Alphecca

The state of Texas does permit felons to possess
firearms in their place of residence and no
where else, 5 years after the date of last custody, community supervision, parole visitation, etc.Texas Penal Code 46.04. Obviously, even felons need to have protection for self-defense in their own homes.

Of course the Feds have a slightly different
view.

The state of Texas permits felons to possess
firearms in their own homes--and no where else--
five years after their last date of custody,
community supervision, parole, etc. Obviously,
even felons need to have a means of self-defense
in their own homes. Texas Penal Code 46.04

Obviously, the Feds have a different view.

"If someone is willing to break some laws, they're probably willing to break any laws."

So you NEVER violated the 55 mph speed limit, or go faster than the posted limit today? You never cross the street in the middle of the block? You always use your seatbelt, turn-signal, and follow all of the traffic laws?

You also never drank when you were under-age, or smoked anything except cigarettes in college. You never dispose of batteries or old electronics except at duly authorized hazzardous waste facilities.

I have similarly mixed feelings concerning Lautenberg. While I will not argue in favor of anyone with a history of criminal violence retaining gun rights, I always wonder why it's only domestic violence that triggers an automatic prohibition on possessing or carrying a firearm. My certainty is that it's a reflexive Clintonian reaction to the politically incorrect crime of the week.

Could just as well have been deadbeat dads, or "hate speech."

I'm rather glad Stanko isn't getting his guns back.

Least not legally, anyway. He's free to illegally have as many guns as he likes.

Stanko selling bad meat eh? That's sorta fitting.

I tried to be clear, Deb, that I'm talking about real crimes, not small, minor stuff like smoking a joint or traffic violations. If someone is willing to sell bad meat -- possibly making a lot of people sick, they're certainly willing to harm them in other ways, such as with a gun.

But this brings up the problem of allowing the government to decide who can own guns.

The governemnt decides what crimes qualify for oppressing that right, which means that they can define 'up' crimes to trigger that restriction. How long before saying the wrong thing in politics would qualify? Oh wait, under McCain-Feingold that may already be the case.

There is a simpler way. If a felon can not be trusted with the full pallette of rights a citizen has, they should never be released in the first place.

They have all their rights, or none.
If they are released, they have all rights, speech, religion, protest, voting, arms, all of it.

The govenment should never have the power to restrict our rights in any way, short of that.

This is how we have reached the point we have, creeping restrictions on our rights, adding up year by year.

This is not a novel idea. It actually works and the sky will not fall. Really bad felons don't care and will possess a gun if it advantages their criminal enterprise. Only those who want to regain full citizenship care to follow the law, if there is a law to follow.

About 40% of states automatically allow felons to possess firearms after a period of years (5-10) and another 20% or so allow them to regain their gun rights after a court proceeding. The feds HAVE a procedure for regaining possession rights, 18 USC 925, IIRC, which worked quite well for over 20 years until the Congressional Democrats decided to add a provision to every ATF funding bill prohibiting the spending of any money to implement it. The Republicans, spinless weaklings that they are, have meekly along for 10 years.

Ditto to Ken on:

"If someone is willing to break some laws, they're probably willing to break any laws."

If a person can't be trusted to lawfully use a firearm, they they can't be trusted to do anything else as a free man.