found this, but i don't know if it's true
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A86.J757gjBV1HAAkIwnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByaDNhc2JxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?qid=20111019210101AAE5fI6

No one seems to post or read the federal law concerning this. They just post the lies the tv has been spouting for years. Here is the law:

Under federal law a felon (someone that has been convicted of a crime with a possible punishment of confinement for more than one year) can not own a firearm that has been "shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce".
Title 18 Section 922 (g) of the US Code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_se...

This DOES NOT say a felon can not own any firearm. Here is a way for a felon in Texas to legally own a firearm (federal law):
You will have to find an individual (non dealer) that is selling a firearm made in Texas, like Bond Arms. http://bondarms.com
Since he is not a dealer he does not have to do any paperwork nor do a background check on you. He can not KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a felon. So just don't tell him (not illegal).
OR
You can own a firearm that is not a firearm by federal definition. Like black powder. A Walker Colt will kill someone as dead as a bazooka.
Title 18 Section 921 (a)(3)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_se...


Under state law a felon can own a firearm when 5 years have passed since their COMPLETION of their punishment.
Section 46.04 of the Texas Penal Code
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.04

Under state law a replica black powered firearm is also not considered a firearm.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.01
Source(s): Of course no one will believe this, nor will they show in the law where a felon can not own ANY firearm.

You might wanna reread the federal statutes again,
concerning the right of felons to vote.
In many states, because the whole country is more
than just Pennsylvania, people are required to petition
for restoration of their rights, before being allowed to
vote again.

RELOAD!
Seriously though, that's still considered a handgun. It's against the las for any felon to posess a handgun in most states. That's the problem. The states. Federal law covers every state but not DC. States laws aren't supposed to 'trump' federal laws, meaning the state shouldn't be legally able to take freedoms that are federally guaranteed to us. First of all, no one in the United States besides the military has a legitimate need for a magazine that holds more than 30 rounds. PERIOD.

If you need 32 bullets of any caliber to kill or disable ANYTHING or ANYONE, either use a knife or run away because you don't know how to AIM.

That being said, car theft can be non violent. Breaking and entering... There's too many crimes that would be easier if you had access to a gun. This isn't a direction you want to steer those closed conservative minds in if you want anyone to have a gun. The fact is this, if you KNOW that someone owns guns, yoyou hear them shooting nearby, you leave them alone. They don't stop all break ins or robberies but neither do guard dogs. They are a strong deterrent. Rack a shotgun, just about anyone will pause for a few seconds if they don't immediately change their mind or haul a55 in the opposite direction. If you want more gun involved crimes, make more gun laws. Handguns have been so demonized since the Brady bill passed and what did we see in the years following? Increased violent crimes with shotguns rifles, carbines sub-machine guns, and assault rifles. Yes there were probably more in number of incidents involving handguns but the severity and number of casualties greatly increases when you have larger rounds more powder behind the lead and increased magazine capacity. It doesn't matter how accurate the shots are placed in a crowd, it's how many in how short a time span and how many bodies a round can potentially go through before it loses to friction or breaks up.
As long as there are guns and access to them there will be gun crimes. This is unavoidable. What is avoidable is the legal entrapment of concealed weapons permits. Mass killings with drum magazines. There are certain things we as Americans need to realize we don't need so that more of US can have the protection a firearm can provide.

the question is about the 2nd amendment though im not talking about voting but you are right as all states are different. but is it a violation of the 2nd amendment to strip someone of the right to bear arms for life for non violent misdemeanor or felony offenses, that is my question.

a DUI offense can result in a misdemeanor of the first degree, even if you pull over right away, fully cooperate with the police it can still result in a M1 which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, even if you only get probation and fines because your maximum sentence could have been more than 2 years it triggers a lifetime federal ban. i think thats pretty unjust for a DUI. the reason the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed is because the peoples right to bear arms is the only way for the people to guarantee a free society whereas if the government is the only people allowed to be armed, bad things are sure to follow as shown time and time again through history.

