Paul, How about this one .I was 14 years old ,wasn't a roughneck .But did not take much junk.A boy from another grade he was 16 or 17 had been picking on me all day at school.Making comments about how he was going to beat my A$$ when we got on the bus.When I got on the bus he was sitting down in one of the seats needless to say I was about half way ( well all of the way) scared of the guy he was bigger ,older.when I went by he started to get up saying what he was going to do.Soooo I popped him in the mouth about halfway out of the seat. I wasn't about to let him get up and get a hold of me.Broke his jaw ,knocked out 2 teeth ,broke his nose.Strange thing is I remember the girl next to him had a white dress on and it instantly turned red.Anyway I had to go to juvi court they actually had me charged with felonious assault.Now get the reason .If you hit somebody and they DON'T bleed it is simple assualt if they bleed it is a felony.It was reduced to keep a felony off of my record .It could have been bad, a felony for a kids fight on the way home from school. Hell we fought just about every day and when we got through we went and played in the woods after.

When I was a kid, I lived mostly on Army posts. Us Army brats weregenerally bussed to the local community schools. I remember that there was always an MP on the bus as well as the driver, just to keep crap like that from happening!

Well, I have to say that the results so far are very surprising. I'm normally just a lurker, but since I have some serious experience here dealing with felons, I thought I'd put in my .02 cents.

I have been a police officer for 15 years in a mostly suburban / rural area in WV, in the northern panhandle between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Deer hunting closes schools here. I'd say 60% of the adult male population are deer hunting the first week at some point. I'm surprised when we go to a house and there are no guns present. For the past 8 years, I have been a Detective assigned to work felony level cases. I'm not going to say we have a huge crime rate or that "I know everything there is to know about the shrimpin bizniz", but I usually make about 30 to 50 felony arrests each year. I work my cases thoroughly and have about a 100 % conviction rate. Unlike the felony factories in a large city, I actually get to know my felons through the investigations. The point is that I have some knowledge of felony offenders.Of course, I probably dont know your friend, bother in-law, co-worker, etc.

There are exceptions to every rule. I am speaking of the many felons I know, while I have seen a lot of the previous responses speak of the one person they know.

This is where I'm probably gonna make a lot of people mad. So grit your teeth.

People DO NOT change.As Dennis Green said of the Bears, so I say of the felons;"They are who we thought they were!!!" I think they are people that victimize others, waste our money and resources, and generally make life miserable for those in their life........to put it politely. You can insert virtually any negative here you want.....I agree to most of them.

What many people do realize is that it isnt "easy to get a felony" as has been previously been implied. I dont have one, my friends dont have one, 95% of the poeple I know dont have one, including my family schoolmates, co workers at all of my jobs, even most of you guys probably dont "have one" [8D].

Let's just say it the way it is, period. It's not like these "winnners"forgot to get their car registration renewed and got a ticket; it's more like they stole the dang car. They didnt punch their loud mouth neighbor at a little league game; more like they punched him, put the boots to him on the groundand put him in the hospital. They didnt get caught "peeing behind a dumpster"; more like they whipped it out and pee'd on the liitle boy they just gave the "candy" to. They didnt get caught smoking a joint, they got caught selling it. The point of these statements is to illustrate that average citizens making minor "mistakes" are not being convicted of felony offenses,despite what your neighbor or buddy says about his "record". I know, I know, there are some exceptions, but the point is that we are WAY beyond a DWI/DUI, shoplifting, andsimple drug use/posession cases. The vast majority of crimes reported and arrests are for these misdemeanorcrimes where the sentence is shorterthan 1 year of incarceration. (States Differ on this a little) Felonies are more rare and carry over 1 year of incarceration. (States differ on this a little also).

Don't take it from me or him - go look it up. Court records are public documents. You'll be shocked at what the people actually do versus what they plead guilty and get sentenced for. The wool has been pulled over all our eyes for a long time. I would have never beleived the plea deals in court myself until I personally saw them. I'll bet that "peeing behind a dumpster" charge has a lot more to it that what you're being told, lol. The point here is that people routinely lie to those around them about their crimes, the nature of those crimes, and their sentences. These people are, after all.......criminals!! If you want the truth, dont ask the criminals, look at the records. They are even available online in more and more cases. GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF!!!

Famous line................ "I only had two beers."= "I was only peeing behind a dumpster"= "Now I cant own no more guns" .........Sorry I just dont believe it anymore.

In the 2000's, the Courts are not getting more strict, they are getting more lenient. There is a growing trend to treat people for their "illness"whether drug abuse, alcohol abuse, addictive gambling, mental disorders, etc. There are now MANY social courts set up to receive these offenders and treat them . It is RARE that an offender gets straight into court and goes straight into prison or jail. Only the most serious cases are even recieving any jail or prison time at all now due to the ever increasing cost of jails and prison. Many felony offenders charged with "victimless crimes" are now being given the opportunity to avoid jail and even convictions for a felony if they follow and complete these programs.

