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

[zxcvbob]

Yeah, uh huh. Prohibiting a violent felon from being able to legally own a firearm is convenient. I sometimes wonder why some people just don't get it. But that's ok, you can support gang bangers legally owning a firearm because you don't want to conveniently take away their rights and I'll go right on believing that a violent felon should never have their rights restored because they gave them up when they pistol whipped grandma for her SS check. Now don't come back and say that you don't want THAT felon to legally have a gun because you are now making exceptions when you say no exceptions. You can support thugs and I'll continue to support justice.

Because they couldn't have possibly have used a brick or a hammer or baseball bat on grandma? You're the one making excuses.

I'm fine with thugs owning guns. I'm not fine with them using guns to make mischief, but that's illegal anyway, isn't it?

 

[larry_minn]

Well lets see (not reading any replies) Most convicted felons wind up arrested again. Often for similar things.
So IMO if non violent, no arrests in 5 yrs that are not dropped. (not convictions just arrests as trial could take forever) Then rights can be patitioned to be restored.

 

[RX-79G]

Their due process is their trial and if found guilty of a felony, they lose their 2nd amendment rights. It's pretty clear cut. If you'd like I'll provide links showing how this works. That's part of the penalty for being a thug. Very simple to understand. They have the right until they give up their right when they are found guilty of a felony. Very straight forward and easy to understand.

I would very much enjoy reading any material you might have on the Constitutional basis of removing some rights before and after conviction. I think you'll find about as much support in Constitutional law as you'd find for supporting slavery.

This really isn't about the morality or prudence of arming felons. It is about cherry picking exceptions to the 2A, and whether that is a good position for people that believe their rights are protected by something supposedly uninfringable.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Okay.

In the U.S., the constitution implicitly permits the States to adopt rules about disenfranchisement "for participation in rebellion, or other crime", by the fourteenth amendment, section 2. It is up to the states to decide which crimes could be ground for disenfranchisement, and they are not formally bound to restrict this to felonies

14th Amendment, Section 2:

. . . But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

So states can constutionally restrict the rights of convicts, and pay no penalty for doing so.

 

[RX-79G]

"Disenfranchisement" is the loss of the ability to vote, and nothing else. The 14th Amendment talks about losing your suffrage, but since suffrage is not one of the enumerated 10 rights in the BoR, it really doesn't comment at all on why a felon could lose his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc rights.

The 2nd is the only right under the BoR that can be "lost".

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Do you have a Supreme Court decision that backs that up?

 

[RX-79G]

Backs what up? You posted something about suffrage in the middle of a discussion about the 2A.

Assuming that the suffrage, disenfranchisement and the 14th Amendment have anything to do with this thread, you'll have to explain, because I don't know what you're getting at.

 

[amprecon]

When a person goes to prison, they're rights are suspended while in prison, once the sentence is complete and that person is freed, they are part of the free American society again, until they perform a criminal act that lands them back in prison.

wow, just wow.

Let's see, you shoot a cop. You took away his civil rights along with his life. We can't take away any of your civil rights because it isn't right?

wow, just wow.

I can understand for some it can be an emotional topic, but please read and comprehend what is said before jumping to incorrect conclusions.

The felon's rights are suspended while in prison. Shooting a cop is no worse than shooting anyone else, no innocent persons' life is more valuable than anothers'. Whoever is unjustifiably killed is wrong regardless of their status or position in our society, ALL LIVES MATTER in America.

The unlawful killing of another person justifies not just the stripping of their rights but the stripping of their life as well, that my friend is justice. My point is that if everyone were properly armed as designed by our founding, the criminals wouldn't make it to court to get rights stripped in the first place. Justice would have been appropriately served skipping the trial process altogether.

We forget that we the people are the holders of the power in this country, not the government, it is not the governments place to mistrust us, it is our place to mistrust them.

If we had to kill someone in defense of ourselves or another person it should be investigated to ensure the facts are correct. But today, the defender has to prove his life or the lives of others was in jeopardy, guilty until proven innocent and that is wrong.

When innocent people defending themselves are persecuted by our justice system for surviving, there is just something wrong. It is another encroachment by our government to sway the populace from being self-sufficient and individual.

It is almost better in some places to just take the bullet instead of trying to protect yourself, the cost and legal ramifications and publicity against you are astounding and it's wrong.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Backs what up? You posted something about suffrage in the middle of a discussion about the 2A.

Assuming that the suffrage, disenfranchisement and the 14th Amendment have anything to do with this thread, you'll have to explain, because I don't know what you're getting at.

Find a Supreme Court case striking down Civil Death laws.

In common law, civil death refers to the loss of all civil rights by a person who had been sentenced to death or declared an outlaw for committing a felony or treason. This included the loss of right to contract, the right to sue, and the right to protection under the law. Such an individual forfeits his or her civil rights, including the ability to marry, the capacity to own property, the right to contract, the right to sue, and the right to protection under the law.

Today, it refers the forfeiture of rights and privileges of an individual who has been convicted of a serious crime. It involves the imposition of numerous disabilities, like the denial of the privilege to vote, to hold public office, and to obtain many job and occupational licenses. In addition, an offender cannot enter into contracts, and may not obtain insurance and pension benefits. The offender may also be deprived of the right to commence certain lawsuits in court.

Now until you come up with proof that Civil Death laws are unconstitutional, we'll have to take that as the last word.

 

[Warp]

Yeah, uh huh. Prohibiting a violent felon from being able to legally own a firearm is convenient.

I'm a bit confused. Do you only support prohibiting violent criminals from ever again possessing firearms?

And, if yes, are weapons violations (possession of this or that, possessing this or that in a particular location, etc) considered violent for purposes of the above?

 

[Robert]

While this has been an interesting exercise, we are beginning to talk past each other on positions that were clearly stated pages ago. When this happens things begin to get heated and threads usually go south quickly. Hate me if you want, but I am pulling the plug before anyone says something that leads to an infraction.