Trump pushes Supreme Court against gun rights?

[grampajack]

[QUOTE="9MMare, post: 10561157, member: 104162"]If a criminal pays their debt to society, IMO they should get their right to vote and own a firearm back, just like they get their freedom back.

Losing his rights is part of paying for his debt to society. It is part of his sentence. It is meant to deter, not punish. Obviously, most felons don't care if they lose their rights because they choose to break the law. Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, not all felonies are the same in severity but changing the existing law is the only way to change this. We should advocate an appeal process for the rights to be returned in certain cases. As it stands, if you commit a felony, you lose your rights.... it's part of your sentence.[/QUOTE]

Loss of rights isn't a deterrent. They didn't vote before they broke the law, so why should they suddenly want to vote after the fact. They illegally carried a gun before going to jail, so why would illegally carrying a gun after they get out be any different?

The fact is that these laws aren't doing anything to protect anyone, or deter anyone for that matter. 3 out of 4 felons say they would think nothing of getting a gun if they wanted one, and the 1 who answered no thought it was a trick question.

But you have those few exceptions who serve their time, turn their lives around, and become productive members of society, and all these laws serve to do is unnecessarily punish those people, as well as people who by all rights never should have been charged in the first place.

I also like to think we're a God fearing nation, founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the Lord says vengeance belongs to him. The goal of our criminal justice system is not to punish the wicked so to speak, but only to do that which is necessary to protect the innocent. That's why we don't torture criminals like you see in countries founded on secular principles, like China and North Korea. That means executing the ones who can't ever be trusted again, locking away the suspect until they show themselves not to be a danger, and providing deterrents where possible (such as financial loss, i.e. a speeding ticket). If a punishment does not serve to deter or protect the public then it's by definition vengeance for the sake of vengeance, and that's a dangerous road to go down. After all, if you kick a dog long enough it will eventually bite you, and that's what our justice system seems to be doing to small time criminals who otherwise might have been saved.

 

[barnbwt]

Losing his rights is part of paying for his debt to society. It is part of his sentence. It is meant to deter, not punish.

"Paying the debt" is the punishment, so which is it when a person loses their rights? I call the practice of disenfranchisement something else; a short-sighted workaround to the hard, expensive, or unpleasant tasks of punishing criminals properly (hard labor, lengthy incarceration, execution) that we can now very clearly leads to a blurred line between freedom and incarceration. Our civic freedoms become volatile or infringed in ever more significant ways never before thought possible, while parolees are given greater leeway and support as part of their release terms (but none of their removed core liberties i.e. responsibilities)

Why should even a violent felon returned to his former environment, full of younger, stronger versions of his former self, with no oversight or protection, be denied a suitable means of self defense? He is a free man, after all, with all that implies (or is he really a slave who may be murdered in passing without anynrecourse, or a condemned man be sent to a bloodless execution by a cowardly justice system? Or will he choose to be neither, and once more exit the system of law that spells his doom?)

TCB

 

[BigBore44]

I'm just going to throw this out there. While we're sitting around having this discussion (I'm at work) I googled "Convicted felon saves cop". Maybe those advocating loss of gun rights for life should ask this Arizona State Trooper his thoughts on the matter. Or a whole host of others I found by doing a simple search. https://www.google.com/amp/www.thet...maritan-saving-trooper-10-reformed-felon/amp/

 

[Tommygunn]

Trump moving Justice Department against non violent offenders from regaining their gun rights.

This is the part that really bothers me:

"Last month, acting Solicitor Gen. Jeffrey B. Wall, representing the Trump administration, filed another brief urging the court to hear the appeal. He said the lower court’s ruling “if allowed to stand … will place an extraordinary administrative burden” on federal judges since people with a criminal record may go to court and seek an exception to the law"

we wouldnt want all those people getting their rights back now would we? That would just be unreasonable......

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html

In fairness it's not Trump doing this, it's the solicitor general, who is duty-bound to support and enforce the law as is, regardless of the President's political jnclinations.
Change the law the classic way....the s.g. will enforce THAT law.

 

[grampajack]

What I would personally like to know is where does it stop. What line do we draw where a crime becomes serious enough to warrant losing one's gun rights for life? Obviously murder is a good one. But what circumstances? Not all murders are created equal, with many bordering on self defense, and others that the majority of our society find reasonable, such as a father killing his daughter's molester when the justice system gives him a slap on wrist and releases him five years later to do it all over again. Such a person would probably be convicted of first degree murder, yet if and when he gets out, does he really represent a danger to the public? We can argue over the morality of his actions all day long, but it's clear that such an individual is no danger to anyone.

