Guns for felons?

[BAGTIC]

Now that SCOTUS has ruled that the 'Gun Right' is an individual one perhaps someone will apply both the 13th and 14th amendment to prevent the government from prohibiting felons from owning guns or voting. There are tens of millions of Americans who can not exeercise either RIGHT. These laws did not exist when this country was established and would have been considered unacceptable back then.
People guilty of some minor infraction that 50 years ago would have been a misdemeanor are now commonlyu charged a felons. I know a man who lost the right because in the 1930's during the Great Depression he stole two chickens to feed his family. Forty five  years later he still could not legally buy a shotgun to go bird hunting. The real criminals who we have a reason to fear are going to ignore the laws and get guns anyway. The poor guy who made a minor mistake in his youth is the one who gets punished. It's assinine. They can not have a gun but they can serve in Congress or the White House.

[srussell]

unless it was a firearm related and violant crime i see no reason to keep punishing a person after he/she has paid their dues

[powderman]

BAGTIC. Good post. I know a guy who broke in a school with several kids as a prank when he was 15 yrs old, after 30 yrs cannot posess a gun. He had his voting rights restored, but no guns. In many cases being young and stupid shouldn't count forever. POWDERMAN. 

[subdjoe]

Yet Sean Penn, who because of his fame, was able to get felony A&B down to a misdemeanor, has an almost impossible for anyone else to get CCW issued by the County of Marin.   And when he had two guns stolen out of his car, he didn't have his CCW revoked.

Once a person has served his time, is off probation/parole/any kind of supervision, all rights should be restored automatically unless it is specified in the sentencing that a specific right or rights are forfeit either for a set amount of time or permanently.

[Pat/Rick]

"These laws did not exist when this country was established and would have been considered unacceptable back then".

 
Absolutely, and very well stated post BTW.  Is it acceptable for us to believe that our founding fathers intended for "scumbags"  (not citing the examples given),to have the equal right of self defense? I believe they did and still do, and was evidenced before our rights were penned.  France and England both released and armed large amounts of prisoners to populate N.America during the Seven Years War (IIRC during Queen Anne's war as well, before the F&I Wars).

[Doublebass73]

Once a person has served his time, is off probation/parole/any kind of supervision, all rights should be restored automatically unless it is specified in the sentencing that a specific right or rights are forfeit either for a set amount of time or permanently.

X2

If the court believes that a person is still too dangerous to own a firearm after serving a prison term then shouldn't that person still be in prison?

[Redhawk1]

What some may be missing is, people know what happens when they commit a felony! They loose their rights to vote and own guns. They made that choice in my opinion!  Sure their are some charges that should not be a felony. So work on getting them charges turned back into misdemeanor's. Their are people that have committed murder, and are out in 25 years, I don't think they should be allowed to own guns or vote. Even though they did their time, does not make that person someone that should be allowed to carry guns. JMO!

[yellowtail3]

• Once a person has served his time, is off probation/parole/any kind of supervision, all rights should be restored automatically unless it is specified in the sentencing that a specific right or rights are forfeit either for a set amount of time or permanently.

I agree. I've long said that it's getting ever easier to be a felon. Also... I don't like the idea that having arms is a speshul privilege that the state can take away. Once you've paid, you've paid.


ANOTHER ISSUE: 'domestic violence' - huge abuse there, and the abuse is directed at the accused. There's lots of guys who can't hunt because their wives/sig others accused them of 'domestic violence' and they cannot possess arms. Huge scandal, in my opinion. The 'domestic violence' industry is full of biased judges, lawyers, feminist ideologues, and all manner of evil... all of whom have professional/monetary stake. This is much, much worse than the actual 'domestic violence' (which, BTW, is vastly overblown).


DV accusation is mostly the tactical nuke used to gain advantage in a divorce.

[us920669]

We have gotten into a vicious cycle of assuming we can make everything perfect by passing a law, and when that doesn't work we double down and pass yet more laws.  It's a complete perversion of what was once the finest legal tradition of all time.


DV certainly is a scandal.  We knew a couple - very long story - but she had no idea the trouble she was getting him in, tried very hard to undo just one stupid remark she made to a police officer.  Literally ruined their lives for a while and left them afraid to go to the authorities.   

[Casull]

Also... I don't like the idea that having arms is a speshul privilege that the state can take away. Once you've paid, you've paid.

 
Personally, I believe it should be limited to violent felonies.  But, that doesn't change the fact that putting someone in prison is taking away their liberty, surely one of our most important rights.  My take on it is that if the crime carries both a prison sentence AND the loss of the right to possess a firearm, then the person has NOT paid their debt for the crime just by serving the prison sentence.

