cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...g-flight-faces-20-years-8380227-64237022.html
lest some be accused of cherrypicking
lest some be accused of cherrypicking
Convicted felons owning guns
- Thread starter SalchaketJoe
- Start date
- Status
Harve Curry
Member
I am of the old way that if you've served your debt to society then you are a freeman.
It was that way for well over the first 125 years of the United States, it ended approximately 70 years ago.
Trading freedom and rights for some perceived security eventually ends in tyranny.
The Founding Fathers of our country knew that and their words are good enough for me.
It was that way for well over the first 125 years of the United States, it ended approximately 70 years ago.
Trading freedom and rights for some perceived security eventually ends in tyranny.
The Founding Fathers of our country knew that and their words are good enough for me.
gyvel
Member
There were no legal questions to begin with. My point is that there are felonies that can be committed without the knowledge of the perpetrator and there are felonies that are not of a violent nature, The poll allows only for a "black or white" set of choices and there are too many gray areas in between.
Quite frankly, those of you out there with strict, ultra right-wing, sanctimonious rigid senses of "morality" scare the Hell out of me. I could easily envision you as descendants of those who burned witches at the stake in Salem.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The "debt to society" includes the entire sentence, not just the prison term. It includes paying the fine (usually levied in a criminal case), court costs, and not possessing a firearm.
bababooey32
Member
kirklandRdr: I would submit that a man who cannot order a glass of wine on an airplane without wigging out is not firearms material. While the actual felony committed may not be violent, his willingness to overstep the bounds of normal, civil behavior is a sign that he is incapable of handling certain privelages. Firearms ownership is one of them.
Gunfighter123: The point of rescinding the right to purchase a firearm is not necessarily to prevent a felon from acquiring one - we all know that felons often (most of the time) acquire their firearms illegaly anyway - but to give the authorities another tool for controlling felons before they find a victim. If LEOs had to wait for felons to illegaly use their weapons, crime prevention would be much more difficult.
I would suggest that violent fleons have lifetime revocation of their gun rights while non-violent offenders must remain clean for some set period of time before restoration of gun rights. More specifically felonies should be categorized into lifetime and temporary revocation categories to accomodate any non-violent crimes that we wish to include in the lifetime revocation column.
Edited to add: I would also not be opposed to an appeals process whereby felons could demonstrate their worthiness to have their gun rights reinstated.
Gunfighter123: The point of rescinding the right to purchase a firearm is not necessarily to prevent a felon from acquiring one - we all know that felons often (most of the time) acquire their firearms illegaly anyway - but to give the authorities another tool for controlling felons before they find a victim. If LEOs had to wait for felons to illegaly use their weapons, crime prevention would be much more difficult.
I would suggest that violent fleons have lifetime revocation of their gun rights while non-violent offenders must remain clean for some set period of time before restoration of gun rights. More specifically felonies should be categorized into lifetime and temporary revocation categories to accomodate any non-violent crimes that we wish to include in the lifetime revocation column.
Edited to add: I would also not be opposed to an appeals process whereby felons could demonstrate their worthiness to have their gun rights reinstated.
Last edited:
bababooey32
Member
gyvel wrote:
That's funny, because people with flexible senses of morality scare the hell out of me!
That's funny, because people with flexible senses of morality scare the hell out of me!
Time to reframe or quit.
I think there would be more beneficial debate and more agreement if the question was slightly reframed. Right now we are just going around in circles and after re-reading the thread it seems we aren't really talking to each other.
I think we will find much more realistic agreement and debate along these lines, rather than the previous. Hopefully it will also slow the spiral into Thread Lock territory?
Assume any felony should mean the revocation of rights.
Should specific limits be put on what can be considered a Felony?
What crimes should be considered a Felony?
I think there would be more beneficial debate and more agreement if the question was slightly reframed. Right now we are just going around in circles and after re-reading the thread it seems we aren't really talking to each other.
I think we will find much more realistic agreement and debate along these lines, rather than the previous. Hopefully it will also slow the spiral into Thread Lock territory?
