IFish Fishing Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Felon bow hunters

22K views 100 replies 50 participants last post by  Green Willie 
#1 ·
The law states felons cannot be in possession of a firearm, even if one wasn't used in the crime. So it's a punishment, not wanting felons to own weapons. I agree with the law, but it begs the question, why do we allow felons to own bows and bow hunt. Do felons really deserve to hunt? If they can't be trusted with a gun, should they be trusted with a bow?
 
#26 · (Edited)
I ain't no attorney, but I disagree. A bow is indeed a weapon. And depending on cicumstances of use, could be either a Dangerous or Deadly Weapon (see ORS 161.015).

Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms (166.250 (C)). Firearms are defined in ORS 166.210 (3) as expelling a projective by the action of powder.

The way I read it, a bow/arrow is a weapon. But it is not a firearm. That's why convicted felons can bow hunt.

Perhaps you may have misunderstood your neighbor ..... or mistyped??? :flowered:


166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
(C) Has been convicted of a felony;

166.210 Definitions. As used in ORS 166.250 to 166.270, 166.291 to 166.295 and 166.410 to 166.470:
(3) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder.


161.015 General definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Dangerous weapon” means any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
(2) “Deadly weapon” means any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

Link to ORS's http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/
 
#3 ·
As you probably know, there are various types of felonies, and the Federal law makes no distinction between violent and non-violent. Given that the creation of a "felony" offense and prosecution is capricious at best, I don't put much weight on a "felony". Therefore I certainly would be against barring felons from bow hunting. I think folks get a little carried away with the punishment sometimes.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Agreed.

I know not all felons are dangerous, but they obviously make poor decisions. Not sure I'm comfortable with those types in the woods. I'm also thinking if someone wants to elude the police or write bad checks, losing hunting rights might be a deterrent. If someone cleans up their act, they can always petition a judge to expunge their record. We don't need to make it easy.
 
#7 ·
It depends on the level of the felony. I don't agree that because someone may have a felony on their record from say 20 years ago that they shouldn't be able to hunt. For some that have screwed up and cannot hunt with a firearm, the only way they can hunt is archery.

The law is pretty screwy with some of the stuff they say you can and can't do.
 
#8 ·
a felon is not allowed to use a bow while on release supervision because it is a condition of PPS/Probation/Parole to not have possession of any weapon. After completion of parole yes they can because a bow is not a fire arm like previously stated
 
#9 ·
I think that all non-violent felons who are not repeat offenders, with a 5 year clean track record should be allowed to have the same rights as someone who never committed a crime. Who are we to never forgive a mistake?

To me it is unconstitutional and against the 2nd amendment to not allow the ownership of firearms by a non-violent criminal who has paid his/her dues to society in the form of jail time and or restitution. The 5 years is to make certain he/she won't repeat and has learned from his/her mistakes.

IMHO...

Mike!
 
#11 ·
I think that all non-violent felons who are not repeat offenders, with a 5 year clean track record should be allowed to have the same rights as someone who never committed a crime. Who are we to never forgive a mistake?



To me it is unconstitutional and against the 2nd amendment to not allow the ownership of firearms by a non-violent criminal who has paid his/her dues to society in the form of jail time and or restitution. The 5 years is to make certain he/she won't repeat and has learned from his/her mistakes.

IMHO...

Mike!
yea also true do the 5 and get back at it did you know you can have gun rights taken away for certain class misd. offences as well you do not have to even be a felon
 
#10 ·

Just'a good ol' boys
Never meanin' no harm.
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born

Staightnin' the curves
Flatnin the hills
Someday the mountain might get 'em
But the law never will

Makin' their way
The only way they know how
That's just a little bit more
Than the law will allow.

Makin' their way
The only way they know how
That's just a little bit more
Than the law will allow.

I'm a good ol' boy
You know my momma loves me
But she don't undestand
They keep a showin my hands and not my face on TV

Sorry..couldnt help it:flag2:
 
#14 ·
Of course not. Last time I checked child molestation and **** would fall under the classification of "Violent crimes".

I agree it is a deterrent to not write bad checks and etc, but forever is too long. Why not take it one step further then... If you speed while driving a car at a rate 30 MPH higher than the posted speed limit... lose your right to own firearms.

Someone could be killed by the speeding vehicle. No one would be physically hurt by the writing of a bad check.

Mike!
 
#17 ·
I don't have a felony. I have no need to get expunged.

We have prisons so that people can pay their debt to society, however severe the punishment, up to and including death. They have their place, yet someone who wrote a bad check 10 years ago is hardly someone I would consider a threat, especially if he/she had done their time, and had not had any additional offenses since release.

Whatever happened to forgive and forget? Your kid steals a cookie(IE writes you a bad check) and you take away their bicycle for life(IE taking away their firearm for life)? Neither punishment fits the crime IMO.

Mike!
 
#18 ·
Statistically a car is the most dangerous weapon in the US yet no one has any problems allowing someone to drive for the most part. Alcohol is the next most dangerous item and it is available just about anywhere. Give a suburban Mom the keys to the car and a few to many lemon drops and she is more likely y to kill you than a felon with a gun. Your safety at the hands of legislation is an illusion get over it.
 
#69 ·
Statistically a car is the most dangerous weapon in the US yet no one has any problems allowing someone to drive for the most part. Alcohol is the next most dangerous item and it is available just about anywhere. Give a suburban Mom the keys to the car and a few to many lemon drops and she is more likely y to kill you than a felon with a gun. Your safety at the hands of legislation is an illusion get over it.
Well said.
 
