Convicted felons owning guns

[cassandrasdaddy]

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.


so he got at least 3 dui convictions to get that felony? how many times he beat the rap? or just get lucky and drive drunk and not get caught? you might pick a better poster child for reform. he sober up yet? most often not drinking is a condition of probation in those kinda cases if hes not sober hes violating his probation and surely thats not the path to getting your rights ack

 

[mljdeckard]

They act like it's ok for someone to me armed if they have 'just' a drinking problem. And again, that's just the time he got CAUGHT for it. NO ONE KNOWS how many times he did it, endangering my life, your life, and my kid's life, before he got caught. What is it about this guy that makes you think it's ok for him to be armed? He must follow all of the rules or firearm safety, but it's ok if he's willing to break the drunk-driving rules?

My little brother got a DUI just over a year ago. He got VERY lucky. Because he hit in the process of a change of first sergeant, commander, and sergeant-major, he dodged UCMJ punishment. His priviliges of driving on post were automatically suspended for one year, and he had a civil charge with 48 hours in the county lockup, which he served on a weekend. He will not be able to get a Utah concealed carry permit for at LEAST six years. First offense. He SWEARS it will be his last. If he can keep it together for six years, we'll see. AND NO, it was NOT the first time he drove drunk. Just the first time he got caught.

 

[Ian]

And here I had this weird notion that certain rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, were supposedly inalienable...or as Merriam Webster puts it, "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred."

I guess I missed it when they amended the Bill of Rights to add "except when we say so" to each article.

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

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.

I don't like "cookie cutter" justice, and that's what I consider an automatic loss of constitutional rights for life because of a felony conviction to be. Today, felonies run the gamut from murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. (i.e., "real" crimes against society) to technical violations of the numerous federal statutes that our government in its infinite wisdom seeks to use to coerce us into what it considers socially acceptable behavior. I would be much more comfortable if the statutes specified that upon conviction of particular crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, etc., one would lose the right to keep and bear arms. By applying the prohibition to all felonies, one could lose a constitutionally guaranteed right because of a felony conviction for failure to fill in some form that the government mandates. The loss of the right to keep and bear arms should only result from a court's determination that an individual is a continuing danger to society, and not just a blind assumption that everyone who commits a felony represents such a danger.

 

[rbernie]

A convict who wants his rights restored can apply -- but he has to prove his worthiness.

How? In 1992, Congress stopped funding the ATF's processing of felon gun appeals. As far as I understand things, even if you obtain a state pardon the Feds won't do anything about it.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

even if you obtain a state pardon the Feds won't do anything about it.

you raise a good point but my understanding is the key is "the feds don't do anything about it." in va the rights restoration process is not that bad and done frequently. doesn't even require a lawyer and there are groups that will help folk file the paperwork and do the research for em. never tried a ncis check yet i'll let you know how it works out.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ian, The Constitution states that no one will be deprived of life or liberty WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. A felony conviction IS due process of law. It is entirely constitutional.

rbernie, that is certainly a problem that should be rectified. I have a better idea. Disband BATFE entirely.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

And here I had this weird notion that certain rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, were supposedly inalienable...or as Merriam Webster puts it, "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred."

I guess I missed it when they amended the Bill of Rights to add "except when we say so" to each article

i guess then you find the idea of jailing folks at all after all there that right to liberty piece in there too

 

[conw]

Here are two facets to this issue, from the POV of someone who agrees with rbernie.

1) Prior restraint in general is unconstitutional, this includes current restrictions on drugs. It's the elephant in the room; legalize/decriminalize all drugs, and MAGICALLY there is room for all these violent felons who are getting out too early to stay in longer.

2) Do the people arguing that "It's a bad idea to allow felons to arm themselves" actually believe that felons who want to arm themselves IMMEDIATELY after getting out, illegally, are currently unable to do so? Unbelievable! You are on a slippery slope, essentially opening the door to the argument that prior restraint is okay, that gun control in some form is effective, etc.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Do the people arguing that "It's a bad idea to allow felons to arm themselves" actually believe that felons who want to arm themselves IMMEDIATELY after getting out, illegally, are currently unable to do so?


could you show where someone has said that? other than in their imagination?

 

[KINGMAX]

I have NO problem with non-violent felons being allowed to own firearms or have their full rights re-established after the parole period. Pay your debt to society, you should be respected for that.

 

[Ian]

Applying a particular penalty to all convicted felons without any option for argument is clearly unconstitutional. Revocation of rights is never addressed at sentencing, where it might be challenged for a particular case. It's just done automatically. That's not due process.

If this were going to be the least bit logical (if still unconstitutional), they would strip the 1st amendment from libelers, slanderers religious zealots, and inciters of riot, and not strip the 2nd amendment from marijuana vendors.

 

[Tequila Mockingbird]

You are on a slippery slope, essentially opening the door to the argument that prior restraint is okay, that gun control in some form is effective, etc.

Good point! How can you argue against gun control and at the same time argue that an entire class of people without exception should be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms?