[subdjoe]

What some may be missing is, people know what happens when they commit a felony! They loose their rights to vote and own guns.

That is a fairly recent development in our history, I believe it came in with the 1968 Gun Control Act, at least the firearms portion.

Felony disenfranchisement has a longer history, much of it rooted in Jim Crow laws.  Only two states now have a lifetime ban on felons voting, and in the past 10 years or so several states have made it easier for people to regain that right. 

[Backwoods7]

I agree with whats been said. If you pay for your crime then you should be allowd to own firearms and vote but there needs to be a exception to violent crimes. If its violent crime with a gun involved then they shouldnt be allowd to own them. The liberals wanna make so strict of laws and eleminate the death penalty and they wonder why the prison system is so crowded hmm these thugs can live 5 times better in jail than on the streets.make the time fit the crime and the crime rate will go down and we wont have to worry who has guns cause the real criminals will never see freedome again

[scratcherky]

I agree with REDHAWK 1.

[rickyp]

anyone of us can make a mistake and we shouldnt be punished for the rest of our life for it.  Just becasue somepne did make a mistake shouldnt  stop a person from there rights when they pay the debt.   however if the person is a repet ofinder that is a diffrent story.
true crimnals do not give a pooh about the laws so no law will stop them from owning a firearm.

[Casull]

Just becasue somepne did make a mistake shouldnt  stop a person from there
rights when they pay the debt.

First of all, committing a felony is not just making a mistake.  And, once again, if the loss of that right is part of the punishment, then they have NOT paid the debt just by serving the prison time.

[nw_hunter]

• Once a person has served his time, is off probation/parole/any kind of supervision, all rights should be restored automatically unless it is specified in the sentencing that a specific right or rights are forfeit either for a set amount of time or permanently.

I agree. I've long said that it's getting ever easier to be a felon. Also... I don't like the idea that having arms is a speshul privilege that the state can take away. Once you've paid, you've paid.


ANOTHER ISSUE: 'domestic violence' - huge abuse there, and the abuse is directed at the accused. There's lots of guys who can't hunt because their wives/sig others accused them of 'domestic violence' and they cannot possess arms. Huge scandal, in my opinion. The 'domestic violence' industry is full of biased judges, lawyers, feminist ideologues, and all manner of evil... all of whom have professional/monetary stake. This is much, much worse than the actual 'domestic violence' (which, BTW, is vastly overblown).


DV accusation is mostly the tactical nuke used to gain advantage in a divorce.

Absolutely!...........I cannot believe that some on here that claim to support the second amendment would paint all so called felons with such a broad brush.A Felon can be anyone from a cold blooded murderer to someone convicted off simple assault or possession of a certain amount of controlled substance.

To tell someone they cannot defend themselves or their loved ones from home invaders or whatever the threat is, with any means available (Including a firearm) because at one time they were convicted of a felony is WRONG!

If a person has committed such a serious crime that they cannot be trusted back in public again they should be put to death or incarcerated for life.Anyone returned to society should have rights restored.........And That's MHO!

We have thousands of scum suckers running the streets of the USA today with illegal firearms, and your worried about an ex-felon having one legally? "Go Figure"

[Casull]

Absolutely!...........I cannot believe that some on here that claim to support the second amendment would paint all so called felons with such a broad brush.A Felon can be anyone from a cold blooded murderer to someone convicted off simple assault or possession of a certain amount of controlled substance.

To tell someone they cannot defend themselves or their loved ones from home invaders or whatever the threat is, with any means available (Including a firearm) because at one time they were convicted of a felony is WRONG!

If a person has committed such a serious crime that they cannot be trusted back in public again they should be put to death or incarcerated for life.Anyone returned to society should have rights restored.........And That's MHO!

We have thousands of scum suckers running the streets of the USA today with illegal firearms, and your worried about an ex-felon having one legally? "Go Figure"

 
Wow, that was a mouthful.  First of all, I don't believe a "simple assault" is a felony anywhere.  Second, I said that I would be in favor of limiting it to violent felons.  Third, virtually no body gets locked up for life anymore (even when receiving that sentence, most get released at some time).  Fourth, you seem to have no problem with taking away someone's liberty (arguably our most important right) for life, but do have a problem with taking away a felon's second amendment right.  Go figure.

[rickyp]

Just becasue somepne did make a mistake shouldnt  stop a person from there
rights when they pay the debt.

First of all, committing a felony is not just making a mistake.  And, once again, if the loss of that right is part of the punishment, then they have NOT paid the debt just by serving the prison time.

