Convicted felons can’t own guns in most cases. RF believes that to be an unreasonable infringement on the Second Amendment, but I’m more or less comfortable with that restriction — and this guy is one reason why. Depree Johnson (bottom), is a convicted felon, barred from possessing firearms or ammunition. But that didn’t stop him from stealing those heaters from the unsuspecting victims of his burglary habit, namely a group of senior citizens. Police already suspected him of the robberies, but when he posted this selfie to Instagram, 5-0 swooped in and snapped him up . . .

From firstcoastnews.com:

Once they had information that led them to Johnson’s Lake Worth home, they recovered “numerous pieces of jewelry … (including) watches, charms, necklaces and loose diamonds, as well as two stolen firearms,” according to a report by the sheriff’s office.

Officials said they recovered about $250,000 in jewelry, electronics and firearms.

Johnson faces 142 counts of possession of weapons/ammunition by a convicted felon, among other charges.

When investigators asked Johnson for his occupation as they were writing the arrest report, he replied with one word: “Thief.”

Besides the fact that Johnson is already heading to jail for a very long time for his thievery and other associated charges, I really hope they tack on a few extra years for the firearms handling rules violations. I think I can see almost all of the rules being broken at the same time in this one photo, and the effect is akin to someone scratching their nails across a chalkboard.

Lessons we can take away from this case? Don’t steal guns. Don’t steal guns with a felony conviction on your record. And definitely don’t post pictures of the guns your felonious ass stole for all the world to see.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

142 COMMENTS

    • I can’t even begin to comprehend the stupidity. All I can do is shake my head, then laugh my butt off.

    • People are making an assumption that we all agree that debt to society is paid when a prisoner is released but I disagree. For one a murderer released after 20 yrs will never be able to pay his debt.why should he ever walk free after taking a life. Inside traders bilk honest taxpayers out of billions pay two million in fines and eight yrs in a federal pen with cable TV and get out to enjoy their Ill gotten grains

      • People are making an assumption that we all agree that debt to society is paid when a prisoner is released but I disagree. For one a murderer released after 20 yrs will never be able to pay his debt.why should he ever walk free after taking a life. Inside traders bilk honest taxpayers out of billions pay two million in fines and eight yrs in a federal pen with cable TV and get out to enjoy their ill gotten gains. I believe some felonies should be misdemeanors and vice versa but that’s another Issy. If you care about your liberty don’t be a criminal. Why is that so hard.

  2. Lesson:prohibitions against felons do not deter them from having guns anyways.

    As such, we should dispense with that basura -and the judiciary which puts criminals back on the street months after felonious convictions.

    • prohibitions against felons do not deter them from having guns anyways

      No sir, they do not. Then again, prohibitions don’t stop bad people from committing any crimes whatsoever.

      What felon-in-possession laws may accomplish is to scare judges into finally giving the dirtbags some well deserved prison time. Or so we hope.

      • I’ll agree with that Ralph.

        However for the sake of clarity, I would prefer they give them a harsh sentence for their actions rather than their possessions.

        • To Swarf: excuse my poor knowledge of English, but doesn’t holding something in hand mean possession? Not actually their property, sure. Or am I wrong? Can anyone help me with this one?

      • Too many non-violent activities are felonious. Wouldn’t it be better to leave taking away rights up to a judge and require a propensity to violence for the judge to take away this right.

        • Embezzlement isn’t generally considered a non-violent felony. Yet, some victims of embezzlement who are financially ruined and at points in their lives where starting over isn’t an option have gone on to commit suicide. Who’s at fault for that violence?

          How about we quit making excuses for serious criminals, aka felons, of all stripes simply to preserve our 2A fealty? How about we toughen up and hold criminals accountable by depriving them of life, liberty and property with due process? They know the potential punishment up front, so why cry later when they follow through on their own poor decisions?

      • Nope, we just need longer sentences. A felon who’s served their full sentence should not be a second-class citizen. If their crime (or the entirety of their criminal history) is only adequately punishable by a lifetime loss of their rights, then that should be their sentence.

        Presumably, nonviolent felons could be released on parole and still be legitimately barred from full free citizen status until their full sentence is complete.

        • Release non-violent prisoners? HAHAHA! That’s what the prisons are FOR. They release dipshits like this to the street ASAP, so they can maximize mayhem and the hue and cry for “more tougher laws”!

          And the non-violent “offenders” are a HUNDRED times easier to manage.

