Illinois factory gunman obtained permit
despite having a violent felony conviction and being legally barred from owning a firearm. Reuters reporting.
0
-
Once again, just enforce the laws you already have.
I saw where he had a FOID card and was able to purchase the pistol, but his felony was discovered when he applied for a concealed carry and the check on his prints returned his history. The police (didn?t mention which) sent him a letter and told him he was ineligible and requested that he surrender the firearm.
Now what will be interesting to see is, if there was ever any follow up to the letter.0 -
So sue the issuing authority or it's leadership in civil court - and charge them with trafficking guns to felons
Mike0 -
Typical State of Illinois stupidity. And the new Democratic governor has already passed some anti gun laws and has more in progress. An assault weapons ban with existing guns grandfathered but must be registered is one. Any bets as to how long before they decide your registered pre ban guns must be turned in with no compensation? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
So sue the issuing authority or it's leadership in civil court - and charge them with trafficking guns to felons
Mike
I would love to see that happen.0 -
Some not only agree with gun control laws they want to sue people for not being strict enough when enforcing them. 0 -
Heard a segment of the shooting on radio this morning. The segment stressed the gun "had a laser". I guess laser's will be next on the ban list after the bump-fire ban. 0 -
I am not a conspiracy nut but it seams like almost every one of these shootings is by someone that could not legally own a firearm but the Government let them have one anyway.. is as if they are setting up conditions for these shootings just hoping someone will do one so they can demand more laws 0 -
The police "revoked" his permit and he didn't turn in gun,,, but the police didn't pick it up either. I'd say the Aurora IL. police have some explaining to do.
Yes the gun they didn't pick up was the same gun used is the killings.
Law says:
Ziman said Illinois State Police revoked Martin's FOID card after the 1995 felony conviction was discovered. His concealed carry permit application was rejected as a result. She said gun owners whose FOID cards are revoked are issued a letter by Illinois State Police informing them that they must "voluntarily relinquish" their firearms.
SURPRISE: He didn't relinquish the gun.
Hope the police kept a copy of the letter they sent and the address.0 -
'Some not only agree with gun control laws they want to sue people for not being strict enough when enforcing them.'
Uh, no.
Who here is really not OK with felons being punished for the crimes they commit? Who here is not OK with laws saying felons can't have guns?
State Police knows of a felon with a gun and sends letter saying pretty please turn it in.
And apparently no follow up.
Then people get killed by that felon with that gun. Yes, the new Governor will say that is the fault of law abiding gun owners, while it is pretty apparent that some one in State or local police dropped the ball.
It is the same old story - felon breaks the law, gets little to no punishment (catch & release) and ends up killing people later on. Oh and of course the only answer is more gun control laws.
We had him, let him go and now your Dad, Brother, Son or Husband is dead. How should the families of the dead feel? Correctional Officers are named in Civil suits ever day for whatever stupid grievance an inmate can come up with but this situation shouldn't go to court?
And as an Illinois resident, I know first hand the stupidity of the FOID card. It should be abolished. Another good question would be just how many felons does the FOID card background check miss?
Kind of a good thing this felon applied for concealed carry, but then not so good when the information gathered is not used effectively.0 -
no chit...lifer prisoner can sue because they dont like the food, etc, etc ....BUT a squad of police should have been sent out IMMEDIATELY when his application was found DENIABLE...?????????...this would seem to be an ambulance chasing lawyers DREAM case. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by KX500
'Some not only agree with gun control laws they want to sue people for not being strict enough when enforcing them.'
Uh, no.
Who here is really not OK with felons being punished for the crimes they commit? Who here is not OK with laws saying felons can't have guns?
State Police knows of a felon with a gun and sends letter saying pretty please turn it in.
And apparently no follow up.
Then people get killed by that felon with that gun. Yes, the new Governor will say that is the fault of law abiding gun owners, while it is pretty apparent that some one in State or local police dropped the ball.
It is the same old story - felon breaks the law, gets little to no punishment (catch & release) and ends up killing people later on. Oh and of course the only answer is more gun control laws.