Now days a felony is very easy to make expesaly when we are talking guns. The laws are so different from state to state and even from town to town what is legal at your home may be a felony just a few hundred feet away when you get into town limits.

[yellowtail3]

One reason that 'felon' disenfranchisement and loss of gun rights continues, is... lot of peeps think it'll mostly affect black people, and that's okay by them.


It's an old habit; a lot of our 2nd Amendmend infringin' started with Jim Crow laws.

[Redhawk1]

Just becasue somepne did make a mistake shouldnt  stop a person from there
rights when they pay the debt.

First of all, committing a felony is not just making a mistake.  And, once again, if the loss of that right is part of the punishment, then they have NOT paid the debt just by serving the prison time.

Well said!

[Redhawk1]

• Once a person has served his time, is off probation/parole/any kind of supervision, all rights should be restored automatically unless it is specified in the sentencing that a specific right or rights are forfeit either for a set amount of time or permanently.

I agree. I've long said that it's getting ever easier to be a felon. Also... I don't like the idea that having arms is a speshul privilege that the state can take away. Once you've paid, you've paid.


ANOTHER ISSUE: 'domestic violence' - huge abuse there, and the abuse is directed at the accused. There's lots of guys who can't hunt because their wives/sig others accused them of 'domestic violence' and they cannot possess arms. Huge scandal, in my opinion. The 'domestic violence' industry is full of biased judges, lawyers, feminist ideologues, and all manner of evil... all of whom have professional/monetary stake. This is much, much worse than the actual 'domestic violence' (which, BTW, is vastly overblown).


DV accusation is mostly the tactical nuke used to gain advantage in a divorce.

Absolutely!...........I cannot believe that some on here that claim to support the second amendment would paint all so called felons with such a broad brush.A Felon can be anyone from a cold blooded murderer to someone convicted off simple assault or possession of a certain amount of controlled substance.

To tell someone they cannot defend themselves or their loved ones from home invaders or whatever the threat is, with any means available (Including a firearm) because at one time they were convicted of a felony is WRONG!

If a person has committed such a serious crime that they cannot be trusted back in public again they should be put to death or incarcerated for life.Anyone returned to society should have rights restored.........And That's MHO!

We have thousands of scum suckers running the streets of the USA today with illegal firearms, and your worried about an ex-felon having one legally? "Go Figure"

Get a clue why don't you. Felony look it up, people don't just felony for no reason. They committed a serious crime. Felons should not be legally allowed to own guns, you can't stop them from getting them illegally, but we sure as hell can stop them from getting them like the people the follow societies rules.  If that person wants to protect his family, then they should of thought of that before they committed their crime, and got a felony charge.  Oh I believe in the right to bear arms, but not for felons. They made a choice, and now they have to live with the consequence of their actions. It is called being held accountable for your actions.
 

[Redhawk1]

One reason that 'felon' disenfranchisement and loss of gun rights continues, is... lot of peeps think it'll mostly affect black people, and that's okay by them.


It's an old habit; a lot of our 2nd Amendmend infringin' started with Jim Crow laws.

Your first comment is total BS!  Maybe in your eyes, but not mine. I don't care what color a felon is.

[yellowtail3]

One reason that 'felon' disenfranchisement and loss of gun rights continues, is... lot of peeps think it'll mostly affect black people, and that's okay by them. It's an old habit; a lot of our 2nd Amendmend infringin' started with Jim Crow laws.

Your first comment is total BS!  Maybe in your eyes, but not mine. I don't care what color a felon is.

I understand you think it's BS, but I think it's probably accurate.

Felony look it up, people don't just felony for no reason. They committed a serious crime. Felons should not be legally allowed to own guns, you can't stop them from getting them illegally, but we sure as hell can stop them from getting them like the people the follow societies rules.  If that person wants to protect his family, then they should of thought of that before they committed their crime, and got a felony charge.  Oh I believe in the right to bear arms, but not for felons. They made a choice, and now they have to live with the consequence of their actions. It is called being held accountable for your actions.

You may not realize how broad 'felony' is these days. Example: If you piss off a flight attendant on a domestic flight, you can be arrested and charged with 'interfering with a flight crew' which is a felony and carries a 20 year prison sentence.

You don't have to do anything specific; if she says she was afraid, or interfered with, you're guilty. Nothing tangible has to be proved. It is used like article 134 in the UCMJ, used as a catch-all... and most of the time they'll let you 'plead' to something lesser... but not always.

Waaaaay too easy to be a felon... it's back-door gun control. Control.

[SHOOTALL]

 

• Once a person has served his time, is off probation/parole/any kind of supervision, all rights should be restored automatically unless it is specified in the sentencing that a specific right or rights are forfeit either for a set amount of time or permanently.

