Replies

I neither "spewed nor ranted". "Rant" was your word. I simply think folks who've done their time and their obligatory parole or probation and satisfied all those requirements should have their gun rights restored.

Okay, So I can shoot someone-do my 10 years, fill out a form and use a high powered deer rifle and blow their wife away from 400 yards? If a violent criminal is walking the street with a grudge I want him unarmed ALL the time...no knives...no guns no bow and arrows...(This isn't precisely spew, BUT you don't know criminals) Lets move on shall we?

A number of states feel the same as I do. The Feds as well as a larger number of states do not. Before Janet Reno, a Federal ex-felon could apply for limited gun rights restoration from the Marshall's service. Now one must go to a Fed judge and Ashcroft is challenging that practice in the DC courts as we speak.

Thanks for the info...an appeals process should be in place...I told you I was operating off the cuff...this is just chaff. Individual extenuating circumstances were covered in my above post. They need to be considered!

I simply do not agree with you.

I gathered that...you just have a naive take on people who have been incarcerated...even someone who is inside unjustly can come out violent and dangerous just from the socialization process.

I also worry about the infringments, the overlapping jurisdcitions and the draconian sentencing guidleines.

more chaff.

I would guess that probably 5% of American Males are already disenfranchised from gun rights if one takes into account all of these laws and infractions. Over 1% of America has done time. The vast majority is for non violent crimes. If you juxtapose that 1% and the other convictions requiring no time including some misdemeanors that preclude gun rights with the adult male population then I would think the surmisal that 1 in 20 American adult males have no gun rights Federally (sans Black Powder Firearms) and are at risk for these draconian in my view sentences should they be found to even be in "constructive" possession of a firearm.

All I got out of that was liberal "I feel your pain..." vibe...The fact of the matter is, I DO feel sorry for anyone who isn't allowed to go to the range and blast away with a high capacity mag equipped ruger 10/22...Our government has real problems Wardaddy...But being too hard on VIOLENT Criminals IS NOT ONE OF THEM...(having said that...the takings for minor drug offenses are beyond the pale...) Regards

You're killing me....ROTFLMAO....I know you tried hard to be as "nice" as you can which is difficult. I gotta ping some folks to see me being called liberal and naive in the same reply. Maybe I should just do a thread on this alone.

Oh yeah buddy....you got a real naive liberal here....

thanks.. you're gonna send me on my 34 mile drive home with a grin on my face. Lightning struck twice today. I had a renter in my office tell me I reminded her of some movie star. Let me tell you....I never ever get that. Check out my homepage. I'm middle aged grey and uglee!

Me naive and liberal....son I have to work extra hard not to be accused of all kinds of evil right wing extremist stuff on this forum...real hard. Like some other Freeper said.."Attila the Hun is a three day ride off my left flank"

Thanks....seriously.

Our government has real problems Wardaddy...But being too hard on VIOLENT Criminals IS NOT ONE OF THEM

Oh brother. No wonder you're not making sense; you missed the gist of the article.

The majority of the defendants -- 154 out of 191 -- have no violent felonies on their records

We're not tough on violent criminals. That's why an armed carjacker can be out walking the streets after doing only 2 years time. Too much of our prison space is reserved for drug offenders doing mandatory minimums. There's not enough room for the people who commit crimes against actual victims, so we have to let them out.