My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Felony Record

Brent Heilman

Premium Member
I hate to jump back into this but the above points one thing out about a felony. The part "term in state or federal prison" is in the definition and any thing that you are convicted of that takes place in a Fedral building or Fedral park can send you to a fedral prison for as little as a week. If you are a CHL holder and go into the earl campbell federal building downtown dallas and forget you have your gun in your briefcase you have a chance depending on the judge and jury of going to a minimum security prision for a week and it is called a Felony. And don't try to minimize what I have said by your disbelief go and do a lexisnexis search (will cost you money). The prosecutor will have to prove intent by the CHL holder to get a conviction but I beleive your search will come up with some hits.

I am not saying I don't believe you and I also know that sometimes people do make honest mistakes, like in your scenario. I know that as a concealed carry license holder I have left my gun in the car when I have come into work (I work on a military installation). Luckily my guns are all registered with the Provost Marshall and I can bring them on post though, but I try to remember to leave my handgun at home. Again my feelings on this all go back to what the Grand Lodge says and that is no felons. I know that there are people out there that would be a great addition to any Lodge, but the rules are the rules and I have to uphold them.

I also feel that once we start letting people in (read felons) we are opening a can of worms that we don't want. Once we let in a felon what will come next? We will start letting in atheists because they are good people? What about women? Once you make the exception for one group you have set a precedent for allowing another. Once again I say we, as Masons, are bound to uphold the laws, rules, regulations, and edicts of our respective Grand Lodges and to the best of my knowledge there is no "wiggle room" to make exceptions. I know that there are people that would benefit from our Fraternity and it from them that don't meet the requisite qualifications and as such I cannot let them in. I know of people that I would love to have sit beside me in Lodge but knowing about their past would keep me from even giving them a petition. In the end what it all boils down to is what the Grand Lodge says about felons. If at some point in the future something is amended to where in the case of felons it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis then I will support it, but until that happens I can't. I can also tell you about people that were never convicted of a felony and only a misdemeanor that also can show you why some that have had a run-in or two with the law should have extra scrutiny.

JMHO and YMMV
 

Brent Heilman

Premium Member
I will ask my cousin sometime about the whole felony thing and how it plays out in a court of law. What can constitute a felony and so on and so forth. He is a lawyer somewhere there in Texas (Austin I think).
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
I will ask my cousin sometime about the whole felony thing and how it plays out in a court of law. What can constitute a felony and so on and so forth. He is a lawyer somewhere there in Texas (Austin I think).


I welcome you asking these questions of you cousin. The main thing I (personaly) was hoping to get out of this discussion is why does anyone let a single defined term make a judgment for them. If a person is not of the right stuff to be apart of masonary it will showup in more places than a single term. I am very woried about the "UN Small Arms Treaty" and how it will be implemented. It will be Federal it is just about registering guns but it smacks of matching those laws that become a felony. Every one needs to resurch how misdemeanor are treated by the Federal Gov. and who charges misdemeanor. State vs Fed. It looks

Look at this Wikipedia information. So far I have not found anyother un-copyrighted source to post. Copyright is can be a Fed. felony.
Misdemeanor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable with incarceration for one year or less to be a misdemeanor.[SUP][1][/SUP] All other crimes are considered felonies[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. Many states also employ this distinction[SUP][citation needed][/SUP].
A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, and a felony one of high seriousness[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. A principal of the rationale for the degree punishment meted out is that the punishment should fit the crime.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] One standard for measurement is the degree to which a crime affects others or society. Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed.[SUP][5][/SUP]
The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors has been abolished by several common law jurisdictions[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] (e.g. Australia[SUP][6][/SUP]). These jurisdictions have generally adopted some other classification: in the Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the crimes are divided into summary offences and indictable offences[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. The Republic of Ireland, a former member of the Commonwealth, also uses these divisions[SUP][citation needed][/SUP].


Things are so blured to me it is still makes since to me we need to use our minds and not a word to judge. And I know it is the rule but the discustion should continue.
 

M.Prejean

Registered User
In my opinion, to live up to our obligations, we must follow the Law. But that's not enough. We are here to build a magnificent edifice. We should pursue perfection through improvement. Follow the law, but never stop questioning it.