          Problem. Reaction. Solution.

        • Tell me that again when the ex-con pedophile applies for the janitor job at your kid’s elementary school. Paid his dues and all, right?

        • Sorry, Burke, I took a wrong turn on a reply button. My comment was directed at the gentleman who claimed released felons should get their guns rights back, because they’ve served their time. I say people are selective in that “paid his debt to society” stance, as when released sex offenders are barred from certain jobs, which they’re fine with. I’m just asking for consistency in principle is all. I repeat it every time (and so far heard zero rebuttles) someone says released felons deserve their guns back because they’ve served their time.

        • Traditional Chain-gang labor in prisons need to come back into popularity. Prisoners grow their own veggies and fruits. Work, clean, and take care of their community. Give them talents and skills. If they blow their chance, they get no food for the day. See how they like it…

        • Felons, who didn’t become such by following the Laws to begin with, should be completely stripped of their rights altogether. All of the easy necessities like a license, voting, gun ownership etc., should be stripped to make it harder for them. They don’t deserve to be treated the same as law-abiding citizens. Their should be a Death Sentence enacted in every State for repeat offenders as discouragement ! If we truly want criminals to turn a new leaf, then show them the sentence is death for not learning the first time and becoming a burden on society as a whole.

          • I didn’t get the license number of the turnip truck you just fell off of. You DO realize that innocent people are sometimes accused, convicted, even EXECUTED, right? Is that an acceptable “cost” of “punishment” to you?

            If you feel that way, then our “justice” system is a total sham, and no more lip service to “justice” should ever pass your lips.

    • Yes and no. No it didn’t stop him this time, but with this felon in possession conviction, he’s not getting out for a long time. So that circumstance will keep him from getting firearms, which he’s proven he hasn’t the judgment to handle responsibly.

    • Are his fingers missing or curled up? Or is just his index finger shortened? At any rate, where is the 3’d clumsier accomplice to go bumping into elbows when you need him?

  4. On the one hand, if I every get thrown in jail for a white-collar felony, I don’t wanna lose my 2a rights, on the other hand, I’m very fine with [i]individuals[i] like him never being allowed to touch a gun… not that it matters any way what he’s ‘allowed’ to do.

    • 2 Points:

      1) Why would you get convicted of a white collar crime?

      2) I can’t find any info about his priors, but it seems like young Depree is not actually a violent offender. Why shouldn’t his rights be restored when he (eventually) gets out of jail?

      • When the so-called “nonviolent” felon makes full and compete restitution to all his victims, then maybe.

        • Fair enough. Back to Bill’s post, I assume you would hold Bill (and Madoff, and Skilling and Fastow) to the same standard when he is convicted for his embezzling or whatever he is up to. Not being sarcastic, I am sure you would.

        • @TTACer, you’re damn right. Let them serve their sentences and pay back every freakin’ dime they stole, plus interest, and then they can ask for all their rights to be restored. Until then, fvck ’em.

        • It’s not really about the felon or the victims. It’s about how much power we allow the government to have, while knowing full well that they will end up with a little more than what is behind the line we draw. Everything is a tenth amendment issue.

      • How about because that’s the deal he made? The law is the law and the range of punishments is known in advance. Yet, he chise to break the law. Why shouldn’t we honor his wishes and subject him to the full punishment he willingly exposed himself to?

  8. These two geniuses are Darwin award candidates in waiting. Unfortunately karma did not get around to producing a ND during this lovely photo shoot.

    • Not “finalists” in the Darwin awards, unfortunately, but at least runner-ups. They may or may not have reproduced at this point, but it is a good bet any sex they have for the next few years at least will be “unproductive.”

    • I doubt that the individual in the image above mounted said laser. It was most likely taken as-is from an elderly victim. I cannot bring myself to criticize someone on a limited income for saving a few dollars for such a useful device.

  12. “RF believes that to be an unreasonable infringement on the Second Amendment, but I’m more or less comfortable with that restriction

    Robert’s free to believe whatever he wants, being the free human being that he is, but removing the rights of people through due process has never been considered a violation or infringement any part of the constitution by any court at any time that I’m aware of. When the constitution refers to “the people” it’s a collective right that all people are born with, but it also outlines the process by which individuals can have their rights restricted.

    I take issue when the restrictions are universal or lack due process. I feel that’s a pretty logical line to draw, and in no way restricts or infringes upon the second for the people.

