I am one to say that the past is the past. As much as I want to believe that the felons would take the guns and hunt (which increase popularity of hunting), something tells me that the felons would end up using that weapon for purposes. I know it might be a slippery slope but that is what I think. I just know that if it does pass and felons are allowed to hunt... and lets say just one of them decides to use the weapon in an illegal activity, that person will be labeled as a hunter and bring us even more bad publicity.

Tough. If he is a convicted felon, then he should continue to be prohibited from owning a firearm until that right is reinstated by the courts. Most states have a process for that. In the meantime, take up archery hunting.

I think with a proven clean record for 20 years or so is sufficient enought to allow a NON-VIOLENT felon to own a firearm. 20 years is a hell of a long time not to mess up.

I think that in order to allow NON VIOLENT felons to hunt they should have to go back through teh hunter safety class and then they should have to pay to be seen by a board of fellow hunters and DOW employees (which get paid for their time by teh felon) allowing their fate to fall in their hands. If it is that important they will pay to have their side seen, if the other outdoor professionals feel that they want them in the woods with them well then ok.

Convicted felons and guns, society and felons. By Federal law a non-violent felon can not own a gun for a predetermined amount of time, each state has their own set of standards that may supersede Federal law.
Violent offenders can never own a gun, period.
Violent offenders have the highest rate of recidivism, they do not care about laws and if they want a gun they will get one, nothing can be done to stop that.
Non-violent offenders have a much lower rate of recidivism, chances are that the ones who legally try to get back into the good graces of society and back into the sport of hunting have changed, and probably used to hunt before the offense(s) and if that is the case why did that person commit a non-violent crime? What drove them to commit a crime any way? 20 years of being good should count for something.
Bottom line, people can change, and the laws in place recognize these changes in people.

Hell, if Obama has his way, all of us will be instant felons anyway.

This horse has been beat before in one form or another. This is the type of subject matter that is never going to be resolved here. There are too many opinions on the matter and very little consensus. I, for my part am going to watch it play out in my state, where by the way we have bigger fish to fry. Finally a state legislator with some intestinal fortitude is attempting to repeal the requirement that one has to obtain a pistol permit from the county sheriff before one may buy a handgun (or crossbow). The argument is it is unnecessary and rendered obsolete by the NICS background check. It also will get rid of a whole lot of the "good ole boyism" that has at best plagued NC citizens with an inconsistent permit process. I am not trying to hyjack this thread, just explaining my lack of argument on the original subject matter.

I think it's a crazy law, although I do think it should be up to each state to decide. None of Feds business.
If it's a non violent crime then I have no problem with them hunting. It is a case by case basis, for instance breaking and entering, the homeowner doesn't know the bad guys not armed to kill. Marijuana busts, who cares? Each crime is different and there's a lot of ways to commit a felony.
Let them go before a review board including sentencing judge and game officials and plead their case.

95% agree with florida hunter, good comment mate. I beleive the same thing but maybe not ban them for life of fireams. Because yes, I truthfully beleive some people change, not many but some. It should all ride on what the crime was, if it was batterey or assault, negative, youve proven to us that you couldn't handle it. If its something less drastic, like robberey or something of that nature then I think it should dwindle down to it deciding when the last crime was made. Like no hunting if theres a crime present within the last 3-5 years. I think thats a GREAT idea!

So if you can afford a good lawyer, and get out of a felony, it's ok, but if you can't, then no hunting FOREVER? That's idiotic. Non-violent felonies should not ban someone from ever hunting w/ a firearm again. If it's impossible to be reformed enough to hunt legally, why doesn't every felony just come w/ a life sentence? If these "felons" are SOOO dangerous, why is it ok to release them into the population? Do you think that any "convicted felon" that wishes to purchase a gun for illegal purposes can't? Really?

I have stated my position on this before. There are currently a plethora of convictions that are felony convictions. I do not approve of leniency with respect to firearm ownership for convicted violent felons or those who committed a crime with a firearm. I do however have to ask myself what firearm ownership has to do with many of the non-violent felonies such as one gram of marijuana over the misdemeanor weight (not that I approve of marijuana possession). How about men that pled guilty to simple assault as a result of an argument with their wife and now cannot own firearms because of the ill thought Lautenberg Amendment. According to the BATFE, a convicted felon with a presidential pardon automatically has his/her firearm rights restored. Therefore a big time white collar felon who is well connected politically or financially may be able to book on as a member of one's next big western Mule Deer hunt. My comments are along the lines of jbird's. If you have a good attorney, who also is well connected you may be able to plea down to a misdemeanor charge. If you are unfortunate enough to pick the wrong attorney, you may not receive a plea offer. Don't misunderstand me, the emphasis is not on the vagaries of the plea system in our courts, but it clearly demonstrates how the system is manipulated. You may feel that presidentially pardoned felons should not have access to firearms either but you know what, they can because it's the law.
Now, back to the topic; how do you tell this guy who obviously has been a model citizen for quite some time, and is quick to admit his wrong that he has what amounts to a life sentence concerning firearm ownership. If you are going to stick someone with what amounts to a life sentence, be sure you stick it to those who really deserve it.

