Convicted felons owning guns

[Grassman]

I have a good friend who was an avid duck hunter, lived for it really. Well he was convicted for felony DWI got ten years probation and don't know if he will ever hunt again. He has never done any violent crime at all, just had a drinking problem. He should be able to have a gun after his probation, but there is no guarantee.

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

“Overcriminalization” is a term that I’ve only heard recently, but it aptly describes the current tendency here in the US to use the criminal law to as a means of coercing Americans into what Congress and the federal bureaucracy consider to be socially acceptable behavior. This has resulted in trivial conduct, which used to be handled (if at all) within the civil justice system, being elevated to the level of a crime for which prison time can be assessed. An article I read recently claimed that an ordinary American citizen going about his or her normal daily activities may commit three federal felonies without any intent or knowledge that the conduct being undertaken is illegal. The concept of mens rea, the idea that criminal intent had to be proven in order to find someone guilty of a crime, is disappearing from the criminal law, and is being replaced by “strict liability” criminal laws that require only that a party have engaged in some prohibited activity to be found guilty. This trend debases the criminal law and is part of the reason that the ordinary citizen distrusts law enforcement and our law-making bodies.

All this has resulted in the US having 25 percent of the world’s prisoners in its jails, despite having only 5 percent of the world’s population. Has this made the US a safer place to live? You be the judge…

I believe in the basic premise that incarceration should be reserved for serious matters that present a danger to our lives, our property or our way of life. Sentences should be commensurate with the risk a particular behavior poses to society, and since virtually all prisoners will eventually be released, rehabilitation should be the primary goal of incarceration. Once a prisoner has served his or her time and has been released, his or her rights should be completely restored, unless withholding of certain rights, e.g., possession of a firearm, is a condition of release ordered by the court following a hearing. Even then, restoration of rights should be automatic after a reasonable period of time has elapsed if the individual has followed all the rules. The idea that someone can lose their rights in this great country for a trivial infraction of some bureaucratic pronouncement is obnoxious to me...

 

[mljdeckard]

And gyvel,

I grew up in the middle of polygamy, I know hundreds of them. They aren't convicted felons, and trust me, they have plenty of guns. What made Warren Jeffs different was that our attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, finally did the legwork to find a witness who was willing to testify that someone in a position of authority used his position to coerce her into an underage relationship that she didn't want to be in. In finally convicting one of the leaders, the whole community is fragmenting and falling apart. The bulk of the land is in a federal trust. Mark Shurtleff is running for Bob Bennett's senate seat next year. They are criminals and should be prosecuted.

I'm also not tolerant to the idea that statutory rape isn't a real crime. It is. Many states have age proximity guidelines, where if the actors are within a few years of each other, it isn't a crime. But if a guy knows the law, and doesn't have enough focus to wait until she's 18, I don't want him having a gun anyway. If that strikes close to home, so be it.

Once again, on THR, we follow the law, PERIOD. It is very rare for a non-violent, first-time offender to get a felony conviction at all. Our system is the worst there is, except for all the others. Like we were saying above, if you somehow defy the odds and get a felony conviction you don't deserve, and it really was a bizarre exception to the statistics, and not representative of your character, then after the required waiting period you should be able to get it expunged. On the other hand, if you can't stay out of trouble long enough to get it expunged, you are probably going to be a three-striker and get a life sentence anyway. (Which I fully support, even though right now it is not properly funded.) The system has holes, glitches, and flukes, but it's STILL the best in the world.

 

[Frank Ettin]

mljdeckard, +1

 

[rbernie]

The system has holes, glitches, and flukes, but it's STILL the best in the world.

Great rant, but it still dodged the fundamental question that's been posed over and over and over again in this thread - why would you let folk out of prison if you don't trust them to own a firearm?

 

[mljdeckard]

I've answered it a few times. I wouldn't. But until we are willing to increase the budgets of the local, state, and federal systems exponentially to accommodate everyone who isn't fit to return to society, they are coming out anyway. The vast majority of people coming out of prisons right now not only shouldn't have a gun, they shouldn't be in society at all.

So, let's say on next year's ballot, there is a tax proposal to fund a program the "No prisoner left behind" initiative, to make sure that we keep everyone in the system until they are cured. A BIG tax initiative. In return for this funding, we the government, promise to end revolving door parole and not let people out until they have a reasonable chance of staying straight. This tax will automatically increase if it is found that the needs of the system are initially underestimated, and we wind up holding a LOT more prisoners a LOT longer than initially anticipated. (Does that sound like something the government would do?!) Would ANY of you vote yes?