I think we're on the right track, brothers!
 

California Master

Registered User
What ever state I live in and I knew an applicate was a Felon(whatever definition you what to use) I would object and or "black ball" him.

I agree with you, my brother. I know that we are both residing in California, but, I was raised in South Houston, Texas. It would not matter to me if I lived anywhere else. No felons in Masonry.....period. I agree with California's application containing the background check. We're not hiding anything from the applicant. He knows that we are going to look into his history. If he has skeletins, maybe he won't complete the application.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
I agree with you, my brother. I know that we are both residing in California, but, I was raised in South Houston, Texas. It would not matter to me if I lived anywhere else. No felons in Masonry.....period. I agree with California's application containing the background check. We're not hiding anything from the applicant. He knows that we are going to look into his history. If he has skeletins, maybe he won't complete the application.

I agree that what you have said is what should happen now because it is the rule. If you read Morals and Dogma and replace your thinking of the word felony with a symbol and symbol as an idea. What does the felony really mean? You have to look at the meaning that you have for felony not the word. What does the word lucifer mean to you. It ment the morning star (venous) or linlitenment to Pike. So because Pike used that word in his work is it your meaning. Me I would like to understand what the goverment that put the stamp of felony on someone really meant by that word.

I have been trying to tell someone for 6 months since asked to be made a Mason what the word lucifer in Pikes work meant. I also have had the discustion about the translation of the word Love from the four words in Greek. Every word we use has a meaning to us and a different meaning to others.

If you look at the Penal code of Colorado and Texas the deffition of Felony just a tiny bit different. I think some one with a class A misdemeanor in California for possession should be black balled but that is not a felony there and it is here.

In conclustion it is the offence and not the word that should cause the black ball.
 

Michaelstedman81

Premium Member
In conclustion it is the offence and not the word that should cause the black ball.

I have been watching this thread for a little bit now, and even tried to chime in once, but internet lost signal and wasn't able to post. What you said here was right along the lines of what I was thinking and trying to post the other day, so I figure I can try to paraphrase what I had on the screen before I lost it all. As a "disclaimer" of sorts, what I am about to say is not what I believe, promote, nor is it a suggestion. I seeing both sides of the fence and figured I would put something out as "food for thought". So, me saying this is just for stimulus of conversation, and not my stance on the felony issue. Lol, might take a min, but bear with me lol.

What if there was a committee appointed by the GLoT to research civilian laws and come up with something in particular to add to our Masonic laws regarding not just felonies, but crimes in general when it comes to admission and membership? If our laws stated specific crimes instead of using the term "felony" or the whole "moral turptitude", how would everyone feel about that? The reason I thought about this, is because there have been several posts from Brothers who know someone that cannot become a member because he has been CONVICTED of a felony in their past. I fall into the same category of some that know a man or two that Masonry would benefit from, but our Fraternity will not ever benefit from what they have to offer because of the canvassing term "felony".

There have even been a couple of Brothers that have readily admitted on here that they have committed felony crimes and either didn't get caught, or because of legal counsel or some other factor, they were not convicted of the felony crime that they were charged with orginally. Charges get dismissed. Charges get lowered. While I do go with the current law that does not allow fellons into Texas Masonry, I do feel a bit bad for someone that maybe have been in the wrong place at the wrong time years and years ago, and is now totally prohibited from joining the Fraternity. And I do not mean the typical "wrong place at the wrong time" cry of being innocent that a lot of guilty parties tend to use, but I mean the fact that they did make a bad decision/choice and unfortunately were caught doing it. I do believe that the majority of us on here have broken laws, and I do imagine that there are a lot of Brothers on here that have actually committed a felony crime. Getting caught and charged for them is the difference.

The point to my thought is possibly having the GL laws state that specific felony crimes prohibit membership into Masonry. Alongside that, specific misdemeanors.... The Masonic laws can set a standard format of what is acceptable and not acceptable. Instead of just the word felony, and people looking for the word "conviction", and could eliminate a lot of confusion or disgruntledness from people that really believe their buddy would be great for Masonry AND "yea, it was a felony but it wasn't anything bad". For example, guy that is convicted of Manslaughter ten years ago cannot be admitted, but someone that was convicted twenty five years ago for Possession of a Controlled Substance can. Obviously, in the formation of the laws regarding all this, they can set certain criteria regarding the length of time after the conviction/debt to society was paid, and any other kind of factors. Basically, this could maybe prevent denying Masonry the good that can be contributed by the guy that happened to be 18 years old going to a party with friends and had some dope on him twenty-five years ago, while at the same time keeping one of those real "high crimes" out.

