The issue is -- who has lost their gun rights due to a felony conviction for an offense they committed without foreknowledge that their action(s) was/were a felony offense?
-and-
I think that all the responses here illustrates the fact that people are NOT being convicted of ridiculous felonies en masse as was suggested. While we can quibble about the wisdom of these laws, the point is that to commit a felony you have to be determined or stupid. The examples (or rather lack thereof) have borne this out.
There appears to be several subtle layers to this debate, and admittedly I am in the extreme.
I think I need to clarify my position. Keeping and bearing arms is a
right.
Some people seem to think ‘stupid people’ should not have rights, and if you violate the law and claim ignorance because there are thousands of complicated laws, you are simply stupid and don't deserve rights. Others seem to believe that an intelligence test should be required, preventing 'stupid people' from violating the law beforehand. My argument is that rights are “unalienable” and do not revolve around qualifiers like “race” “religion” “wealth” “bloodline” or even “intelligence”.
I feel that these intelligence tests are much like the literacy tests that some states used to repress citizens and keep them from voting. I am against this.
Some people have argued about safety, saying that certain weapons should be restricted to prevent people from hurting themselves or from endangering others. Others have argued that allowing free access to weapons actually reduces crime and creates a safer society on balance. I believe that gun ownership is a
right, and that the whole 'safety' argument is irrelevant. Freedom means Freedom, a Right is a Right and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was acknowledged by our Founders such that we may keep our Freedom. 'Safety' is irrelevant, and although I do also believe that crime goes down when people have access to guns, it is of secondary importance. Should we consider whether the stock market goes up or down with gun ownership?
Some people argue that this or that is more expensive as it requires court trials. These people argue that prosecutors will extend plea bargains to those who 'aren't really criminals'. My argument is 'so what?' Why are we putting a price on Freedom? How many of our citizens died to protect our Freedom and now we are willing to nickel and dime it away? I do not care how much trials cost, it is also a
Right…or should we suspend expensive jury trial for some people since “they do not deserve them”?
Some people seem to believe that if someone commits a felony, regardless of circumstance, they should lose their rights. Others have correctly pointed out cases where people inadvertently commit a felony and argue that they should have their rights restored. My argument is that that a right is a right, and these rights are unalienable. Governments may repress those rights, lawfully or unlawfully, but citizens have them, even if they are flawed, nevertheless.
You don’t like the idea of a murderer buying a gun? Then the solution is not to remove guns from society, the solution is to remove the murderer from society.
In short, I would rather live in an imperfect society, with stupid people, annoying people, expensive jury trials, people of other religions, perhaps a higher crime rate, if I can be Free.