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

[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.

[Detonics]

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?

Just because he is "free" doesn't mean he's not dangerous. 97% of all convicts will be released. Up until recently they could be released directly from segregated environments (due to being too dangerous or disruptive for general population) to the street.

[crays]

Ok, I just read the koaa article.

Do you suppose this would be tolerated if he was flying a Confederate battle flag instead of the Mexican flag?

sent from somwhere

[Skip]

Just because he is "free" doesn't mean he's not dangerous. 97% of all convicts will be released. Up until recently they could be released directly from segregated environments (due to being too dangerous or disruptive for general population) to the street.

I think you begged the question here a bit.

If he is dangerous, he shouldn't be released. If sentences need to be extended to protect society so be it. If he's done his time he should be released and have his rights restored.

The idea we have dangerous people who can't legally own a firearm in society, living right next to us, is ridiculous. Same thing with mental illness. Society is now "general population" and some wonder why our rights are being taken away bit-by-bit.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Yes, thank you.

I think you begged the question here a bit.

If he is dangerous, he shouldn't be released. If sentences need to be extended to protect society so be it. If he's done his time he should be released and have his rights restored.

The idea we have dangerous people who can't legally own a firearm in society, living right next to us, is ridiculous. Same thing with mental illness. Society is now "general population" and some wonder why our rights are being taken away bit-by-bit.

[ray1970]

I've been inspired by this. I'm going to offer each of you the chance to turn your firearms over to me for disposal. Since I will be taking them off the "streets" my intentions are good. No need for any silly FFL involvement. Just bring them to me.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Nice try!

I've been inspired by this. I'm going to offer each of you the chance to turn your firearms over to me for disposal. Since I will be taking them off the "streets" my intentions are good. No need for any silly FFL involvement. Just bring them to me.

[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.

[Irving]

Same thing for the DV charge in Colorado?

[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.