hogshead
Member
People with DWI's can get their license back after multiple offense's. Far more people are killed by drunk drivers than armed felon's. Go figure that. I feel when you complete your sentence your rights should be restored.
Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?
- Thread starter ArtP
- Start date
- Status
Arkansas Paul
Member
I agree with this. Saying felons shouldn't be allowed to own firearms is throwing a really broad net these days. We've probably all committed felonies with the way they're tossing them around these days. Violence is a different story however. Violence is simply not the way adults should solve problembs, and once you prove that that's the way you like to handle things, I don't know how smart it is to let them legally have weapons at their disposal.
I have mixed emotions on this, because I'm generally in favor of extremely minimal gun laws. My sig line is the way I feel about most things, and I suppose it's a double standard for me to think that violent people shouldn't be allowed. After all, I don't feel that gun ownership is a privilege, it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but then again so is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they can be taken away after due process.
I guess that's my answer. My feelings are mixed.
bubbacrabb
Member
Im pretty much if you commited a felony you're done. Sorry, we all are brought up with some sort of right and wrong. I dont want to hear a sad story its cut and dry to me. On the mental health you better be full blown retard or something. I dont believe in most mental illness. Psycology is a fake science to me. I dont believe in bi polar disorder, ADHD, etc. I think its just cause they were not disciplined as children. If I did what most consider ADD ADHD as a kid, my dad should be a millionaire, he knew how to solve it. Just a little cow hide. Administred accross my butt! No need to have insurance etc. It cures all!
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
What felonies?
The felonies that were on the books in the 60's? The 70's? 80's? 90's? 00's? 10's?
10 years from now? 20? 30? 40?
New felonies are added to the books every year. Hundreds if not thousands of new felonies are created every year. As I said in a previous post, there is a law that in NY state, where cheating on the SAT will become a felony if it passes. Cheating on a college entrance exam. Do you think that's a pretty good reason to tell someone "you can't vote or own firearms forever"?
If not, than you'd better revise your "felony= no guns" stance. The government can make anything a felony. They've been adding new felonies for decades. They don't seem to be stoppping anytime soon.
Every single THR poster ever has performed an act sometime in their adult life, that if caught, could be prosecuted as a felony.
Every single one of us.
Should we all lose our firearm rights? Or should it simply rest on the roll of the dice of whether you were caught? Should you lose your rights to guns for doing something in 2012, that while not a felony in 2012, will be a felony in 2022? Why not? It's the act that makes you dangerous right? Surely we aren't saying that it's the arbitrary claim of the government that truly makes you unworthy of firearms are we? Whether or not you can own guns should be based on whether your actions really should you trustworthy of that right?
So what year's felonies do we base it on? You commit "action A" in March of 2012 and get caught. You get convicted of a misdemeanor. You serve your time and when you're done, you get to keep your guns. Another THR poster commits the very same act in April of 2012, but by that time, a law has passed that makes it a felony. Now he shouldn't be trusted with guns for the rest of his life? For doing the same thing you did? You get to keep yours and he doesn't because your legislature was slow? And you really think that's righteous? Really?
PowerG
Member
As someone who has worked in the mental health field, I can assure you that Bipolar Disorder is very real.
bikemutt
Member
In WA at least: "If you were convicted of a felony, your right to vote is restored as long as you are not in prison or on community custody with the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC)."
Nushif
Member
It appears cowhide did not instill you with the ability to think critically or to make objective observations of the world around you.
My wife has a pretty darned severe case of bipolar disorder and social anxiety. She gets so scared at the prospect of having to pick up a phone and call a stranger I've seen people less scared after climbing out of a car wreck.
But hey, I guess a bit of cowhide as a kid could solve that, right? OR would that be abusing children, which is a felony. And can cost you both your vote and 2A rights? What about the guy who is just a tad bit too eager and likes administering that cowhide just a bit too much? Is that ok? Because cowhide is good. But abusing young girls is a felony and morally detestable.