Assume any felony should mean the revocation of rights.
Should specific limits be put on what can be considered a Felony?
What crimes should be considered a Felony?
BushyGuy
Member
i voted no , once a felon always a felon. for those who voted yes they need to rethink their actions ," why are they a felon in the first place?" so those who voted yes are you really sure you want a felon to own a gun ? hell no they be adding more felonies to their record if they were allowed!
i feel those with misdemeanor 1 and 2 shouldnt own a gun either , most people would cuss and get misdemeanor 3 from being disorderly but thats the highest i would go.
i feel those with misdemeanor 1 and 2 shouldnt own a gun either , most people would cuss and get misdemeanor 3 from being disorderly but thats the highest i would go.
Revolver Ocelot
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,470
I think that it should depend on the charge, if it was a violent crime involving a weapon or assault on a person then no, if it was a crime not ivolving a violent act i can see a second chance being given once they met all the terms of their probation.
if they can prove to be a reformed individual I see no wrong.
if they can prove to be a reformed individual I see no wrong.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I won't lie, I didn't read all nine pages of responses, so this may have been said before. What I am about to say is my opinion. Consitutional rights should only apply to people who obey the law. I should be able to own as many firearms as I want, and whatever kind of firearm I want. I should be able to carry, concealed or open, without having to pay a fee. I feel that I am entitled to this because I have never given society a reason to not trust me. If someone doesn't like the idea of not being able to own a firearm, DON'T BREAK THE LAW!!!!
As far as them being rehabilitated or reformed, let's not forget that the vast majority of people in prison are multiple repeat offenders.
As far as them being rehabilitated or reformed, let's not forget that the vast majority of people in prison are multiple repeat offenders.
Gunfighter123
Member
bababooey32 --- Sorry , but I find a major flaw with that statement . In all 50 states , a convicted felon CAN NOT legally posses a firearm. They are in violation of a FEDERAL ban to posses firearms. And LEOs really DO NOT have to "wait for felons" to use their illeagle firearms. The simple possesion of a firearm is a crime all by itself. However , I am glad to see that you also think that there should be a distintsion made between a VIOLENT Felony and a NON-Violent Felony. With up to 7000 new felony laws a year being made --- how long before EVERYONE IS A FELON and loses the Right to Bear Arms.
HardShell
Member
I didn't read all 9 pages -- no apology for that, but I am sorry if my answer is a rerun...
Maybe they should be, but the reality is that in this country, under our current system, most often they simply are not.
Absent massive sentencing reform, I would not support any measure to automatically restore rights to a felon upon completion of what currently passes for a "sentence" in this country.
I would, however, enthusiastically support a measure to put in place a fair and uniform system for petitioning for rights restoration upon completion of a full sentence (absent recidivism, of course). Some petition systems for this purpose exist today, but not everywhere and certainly without consistency from one jurisdiction to another.
YMMV, as always.
Maybe they should be, but the reality is that in this country, under our current system, most often they simply are not.
Absent massive sentencing reform, I would not support any measure to automatically restore rights to a felon upon completion of what currently passes for a "sentence" in this country.
I would, however, enthusiastically support a measure to put in place a fair and uniform system for petitioning for rights restoration upon completion of a full sentence (absent recidivism, of course). Some petition systems for this purpose exist today, but not everywhere and certainly without consistency from one jurisdiction to another.
YMMV, as always.
TexasBill
Member
If all felonies involved a true threat to society, I would have to say the lifetime prohibition should be retained. Unfortunately, all felonies do not involve a true threat to society.
In Texas, simple possession of marijuana was a felony (in fact, it was right before genocide in the statutes) and the police in one city boasted that they had gotten felony convictions on as little as five seeds. When the law was changed, reclassifying simple possession as a misdemeanor, that same city reduced the penalty to a ticket. You got the ticket, paid a $100 fine and that was it. The intent was that those who had been convicted under the old statute would no longer be felons and would be released from prison. However, the district attorney from the county which includes that city argued that since the offenders had broken the old law, they were not eligible for relief under the new law. He was successful. So the people who went to prison for simple possession were felons and lost their rights, while those caught after the change had only a municipal court record and retained their rights. Same offense, two outcomes.
