Convicted Felon Tests Second Amendment

[bensdad]

mljdeckard,
I agree with you about Stewart and Clinton, but let's not muddy the waters. Having a law license and being on a board are not constitutional rights. I don't think people should ever get a driver's license again after a second or third DWI, but driving is not protected by the const. Having a gun is. Once you serve your time and have been deemed safe to society, strap on the iron. Until that time? Sit in jail and contemplate the error of your ways.

 

[wideym]

Revolving door prisons have made a mockery of our legal system. Parole is supposed to used on inmates who have shown they are trusted enough to be allowed back into society, not to make room for the newest mutt in the pound. Prisons are make to punish and rehabilitate, not just to keep criminals off the streets for a few years while they hone their skills and gain "street cred". We need to stop accepting plea deals for lesser offences and start making thugs do real time. Enough that they can collect Social Security when they get out, not pick up where they left off a couple of years before.

 

[Coolmojo]

Its always amazing to hear gun rights advocates come out for taking away gun rights because of a felony.

You use a common sense argument against gun control advocates every day that is no less valid in this situation.

Those felons that intend to commit a crime again, are not gonna say "G I was gonna murder somebody but I guess I can't buy a gun to do it" Those felons that wish to straighten out their lives are the only ones that will adhere to the law, making this form of gun control just as ineffective as ALL gun control.

 

[db_tanker]

This has to be one of the slipperiest of slopes...

When is a criminal NOT a criminal anymore?


When he gets out of jail? Not hardly...at least not in my opinion...

Perhaps after a bit of time and a show of proof that he has reinserted himself into a productive society and not associating himself with the various rif-raff that parades about doing harm upon others? Maybe...

I honestly feel that a person should be able to, at an appropriate time, be able to petition a judge to reinstate his rights. He has to fill out the proper forms and even pay the proper filling fees. This should go hand in hand with his voting and even his military service rights, IMO. IIRC you can't be in the military if you have been convicted of a felony unless ordered to by a judge...or is that even possible anymore?

Regardless, the application, so to speak, shall be checked out by an officer of the court to the best of their abilities, and then contact shall be made for the next court date with the applicant for judgment.

The extra fee's could help out with the court systems IMO and there are people, GOOD people, out there who would be willing to go through that.

 

[GrendelPrime]

Punishment to fit the crime

While I fall predominantly in the free-is-free camp, the type of conviction should be taken into account.
I have 0 sympathy for the chronic DUI offender having his license revoked,
for the rapist being registered as a sex offender,
for the American Idol loser never singing the National Anthem in public.

If a criminal uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, he has demonstrated his inability to be trusted with the RKBA.

What worries me is that a law-abiding, freedom-loving, gun-toting individual could defend their life/family/home, and be convicted on a technicality, stripping him/her of their future ability to do so (legally).

 

[DrLaw]

Felon = loss of rights

Or at least it should. A felony is a crime considered to be so bad that it becomes punishable by prison. Any person who commits a felony does it "knowingly" under the law. Those who do things knowingly, know right from wrong.

Knowing that, they should also know that they can never have a gun again.

They give up that right by committing a felony. Bottom line, end of story. No mercy, no mas.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Too dangerous to own a gun = too dangerous to be on the streets. If he's safe enough to release, he's safe enough to have a gun.

Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Byron Quick]

Too dangerous to own a gun = too dangerous to be on the streets.

It's a shame that the person he shot at age 19 didn't solve the matter by blowing him to hell...he could own a gun when he gets out of there.

They give up that right by committing a felony. Bottom line, end of story. No mercy, no mas.

So you agree with the federal courts that the man who was convicted of having a round of ammo in his vehicle in Mexico should therefore lose his rights to own firearms in the US. After all, a felon is a felon.

Folks, there is a bit of research you might find to be thought provoking-compare the felonies one could commit in 1908 with the felonies one could commit in 2008. Many of the possible felonies of 2008 would not even warrant a citation in 1908-or even a yawn from the legal system. These so-called felonies were not even misdemeanors then, they were not crimes.

