Convicted felons owning guns

Should convicted felons be allowed to own Firearms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 203 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 287 58.6%

  • Total voters
    490
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

SalchaketJoe

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
206
Location
TX
Should Convicted felons be allowed to own firearms? I would argue that if they are dangerous enough to not be able to own them, they should be in jail.
 
I would have no problem with past NON-VIOLENT criminals owning a firearm.

Not yes....Always
Not No.....never
But Sometimes....Depending on nature of the crime
 
You need more options.
Generally, I consider past violent crime to be a reasonable reason to restrict an individual's firearms ownership, but I really don't care about non-violent felons.
 
I see your points, however, as we know, someone intent on commiting a crime isnt stopped by firearm laws prohibiting them from having guns. So I would argue, dont criminalize the meer possesion of arms. If the guy is bad and cant be trusted, lock him up.
 
You need to separate violent and non violent felons. My vote would be yes for non violent and no for violent felons.
 
if it was something stupid that happened they should be able to. generally no criminals should be able to, such as burglars.
 
I would argue that if they are dangerous enough to not be able to own them, they should be in jail.

So you're ready to throw out 230+ years of criminal justice and sentencing?
Instead of a set sentence assigned by a court of law, you would have all criminals locked up for an indeterminate amount of time until "someone" decides they are safe to release. This sounds strangely like a gulag where people are sent for "re-education" and can't come back until they tow the party line. (Or State Mental institutions where some shrink decides if you are "sane".)
 
I agree with SalchaketJoe: If convicted felons are dangerous enough to not be able to own guns, then they should be in jail. Letting a convicted felon out of jail but prohibiting him from owning guns is like saying, "We're done punishing you now, but we're going to keep punishing you for the rest of your life." This would not be a problem if (for violent offenders) a lifetime sentence without parole did not end after 10 to 20 years, but actually was a lifetime sentence without parole. Also, a lot of crimes should not even be crimes, much less felonies (such as tax evasion). Every free man has the right to keep and bear arms. There must be no restrictions.
 
our criminal justice system is so disfunctional and unjust, it should just be called the criminal system.
 
How long ago was the felony committed? Some people change for the better with the passage of time, others do not. IIRC the majority of felons re-offend within three years. My opinion, continued suppression of rights after that three years is vindictiveness, not public safety.
 
No way,.....criminals are the reason we have politicians burdening us with more gun laws. One strike and your out!....for their stupidity they can learn to use a sling shot for the rest of their life. Seems reasonable for all the gun law damage they've done to us.

Criminal justice system should be about punishment, not rehabilitation.
 
Can't vote....

All depends on the crime.

I see no reason why a felon who commited a non-violent crime can't own a gun. There are a lot of very stupid laws out there that can brand someone a felon but that doesn't make them evil people.

I work with a guy who just recently got out after serving 21 years in prison. He is now in his late 40's and an extremely nice guy, a hard worker and genuinely wants to better himself. He admits to doing something stupid in his youth and wants nothing more than to remain out of jail for the rest of his life. In my view he served his time and paid and his debt to society, he is now a free man and I see no reason why he should be allowed to own a gun if he wants to.
 
Last edited:
Kinda like never letting someone convicted of drunk driving have a license again. Most felonies are non violent and dont involve a firearm.
 
depends there are alot of people that made misteaks when they were younger

my uncle for instance, he got in a fight with his wife one night when he was 22 and had a nd while holding the gun to his own head and killed her

my uncle is the nicest guy you can meet now he spent 7 years in jail for involuntary man slaughter but now that hes in his 50s hes calmed down and is sober and remarried

i honestly would feel fine with him owning a gun but he cant

ive met alot of people who have been charge with vehicular and involuntary manslaughter and now cant own guns including alot of military and police officers
 
Like these discussions. So say someone is a convicted felon. Cant own. Has turned the corner, done his time. Hes out, what makes him so different from us? How far removed are we from him, in the eyes of the gungrabbers? We make it a crime for them to posses, when will our merely owning be the same?

I am not talking gulag here, I am saying, If a man does his time, why can he then not be free? If he is truly a threat, why is he not locked up?
 
If the legal system believes someone to be so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to defend their family, they should sentance them accordingly. It used to be that if one committed a crime, they served the sentence and life went on much as it did before conviction. If the stigma was too much, they could move. And no one really knew about their past. Now, if you got a reckless driving ticket in 1972, anyone with a credit card and a computer can find out about it. I might be exaggerating, but very little. All punishment should end at the same time as the sentance. In my opinion.
 