I agree. I've long said that it's getting ever easier to be a felon. Also... I don't like the idea that having arms is a speshul privilege that the state can take away. Once you've paid, you've paid.


ANOTHER ISSUE: 'domestic violence' - huge abuse there, and the abuse is directed at the accused. There's lots of guys who can't hunt because their wives/sig others accused them of 'domestic violence' and they cannot possess arms. Huge scandal, in my opinion. The 'domestic violence' industry is full of biased judges, lawyers, feminist ideologues, and all manner of evil... all of whom have professional/monetary stake. This is much, much worse than the actual 'domestic violence' (which, BTW, is vastly overblown).


DV accusation is mostly the tactical nuke used to gain advantage in a divorce.

Both good post , Yellow the domestic vol. thing may go away , muslims taking over and all.

[SHOOTALL]

So we are not to forgive once someone has paid his dues ? What is being said is you are free as long as you act like some others think you should .

[Bigeasy]

I'll throw in my 2 cents, based on 30 years of state / federal law enforcement.  You can find examples of the punishment not fitting the crime if you dig hard enough.  You can find examples of anything to support your claim on anything, if you dig hard enough...Yea, there are some felonies, like the angry stewardess example noted in an earlier post, unfounded domestic violence accusations, etc. that are wrong, and should be changed.
 
But, the vast majority of felonies are committed by people who have no regard for the integrity or welfare of their fellow citizen.  They are crimes committed with the knowledge of the possible consequences, both to the actor, and to the victim, and committed with total disregard of these considerations.
 
Knowing how most of these folks think, there are very few I would ever want to see carry a gun.  Sure, maybe they would never commit another crime, but don't count on it.  At some point the safety of honest citizens has to take priority over those who have already proven their lack of consideration of their fellow citizen.  Yep, illegal guns are easy enough to get, but if anything else, just on principal, do you really want these guys to obtain weapons "legally", same as you, who has never committed an act to hurt your family and neighbors?
 
R/E the "black" issue.  There are more blacks, and certian other minorities in prison, because they commit more violent crimes, percentage wise.  Now, you can cite social or economic reasons why this is so, and you may be right, to an extent, but the fact remains minorities commit a higher percentage of felony crimes.  Period.  The argument that minorities don't get the breaks from LE that whites do, is garbage.  In almost 30 years, I have NEVER seen an officer or an agent say, "yea, we are going to let this felon go because he is white, but lets nail the black guy".   I guess the point of my post is be a man, and accept the consequences of your actions, and work thru the system to get those non-violent, marginal felonies changed if that's how you feel.
 
Larry

[yellowtail3]

DV accusation is mostly the tactical nuke used to gain advantage in a divorce.

Both good post , Yellow the domestic vol. thing may go away , muslims taking over and all.

First off, no chance 'muslims taking over' anytime in our (or our grandkids') lifetimes, but you know that. Second... if the Muslim Bogeyman DOES take over, how would that make a diff? Will they get rid of the divorce industry? Will they get rid of the feminist ideologues who have corrupted 'family law' and all the hangers-ons who benefit from the status quo? Will they line up the lawyers, 'family court' judges, mediators, custody evaluators, shrinks, guardian ad litems and clerks, and shoot them?

If that's their program, I just might sign on.


Lots of ways to lose your rights, people, and the list is growing. Just watch.

[BUGEYE]

hmmmm,  68 years on this earth and all I've wracked up is 2 traffic tickets.
it's not very hard to obey the law.
as for the guy that stole the chickens, that's understandable.  his family was hungry.
domestic violence? no excuse for it.
crime with a weapon? no excuse for it.

[yellowtail3]

domestic violence? no excuse for it.

Oooh, this might be a teachable moment. Do you know what 'domestic violence' covers? No? Well, time to educate yourself:

http://www.ejfi.org/emerson.htm
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-29.htm
http://www.fathermag.com/205/abuse/

[rickyp]

True d.v. is one thing but it is now too loose a subject. An 18 year old kid and his dad get in a argument and it gets heated. The kid hits his dad. The police see this, this is a case of D.v. even though it wasn't really. Not the kid will never be able to have a firearm. Get real. What about all the times. A woman said her husband did something and accuse him but he is innocent but they way the world works he is still convected because a judge wants to make sure the woman is safe. Or just a minor scuff can lead to a d.v. charge. These things happen more then true d.v. and it is wrong.  Having said that. A true d.v. male or female. Should be put away.
people make mistakes all the time it is apart of life. We should be given the chance to learn and move on. But for the ones that keep making mistakes is a different story