[Aikibiker]

MIAMI — A three-judge federal panel is deliberating a class action lawsuit by former felons who say they deserve to have their voting rights restored now that they have served their time. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84170,00.html)

I wonder what other rights will be restored to ex-felons if this goes through.

Is it a good idea to let ex-cons own firearms?

I leave this one to the more learned members of this forum.

[pax]

Yes.

The only people who are ever disarmed by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey the law.

If the felon is inclined to obey the laws now that he's done his time, he'll obey the law and not own any guns or shoot any people.

If the felon is not inclined to obey the laws now that he has done his time, he will own guns and shoot people no matter what the law says.

So the only people who are disarmed by the ex-felon gun bans are people who are no longer a threat to the social order.

pax

Why don't they just put up a sign that says, "No robberies allowed"? -- Don Stahlnecker

[Skunkabilly]

Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

[Pendragon]

Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

Be careful what you wish for.

[WonderNine]

Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

Sorry, there's just too much logic in your statement. You're gonna get pummled by the police state advocates on this board.

[Standing Wolf]

I believe if felons want all their civil rights restored, the burden of proof ought to be on them to demonstrate they've become solid, law-abiding citizens. Have they completed their sentences? Have they made restitution? Are they self-supporting? Are they tax payers rather than tax consumers?

If we're going to trust them to vote and run for public office, I think fairness dictates we're going to have to trust them to keep and bear arms—but I'd say this needs to be done on a case by case basis rather than class action law suits by assault lawyers.

[tyme]

skunk, that wouldn't really work. Ex-felons are stigmatized by society and cannot acquire many well-paying jobs once they're released unless they have friends in positions to get them hired or unless they lie on their job applications and don't get caught.

There's the option of living legally through low-paying jobs, and certainly not all are unable to break into the middle and upper classes through legal work engagements, but most choose to take on the odds and return to a life of crime because of actual or perceived roadblocks now in their life path. Most of those people end up back in jail; some manage to avoid it through luck and caution; others die. It's a really sad situation.

The voting issue is related to this. Because of the stigma attached to ex-felons, it is difficult to expect ex-felons not to use polls to exact sociopolitical revenge on others. Most ex-criminals do not have the moral scruples to avoid seeking revenge, whether purposeful or not, even when such ex-cons were convicted only of silly malum prohibitum laws. Similarly, ex-cons tend to support social programs to substitute for the free market alternatives which are made exceedingly difficult for them to take advantage of.

[hondo68]

Ex-felons/ex-cons have the same inalienable rights as anyone else once they've served their sentence. If they're too dangerous to have firearms kill them or keep them in prison.

[Delmar]

Hondo68-you are so right. I see no problem with a waiting period to see if the felon has learned to take his aggression out in a more constructive manner, but denying them the right to vote violates their right to representation, IMO. When it comes to owning firearms, consideration should be given as to the original crime and whether or not it was committed with a firearm or was of a violent nature. Also, the inherent right of self defense comes into play, but the most important right I think is with the peaceable citizens themselves. Should this felon be on the street in the first place? Cure them or kill them.

[rock jock]

Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.
Therein lies the problem. They are a continuing threat to society and yet they are let out of prison anyway. If our justice system worked the way its supposed to, I would say agree, but with its revolving door policy and rates of recidivism, you are simply equiping them for their next crime spree.

[Delmar]

The BG's are getting guns by theft or other illegal means anyway-yet the government will hold law abiding citizens to an unnecessary, stoopid, and complicated standard. Felons typically don't use the money they might have to purchase a firearm legally anyway, so what exactly are we preventing in the first place?

[DeltaElite]

Restore the felons voting rights, the Democrats need the votes. :neener:

Felons and guns.
I vote no, for violent felons and sex offenders, for other felons yes.

[pax]

I vote no, for violent felons and sex offenders, for other felons yes.
You know, there used to be a distinction between felonies and misdemeanors for this very purpose -- it was the distinction between those who were dangerous and those who were not.

But it is the nature of government to grow. So "felon" has been defined downward, and downward again, even while the punishments for felonies have gotten more severe.

pax

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

[DeltaElite]

even while the punishments for felonies have gotten more severe.
When have punishments gotten more severe?
They haven't in my lifetime, they have gotten softer and softer. :(

Felonies such as burglary, auto theft and fraud have always been felonies, not misdemeanors.
So violence was not the factor between felony and misd, except in assault cases and that was dependent upon the severity of the injuries.
What is sad is that now in order to be a felony fraud in my county, it has to be over $15,000 otherwise it is treated as a misd theft. :rolleyes:
It gets softer and softer and all the more profitable to be a felon. :D

[Destructo6]

If their sentance is complete, they should have their rights restored completely.

If they get a 20 year sentance they should have their rights restored at 20 years + 1 day, regardless of the time actually served.

As others have stated, the sentance should fit the crime and the convict should serve every day of his sentance.

[DeltaElite]

Well since society won't execute all sex offenders and murderers, as I believe they should be, I agree with restricting their access to weapons and making it punishable if they do obtain them.