    • I’m with you on that. Due process entails observing all rights, though, including prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Stripping someone of something major like RKBA must be reserved for serious criminals. Presently, that includes felons; but there are all kinds of felonies out there. It’s our responsibility as citizens to ensure that only behaviors of a sufficiently serious threshold fall into that felony category, as the consequences can be quite severe.

      • Completely agree. I’m guessing most prohibited persons out there that are prohibited for convictions are so for non violent drug offenses. That’s ridiculous.

  14. Exhibit A:
    “Depree Johnson (bottom), is a convicted felon, barred from possessing firearms or ammunition. But that didn’t stop him from stealing those heaters from the unsuspecting victims of his burglary habit, namely a group of senior citizens.”

    Pro-gun guys like to throw around the phrases:
    1) “Gun control doesn’t work”
    2) “Criminals will always be able to get guns”
    3) “If we turn in our guns criminals will not turn in their guns”
    4) “If we register our guns criminals will not register their guns”

    etc, etc, et al.

    Now we are going to say things like “but I’m more or less comfortable with that restriction”

    If we all agree with statements 1-4 above which we like to oftentimes throw at anti-gun people and at the same time agree with the statement that ex-convicts with felony charges need to be restricted gun rights then we are saying that gun control works.

    This makes us look like hypocrites but also makes us look like ridiculous people that like to use the word “reason” and “fact” but don’t’ want to actually face them ourselves.

    If you support the fact that felons should not have guns then you also support the fact that “gun control” works. Lets look back at “Exhibit A” above. From this statement it is clear that gun control in fact did not work.

    I personally believe it is a waste of time and money to bar ex-convicts from owning firearms. If you disagree and use statements 1 through 4 above – you are a hypocrite. I also personally believe that many felony charges today are used for the purpose of the attempted removal of gun rights. Furthermore, where does one draw the line on who has the right to defend themselves? Obviously when a felon is serving his sentence he has no rights. His options are solely determined by the ward. He has no rights. When he is released, however, we as a society are going to say – well he needs only limited rights. In my opinion this is fuzzy garbage. He needs a harsh sentence and when released he should have his rights reinstated right? I mean… his rights come from his creator… right?

    If you believe this statement:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    and also agree that ex-convicts that have been “released” and advised they were “free men” should not have the right to defend themselves or the right to bear arms you are a hypocrite.

    Because of the fact that a prisoner of the ward has no rights (as he is being punished for his crimes) it is imperative his rights be reinstated when released. If not, this is just another loophole the ruling class will take full advantage of to attempt to eliminate the people’s rights.

    The founding fathers, in my opinion, did not put an exception for “prisoners” in the 2nd amendment likely because they thought it was obvious.

    Also, since every one of the founding fathers was a criminal to the crown, I would think they feel that released prisoners would retain “rights.”

    • Great, one more person that thinks that everyone that doesn’t agree with him is a hypocrite. I am one hundred percent comfortable with violent felons losing their 2a rights. Presuming they have had access to due process, then I think forfeiting their 2a rights is part of their punishment for a violent crime and not something else that ends when they get out of prison. I’m for a due process procedure for re-instating their rights once they have demonstrated they are productive members of society. I do not think that the prohibition will, in any way, keep guns out of the hands of felons. What this will do is add time to any offense that they commit between the time they have left prison and before they have their rights re-instated.

      I feel so much not like a hypocrite.

      • “Great, one more person that thinks that everyone that doesn’t agree with him is a hypocrite.”

        I actually didn’t say this. I (paraphrasing) said that if you believe gun control doesn’t work and oppose it while at the same time agree “released” ex-convicts should have gun control tailored for them then you are a hypocrite.

        “I am one hundred percent comfortable with violent felons losing their 2a rights.”

        Sure you are… Until you become a felon for speeding, or think your wife is cheating on you and you read your her email, or if your child takes a knife to school, or if you sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie and not pay for it, or you lie to a federal agent, or you own an assault weapon in NYC.

        Do these merit the permanent loss of your 2A “rights?”

        Some states say yes. So basically… we are relinquishing our 2A rights to the “majority” due to … the “criminal”, “due process”, and the “felony” conviction.

        • –
          “Great, one more person that thinks that everyone that doesn’t agree with him is a hypocrite.”

          I actually didn’t say this. I (paraphrasing) said that if you believe gun control doesn’t work and oppose it while at the same time agree “released” ex-convicts should have gun control tailored for them then you are a hypocrite.
          –

          So, if you don’t agree with your position, you are a hypocrite. That is exactly what I said. I can image someone thinking that removing rights for violent felons is different than restricting rights for the entire populous and not be hypocritical about it.

