Previous Post
Next Post


By Brandon via

A 26-year-old Dyersville, Nevada man faces a felony charge after filling out an application to carry a concealed firearm, but why? “Shane Edward Kucera, 26, of 428 First Ave. East, was charged May 4 in Dubuque District Court with providing false information on a permit to acquire a firearm—a felony.” . . .

According to court documents, Kucera knowingly made a false statement on a Dubuque County permit to acquire a firearm on Feb. 6. Kucera allegedly stated on the application that he was not a convicted felon.

On May 29, 2009, Kucera was convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime and robbery in the state of Nevada. Both are felonies.

As a convicted felon, Kucera isn’t allowed to possess a firearm. Why he thought he could get away with not divulging his past in the application is beyond me, and we can chalk it up to his not being too bright.

I’ve had friends in the past that have asked me questions like, “Hey Brandon, I’m filling out my app and I have a little criminal history from waaaaaay back. Should I include it when they ask on the app?” Yes. Always yes. Because they already know. Then, when their records don’t match up with your records (or lack of honesty), that’s where an automatic denial usually rears it’s ugly head.

In Kucera’s case, it’s a different story since he is a convicted felon. My friends had juvenile records for the most part. . .back when they were stupid kids. But weren’t we all?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’m not so sure I subscribe to convictions of crimes being grounds for the denial of rights once the “debt to society” has been paid.

    • Who says the debt to society has been paid? Prison is not the only punishment.

      Crucially: it must have been law at the time of the first crime that one could lose gun rights upon conviction to avoid ex post facto issues

      • A better question is when is the debt ever going to be paid?? They should at least give them the option for a longer prison sentence so they can get “all” of their “rights” back when they are released.

        I think they should restrict other rights as well. Sew people’s mouths shut so they can’t speak. Make them wear a camera at all times, randomly toss and take stuff from their homes arbitrarily without any court order.

        • So, based on your sarcasm, I take it you are saying that putting restrictions and penalties on people who have committed felony crimes is unfair? I had a crap childhood . . abuse, neglect, failure in school . . but I never committed felonies. I went into the military, got an education, and made a life that didn’t involve robbing, raping or assaulting anyone.

          If someone does their time and petitions the court for an expungement and gets it, fine. Otherwise, being a criminal and then committing another crime by lying on a firearms background cheat application simply shows they haven’t learned a thing and carries with it a penalty. How is that unfair?

        • Mikial,

          Do people (ex-convicts, cops, politicians, rich elitists, regular joes) have the right of self defense or not? If so, why is this right arbitrarily limited by one specific tool used?

          Also, much of my answer is addressed by “Ed’s” statement below.

          • Of course everyone has the right to self defense if they are the innocent victim of an attack by a criminal. All I’m saying is that some one who goes in and lies on a background check clearly hasn’t learned anything.

            Now, I answered your question, you answer mine . . .

            Are you saying that a convicted felon should be able to enjoy the same access to guns that someone who has never been convicted of a crime does? Is that protecting the innocent people of the country?

          • And one more thing “Anonymous,” if you are not man or woman enough to even go by anything other than Anonymous, I guess you don’t believe the stuff you’re saying wither.

            So this is the limit of my willingness to debate with you. Best regards.

        • Mikial,

          Of course everyone has the right to self defense if they are the innocent victim of an attack by a criminal.

          So an ex-convict cannot possibly be an innocent victim in the present or future?

          All I’m saying is that some one who goes in and lies on a background check clearly hasn’t learned anything.

          Prisons do an excellent job teaching criminals how to be better criminals (Unintended consequences). I would agree he didn’t learn much. Also we don’t know the intention of his pursuit for a firearm. Maybe he fears for his life from his criminal past? Who knows.

          Are you saying that a convicted felon should be able to enjoy the same access to guns that someone who has never been convicted of a crime does? Is that protecting the innocent people of the country?

          Criminal felons already enjoy access to guns. It is those felons who are seeking to go straight who are the ones that are actually restricted.

