Man Defends Himself With Illegal Gun - Faces Charges

[MSimon]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/ma ... ison-time/

He was bring burglarized.

And don't forget any sign of anyone with a potential mental illness in your house and your lose the right to firearmed self defense in some places. If you are a former felon you can't defend yourself with a firearm. That is in a lot of places.

BTW the anti-felon laws were a specialty of the South and were used to disarm and disenfranchise blacks.

[GIThruster]

It doesn't matter that he was being burglerized. People who are out on bail for violent crimes are not permitted access to firearms--period. This guy belongs in jail until his court case comes up and then he deserves the time the DA is considering--3 years.

You don't get it, simon--there are conditions where you surrender your right to keep and bear arms, like when you're in prison, or in jail, or out on bail.

Do you have any common sense at all?

[kcdodd]

It didn't say anything about it being because he was on bail. That condition would have been up the the judge or state etc. If he was in violation of bail terms I doubt he'd still be out on bail. I think the problem is it wasn't his gun. But im not sure.

[MSimon]

It doesn't matter that he was being burglerized. People who are out on bail for violent crimes are not permitted access to firearms--period. This guy belongs in jail until his court case comes up and then he deserves the time the DA is considering--3 years.

You don't get it, simon--there are conditions where you surrender your right to keep and bear arms, like when you're in prison, or in jail, or out on bail.

Do you have any common sense at all?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So your take is that once you are accused of a crime you lose your right to self defense? Do YOU have any common sense? Personally I don't care if he had been convicted and had a record. He still has the RIGHT to defend himself. It is a NATURAL RIGHT and no government can take that away no matter how many laws it passes.

Did the Jews have a RIGHT to take on the Germans? Or did German law abrogate those rights.

Our country was founded on the the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Can those rights be taken away by law? That seems to be your opinion. The man may have violated some one else's rights. He should be punished for that. But I doubt the punishment ought to be the forfeiture of his right to life at the hands of a criminal.

You know your reflexive dislike of me has made you xxxxxx. I AM amused. You would give up your own inalienable rights if it would get back at me. That is a dangerous way to think. For you. Because some one might take advantage of that and pass a law. Which you would be compelled to obey - according to your own "logic". I AM amused.

I have Rights. And no law will make me give them up. But that is because I'm an American. What are you?

Now it is true that the laws may make me circumspect in the exercise of those rights. But I will not give them up. If enough people think like me - and it only takes 5% - the laws become unenforceable because of too many violators. The History Of Alcohol Prohibition might prove instructive in that regard. If you would care to study it. But of course I can't force you to dispel your ignorance. Nor would I. It is your inalienable right to remain ignorant. And I applaud you for exercising it. Some one has to. Better you than me.

[GIThruster]

Rant all you like. The fact is, once you become a felon, in the US you permanently sacrifice the right to keep and bear arms. That is the way life is, and it won't change because of your crazy ranting. This is enforced in most states which have the same ruling and in those states that do not have the same law, the federal charges are still enough to put you away for 10-20 depending upon circumstances.

Doesn't matter that you don't like it. Felons are not permitted to have access to firearms, nor are those in prison, in jail or on bail.

And one more time simon, I don't have a "reflexive hatred" for you or anyone else. I think you're a very sick guy who needs to see a doctor, and who is very confused on a host of issues, primarily revolving around your drug use, lack of education and inability to hold a job or provide for your family. When people in these threads complain about the lazy parasites in society that are all take and give nothing back, they're talking about you. You know it. I know it. And your crazy posting is the result of it. I'm not the one acting out. You are.

[kcdodd]

I don't think you read the article, my post, or really know the law. Stop making things up git.

[GIThruster]

I read the article, carter, as well as know the law, and I have had a personal experience with a friend of a friend who had his guns confiscated when he was out on bail. (They were returned when he was found not guilty.) What you don't like is that I ignored your post because it though seeming useful, is not. The guy was out on bail for a violent crime and is not permitted firearms. It doesn't matter they belong to someone else.

