Pretense
Having slogged through the whole of this thread, I see a couple of things getting buried in the complexity of the discussion which, it seems to me, is more complex than the actual issue.
Let me address the first thing that troubles me:
"Felon" is a plastic term. Its meaning changes too often to be a semantically sound basis for policy formulation.
What was entirely legal in 1965 is a felony today. It isn't any more
morally wrong now than it was, but it's
illegal today. The simple fact of declaring it "irredeemably bad" (felony) has created a whole class of criminals where none existed before.
Sadly, this process continues in present time, criminalizing things according to what politicians feel will buy them the most political capital and the most re-election insurance.
With this as a foundation for denying a right, for disenfranchising an otherwise good person, the arbitrary nature of declarations that such-and-such is "evil because we said so" makes using the resulting label of "felon" next to useless in determining who morally should be shunned of full participation in society and who should be accepted for same.
With this in mind, I cannot in good conscience support the blanket denial of rights based on the "felon" label.
The next thing that troubles me:
Way more trust in the judgment of government than I can muster. I'll simply say that I have long been disabused of the idea that government is a benevolent actor.
There are other things that I find I can't support, like the idea that it is not possible to rehabilitate a man, that real change is not possible, and that it is only right that a man who commits a crime should be denied the opportunity to rejoin society as a fully participating member and fully qualified citizen. I know first hand that rehabilitation is possible and that the full restoration of a rehabilitated man involves the reclamation of his dignity. This isn't necessarily easy or fast but it is very possible. We seem, as a culture, to have adopted the stance that it can't happen (or, if it does, it's too rare to consider seriously), and have nonetheless engaged in one of the driest ironies I've ever seen: warehousing criminals in facilities owned and managed by the "Department of Corrections," secure in the knowledge that "correction" will seldom, if ever, actually happen. We "know" that redemption isn't possible, so we punish and call it "corrections." It is to weep.
However, the thing that grates on my sensibilities above all else is the notion that many here are happy to make the default assumption that I am possibly -- hell, even
probably -- a criminal, in the event that I should presume to want to purchase a gun.
I show up at the gun shoppe and ask to see that little sub-compact 9mm pistol and, once I've looked it over, I tell the counter guy to wrap it up.
Uh, not so fast, slick.
"Excuse me, sir, can you prove to our satisfaction that you're not a criminal?"
"Say what? My good man, I'm standing here before you, cash in hand, a valid ID showing that I'm old enough, and as calm and collected as anyone you've ever seen. What on earth would lead you to believe I'm a criminal?"
"Well, sir, we pretty much think that anyone who wants a gun is a criminal. Or that he might be. On any given day, any given person who walks in that door could be a bad guy. Heck, you might be a pervert or a wife beater! Maybe even a bank robber or a kidnapper. You're not a mass murderer, are you?"
"Wait -- let me see if I have this right -- I can walk in here and buy that wicked looking dagger over there, that case of ammo right there, the sword hanging on that wall, one of those compound bows and a quiver full of broadhead arrows in your archery corner, or even one of these in-line black powder rifles, and all you want to know is whether I'm over 18 years old. Right?"
"Yes, sir."
"But if I want that cute Browning Buckmark in the rimfire case, I have to prove to you that I'm not a violent predator, a tax cheat, a chronic drunk driver, an Army deserter, or a drug pusher?"
"That's affirmative, sir."
"Just what, pray tell, would incline you to believe that any random guy off the street might be a heinous criminal?"
"Well, sir, it's probably something to do with the fact that they let unrepentant criminals out of prison all the time; just let them mingle with the general population, and let them have full access to everything in our society -- cars, chain saws, axes & hatchets, hunting knives, high-powered hunting bows & arrows, rope, gasoline, matches, machine tools, and baseball bats -- except for firearms. So, since branding criminals or making them wear a collar or bracelet, or just keeping them in jail till they're actually rehabbed, would be cruel and unusual (and thus violate their rights) we just make everyone else prove he's not one of them. Pretty simple, really."
"I see. And who tells you whether I'm a criminal or not?"
"Oh, we call a government agency. Only the government can be trusted to know if you're good or bad. We trust the government on that."
"Ah. I see. So the government follows these ex-cons around and makes sure they don't get guns from other criminals, right?"
"Well, sir, no. They figure it's enough just to keep them out of gun stores. After all, there are some harsh penalties for illegally buying a gun. Government figures that will keep criminals from buying one."
"How profound. Well, I guess I should feel protected. Government looking out for me and all."
"That's the spirit, sir. Will there be anything else?"
It may not be terribly obvious, but the man whose rights we're so willing to throw under the bus, based on the procedures and wisdom of government, has his leg chained to ours.
There was a time that, when a man was released from having served hard time, it was assumed he would get a horse & saddle, some clothes, some kind of work, and a gun with which to keep himself safe. The "rule," if you want to call it that, was that if you were trusted to be out among the general population you were trusted with the whole package. Anyone who was free to walk the streets was trusted by default.
Today, we are much more sophisticated.
Today, we cleverly mix burglars, robbers, rapists, drug dealers, and serial drunk drivers into the general population . . . and
trust nobody.
That's what I call a serious advance in the cause of liberty.
So . . .
You'll forgive me if I am inclined, all things considered, to say: if a man is allowed among the honest and free men of our society, it is because we trust him enough to give him unfettered access to all that our society offers.
To release him into the general population, and then use his presence and arbitrary restrictions we've placed on him to pretend that we're protecting this general population by daily proving to them that we believe
THEY cannot be trusted, is to exert a subtle and pervasive control -- an assumption that, as government, it is right and proper for us to have such control -- over the population under the guise of "protecting" them.
The default assumption becomes that the general population are criminals.
And, if you pass enough laws and enact enough regulations, this can be said to be at least nominally true.
Conclusion: if you trust a man to buy a chain saw, an axe, a hunting knife, a black powder rifle, a car, a crowbar, a baseball bat, and a hunting bow with arrows, then it only makes sense to trust him with the most effective tool of self defense.
Pretending to deny him access to firearms -- because, after all, it is only a pretense -- while otherwise permitting him unfettered run of society and its facilities is worse than badly judged folly, it is a political bait and switch.
It is wrong to abridge the liberty of the many because dealing effectively with criminals is "too hard" to get right. This, of course, is the opening line of a longer and quite off-topic debate, so we'll not do that just now.
If you're going to let him out of jail, let him have his gun, and quit pretending that making rules against possession of them has any actual effect.
If you know for sure that he absolutely mustn't ever touch a gun again, and that terrible things will happen if he does, then realize that making a bunch of rules will never stop him. The only way to stop him is that he is locked up or dead.
So, whatever you have to do to fix the "corrections" system, do that and make it work. Anyone released from that system is fully trusted. If you release them but do so
knowing they can't be trusted, then you're an idiot or an evil SOB looking to have a finger in everyone's lives.
If he's out, he's armed. Oh, and so is everyone else, too. Civics teachers will see to it that the responsibility to be an armed citizen is routinely understood.
When
everyone is armed, a measure of equality is achieved.
When
everyone is armed, some actual deterrent is achieved or, failing that, the risks of criminal enterprise increase dramatically, making insurance companies much more reluctant to provide coverage.
When
everyone is armed, the ownership and carry of a gun becomes unremarkable.
And that's a worthwhile goal.
