Man running "gun turn-in" in Pueblo is convicted felon, doesn't do BGCs, etc.

[milwaukeeshaker]

So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?

Heart is in the right place but, he's a felon.

[HoneyBadger]

So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?

Where does it say in the second "no full auto" or "no magazines bigger than 15 rounds"?

I think I agree with your stance here, but who am I to say which laws another individual should be accountable for? [Sarcasm] Obviously, that is the government's job. [/Sarcasm]

[milwaukeeshaker]

As you know, in reality, by the constitution, ALL gun laws made since 1934 are illegal and not enforceable, but they do it.

Where does it say in the second "no full auto" or "no magazines bigger than 15 rounds"?

I think I agree with your stance here, but who am I to say which laws another individual should be accountable for? [Sarcasm] Obviously, that is the government's job. [/Sarcasm]

[Bailey Guns]

So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?

For me, that's not the point. The point is the politically correct are looking the other way in spite of the obvious violations because he's getting those awful guns off the street. It's the typical leftist viewpoint...the ends justifies the means. As long as it's something they agree with, to hell with the law.

I'm not a felon and as a citizen (formerly, anyway) of Colorado I couldn't buy/sell guns without background checks or without following the law. What makes this guy so special?

He needs to be prosecuted. Those who allowed this need to be prosecuted.

[milwaukeeshaker]

I agree with you, I was just addressing the felon not allowed guns part of it.

For me, that's not the point. The point is the politically correct are looking the other way in spite of the obvious violations because he's getting those awful guns off the street. It's the typical leftist viewpoint...the ends justifies the means. As long as it's something they agree with, to hell with the law.

I'm not a felon and as a citizen (formerly, anyway) of Colorado I couldn't buy/sell guns without background checks or without following the law. What makes this guy so special?

He needs to be prosecuted. Those who allowed this need to be prosecuted.

[TheGrey]

So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?

My thought is that you are oversimplifying. Federal law prohibits felons from purchasing firearms. State law expands further upon that to include domestic violence offenders.

The Bill of Rights doesn't address everything; state and federal laws clarify instances. That's merely one of the reasons that this business in Pueblo is such a slap in the face. Enforcement of these laws is clearly Animal Farm in nature- "some are more equal than others."

[XC700116]

So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?

Essentially because he lost those rights via pleading guilty to a felony charge, thus losing them through due process as laid out in the Constitution. Im not sure i agree or disagree with how that element hangs around after the fact, but as things are now that is a condition of pleading guilty and or being convicted by a jury of your peers of a felony. There is also a mechanism to restore 2nd amendment rights after the fact, but I don't see this guy getting that restoration due to his crime demonstrating an inability to control his vengeful impulses. Then consider that in fact he has committed numerous misdemeanors and felonies since and should be arrested and charged with those crimes.

The rest of us have lost rights via commandment from the government in spite of the restrictions of said government laid out in the Constitution.

Point being the admitted turning a blind eye to this felon actively and openly acquiring more firearms, no matter his "good intentions" is absolutely unacceptable and people should be fired, charged and convicted on separate charges.

[battle_sight_zero]

Essentially because he lost those rights via pleading guilty to a felony charge, thus losing them through due process as laid out in the Constitution. Im not sure i agree or disagree with how that element hangs around after the fact, but as things are now that is a condition of pleading guilty and or being convicted by a jury of your peers of a felony. There is also a mechanism to restore 2nd amendment rights after the fact, but I don't see this guy getting that restoration due to his crime demonstrating an inability to control his vengeful impulses. Then consider that in fact he has committed numerous misdemeanors and felonies since and should be arrested and charged with those crimes.

The rest of us have lost rights via commandment from the government in spite of the restrictions of said government laid out in the Constitution.

Point being the admitted turning a blind eye to this felon actively and openly acquiring more firearms, no matter his "good intentions" is absolutely unacceptable and people should be fired, charged and convicted on separate charges.

In Colorado a felon convicted here cannot get their gun rights restored without a Govenors pardon. Know several good people who have tried to get them restored to no avail. Especially when we have had Ritter and Poopinlicker back to back.

[brutal]

In Colorado a felon convicted here cannot get their gun rights restored without a Govenors pardon. Know several good people who have tried to get them restored to no avail. Especially when we have had Ritter and Poopinlicker back to back.

In many states, if you can get the court to reduce your original offense to a misdemeanor, often possible depending on severity and first time offender, then have the misdemeanor expunged, you can fully restore your rights.

[XC700116]

In Colorado a felon convicted here cannot get their gun rights restored without a Govenors pardon. Know several good people who have tried to get them restored to no avail. Especially when we have had Ritter and Poopinlicker back to back.

I know its not easy, and not certain of what it takes here (I grew up in MN) as I honestly find it much easier to keep my own house clean.