We had him, let him go and now your Dad, Brother, Son or Husband is dead. How should the families of the dead feel? Correctional Officers are named in Civil suits ever day for whatever stupid grievance an inmate can come up with but this situation shouldn't go to court?
And as an Illinois resident, I know first hand the stupidity of the FOID card. It should be abolished. Another good question would be just how many felons does the FOID card background check miss?
Kind of a good thing this felon applied for concealed carry, but then not so good when the information gathered is not used effectively.
IMO, once a man pays for his crime, and all is over, his right to own a firearm should be intact. If he agrees to early release form prison and his parole terms are that he will not possess a firearm, okay, he accepts that as part of his early release, he can accept or stay in prison. But once all is done his right to own a firearm should be intact.
If a convicted felon shouldn't own a gun then he shouldn't be out of prison to start with. In the subject of felonies, there is sure a lot of BS felonies in the books today. Felony convictions should be for something really bad, not BS.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
So sue the issuing authority or it's leadership in civil court - and charge them with trafficking guns to felons
Mike
And accessory to murder? No?0 -
SCOUT5, It almost sounds like your saying that in the Aurora example here, you don't see any problems.
I could agree that there should be some process for a felon to have gun rights reinstated. But to have it be automatic would be absurd.
Consider:
National Statistics on Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.'
Not the newest of data, but I doubt that the stats would change much of study was done today.
So sure, some Felons are really good guys, but the odds are not in their favor. The Aurora shooter was 'well known to local police'.
And I am much more concerned with the trend of misdemeanors and other courts orders resulting in the lose of gun rights than I am about the gun rights of a known felon.0 -
KX500 it's partially societies fault too. Consider this, your a felon lets say for possession of drugs. Now how easy is it to get a job? Society is known for rejecting felons. I'm not even sure if McDonalds hires felons. Hence the felon has little choice but to revert back to crime to earn $$$ and feed himself.
Pretty sad for someone to fit back into society when the deck is stacked against them.
I'm a member of a private club. A nice family oriented club with a baseball team, a playground for the kids ect. They will not let felons be members there. When I joined 25 years ago you needed two references from existing members to join but no background check then. Now you still need two members and a background check.
It's not like your applying for a job driving a brinks truck ect.0 -
quote:Originally posted by KX500
SCOUT5, It almost sounds like your saying that in the Aurora example here, you don't see any problems.
I could agree that there should be some process for a felon to have gun rights reinstated. But to have it be automatic would be absurd.
Consider:
National Statistics on Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.'
Not the newest of data, but I doubt that the stats would change much of study was done today.
So sure, some Felons are really good guys, but the odds are not in their favor. The Aurora shooter was 'well known to local police'.
And I am much more concerned with the trend of misdemeanors and other courts orders resulting in the lose of gun rights than I am about the gun rights of a known felon.
I do not agree with this stance. Those who are going to go on to commit violent acts will do so anyway, law are no law against owning a firearm. If comes down to the same thing. Punish all due to acts of some. That is the same thought process that leads to gun control laws that affect the law abiding and destroy not only our right to bear arms but our other individual rights as well.
In our country a man is either a free American or he is not. Straddling fences is what leads to compromise of individual rights, compromise can only lead to the destruction of those rights.
You can stop someone in a bad act, you can punish someone for committing a bad act, but you can't pass laws that will keep them from attempting a bad act. The acts you are concerned a felon will commit are already against the law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by KX500
SCOUT5, It almost sounds like your saying that in the Aurora example here, you don't see any problems.
I could agree that there should be some process for a felon to have gun rights reinstated. But to have it be automatic would be absurd.
Consider:
National Statistics on Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.'
Not the newest of data, but I doubt that the stats would change much of study was done today.
So sure, some Felons are really good guys, but the odds are not in their favor. The Aurora shooter was 'well known to local police'.
And I am much more concerned with the trend of misdemeanors and other courts orders resulting in the lose of gun rights than I am about the gun rights of a known felon.