The same can be done with misdemeanors. I mean, you have to admit that there are misdemeanor crimes that are just traumatizing or bad to the community or the victims. So, for an example of this, a man convicted a couple times of Assualt Causing Serious Bodily Injury cannot get in, but someone that plead no contest ten years ago to Theft By Check < $50 can. Sure, everyone has thier circumstances and what they believe happened. But having a set standard instead of a vague and all encompassing terminology could prevent some hard feelings down the road for some. Sure, it may take up an extra page or two in our law books, and it may take a committee a while to investigate things and get all the "legalise" worked out, but there are only a specific number of laws in the Texas Penal Code and it could get worked out.

Now, as for my stance... I think that guarding our gates and upholding the GL laws is important. At this time, I do think that it is better to prevent convicted felons from being admitted. Whether it is to protect the "image", security, or physical safety of the Fraternity and its members. Like I said, my above statements are just merely for discussion and it does not reflect my stance on this. I do feel bad for some men that did make a mistake in their past that prevents them from getting in (because I love this organization and what it has done for me, and I am a sally like that lol), but nobody in Masonry put them in the position to be charged, and subsequently, convicted of a felony.

So, I guess my question is this: If the GLoT (or any other GL for you Brothers that are lost and haven't found your way back to the best state in the Union yet lol) started working something like this to put into the law books, or it was finalized and done, how would you feel about it? Some of you speak pretty gung-ho on not letting in ANY felons. Would something like this help build a bridge between you and the Brothers that believe some men make mistakes and learn from their lessons? Like I said, just for conversation and not what I believe to be the right choice.
 

rmcgehee

Registered User
I do not mean this to sound cold or harsh but we are NOT meant to rehabilitate.
History is important,it does not ALWAYS repeat itself but it does often.
Do we take that chance?
IBO we do not.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I think that part of the issue is how we are viewed by the profane. For us to accept, say, a minor hot-check writer who is known as such in the community cannot elevate our reputation as a fraternity. For us to accept convicted felons known to be such would be even worse. I think protecting the reputation of Freemasonry should be one of our primary concerns. But that's just me. :wink:
 

scialytic

Premium Member
This is a very interesting discussion. Bro. Steadman, you mentioned timeframes as part of the determining factor. Is that written into the Texas Masonic Law?

I would be interested to know if there are any exceptions. It would be neat if there was a way that if the WM of the petitioned Lodge could put forward an exception to a GL committee to review extremely rare exceptions based on the charge, length of time and whether the individual was truly reformed.

Imagine if Chuck Colson petitioned your Lodge. He is a felon. Would you really deny him the honor of joining the Fraternity? (That's if he wasn't a Brother...I have no idea.) I'm assuming the answer is going to be "yes we would deny him...the Law is the Law," but I thought I'd throw out this far-fetched hypothetical situation anyway.
 
Last edited:
T

T.N. Sampson

Guest
On the outside looking in: If the primary focus is on the candidate's internal qualifications, shouldn't his run-ins with the law be evaluated on that basis? Put another way, how does the crime testify to those qualifications? It's a more subjective basis than black-letter GL law, but not without merit. Cordially, Skip.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
I have been arguing this thread for a selfish reasion. This has been practice for me and to make me learn and sstretch. I am in a regulatory postion with my company now after being in an IT and technical roll for 29 years. The roll I am in has me signing to attest that my people are following all the rules and regs. even if they hid it form me, I should have sean it. This is worrisome because it is my head and not theirs in this world where everyone is out to beat down large companies.

Also after doing all the reasurch on this that I did I do believe that State, Federal and International very so much the GL should have guidelines and not a strict rule. I hope everyone understands I think that Masons should have the highest moral stance on all subjects.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Imagine if Chuck Colson petitioned your Lodge. He is a felon. Would you really deny him the honor of joining the Fraternity? (That's if he wasn't a Brother...I have no idea.) I'm assuming the answer is going to be "yes we would deny him...the Law is the Law," but I thought I'd throw out this far-fetched hypothetical situation anyway.