          –

          “I am one hundred percent comfortable with violent felons losing their 2a rights.”

          Sure you are… Until you become a felon for speeding, or think your wife is cheating on you and you read your her email, or if your child takes a knife to school, or if you sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie and not pay for it, or you lie to a federal agent, or you own an assault weapon in NYC.

          –

          I think you missed the word “violent”. I am sympathetic to the argument that it can be easy to become an accidental felon. I think it is much more difficult to become a violent felon. You generally have to try to do that. I support the loss of 2A rights for violent felons. If you re-read my post, I believe I used that throughout.

          –
          Do these merit the permanent loss of your 2A “rights?”

          Some states say yes. So basically… we are relinquishing our 2A rights to the “majority” due to … the “criminal”, “due process”, and the “felony” conviction.

          –

          You forgot the word “violent” with the word “felony” again. And yes, I believe that if someone gets convicted of a violent felony, they should lose their 2A rights until they prove the are a good citizen again.

          We might disagree about losing 2A rights on a felony conviction, but your claim that to support the removal of these rights is hypocritical is simply wrong. There are logically consistent arguments for being against gun control but for the loss of 2A rights for violent felons. If you can’t see that, then you are being close minded.

        • TT,

          “That is exactly what I said. I can image someone thinking that removing rights for violent felons is different than restricting rights for the entire populous and not be hypocritical about it.”

          Sure, you can do that, If you think that “gun control” isn’t really “gun control.” That is what is being controlled. If it was criminal control they would still be locked up. But they are not locked up – they are free. So instead of controlling the criminal – we are going to control the guns, and the “free” criminal’s ability to obtain one (even though they can still obtain one – regardless of legislation).

          “We might disagree about losing 2A rights on a felony conviction, but your claim that to support the removal of these rights is hypocritical is simply wrong. There are logically consistent arguments for being against gun control but for the loss of 2A rights for violent felons. If you can’t see that, then you are being close minded.”

          Maybe I am closed minded – because i’m just not getting it. I am totally for the loss of 2A rights for violent felons – while they are in prison. I just don’t get it… why are all their rights reinstated after release – except the 2A, especially since we all agree it has zero effectiveness and serves only to increase a sentence when tried. Why not just have a harsh sentence to begin with?

          Its kind of like saying… its OK for this violent felon to have a reduced sentence in exchange for the loss of his “gun rights” which is not enforceable and he can break at any time.

          It just doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe because it is a crude attempt at “Pre-crime” rather than a punishment. Because a better punishment would have been a harsher prison sentence.

        • “Sure, you can do that, If you think that “gun control” isn’t really “gun control.” That is what is being controlled. If it was criminal control they would still be locked up. But they are not locked up – they are free. So instead of controlling the criminal – we are going to control the guns, and the “free” criminal’s ability to obtain one (even though they can still obtain one – regardless of legislation).”

          You can be a criminal being punished but not be locked up. There is no magic status changed from being locked up versus being on probation or in some other legally unfree circumstance short of incarceration. Suggesting that people are either free or incarcerated is a false set of choices. As I’ve said in my response, removing 2A rights from convicted violent felons gives the legal system a way to increase the harshness of punishment for those criminals.

          “Maybe I am closed minded – because i’m just not getting it. I am totally for the loss of 2A rights for violent felons – while they are in prison. I just don’t get it… why are all their rights reinstated after release – except the 2A, especially since we all agree it has zero effectiveness and serves only to increase a sentence when tried. Why not just have a harsh sentence to begin with?”

          These laws do not have zero effectiveness. Violent criminals that do not follow the rules can be put back in prison.

          “Its kind of like saying… its OK for this violent felon to have a reduced sentence in exchange for the loss of his “gun rights” which is not enforceable and he can break at any time.”

          I’m not sure where this came from. Maybe you were responding to another post. No one is reducing their sentence by removing their gun rights. Just because a law can be broken doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.

          “It just doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe because it is a crude attempt at “Pre-crime” rather than a punishment. Because a better punishment would have been a harsher prison sentence.”

