Convicted felons owning guns

If "convicted felon" meant "violent criminal" then I'd say, no, that's a right they forfeit and for good reason.

But "convicted felon" does not mean that, any more. It can mean many crimes that people don't even know are felonies, or don't even know are illegal.

When "convicted felon" means some amateur gardener who had an orchid that's protected in a foreign country, with no intent to do anything wrong, or a college kid bringing fireworks into Arizona for a party, then I have to say, "Usually, yes. There's no reason that convicted felons should be deprived of RKBA." Murderers, sure, but that's not what "felon" means any more.

Loss of RKBA should be based on more granular criteria than "convicted felon" now that it includes crimes that are less severe than running a stop sign.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson

Seems pretty simple to me.

Once a criminal has paid his debt to society, ALL his rights should be restored.

Our freedom is worth the risk.

If they kill someone in the commission of a crime, the penalty should be death. They should not get a second or third chance.

If they are bent on doing violent crime, they will get guns illegally anyway.

But, if they want to hunt or protect their residence, they should be legally allowed to do so.

It's an interesting question, and my opinion is a little more complicated than a "yes/no" answer. Obviously when we punish offenders, they forfeit many of their rights (including firearms ownership). We also know that when many violent criminals get out of jail, they often commit more crimes. The prison system is not very good at reforming hardened criminals, it just teaches them more tools of the trade.

However, I also believe on principle that once someone has paid their dues to society their rights should be restored. There I'd propose a probationary period - the length of which would depend on the crime and the person's history - where a convicted felon would have to be crime-free and otherwise show good behavior (i.e. no gang activities). The person would then be able to have firearm rights restored. This probationary period could be short or it could be ten years if necessary.

I did not vote because I feel there are options in the poll. I like others believe non violent offenders should not be barred from ownership of firearms. Violent felons I would view differently. I know many people that are convicted felons. Most of which are for non violent crimes. These people work & take care of their responsibilities. That said I do believe there is a process one can go through to get their full rights restored.

Well it has only been the law since 1968.

Lets pretend freedom or the rights of an American don't matter for a moment and view it just as a statistical question. Has crime gone up or down since 1968? Is there more or less violent crime. Is the recidivism rate higher or lower?
It would seem things have become worse in every category.
So statistically it seems to not help.


Now back to the whole rights issue.
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson
Allowing free men to be branded with different rights allows the citizenry to be divided and conquered very easily.

If I am caught with a handgun[or any gun] in NYC I am, according to local corrupt politicians, a "felon" and to be forever denied my rights under the US constitution. But the same act is legal here. So are my constitutional rights at the whim of what ever a state hack calls a "felony"?

Click to expand...

Exactly. You can be divided and conquered, and politicians, tyrants, or anyone else can choose which rights you continue to possess, and which actions remove rights.
They can make various petty or normal activities crimes (as is already the case for numerous laws), and then enforce them at thier discretion, like they do in many third world nations.
At which point they cease to be rights at all, and are merely whimsical privileges. To be granted or taken at will.

Some states even remove the right for misdemeanors.
Maybe traffic violations will remove the 'right' in the future. Wouldn't want people that can't even be responsible with a vehicle to be trusted with a firearm after all.
Maybe a clean driving record for the last x number of years should become a requirement for purchase.


Can you imagine what all those people that fought and died for "unalienable" rights would think if they knew all of what they fought for would become entirely "alienable". Thier deaths were merely for fleeting principles. Rights squandered by thier descendants.

Can you imagine what all those people that fought and died for "unalienable" rights would think if they knew all of what they fought for would become entirely "alienable". Thier deaths were merely for fleeting principles. Rights squandered by thier descendants.

Click to expand...

You sir, are totally correct!

This country, as great as it is, is foundering terribly, we will hang the guy accused of running a red light on the 3rd. day of the 4th. month, but will let a pedophile, mass murder, rapist or other true criminal out of prison, or worse yet, this criminal will not even go to jail.

And remember...Laws do not apply to the true criminal! Laws just keep honest people honest...for the most part.

I would have no problem with non violent felons possessing firearms.

I've always thought that banning firearms to felons was a way for the government to take away our guns. Just pass laws that makes for more felony arrest's, and there you go.

LoEx said, "Keep in mind that your legislators are actually quite busy at work. Every year there's a dozen new ways to become a non-violent felon. The fact of the matter is that the federal government has lost track of the number of laws that it has produced, and they continue to make more."

Which was exactly what I was trying to say.


Like others have said what if you just had a bad lawyer, etc. There go your gun rights FOREVER!!!

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

Except that didn't include slaves, because they weren't free - it was not talking about criminals

it was not talking about criminals

Click to expand...

It certainly was, because criminals were either executed, or regained all of thier rights upon completion of thier sentence.

Happy for non-violent felons to regain their rights once released from prison but support a case-by-case ban for violent felons.

....