Sorry, but that just isn't fair. Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you want, but one of the reasons we have so much prison overcrowding is that we send non-violent offenders there and have to release violent offenders to make room.
Consider that you can become a felon by filching avocados in California.
In at least one state, you lose the privilege to have a driver's license (I am not sure if this is still true, but I know it was when I was younger).
I don't see anything wrong with offering ex-cons convicted of non-violent crimes a chance to restore their rights. It might even inspire some enough to forget about the new tricks they learned in prison. The condition would have to be that you only get this chance once; offend again and your rights are gone for good.
I would say someone who can remain crime-free for a period of time following their release should be considered rehabilitated and allowed to fully participate in society. We call ourselves a Christian nation and one of the basic tenets of Christianity is the opportunity for salvation. The least we can do is give those who wish to earn it the opportunity to enjoy the rights of citizenship.
In Texas, simple possession of marijuana was a felony (in fact, it was right before genocide in the statutes) and the police in one city boasted that they had gotten felony convictions on as little as five seeds. When the law was changed, reclassifying simple possession as a misdemeanor, that same city reduced the penalty to a ticket. You got the ticket, paid a $100 fine and that was it. The intent was that those who had been convicted under the old statute would no longer be felons and would be released from prison. However, the district attorney from the county which includes that city argued that since the offenders had broken the old law, they were not eligible for relief under the new law. He was successful. So the people who went to prison for simple possession were felons and lost their rights, while those caught after the change had only a municipal court record and retained their rights. Same offense, two outcomes.
Sorry, but that just isn't fair. Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you want, but one of the reasons we have so much prison overcrowding is that we send non-violent offenders there and have to release violent offenders to make room.
Consider that you can become a felon by filching avocados in California.
In at least one state, you lose the privilege to have a driver's license (I am not sure if this is still true, but I know it was when I was younger).
I don't see anything wrong with offering ex-cons convicted of non-violent crimes a chance to restore their rights. It might even inspire some enough to forget about the new tricks they learned in prison. The condition would have to be that you only get this chance once; offend again and your rights are gone for good.
I would say someone who can remain crime-free for a period of time following their release should be considered rehabilitated and allowed to fully participate in society. We call ourselves a Christian nation and one of the basic tenets of Christianity is the opportunity for salvation. The least we can do is give those who wish to earn it the opportunity to enjoy the rights of citizenship.
Bruno2
Member
I was selected for jury duty 2 weeks after I turned 18 yrs old . I took off work for a week to do my civic duty. I went and interviewed for 4 different cases . I was never selected by either side the plaintiffs or defendants . I was not credible enough with my short duration of life experiences to be considered as a juror . I had to go b/c its the law and I didnt want to be in the wrong for not going and fullfilling my civic obligation . So in a nutshell I was old enough to break the law and lose my RKBA privilages and my voting rights , but , nobody would take me seriously as a juror ?
That is pretty messed up guys . Open your eyes up and look around . Over 18 is a legal adult , but , are they really capable of making life changing decisions as an adult ? I do not think the laws are right the way they are written . The law should be changed accordingly and a screening process to restore firearm and voting rights should be legislated.
That is pretty messed up guys . Open your eyes up and look around . Over 18 is a legal adult , but , are they really capable of making life changing decisions as an adult ? I do not think the laws are right the way they are written . The law should be changed accordingly and a screening process to restore firearm and voting rights should be legislated.