[kcdodd]

That just does not appear consistent with the story. Of course, it could be misreported. But, It specifically stated he was still on bail. I already said that. Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant if you can't show that is some uniform law, but I can oly find counterexamples. The same for felons regaining gun ownership. Obviously msimon has lots of company, while your advocating the super hardline stance with little rational.

[choff]

I recall reading many years ago how you could make a simple sub machine gun using a door bolt, water pipe, bed spring, and how in the early days of Israel they were making ammo cartridges out of lipstick cases.

[GIThruster]

It is against federal law for any felon to possess or carry a firearm of any kind, for any reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felon_in_p ... _a_firearm

Doesn't matter that some here might not be sympathetic with the law, it is the law and it is the law in most states as well.

About the bail issue, the best I could find was that bail is granted specific "conditions" by the judge so it may be my experience with the police removing the firearms during bail was a condition specific to that event. If so I'm surprised since the charge was tax evasion. There was no particular risk of violence.

[Stubby]

but only since 1968 with LBJ's Gun Control Act.

Prior to 1968, almost anyone could own a firearm.

So can someone explain why, faced with the 2nd amendment, the federal government was able to enact such a law?

I don't remember a caveat regarding criminals in the 2nd amendment.

[paperburn1]

but only since 1968 with LBJ's Gun Control Act.

Prior to 1968, almost anyone could own a firearm.

So can someone explain why, faced with the 2nd amendment, the federal government was able to enact such a law?

I don't remember a caveat regarding criminals in the 2nd amendment.

Becoming a felon and ward of the state removes your rights except for essential rights, after you served your time you can regain your right to a gun and to vote (a state right)
he 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a ban on convicted felons possessing firearms, saying it's consistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment establishes the right to keep and bear arms.

"We are very glad they upheld the ban," Lauren Horwood, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento, said Wednesday.

Thrice convicted felon Peter Vongxay, 27, had appealed a prison sentence for possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun, Horwood said. Vongxay, whose felony convictions include car burglary and drug possession, argued that the federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms was unconstitutional.

In the 9th Circuit decision, a three-judge panel in San Francisco concluded that the right to bear arms doesn't extend to convicted felons.

"Prosecuting convicted felons who choose to possess and use firearms in our district is critical to our ability to ensure the safety of the community," said U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, whose district includes the north state. "While the Supreme Court has recognized a limited right under the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens to possess guns for lawful purposes in defending themselves at home, in no way does that right extend to protect convicted felons who possess or carry guns."
if the person has ever been convicted of a felony. If so, he said the person can't purchase a gun.

The form also lists other conditions that would restrict someone from buying a gun. They include being a fugitive, having been dishonorably discharged from the military and being an illegal immigrant.

[paperburn1]

this is the current law
http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press- ... -Law.shtml
IN north Carolina your state may vary.

[Stubby]

Yes I read all that on the weekend.
Under what pretext, can a government ignore its own Constitution to infringe upon the right to bear arms (other than being a ward of the state)?

Once someone has completed their sentence (including any parole) are they not supposed to be a full citizen again? If not, it seems that it is a de facto and de jure variation of a life sentence.

Once someone is a convicted felon you can never be a full citizen ever again unless you have the money to fight and over turn the original conviction or know the right people and get a pardon.

[paperburn1]

Yes I read all that on the weekend.
Under what pretext, can a government ignore its own Constitution to infringe upon the right to bear arms (other than being a ward of the state)?

Once someone has completed their sentence (including any parole) are they not supposed to be a full citizen again? If not, it seems that it is a de facto and de jure variation of a life sentence.

Once someone is a convicted felon you can never be a full citizen ever again unless you have the money to fight and over turn the original conviction or know the right people and get a pardon.

I think the kicker is that even if a state restores your gun rights the federal government can ignore that and still prosecute you for firearm possession...straight from the ATF guy that does our review.