....lets not even mention the loss of your firearms if you are only ACCUSED of DV.....and the terms of Domestic Violence are often decided by the individual officer. I took possession of several collections for owners going through divorce. Thats when they decided on annual maintenance...lol


Chuck

---So many posts are emphasizing my point - we have a lot of judgmental, self-righteous people quick to judge others and impose ridiculously harsh penalties for what in many cases are truly minor transgressions. It's especially sad because we have sent our men in uniform overseas to fight people with the same mindset in the Middle East - you know, the folks that stone women on the mere accusation of adultery, make them wear burkas, kill for possessing the bible, issue death edicts against dissenters...anything ringing a bell here? I'm saddened to see so many fellow THR members possess the same mentality that made minor transgressions into felonies and has, IMHO, unnecessarily and wrongfully disarmed normal, non-violent people - your neighbors, friends, relatives....

What they claim passes for "common sense" has completely disregarded the real common sense approaches of humanity, like "judge not, lest ye be so judged" and "there but for the grace of God go I." They're entitled to their opinion, but it sure runs contrary to the concept of American freedom I learned...and I'm no under-educated spring chicken, either.

I think a distinction should be made between violent and non-violent felons. I definitely think that violent felons should be restricted from owning guns.

Voted YES to non-violent felons owning guns (eg check fraud or too much weed for "personal use")

Would vote NO on violent felonies (eg assault, attempted murder, etc...)

A very bizarre thread, to be sure, but let's look at a few things:

A person who steals cable tv and gets caught is a "felon." (Now, NONE of us have ever done that have we?)

An 18 year old kid gets caught having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and is now a "felon." (NONE of us ever did that either, did we?) (Not to mention the fact that he is now a "registed sex offender.")

A guy gets a new car, and decides to "open it up" on a deserted back road, but gets caught going more than 20 mph over the posted speed limit and is now a "felon" (at least in Arizona). (Certainly NONE of us have ever done that for sure.)

For that matter you go to the range and your AR-15 has a trigger pin F/A malfunction in front of some really overzealous ATF agent, and now YOU are the "felon."

I could go on, but I really haven't said anything that hasn't already been said in this thread. I was more or less aiming this at the "all or nothing" posters who believe that a felony is a felony is a felony.

All felonies originally carried the death penalty. That was sometimes relaxed to "transportation" to Virginia or later on Australia. As the penal system became less abusive the condemned would sometimes be sent to hard labor which would almost certainly end with their premature death. The issue of convicted felons being freed evolved gradually, and comes with the idea that they only have what rights the state decides to give them. Once you've been convicted of a felony you're no longer a true citizen or even a full human in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately due to "felony creep" and the war on *some* drugs, there are a lot of people with this brand on them walking around who really haven't done anything that bad. In some cases they've served almost no time, they just took the low-level felony on advice of council to avoid hard time. But the effect on their post-incarceration rights is the same whether they're convicted of owning a certain amount of pot or convicted of murdering fifty children.

I think the solution is to rationalize the penal codes and return felonies to their original sphere--treason, murder, etc.

It's a sad commentary on our "justice system" that stealing cable tv (which I used in my previous post as an example of a capricious felony) actually has more severe penalties than murder, in many cases.

Your poll choices are rather limited but, yes, convicted felons should be allowed to own firearms IF their rights are re-established. The definition of a felony covers far too much ground these days for such a blanket regulation stand for all felons.

We are lucky they don't take away our gun rights for traffic violations. If they could they would. I have A friend who is A felon for poaching A gator when he was A kid. Why should someone lose their rights for life for that?

Because for every poacher that is caught, there are dozens that don't. I NEVER hesitate to report poaching.

A felony is a crime for which you may be imprisoned for more than one year. Find me any case anywhere that someone actually got a felony conviction for stealing cable.

I will pose the question again this way: How many of the felons being released from prison right now are you ready to have carrying guns?

Just because they are being released doesn't mean they are ready. And if they shouldn't be released until they are ready, should this not be remedied BEFORE we say they are ready to have all their rights back?

There is a process in place that convicted felons can pursue to try and get their right to own a firearm back.

mljdeckard said:

Because for every poacher that is caught, there are dozens that don't. I NEVER hesitate to report poaching.

A felony is a crime for which you may be imprisoned for more than one year. Find me any case anywhere that someone actually got a felony conviction for stealing cable.

I will pose the question again this way: How many of the felons being released from prison right now are you ready to have carrying guns?

Just because they are being released doesn't mean they are ready. And if they shouldn't be released until they are ready, should this not be remedied BEFORE we say they are ready to have all their rights back?

Click to expand...

Poaching: Hunting, as man has done for the past several thousand years, which the government has declared to be unlawful in the last hundred years.

There only needs to be one law regarding hunting: You kill it - you eat it.

Non violent offenders, maybe. If you did a white collar crime maybe. But assault or robbery, no way. You can't take the chance that a violent person with a gun, is somehow safe because they served a year or two in jail. Drug dealers or predicate felons, no way. This becomes an exercise in futility, it won't happen because no one is going to take responsibility to monitor millions of criminals and decide which ones can have a gun. You basically "blew it" when if commited a felonius act, you cannot expect the govt. which is changing every 4 years to put someone in charge of the potentially explosive scenario when one of them screws up and shoots someone. That would set us back ten years, and everyone would suffer because of it.

How many of the felons being released from prison right now are you ready to have carrying guns?

Click to expand...

As was provided as an example earlier - Martha Stewart.