Why are some criminals allowed guns but others aren't?

[ShootSpeeders]

If the maximum possible penalty for your crime is a year or more in prison, your constitutional right to have guns is gone. If it was less than a year, you can have all the guns you want. Does that make sense.? Martha Stewart can't have a gun to defend herself but a convicted drunk driver can - which is the more heinous criminal?

The 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note those last 4 words.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because some are elected officials.

 

[bucs90]

Thats wrong. It depends on the crime more than the sentence. It is extremly rare for a person convicted of Criminal Domestic Violence (wife beater law) to serve any time in jail, and, it is a misdemeanor in most states. They usually get a fine and/or some mandated counseling.

Yet, with 1 single CDV conviction, you can no longer own a gun.

If you are convicted of selling over 28 grams of weed (1 ounce) it is considered distribution, and thus, a felony. You cant own a gun.


Yet....if you are a lunatic whackjob, who is put on every pill under the sun by a doctor just because you have insurance and you are sad....you can go buy an AK47.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Thats wrong. It depends on the crime more than the sentence. .

No YOU are wrong. It depends ENTIRELY on the sentence. A felony is any crime for which the maximum possible sentence is a year or more. If the MPS is a day up to a year, it is a misdemeanor. If there is no possibility of incarceration (as with a parking ticket) it is an infraction. Very very few exceptions to those rules.

The nature of the crime does NOT determine which of the 3 categories your crime is. It's all about the max possible sentence.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Because some are elected officials.

Yup - drunk driving should be a felony but that would felonize tons of congressmen and judges.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If the maximum possible penalty for your crime is a year or more in prison, your constitutional right to have guns is gone. If it was less than a year, you can have all the guns you want. Does that make sense.? Martha Stewart can't have a gun to defend herself but a convicted drunk driver can - which is the more heinous criminal?

The 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note those last 4 words.

why are people whose crime was having a pound of Pot on them given longer sentences than some violent felons?.....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

why are people whose crime was having a pound of Pot on them given longer sentences than some violent felons?.....

Many people have asked that. It's amazing that you can lose your constitutional right to guns over a victimless non-violent "crime"!!! Pete Rose is a felon too and can't have guns. He cheated on his taxes!!!!

But let a psychopath drive drunk and pile into another car and put a couple kids in the hospital and he'll likely get off with a misdemeanor and can still have all the guns he wants.

 

[Abatis]

Thats wrong. It depends on the crime more than the sentence. It is extremly rare for a person convicted of Criminal Domestic Violence (wife beater law) to serve any time in jail, and, it is a misdemeanor in most states.

A federal firearms rights disability is imposed for a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence.

This is the "Lautenberg Amendment" and was widely criticized because of the numbers of police officers that it disarmed. Police and military personnel are exempted from the general felony disablement but not the rights disablement for misdemeanor domestic violence, even while on duty . . .

From the DoJ link above:

• "There is no law enforcement exception: One of the provisions of this new statute removed the exemption that 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) provided to police and military. Thus, as of the effective date, any member of the military or any police officer who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction is no longer able to possess a firearm, even while on duty. We now have the anomalous situation that 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) still exempts felony convictions for these two groups. Thus if a police officer is convicted of murdering his/her spouse or has a protection order placed against them, they may, under federal law, still be able to possess a service revolver while on duty, whereas if they are convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor they are prohibited from possessing any firearm or ammunition at any time. Currently pending before Congress are at least two bills that would substantially modify the impact of the amendment to this section."

Wiki article

 

[Avatar4321]

Thats wrong. It depends on the crime more than the sentence. .

No YOU are wrong. It depends ENTIRELY on the sentence. A felony is any crime for which the maximum possible sentence is a year or more. If the MPS is a day up to a year, it is a misdemeanor. If there is no possibility of incarceration (as with a parking ticket) it is an infraction. Very very few exceptions to those rules.

The nature of the crime does NOT determine which of the 3 categories your crime is. It's all about the max possible sentence.

That's a simplistic definition of felony. In PA, for example, misdemeanors can have max sentences of up to 5 years. The only misdemeanors that are under 1 year as a max, are M3s or the lowest grade misdemeanors.

Felonies are defined by law. And those vary from state to state. Acting as though there is a hard fast rule universally is just silly.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because some are elected officials.

Yup - drunk driving should be a felony but that would felonize tons of congressmen and judges.

No it shouldn't. Not unless someone is actually harmed.

 

[Doc91678]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#ooid=lxMWp2Nzr_arsql2q-3WpDyfdgQHzG9v​

Chief Fitch says the rush to buy guns after the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown shows that it’s too late for any new gun control laws to have any real effect.

 

[Harry Dresden]

why are people whose crime was having a pound of Pot on them given longer sentences than some violent felons?.....

Many people have asked that. It's amazing that you can lose your constitutional right to guns over a victimless non-violent "crime"!!! Pete Rose is a felon too and can't have guns. He cheated on his taxes!!!!

But let a psychopath drive drunk and pile into another car and put a couple kids in the hospital and he'll likely get off with a misdemeanor and can still have all the guns he wants.

the Justice System is kind of fucked up......if anything in this Country needs to be overhauled its the Criminal sentencing part....

 

[martybegan]

Thats wrong. It depends on the crime more than the sentence. It is extremly rare for a person convicted of Criminal Domestic Violence (wife beater law) to serve any time in jail, and, it is a misdemeanor in most states.

A federal firearms rights disability is imposed for a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence.

This is the "Lautenberg Amendment" and was widely criticized because of the numbers of police officers that it disarmed. Police and military personnel are exempted from the general felony disablement but not the rights disablement for misdemeanor domestic violence, even while on duty . . .

From the DoJ link above:

• "There is no law enforcement exception: One of the provisions of this new statute removed the exemption that 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) provided to police and military. Thus, as of the effective date, any member of the military or any police officer who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction is no longer able to possess a firearm, even while on duty. We now have the anomalous situation that 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) still exempts felony convictions for these two groups. Thus if a police officer is convicted of murdering his/her spouse or has a protection order placed against them, they may, under federal law, still be able to possess a service revolver while on duty, whereas if they are convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor they are prohibited from possessing any firearm or ammunition at any time. Currently pending before Congress are at least two bills that would substantially modify the impact of the amendment to this section."

Wiki article

I think the more disturbing point is that a law enforcement waiver is even NEEDED for domestic violence reasons.....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Felonies are defined by law. And those vary from state to state. Acting as though there is a hard fast rule universally is just silly.

Forget the states. In 1968 the federal govt passed the Gun Control Act and it says

") It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Yup - drunk driving should be a felony but that would felonize tons of congressmen and judges.

No it shouldn't. Not unless someone is actually harmed.

Really? So if i throw a bomb in a restaurant and it doesn't go off, that should NOT be a felony?