Your to young to know who Chuck Colson is or is that an old picture. I also agree with you and words do have meanings and they are deferent for everyone.
 

scialytic

Premium Member
Your to young to know who Chuck Colson is or is that an old picture. I also agree with you and words do have meanings and they are deferent for everyone.

You flatter me! He was an amazing man. What a story. And that is a pretty recent photo.

Skip, the law is the law until it is changed. Those are rules that I will soon be abiding by in my Masonic pursuits. As a Christian I agree with you regarding internal qualifications of a man, but this organization is not the same as a Church that preaches Salvation. "Making good men better" requires a definition of "good" and that is a portion of how it has been defined.

The problem is that man's decision can be too strict in one Lodge and at another Lodge it could be too lenient. Thus, the broad stoke of the law which blots out the few exceptions. It's unfortunate, and rigid, but it's uniform..
 

Plustax

Registered User
I understand all that has been covered in this thread, but here is my dilema(sp?). IF say around 13yrs ago I had been caught with a few joints of Marijuana, that would have been a felony and I would have never been able to become a Mason.... PERIOD (according to GLoT today anyway). However, IF my son (30+yrs old) were to have been caught with Marijuana a year or 2 ago, then he would have no problem becoming a Mason as it's no longer considered a Felon. Why or how is that fair or right with elegibility requirements for becoming a Mason? Why aren't issues such as that checked on a "case by case" basis? According to GLoT, there is no "case by case" basis check, it's all treated the same.... NO. I was there last year when this resolution was passed at GLoT and although of course we must all abide by it, I personally don't agree with it. Another brother and I personally talked afterwards with the GM and he wouldn't budge and stood by it 100% (even after we presented the particular scenario above). I do feel that it is unfair in that particular instance that I just mentioned and I'm sure that has been the case or IS the case for many wanting to become Masons and because of that particular scenario, that person will NEVER be a Mason. The reason we came up with that scenario is that my brother in my lodge is a Criminal Investigator by profession (also retired Police Officer) and does background investigations for our (and a couple of other) districts. It makes perfect sense to me and is a very hard pill to swallow, but one that we all must do at this present time. So........ the good thing is that the example I gave is just that... an example, because my son and I are both Masons and had no problems becoming Masons. LOL
 

Cgrobin

Registered User
The law stands that no convicted felon can be made a Mason. However, discussion has turned toward whether this law should be modified.

I agree with the law as it is our goal to make good men better. Regardless of circumstances, a felony is not typically something to be taken lightly in any case. Any felony conviction can cause the loss of a variety of freedoms for life to that individual, since unless the conviction is somehow overturned, they will always carry the title "convicted felon." This is not to say that mistakes made at one period of life cannot teach lessons that can change that individual for the better. This is why I feel that we should always be willing to forgive those who are deserving, and not judge people based on mistakes that we could just have easily made. However, this in on a personal level as many of our decisions cause a lifetime of repercussions.

Freemasonry should never be "watered down" for any reason! While I am not discounting the fact a felon could very well make an outstanding Mason, to allow it would need to be done with the utmost caution. The standards needing to be in place would be highly complicated at best, otherwise abuse would be likely. While it may not be a popular statement, there are Masons who do not adhere to the morals we try so hard to teach. While it is certainly not the norm, I still read of Lodges who have turned Freemasonry into a way to benefit themselves, financially and otherwise. If a Lodge decides they are more interested in having people pay dues than the man that pays them, a wealth of problems would ensue.

If standards are not in place at the GL level, those standards will certainly change from one Lodge to another. A man could be made a Mason in a Lodge with very loose standards, and then move to an area that has a more strict interpretation. Not only could those members feel animosity to a man they may not believe should be a Mason, but that brother could face a lifetime of explaining himself and defending his place. Neither situation would be very conducive to Peace and Harmony.

I believe the law is in place as the simplest response to the question. Any changes that may allow otherwise will not only take time, but careful consideration.