I know this is all theoretical, but I get the feeling that few if any of you have had contact with these predatory creatures, otherwise you might have a different point of view as I do.

[Ebbtide]

Ex-felons/ex-cons have the same inalienable rights as anyone else once they've served their sentence.

No, part of their sentence for being a leech in our free society is the loss of rights. We all know the rules of society and the consequences if we break them. If you can prove to me that a felon has re-paid their debt, I will be willing to reconsider position.

(this does not include the felony cases such as throwing leftover food in a dumpster in a state park)

[Leatherneck]

Well since society won't execute all sex offenders and murderers, as I believe they should be, DE, I had to hiccup a little on your use of the term "sex offenders." I agree with you that sexual predators are in the same bag as murderers, and maybe some other categories of sex crime as well. But I'm aware of the over-zealous prosecution and subsequent conviction of too many "technical" sex offenses that are dumped into that category for prosecutorial convenience to agree that ALL sex offenses are deserving of death. Do you agree?

TC
TFL Survivor

[Ebbtide]

Leatherneck,

I agree, the preditors must go. The guy who gets drunk and wags his talleywacker at some co-eds (albeit what it is) does not deserve death. But I suspect DE was speaking of the former, but who knows?

ehenz

[Bonker]

I'm ok with it maybe. Violent felons should never have guns, true but...

But taking away votor rights opens some interesting doors. Let's say a radical Democrat gets into office and makes all gun ownership illegal. So now thousands of us have a record and lose voter rights.

Great tactic to stop Republicans from voting wouldn't you say?

[DeltaElite]

What you people can't read my mind? ;)

I should be more specific once in a while.
As for sex offenders, I refer to the forcible predatory type of individual, not someone who got convicted of a bogus "he said, she said" case that could just as easily have been consensual.

Actually since we can't really be sure of the facts in alot of sex offense cases, we can't really afford to be executing them.
That is why I see the death penalty as impractical in our society, since there are so many questions as to the guilt of some people.

So sadly we have to keep them around in our society.

[Freedspeak]

I may be in the minority here but I believe that if one has made restitution/ done time they may be considered to have paid their debt.

We impose a sentence and after that you have paid your dues/penence.

Under that view you are now clean and a citizen again!

If you violate again it is treated as a new infraction, though it may be mitigated by prior behavior.

Your behavior will betermine how you are treated!

[JackC]

Another thing to consider, if the govt can take away a right, guess what , it ain't no right at all, it's a privlige.
And yes ex cons should be allowed to vote, and violent sex offenders and murders should have their guns back when they leave. Put em in the coffin with them. For crimes commited with a firearm, the sentence should be measured in multiples of decades, not too many 50 and 60 year old muggers out there.
Of course, the voting laws are up to each state.
Jack

[Geech]

you are simply equiping them for their next crime spree.

This point was already addressed in the thread. If they're going to arm themselves and commit a crime, they aren't going to honor any laws and avoid guns. Only those that won't go on a "spree" will honor the gun laws.

Besides, even among criminals the number one reason for gun ownership is protection.

[beckrodgers]

THATS SCARY,OLE BOBBY HAS BEEN SAYING THAT ;[VERBATEM/] FOR A LONNG TIME. THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN IT I BELIEVE, THANKS

[Safety First]

I believe once a felon has served his time,he should still be able to vote...as for firearms, if the felons crime was not of a violent nature with or without a weapon, then what right does the government have to tell the felon he loses his right to bear arms once he has served his sentence.. ? In Ga a convicted felon can not even hunt,not even with a bow and arrow...personally I see no sense whatsoever in doing that to anyone who has served their time...Even good people can go wrong, but once the term is over,why should he keep paying?

[geekWithA.45]

With ever more trivial crimes being defined as felonious, it's just too damned easy to become a felon. Get caught peeing by the road in some states? Well, yer busted for exposing your genitals, nevermind that you where 20 yards in the woods, behind a bush. And exposition of the genitals is a SEX CRIME, and SEX CRIMES are FELONIES...you starting to get the picture?

It makes it too damned easy to disenfranchise people. You wanna disenfranchise car owners? Declare 3 unpaid parking tickets to be a FELONY.

You wanna disarm/disenfranchise gun owners? See NJ as a model.

I'm going to have to side with the rights restoration crowd.

Long story short, there are lots of folks who deserve second chances. Search TFL for stories of guys who lost their gun rights because of some stupid stunt they did when 18, and spent a year in the pokey, and then lived the next 20 years as model citizens.

Besides, perhaps it'll motivate honest folks to get the bleep up and vote, knowing that the felons are on the case ;)

[Ebbtide]

Search TFL for stories of guys who lost their gun rights because of some stupid stunt they did when 18, and spent a year in the pokey, and then lived the next 20 years as model citizens.