          Also, It is the people’s responsibility to protect themselves – no one can do that for them (except rich elitists who hire their own security details). And cops typically arrive after the fact.

        • Mikial,

          And one more thing “Anonymous,” if you are not man or woman enough to even go by anything other than Anonymous, I guess you don’t believe the stuff you’re saying wither.

          You can call me “Bob” if that makes you feel better. Anonymous, Bob, Mikial, they are all about the same. Just an anonymous Internet handle. Besides, what does one’s identity have to do with the validity of their argument?

          So this is the limit of my willingness to debate with you. Best regards.

          Ok I guess. Good night. Have a good weekend.

        • Are you saying that a convicted felon should be able to enjoy the same access to guns that someone who has never been convicted of a crime does? Is that protecting the innocent people of the country?

          I’m going to answer your question with a question, so brace yourself: Do you believe that someone who wrote a bad check should never be able to own a firearm ever again?

          And one more thing “Anonymous,” if you are not man or woman enough to even go by anything other than Anonymous, I guess you don’t believe the stuff you’re saying wither.

          Seriously? You must be new to the Internet.

        • One can get their Civil Rights reinstated. Check with your local law enforcement to see what paper work has to be filed to make this happen. I know some one who has done it, so I know it can be done.

        • I would say Anonymous, or Bob, just gave Mikial a beat-down in their debate!!

        • In the 70s, while living in Hawaii, I bought an ounce of pot from Barak Obamas’ pot dealer. I got busted by the Feds DEA. He’s now POTUS but I’m a convicted felon. He’s protected by the Secret Service but I can’t protect my wife and myself from the raging hordes. It’s been over 45 years and it (felony) will never go away. BTW, I had just got out of the USAF and a tour in Vietnam. Is this fair?

      • What most of you are failing to realize is is, that nowhere in the second amendment does it say “…not to be infringed UNLESS…” with a bunch of stipulations following. Do you loose the right to free speech after being convicted of certain crimes? Of course not…even though they are equally important.
        Its a shame that some people here have so much blind faith in a obviously broken system. “Oh,well…thats the law.” Remember all those poor bastards in N.Y. and Conn. That we stand behind for refusing to register their “assault weapons” are a few steps from convicted felons…you could make a legitimate banking error and end up a felon in some states….remember people its the “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms…no permits or background checks should be required…period.

        • Agree.
          One thing that seems that people don’t get it is the fact that simple possession of a gun should never be an issue. 2A protects that.
          What you do with the gun is important. And if you do bad things that you should pay for it.
          We seem to have been reeducated to think that we can “prevent” things. I guess is the human thing to do.
          However, by thinking like that, we step into the “pre-crime” area. Once we do that the sky is the limit on what may become a crime.
          Nobody knows what the guy in the article was thinking. Was he arming himself to protect from former colleagues? Was that nefarious?
          We don’t know and we may never know. Because it’s impossible to know somebody’s intentions until they act on it.
          As such any “possession” is just BS.

        • Wrong. Felons do not have the right to vote. In other words, yes, they are barred from 1st amendment rights. Via due process any right can be denied, and it is constitutional.

          • A number of states automatically restore the voting rights for felons after a certain period. Even if the conviction involved voting fraud or crimes related to elections.

        • Conra the SEC, past performance is very often a good indicator of future results.

          If you use a gun in the commission of a crime, or otherwise commit a crime of violence, then tough noogies.

          I would agree that most of the other “felonies” for which folks get jammed up are irrelevant to the exercise of 2A rights. But if you’re a convicted armed robber (like the moron/thug son of Gov Danel “Gun Grabber” Malloy), then you should lose the right to bear arms for a very long time, if not forever. Actions have consequences.

        • Some of these crimes the founding fathers could not have imagined in there wildest nightmares. They would likely agree on some.

