ATF raid in Parker City - Ludco Gun Shop

[USMC_0311]

But anyway, just as a matter of conversation, what percentage of people would you guess are rehabilitated by a stay in prison?

How hard do you think it is for a non-rehabilitaed inmate that gets released from prison to buy a gun?

 

[Dragon]

Jayhawk, I wouldn't even want to guess but I'd say it's a very, VERY low number let's say around 1%.

 

[Yamaha]

wow, I read the last few pages and see nothing but difference of opinions discussion. Indiana prisons don't rehabilitate anything, they wipe the offenders rears for them.....


make the offender population work for minimum wage, take their cost of living(in prison), restitution, child support, fines, and legal fees out of their pay, and then with whatever is left over put in a savings account so they can get on their feet again. If prisons did that, and didn't just let them sit on their rumps watching cable tv, worrying when they get to play basketball, or scheme to get phones/drugs/cigs/ipods and such inside, then that would probably rehabilitate them. Or at least stand a better chance at doing so, as a former corrections officer, I met many that should never be allowed to get out. [/rant]

 

[roscott]

Someone should dress professionally, go visit him, and say they are from Le Ind-Ago, an online news and update service, and get an interview!

 

[Yamaha]

Someone should dress professionally, go visit him, and say they are from Le Ind-Ago, an online news and update service, and get an interview!

he's prolly being held far away though

 

[CarmelHP]

Wow...do you believe it should be legal to sell guns to convicted felons?!

Wow, do you think that a shopowner should be an arm of federal law enforcement to continuously be on the lookout for and punishing those previously convicted of felonies? If so, we definitely have a different view of what the relationship should be between the people and the federal government.

 

[CarmelHP]

The real world is not black and white. There is no system for determining if someone is 100% criminal or 100% rehabilitated. I would imagine that is why we have classes of crime (such as a felony) that are deemed by society to be serious enough that they carry lifetime penalties.

You mean, like lying on your taxes or filing out a 4473 incorrectly?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Ahh, but it doesn't say "crime involving a gun." It says "convicted felon." That felony could be a TAX violation. It could be DUI. It could be a white collar crime. It could be because you got caught growing pot for yourself.

None of those crimes shows that the criminal is inherently dangerous. In my mind, there is a difference between someone who avoids paying taxes (or makes a paperwork mistake on his return), a rapist/murderer, and a pot grower. In the eyes of the law, they are identical (except there are mandatory federal sentences for pot crimes).

So what? You are making no delineation. Once you get out of jail you get all your rights back according to some on here. I just don't see it that way, sometimes if you do things that are illegal you have to suffer the consequences. Don't do the crime if you cant do the time.

I have no issue with anyone who has been convicted of a felony not being able to own a gun, ever. The easiest way to keep your gun permits is to not commit crimes, easy enough.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Wow, do you think that a shopowner should be an arm of federal law enforcement to continuously be on the lookout for and punishing those previously convicted of felonies? If so, we definitely have a different view of what the relationship should be between the people and the federal government.

The shop owner isn't, they call in the background check, the people on the other end of the phone are the ones who are supposed to be on the lookout for those who shouldn't own guns.

But as a shop owner if you knowingly sell to a convicted felon or a straw purchase, you can be held liable. If you dont know someone and sell them a gun, they pass the background checks, then you are good to go. Not a big deal.

 

[CarmelHP]

The shop owner isn't, they call in the background check, the people on the other end of the phone are the ones who are supposed to be on the lookout for those who shouldn't own guns.

But as a shop owner if you knowingly sell to a convicted felon or a straw purchase, you can be held liable. If you dont know someone and sell them a gun, they pass the background checks, then you are good to go. Not a big deal.

Sorry, I don't think a storekeeper asking the federal government to OK every transaction he makes is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

 

[irishfan]

has there been a mugshot of old Fred posted yet?

 

[thompal]

So what? You are making no delineation. Once you get out of jail you get all your rights back according to some on here. I just don't see it that way, sometimes if you do things that are illegal you have to suffer the consequences. Don't do the crime if you cant do the time.

I have no issue with anyone who has been convicted of a felony not being able to own a gun, ever. The easiest way to keep your gun permits is to not commit crimes, easy enough.

I draw a distinction between what I could consider "actual" crimes (murder, rape, robbery, battery, etc) and "crimes against The State (tax issues, regulatory issues, etc). I don't see how preventing a NON-violent felon from owning a gun once he has "paid his price to society" is helping society or the felon who has served his sentence. I believe that one of a human's most basic rights is to be able to live, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence. To admit that someone has a right to live, one must accept that a person must be allowed to defend his life and remain living. If you tell a person that he is free to go because he has served his full sentence (which was deemed 'enough' by society) but he is not allowed to defend himself, you are telling him that his life is worth less than the petty thugs on the street.

