Felon's black-powder gun ownership loop hole??

[TY44934]

Recently heard the most outlandish claim (on the internet - if you can believe it):

supposedly, convicted felons are still able to possess black powder guns even though they are prohibited from owning modern ammunition or guns.

Just curious if this could possibly be true. I realize bp weapons are not considered the same by BATFE & can be mail ordered, etc. But what about felons?

[500grains]

Black powder guns are not firearms according to federal law.

Many state legislatures closed that loophole.

[Byron]

Is this something you're actually worried about, or are you just asking out of curiosity? I don't understand what seems so outlandish about it.

If a felon wants to get a gun to hurt someone, they're just going to acquire one illegally. I seriously doubt if any of them would even know to go seeking a black powder weapon, much less take the initiative to do it.

Since when does gun control stop criminals from getting guns?

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I feel like if someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they shouldn't be free from prison at all. There are a million deadly weapons in everyday life. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted around one of those million items, then keep them locked away. If they aren't dangerous enough to be locked away, then forget about trying to keep dangerous objects out of their hands: it ain't gonna happen and it ain't gonna help.

[TY44934]

Is this something you're actually worried about, or are you just asking out of curiosity? I don't understand what seems so outlandish about it.

Not afraid of it, just surprised.

As for the millions (billion?) guns owned in the USA, I think the miracle that the MSM & anti-2nd Amendment people fail to see is: gun crime in the US is rare given the number of guns owned.

I also understand your arguments about how society treats those who were previously imprisoned, and have been released without restoring all the freedoms they previously had. Not saying I necessarily agree - just that I hear & understand you.

[Skyyr]

This whole ordeal is stupid. Utterly stupid.

A black powder rifle is NOT a firearm, end of story. Neither does it represent any threat to the community at large in a day of semi-auto (and full auto) weapons. Quit worrying about whether a black powder rifle constitutes a "firearm" and let's focus on the real issues.

I'm not for criminals having guns. However, I'm against blanket statements and judgments, such as anyone who's a felon can't possess a firearm. So if the person dodged taxes and got caught, they can't own a firearm? Yet the NYC gang-banger who's only been convicted of violent misdemeanors can own as many guns as he wants? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

In my opinion, the only people who should be barred from weapons are violent offenders, child molesters, and those that have used firearms in the perpetration of crimes. If your crime wasn't of a violent nature and didn't involve a weapon, then why should you be barred from owning a firearm? That makes about as much sense as banning someone from ever driving again because they got caught littering while walking down the sidewalk.

Just because a felon possesses a black powder rifle, or any other weapon, does not make them a threat. So quit acting like it's an issue. Unless you think Martha Stewart is a deadly threat to society. She's a felon too and can no longer own firearms thanks to the backwards laws on who can't own firearms.

[Ejh28]

I think it's pretty simple. If you have committed a crime on the level that you were prosecuted for a felony, you have shown that you cannot be trusted by the general public.

Yes it's a very large blanket statement, but there's different levels of crimes for a reason. You've forfeited your rights as an honest citizen by committing the crime, so you do the time.

[mr_smiles]

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I feel like if someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they shouldn't be free from prison at all.

Nope you're not, if you've served out your punishment and the justice system feels you're fit to reenter society, than your rights should be restored.

I recall reading something like 70% are non violent offenses to begin with and don't carry prison time but instead probation.

[Caeser25]

Nope you're not, if you've served out your punishment and the justice system feels you're fit to reenter society, than your rights should be restored.

I recall reading something like 70% are non violent offenses to begin with and don't carry prison time but instead probation.

I agree to an extent except for repeat offenders that go through the revolving door we call the criminal justice system.

[skyugo]

Is this something you're actually worried about, or are you just asking out of curiosity? I don't understand what seems so outlandish about it.

If a felon wants to get a gun to hurt someone, they're just going to acquire one illegally. I seriously doubt if any of them would even know to go seeking a black powder weapon, much less take the initiative to do it.

Since when does gun control stop criminals from getting guns?

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I feel like if someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they shouldn't be free from prison at all. There are a million deadly weapons in everyday life. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted around one of those million items, then keep them locked away. If they aren't dangerous enough to be locked away, then forget about trying to keep dangerous objects out of their hands: it ain't gonna happen and it ain't gonna help.

+10
gangbangers with muskets