      • If the felony is related to the illegal and unconstitutional war on drugs, yes. Additionally, felons get to run for office if they are well connected, and if criminals are even better connected, they aren’t even felons. That’s how the wheels turn. Good on you for joining the military and all, but your situation isn’t the same as the next 20 poor guys next to you, so stop citing it as proof of anything. A whole lot of felons have their rights removed because of unpaid child support or drug possession charges. After a certain amount of elapsed time following their conviction, their rights should be restored. And as far as not breaking the law, you sure about that? More over, would you be fine with a fellow gun owner being thrown under the bus for violating BS anti-gun laws in places like New Jersey, California, or New York? Just another criminal cause they had a 15 round magazine passing through the state…

      • It’s all pretty simple. If they’re dangerous, they shouldn’t be roaming free. And if they’re not, there’s no reason to deny them their basic human right of self-defense.

      • Look any criminal can get a gun to commit a crime if they want. If a guy is too dangerouse to own a gun in society then he is too dangerouse to be free at all in society.
        If somebody is on probation OR parol then I can understand some restrictions esp on carrying a gun. I do NOT think we should restrict felons from owning guns in the home because reformed felons are often at risk of violence from former associates. Increasing the cost of protection from that risk strengthens gang affiliations and makes it harder for somebody to go straight.

    • If I had more faith in our criminal justice system to rehabilitate rather than make things worse, I might well agree with you.

      As things stand I am somewhat divided.

      • And the rehabilitation era of our criminal justice system completely failed resulting in skyrocketing crime rates.

        • First off, correlation does not mean causation. There was major social unrest in the 60s and 70s. Secondly, the financially lucrative prison-industrial complex is doing better for the country some how? I really get tired of seeing gun owners get cozy with this crap; you’re a Hilary Clinton away from being the next target of no-knock raids where guns get the same treatment as narcotics. You will be singing a different tune if your AR-15 is banned and you decide to hide it rather than turn it in and feel the full force of the law you were so happily watching be brought down on those you disagreed with.

    • If you destroy someone’s life, whether physically, emotionally or financially the debt is infinite. Let’s take vehicular manslaughter for example. A family may receive financial compensation, the drunk driver may serve a prison term but husband/father/son/brother remains dead and gone for ever. Even forfeiture of the perp’s life does not bring him back.

        • You miss the point. The concept of “debt to society” is bogus aphorism. It does not exist. Just because you served a set amount of time does not make trustworthy. You have to prove that you are no longer a danger to society by living in society of a number of years without bothering anybody.

        • I believe by committing two felonies, he destroyed his own life . If someone takes someone else’s life or commits a felony with a weapon, I believe that person gives up his or her right to ever get another firearm again. People that try to get another firearm while having 2 felony convictions make them a criminal . Law abiding citizens are the only ones who should be able to purchase firearms legally .When convicted felons try to illegally purchase firearms, it gives liberal, gun grabbers ideas that firearms should be illegal for law abiding citizens to purchase. Convicted felons attempted to commit, yet another felony by attempting to purchase weapons illegally . I am pro second amendment and a life member of the NRA and as such, I obey the law so that my freedoms stay intact. There are to many liberal politicians out there who are trying to disarm Americans . We do not need to give them any more ammunition to try and restrict us because criminals try and circumvent the law !

        • He was convicted on conspiracy to commit robbery. 6 or 7 years later he goes an applies for a concealed carry license. In addition to this current charge, they should have got a warrant and looked for his gun.

        • Article title says CC, but text says he just tried to buy a firearm, in several places.

    • if debt was “paid” they would seal the conviction and he would not be a “felon” aka lose of rights… a lifetime punishment.

      if your convicted of a Felony your serve a life sentence.

      prison is just part of it.

      none Violent Crime should not be felonies and should have little to no prison time, but massive time in public humiliation and community service.

      Violent Crimes should put you in Hell like The Rock kind of prison. zero Internet, cable or even workout equipment. no Koran ever to be available in any US prison, and Grool/bread n water 6 days a week one day something awesome so they have something to look forward to.

      3 violent convictions a special prison. one big farm n barracks. your dopped off and Never Leave… Ever! 10 miles deep of land mines, Drones, and machine gun turrets keep them in the prison. they can work together and survive or die.

      no innocent person get convicted of violent crimes 3 times.

      if that is what waiting for them…. crime will drop.