The problem, it seems, is that felonsfill up jails and prisons because they keeping coming back for repeat "treatments" (AKA recidivist) and sentences. There are, in fact, very few convicted felon offenders who remain on the straight and narrow the rest of their lives. The repeat offender (recidivism) rates are over 70% within 5 years and higher over a longer period of time. That means that a fleon has a 70% chance of being arrested agin with 5 years. A small percentage of the population is responsible for a large percentage of crime. The point here is thatfelons continue to commit crimes and only the worst criminals now are serving any jail time or even being convicted of felonies to start with.

Based on the fact that any givenfelonis 70% likely to arrested again for another crime with 5 years, I hardly think it is a good idea to let them own a gun legally.

As thestock market commercial says "No one can predict the future, however the best prediction of future performance is past performance."

I do recognize that there are special exceptions on an individual basis, however:

In my state, felons can and do hunt with compount bows, which was classified as a dangerous weapon until recently. They buy hunting licenses, they can have business licenses. They can hold some public offices. They can have a driver's license. They have a rightwork - although I have a right not to hire a criminal. Lord knows they can always get social security or some type of disability to avoid work (although the state and feds dont pay them after 30 dyas or more in jail).

There is a procedure in place inmy state that is very similar in nature to which was mentioned earlier. A felon can petition the felony level courts to receivea restoration of rights in regards to voting, holding office, and owning a firearm. Once successful, they may purchase guns and ammo again.ALTHOUGH - technically- they are still in violation of federal laws. ATF has a policy ruling that preventstheir agents from pursuing these cases.
So even though they are violating a federal law, after having been restored, they are virctually immune from prosecution. ATF considers the matter closed if a person has been restored. I have heard of some judges throughout the country refusing to restore rights based on this violation argument, even considering the ATF stand on the matter. I have never seen this rights restoration procedure used successfully in our court because the felons always seem to have a track record of continuing misdemeanor arrests. Some Judges, it seems, are somewhat skeptical of criminals?? or do they hate gun ownership in general?? now thats another kettle of fish, lol!!!

As for those who get restored, The FBI runs the instant checks and verifies the problems on these check with local law enforcement background checks. If the file says that the felony has been restored, then we report it as such and the check returns ok and the purchase is allowed.Before hunting season, we get flooded with these faxes from the FBI.We respond within 24 hours with our information, then if they need more info, the center actually calls us. They appear to be sincerely trying to get it right. I have also seen them pass a person convicted of domestic violence because the state and the feds differ on the definition of family members. The state is more broad and the feds only recognize the standard definitions. Thus, a person with a domestic violence conviction against certain types of family members, under some circumstances, could still purchase and have guns legally under a federal law, but not a state law. OOOPS!!! That being said, the systemdoes seem to work pretty well on our end.

Since this is a gun ownership site, I will state this: OF COURSE I KNOW THAT NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT AND THERE HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE ERRORS IN THE PROCESS.
IF YOU HAVE A BETTER WAY, NOTIFY CONGRESS!!!

My own personal opinion is that this rights restoration system is fine because it does make each person go before a reasonable judge of facts, whom in most cases is elected. This is important because the person can be voted out if they get ridiculous with their decisions one way or another. An appointed panel has no such personal accountability. This is a point we can all agree on, I hope, given the record of liberal judges legislating from the bench. The obvious flaw in the system is that the felons are not usually voters, so cannot vote out a judge that refuses to restore rights. I also seriously doubt anyone could use those refusalsas a campaign slogan to unseat a judge.

I would be in favor of a law that would restor them upon application if they have no criminal record of any type for 20 years. This would include misdemeanor arrests. My question is always going to be - have they really changed or just not gotten caught. I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt here, and I dont have to, because they have already been convicted of a felony. Their benefit of the doubt went out the window with the conviction.The taxpayers pay me to keep them safe, not make the felons feel better.

The laws for illegal gun posession by felons should be doubled in sentence and have mandatory sentences, period. Once again, these are our repeat criminals using guns. We should lay the hammer to them.

Just think of have great things would be when your convicted felon neighbor tells you what a great deal he got on his new Lorcin .380. Do you feel comfortable with that?? I don't??

Finally: I know that someone is going to tell me about the hardworking, quiet, honest, decent, churchgoing, family man, who once got set up by an undercover officer to buy a joint during a Journey Concert in 1982. He's never been in any trouble since that time and he cant take his son hunting and thats just wrong. If all that is true, I'd feel the same way you do. If all that is true, he should be able to make a compelling case for restoration. Tell him to get to theCourt, file the paperwork without a lawyer if he cant afford one,and make his case.