Some people feel that a DUI should forfeit one his right to own a firearm. A DUI can even lead to a murder charge. Let's say a guy was at .09 and killed someone in a wreck, then was convicted of second degree murder. He would probably get out in less than twenty. Is he really a danger to the public if he has a firearm? Should he really lose the right to protect his family just because he got caught doing something that one third of the population does every weekend?

In Switzerland they'll take away your guns for getting too many speeding tickets (I think three is the general rule). There's really nothing legally speaking keeping US legislators from doing the same thing.

I would argue that if a person is out of prison it stands to reason he can, or at least, should be trusted. There should never be any automatic denial of a person's constitutional rights without due process. You can't just make a blanket ruling that everyone in category A loses their guns while everyone in category B gets to keep them. It has to be on an individual basis with due process, and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution to prove that this individual is a danger to the general public, regardless of the circumstances, whether he be a wife beater, mentally ill, or a criminal. The idea that some bureaucrat can take a way a person's rights with the stroke of a pen is abhorrent to our philosophy in this country. Even then, the idea is absurd. If the prosecution can prove he can't be trusted with a gun then they've by default proven he can't be unsupervised in general, and ought to be in prison or a mental ward.

 

[TrickyDick]

What I would personally like to know is where does it stop. What line do we draw where a crime becomes serious enough to warrant losing one's gun rights for life? Obviously murder is a good one. But what circumstances? Not all murders are created equal, with many bordering on self defense, and others that the majority of our society find reasonable, such as a father killing his daughter's molester when the justice system gives him a slap on wrist and releases him five years later to do it all over again. Such a person would probably be convicted of first degree murder, yet if and when he gets out, does he really represent a danger to the public? We can argue over the morality of his actions all day long, but it's clear that such an individual is no danger to anyone.

Some people feel that a DUI should forfeit one his right to own a firearm. A DUI can even lead to a murder charge. Let's say a guy was at .09 and killed someone in a wreck, then was convicted of second degree murder. He would probably get out in less than twenty. Is he really a danger to the public if he has a firearm? Should he really lose the right to protect his family just because he got caught doing something that one third of the population does every weekend?

In Switzerland they'll take away your guns for getting too many speeding tickets (I think three is the general rule). There's really nothing legally speaking keeping US legislators from doing the same thing.

I would argue that if a person is out of prison it stands to reason he can, or at least, should be trusted. There should never be any automatic denial of a person's constitutional rights without due process. You can't just make a blanket ruling that everyone in category A loses their guns while everyone in category B gets to keep them. It has to be on an individual basis with due process, and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution to prove that this individual is a danger to the general public, regardless of the circumstances, whether he be a wife beater, mentally ill, or a criminal. The idea that some bureaucrat can take a way a person's rights with the stroke of a pen is abhorrent to our philosophy in this country. Even then, the idea is absurd. If the prosecution can prove he can't be trusted with a gun then they've by default proven he can't be unsupervised in general, and ought to be in prison or a mental ward.

^^This guy gets it.^^

 

[RPZ]

Something like 50% of felons are violent criminals.

Between 15-20% each are property crimes, drug crimes or public order crimes - burglary, drug trafficking, weapons charges, etc.

I'm sympathetic to their circumstances, but not to their consequences.



So you want felons to vote? They wouldn't likely vote for pro-2A candidates...the felon population being what it is.

On the contrary, if pro-2nd candidates meant serve your punishment and keep your rights I think they would.

 

[RPZ]

What I would personally like to know is where does it stop. What line do we draw where a crime becomes serious enough to warrant losing one's gun rights for life?..........

There is not anything new under the sun. This is easy; any criminal that gets a life sentence or the death penalty forfeits all their rights. If they are any real danger to the public one of these two is what they should get. This is the way it was prior to the 1968 GCA.

 

[barnbwt]

In Switzerland they'll take away your guns for getting too many speeding tickets (I think three is the general rule). There's really nothing legally speaking keeping US legislators from doing the same thing.