Have I muddied the waters yet? Or is there still a right answer to everything?
AlexanderA
Member
If gun ownership is a zero-sum game, then everybody except me should be prohibited. Of course that's ridiculous. Bans are unenforceable, including bans on felons, etc. (perhaps especially on felons, etc., since they're already predisposed to disregard any laws). Therefore, if it's not feasible for nobody to have guns, then the next-best solution is for everybody to have guns.
Ban gun possession by felons (as if that would do any good), but, more importantly, arm the law-abiding so that they can act as a deterrent.
Ban gun possession by felons (as if that would do any good), but, more importantly, arm the law-abiding so that they can act as a deterrent.
That is the kicker. People have some utopian ideal that if you ban convicted felons from having guns that somehow means they won't have them. All it does is disarm those that are truly reformed, and those who never had an evil intent to begin with. The guy who is going to get a gun to commit a crime doesn't care one bit about a law prohibiting it. I would think people on this forum would be smart enough to realize that but instead they sound like a bunch of liberal gun grabbers, or worse yet gun owners who say its OK to grab someone else's guns but not their own as if they weren't paving the road to lose that too.
Lets not forget the spouse and family of the person in question ALSO loses their right to possess a firearm in their home too or risk their loved one getting blamed for that weapon and thrown into prison.
I've worked with convicted felons for almost 20 years now. I believe any convicted felon should lose their right to possess a firearm for the length of their sentence which normally includes some type of supervised release. When their supervision is over they should have full restoration of their rights. I see nothing in the Constitution that really really permits anything else. If a person is mentally ill, I believe their ability to possess a firearm should be limited but not automatically for life. People do recover from mental illness and there should be some way to restore their rights. I don't think it should be on the person to sue for that right, it should be the responsibility of the Government to justify periodically why they are taking it away or it should be restored to the person. I don't think ANYONE should automatically lose it for life unless they are under some type of Government supervision for life like a sex offender.
Lets not forget the spouse and family of the person in question ALSO loses their right to possess a firearm in their home too or risk their loved one getting blamed for that weapon and thrown into prison.
I've worked with convicted felons for almost 20 years now. I believe any convicted felon should lose their right to possess a firearm for the length of their sentence which normally includes some type of supervised release. When their supervision is over they should have full restoration of their rights. I see nothing in the Constitution that really really permits anything else. If a person is mentally ill, I believe their ability to possess a firearm should be limited but not automatically for life. People do recover from mental illness and there should be some way to restore their rights. I don't think it should be on the person to sue for that right, it should be the responsibility of the Government to justify periodically why they are taking it away or it should be restored to the person. I don't think ANYONE should automatically lose it for life unless they are under some type of Government supervision for life like a sex offender.
Last edited:
Think of it this way, the people of Chicago and DC are prohibited from having firearms so they have no shootings there right? Do you not think that a large number of those crimes are committed by people who have prior convictions and are already prohibited from possessing a firearm? Prohibitions do not work unless you actually live in Utopia.
JRH6856
Member
Or put another way, laws do not stop criminals from behaving badly. Laws just criminalize bad behavior so the criminal can be punished.
I only read through about half of the first page of comments, so forgive me if I repeat anybody or bring up an argument that has already been had. I am fine with the law the way it currently is regarding prohibited possessors. It is by no means perfect, but many laws are not perfect.
My old boss, who is also a good friend of mine, was convicted of a white collar crime long before he and I met. He told me he did two years in prison. He cannot vote or own a gun since he is a convicted felon. You would never know this by talking to him. He is a great person, and he would never hurt anybody.
I would not be against changing the law though. If it were changed to allow felons to be able to possess guns, I would like to see dramatically increased sentences for those felons who again use a gun in the commission of a crime.
My old boss, who is also a good friend of mine, was convicted of a white collar crime long before he and I met. He told me he did two years in prison. He cannot vote or own a gun since he is a convicted felon. You would never know this by talking to him. He is a great person, and he would never hurt anybody.