          This isn’t a pre-crime approach. They’d have to have been convicted of a violent felon to get into this argument. Also, here is the problem that the “keep them in prison till their safe” approach has. There is no way to tell. There is no real world approach that I know of that separates the safe “paid their debt to society” ex-cons from the “going to kill someone as soon as they get out” ex-cons. We can’t read their minds or give them a test or ever really know. If they get out and stay out of trouble for some period of time (my first thought is ten years but maybe their is a time frame that is more indicative of good behavior) then they should have a mechanism to petition the court for the re-instatement of their rights. But you can support no 2A rights for violent convicted felons and not be a hypocrite Anonymous. Even if you don’t agree with the restriction of 2A rights for violent felons, you’d at least have to agree with that, wouldn’t you?

        • TT,

          1) You can be a criminal being punished but not be locked up. There is no magic status changed from being locked up versus being on probation or in some other legally unfree circumstance short of incarceration. Suggesting that people are either free or incarcerated is a false set of choices.

          I disagree. Tailored gun control for “released” ex-convicts is still gun control. You are controlling guns not the criminal. He is released and free to do whatever he pleases – unlike a situation wherein he is locked up in a cell with no access to anything except that which the ward provides.

          2) As I’ve said in my response, removing 2A rights from convicted violent felons gives the legal system a way to increase the harshness of punishment for those criminals.

          Except it is completely ineffective – you have stated this. “I do not think that the prohibition will, in any way, keep guns out of the hands of felons.” So what does the prohibition serve but to punish only those that wish to rejoin society? Sounds counter productive.

          3) These laws do not have zero effectiveness. Violent criminals that do not follow the rules can be put back in prison.

          The effectiveness of which I was speaking was (your words): “I do not think that the prohibition will, in any way, keep guns out of the hands of felons.” An ex-convict that does not follow the rules and possesses a firearm can be put back in prison (if caught) – yes, and now facing a possession of firearms sentence (a victimless crime). Having a harsh sentence to begin with (with no gun control afterward) would both allow released ex-convicts to better join society as well as instill fear in the violent convicts to become people who would prefer join society instead of living a life of crime.

          4) I’m not sure where this came from. Maybe you were responding to another post. No one is reducing their sentence by removing their gun rights. Just because a law can be broken doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.

          No, I was responding to your post. To clarify, we have two scenarios. One being a prisoner released early and having a reduced sentence in exchange of the loss of his “gun rights” (which can be broken at any time) and the other (my suggestion) of having a prisoner facing harsher penalties for crimes committed and having all his rights re-instated.

          Addressing your other statement: Since any law can be broken, I agree that it doesn’t necessarily make a law a bad idea.

          5) This isn’t a pre-crime approach.

          I disagree. This is 100% a pre-crime approach. All gun control is a pre-crime approach, or the attempt to eliminate 2A rights.

          6) They’d have to have been convicted of a violent felon to get into this argument. Also, here is the problem that the “keep them in prison till their safe” approach has. There is no way to tell. There is no real world approach that I know of that separates the safe “paid their debt to society” ex-cons from the “going to kill someone as soon as they get out” ex-cons. We can’t read their minds or give them a test or ever really know. If they get out and stay out of trouble for some period of time (my first thought is ten years but maybe their is a time frame that is more indicative of good behavior) then they should have a mechanism to petition the court for the re-instatement of their rights.

          Ex-convicts that are released with 2A limitations can get out and kill someone immediately. In fact they can obtain a firearm immediately and kill someone. You have already stated this (your words): “I do not think that the prohibition will, in any way, keep guns out of the hands of felons.” So… what is the point of the 2A limitation? You are arguing that they need to behave for 10 years so their rights can be re-instated. Why bother when they can get a gun immediately anyways. This only punishes those trying to go good anyways.

          7) But you can support no 2A rights for violent convicted felons and not be a hypocrite Anonymous. Even if you don’t agree with the restriction of 2A rights for violent felons, you’d at least have to agree with that, wouldn’t you?

          No. I disagree – see response to paragraph #1 above. Gun control is begin imposed on released ex-convicts in lieu of harsher punishments. You and I both agree that this gun control is completely ineffective at curbing their ability to obtain a firearm. So what is the point? Only to return those that are “caught” performing a victimless crime to prison (or worse) and to further punish those who do follow the law trying to rejoin society (which they never can – because they will never have 2A rights).

    • All one has to do is redefine crimes that are a felony. (as in “upon third conviction of same”)
      We have the death penalty for treason. Are there countries where it is treason to criticize the government?
      Shift the crime to the proper label “et voila”.