Well, not now, perhaps, but at one time there was a public understanding, codified in our earliest founding documents, that free men had certain inalienable rights that defined their status as free men. Politicians in Chicago act like they bear no responsibility when a released/disarmed parolee is murdered at the hands of those not yet in the pipeline behind him. There was also once an understanding that free men had done nothing to deserve being placed in unregulated proximity with dangerous criminals who could not be trusted to act responsibly. Politicians in Chicago act like the residents of the slum neighborhoods don't resent gangbangers with dozens of arrests being dumped back on their streets. Proper punishment (which includes the *end* of such punishment upon release so reintegration to public life followed by reform & forgiveness are possible) prevents both these sad situations.

There are basically three ways I've heard of crime being dealt with in this country through history (in order of history)
-Execution for a far broader set of unforgivable crimes (to include even financial) which by themselves prevent a full reintegration of the criminal with society, and much shorter/cheaper/immediate punishment for lesser crimes with few lingering consequences. This is the old 'noose & flail' scheme that also was quite commonplace in the US at the time of founding, carried over from British practice. The swiftness and permanence of this system is highly efficient, but least considerate of the rights of the convicted (can't "unhang" a dead man when DNA overturns a conviction) and was one reason for the Revolution.
-Punish crimes so severely & at a long enough duration that an ex-con will have enormous incentive to not re-offend (not just "some" incentive as it currently stands). This means hard labor, continual discomfort, and other things our decadent society now considers 'abuse' but were commonplace long after our Bill of Rights was adopted. This system is a happy medium, offering sufficient punishment at reasonable expense in time & money for all involved, while still respecting core protections for the individual convict and society at large. This system reigned until the advent of Progressivism and its clinical approach to managing society's ills.
-Separate the crime from the individual and manage it with legislative curatives. Reduce the severity of punishment but greatly extend its duration in order to statistically reduce commission of crimes by inmate populations. In this arrangement, crime is reduced at enormous expense by holding the entire criminal population captive during its most active years. Costly in money for society, costly in lost time for the convicted. But no chain gangs or whip scars to show on TV, and very few executions to protest. When prisoners do finally exit incarceration, they must be tightly controlled having not yet received proper punishment, and now having few options to proceed but through crime. Society at large must also become more tightly controlled simply due to its close proximity to these 'free' inmates.

TLDR, we went from a punishment system that did not aspire to justice (letting God recognize his own), to a just system (appropriate punishment & forgiveness), to a system that attempts to go beyond justice ('treating' crime at the population level & managing it via statistics). Also worth mentioning, is the increasing prioritization of groups over the individual from then to now. I personally feel the second category should cover practically all crime prosecuted, since the severity of punishment will ensure a great deal of current statute goes away, and proper deterrent & penance accompanies the remainder. The harsh, decisive regime would do well for managing particularly heinous or significant crimes where guilt is obvious, and the scientific, clinical approach is only appropriate for undesirable but non-criminal behavior (like drug use or heart disease)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

There is not anything new under the sun. This is easy; any criminal that gets a life sentence or the death penalty forfeits all their rights. If they are any real danger to the public one of these two is what they should get. This is the way it was prior to the 1968 GCA.

Yup, in harder times, society could not afford to keep people around it couldn't trust. This led to a very efficient system...which sometimes resulted in irreparable harm to undeserving individuals (your Witch Trials and whatnot). We can objectively afford a system with more protections for the individual today, but not a system that fails to deliver justice altogether. Modern macro-scale crime theory (I'm sure it has some proper
name) seems to be that "justice" is an outmoded and unnecessary construct of outmoded God-fearing men of times past, and that so long as policies are pursued that reduce measurable crime statistics, they are good.

As we all know, however, statistics are hardly objective enough to pursue so blindly, which is how you get Chicago as the logical conclusion. Those statistical methods were excellent at confining all the crime to smaller and smaller areas, where life becomes more and more hellish for the individuals who actually live therein (but that's increasingly insignificant as far as the stat is concerned)

TCB

 

[stoky]

That is a sobering reality for sure. 700 out of every 100k people in the US are actually incarcerated. This doesn't even count juvenile detention centers, military brigs, or Indian reservations. It also doesn't account for the scores of people who are convicted of crimes but never go to prison, or the scores of people out on bail, in halfway houses, etc. At what point do we become concerned?