I would not be against changing the law though. If it were changed to allow felons to be able to possess guns, I would like to see dramatically increased sentences for those felons who again use a gun in the commission of a crime.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
So you're cool with your boss having no say in the American governmental process or being able to defend himself forever?
bikemutt
Member
Arizona does allow a one-count felon to vote, automatically upon completion of sentence.
http://acluaz.org/get-help/restore-your-voting-rights
http://acluaz.org/get-help/restore-your-voting-rights
Papaster
Member
Nothing new, here, but I'm a firm believer that anyone trustworthy enough to be re-admitted to civil society is trustworthy enough to possess firearms. Many of the people currently being readmitted to civil society don't pass this test. I don't want violent offenders to have access to weapons, including not only firearms, but also knives, baseball bats, and automobiles. Violent people will be violent, whether or not the law prevents the legal acquisition of the tools to do so. The only way to prevent recurrence of violence is to remove the opportunity.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,712
Let's start with Eric Holder...
Last edited:
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Only people who have proven themselves dangerous by initiating aggression against others and only after it has been proven in a court of law with witnesses and evidence.
Wrong. These laws don't criminalize behavior they criminalize possession of a tool. You are a criminal whether you behave badly or not simply by having it. Someone can be a reformed felon who commits no other crime and can go to prison for years while someone who uses the gun in a crime can plead away the possession when he pleads to his other charges. If the guy "behaves badly" and commits a crime, fine but why make criminals of people who target shoot, or have a gun in their home for self defense? If that is "behaving badly" then most of us are guilty too.
Busyhands94
Member
I think once the person released from prison has paid their debt to society, and PROVES that they are not a threat to themselves or others that they should be able to own a firearm. There are some exceptions to this, but I think for non-violent crimes that might be the way to go. What about if they go a set amount of years without breaking the law and being a hard working member of society they can own a firearm, as in rifle or shotgun after a mental health check. I think that might be a good way to go. As I said there might be some exceptions to this, some people just ain't right in the head. But I think for non-violent crimes like smoking pot, multiple traffic offenses, setting off illegal fireworks, or stealing that might be a better way to go than just flat out banning them for life. I know people that have gotten sent to jail for something that I'd say are still responsible enough to own a gun.
Levi
Levi
Most state have some period of supervision after release from a felony charge. If the guy can make it through that period, often several years, I say he is good to go. I still say he shouldn't have to PROVE himself to regain his rights, the government is the one that should have to PROVE why they need to take it away.
I think this is a stats question...
The question we should be asking is given that there are human predators (sociopaths), how do we keep them away from the rest of us, punish and potentially rehabilitate people who harm others while reducing the number of overall ways honest people can through ignorance become entangled in the criminal justice system?
That is a question that I can't answer because its sociology, its psychology and all sorts of other sciences.
From a moral perspective, I am willing to give most people (sociopaths excluded) a second chance once they earn it.
The question we should be asking is given that there are human predators (sociopaths), how do we keep them away from the rest of us, punish and potentially rehabilitate people who harm others while reducing the number of overall ways honest people can through ignorance become entangled in the criminal justice system?
That is a question that I can't answer because its sociology, its psychology and all sorts of other sciences.
From a moral perspective, I am willing to give most people (sociopaths excluded) a second chance once they earn it.
mljdeckard
Member
Busyhands, do you have any idea what the recividism rate is for violent criminals?
zxcvbob
Member
Perhaps part of the recividism problem is we make excons into 3rd or 4th class citizens where it's almost impossible to get a real job and reintegrate into society? ("Branded Man" by Merle Haggard) Illegal aliens have higher status and more opportunities.
mljdeckard
Member
Their actions put them at a disadvantage. Actions have consequences. That's reality.
bikemutt
Member
There is no recividism problem, a recidivism problem yes 
- Status