Felons and guns
I thought it was illegal for them to possess weapons: Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
The federal felon in posession laws have exemptions for official use by military and police. Theny can not go out and buy a firearm, but they can use issued weapons. Only the Lautenberg amendment does not have an offical use exemption.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
I’d be willing to wager those “sex crimes” were along the lines of mooning someone or peeing in public and getting caught vs. something more violent.
Of course, that wouldn’t fit MSNBC’s agenda….
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Apparently you’ve never seen “The Dirty Dozen.” It turns out that incorrigibles are excellent at fighting bad guys. You just have to get their angst pointed at the enemy.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Armies throughout history have employed the use of convicts in the ranks. Hell, it’s one of the reasons the founders preferred militias over standing armies, and one reason we have the third amendment. It wasn’t unusual for soldiers to be little better than thugs, who were prone to raping the daughters of the hosts, thievery, and all matter of thuggery.
That’s not to say I think our military should use hardened criminals, but it’s not ahistorical.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
ParatrooperJJ:
The felon in possession law may be found in 18 USC 922, subsection g. I don’t find any exemptions or statements of non-applicability in it. Of course, we’d be foolish to expect our lords and masters to obey their own laws.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Gringo – Reference 18 USC 925 section a para 1.
This section contans the exemption.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Well, there you go, just commit a felony and join the government and you are good to go.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The Government has issued weapons to felons in the past since 1934.
WWII comes to mind … as well as several prisons in the deep south that issued prison trustees shotguns.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Criminals and felons should fit right in with those in officialdom who illegally use our military for unconstitutional purposes:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” –Thomas Jeffrson
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
It’s not like the military has any second amendment rights. You are issued a gun, and when they ask for it back you have to do it.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
18usc is irrelevant here anyway; officers, those serving by warrant, or enlisted in the armed forces of the united states of America are governed under military law, as defined by the uniform code of military justice.
Civil law (including criminal law) only applies to those individuals, at the discretion of the chain of command; and 18usc is civil law.
This is a fundamental jurisdictional issue; and the basis for example, for holding military tribunals for unlawful combatants, without benefit of civil rights or civilian council; among other issues.
The fact is, military law, and civilian law are different, until and unless the president, or supreme court say otherwise (the UCMJ specifically recognizes the supreme court, but not lower federal courts).
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Chris – Actually 18 USC does apply UCMJ does not prohibit soldiers from posessing weapons with a domestic violence conviction, but 18 USC does.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
And here I am being turned down because I am too old. I should have commited a felony if I wanted to get in.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
JJ 18USC only applies if higher allows it to apply, or if the supreme court says so.
Now, if command says it does, fine; but it is a discretionary judgement on the part of command, not a legal requirement.
It is CUSTOMARY for commands to cede jurisdiction on most civil and criminal cases involving non-military jurisdictions and the general public; but it isn’t required.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I believe you’re full of shit Chris – you can be tried and convicted under both codes. They might not be able to come and get you when they want if your busy in the sand box after you punched your girlfriends face in before movement, but you can be tried absentia.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Look it up HC. There have been lots of cases over the years where civilian authorities wanted to prosecute service members, but their command authority did not allow it.
As I said, it is CUSTOMARY to cede jurisdiction, but not required. Any trial would be invalid due to jurisdictional defect; again, unless the supreme court said otherwise.
If this were not the case, for example soldiers could, in theory, be extradited for murder in the performance of their duties, by civilian courts in other countries; and have those extradition orders enforced by civil authorities in the U.S. (because treaty obligations would require U.S. courts to do so). Civilian courts do not have such jurisdiction, unless that jurisdiction is VOLUNTARILY ceded to them by command, or by the orders of the supreme court.
This in fact was one of the major objections the U.S. had to the international criminal court; and ultimately why we refuse to assent to membership, or jurisdiction.
In another example, environmentalist and otherwise anti-military judges in California have attempted to order the army, marine corps, air force, and navy to halt training activities in several different military reservations.
In each case, these orders were ignored; and no crime was committed, nor prosecuted; because the orders were invalid on their face due to jurisdictional defect. The orders were all later vacated by higher courts at the request of either the JAG or the solicitor generals office depending on the level of court involved.
If you don’t believe me, there are literally hundreds of articles written on the subject. A cursory search should find several.