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.
TexaRifleman - thank you for posting the specific provisions of the health care law.

God help us all. Somedays I have to remember that the victory is already won.
 
NO, it would not be o.k. with me. The health care law is unconstitutional on it's face. I only mentioned it to illustrate how even the simplest personal choices are now being used to deprive people of their rights. For life. Once upon a time, you were a felon for possessing alcoholic beverages. That was a stupid law too. But, at least you didn't lose your rights for breaking the law back then. That is the BIG difference.
 
Come on guys 700 posts. It's clear that there are too many tangents for an answer that is going to please anyone let alone everyone. I just don't want someone with a violent criminal history, who has used a gun before in the commission of a crime, to be able to get another one, for any reason. He may get it anyway, but I can't follow him around to make sure he does or doesn't. That's all. I don't care if people who have records for tax fraud or possession of pot, or white collar crimes get them or not for the most part. 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?
 
Can we at least agree on that much?

Nope, I don't want someone with a history of drug or alcohol use being able to have a driver's license and be on the same road as myself with my children in the car.

I don't want a certified liar to be able to testify in a court of law.

I don't want a certified liar to be able run for public office.

I don't want a lot of things but I do not believe the Constitution of the United States grants the government the power to prevent such things. Neither does Cotus grant the power to declare civil death. Sometimes the price of freedom is living with situations you really don't care for.
 
Neither does Cotus grant the power to declare civil death.
It doesn't have to.

The 10th Amendment reserves things not granted to the Federal Government to the states (except for a few things forbidden in the Constitution) or to the people. Civil Death was a recognized power wielded by the states before the Constitution was ratified, and they retained that power under the 10th Amendment.
 
The Founders made it pretty clear. They would deny weapons to criminals, the mentally deficient and traitors. Of course, DC is filled with all three.
 
I actually HAVE a copy of the constitution right in front of me. I can't seem to find any reference to disarming former felons. While in prison, or on parole/probation, ones rights are justly quite limited. Once free from active government supervision, a man should be truly free. Or, at least as free as the man who isn't burdened by the stigma of having once been a felon.

At least it seems have are now mostly agreed that people lose their rights every day for doing things that once were utterly legal. Or, do no harm to anyone other than themselves. Like, for example, failing to have government approved health insurance.
 
gym wrote: "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? "

Well, pretty much I can - first we need to keep such people in jail that you describe and get rid of some of the nonviolent offenders if need be - to keep them there. Second if someone is to be denied the RKBA after release then that determination should be made by a jury of their peers at the time of their trial and sentencing and should be strictly related to the nature of the offense - such as you indicate - in terms of a history of violent repeat offenders or murderers, and third there should be a simple straight forward and available restoration process with objective criteria on a federal level.

I think that most agree that a blanket ban on "all felons" is not justifiable given the denial of a fundamental right for too many so called felony crimes that are weak at best.
 
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).
 
Gungnir said:
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....
But nonetheless, in the real world such a person can, and will, be released from prison. Is all this about "let's pretend"? Or is it about real life in the real world?
 
But nonetheless, in the real world such a person can, and will, be released from prison. Is all this about "let's pretend"? Or is it about real life in the real world?
Oh damn if we're talking about real life and real world, then the "Bill of Right" (the 3rd) should be upheld.

I mean, we can't discuss any of the other amendments as rights, because they're all flipped on or off depending on your perceived status by the Government. As yet though the Federal Government hasn't mounted a successful assault on the 3rd.
 
Joe, I think it depends on what kind of felony it is, if it's a white collar crime, no problem. If it's rape, murder, stalking etc... well, obviously NO.
 
Shifting Argument

The original question was framed as "should."

It was a moral question, not a legal one.

To argue that it's moral because it's legal, or that it's moral because it works that way in the "real world," or that it's moral because nobody has successfully challenged and eliminated the immoral law, is simply disingenuous.

Tex has cited the new law, wherein a principled stand -- civil disobedience for God's sake -- creates the dissident as a felon, both in the "misdemeanor" and felony sections (since the max "misdemeanor" penalty is a year).

So, now, civil disobedience, the common and popular vehicle for achieving actual legislative change, transforms one immediately into a felon.

But wait, there's more . . .

We've had multiple citations in this thread that "it's okay for them to revoke 2nd Amendment rights, since they already revoke 15th Amendment (voting) rights" using the idea that it's only fair to punish a person for the rest of his life, even though we only keep him in prison for 13 months. No more arms (well, just firearms) and no more voting. Yup, that's serious justice there. Maybe we should revoke some more rights, too. Can't really punish a felon too much. Oh, nothing brutal, of course, because that would be cruel and unusual, but rights denial is fine. Nothing cruel about that. They're awful people. Incorrigible. Yes, punish them forever (but not cruelly). As long as we're not physically beating them or incarcerating them, punishment can go on for as long as they're alive.

Perfectly fine with that. 'Cause that's not "cruelty."

Ready for what's next?

There is a bill being drafted, even as we speak (personally, I think it's been drafted for a long time), which will restore VOTING RIGHTS to felons.

But not 2nd Amendment rights.