Good post bigcountry. I think it should be case by case. There are a lot of people that get in to trouble for really doing bad but not terrible stuff. My son was arested for a felony. HE STOLE A MORTORCYCLE HELMET AND A MORTOCYCLE JACKET WHEN HE WAS SIXTEEN! Was it wrong, yes! Does he deserve never to get to own a firearm again? No way! During his probation he didn't show up for court and they reopened his felony charges. The DA wanted to throw the book at him and send him away for a solid year. The judge listened to my son and decided that it was a bunch of bull chit and wiped his record clean and sealed it in his juvinile record. He has been in absolutley no trouble since andI don't see any in his future. Also, since then, he's carried a firearm alright, he carried for the United States Army. But a different day and a different judge and he would have been convicted and spent a year in jail!

I think before any felon gets the right to own a gun his case should be looked at very carefully. I also think they should have to foot the bill for any hearings to help in the decision. I also think there would only be a few who would probably qualify.

Encorepete- Good post, butI have to disagree. I know, I did a lot of stuff wrong whenI was young, but I grew up. I think growing up would be considered changing. People do change. I know alot of people will always be bad.I also know most of the ex-cons are worse than they were before they went in. They weren't rehabilitated, they were just educated on crime and hardened.

Well, growing up in Southern WV, I thought usually the people involved with most felonies was the judges and police. I mean, thats my experience in Mingo/Logan Co. WV. If I remember right, when I lived there,the judges/police ran the best dog fighting/ cock fighting and drug ring going.

Yes, juvenile cases are puzzling altogether. In 1994 while on business, the boyfriend of the girl across the street decided they'd go boating Labor Day weekend - without asking permission to take my boat. To make a long story short, he was given the "first offender" program (odd, if the first offense involves stealing a $22,000 boat, what's the second offense going to be?). To make a long story short, he got a slap on the wrist, ordered to pay restitution - so he was ordered to pay my insurance deductible (not thefull cost of the repair)+ tow and impound fees) - and (OMG!) probation to age 25 (he was 17 at the time). His parents accused me of "ruining his life" with recommending the maximumlength of probation to the Asst DA, but then asked the judge to allow him to pay the $500 or so restitution back at $10/month so that he wouldn't have to sellhis truck that he used to hitch up to my (locked up, by the way) boat and that he relied on so that his parents "wouldn't have to take him to school" (what's wrong with the school bus?). He ended up having to sell the truck in the end(awwwww), but didn't matter much - since he violated his probation (imagine this, BURGLARY) less than eight months later and finished high school just in time to spend his summer in court and I lost track of him after that.

Sure, some of you probably think "it was just a harmless joyride, after all - kids will be kids," right?I apologize ifI seem to have very little sympathy for juvenile offenders, because I just don't.

Yeah, I happen to know a couple guys who did nothing more than beat their wives. Now neither of them can own a firearm anymore thanks to the Lautenberg Actso their hunting days are over. All for beating up their wife? Gee, what's this world coming to? (all sarcasm intended).

I completely agree with encorepete here.

No, wouldn't even consider it. They break state and federal laws without a second thought, now we want to give them a gun? Not a chance.

ditto

They take your right to own and bear arms - due to the fact that you broke the rules.

The laws are put there to make a person think before they commit a crime.

The Dukes Of Hazzard carried Bow and Arrows - because of their licquer law violation and you never heard them complain or say that they want to protect their families.

What are they going to protect them from - their dope smoking buddies?

I have read of efforts to expand the definitions of crimes which will get a person's gun rights revoked. A couple of simple speeding or parking tickets and no more duck hunting. Perhaps you were on Riddalin(sp) as a youth if they can correlate it, no more pheasant hunting. Your wife, who you caught in bed with her Volvo mechanic, wants to put you in a bad light and her accusation of abuse is treated as fact when she lies to get herself sympathy and a better divorce settlement.

I agree with almost everyone here. You cannot believe a criminals discription of his own crime. Most criminals will always remain untrustworthy. Violent criminals should not be trusted to own a gun. Yet, non violent criminals sometimes do repent and stupid youths can become responsible adults. Lets just keep it the way it is, a felon must live an exemplery life and not have been violent, then, a good review and maybe the restoral of gun rights. We need to keep watch on the anti gun croud though or the list of things that may get your gun rights revoked will get longer and longer until it gets to the point where no one will be able to possess firearms.

I think states could grant, through law, partial gun rights. A felon could perhaps get permission to use a gun for target practice or hunting, in the field only, yet not be able to take it home. The guns go with a responsible party who is the owner and possessor of the firearm.

Bob