Respectfully,
-Chris
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
You wrote the word "fair" and this is what I say to that "fair is always unfair to someone" now if it is about facts then I will say THC acts deferent on the brain than alcohol and I would still think I don't want to be areound any one that is on THC because they are slothful in my mind and if they are a part of my lodge. I wll choose not be around them ever and this has nothing to do with a felony it has to do with judgment and what I have sean in my 53 years on this earth.
 

scialytic

Premium Member
Back to an earlier point: Should the "felony" be in the current frame-of-reference (i.e. I got busted with 2 joints 20 years ago which was a felony then, but current law deems it as a misdermeanor), or historical (i.e. you had a felony regardless)?

That is a great point that was brought up and very valid in my opinion. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
T

T.N. Sampson

Guest
Skip, the law is the law until it is changed. Those are rules that I will soon be abiding by in my Masonic pursuits. As a Christian I agree with you regarding internal qualifications of a man, but this organization is not the same as a Church that preaches Salvation. "Making good men better" requires a definition of "good" and that is a portion of how it has been defined.
I did a bit of research on the topic of internal qualifications. The Masonic Dictionary quotes Mackey in defining the internal and external qualifications of a candidate:

Every candidate for initiation into the mysteries of Freemasonry must be qualified by certain essential conditions. These qualifications are of two kinds, Internal and External. The internal qualifications are those which lie within his own bosom, the external are those which refer to his outward and apparent fitness. The external qualifications are again divided into Moral, Religious, Physical, Mental, and Political.
First. The Internal Qualifications are:
  1. The applicant must come of his own free will and Accord. His application must be purely voluntary, to which he has not been induced by persuasion of friends.
  2. He must not be influenced by mercenary motives.
  3. He must be prompted to make the application in Consequence of a favorable opinion that he entertains of the Institutions.
  4. He must be resolved to conform with cheerfulness to the established usages and customs of the Fraternity.

Second- The External Qualifications are, as has already been said, divided into five kinds:

  1. Moral. That candidate only is qualified for initiation who faithfully observes the precepts of the moral law, and leads a virtuous life, so conducting himself as to receive the reward of his own conscience as well as the respect and approbation of the world.
  2. Religious. Freemasonry is exceedingly tolerant in respect to creeds, but it does require that every candidate for initiation shall believe in the existence of God as a superintending and protecting power, and in a future life. No inquiry will be made into modifications of religious belief, provided it includes these two tenets.
  3. Physicals These refer to sex, age, and bodily conformation. The candidate must be a man, not a woman; of mature age, that is, having arrived at his majority, and not so old as to have sunk into dotage; and he must be in possession of all his limbs, not maimed or dismembered, but, to use the language of one of the old Charges, "have his right limbs as a man ought to have."
  4. Mental. This division excludes all men who are not intellectually qualified to comprehend the character of the Institution, and to partake of its responsibilities. Hence fools or idiots and madmen are excluded. Although the landmarks do not make illiteracy a disqualification, and although it is undeniable that a large portion of the Craft in olden times was uneducated, yet there seems to be a general opinion that an incapacity to read and write will, in this day, disqualify a candidate.
  5. Political. These relate to the condition of the candidate in society. The old rule required that none but those who were free born could be initiated, which, of course, excluded slaves and those born in servitude; and although the Grand Lodge of England substituted free man for free born, it is undeniable that that action was the change of a landmark- and the old rule still exists at least in the United States.
Most of point 5 is no longer valid, of course, but if the rest indeed reflects today's Masonry, then there is little objectivity to the internal qualifications. As the Freemason's Compendium states it:
The knowledge of these can only be obtained from his own statements, and hence they are included in the preliminary questions which are proposed before initiation.
My thinking in raising the point about internal qualifications was dependent upon them being a subjective determination, with the local lodge being best able to make that determination; however, that is apparently not the case. It seems that the internal rests upon the candidate's word, while the external looks into his previous actions. It is in the latter area that the various GL's have passed certain judgments on what constitutes a 'virtuous life,' or, as you have indicated, how 'good' is defined. Uniformity, while generally a good thing, can also become a straight-jacket, but that is perhaps a price worth paying.

By way of topic expansion, it would be an interesting to examine how the various GL's treat alcohol sales by candidates and members, as such matters fit directly into this discussion. Cordially, Skip.
 
Top