      • Ooh, and we could name those “special” prisons! I like the sound of “gulag” don’t you? Sure you do.

      • How long before “sexual harassment” is classified as a violent crime? Or so called “hate speech”.

        • This exactly. I don’t understand why so many people, especially on the right, don’t realize this. Loss of rights for felons is effectively a backdoor to the American political system, circumventing the entire concept of constitutional protection of individual rights against tyranny of the majority. Think about it: all it takes to make something a crime, a felony, is a simple majority in the state legislature. And once you’re a felon, you lose many important rights, including the right to vote – so you can’t even meaningfully fight back. And the state can easily argue that, just as they can curtail your 2A rights or voting rights, so they can do the same with freedom of speech or right to not be arbitrarily searched or arrested without due process.

          Think you’re not doing anything that would be a felony and have nothing to fear about? I bet a lot of you guys are involved in the local militia organizations; how does “domestic terrorism” or “membership in a subversive organization” sound to you?

    • I’m all for forgiveness — but I want to see years of good, maybe even exemplary, behavior by violent criminals before gun rights are restored.
      I know some ex-cons I trust, and a lot of “squeaky clean” SOBs in criminal justice who haven’t been caught — yet.

    • I agree with Sammy.

      And in addition to his statements… You guys aren’t providing them a route to get their rights back and become an accepted and productive individual in society. This is incentive for them to return to their criminal ways (where they instantly get all their rights back and aren’t treated like a POS when they seek a decent job), or become a fugitive and leave the country.

      Also – these days more and more ridiculous crimes are becoming felonies. More felonies are a great way to strip Americans of their gun rights and it has the added benefit that it is justified by even the gun rights community itself.

      • This guy went down for conspiracy to commit robbery. That means this guy was/is a predator. I carry in part in case I have an unwanted encounter with some people that conspire to rob me or my family.

      • As long at the game is reached and they can vote demtard. Multiple times is even better. Who better to do such than someone that his demonstrate is criminally inclined?

    • “debt to society”= a scientific soviet socialist newspeak term from the ministry of truth and love to create a class of second class subjects in the soviet system that all animals are created equal but some animals are created more equal than others. The criminal no longer victimizes an actual individual, but rather the entire caring and sharing village. Thus individual rights are abrogated and noumenal group or social state rights are constructed and instated.

    • Everybody says that……until the newly released pedophile wants to teach at your kid’s elementary school, or the newly released embezzler wants to manage your retirement funds. Then those post-prison, lifelong restrictions suddenly seem not so onerous.

      • Fair enough.

        But at least make them appropriate to what the guy did. Embezzler who wouldn’t physically harm a fly? Let him carry once he’s out, but don’t let him near any kind of authority over other peoples’ money. Violent thug? Yeah, maybe he doesn’t need a gun when he gets out (though a sufficiently violent thug should probably never be let out).

        • Perhaps so. That’s in line with the idea of letting the punishment fit the crime and it’s a worthy debate, although it’s a different debate from this one. This discussion centers on whether and when all punishment should end, i.e., upon release from prison or in some manner extending beyond that term.

          If we’re expanding the scope, then we should bring in the concept of felony creep. More and more actions are defined as felonies, in large part because politicians want to be seen as tough on crime, but the positive impact on society of many of these measures may be scant.

          Really, in a country where even determined legal experts cannot even quantify how many crimes federal crimes exist on the books, for example, perhaps all discussion of penalties is putting the cart before the horse. There are activities out there that probably shouldn’t even be a crime in the first place, let alone one that draws lifelong restrictions.

      • Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think there is a federal law preventing the newly released pedophile from teaching in your kid’s school, on penalty of 10 years in prison if he merely applies. Maybe there is a better simile.

        • Nobody, except you, invoked federal law exclusively. We’re just talking legal consequences here, the totality thereof, regardless the source. Maybe there’s a better attempt at misdirection?

