1);
(18) escape as a Class B felony or Class C felony (IC 35-44.1-3-4);
(19) trafficking with an inmate as a Class C felony (IC 35-44.1-3-5);
(20) criminal gang intimidation (<a name="IC35-45-9-4">IC 35-45-9-4);
(21) stalking as a Class B felony or Class C felony (IC 35-45-10-5);
(22) incest (<a name="IC35-46-1-3">IC 35-46-1-3);
(23) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1);
(24) dealing in methamphetamine (<a name="IC35-48-4-1.1">IC 35-48-4-1.1);
(25) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);
(26) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
(27) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-4).
(c) A serious violent felon who knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm commits unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.
As added by P.L.247-1999, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.14-2000, SEC.76; P.L.17-2001, SEC.17; P.L.222-2001, SEC.5; P.L.151-2006, SEC.21; P.L.126-2012, SEC.58.

this is weird, if you go by this, then you and my friend should be allowed to have a firearm. is that correct?
As much as i have hated it over the years. i thought state law somehow trumped federal law. which truely never made sense to me, but it seems to be a good thing in this situation.

 

[JB357Mag]

this is weird, if you go by this, then you and my friend should be allowed to have a firearm. is that correct?
As much as i have hated it over the years. i thought state law somehow trumped federal law. which truely never made sense to me, but it seems to be a good thing in this situation.

I was told right to my face by a police officer after he ran my criminal history
and saw the class d felony,that I was ok to have a gun.

Also a lawyer told me the same thing. HOWEVER the lawyer also told me
that if the feds get ahold of you you could be in deep dodo.

Jimmy

 

[Trooper]

I was told right to my face by a police officer after he ran my criminal history
and saw the class d felony,that I was ok to have a gun.

Also a lawyer told me the same thing. HOWEVER the lawyer also told me
that if the feds get ahold of you you could be in deep dodo.

Jimmy

Remember that no LEO is a trained lawyer. And the best that a lawyer can do is give an opinion. Only a judge can rule as to what your rights are.

Frankly no one really knows what the law says. There are just too many laws. Everyone breaks the law as the law makes us all "sinners".

 

[Stschil]

this is weird, if you go by this, then you and my friend should be allowed to have a firearm. is that correct?
As much as i have hated it over the years. i thought state law somehow trumped federal law. which truely never made sense to me,
but it seems to be a good thing in this situation.

It was intended to be that way from the beginning. The Federal Government was meant more to be a coordinator, facilitator, and/or mediator to the States. The States were intended to be sovereign and self governing.


Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[NYFelon]

Incest is a felony? dont get me wrong it is nasty, but a felony?
O wait these are indianas laws not kentuckys.

These are not Indiana's laws.

Besides, it's West Virginia where incest is not only not a crime, it's the law.

 

[Ted]

Incest is a felony? dont get me wrong it is nasty, but a felony?

Think of the biological consequences of a child born between individuals with too much DNA in common......Not to mention the power that a parent, grandparent, or siblings of a parent has over a young person that is even of age.

.....i thought state law somehow trumped federal law. which truely never made sense to me, but it seems to be a good thing in this situation.

Federal law and the supremacy clause trumps state law in 17 matters only.

 

[richardraw316]

These are not Indiana's laws.

Besides, it's West Virginia where incest is not only not a crime, it's the law.

looks like it says indiana to me.

 

[TEK]

Incest is a felony? dont get me wrong it is nasty, but a felony?
O wait these are indianas laws not kentuckys.

actually incest used to be a kind of less severe charge that people would ask for when they would be pinched for child molest. the penalties were different and it was a sort of loophole. once good people figured this out and banded together to make a change, in many states the penalties have been elevated and equalized with child molest.

here is a website all about that, an article by Andrew Vachss author of the Burke series of crime novels

A Long Time Coming: Closing New York's Incest Loophole

 

[Classic]

I say yes, they have paid their "debt" to society, but then I am not a fan of parole either so not while on parole.

 

[SSGSAD]

I'm in the "only if they were convicted of a non-violent offense" camp. I certainly see the logic in keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons. Paying your debt to society is just that, paying your accrued debt. There is little reason to believe a person is less prone to rack up more of that debt once they are released.

That said, I don't think blanket legislation works in most cases. There are exceptions to every rule. The nature of the conviction should most certainly be considered, when making the determination on their future gun rights.

I guess a more accurate answer for me would be, "It depends."

I am right there, with you, IT DEPENDS .....

 

[Pitmaster]

Once a sentence has been completed restore their rights. The debt is paid. If there is evidence that they should not be entrusted with a firearm AND they are dangerous to society due to mental illness or history of violence then have a court hearing to prove the need to remove rights. Getting them back should be easy. Having them taken away should be hard.

 

[38special]

I have a buddy who spent $20 in counterfeit money when he was 18. He knew it was counterfeit. He intentionally broke the law and now he has a FEDERAL felony, only able to be pardoned by the President.

He's in his 40's now and a law-abiding, contributing member of society - having not committed any crimes since then.

Should be be forever banned from protecting his family for a stupid thing he did when he was 18, over 20 years ago?

I don't think so.

 

[Mark 1911]

I think the lifetime ban is excessive for many felonies. I don't think you can lump all felonies under a blanket lifetime ban. But there are some crimes that deserve a lifetime ban. I'm not a a legal expert, but maybe we need to take another look at what which felonies deserve a lifetime ban and which ones do not.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It is quite simple, free men shall be free men. No need to infringe upon free men.

 

[92LX]

I voted definately.

If they have done their time, they should get their rights back.

Besides. All we do trying to keep guns out of their hand is make it harder on us.

Like drugs, if they want them, the will be able to get them. Don't waste time on impossible tasks.

It should be, if they are not allowed their rights back, they shouldn't be out. Or should have been hung.


No part of gun control has ever, in the history of gun control, ever been about GUN control. It is always about citizen control. We see it even know. The dems have dropped the we have to ban guns for crime thing, and are on the "well why do you need it" train.

In the end it comes down to "we don't want you to have them, so you won't" Mostly because, they want to own us.

You give us all the money, and we'll tell you what to eat, what to drive, where to work, and we'll indoctrinate, I mean educate, no I meant indoctrinate your kids so they are stupid and go along easier.

Not in jail, should mean free. Otherwise it is an excercise in stupidity to think you can control a criminals actions afterward. Especially when you take away all the criminals options, except for, staying a criminal.

 

[JollyMon]

I agree with the past few posts. It depends. However, lines have to be drawn somewhere. I personally feel that a person should be allowed to make a mistake in their life and be given the opportunity to redeem themselves. If a person commits a felony, does the time, proves to society that they are now responsible, I have no problem with them owning a firearm. If they make a mistake twice, fool me once. But I also feel that penalties for crimes aren't as severe as they should be.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I agree with the past few posts. It depends. However, lines have to be drawn somewhere. I personally feel that a person should be allowed to make a mistake in their life and be given the opportunity to redeem themselves. If a person commits a felony, does the time, proves to society that they are now responsible, I have no problem with them owning a firearm. If they make a mistake twice, fool me once. But I also feel that penalties for crimes aren't as severe as they should be.

If they are not in prison shouldn't that qualify for redeemed? Sentence served? What needs to change is the definition of a felony. How about everyone take a minute and see what a felony was say 125 years ago.