    • @Anonymous, don’t be a windbag. Denying convicted felons doesn’t mean that we agree with gun control, it means that we agree with criminal control. No, we can’t stop them from buying guns, but we can put them in jail just for that.

      And please, no more of that “they paid their debt to society” crap. There is no such thing. When criminals pay their debt to their victims, then maybe we can talk. But none of them ever do. Ever.

      • Don’t let ’em out if they shouldn’t be out. Put them down if they need to be put down.

        I don’t think a probation period with marginal rights is hypocritical if well defined.

      • “No, we can’t stop them from buying guns, but we can put them in jail just for that.”

        And the victim is???

        What if it is a hunting rifle? Not okay? What if it is a shotgun for home defense? No?

        Also Please see my list of ridiculous felonies that I listed for “TT” above.

        “And please, no more of that “they paid their debt to society” crap. There is no such thing. When criminals pay their debt to their victims, then maybe we can talk. But none of them ever do. Ever.”

        I disagree that victims never pay their debts. The purpose of their punishment is for Justice… for the Victims. Obviously, some debts can never be repaid. I know one such example that did. Mr. David Marshal Williams. He shot a police officer (killed him) in a raid on his “prohibited” still. His family, the widow of the person he shot, and the sheriff he surrendered to started a campaign to commute his sentence. When he was in prison he developed the concept of the short stroke piston (used in the M1 Carbine and credited for it (he developed it)) and after released he patented it. He certainly had his 2A rights reinstated and his victim’s widow was certainly okay with that.

        In fact, the M1 Carbine wouldn’t exist as we know it if he didn’t have his rights reinstated.

      • Ralph(and Howard Johnson) is right. It’s not about “paying their debt to society”. Criminals don’t see it that way. They see it as “the cost of doing business”.
        Prison is about punishment and keeping them off the crime market for awhile.
        Represent a robber with 3 prior prison terms who, within 2 weeks of release, commits a fourth robbery(as I have), and you’ll begin to see what Ralph is talking about.
        Second, please don’t use the “unalienable rights” ploy. Those rights are for the law-abiding . Any citizen can forfeit those rights by due process and in an emergency, though. Or are you against the death penalty for murder? Follow your “unalienable rights ” to their logical conclusion and we can disarm all cops b/c as government representatives they cannot shoot the guy mowing people down in the food court since it would violate his violate his “unalienable” right to life.

        • I think you have misinterpreted my position. I am for harsher penalties in lieu of lesser penalties with the inclusion of 2A rights limitations.

          “Ralph(and Howard Johnson) is right. It’s not about “paying their debt to society”. Criminals don’t see it that way. They see it as “the cost of doing business.”

          I can agree with all of this.

          “Prison is about punishment and keeping them off the crime market for awhile. Represent a robber with 3 prior prison terms who, within 2 weeks of release, commits a fourth robbery(as I have), and you’ll begin to see what Ralph is talking about.”

          I can see where you are coming from – however I don’t believe that prison “should” be about keeping them out of the crime market. Prison should be about punishment.

          “Second, please don’t use the “unalienable rights” ploy. Those rights are for the law-abiding. Any citizen can forfeit those rights by due process and in an emergency, though. Or are you against the death penalty for murder? Follow your “unalienable rights ” to their logical conclusion and we can disarm all cops b/c as government representatives they cannot shoot the guy mowing people down in the food court since it would violate his violate his “unalienable” right to life.”

          So basically you are saying that a prisoner once released can never be law abiding again? I agree inalienable rights are for the law abiding. However, I based this on the concept that a person released from prison can become “law abiding.” Have they broken the law before? Sure. But they can choose not to break the law after released.

          I also believe harsher penalties in place would deter them from considering breaking the law a second time (or even in the first place).

          I am definitely not against the death penalty for murder. In fact, I think the death penalty should be used more often.

    • I don’t believe that barring felons from legally owning firearms will keep firearms from all felons. I do like being able to throw them in prison when we catch them armed, and we will catch them, because they’ve already personally demonstrated they can’t be trusted with the responsibility. So let’s use their poor judgment against them.

      Now, notice I said “all” felons. Some will still get guns, but there will be some felons who will stay away from guns and, by extension, the criminal elements of their past, because of the potential punishments that await a felon in possession.

      Potential punishments are just price tags in behavior. Some felons will pay anything to commit their crimes. Others won’t. It’s those others we’re targeting.

      • “Some will still get guns, but there will be some felons who will stay away from guns and, by extension, the criminal elements of their past, because of the potential punishments that await a felon in possession.”