 

[ccsniper]

how is this thread not locked?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Revocation of rights is never addressed at sentencing, where it might be challenged for a particular case. It's just done automatically. That's not due process.



ahhh i see you imagine that in a world far far away one would be able to dispute the details of sentencing as part of "due process" not in this world you get due process in determining guilt or innocence after that sorry about your luck. if someone is so dim as to be unaware of the consequences of committing a felony perhaps not guilty by reason of mental defect is the way to go

they do bar hackers from computers dui's from drinking pedophiles from being near kids child pornographers from having porn

is that "logical" enough?

 

[Grassman]

cassandrasdaddy...You are correct, he got away with drunk driving for years. He received 10 years probation and hefty fines. He will complete that probation this year, he has not had a drink in all of that time, turned his life around. I think he has payed his dept to society. If he had wrecked a family of four and killed them, them we are having a whole different debate.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ian, it appears that it it only in YOUR opinion that this does not satisfy the requirement of due process of law.

 

[JN01]

Do the people arguing that "It's a bad idea to allow felons to arm themselves" actually believe that felons who want to arm themselves IMMEDIATELY after getting out, illegally, are currently unable to do so?

I don't think anyone seriously believes gun prohibition laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns. The point is that if someone with a violent history is caught with one, he can be once again incapacitated (imprisoned) even if he has not completed an offense against another victim (or enhance the sentence if he has).

Holding criminals "until they can be trusted" would require life sentences with the possibility of parole for all violent crimes. Even then you would have to depend on a parole board to make that determination. How many paroled criminals re-offend under the current system?

Rather than wishing on a fairy tale system that will never happen, we should improve on the one we already have. Limit loss of firearms rights to specific violent crimes and/or improve upon and fully fund a system whereby a convicted person may have his rights restored.

 

[BHP FAN]

Tequila said:
''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... ''

and that seems to sum it up,for me.I'd like to see if we could decriminalize a lot of non violent behavior,and REALLY punish REAL crimes.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

my experience , as opposed to imagination, about the behavior of felons would make me opposed to automatic restoration. if you gave away your rights you need to work to get em back. most things you don't work for you don't/won't appreciate and likely don't deserve.
again i suspect my perspective is different from most here, even those who agree with my position

 

[9MMare]

We take the right to 'liberty' pretty darn quickly when it comes to felonies.......again, you do risk losing your rights when you commit crimes.

But again, for most felonies, if a person leaves prison and is clean for a specific 'probationary' period of (IMO at least 5 yrs) then they should have their rights reinstated, esp. the right to vote.

 

[Evnldr]

ONLY IF: the crime was not gun related or Violent. And they have served ther time.

 

[jakemccoy]

Certain felons should be allowed. For example, tax evaders and people like the rapper T.I. should be allowed to own. Violent felons like Timothy McVeigh should lose their gun rights for life.

ONLY IF: the crime was not gun related or Violent. And they have served ther time.

I don't fully agree there. I don't think somebody should lose their gun rights for committing the felony of having a shotgun with a 17.8" barrel. Also, if somebody needs to grab a gun with an 11-round capacity in California in order to defend their life, I don't think that person should lose their gun rights. Most gun laws draw a line in the sand that's arbitrary. Breaking such laws without ill-intent shouldn't cause a person to losing their gun rights.

 

[flrfh213]

i feel when your debt is paid for your crime you are released there should be a waiting period before a felon should be able to own a rifle/shotgun for home protection or hunting only and depending on crime felon may or may not be legally able to own a handgun, but unless a violent offender they should be able to defend their homes as i can and do...

 

[jakemccoy]

i feel when your debt is paid for your crime you are released there should be a waiting period before a felon should be able to own a rifle/shotgun for home protection or hunting only and depending on crime felon may or may not be legally able to own a handgun, but unless a violent offender they should be able to defend their homes as i can and do...

Notice your categories do not include things like sport or collecting. Literally, you are saying that felons should not be allowed to practice. Your categories do not allow such. In that case, you'd have to define exactly what constitutes "sport" and "practice", which would be a highly difficult thing to do. For example, would dry firing be "practicing" and therefore a restricted activity? As we all should see, this issue is rather complex once we literally start putting together language for a law that would be feasible.

On top of everything, there is the concept that the law would not be followed by criminals anyway. The only thing the law would do is make punishment tougher if the felons were caught breaking the gun law. In most cases, a felon would only get caught breaking a gun law while being prosecuted for another felony. At that point, the gun law doesn't matter much anyway!

The end effect of any gun law against felons is that it would restrict law abiding citizens at some level. That's just how any gun law works out in real life, regardless of legislative intent. The most feasible solution is to restrict felons on an individual basis, rather than trying to devise some general law that applies to all felons without room for discretion. In that way, the individual felon can have the burden of reinstating his rights, or not.

The more I think about it, the more I'm against laws that restrict felons from owning. I foresee too many unintended consequences.