Quote :

"Hunters need to heed state law By Patrick Campbell Hunting season is currently in full swing across the Roanoke-Chowan area. While local law enforcement officials fully understand this annual rite of fall and winter, they do remind all local hunters of a North Carolina law dealing with the possession of firearms, especially when those weapons are in the hands of those convicted of felonies. One year ago, North Carolina lawmakers placed more teeth into a state law dealing with possession of firearms by convicted felons. According to information provided by Hertford County Sheriff Juan Vaughan, two major provisions in House Bill 1354 are worth noting. That bill, signed into law on Dec. 1, 2004, amends a section of State General Statute 14-415.1. "What I, as well as other sheriffs across the state, am doing is letting the public know that the law has changed in regards to felons who now possess handguns," Sheriff Vaughan said. "It's not a law that I or any other sheriff put into place. It's a state law and we, as duly elected law enforcement officers, are sworn to uphold the laws of this state." Sheriff Vaughan noted the new provisions of G.S. 14-415.1, one entitled, "Possession of firearms, etc., by felon prohibited." The new law revises the wording of section A of the State Statute. Prior to Dec. 1, 2004 it was legal for a convicted felon to possess a weapon that had a barrel of more than 18 inches in length or a weapon that exceeded 26 inches in overall length. Now, the revised wording reads, "it shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony to purchase, own, possess, or have in custody, care or control any firearm or weapon of mass death and destruction (as defined in G.S. 14-288.8)." Sheriff Vaughan said the wording of the revised law defined a firearm as, "any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, or its frame or receiver, or any firearm muffler or firearm silencer." In addition, the law's revised wording deletes a portion of section A that dealt with a person's constitutional right, even a convicted felon, to possess a firearm within their home or lawful place of business. "To put it as simply as possible, it's unlawful for a person convicted of a felony to possess any type of firearm, whether that weapon is on their person, in a vehicle or in their home or place of business," stressed Sheriff Vaughan. "This even includes a hunter who has been convicted of a felony. Under the wording of the old law, they could bear a firearm of greater than 26 inches in total length. Now it's unlawful for a felon to bear any type of firearm." He continued, "No, we will not seek out convicted felons and check to make sure they are abiding by the firearms possession law. However, if they witnessed, by a law enforcement officer, in possession of a firearm, they will be subject to punishment as a Class G felon, according to the law." The new law applies to felons who have prior convictions of any type of felonious activity, whether those convictions were handled by the North Carolina court system or in the courts of any other state. Those convictions shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving a violation of G.S. 14-415.1. Conviction is defined as a final judgment in any case in which felony punishment, or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (as the case may be), is permissible, without regard to the plea entered or the sentence imposed. Anyone with questions concerning this law can contact the sheriff offices in Hertford (358-7800), Bertie (794-5330) or Northampton (534-2611) counties. "

11/1/2005 1:16:03 PM

i dunno, i mean, if you're no longer in prison, you should be allowed the rights of a normal person. I don't think that such an overreaching law, without a case-by-case analysis, is very fair.

11/1/2005 2:45:17 PM

Quote :

"if you're no longer in prison, you should be allowed the rights of a normal person."

I am inclined to disagree, in a way.

A judge and jury should have the ability, when they see fit, to make a person's punishment last a lifetime. Imprisonment is not the only kind of punishment, nor are juries required to sentence a convicted man to just one kind of penalty.

So...I see no reason why a judge or jury shouldn't be able to decide (within whatever the law allows) that a person should stay in jail for 25 years, followed by another hundred years with restricted rights (no voting, no having guns, etc).

As it stands, of course, the post-jail part of punishment is just sort of implied -- if you are convicted of a felony in certain states, you do not regain your right to vote after you get out of jail. That, to me, isn't kosher. Mandatory minimums (or even, perhaps, maximums) on sentencing are horrible. One of the whole points of our justice system is to handle things on a case-by-case basis, which process, as DG said, is rather tragically circumvented by these stupid, stupid laws.

11/1/2005 3:23:09 PM

talk about overreaching laws with a rehabilitated sex offender heh. it is a bit much though seriously, and im for gun regulation.

11/1/2005 3:24:31 PM

^^ Agreed, mandatory minimums are horrible.

11/1/2005 3:31:03 PM

criminals should be allowed no rights whatsoever!!!1

Quote :

"There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals - one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking the law."

11/1/2005 3:42:27 PM

not to start anything, but i find that most people who say criminals should not be allowed the same rights as everybody smoke pot, hack computers, snort cocaine, steal, etc, but they just have never been caught and been convicted and have to indure the punishment, eg i know someone who has a felony but had a application for a apt. rejected as a result of it, and the ironic thing about that is that felony occured 10 years ago and it was non-violent. also, i agree and disagree that punishment should last a life-time - like as mentioned already, case-by-case, although probably a tedious process, is what is best to determine this.

11/1/2005 5:37:45 PM

Back in the old days pardons were handed down very frequently. The trick was, they were usually only given to those that had already served out their sentence.

That said, I believe a strong case can be made that too much stuff is considered a felony nowadays that really shouldn't be. Asking if someone was ever convicted of a felony meant something back then, nowadays you may have simply received too many citations for speeding.

11/1/2005 8:25:20 PM

true.

11/1/2005 8:29:27 PM

Quote :

"not to start anything"

???

11/1/2005 8:36:28 PM

Seems like the old law made more sense. I get why felons aren't allowed to purchase or conceal handguns, but long guns are to me a completely different beast. I'd be for a process similar to the concealed carry proccess in order to get your long gun rights back, depending on the crime you committed.

11/1/2005 11:18:05 PM

Seems to me they should at least confine that to violent felons.

11/1/2005 11:44:13 PM

case by case basis

11/2/2005 12:10:57 AM

Quote :

""any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, or its frame or receiver, or any firearm muffler or firearm silencer.""

are they implying that a slingshot is a firearm?

11/2/2005 6:11:01 PM