Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?

[alsaqr]

The federal government has a program where convicted felons could petition for restoration of their gun rights. That program was defunded many years ago because felons who had their gun rights restored went out and committed new violent crimes.

i will cry no tears for convicted felons, especially violent felons.

 

[orionengnr]

I voted "NO", because:
--Far too many sentences are the result of "pleading down" to a lesser charge. If I don't know what the original charges were...no, I am not comfortable with that.
--Far too many are released early due to variety of conditions. That is not "completion of sentence/parole", it is getting a break you may or may not deserve. One break is enough.

I do believe that the review/reinstatement process should be fully funded and should function as designed. Some people have truly "paid their debt to society", have been rehabilitated, and should have their full rights restored.

However, I truly believe that this should be reviewed and decided on a case-by-case basis.

Our elected officials and their appointees are far too politically motivated (e.g., corrupt) to accomplish this, and will only pass sweeping legislation that does not act in our interest.

So, in retrospect, I guess I should have voted "Hell No".

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I have hired a number of felons to work in my business figuring that they deserved a chance to regain a normal life. But, in all cases, there is something wrong in their head and they do not see society as an opportunity to improve themselves but as just another chance to get an advantage. I m not saying all felons are that way, but I have seen enough to know that once a dog has tasted blood it is difficult to prevent them from wanting more.

 

[matrem]

I voted yes.

If someone can't be trusted to own a gun, they shouldn't be trusted to live free among us at all.

 

[Shaq]

Case-by-case basis.

But anyone involved in violence (other than legitimate self defense) should never have access to firearms.

NEVER.

 

[floridaboy]

Being arrested usually implies supposed wrongdoing. There is no right to do wrong. Getting tried and being convicted is considered proof of wrongdoing. Punishment is the consequence of the conviction. Once said punishment has ended, all rights should be restored. If you can survive our penal system, get out, and stay away from further trouble, you deserve your god given rights.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If the felon has kept a clean record for say, 30 years, yes, restore all rights.

BUT, they have to keep a squeaky clean record!

Deaf

 

[P5 Guy]

If they get to vote then they get a firearm if they want.

 

[entropy]

Non-violent only is not a valid answer for the question as stated, nor is undecided; thus I voted no. As stated, the question does not preclude some felons getting them back, it merely asks whether all felons should get them back.

You need more questions if all the answers listed are to be valid. Sort of mini poll.

Also, I believe the OP meant an all or none choice, but that is not how the question was worded.

 

[RX-79G]

If the OP meant all or none exclusively, why did the OP offer "non-violent only"? Are you saying the OP didn't understand what he was asking?

 

[Red Wind]

Non-violent only is not a valid answer for the question as stated, nor is undecided; thus I voted no. As stated, the question does not preclude some felons getting them back, it merely asks whether all felons should get them back.

You need more questions if all the answers listed are to be valid. Sort of mini poll.

Also, I believe the OP meant an all or none choice, but that is not how the question was worded.

No one else has this ludicrous opinion. And you believe you can read my mind? No way, Wisconsin. Watch the Pack tomorrow and then try again.

After that, run your own poll. I am not in the market for frivolous fluffy conjectures.

If the OP meant all or none exclusively, why did the OP offer "non-violent only"? Are you saying the OP didn't understand what he was asking?

There is my answer to entropy, RX-79. Now for 2 Excedrin. I still cannot believe that unworldly post with its convoluted, twisted reasoning. But its the interwebz so all things are possible.

 

[entropy]

The group "felons" consists of the subsets " violent" and "non-violent". The question asks should all felons regain their gun rights upon completion of sentence/parole, then provides an answer that only pertains to one subset of the whole group. Either poorly worded, or disingenuous. A subset of the whole is not the whole, therefore the answer " Only non violent" is an invalid answer to the question. Any questions?

Unfortunately, I do not have the capability to produce a Venn diagram for this, but really, it shouldn't be necessary.

I only follow enough football to be lightly conversant at work. It's all smoke and mirrors, or panem et circenses. Not all in Wisconsin are Packers fans, I was born and raised in MN, I would be a Vikings fan first. I do watch Packers/Vikings games, makes interjecting comments in the lunchroom chatter at work fun.

 

[Red Wind]

Any questions?

Unfortunately, I do not have the capability to produce a Venn diagram for this, but really, it shouldn't be necessary.

Unfortunately,you also don't have the capacity for English reading comprehension. Over 170 posters had no problems whatsoever. Whether you consider Minnesota or Wisconsin home, it doesn't matter. It's abject failure in either one.

Giggles in the lunch room can be a high state of being in some cases.
You've got that nailed.

 

[deadin]

If someone can't be trusted to own a gun, they shouldn't be trusted to live free among us at all.

Every time this subject comes up and the above opinion is made, I ask the same question....
"Who gets to decide that someone can be trusted to own a gun and what happens if they decide wrong?"

So far, no one has attempted to answer my question......

 

[entropy]

Unfortunately,you also don't have the capacity for English reading comprehension.

Au contraire, I comprehend English quite well. I also comprehend logic. It remains that "all felons" consists of the subsets " violent" and " non-violent". You ask whether "all felons" should regain their gun rights upon completion of sentence/parole, yet "non-violent" is a subset of the group "all felons", but not the entirety of the set. Therefore, "non-violent" is an invalid answer to the question as posed, because it requires a 'yes or 'no' answer; that is "all felons" or "none".

Correctly posed, your poll question should read:

Which Felons should be able to regain their gun rights upon completion of Sentence/Parole?

All.

None.

Only non violent ones.

and, in the interest of fairness and covering all possibilites within the parameters of the question as written,

Only violent ones.