      • >> Everybody says that……until the newly released pedophile wants to teach at your kid’s elementary school

        You usually don’t know whether they’re a pedophile or not. What you know is that a person is a “sex offender”, but it’s just as likely to mean that they peed in a park in public while drunk.

  2. My step-brother had a small felony (bad check think he pleaded out). He pawned a rifle and they did a background check as required when he picked it up. He said no on the felony question. He was arrested, convicted and spent several months in prison for his oversight. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    • To those who say background checks don’t work, here’s a perfect example of how the system protected all of us from an evil check-kiter getting his own rifle out of hock! Imagine the carnage he must have had planned, all thwarted by the background check system. Countless lives were saved!

      I, for one, will sleep better tonight knowing that the system is working.

      • If he had been a violent criminal, he would have used the gun to rob the pawn shop in the first place.

    • Yes. Despite that he has no intent or history of hurting people – gun control advocates want to “keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.” all inclusive – even the “victims” of the law and the judicial process.

  3. I pretty much agree with Sammy; once someone’s made compensation or served time for a crime, that oughta do it, except for certain categories, which we all know, of course. “Conspiracy” ain’t one of them; anyone can be accused of something like that and get hammered.

    On the subject of records not matching up? Yes. We’ve run into that with IRS forms and state and Fed background checks; some clerk is looking at this stuff and if some date or name or address or whatever doesn’t match up 100% between documents, they flag it immediately, and your application or background check or filed 1040 goes into Limbo and probably destined for failure. We’ve also found that with the Feds, the burden is on YOU to correct it, even when it’s clearly their mistake.

  4. Weren’t we all? Kids or stupid? I never did anything that could get me arrested as a kid. Too busy shooting and hunting.

    • Not applicable. Haynes says that a person can’t be required to incriminate himself by registering an NFA item that is already possessed by the felon.

      Kucera didn’t possess anything and didn’t have to incriminate himself.

      The two cases have nothing to do with each other.

      • He may have had a gun. If he was applying for a concealed carry license, that was very likely.

        • “Kucera knowingly made a false statement on a Dubuque County permit to acquire a firearm on Feb. 6. Kucera allegedly stated on the application that he was not a convicted felon.”

          To acquire a firearm, not to conceal carry.

    • Sure they can. They just cannot be in possession of a firearm until their record is expunged.

        • Why is that wrong? It’s perfectly constitutional. Any right can be removed via due process.

        • It’s funny how people associate a felony with a violent crime. A felony can be carrying a 15 round magazine through a state that prohibits it. A felony can be selling alcohol on a sunday in a backwards blue law country. A felony can be owning a firearm your government doesn’t grandfather in following a ban on its possession. Not being allowed to vote is a great disenfranchisement mechanism for a political monolith that gets to declare all manners of felonies and prevent those who get bowled over by them from engaging in a system that can remove them. Look at the Pennsylvania woman who was railroaded in New Jersey. Her plight received national attention and it saved her from a felony conviction; had she not had that attention she would’ve been burned, another ‘criminal’ with her rights removed. How many felons are like her? Non-violent people who simply aren’t aware of crazy laws that really make no sense being on the books in states they are new to or passing through?

        • Khan, don’t forget to add the whole plea bargaining thing. People who end up being felons because they took a deal from a prosecutor, admitting guilt in exchange for doing no time (or at least less time), not because they’re actually guilty, but because they couldn’t afford a lawyer that could prove that.

  5. See, background checks work…I can now leave my windows up and doors unlocked at night. Gee wiz, I hope he doesn’t just buy or steal one off the street next time.

  6. If a judge clears your record and restores your rights, then fine. Otherwise, it is a criminal trying to get access to a gun. Period.

    I’m not presenting a judgement one way or the other, I am simply saying it is the law and if you break it you are fair game.

  7. Zero sympathy for this guy. When I applied for my CCW permit, the form stated clearly that lying was grounds for a perjury charge which is itself a felony. Personally, I think that gun rights should be restored once a non-violent felon has been out of prison for a substantial time. But that’s not the law now and he should have known better. We complain that people who lie on their 4473 forms aren’t prosecuted. This time, he was.