A question for the right is right and wrong is wrong advocates who believe a felon chose wrong knowingly and should suffer the consequences: The 2008 felony that was completely legal in 1908...it was right then and is wrong now? If your answer is yes, we have very different views of right and wrong.

If I owned an unregistered machine gun that would be a felony. I agree that doing so would be illegal and a felony. I do not agree that owning that weapon is either wrong or immoral as long as I do not use that weapon to infringe upon the rights of other individuals. Conversely, owning a registered and completely legal machine gun is wrong and immoral if I use that weapon to infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[Dustinthewind]

As I have said before, not all felonies are equal. The Harold Fish case comes to mind. To me he was legally defending himself, to the jury, he committed murder. Transporting your guns in the passenger compartment of your car on your way to the range can be a felony in some locale's. Should you lose the right to own firearms for this? I personally don't think so.

 

[TEDDY]

gun rights

my question?? if you lose you gun rights do you also lose your citizen rights??
if you are not a citizen you cannot vote.under article 13 "regardless of your former sevitude**".so by this you are no longer a citizen. if you are no longer a citizen where do you go??if you buy a gun and live in VT and move to Mass
you could be charged with a felony be cause have an unregistered gun and no license for it.you want a can of worms???an organization sells lottery tickets and you help in Mass if you dont have a permit and pay a tax = to income you are a felon.are you no longer a citizen??-----:banghead:

 

[ctdonath]

Simple possession of a >10-round magazine made after 1994 is a felony in NY.

Think about that before demanding some lose their rights.

 

[Beatnik]

It's a shame that the person he shot at age 19 didn't solve the matter by blowing him to hell...he could own a gun when he gets out of there.

Um... I don't recall anyone stating that the guy he shot wasn't trying to blow Lucky to hell before Lucky shot him.
Did anyone say that this isn't the case?

Second felony: possession of firearms and possession of drugs. Two things a free society wouldn't put someone in jail for, at least not in and of themselves.

If you're so quick to jump on this guy's case and say he should be locked up forever, just stop and think for a second. The circumstances of his getting locked up aren't clear cut.

Besides, locking everyone up for good makes it a lot less necessary for us to go on carrying pistols... doesn't it? And if putting thugs away for life is the answer, what about all those pesky gun nuts who just won't take no for an answer?

Note that I'm not advocating letting murderers run free. I'm advocating always erring on the side of freedom.

 

[H23gsr]

Felon = loss of rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or at least it should. A felony is a crime considered to be so bad that it becomes punishable by prison. Any person who commits a felony does it "knowingly" under the law. Those who do things knowingly, know right from wrong.

Knowing that, they should also know that they can never have a gun again.

They give up that right by committing a felony. Bottom line, end of story. No mercy, no mas.

The Doc is out now.

"All prisoners should have 2 bullets and a gun in jail, it would solve over crowding"

OK! My cousin is in prison. His crime? Having sex with his 16yo girlfriend a month after he turned 18? He is now a felon and registered sex offender the rest of his life. Has been in prison the past 6 years with many more to go. How's that for fair?

 

[rhubarb]

Those felons that wish to straighten out their lives are the only ones that will adhere to the law, making this form of gun control just as ineffective as ALL gun control.

Worth repeating.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ok, when the national recidivism rate for violent felons drops, I will reconsider. But as it stands RIGHT NOW, close to 90% of violent felons will go back to prison after they are released. I THINK, this is a compelling enough reason to not automatically restore the right. When it drops to even 50%, I'll think about it again.

Having said that, IF, hypothetically speaking, I were a cop, and I was in a residence of a former felon for an unrelated matter, and as I turned to leave, I saw that he had a shotgun behind the door, I would probably look the other way. He probably lives in a nasty neighborhood, and needs the protection at least as much as any of the rest of us do. As long as the weapon is in a private place, and not being used to commit a crime, it's not my problem. I would probably use the law selectively and apply it to criminals for whom I had no other significant charge but wanted to get off the street. (Add this to the list of reason I will never be a cop.)

