Convicted felons owning guns

[hadmanysons]

I voted yes. I think that people convicted of non-violent felonies should be allowed to own firearms again (and vote for that matter) after a period of time, say 5-7 years. I think violent offenders should to but a longer period of time, 12-15 years. That should be proof enough of to society that aren't going to repeat their crimes and if they do again THEN it's gone forever. I think for people committed of domestic violence should have a similar punishment instead of a permanent ban. My mother is a convicted felon (check and prescription fraud) but she is a bleeding heart liberal and animal rights person who wouldn't hurt another person (physically that is ). Should she have those rights revoked even though she has turned her life around over the last 6 years?

 

[Gunfighter123]

Good question . Take my brother Bob , he was arrested for having a controlled substance ( white cross amphetemines } when he was about 23 years old back in 1973 -- - that was over 30 years ago and he still can not legally own a firearm. He has not been charged with a crime of any sort other then a speeding ticket in the last 30+ years.

Like many who have posted here , I think that if a NON-VIOLENT crime was commited , after a "probation time" then ALL RIGHTS should be given back to that person. As it stands now , only those with MONEY and POWER get all their rights back after a felony.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Would a guy with an Assault charge, which in most, if not all states in a felony be deemed unfit to ever own a firearm?

 

[21bubba]

You did the crime you did the time, and we're gonna give you something to remember you did every day from now on. I've got absolutely no problem with that.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Ok, so you guys who are saying, 'keep the in until they are ready to come out', are you willing to budget for that? Grow the prison system by a factor of at least five or six? Face the fallout for the perceived human rights travesty? If you are, you are the only ones.

Guns or butter? We release incorrigible violent felons to be able to afford to incarcerate non-violent felons?

 

[wrs840]

I did some stuff, (mostly 30 or so years ago), that, had I been caught, would have made me now a convicted felon. What responsible and socially-beneficial sheepdog now posting here can say they never similarly ran afoul of some aspect of the law?

Les

 

[LowEx]

For Violent offenders no.

For non-violent, yes.

Keep in mind that your legislators are actually quite busy at work. Every year there's a dozen new ways to become a non-violent felon. The fact of the matter is that the federal government has lost track of the number of laws that it has produced, and they continue to make more.

With that many on the books, not even knowing their nature, circumstance, or logic how can you be sure that you have never in your life violated some esoteric nonsensical law? Or that you won't?

As things become increasingly recorded, you can bet in the not too distant future all it will take is for someone to become interested in you personally to be able to find 'something' you've done wrong, and bar you from bearing arms the rest of your life.

Law theory that everyone is currently or will be an offender of some sort, and the important distinction is prosecutorial discretion is now well on it's way to acceptance. In other words "Only hit them with the book if they catch our attention."

Are you quite certain a non violent felon should have his rights removed for life when we live with a government that assumes that all citizens are potential felons, and is making laws so quickly that if they are not yet correct, they may soon be?

 

[JohnBT]

Serve their term, get a job and then maybe. After they pay back the victim or victims in full. All damages, every single penny, all fines, court costs, everything. You want the benefits of being a decent human being? Act like one.

John

 

[alsaqr]

You did the crime you did the time, and we're gonna give you something to remember you did every day from now on. I've got absolutely no problem with that.

My feelings exactly.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I would like someone to precisely define a "felon". Is that word defined in the bill of rights? If I am caught with a handgun[or any gun] in NYC I am, according to local corrupt politicians, a "felon" and to be forever denied my rights under the US constitution. But the same act is legal here. So are my constitutional rights at the whim of what ever a state hack calls a "felony"?

 

[Uncle Mike]

The Justice System...There is NO JUSTICE in the justice system.

 

[danbrew]

I pretty much agree with many here - violent felony, no. Non-violent felony, yes. There are a whole bunch of things that most of us have done that would probably make us a felon given different circumstances and a prosecutor with a mean streak. That should say something about our criminal "justice" system.

Also, I can't help but to comment on a post somebady made earlier about his Uncle "accidentally" killing his wife...

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

And how did that happen? He just happened to shoot through his own head and killed her? Most folks in our society know "the rules". There's not much he can say to justify this - he was angry, he picked up a gun, she's dead. He should still be in jail as far as I'm concerned. Harsh, I know, and he's your Uncle, so no disrespect to the OP intended, but he made some decisions that led to a death. And so many years later he's still calling it a ND? Please.