I personally don't know anyone who hasn't broken the law!
Most of them haven't been caught, moving survey markers, trespassing, not getting building permits, blowing stop signs, breaking speed limits, driving drunk, changing price tags (lower, of course), selling used equipment and lying about its condition, are just a few, I could go on.
I also know someone that killed a women with a rock (thrown at something else) and was convicted, and someone that was convicted of assault for fighting a sailor in a bar brawl.
I don't believe that any of these should be banned from owning a firearm or from hunting or fishing or owning a sharp pocket knife or parting their hair in the middle.
Those who were caught have paid their price, those who haven't been caught might still be, but that doesn't concern their rights to own and properly use a firearm.
The law is wrong.

WA Mtnhunter I don't think you will be flamed. As a former LEO your general assessment of those listed in your last paragraph is right on. I think there are two schools of thought here and on the type of criminals and douchebags you mentioned I think most here agree. The other school of thought concerns non-violent felons whose felony conviction is one frog hair more than a misdemeanor crime. As you aptly stated there is a process for any felon to petition to have his her rights restored. I think the difference is simply in the details. It certainly is a passionate subject matter!

If I understand Federal Law right, isn’t Obama and Clinton forbidden from position of a firearm and would this include Patrick Kennedy?

Is the use of marijuana alone without a conviction of a court makes it illegal to the possession a firearm?

If you are convicted after 1994 in Colorado you don't have a choice - the answer is NO. Convicted felons are prohibited to possess ANY weapon (a pocket knife will get them put back in jail...). As far as I'm concerned (you have to understand also that this is mostly from a law enforcement officer's perspective...) NO they should not. The last thing I want to worry about when I'm out doing my job and talking to hunters and fishermen is which one of the hunters that I'm talking to, who is carrying a gun mind you, might be somewhat violent, aggravated, or just having a bad day and is going to take it out on me.

NO THEY SHOULD NOT!

WA Mtnhunter,
I didn't mean to imply a breaking and entering was nothing, I meant it to be bad. So many innocent stuff should be considered.

I believe that non-violent felons should be able to restore their privilege to own long guns, but not handguns! After 20 years without another incident, it pretty much speaks for itself that the incident was youthful indiscretion, and who out there never had any lapses in judgment when they were young? I disagree with those who say that the firearm the subject purchases for hunting purposes would be misused in another crime, because simple logic states that if they were going to use a firearm in another felony, they would have obtained a firearm through the black market, and acted on their impulses anyways.

Personally I'm not afraid of a former thief owning a gun as long as it's not mine. I'm sure each and every one of your readers has done something in their life that they are not proud of.

For those of you who think all felons are the same. I have a close personal friend who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. He should never be able to own a firearm right?

Wrong. My friend came home from working graveyards, in the predawn darkness he noticed something was not right as he pulled into his driveway. The lights were off so his wife and children were probably asleep but the door was slightly ajar. My friend has a CHL and entered the house with his pistol drawn, upon entering the living room he saw the intruder in the living room trying to disconnect the T.V. When he confronted the burglar the burglar advanced on him. My friend did not have the guts to shoot an unarmed man. So he tossed his pistol away and fought the man with fists. My friend beat the man until he was unconcious then called the police. The intruder recieved several broken bones, ruptured spleen, punctured lung, and torn liver. When he came to in intensive care his first words were; "I would like to file assault charges on the man who attacked me." My friend who thought the incident was pretty cut and dried self defense in his own home against an intruder thought he was in the clear. Wrong again. The mexican consulate, lulac and several others pushed the D.A. until he charged my friend. A hard working family man just getting by can not afford an expensive attorney so my friend used the court appointed attorney who advised him to take a plea bargain and not fight it out in court. I think his exact words were "the judge will see the facts and give you credit for restraint and let you off." wrong again. The judge motivated by the large hispanic interests nailed him to the wall. My friend spent several years in prison and is now working to repay the burglars' hospital bills and restitution. "What was the deadly weapon" you ask? Steel-toe boots.

If you see an intruder in your house. Kill do not wound.

Felons like James Nichols should not be allowed to hunt. Cha Vang would still be alive today. Nichols' Self-defense claim means shooting someone 3 times, stabbing more than once, putting a tree stump through the mouth, and hiding the body.

You are correct, sir. Most of us can sit back with a cup of coffee and say what we would do if......happens. Training and instinct for survival will direct one's actions in a pinch. If either is lacking, one is in a bind.

Next time one of you gets caught speeding you should lose your right to drive FOR EVER. Obviously you have no regard for the law. If you can't be trusted to drive within the speed limit you should be banned from driving FOR EVER. If you don't repect one area of the law you can't be trusted to respect other areas of the law and therefore should be FOR EVER banned from posessing a firearm. Law enforcement is fond of the analogy that a car is potentionaly a two thousand pound bullet. Driving a car is a priviledge and not a constitutional right.