 

[ksnecktieman]

I just have one concern. All of you that are in favor of gun control. Yes I see this as gun control. WHO do you want to decide who can and who can not have a firearm. someone has to draw the lines. Do YOU want the job?

 

[Kentak]

There's no popular, political, or legal support for criminals having RKBA. It's a dead issue, or at least low on the list of priorities.

K

 

[Coolmojo]

Deckard, you've givin the reason that keeping people from owning guns is a bad idea as the reason its a good one.

Those 90% percent that you wish to keep from owning guns wont care at all what the law says so the only ones your keeping them from is the 10% who wont be going back to jail. (to use your statistic)

There is no difference between this type of gun control and any the Brady bunch wants to pass. Laws do not stop those that break the law, only those that wish to be law abiding. No matter what percentage of felons want to improve themselves, its only those, these laws affect.

This is not a problem that can be solved through more Gun Control. Repeat violent offenders should not be on the streets. As long as they are, pass all the control you want, it wont stop them.

 

[AndyC]

Ok, when the national recidivism rate for violent felons drops, I will reconsider. But as it stands RIGHT NOW, close to 90% of violent felons will go back to prison after they are released. I THINK, this is a compelling enough reason to not automatically restore the right. When it drops to even 50%, I'll think about it again.

Interesting point, which makes me wonder why, assuming you're accurate, the recidivism rate is so high.

I'm highly anti-criminal but can't help but imagine it from a felon's perspective - the way society treats released felons, are we not forcing a lot of them back into a life of crime because we don't allow them to make it any other way? Let's say you passed a bad check once (or something very minor, whatever) and are now a released felon - what job-opportunities can you get?

I can imagine I'd have a ton of resentment, even more so if I felt I were unfairly convicted - eg a 17 year-old sleeping with his 17 year-old GF as one example - and I damn sure would want to give the finger to the oh-so-righteous society which now treats me like a third-class citizen. What do I have to lose?

 

[IA_farmboy]

I honestly feel that a person should be able to, at an appropriate time, be able to petition a judge to reinstate his rights. He has to fill out the proper forms and even pay the proper filling fees. This should go hand in hand with his voting and even his military service rights, IMO. IIRC you can't be in the military if you have been convicted of a felony unless ordered to by a judge...or is that even possible anymore?

No. I remember having to answer many times on my entry forms that I was not entering the military to avoid jail time. My dad talked about the losers that were in the military because of the draft and to avoid going to jail. We don't want those people in uniform.

Besides, if these guys cannot be trusted on the streets with guns then do we want them in a position that requires carrying arms? IIRC the Navy will allow people barred from owning firearms to serve with the understanding that they will be placed in positions that do not require use of small arms. I guess it's really hard to shoot a fellow sailor with a torpedo or 5 inch cannon.

Getting back to the topic at hand...
I think that people that are allowed to walk freely among the public should not be barred from firearm ownership. I also don't think that people should have to get the gov's permission to carry a concealed weapon.

I see four scenarios with a felon released from jail. The person will choose to abide by the law, and not get a firearm. The person will choose to break the law and not get a firearm. The person will choose to break the law and get a firearm. The person will not break the law and get a firearm.

Now, the problem with the above four situations is that the act of a felon getting a firearm is breaking the law so unless the law is changed that last situation does not exist.

Let's assume the felon upon release from prison has no regard for the law and returns to the path that got him/her into jail to begin with, what difference does the firearm make? Theft, rape, murder, etc. are still crimes and as such the firearm has nothing to do with it.

Let's assume the felon does see that a law abiding path is preferable to a life of crime. Now this felon is perhaps a homeowner and/or business owner, or maybe just a guy that works the late shift and has to walk home in the dark. Are we so cruel as to leave this person, a law abiding citizen, unarmed?