Either he has "paid his debt to society," or he has not. If he has not, then why is he on the street?

Murderers are a different story. If they are convicted, why is their mandatory sentence less than that of someone caught growing pot? Why are they let onto the streets at all? If the murderer's victim had the right to defend himself using deadly force, why does The State refuse to use deadly force to carry out the sentence?

As for "not doing the crime if you can't do the time." Are you saying that someone who inadvertently makes a paperwork or regulatory error which results in his felony conviction would be such a violent threat to society after his release that he must not, under any conditions, be allowed to own a firearm to defend himself against actual violent criminals?

Are you suggesting that ex-felons are a lesser class of humanity? Before you answer that, keep in mind that it would only take the stroke of a government official's pen to make magazines that hold more than 5 rounds a federal firearm felony. Do you think that everyone on INGO, for example, would willingly turn over ALL of their magazines, or do you think that most would keep at least one "just to have, just in case?" What about the other couple hundred million firearm owners? Are they ALL to be considered subhuman, not worthy of defending their lives?

If your wife, daughter, or girlfriend had a DUI 10 years ago, how happy are you that The State deems her unworthy to defend herself against a rapist or murderer? Apparently, from your comments, you are pretty pleased about it, but I, for one, will NEVER understand that attitude.

 

[thompal]

Sorry, I don't think a storekeeper asking the federal government to OK every transaction he makes is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

The country is RIFE with stupidity, it's not just ATF (although they are in the top 3).

I got carded to buy cigarettes the other day.

(I'm 53 years old).

Damn sheeple don't have the common sense possessed by dirt. The government says "card people, because they MIGHT be under 18", so, by gawd, they'd card their own grandmother, cause the government said to.

The Founding Fathers would be shaking their heads at a lot more than the ATF, but I have a feeling that they'd start there.

 

[Issachar1]

It doesn't look good at all. I didn't know the owner well, but I bought my Glock there, some parts, and a bunch of ammo. It was a really interesting store, lots of inventory...great selection of used guns. I will miss it.

 

[warmachine]

I draw a distinction between what I could consider "actual" crimes (murder, rape, robbery, battery, etc) and "crimes against The State (tax issues, regulatory issues, etc). I don't see how preventing a NON-violent felon from owning a gun once he has "paid his price to society" is helping society or the felon who has served his sentence. I believe that one of a human's most basic rights is to be able to live, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence. To admit that someone has a right to live, one must accept that a person must be allowed to defend his life and remain living. If you tell a person that he is free to go because he has served his full sentence (which was deemed 'enough' by society) but he is not allowed to defend himself, you are telling him that his life is worth less than the petty thugs on the street.

Either he has "paid his debt to society," or he has not. If he has not, then why is he on the street?

Murderers are a different story. If they are convicted, why is their mandatory sentence less than that of someone caught growing pot? Why are they let onto the streets at all? If the murderer's victim had the right to defend himself using deadly force, why does The State refuse to use deadly force to carry out the sentence?

As for "not doing the crime if you can't do the time." Are you saying that someone who inadvertently makes a paperwork or regulatory error which results in his felony conviction would be such a violent threat to society after his release that he must not, under any conditions, be allowed to own a firearm to defend himself against actual violent criminals?

Are you suggesting that ex-felons are a lesser class of humanity? Before you answer that, keep in mind that it would only take the stroke of a government official's pen to make magazines that hold more than 5 rounds a federal firearm felony. Do you think that everyone on INGO, for example, would willingly turn over ALL of their magazines, or do you think that most would keep at least one "just to have, just in case?" What about the other couple hundred million firearm owners? Are they ALL to be considered subhuman, not worthy of defending their lives?

If your wife, daughter, or girlfriend had a DUI 10 years ago, how happy are you that The State deems her unworthy to defend herself against a rapist or murderer? Apparently, from your comments, you are pretty pleased about it, but I, for one, will NEVER understand that attitude.

I must say that this is the only argument I have read that I agree with concerning felons getting their rights back. If they have served their time and they met the demands set before them to "pay" for their crimes why not let them be "average" citizens again? I know a guy who can never own a firearm because he is a convicted felon for not paying child support. The way he explained it he was done wrong but thats another story, anyway I wouldnt have a problem with this guy owning a gun although he's a felon. To me their are people who just should not be afforded the right to own a gun PERIOD and you wont convince me otherwise but there are others who have wrongfully lost that right, some are felons and I do agree that they should get their rights that are owed them.

 

[Scutter01]

Just so we have a better flow, please continue this conversation in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...omplaint_usa_v_charles_f_ludington_ludco.html