I have a proposal that would cut costs of the federal system by 20%, and that of states like California by 35%. EFFECTIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM. (Oh yes, I SAID IT.)

AGAIN, the REALITY is, most of the people coming out of prison, whether paroled or having served full-term, are not ready to have guns. AGAIN, giving all non-incarcerated felons full restoration of rights is VERY premature as long as we are letting them go before they are ready. We must fix THAT problem before we can consider a utopian plan to restore everyone's rights.

 

[DrLaw]

I've added my no vote and now my two cents why. Having been a cop, prosecutor and defense lawyer (in that order) it has become my thought, take it or leave it, that if you commit a felony, as a punishment, you should give up certain rights.

That should be an incentive to those who appreciate guns not to commit a felony.

That said, felons do not have to give up the right to defend themselves, but they need not have a gun to do it.

Now, in most states, if you live long enough after committing a felony, you can seek a pardon from the governor to wipe the slate clean. Get that, having lived clean, and I have no problem with it.

From my experience though, most felons manage to violate felonies more than once.

The Doc is out now.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

duh.

why would you let a person out of prison who you didn't trust to drive your car, date your daughter, wash your undies, cook you dinner, cut your hair, house-sit, dog-sit, babysit... do your taxes, balance your checkbook...

because you can't keep everybody in prison... so you limit the irresponsible, the criminal, the stupid, and the untrustworthy as best you can... in a "prison without bars"... that being parole, probation, or just the "felon status" and its restrictions... boohoo to the poor drunk drivers who risk my and your life(felony dui isn't normally an easy thing to get), the thieves who think its okay to rob bank accounts, pension funds, and identities....

they demonstrate poor judgement... I don't want someone with a poor moral compass and a felony conviction to carry a pistol, have a rifle, or shottie so that they can be given opportunity to make another bad decision... felony relief exists in many states... i know of two people personally who have used(or tried) it... one can own guns now, one can't...

I had the joy of "managing" many a felon for 2 years... even the ones without a "violent" felony conviction generally demonstrated poor impulse control... so are we gonna lock up a car thief for life? no... it's not cost-effective... will he steal a car again...? most likely... but should he "do his time" and then be back to possessing the rights you or I have as law abiding citizens? so he can shoot you when you try to stop him from stealing your car, or a cop pulling him over in said stolen car? might he get a stolen pistol anyhow? should we make it easier and make it legal?



it is a stupid stupid stupid point to say "if you can't trust them w/ a gun..."

its infantile to argue that, unless you see all things as black and white...

 

[9MMare]

I have a good friend who was an avid duck hunter, lived for it really. Well he was convicted for felony DWI got ten years probation and don't know if he will ever hunt again. He has never done any violent crime at all, just had a drinking problem. He should be able to have a gun after his probation, but there is no guarantee.

This really minimizes the reality of DUI. Your friend came alot closer to killing someone with his car than he ever (probably) did with a hunting rifle. He most certainly deserves his punishment.

That said, if there is a probationary period and he passes it successfully, then he should have his rights restored.

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

It is very rare for a non-violent, first-time offender to get a felony conviction at all.

Not true...because of federal mandatory sentencing guidelines, lots of first time non-violent offenders are sent to prison.

Like we were saying above, if you somehow defy the odds and get a felony conviction you don't deserve, and it really was a bizarre exception to the statistics, and not representative of your character, then after the required waiting period you should be able to get it expunged.

It's virtually impossible to get a federal conviction expunged. You'd be better off seeking a presidential pardon.

 

[mljdeckard]

I mean really, saying that we will just keep everyone in prison until they are ready to come out sounds just as wishful as the antis saying that banning guns will keep them out of society.

 

[mljdeckard]

Tequila, I'm calling bull on that one. It is a VERY small percentage of non-violent first-time offenders who get prison time OR a felony conviction. Even if it numbers in the thousands, it's still miniscule. The system doesn't have the SPACE to lock them up when there are so many VIOLENT offenders getting paroled early for lack of space.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It is very rare for a non-violent, first-time offender to get a felony conviction at all.

Not true...because of federal mandatory sentencing guidelines, lots of first time non-violent offenders are sent to prison.