Let's take another angle, that others touched on, which is abuse of this by the government. Suppose the lawmakers decide that an automobile is a class of dangerous weapon. Suppose they decide that having a dangerous weapon unregistered is a felony and/or that speeding is equivalent to "brandishing" that weapon. Now, even though one may not serve a day in jail, traffic violations become felonies.

I believe that the Bill of Rights are to be taken as a whole, we can't pick and choose which one's are enjoyed by others.

 

[mekender]

selling a vibrator is illegal in Texas and Alabama.... pumping your own gas is illegal in Oregon... hitchhiking on a train is a federal felony... passing a bad check is a felony in a lot of states...

but i guess a felon is a felon eh?

 

[belus]

My personal feeling is that only violent felons should lose their gun rights, not people convicted for digging oysters without a permit or writing a bad check for $250.

This is my initial gut reaction too. I'll have to give it some more thought before I start defending that position with any conviction though.

 

[xjchief]

Or at least it should. A felony is a crime considered to be so bad that it becomes punishable by prison. Any person who commits a felony does it "knowingly" under the law. Those who do things knowingly, know right from wrong.

Knowing that, they should also know that they can never have a gun again.

They give up that right by committing a felony. Bottom line, end of story. No mercy, no mas.

The Doc is out now.

Tell that to the guy who loaned his AR-15 to somebody and it malfunctioned resulting in a two shot burst and a jam. Now he's facing felony charges for transferring a "machine gun".

How about the case of someone who is treated for drug abuse as a kid and no is banned from owning or possessing a firearm even if they were never arrested or convicted?

It's a slippery slope isn't it....

Now, go back to lunch doc.

 

[jaholder1971]

OK! My cousin is in prison. His crime? Having sex with his 16yo girlfriend a month after he turned 18? He is now a felon and registered sex offender the rest of his life. Has been in prison the past 6 years with many more to go. How's that for fair?

Very fair.

He likely knew that sex with a minor was illegal, even if it was consensual, was doing it before he became an adult. He should've kept it in his pocket or gotten an adult girlfriend.

selling a vibrator is illegal in Texas and Alabama.... pumping your own gas is illegal in Oregon... hitchhiking on a train is a federal felony... passing a bad check is a felony in a lot of states...

And everyone there knows it is and those who decided to flaunt the law, got caught, got convicted is now a felon.

It's kindergarten social studies, folks. There are certain rules that have consequences. Yes, many are silly, stupid and downright wrong, but until they're changed that's the way it is.

When you break these rules, there are both immediate consequences (prisons) and lingering consequences (parole, no rights, can't get a real job, offender registry, social pariah, etc.)

Don't like it? Move to another state where you like the laws, or another country. I hear the Sudan, Eithiopia and Somalia are pretty lawless, it would be a closet anarchist, I mean Libertarian, paradise.

 

[mljdeckard]

Where do we draw the line? At violent felonies. Do I WISH we could incarcerate everyone until we could say they are safe to walk among society? Sure. But the system we have doesn't even have the resources to hold prisoners for the time they are supposed to be held. The solution to this isn't to say, "I know that you are a bad person, because you have demonstrated it, but since we are short of beds this quarter, you are free to go, be among society, and do whatever it is you want to just like nothing ever happened.

I am not a violent person. I have the presumption of innocence. THEY DON'T.

The reason recidivism is so high, is that prison does not in any way prepare or train people to not be criminals anymore. It doesn't teach them how to do anything other than go back to prison. A high number of them use drugs (mostly meth right now) and it doesn't prevent them from getting or using drugs. This is a problem people much smarter than myself have no solution for at this time.

But no. While I am fighting (quite vocally and actively) to get back my rights, I am NOT at the same time fighting for the rights of felons, any more than I am trying to restore their right to vote. No more than I think it is fair for prisoners to continue to get college credit for courses they take while in prison at the expense of other students who need the money that comes out of the same federal aid fund.