Well, not so fast. The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, not specifically firearms. There is nothing in the amendment that says you have the right to own a Glock or Beretta. We all think immediately of guns because anyone not wearing stripes can walk to a kitchen drawer and pull out a knife. The chances of using one to rob a bank are much less but remember that not everyone carries a knife with them or know how to defend against one. Any doubters on the effectiveness of cutlery can reference 9/11. If you don't know how to defend yourself you're screwed. I'd rather take a bullet in the leg than a baseball bat to the face any day of the week.

Yes but the 2nd amendment in that sense is hollow. You can as a citizen keep and bear arms. What you cannot do is use them to defend yourself from any part of any branch of the government. Not police, sheriffs Marshalls, FBI, SBI, ATF... None of them. Even if you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing you have to announce that you have a weapon and turn it over to them even if temporarily until they decide that no crime has been committed. You have rights until you don't have them anymore, or until they decide you don't need them. In many states we do not have the right to defend ourselves at all. It depends on how they define assault or allow you to affirm a defense against another person, not even an official.

yes but firearms would fall under the category of arms either way. a whole country of people with knives has no way to resist against a government armed with firearms. thats the reason for the 2nd amendment. but were still gettin off topic. the point of the post is, should people be banned for life from owning a firearm over a non violent crime, in some cases misdemeanor crimes? or would it be more suitable to have say, a 5 year ban whereas long as you dont get in any trouble within the 5 years u can have your 2nd amendment rights reinstated. also the 2nd amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed" because the people who wrote up the constitution knew if you disarm the people tyranny will follow as it always has throughout history. i just feel like a lifetime ban imposed by the federal government (who BTW has no business being involved with the regulation of firearms as theyre only supposed to have limited power over certain things) is unfair. also likei posted earlier if your convicted of a "white collar" crime it doesnt trigger the firearm ban, so you can steal millions of dollars from people and still be able to own firearms, but get one DUI and your banned for life, that to me is ridiculously unfair.

The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;

2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;

3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;

4) Copyright protection;

5) Coining money;

6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;

8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.

Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.

James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

– Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9.

The Constitution clearly says that the Feds’ role is only to provide for the common defense, manage foreign relations, protect citizens’ constitutional rights, establish federal courts; apply and explain federal law (in the judiciary’s case); and a few other minor issues. No branch of the Federal Government is authorized to handle any other issues. So the federal establishment should be strictly limited to these tasks; all others should be reassigned to the states, local governments, and individual Americans.

Voting reinstatement is not automatic in every state.

already covered that, some states do, some states dont. the matter is left to the states to decide, which it should be the same for the right to bear arms. while the federal government is doing theyre best to disarm the citizens of this country, the BLM has fully automatic assault weapons and body armor (little much for someone in charge of land management) also the FDA is now armed along with the USDA and the IRS, why do they all need to be armed? and why are average citizens being disarmed at an alarming rate? the way things are going soon we can kiss ALL of our freedoms goodbye as once the 2nd amendment is gone we have no way to protect the rest of our rights.

There's always inherent difficulties when we try to solve problems for ourselves by using laws and law enforcement.

Write a law with too many specific elements to it, and it wont accomplish anything, because any criminal will be able to find a work around. Plus, in order for any law to be Constitutional, it can't be personal, it has to be generally applied to everyone. So there will ALWAYS be people who we can look at, and realize that they suffered, one might say, unjustly, because of a law which we really do want, in order to deal with the many more really destructive people.

The very good reason that we do want to keep firearms out of the hands of serious lawbreakers, is that they have proven that they cannot be trusted to behave amongst us, in a cooperative and positive manner.

In other words, it isn't some childhood-style purely conceptual punishment, designed to make the criminal realize how upset we are with them. It's a purely practical effort to protect and improve the rest of us . And the reason why we do it, is that again and again, when we haven't done it, people committed MORE violent crimes.

I think that for sure, there have been emotionally based laws making something a Felony because we were angry about someone or something, which should not have been made Felonies.

However, I would NOT side with the idea that we should allow people to do horrible things, and then simply wait a few years before they can do more.