Interesting that China doesn't even make the per capita couple of dozen. With ≈4x the population of the US, they're 2nd (only) to the US in total incarnations, a paltry 1.6 million compared to our 2.4 million.

 

[barnbwt]

China has a lot (as in, a *lot*) of organized crime that would not be tolerated in America. Like, practically all the illicit fentanyl/carfentanyl production, for starters. So there are a huge number of folks over there engaging in behavior that would be considered criminal here, but their system incorporates it as opposed to discouraging it. That's not even counting the official-corruption aspect as far as rights violation in a psuedo-communist nation (property confiscation, illegal incarceration, assassinations, forced abortions, etc). The crimes that are prosecuted in China, have a more efficient & short-lived punishment scheme than America (shorter terms, much worse confinement, faster execution rate, hard labor, etc)

TCB

 

[CapnMac]

China doesn't even make the per capita couple of dozen.

I remember that ther was a criticism of that data, when published, that "reeducation camps" were excluded from the list.

As a practical consideration, though, PRC executes a significant cohort of its convicts rather than imprison them.

 

[CapnMac]

On felonies, let us consider an item. The California legislature typically sees at least one bill a year which seeks to make failure to recycle a state jail felony. Such things are posturing, political theater, but, it's also how absurd felonies are made.

It's a felony to transport living plants across State lines without a federa permit. Buying a banana plant in Kansas City and driving across the river is actually a crime. Gets even more complicating Tearkana, which is in three States. So, do not stop at the florist for a potted plant and take it to the hospital. Carrying a piece of cane longer than 25mm across the Ri Grande is also a felony, thanks to protectionism by the sugar companies. The mid-level accountants for Enron were charged, and in some case convicted, of Securities felonies.

Want scary, try and research the number of felony crimes are possible in your jurisdiction. That's a trick question; no one is very much sure, as ther number is legion and beggars the imagination.

 

[RPZ]

On felonies, let us consider an item. The California legislature typically sees at least one bill a year which seeks to make failure to recycle a state jail felony. Such things are posturing, political theater, but, it's also how absurd felonies are made.

It's a felony to transport living plants across State lines without a federa permit. Buying a banana plant in Kansas City and driving across the river is actually a crime. Gets even more complicating Tearkana, which is in three States. So, do not stop at the florist for a potted plant and take it to the hospital. Carrying a piece of cane longer than 25mm across the Ri Grande is also a felony, thanks to protectionism by the sugar companies. The mid-level accountants for Enron were charged, and in some case convicted, of Securities felonies.

Want scary, try and research the number of felony crimes are possible in your jurisdiction. That's a trick question; no one is very much sure, as ther number is legion and beggars the imagination.

And regardless of any gymnastics over our incarceration rates vs China, the fact is we have way too many incarcerated for nonviolent offenses which arguably should not be considered "crimes" in the first place.

 

[Zoogster]

Anyone with voting rights should have firearm rights.

Allowing people to vote who can not legally have firearms for life insures that firearm rights are not an issue in their voting consideration.
People without a freedom for life shouldn't be able to have a say in whether other people have that freedom.

Most states allow felons to vote.
Felons are voting on representation, for or against voting rights, etc

And for life punishments are kinda strange anyways. Many young men are stupid, fewer are stupid if they make it to be a senior citizen. So the dumb 20 year old caught with drugs in the ghetto in a neighborhood where most people his age are into that drug should be prohibited from protecting themselves at 65 when they are old, frail, and not been in trouble for decades?
I also never like the idea of any long term probation/parole. That seems like a way around the constitution. If they are in society they shouldn't have large segments of their life they live without rights. That is just bypassing the Constitution, and sets a dangerous precedent to bypass it increasingly more for pettier and pettier purposes.

A lot of people are naive though, things like domestic violence prohibition is really ridiculous. That is defined as almost any contact in many states, and most relationships I have seen in my life have some physical contact that would qualify at some point, whether its throwing an item at their partner or pushing past them in a dispute to leave. This idea that it is men who regularly beat their wives black and blue is absurd.
Yet since most of us have no such conviction we happily sit in a naive state that allows us to distance ourselves from that undesirable subject cuz nobody wants to take up the fight for wife beaters.

 

[Robert]

Ok, three pages of arguing for or against the restoration of rights seems like more than enough for this go around on a subject we have beat to death many times before. But have no fear, I am sure we will revisit it again soon enough.