#19 ·
I agree, the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime. Violent offenders, you bet no guns, happen to get pulled over within 1,000 feet of a school with firearm in the gun rack, naa.................I don't think that warrants a Federal felony and a life time ban from possessing a firearm for life. Must be some real straight shooters on here if they have never violated that law.:doh:
 
#28 ·
out of all the guys i know well with felonies only one of them is a sand up good guy. the rest are felons for a reason.
I don't know if it is a felony or not, but a close personal friend of mine can only hunt with a bow legally. His was caused by a neighbor who called the police because he & his wife were arguing quite loudly. Since the police showed up, one of them was getting charged with domestic violence & he was it. The confrentation between him & his wife was "non" violent. BUT, in Oregon, if you get a domestic violence charge, you can no longer legally possess a firearm. Domestic violence charges cannot be espunged in Oregon either. Something to keep in mind for those that have arguments with wives & girlfriends. It doesn't take much to lose your right to hunt whether you are a stand up person or not. :bigshock:
 
#38 ·
well thats what they told me when they took me to jail lol maybe your thinking of "careless" driving idk. But I do know they marked felony on the ticket...

Maybe it had to do with the amount of damage to the guys building.. Its not so cut and dry..
You probably picked up a criminal mischief charge or something similar. Also, if you hada passenger injured, it could be charged as a felony level assault. Reckless driving is an A misd.

7 pointbull. I bet if you looked a ratios between felons doing gun and/or violent crimes and non felons doing gun and/or violent crimes, you would find the ratio for felons much higher as a sub-population. Not all felons will do another crime though. Some will never so much as get a speeding ticket. However, past behavior is a very good predictor of future behavior.
 
#37 ·
"Turns out, people who are felons are far more likely to use that gun for bad than folks who are not felons. '

I beleive that most guns violence is comitted by people with no criminal background. Typically Billy Joe shoots or threatens to shoot Bobby Sue because he caught her messing around.
 
#40 ·
JM,
I don't have the book more guns less crime in front of me but I beleive I am correct above. Lets say i am not the bottom line is that banning guns from felons is not a deterrent it is a feel good measure. I doubt anyone could find a felon that wanted a gun but did not have one outside of prison.
 
#43 ·
At the risk of getting all political...

My stance is simple:

If you are convicted of a crime and you receive a lawful sentance for it - and you fulfill the terms of that sentance - then your rights ought to be restored to you the day that sentence is over.

This nonsense of a crime continuing to haunt someone after they've allegedly repaid their debt to society is bogus. If someone is still a danger to society - why were they released from prison? We ought not be letting dangerous people run around the population, if they're truely dangerous.

If someone gets jail time, or probation, and a fine - as soon as that is paid off - ALL of their rights should be restored, until such a time they do something stupid again (if they do) and wind up back in trouble with the law. This idea that a felony conviction causes you to "loose" some of your rights is fairly new - it was the Gun Control Act of '68 that put in the privision that felons can't have firearms. Before then - a convicted felon could legally own a gun again after his debt was repaid.

Every gun control law since then has sought to squeeze more and more people into the list of those who can't have them.

And there's groups out there pushing to expand the definition of "mental illness", and pushing to get anyone deemed to have mental illness (which could be anything from a case of PTSD for a returning Veteran, to someone completely off their gourde like those recently in the news for getting drilled by PPB).

Making it illegal for felons to own a gun doesn't make you any safer. True criminals don't give a rats patoot about the law (that's why they're felons, right?) - they will obtain whatever they want, and do whatever they want - regardless of what a piece of paper says. It's just one more thing they can get charged with upon arrest, and theoretically should keep them locked away longer.

If someone is a violent criminal, keep them locked away forever. If they're a repeat offender - keep them locked away longer each time. But if they're non violent, they're not a danger to society - there's no reason that their past should haunt them longer than the sentance the judge hands down. If he says 10 years - that's 10 years you can't do certain things, like own a gun, vote, etc. Once that debt is paid - you should be just like any other citizen in the eyes of the law. How private folks deal with you should be up to them (thinking employers here, mostly. No reason a private employer can't discriminate due to criminal conviction).

For the guy who made the comment about child diddlers - lock them away forever. But also keep in mind - it's really damn easy to be accused of something that heinous without it being true. It only takes a ****** off wife, girlfriend, or even a stranger to make an anonymous phone call. Next thing you know, there's going to be a detective, along with DHS social workers showing up on your door step.



Oh, and convicted felons are allowed to have more than just bows - they can legally own black powder firearms and reproductions of guns made before, IIRC 1899. Those guns aren't considered "Firearms" by the BATFE. Last I checked, cap & ball guns and black powder guns will kill you, and game animals, just as dead as a modern high tech auto loader.
 
#47 ·
Yes and you can contest both a denial and your criminal history if you are ever denied a firearm. The relief from firearms possession prohibition are laid out in statute. The form to petition relief is even there.

I would encourage all folks to look up the Oregon Revised Statutes online and read them. They are searchable and easy once you get the hang of it. Also, you can get your criminal history (convictions) as well as anyone else's from the Oregon State Police. There is a nominal fee and they get notified but it is a public record. So you can check those unbelievable stories of how the govt wronged so and so by not letting them buy a gun.

Guns are taxed heavily, the govt wants you to buy them.:flowered:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top