    • I think that gun rights should be restored once a non-violent felon has been out of prison for a substantial time. But that’s not the law now

      Actually, Nevada’s expungement statute is very favorable. Even murderers can get their records expunged.

  8. I feel for the guy, having a felon for “thinking” about a crime? But he’s obviously not a bright bulb, lying on the application. If it was from 1949, sure I can see how that might slip your mind. But 2009? Probably shouldn’t be around weapons.

  9. In the fun store the other day saw several denials, all were why? You mean because I sold some crack in 2010 I can’t buy an AK now. Other I knew was a registered sex offender he & 2 friends gang-raped a 6 y/o did 2 years and on probation for 5 years for posting a video of it on the net. I called the sheriff in charge of sex offenders as soon as he was out the door. Those scum never pay a debt to society. 2 14 year olds together is 1 thing even if technically a sex crime. A 40 year old & 6 year old plus internet, that girl will be in therapy for years along with never knowing about it showing online.

    • In the case of your example, the question of a background check should never have come up, because someone convicted of raping a 6-year-old should still be locked up.

      • Agreed. Why true dirt bags such as them are ever allowed to see the light of day again is the real tragedy. Those convicted of sick and violent felonies need to be executed or locked up forever. Non violent felonies that do not harm others just simply should not be felonies.

        • If there is some overarching reason why they have to be let out, remember to shoot them in the face as they leave. Maybe twice.

        • Not to many years ago had a guy rape a 9 year old boy. Judge set his bond at $1,000, refused to allow anyone that new the family to post his bond. Plead guilty and got probation, really sickening they let him change name & move out of state. Some of these judges have to be closet pedophiles. Only cure for to involves 230grains of lead.

    • Must be some place you work, Because being that close to a stranger attempting to buy guns, and his 4473, is Like standing at the pharmacist counter with a stranger… and we all know what the sign says..And In all the years i have been buying guns, iv never had anyone attempt to hoover over me.. Nor had a clerk/ owner broadcast info to me..
      Either the gun shop clerk has no common sense or decency, or you don’t.. I certainly hope it’s not the latter.

      • the store holds may be 5 people but the owner should have had a little class. The child rapist is one I knew his situation as I originally investigated his case. The first guy wanting to purchase the AK actually blurted that out when he was denied. BTW that was my first and last visit to that dealer. Super good prices but not comfortable with calling in a NICS in front of all. Even though I don’t get a call in with a CCW permit.

    • His record was in Nevada, so that’s where his rights could be restored.

      Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 179 Secs. 245, 259, 265, 275, 285, 295

      • Regardless of that it still gives a dateline of Dyersville, Nevada in the article.

        I’m well aware that you’d have to go back to the original jurisdiction to cure any restrictions on rights. My older brother is a felon (possession of powder cocaine “with intent to distribute”, the quantity was not very high but high enough to satisfy the court) as a result of a conviction in Conn. over 25 years ago. The restrictions resulting from that have followed him to Mass. and Fla, now he can’t even vote. Taxation without representation, it’s a beautiful thing!

  10. It’s not “gun control” advocate who want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, it’s all of us who take responsibility for our own actions instead of subscribing to some Liberal mindset that says no one is responsible for their own actions. If you somehow think that is unfair, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree because if you are a criminal who wants to carry or even own a gun, it is YOU who are feeding the gun control arguments.

    If someone has truly reformed, then they petition the court and don’t go out and commit another crime by lying on an application. Those that do are the same people who use the argument that nothing they do is really their fault, it’s their parent’s fault, their teacher’s fault, societies fault, whoever “society” is. That’s the same Liberal tripe that is crippling our nation and people with all these idiot programs that say we have to support people who had a rough life and excuse all their crimes, like the rioters in Baltimore and Ferguson.

    I don’t subscribe to that. Who DIDN’T have a rough life. We all have challenges, and it’s how we deal with them that sets us apart. We all say “law abiding citizens” have the right to bear arms. Well, how is someone who lies on a background check a law abiding citizen?