Instead of a set sentence assigned by a court of law, you would have all criminals locked up for an indeterminate amount of time until "someone" decides they are safe to release.
That's not what was said AT ALL. What was said was that if they cannot be trusted to own a gun, they cannot be trusted to walk among us and own cars, gas cans, chain saws, and sharp pointy things. If you trust them with sharp pointy things, then they should be trusted with a gun.

Keep them in jail until you're ready to let them be free. But once they're free, they should be, well, free.
 
Rembrant
The reason we have politicians brudening us with more gun laws, is that it makes for good press and it keeps them looking busy. Everone knows the laws we have already are more than sufficient for the issue, enforcing them is the thing, not just keep making new ones. Back to felons, you know any? I've met a "few" through my work in law enforcement that are as upstanding as you proclaim to be, but in their youth made a costly mistake. Why do you insist that after a person has "paid his debt" to society, he should continue paying for the rest of his life? Lot's of non-violent felonies being committed everyday, by bankers, politicians and the common folk. Would you like to loose your gun rights cause you fudged on your taxes (even by mistake), or smoked an illegal substance when in college, or made love to a 16 year old girl when you were 17etc, etc. See my point? Felons with violent crimes on their sheet, NO, the others...I think they have as much right to protect themselves from the first type as you and I do !!
 
Here's the problem.

If we just hold all felons until they are ready for society, we would never let anyone out. Look at the recidivism rates. If you say, "Lock them up until they are safe for society", you are talking about a life sentence for about 90% of felony convictions.

I would entertain the idea of rephrasing the law to say: "VIOLENT felons cannot own or possess arms", but as it reads right now. It is entirely constitutional. The Constitution says that no one will be deprived of liberty WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. A felony conviction is the due process of law.

I am also of the opinion that committing a felony should carry consequences that last a lifetime.
 
I voted no, but tend to agree with paring out the non-violent types. I also think there are felonies on the books that are stretching a bit to get there.

I also see issues with some "domestic assault" charges and convictions. TN for instance is one of those "somebody is going to jail" states. An alleged victim, typically a woman can make an accusation of domestic abuse and the burden of proof lies entirely on the accused. Case in point. Hubby is getting unauthorized lovin down at shady seed motel. This time is spend with a married woman with MUCH to lose. Is he guilty of poor judgment? You bet, but not physical abuse. Wifey calls the police, she says he hit her and left. They pick him up driving home.

He goes to jail for assault because the mistress won't give him an alibi for the alleged assault. In TN he loses his guns.
 
for their stupidity they can learn to use a sling shot for the rest of their life. Seems reasonable for all the gun law damage they've done to us.

i dont think a guy with a couple of dui's has damaged our gun control rights, and most felonies are things like that, and similar.

what we need is violent repeat offender control
 
...depends there are alot of people that made misteaks when they were younger....

Life is filled with rules and choices....for many this was not hard to understand. For the ones that screwed up, serving time didn't pay society back. Taxpayers got dinged for all the legal costs and expenses of someones stupidity. Wanna know how many paid back the taxpayers? If felons want a second chance go on Oprah and tell her your story....no sympathy from this taxpayer.
 
I can sure agree that a convicted felon OUGHT to pay a price for his misdeeds........that said, once that persons civil rights have been restored they should ALL be restored.

Frankly, that vote regained has a lot more power than any gun and a partial restoration of rights carrys the connotation that the person is not truly equal in the eyes of the law or society. Even more certainly partial restoration diminishes the value of all other rights. I have gotta go with the sentiment that if one can't be trusted with a gun then that person OUGHT to still be incarcerated!

For all of that, rights restoration should not be the automatic event that certain political elements desire it to become..........a period of time, a review on application, and after meeting specific qualifications a former felon ought to enjoy every right under law as everyone else. Automatic restoration amounts to little more than vote buying.
 
Rembrant,
Remember your statement if you ever get pinched for something you didn't know was illegal (perhaps a rule or choice you may have overlooked in your travels)....ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law. Must be nice to live in a world with only simple black and white areas...the grey zones make you have to think about your answers sometimes, and that can be a debilitating situation for some.
 
I feel that people convicted of a violent crime, usually a felony, should not be allowed to own firearms until a probationary period (like 10 years) is passed with no additional criminal activity. This is in addition to their parole period. I would say they are probably rehabilatated at that point.

I have little problem with non-violent felons being allowed to own firearms or have their full rights re-established after the parole period.

So there is no simple Yes or No to your poll from my perspective; hence I didn't post in the poll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top