 

[Rembrandt]

100 years ago society was the victim and criminals were expected to repay the public for the cost of their actions....thanks to Oprah and excuse making lawyers, felons of today have now achieved "victim status" with all the sympathy and rights that goes with it.

 

[DCR]

Our society has become far too judgmental and punitive for reasons that are barred from discussion on this board. As a result, we have voted in judgmental and punitive lawmakers who have enacted laws that make far too many acts felonies. Case in point: adultery in my state is a felony. That it hasn't been enforced since before many of us were born is irrelevant - it's still on the books. While such an act may have resulted in having to wear a scarlet letter 230 years ago (or more), today it could result in the loss of voting rights and RKBA. I highly doubt our founders intended that many of today's criminal acts should be considered felonies - most would have been gross misdemeanors at worst.

Arguing that allowing felons to possess firearms would undo 230 years of jurisprudence is disingenuous because our society, government and legal system have evolved, rightly or wrongly, to the point we are today; changing the law is normal, not a radical reversal of our system. I support a complete review and re-write of all federal and state criminal codes, and designating which felonies (and today's disqualifying misdemeanors) are bars to firearm ownership, whether for a designated period or lifetime.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I voted yes... but its really more of a maybe. There are so many frivolous so-called "felonies" these days, that you could be committing one right now and not even know it. For stupid "felonies" like these, I see no reason to reject someones Constitutional rights. If someone commits a serious violent crime, they should be in jail... as the OP mentioned.

 

[mljdeckard]

That it hasn't been prosecuted IS actually relevant. No one in your state is walking around defenseless because they committed adultery.

 

[Chuck Warner]

.....in New Mexico you may own or possess a firearm as a felon if the crime is disposed over 10 years ago and is non violent. You cant by a new gun(federal) but you may own or possess. Chuck

 

[mljdeckard]

Not under federal law.

 

[Chuck Warner]

....thats been argued hear in New Mexico and the feds wernt interested because of no crime being committed. Saw it firsthand as a gunshop owner.

 

[MT GUNNY]

I vote No, Only if there is a Legit Route for Reconciliation. IE Bad in the past, Now has family and Job and has change his or her ways, should be able to own Any firearm. Montana has a route But i think its to limited.

With every right comes responsibility!

 

[Frank Ettin]

I have no problem with a convicted felony losing his gun rights. Committing a crime is a choice and has consequences. And committing a serious, even if non-violent, crime shows lousy judgment, poor self control, and a lack of respect for the community. A convicted felon has, by committing a serious crime, shown himself to be unworthy of trust.

If he has truly reformed, it should be his responsibility to then demonstrate that he is now trustworthy, and procedures exist whereby he can seek restoration of his rights.

 

[Chuck Warner]

...in the case I'm famiiar with, it was breach of trust over $1000.00. restitution made. It was CLEARLY stated to me ,that in this state, the government wasnt gonna chase a non lawbreaking citizen down over possession of a firearm that was possessed in accordance with state law, and the citizen was committing no crime or behaving in an unlawful manner.
It was told to me directly from a federal agency. interesting to say the least.

 

[mustang_steve]

I voted "Yes" because the question enveloped ALL Felons, and not just violent Felons.

Violent Felons should NOT have firearms.

The non-violent guys....I'm doubtful that it makes us any safer barring them from having a firearm. There's so much crap that's a felony anymore that I feel many people are being barred unneccesarily.

Anyways, just like the liberals claim a "gun show" loophole, we can claim there's a "Felony Loophole"....just make nearly everything a felony and there you go, instant gun control.

 

[Cap'n Jack Burntbeard]

There are only two situations in which one can be deprived of the fundamental right of self defense. Those are life in prison or the death penalty.
To illustrate the absurdity of the "no guns for felons" concept, just exchange the right to self defense with the right to be free of warrant-less search and or seizure. The ACLU would go insane, and rightfully so.

 

[Zach S]

Yes, if we cant trust them enough to let them out, they shouldn't be.

If we can trust them enough to among the public, then they should have all their rights restored.