    • “Law abiding citizen” is a given, but is not required by 2A, I believe on purpose. I’d bet when you got out of prison circa 1820, you were likely to get a gun and head west, if you were going to survive, and that most “mountain men” were convicted felons or on the run.

  11. If you have had your rights restored after a felony conviction, the 4473 instructs you to check “no” on question 11c. Title 18, Part 1, Chpt 44, Sec. 921.33.b.ii also says what appears to be the same thing. I sweat pretty bad every time I fill out BATF forms. I keep wondering when I am going to go to prison for finding the exception to this little rule/instruction.

  12. I have a son who is a non-violent felon. Do I think his gun rights should be restored? Yes…but I have zero confidence in his judgement. (He’s 37 and lives with his grandma). I don’t have any pie in the sky answers…

  13. what if you oh I don’t know, cross over into a state with your legal gun and your CCW. You are now charged with a felony. Your crime/action was to cross a state line and with out a Governor pardon you can never possess another gun. Your crime was being somewhere not doing something.
    I guess you screwed up your life by not knowing something.
    I know not to rob or kill someone but I guess not knowing where New Jersey is, is just as serious a crime.
    I would hope that one would only need to know where Mexico and Canada are.

    • It’s funny, when it’s New Jersey’s draconian gun laws, then everyone’s attitude is “This is B.S.! It should be one nation, one set of laws, and national reciprocity!”

      It never occurs to them what, exactly, that single set of laws would look like. They simply assume it to be more free and more similar to their own state’s laws. There’s no guarantee that it would, though.

      Regardless, any other time, people are pleased as can be about state sovereignty and distinctions between federal and state authority. When it’s in their favor, they relish their state vs. state advantages. Hell, they brag about them in here daily!

      It really goes to the heart of what you believe. Do you really believe in a two tier system of state and federal governments, as outlined in the Constitution? Or, like the statist liberals, do you really want a one size restricts all approach with an omnipotent federal government?

      Seemingly nice people often opt for the latter, because they think nice people will be in charge who will do nice things. Except, people are not nice and the more unchecked power you provide them, the more power the they’ll seek, use and abuse.

      • “It never occurs to them what, exactly, that single set of laws would look like”

        It might be a hint that NYC seems to have more political pull than any state.

        • Good point. If it does occur to them, then it might be willful ignorance.

          Although, in fairness, NYC, with a population of some 8.3 million people, does have more people just as a city than does each of about 38 U.S. states. It’s why it’s a probably the only city in the country where a former Mayor could lay claim (rightfully or wrongfully) to the moniker of “America’s Mayor” and conduct a credible, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, presidential campaign. It’s also the only city to produce a billionaire bête noire Mayor capable of creating a nationwide media darling, gun snatching, agitating organization.

          I’m no fan of NYC, but even I’d grudgingly concede that it’s in a class by itself. True, they routinely and obnoxiously overplay their hand. Still, they’re the only city with a seat at the national table.

  14. Most convicted Felons are still “safer” people than the politicians denying them their rights.

    With the so-called “justice system” being as extremely corrupt as it is, I simply don’t believe a majority of convicts ever did anything illegal in the first place. May as well tell me the Tooth Fairy is real.

  15. Too many felonies and prison time for crimes which should have never been crimes in the first place. If the criminal is so dang dangerous, then the criminal should stay in the Imperial Japanese POW camp.

  16. Darryl is watering his marijuana plantation down at the river. His college buddy Charles is waiting in the car. The DEA is watching. DEA busts Darryl. Charles has a 6 shot single action cap and ball revolver, because he’s one of those Civil War obsessed doofuses. going to bust a few caps later.

    Darryl gets 3 years and does 2 for marijuana cultivation. Charles gets 5 years and does 5 for being an armed guard at a marijuana plantation.

    Is Charles an evil person who should lose his voting rights and gun rights forever ( setting aside the fact that he can legally own a 6 shot single action cap and ball revolver ), comparable to an armed robber, rapist or kidnapper?

    or should the DEA agents, DA and judge all be slapped in the face with a fish?