One possible thing to consider: did the crime which led to the permanent suspension of rights, cause something negative and permanent to happen? If so, then there is justice in the punishment lasting the same length of time.

I would support a case-by-case approach, with some crimes having a designations such that the penalties would have to be automatically re-assessed after certain periods.

But it's always going to be difficult to gain sympathy for someone who now worries that they might not be able to defend themselves from nasty people, because they were a nasty person themselves already.

I don't think you should loose the right for a misdemeanor.

But just because a crime is non violent does not mean it is not as serous as a violent crime.

And a felony charge is a serous charge, violent or not. Which most of the time is due to a flaw in ones character. Which in my opinion means that those people have already demonstrated that they do not have the sense of responsibility needed to own a gun.

This also works on larger varmints. Did you know that a pack of coyotes could overwhelm a 3 year old child?

so once a criminal, always a criminal? people cant change their lives? if your not deemed too dangerous that they let you out of prison, why shouldnt you be able to have your rights back. im sure a small percent of felons do get out and commit more crimes, but its probably about 10-15%, so its fair for the other 85-90% of people to not have their 2nd amendment rights because of what a small percentage of people do? i understand if you get convicted of a violent offense esp. one that involves a weapon maybe you should have to prove that your not a danger to society. if you do your time and stay clean for a while you should be able to ask for your rights back and if you can prove your not a danger you should be given your rights back. and as far as misdemeanors esp. something like a DUI, people say well if your that irresponsible that you get drunk and drive a car, how can we trust you with a weapon, well my argument is many people owned guns before they got a DUI, why werent they out shooting stuff or being irresponsible with it before that. and anyone has access to a knife, if your that irresponsible to get a DUI why arent you out stabbing people and robbing people at knifepoint ? even if your state doesnt think your too dangerous to have a firearm, the feds do in most cases. the federal gov. should have no say who can own a firearm and who cannot as thats not the job of the federal government, its a matter that should be left to the states. just another example of the federal government illegal overreach into the "inalienable" rights of citizens. now a days anyone who works for any government agency pretty much is armed, so we should let all these government workers that have no need for a firearm issed guns, but yet the average citizen shouldnt be trusted to own a gun because they made a couple mistakes in their life? i think the founding fathers envisioned this to be the other way around. the reason of the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to keep the government in check, as when a nation becomes disarmed, it gives the government total control of the people, which we were warned about by the founding fathers. all of our most basic rights and tools of freedom are being stripped from us the people, while the government is armed to the teeth, that to me is a bad sign of things to come in this country.

wouldn't it be best to just learn the laws where you live? every state is different and has different statutes on gun laws... Illinois it's illegal for anyone to have a gun, as in new york... other states have open carry laws... learn the laws in your state and local counties, and then you have a reference if you go to court...

yes but in alot of cases state laws dont mean jack because federal laws are stricter than some state laws, so even if your allowed to own a gun under your own states laws, federal laws supercede state laws. PA state law says a person convicted of three seperate DUI offense within a 5 year period is considered a prohibited person. federal law states that even one DUI (no eluding, no bodily injury caused, no property damage) can trigger a lifetime ban under federal law. so in alot of cases state laws dont mean anything. its a matter that should be left to the states but the feds just act like its ok for them to interpret any law as they see fit, which should not be the case.

and also the more we continue to alienate felons for a past mistake making it harder for them to get jobs and become productive members or society once again, we are kind of steering them back into crime. now a days its hard for a felon to get a job, or even a place to live, which i feel is what drives them back to crime in the first place. people can change but if we dont give them the opportunity we are basically helping them back into the criminal world. if you serve your time and get out and are still treated as a 2nd class citizen for the rest of your life, what motivation do you have to turn your life around if no matter what your still considered a no good criminal in the eyes of society? i think thats a big part of the reason felons come out and commit more felonies in the first place. and BTW i am not a felon so i have no stake in this, i just feel like laws are unfair in this country and always favor the rich and powerful, while leaving the poor more subject to unconstitutional laws in the first place.

wouldn't that depend on who gives you the charges?