Arkansas Paul
Member
TexasBill, being a Christian nation has nothing whatsoever to do with allowing someone who has proven themselves to be a criminal the right to own a firearm. What about pedophiles? After all we are a Christian nation. We believe in forgiveness right? When they've served their time, let's just let them out, not make them register as sex offenders and give them some nice government housing right by the elementary school. I'm sorry.......wait, no I'm not. You have to realize that everything you do, good or bad, has consequences. One of the things that our freedom gives us is the control of our own destinies. If you screw up bad enough for it to be considered a felony, you did it to yourself, and have no one else to blame. I'm sure I'm to callouse though. Everybody knows that it's never the criminal's fault and society made them what they are and they were probably spanked as children and the coach wouldn't let them play.................The excuses could go on forever. Bottom line, you do the crime, you pay the penalty.
Last edited:
I'd rather pedos who are expected to reoffend be locked up. Let any that are believed to be reformed out with no registry. The registry is feel-good legislation...how do you think it prevents crimes exactly? If you're so afraid of these guys why do you want them out of prison?
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
cause they served their sentence?
Vern Humphrey
Member
oneounceload
member
Proof that some folks just need killing......sorry - sad, but true....think of the costs involved with letting them out only to commit more crimes, get re-arrested, re-convicted and back to jail
Vern Humphrey
Member
Yep. For all the hand-wringing about how much it costs to keep an inmate locked up, I've seen studies that indicate it costs seven times as much to allow him to walk the streets and commit more crimes.
jakemccoy
Member
cassandrasdaddy said:
Yes, in the real world, a repeat offending felon who uses a gun during a robbery will go to the slammer for an extremely long time. That's the reality in American anyway.
Also, the gun charge is the most important part of my entire point. Additional punishment for using a gun in a felony has nothing to do with a law prohibiting gun ownership by a felon. Those are two separate issues. My point is that the law regarding ownership is unnecessary because the law regarding using a gun during a felony is sufficiently harsh. I'm not a fan of unnecessary laws because they'll negatively affect my freedoms someway somehow.
Conveniently, you ignore the fact that most, if not all, law abiding citizens have committed a felony at some point. That's just the nature of the term if we all update our definitions to the year 2009. Effectively, you're in favor of not allowing gun ownership if you commit a felony AND get caught; otherwise, it's cool.
Last edited:
Arkansas Paul
Member
The question is why are repeat offending felons given the chance to repeat offend. This is really not related to gun ownership, but the problem is criminals have no fear of going to prison. They have it too good these days. If you chained a big iron ball to their legs and made them bust rocks with a big hammer from daylight till dark, you wouldn't have as many repeat offenders. And if they refuse, beat the #$!%&*(^ out of them with a bullwhip. And don't say anything about prisoners' rights and how they're treated. I don't care if they feed them.
Tequila Mockingbird
Member
Exactly...
Question: What do you call a blanket prohibition against gun ownership by a particular class of citizens solely because of their membership in that class?
I'd call it gun control...
You guys in favor of depriving citizens of the right to keep and bear arms for life solely on the basis of a past felony conviction are advocating what you think is "good" gun control. In reality, it is this kind of thinking that makes it easier for the next round of "bad" gun control to get a foothold. As jakemccoy pointed out, there are already laws on the books that prohibit use of firearms for unlawful purposes. The blanket prohibition of gun ownership by felons serves no purpose other than to advance the cause of other forms of gun prohibition.
MinnMooney
Member
That's a blanket question of major Black/White proportions.
I see no "Yes/No" answer to that.
Is the felony for the mass murder of everyone he saw who had big ears (AKA : 'hate crime') or because he stole a car to get his gunshot wife to the closest hospital?
Mass murderers should not own any gun larger than a .458 Lott but the car stealer should have no restriction.
P.S. Convicted felons who are still in prison - regardless of the type of crime - should NOT be allowed to carry concealed pistols or revolvers in the rec yard or while doing laundry duty.
I see no "Yes/No" answer to that.
Is the felony for the mass murder of everyone he saw who had big ears (AKA : 'hate crime') or because he stole a car to get his gunshot wife to the closest hospital?
Mass murderers should not own any gun larger than a .458 Lott but the car stealer should have no restriction.
P.S. Convicted felons who are still in prison - regardless of the type of crime - should NOT be allowed to carry concealed pistols or revolvers in the rec yard or while doing laundry duty.
- Status