    2 college students from an MIT / Cal Tech / Stanford class school. they drive cabs for a living. a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  17. Sometimes I wonder if a person who happens to be 5′ 11″ were to input 6′ for height on an application could that result in a felony charge?

    Maybe I put in 180lbs. but my doctor reports to the state thanks to some Orwellian safety legislation that I’m actually 200lbs. will I get a SWAT visit?

    • That’s the exact sort of discrepancy that the clerks will flag, or a difference in dollar amounts, street address, phone number. Enough to, at the very least, hold up/delay your application or background check right there. Or the clerk could misread your IRS form, and not notice the order of signatures, as happened to us recently; this caused them to freeze our bank account and wife’s pay checks at their source. It took a couple of weeks to straighten out, on our time and our dime, and our tough twinkies that checks we wrote to pay bills bounced in the meantime and zero apology from them.

      Clerks also misread information on one of my background checks a couple of years ago and that was that. The discrepancy was enough to nix my shot at a local Fed job. Probably for the best, though.

  18. If I was this guy and I wanted to conceal carry, or own a firearm, or Vote, or any of the other things a convicted felon is prohibited from doing.. I would probably reflect back to the day where I was being charged for a felony, If I actually committed the crime, I would be kicking myself in the ass for not taking a plea deal… And be kicking myself in the ass for not taking the offer….OR…The guy really is a dipshit, and doesnt really understand what he was doing….

    • >> If I actually committed the crime, I would be kicking myself in the ass for not taking a plea deal

      Er, why? The plea deal requires you to plead guilty, so you’d still be a felon, you’d just do less time.

  19. Being a felon, obviously you’re not going to get a carry license. However, even if you have something on your record which itself is not a disqualification, you must disclose that, too. Failure to do so is itself a crime and will now make you ineligible for a carry license.

    Some people, eager to get their concealed carry license, will willfully omit that little minor arrest from college twenty years ago. Could be some nonsense that got dismissed anyway. Or, it could have been an unpaid traffic ticket you eventually got arrested for and finally paid.

    People leave these off the applications because they’re not disqualifications and they’ll probably just slow down what will be approved, anyway. Then their app gets denied and they get charged.

      • That’s interesting, but irrelevant.

        My post is in reference to application for a concealed carry license, which is a different event from purchasing a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL). If you’re a felon, you’re not getting a concealed carry license. If you’re otherwise eligible for a concealed carry license, but you fail to disclose something that the concealed carry license application requires you to disclose, then you won’t get the license, either, just because you failed to disclose what they asked for.

        That what you failed to disclose is not itself a disqualifying trait is not the issue. It’s that you failed to disclose it when required to disclose it. Personally, I think it’s a trick. The application shouldn’t even ask you to disclose things that are not germane to one’s eligibility to carry a concealed handgun lawfully.

        Now, once someone is pardoned for their felony or otherwise has had their civil rights restored post-conviction for the felony, does a state regard them for concealed carry license application purposes as no longer ineligible? I don’t know. Maybe. When I say “felon”, I’m referring to someone convicted of a felony, and that’s the extent of the situation; not someone convicted of a felony, but then there’s some assortment of special circumstances and hypotheticals attached. Just a felon.

        What you’re referring to is purchase from an FFL and how the ATF instructs buyers formerly known as felons to respond to a question on the form. I’m only commenting on states and their applications for a license to carry a concealed firearm. Those are different situations with different, if overlapping, restrictions.

        • Correct. Maybe I need to sleep more. I sure lose track of the subject easily. I also don’t even remember what was on my CCW app but I did indeed disclose my conviction now that I think of it. I also included a copy of the court’s restoration of my rights.

        • Quite so. You may not conceal what the “powers that be” want to have you declare, whether it is germane to your qualifications or not. Reform of such violations of one’s right to privacy should be made swiftly.

  20. Dyersville, Dubuque Co. Dyersville Commercial newspaper.

    That is North Eastern Iowa. Not sure what the Nevada angle is.

Comments are closed.