And that is not true. Look at the first post: "It is very rare for a non-violent, first-time offender to get a felony conviction."

The poster is absolutely correct. First time offenders are often offered deals, so they do not face felony charges -- and hence are not convicted of felonies.

Next, felony or no felony, federal sentencing guildlines apply only to federal crimes. The vast majority of people facing trial are charged with state, not federal crimes.

 

[KBT1911]

Only non-violent felonies that don't involve firearms and then with some consideration. They would also have to have completed any paroles, probations etc and paid all of their restitution and fines.

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

Having been a cop, prosecutor and defense lawyer (in that order) it has become my thought, take it or leave it, that if you commit a felony, as a punishment, you should give up certain rights.

That should be an incentive to those who appreciate guns not to commit a felony.

If it were only as simple as that...

When bureaucrats, legislators and prosecutors decided there can be crime without criminal intent, and with thousands of federal criminal offenses on the books, it becomes much more easy to commit a crime without intending to do so, or even being aware that you have committed a crime.

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

Tequila, I'm calling bull on that one. It is a VERY small percentage of non-violent first-time offenders who get prison time OR a felony conviction. Even if it numbers in the thousands, it's still miniscule. The system doesn't have the SPACE to lock them up when there are so many VIOLENT offenders getting paroled early for lack of space.

If that's bull, why do we have more than 2 million(!!) people incarcerated in the United States? Are they mostly violent recidivists? And prisons are very much overcrowded, although we still seem to be able to raise money to build more.

But that's really getting away from the point of the thread. The fact is that most of those 2 million folks in prison will eventually be released. By depriving them of any chance of getting their constitutional rights back, we make it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to successfully assimilate back into society. If they can't get a job because of the conviction, what's the future going to be like for them? Chances are, they'll re-offend and end back in prison and be an additional burden on taxpayers. By offering a path back toward full rights as a citizen, we lessen the chances that they'll backslide. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" hasn't worked; it's time for a different, more humane approach.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The fact is that most of those 2 million folks in prison will eventually be released. By depriving them of any chance of getting their constitutional rights back, we make it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to successfully assimilate back into society. If they can't get a job because of the conviction, what's the future going to be like for them?

It's their criminal record, not the fact that they can't own a firearm, that keeps them from getting a job. Restoring the right to keep and bear arms won't do a thing to improve their employability.

 

[rogertc1]

They could become Pigs?

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

It's their criminal record, not the fact that they can't own a firearm, that keeps them from getting a job. Restoring the right to keep and bear arms won't do a thing to improve their employability.

That's true, but the disclosure rules many states have make it difficult to get a job.

But getting back to the topic at hand...my point is that firearms prohibitions should not be automatic. They should be fully restored upon completion of sentence unless a court for good cause determines otherwise.

 

[mljdeckard]

Tequila- Yes they are, and most of them shouldn't come out at all. What I have said....many times, is that just because they are out doesn't mean that they are ready to own a gun, and if they went through the process of expungement, they would get their rights back the reason most of them DON'T is because they don't stay clean long enough to do it.

Do you even know what the recidivism rate IS?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

tequila i have more than a passing experience with cons on a variety of levels and wonder what makes you think allowing them to rearm as soon as they hit the street is desireable? for them or society.... in a real way as opposed to some philisophic exercise. and what you base your opinion on.

whats a "disclosure law"?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That's true, but the disclosure rules many states have make it difficult to get a job.

Not to belabor the point, it's their criminal record, not their right to bear arms, or lack thereof that keeps them from getting a job.

And in many industries, a background check is mandatory. You can't work in the health care or child care industries without a background check, for example. You can't join the Army, the police force, and so on with a criminal record.

But getting back to the topic at hand...my point is that firearms prohibitions should not be automatic. They should be fully restored upon completion of sentence unless a court for good cause determines otherwise.

But that's just the point. When the criminal was sentenced, the prohibition against carrying a firearm was part of the sentence. A court for good cause has determined he should not be allowed to have a firearm. A convict who wants his rights restored can apply -- but he has to prove his worthiness.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and its not that hard to do. in fact the process of doing so can be a very positive part of his rejoining society.

 

[3pairs12]

whats a "disclosure law"?

Wouldn't that be when an employer asks if you have been convicted of a felony you are required to disclose whether you had or hadn't? Not sure but since they were talking about employent thats what I took it as.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

yea i'm curious about his reference to some disclosure law.