        Ok. Why bother? Why not just a harsher sentence? Depriving them of 2A rights does what exactly? Other than provide an excuse to throw them back in prison – The act of owning a firearm does not infringe upon the rights of others or harm them in any way. Just because they have a gun does not mean they were entangled in the criminal elements of their past. Maybe they should have just remained in prison?

        “Potential punishments are just price tags in behavior. Some felons will pay anything to commit their crimes. Others won’t. It’s those others we’re targeting.”

        And how is targeting by means of firearm possession indicative of criminal behavior? I think all of us here own guns.

        It seems we are seeking to arrest and imprison those in possession before they commit a “crime” and enabling such by means of legislation disbarring a released felon from owning a firearm. So we are trying to prevent crime before it happens. And the best indication of this… is the presence/possession of a firearm.

        If this doesn’t sound like gun control… I don’t know what is.

        • I agree with you sir.

          -from a former ‘I used to commit felonies when i was younger, wilder and on drugs’, and now i’m a respectable husband and father and gun owner, i just didn’t get caught.

          I agree with you.

  16. Police already suspected him of the robberies, but when he posted the above selfie on Instagram,

    To borrow a phrase from Ron White, he had the right not to provide incriminating evidence against himself… but he lacked the ability.

  18. He will be out on bail by tomorrow, then to social rehab for 4 weeks, then back in business. . . . . .and someone will die in the future because of this jerk.

    and then . . . more stories to add to background checks and criminalize honest people.

    Just like the war on drugs . . lost 45 years ago.

    • I must have missed something. Was there actually some kind of chance in hell of winning the drug war before 1968?

    • To the degree that the “War on Drugs” is really a War on the Government’s Drug Competition, I agree…

      • Hey listen, illegal drugs are unnatural and morally wrong, the gov’t is just trying to protect you and your health.

        Now, go home, drink some whiskey, have some (GMO) McDonald’s cheeseburgers with some good ol’ corn syrup filled soda, then, smoke a pack of cigs, and take your doc prescribed pain killers- the way God intended.

    • Guess you guys missed the reports of the spike in crime in Seattle since they legalized weed. So much for the drug use is a victimless crime myth.

    • Now that’s funny. It’s hard to maintain street cred when “friending” is the new getting jumped in.

  22. Soon to be the LATE Depree Johnson. Mourned by (some or other) gun control nuts.

    This guy is ANYTHING but a “Johnson”. Someone here will get the reference. You know who you are!

  23. Police work is getting so easy. They used to have to go out and interview people, track down leads, send stuff to labs for forensic testing, etc., now they just have to check out Facebook, Instagram or Twitter and bingo, you got your bad guy.

  26. The U.S. criminal penalties are the weakest on Earth. There is NO DETERRENT factor if you give them weak penalties and let them live in country clubs. These scumbags have “rights” now.

    • “Country clubs”. To my knowledge, no prison in America allows inmates to play golf. “Country club prisons” is hyperbole, at best. You certainly could make your point a better way.

      • O.K.! They get too many privledges. TV, Radio, time outside, they get (in some cases) FREE college educations, get to work in wood shops, metal shops, kitchens, etc. THAT to me is not punishment. They get 3 square meals a day, family visits, etc. AND we’re told “They have RIGHTS”!

        These scumbags are not punished IMHO. Our penal system is a joke.

        • I believe the “outside” time is because of the recognized benefits of fresh air and exercise. It can also help reduce the tension that comes from being inside all of the time… the prison administrations certainly subscribe to that wacky notion. “Outside” time leads to increased health and fewer sick visits, they believe.
          If they misbehave inside, they can be denied “outside” time, which certainly makes sense on both counts.

          And if you want to bring up road gangs, I certainly approve of that, for those who volunteer. And there’s always more who want to volunteer for that than want to stay inside and make furniture or license tags, or work in a print shop or laundry.

          • SCREW their “Benefits”. They are there because they F***ED up. Giving them “Benefits” and “rights” isn’t punishing them. You, me and most law abiding people have to get up every day, drag our asses to work to make a living. These scumbags get EVERYTHING FOR FREE. That is NOT punishment. They KNOW THAT. Crime DOES PAY in America. You get a FREE RIDE. Until this is CHANGED we will NOT have any chance of drastically reduced crime in America. Period.

          • I would imagine he’d jump at the chance: no responsibilities, free rent, no bills to pay, free health care, tv, radio, golf… it’s SO great I think he’ll jump at the chance!

