gym said:
I just don't want a guy with 30 arrests for assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder aggravated assault, etc, especially when you see that it's not just one time its 20-40 arrests, you can't say in your heart that you want someone who is a danger to society to be able to walk in and buy a gun. If he does get one that's out of our control, unless he is kept in jail, for which there is less money to spend on keeping these types of career criminals in jail, at a hundred grand a year, so they are letting many out early.
Can we at least agree on that much?
No, but not for the reasons you'd imagine.
Such a person should not be released from prison, if you cannot trust someone with a firearm, they should not be released from prison period. Firearms are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to weaponry. There are cars, crossbows, baseball bats, chainsaws, axes, swords, gasoline, screwdrivers, hairbrushes, bricks, pencils and of course heads, fists, elbows, knees, and feet to name but a few weapons. Such a person may not possess a firearm legally (which of course does not mean he does not have access to firearms in any way unless he's in a controlled environment i.e. prison), but any of the aforementioned are completely legal, and they can cause murder and mayhem with them.
Now if we assume that the status quo is maintained, then certain people may use the argument that since he has no access to a firearm, he can't pose that much of a threat and should be released. Whereas if he leaves and has full restoration of rights, well then, of course, he could walk into his nearest gun store and load up.
I think that this is part of the problem with sentencing, violent offenders may be getting lower terms of imprisonment because people believe that when they are returned to society that they'll no longer have access to firearms, which of course is patently untrue. They also have full access to a multitude of other weaponry that is equally as deadly, however having the belief that by denying people the right to firearms you deny all weaponry to those people is likely a real problem, because people set sentencing guidelines, and a lot of those people believe that legal access to firearms means no access to firearms, and do not equate other things mentioned with weaponry.
Now in addition to this, it simplifies everyone's lives when buying a gun. Go in and buy it, if you're not in jail you can have a gun, no background check, no waiting period, etc. etc. No predetermination that you're really prohibited and only after confirming you're not prohibited releasing the weapon. Simplifies FFL's lives, and could quite easily remove 4473's eliminating concerns over de-facto registration and reduce ATF staffing.
Now yes from a prison perspective it may cause issues, however it may also lead to sentencing that is slightly more rational for non-violent and minor first offense cases, for instance it costs $29,000/year average per inmate, or $1,250-$2,750 for probation/parole (Pew Center data). Reducing time in prison or eliminating it entirely for these offenders, and reducing or eliminating the effect of the prison culture that then potentially leads them into repeat and worsening offenses, which could be magnified by the disenfranchisement effect by losing their rights (this is an opinion since I can't locate recidivism rates prior to 1980).