I do not agree with this stance. Those who are going to go on to commit violent acts will do so anyway, law are no law against owning a firearm. If comes down to the same thing. Punish all due to acts of some. That is the same thought process that leads to gun control laws that affect the law abiding and destroy not only our right to bear arms but our other individual rights as well.
In our country a man is either a free American or he is not. Straddling fences is what leads to compromise of individual rights, compromise can only lead to the destruction of those rights.
You can stop someone in a bad act, you can punish someone for committing a bad act, but you can't pass laws that will keep them from attempting a bad act. The acts you are concerned a felon will commit are already against the law.
+1 Scout0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by KX500
'Some not only agree with gun control laws they want to sue people for not being strict enough when enforcing them.'
Uh, no.
Who here is really not OK with felons being punished for the crimes they commit? Who here is not OK with laws saying felons can't have guns?
State Police knows of a felon with a gun and sends letter saying pretty please turn it in.
And apparently no follow up.
Then people get killed by that felon with that gun. Yes, the new Governor will say that is the fault of law abiding gun owners, while it is pretty apparent that some one in State or local police dropped the ball.
It is the same old story - felon breaks the law, gets little to no punishment (catch & release) and ends up killing people later on. Oh and of course the only answer is more gun control laws.
We had him, let him go and now your Dad, Brother, Son or Husband is dead. How should the families of the dead feel? Correctional Officers are named in Civil suits ever day for whatever stupid grievance an inmate can come up with but this situation shouldn't go to court?
And as an Illinois resident, I know first hand the stupidity of the FOID card. It should be abolished. Another good question would be just how many felons does the FOID card background check miss?
Kind of a good thing this felon applied for concealed carry, but then not so good when the information gathered is not used effectively.
IMO, once a man pays for his crime, and all is over, his right to own a firearm should be intact. If he agrees to early release form prison and his parole terms are that he will not possess a firearm, okay, he accepts that as part of his early release, he can accept or stay in prison. But once all is done his right to own a firearm should be intact.
If a convicted felon shouldn't own a gun then he shouldn't be out of prison to start with. In the subject of felonies, there is sure a lot of BS felonies in the books today. Felony convictions should be for something really bad, not BS.
+1 Scout5
There is a big difference in a violent crime and many other "felonies
"
IE.. I had an uncle, a convicted felon, his crime: driving a pick up truck across state lines with fireworks in the back bed.
20 feet over the state line he could have had the biggest fireworks show in the county, 20 feet on the other side he is a felon because he wanted his son to have a great 4th of July.
Punish the bad boys with a rap sheet 4 pages long, use common sense
with everyone else.
I had a worker on one of my jobsites that had to bum rides into work because His driving license was revoked. Was going to court to get it back. He had 7 DUI's. SEVEN !! Why wasn't he in jail after the 3rd one???
The court system sucks!! Does more harm to other wise decent folks than to repeat offenders.0 -
Maybe I should have asked a simple question:
Should the Aurora shooter, specifically, still have been allowed to have a gun?
It sounds like many here are going to say Yes, even with knowing how it turned out.
I will admit that about 75% of the felons I've had contact with were convicted of murder. The other 25% were convicted of something else that got them sent to a Max security prison. Some did seem like relatively good guys. But I'm sure the lack of access to drugs, booze, guns and the stresses or motivations that led them do do what they did, had something to do with it.
I can't think of a single one who I would want to see regain their rights to own a gun.
But yes, there is a difference between violent and non-violent felons. My Father in Law was one of the later. He wasn't a gun guy before or after conviction.
If you are a bad enough parent, your children are taken away from you. Is this wrong?0 -
No matter the issue you can generally find results to support one's preferred position. The Aurora shooter that triggered this thread is a very minute part of the total issues. Convicted felons that made productive citizens after release can be found in plenty. Those that broke nonviolent acts and returned to prison can be found and those that committed violent acts can be found. Which results does one want to use.
To answer the question. IMO, if this man had paid his debt, as ordered by the court, yes, he should have had his firearm rights intact.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
19 comments