  27. Why does RF think people like this should get a gun at the LGS after jail? Once a felon…you lose the right. Simple as that.

    • Because you can’t stop felons from getting guns but trying to stop felons from getting guns stops law-abiding citizens from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Besides, prohibition doesn’t work. Period. (Too soon?)

      • RF paraphrased that well. The 2A limitation on felons is nothing. They are going to get firearms anyways if they pursue it. Gun control on felons serves one or a combination thereof of the following:

        1) Inconvenience to law abiding citizens not convicted of a felony that have to be forced to undergo background checked, guns registration, and a permits. This can be abused to attempt to inconvenience and deter future generations of gun owners/gun buyers.

        2) Those legitimately attempting to rejoin society can never own a gun again. Why are we punishing these people? They cannot hunt, they cannot defend their homes, their families, their country. This is not proper treatment to someone we are trying to have rejoin society. If they become a criminal they can enjoy all their rights…(as they are not going to follow any laws). Is this the proper direction we want these people to take?

        3) This is also a feeble attempt to “control” guns by not allowing guns to reach felons (proven ineffective).

        4) If everyone is a felon – no one can own any guns (gov smiles). Increasingly there have been more imaginative and ridiculous ways to get a felony wrap for totally ridiculous things. Such as:
        ►felony speeding (not for speeding alone but for other circumstances) – why have it then? why not just have the other circumstances???
        ►You think your wife is cheating on you and you read her email,
        ►your child takes a knife to school and becomes a felon, or
        ►you sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie and not pay for it, or
        ►you lie to a federal agent, or
        ►you own an assault weapon in NYC.

  28. How does any of that refute the proposed recovery of civil rights by former felons? This guy was a thief by his own admission. Even if he had the opportunity to come buy his hand-guns legally he likely would have still opted for stealing his weapons rather than attach his name to a legally purchased one. And last I checked, stealing is is still a crime, and the justice system can easily deal out harsher punishment and longer sentences to former criminals who choose to go back to there previous habits in a world where those that do not choose that path can recover their civil rights, and their dignity as human beings.

  30. the little lcp doesn’t quite have the cool factor the guy on the bottom was probably going for.
    the guy on the top!!!!!! look at his grip on the gun! hahahaha!

  31. So many people get fired, arrested, captured or even not hired because of the stuff they post on social media.

    It never ceases to amuse.

  34. Man, you are a much less biased winter then RF! He’s getting so bad that I can’t read his articles anymore as he has gone full anti-.gov but. I bet he is only a smidgin away from being a sovereign citizen.

  35. Hmm. This makes me think we should have two sets of cardinal gun rules: one for good guy, one for bad.

    Good guys:
    1. Always treat your firearm like it’s loaded.
    2. Never put your finger on the trigger unless your ready to fire.
    3. Never point the firearm at anything you don’t intend to shoot.

    Bad guys:
    1. Always make sure your bud’s gun is loaded.
    2. Always keep your finger on the trigger. It looks cool.
    3. Let’s take lots of photos posing with our firearms.

    In no time the new “gun safety” rules should fix all sorts of bad.

  36. obviously, he doesn’t care what we think… he’s just too chicken-a## to man up to his troubles.

  37. Obama is too smart and classy to take cheezy selfies with such patent disregard for his surroundings.

  38. Except he won’t be in jail very long. Drug dealers get longer sentences. I think the government wants people like this out on the street so they can justify their existence.

  39. Do they EVER tack on the firearms charges? Because when we did a FOIA in CT we found it to be rarely done. It is more reason many of these laws are BS because they are not properly enforced.

  41. I, for one, would be perfectly comfortable with felons owning firearms as per the 2nd Amendment for the following reasons:

    1) They aren’t the best gun safety experts. Just looking at this selfie makes me wonder how they DIDN’T shoot themselves. I may or may not secretly wish they did. Maybe.
    2) The 2nd Amendment would reduce their numbers rather fast.

    “Shall not be infringed” is very clear for the non-American I am… Felons should be in danger for their lives by their very lifestyle and occupational choices. Branding yourself as a “thief” should be a pretty clear sign to tell everyone else “Please shoot me in the face” and come out of it perfectly unscathed on the legal point of view.

    • “and come out of it perfectly unscathed on the legal point of view”

      Unfortunately, this is VERY unlikely with our current “justice system”.

Comments are closed.