Okay, after 20 years that's ok by me (kind of follows JackC's comments). But after serving that one-year sentence if he were able to get his rights restored where is the deterrent for the next guy who does something "stupid" (BTW "stupid" is when it happens to some one else, some folks call it "awful" when the crime is commited against to them, or their children)?

Aside from the "peeing at the side of the road" type felonies, which are still in the minority, I still don't understand how we can spend money on public defenders, prosecution, incarceration, prison guards, state and local police, judges, jurors, bailiffs, higher property and medical insurance premiums, alarm systems, holsters, guns, ammo, medical bills for the uninsured, etc....... and after a few years in jail we all call it even and you are free to go vote or carry a firearm.

We still need accountability and punishment for criminals that goes beyond what society can afford, taking away their rights is the only way in my opinion. Unless some of these ex-felons want to pony up some cash for me to offset the my costs of the above, then I will call it even and that they have repaid their debt to society.

[geekWithA.45]

First, to clarify:

There are some crimes that should have long lasting repercussions. We all know what they are: murder, rape, major assault, and the like. I'm not talking about those.

I'm talking about kids joyriding cars, pinching a case of beer, the long list of people busted for pot posession, and other felonies that simply don't have far reaching, long term consequences.

Do I approve of any of these activities? Nope. (I'm conceding pot posession = bad for the sake of this and only this argument, lest we get sidetracked.) Should they get off with a slight slap on the wrist? Most of the time, no. The punishment should FIT the crime.

Should they result in permanent loss of inalienable rights, in these lesser cases?

Nope.

There are plenty of folks who need to be come down upon HARD, but we must disciminate (in the original meaning, which is: to use sound judgement) between who is hardcore and hopeless, and who isn't.



Unless some of these ex-felons want to pony up some cash for me to offset the my costs of the above, then I will call it even and that they have repaid their debt to society.

So, the value of inalienable rights (rights revocation sorta begs the whole inalienable scene, doesn't it?) can be described in the equation:

inalienableRights = $prosecution + $incarceration + $victimRestitution?

[Silver Bullet]

If their sentence is complete, they should have their rights restored completely.
I agree with this.

[Ebbtide]

inalienableRights = $prosecution + $incarceration + $victimRestitution?

Yes at a minimum, in the context of criminals having their rights restored. I would even go as far to add restitution to society, which can never be satisfied which is why the punishment lasts for life (although you could make a case for that young man who ran into a burning building several times to rescue babies).

Case in point: A friend was hit by a drunk driver my senior year of high school and lost his legs. This was back when a DUI was not a "serious" crime and Insurance was not required by law. He was in the a hospital and recovery too long and missed his chance to use his athletic scholarship, he did not go to college, could not get a girl, could not have kids, and got no money from the driver of the car. Now, he is on disability and we (taxpayers) have more than a million dollars vested into this man. The case was pleaded down to reckless op and he got off with a few thousand dollars of lawyer fees and costs. Now, just how in the heck is the driver supposed to pay him restitution and serve off a million dollar debt to society? What are legs worth these days anyway?

I agree with your "lesser cases" point, and that is why beer pinchers can have their record cleared after demonstrating they can live by the rules we tell them. But "kids" are kids, and juvenile offences do not follow them to adulthood. If you are 18+ and are joyriding around in my car, I must have not gotten off a clean shot, or my rights were infringed to the point that the criminal should lose theirs (or both).

Don't get me wrong, the system needs to be fixed and not all felonies should be categorized that way. I just can't argue that once time is served, regardless of the crime, the criminal should get his rights back.

[JackC]

Think about it now, just what rights can be and cannot be taken.
Freedom of speach-I shout fire in a theater, get busted, pay my fine /jail time. Do I have my vocal chords removed?? I do it again, same question. Do it a third time ( can't help it, slow learner. I are a BT).
Next case, I own a small town newspaper, and hate your guts. I print a story accusing you of commiting unnatural acts with the next door neigbors french poodle. You prove the neigbor has a 150 lb rottwiler that has a Brinks truck for a chew toy. I'm tried and convicted for slander, but still own the newspaper. I hate you even more now, so I reprint the same story. Is my right of free speach removed?? How about voting? How about owning a handgun? How about attending the church of my choice?
Next case, I am tried and convicted of income tax evasion, what rights should be removed??

The point I'm getting to is a RIGHT cannot be removed by the government, if it can be removed, it's a privlege, not a right.
As to the case of the drunk driver, looks like the judge and district attorney are the ones that allowed the plea bargin, maybe they should be the ones you need to question.
Violent crime sentencing should be harsh, strict, and unbarginable.
strongarmed robbery-10 yrs
with a weapon (armed robbery) -15 yrs
Someone hurt in robbery -20 years. all for first offence
2nd offence double the sentence, no good behavieor - I expect good behavier in jail. No proale or probation for violent offences.
All rights restored upon completion of sentence.

As to the right to vote, I like the Heinlin idea in Starship Troopers. Only those serving or did serve in the Armed Forces have the right to vote, if you don't love your country enough to to defend it, than you don't vote. Only voters can serve in elected office .

Jack