To such a poll, my answer would be: Only non-violent ones.

English was my major, BTW. Psych was my minor.

 

[RX-79G]

Do you actually think anyone here had any trouble understanding the poll or answering it?

Do you think a Venn diagram analysis of the question is of interest to anyone but you? Please stop.


This is no different than getting worked up about spelling. Except there is nothing actually illogical about the way the question is stated. Regular conversations do not always fit in Venn diagrams or decision trees.

 

[General Geoff]

So far, no one has attempted to answer my question......

In a perfect world, the victim of whatever crime they committed. Unfortunately, if the victim was an anti gunner, they would probably default to the 'never-ever' answer no matter what the crime was or how long the sentence.

That being said, a more real-world compromise might be to restore home/range gun rights to ex-cons, with a prohibition on carrying in public for 5 years following their release. If they can make it 5 years in society without taking a gun out in public (outside a shooting range or gun store), then restore their ability to carry in public.

 

[entropy]

All right, no hard feelings.

 

[Red Wind]

I believe it could have been posed either the way I did it or the way you are proposing it. Since everyone understood it, does it really matter?

Would anyone else other than yourself have voted differently? It's highly doubtful to my mind. However, perhaps you are correct in the posing. I see the logic.

To the non English & Psych majors, (perhaps the rest of the forum ) it all flowed smoothly.

The Pack wins tomorrow. You've made it a long day with your late entry.
And I also have no hard feelings.

And thank you, RX-79G, for your common sense.

 

[Old Dog]

You know, I mentioned the social contract concept in a post early in the thread. Since there were no responses to my post, and given the nature of the subsequent posts, I have to assume that no participants in this thread ever studied philosophy or political science. Even clearer, perhaps, is the indication that none here have made the acquaintance of any real "felons," preferring instead to believe that the average citizen commits several felonies willy-nilly during the course of his/her average day, since, of course, it's so easy these days to unknowingly commit felonies ...

The essays of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau maintain relevance yet today. Never mentioned by those here who remain so enamored of what they believe our Founding Fathers were really thinking is the fact that most of these men were heavily influenced by the writings of such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, with the social contract a revered theory.

Penalties for minor crimes were much harsher in the days of our Founding Fathers than now. It was entirely acceptable to strip a citizen of many rights upon his violation of the accepted social mores of the day.

I have yet to see here a case made for allowing a felon to regain his right to own firearms, only broad statements that we should allow this ... "if the individual has paid his debt" by serving out the terms of his/her incarceration.

And ah, the hypocrisy of the thinking that oh, sure, it's okay if we return to the "non-violent" felons all their rights ... After all, their crime was "non-violent." Bullcrap. I submit all crime is a violent. There is always a victim.

If we desire to see things through as our Founding Fathers intended, it's probably a good idea to actually acquire some knowledge of what they believed at the time of our nation's birth, why they thought the way they did, and what inspired the brilliant documents we so revere.

My belief is that one who would break the social contract by committing crimes when violating what one knows is the law of one's society forfeits the rights of a citizen.

 

[rskent]

Kookia

Once you have paid your debt to society, it is paid. Everyone makes mistakes.

True, but part of the debt for a felony is loss of rights for ever. So how is the debt ever paid?
Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone commits felony’s.

 

[General Geoff]

I submit all crime is a violent. There is always a victim.

When someone screws an oil filter onto the barrel of a firearm without submitting a form 1 to the ATF for manufacturing a silencer, who is the victim?

 

[X-Rap]

There is also the subset group of crime previously a misdemeanor.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Midwest]

As I illustrated earlier with my examples of people becoming a Felon over something seemingly benign in this day and age.

Put yourself in their shoes, suppose any of you were just an 18 year old college kid caught with four joints in your pocket in 1969 and received a felony because of it. You have since led an exemplary life crime free with not even a traffic ticket. Ask yourself, should you still be in the same category as a bank robber or an arsonist? I mean those two are also felons too right? And all felons are bad and evil right?

This is why I voted 'Non Violent Only' , I don't feel that all punishments deserve a felony conviction. If I ran a business and wanted to hire a convicted felon. I would hire someone like Martha Stewart. Or that college kid who got busted in 1969 for four joints in his pocket.

I'd probably hire a convicted moonshiner too. Maybe his story was that he was trying to provide for his family and turned to making moonshine as a last resort to keep him and his family from starving.

And should these examples as felons be in the same category as a bank robber, arsonist, murderer?

I don't think they should and Martha Stewart, the college kid in 1969 and the moonshiner should regain their gun rights back after they paid their debt to society and all fines, restitution , parole, probation are all paid, satisfied and clear and they remained crime free for at least five years.

.

 

[deadin]

a more real-world compromise might be to restore home/range gun rights to ex-cons, with a prohibition on carrying in public for 5 years following their release. If they can make it 5 years in society without taking a gun out in public (outside a shooting range or gun store), then restore their ability to carry in public.

All ex-cons?? Regardless of their original crime? So if Joe Violent gets out after 20 years, we allow him to own a gun under these rules? What could possibly go wrong? He has already shown a contempt for rules and the law and/or the inability to control his actions.

The above compromise might be fine for non-violent crimes, but I tend to agree with those that say there are those that shouldn't be allowed back in society. The problem is that we have no way of implementing this under our current system of law. Even "Life with no chance of parole" doesn't really mean that. Some board or shrink can say "It's a miracle, he's cured!" and turn him loose.

Should there be some form of penalty for any "official" that turns a con loose as "rehabilitated" and it turns out wrong? Should the "official" be charged with "Violence by Proxy" and share the cell with the re-offender? (Might get to be really hard to fill these "official" positions....)