You make the call

[accidentalfelon]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

[The_Outlaw]

"He went berserk and murdered someone"? NOT GOOD.
"He tried to 'hide the body' and fled"? NOT GOOD.
He probably should not be carrying a sidearm and he should also face a judge and jury for his crimes.
If he is not found guilty, then 'maybe' he can be allowed to bear arms again.
Just my .02 cents.

[The_Outlaw]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it. Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.
Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.
1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?
2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

There is no statute of limitations for murder.

[Deserteagle]

Stop trolling and posting stupid things like this.

[Bighouse Doc]

Another idiotic troll!

Is this hotti or pustic?

-Doc

[Rich_S]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

Is this more of your sordid tale in Chicago? Why is is that every time we discuss law and disqualifiers in a class it's always "this guy I know has X on his record".......

[NCIC105]

1. He should not have run. That just made him appear to be guilty.
2. He will face a jury, and they should make all other decisions.

[Firefighterchen]

Needs to serve his sentence for murder. After he spends his time, he can fight for his rights back.

[Caribou]

I will answer your questions in reverse order.

2- The weapon has nothing to do with his being arrested. An outstanding warrant for murder requires the arrest of an individual. I would suggest that having a gun on his hip might marginally reduce his chances of surviving an arrest.

1- It is ultimately the jury that would decide. I know of no State that would issue a permit to someone under inditement. To be legal it would have to be in a State where it was legal to open carry without a permit. I might also suggest that being arrested for murder while carrying a gun might not be seen favorably by a jury. I can see the prosecutors closing statement including something like, "he wants us to believe he is a changed man. Yet, when he was arrested he was carrying a gun, ready to kill in an instant."

Interesting post, especially by someone called accidentalfelon.

[BC1]

A young citizen kills a man. He was enraged when he saw one man beating the crap out of another guy so he went berzerk and murdered the guy. He hides the body hoping to get away with it.

Eventually it is found out and the citizen hides out for years. A warrantis put out for his arrest for murder. He never goes to court. He skips out and doesn't return for justice to be served.

Many years later he returns a totally different man than the hot headed young man who left. He's grown up and matured and is no longer a danger. He hasn't even had so much as a citation since he left.

1) Should a man like this be allowed to bear arms?

2) Should he be arrested upon arrival when he arrives back in town with hisweapon carried openly?

Is this a joke? I don't believe anyone who commits a violent murder can ever be trusted free in society again. I've seen too many re-offend.

Absoltely no firearms for those who commit a violent murder. Considering there is no statute of limitations for murder he needs to be locked up forever. If sentenced to life there is no longer a question on firearms ownership.