Those of you who still believe that government is a benevolent enterprise, and that "the law is the law is the law" may find that your thinking clears up with the application of a little caffeine. I've put some coffee on for those of you who are ready to wake up and smell it. A little Folgers in your cup may help.

Government does not enact legislation because it's moral. It does so because it gives government power and control. The arguments are framed in morality and "the common good" but the laws don't create a common good, they create the "authority" and power to punish for offenses real and imagined against "the common good," as imagined by the authors. And the common good always comes out as "behaving as we tell you to."

You see, the government is telling us that they know these people aren't, by and large, really bad or really evil or really a threat to the general order, because if these "felons" were really bad people, there's no way they'd be entrusted with the vote. This government knows that the demographic they've criminalized comes, by and large, from a class of people dependent on government largess, which class of people will continue to vote to be "cared for," never seeing the slightest irony in it.

So, now that we're no longer punishing felons for life by revoking their right to vote, why is it again, exactly, that we're punishing them for life by revoking their right to defend their families and resist tyranny?

Our morality is being gamed.

We are being fooled.

And, gradually, we are being ruled.

Preserve our liberties.

Arm everyone.

 
...why is it again, exactly, that we're punishing them for life by revoking their right to defend their families and resist tyranny?

I thought you read the thread. A lot of people don't feel comfortable when an individual, who has a felony record, possesses a gun.
So, to answer your question, it's for the feeling of comfort.

You feel comfortable, don't you?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
if it's a white collar crime, no problem.

An attitude I never understood really, white collar crime is generally just as devastating financially as violent crimes are physically.

Case in point- a common 'white collar' crime in the mid-west is for funeral directors to file insurance claims for burial when the persons are still alive. In some cases the elderly victim's credit rating immediately tanks and the person has no idea what has happened. They blame their own judgment sometimes leading to a depression that speeds their death.

In other cases, when the victim does die the survivors discover that the security of the pre-paid funeral was a sham and need to make crippling financial steps to bury their loved ones. It's a fact of life that more damage can be done with a pen than a firearm.
 
So what's your plan, arm everyone?
or no one?, Because without a better plan , you aren't helping by merely disagreeing with every idea put forward. Maybe that's why it is what it is, no one has a better plan or is willing to go out of their way to implement it.
 
Plan != Principle

So what's your plan, arm everyone?

Cute.

It's a principle, not a plan.

You don't begin with a plan, you begin with a goal. The goal is formulated from a principle.

Once you have a goal, derived from a principle, you set about developing a plan.

To ridicule a goal or a principle because it's "not a plan" is to miss the point.

There's plenty of time for a plan. First we have to have some agreement on where we're going.

If we can't agree on the principle or the goal, it's kind of pointless to discuss planning.


The principle at issue is should everyone be armed?

The simple answer is yes.

We then get into the arguments about the exceptions to "everyone" and the risks involved. The totalitarian view is that "nobody should be armed, except those whom I specify." The counterpoint, in favor of liberty, is that "to be armed is assumed as the natural and default state of the population."

Risks? Of course there are risks.

This isn't the first time I've found myself arguing in favor of the riskier course.

Permit me to quote myself, from a discussion some several years ago:
"Look at it this way. If America frightens you, feel free to live somewhere else. There are plenty of other countries that don't suffer from excessive liberty. America is where the Liberty is. Liberty is not certified safe."

And I hold that view today: Liberty is not certified safe.

Nonetheless, I believe that liberty is worth the risks.

 
Interesting result of Heller II in DC (registration, assault weapon ban, and high cap magazine ban)...

Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA's case challenging D.C.'s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices." Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller's assertion that D.C.'s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a "strict scrutiny" standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court "did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right," and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court's upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Link... http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5645

Snippet of transcript for why strict scrutiny was rejected

While the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an
individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned
that that right is not unlimited. See id. at 2797-99. The Court noted that the Second Amendment
does not “protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.” Id. at 2816. Nor should Heller “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Now a lot of second amendment supporters are hoping that gun control laws fall under strict scrutiny, this would likely eliminate the vast majority of current gun control legislation.

Now with that in mind would anyone care to rethink their position...?
 

Now with that in mind would anyone care to rethink their position...?

Well, notice that some of that is already incorrect.

Nor should Heller “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Well, many states allow just that. So what Heller is saying is that if a STATE wants to have limitations they might be able to have some. Clearly at the Federal level this statement isn't true since there is not a Federal law against having a gun in a school or government building.

How about we let the states decide who gets a gun too? Sounds like a good plan to me.

So no, no rethinking of my position. The Federal law banning firearms for all felons no matter what should be gone, and states left to figure out their own requirements.
 
"does not “protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"
There is the "out", you know enough, "from reading your posts", to see that this part of the quote can be interpreted by the states and or the courts, to mean whatever they want it to.
They "State or Federal Gvt". will hold up any such legislation and somehow end up rejecting it or diluting it to the point of non usefullness. It you look at the front page of todays NY post, "my mom still gets it delivered to FL", "The thin blue line is getting way to thin, with politicians like that in office, I wouldn't be too sure about the laws concerning felons changing any time soon. Now I am off to the gun show in Ft Pierce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top