Should violent felons be allowed firearms?


PDA






Glockfan.45
December 18, 2006, 11:53 AM
This poll is in responce to a debate taking place on another thread. Do you think violent ex-cons such as muderers, rapist, and armed robbers should be allowed to legally own firearms upon their release? Yes I know they can get them if they want them bad enough, but should it be legal? Tell me what you think, I will not be responding on this thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should violent felons be allowed firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The-Fly
December 18, 2006, 11:58 AM
Violent felons lose all their rights in my opinion. Personally murders and rapists all deserve the death penalty, let alone being released from prison ever.

jerkface11
December 18, 2006, 12:00 PM
If they can't be trusted with their rights they shouldn't be out of prison.

PILMAN
December 18, 2006, 12:00 PM
I'm against violent felons owning firearms or voting, they waived those rights when they commited a crime. Now as for certain cases of a Felony, some Felonys are just rediculous but if it's violent and an intention to murder rather than self defense then I understand completely why they shouldn't be able to own a firearm.

carterbeauford
December 18, 2006, 12:02 PM
No, but there is no law that is going to stop them, just depends on how badly they want firearms.

MaterDei
December 18, 2006, 12:03 PM
The key word for me is 'violent'. When Jeff Skilling gets out of the joint I don't see why he should not be able to own firearms.

Larryect
December 18, 2006, 12:05 PM
This should be limited to VIOLENT felons. They have already shown they do not have the ability to act responsibly. However some of the things considered as felonies are outrageous.

Declaration Day
December 18, 2006, 12:08 PM
I believe that if you are free, you should have all of your rights.

I also believe that violent felons should not be let out of prison.

romma
December 18, 2006, 12:10 PM
I voted no. Lock them up if they can't be trusted. If we release them, then why not?

possum
December 18, 2006, 12:11 PM
No if you murder, rape, or rob you gave up your rights.
not only should they not be allowed to own firearms they should be shot with someones gun that is allowed to own guns. i have no remorse for felons especially those who rape, or commite crimes against children. period end o post!:)

Cousin Mike
December 18, 2006, 12:11 PM
I believe that if we trust you enough to release you from prison, and let you back into society, then you deserve to be able to exercise all of your rights. That said, I don't think we should let people who commit crimes of a certain nature out of prison.

javacodeman
December 18, 2006, 12:13 PM
If they can't be trusted with their rights they shouldn't be out of prison.

I agree, but this isn't the case.

However some of the things considered as felonies are outrageous.

+1.

Personally murders and rapists all deserve the death penalty,

On the same page here too.

java

230RN
December 18, 2006, 12:14 PM
{BP 190/110}

My long-standing opinion is that excepting violent crimes, once you've paid your debt to society, your full rights should be restored.

My qualification regarding "violence" is in response to the fact that what is defined as a "felony" has been widened to include all kinds of things including bad check writing. (My understanding is that writing three bad checks in CA can theoretically win you a mandatory life sentence.)

The same can be said of sex offenses. It is not impossible to be tagged with a sex offender label if you are caught peeing in an alley. (Some of us might have dime-sized bladders.) And to have a sex offender registry, to me, violates the concept of "punishment to fit the crime," and the "cruel and unusual" punishment provisions. That's just the way I see it. Sort of like branding an "A" on the forehead of an adulteress.

I hate to sound tin-hatty about it, but I could almost see the growing number of non-violent crimes which are included as felonies as a ploy of the anti-gunners to force more and more folks into the category of people who are disqualified from possessing a firearm. Almost. (Yes I know a lot of things which have been defined as felonies, like bad check-writing, are driven by business interests.)

It makes you wonder if at some point in the future spitting on the sidewalk can result in a felony conviction.

I also see much of this trend as a result of lawmakers' attempts to "do something" about crime such that they can be re-elected.

So, the answer to your direct question is "NO," but the question should be widened to "Should nonviolent crimes even be felonies?"

{BP 130/80}

Afterthought: Somebody on one of the gun forums wisecracked about how much safer he felt now that Martha Stewart could no longer possess firearms. Pithy, what?

ArmedBear
December 18, 2006, 12:16 PM
Violent felons? Lots of limitations are all right.

Other "felons"? We need another class of crime, I think. There are too many "felonies" that don't warrant stripping someone of his/her basic rights. We need a class of crime that's not a misdemeanor, but also differentiates someone convicted of this class of crime from someone that the average person would consider a "felon."

Cousin Mike
December 18, 2006, 12:19 PM
Murder is the stickler for me... The vast majority of people in prison for murder aren't homicidal maniacs. I think the nature of the crime makes a big difference on whether or not that person should ever be released.

I also think anyone who messed with a kid, or rapes a woman should be turned over to the victims family for whatever punishment the family sees fit.

thegriz
December 18, 2006, 12:30 PM
The real question here is do you agree with YOUR rights being limited because of violent felons? Should it be a huge pain to obtain a full auto, etc. for everybody because is supposedly makes it harder for felons?

JesseL
December 18, 2006, 12:45 PM
If you're good enough to be trusted to be out in public, you're good enough to be trusted with a gun. We don't need multiple classes of 'free' citizens.

ServiceSoon
December 18, 2006, 12:48 PM
Its common sense to me. You wouldn't give a vial of arsenic to a baby and you shouldn't give guns to violent felons. :neener:

MrTuffPaws
December 18, 2006, 12:56 PM
I am of the school of thought that if you commit a crime, you serve your time and then you go back into society with all of the rights you had before.

It is more of an issue of the penalties for crimes not fitting. If you are a horrid person that can't be trusted not to harm another, then you should not be let out of prison once you go in.

MrDig
December 18, 2006, 01:02 PM
I personally know someone who commited a felony (Armed Robbery) over 30 years ago. Off paper for over 16, This person has in fact become a model citizen. Sober 26 yrs been involved and participated in programs to intervene with kids and drugs and crime. And yet still can't vote or own even a hunting gun. At what point do we consider a persons debt to society paid in full? I don't think a person just released from prison on any felony conviction should automagically have all civil rights reinstated. I do believe after demonstrating you don't participate in Felonious behavior and are a fuctional productive participant in society, Rights like voting and firearms ownership should and can be reinstated.
A white collar felon is still a felon and commited a crime. I don't think that speaks to a lesser "degree" of criminal behavior.
The reason I don't commit felonies is that I want to keep my rights as a citizen intact.

Roadwild17
December 18, 2006, 01:02 PM
As far as I'm concerned, anyone convicted of a serious crime such as murdered or rape, the convicted should just fall into a black hole.

The thread overlooks the gray areas of breaking the law. Is a drug dealer a murder, I'm my book yea, but someone will say "He didn't make you take the drugs"

I'm no lawyer or judge, but I'm pretty sure the justice system here needs a kick in the rear.

kfranz
December 18, 2006, 01:15 PM
I agree, but this isn't the case.


The whole purpose of the original post is to ask/answer a question about something that isn't currently the case. Yes, all released felons should have their rights restored. If they can't be trusted with all their rights, they shouldn't be released. You know, punishment fits the crime and all that...:confused:

Squidward
December 18, 2006, 01:19 PM
Not only should they not be allowed to have guns, they should not be allowed to have children. Both should be seen as a privilege not a right.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
December 18, 2006, 01:20 PM
I don't see violent felons as trustworthy enough for be afforded this right.

Perhaps that is because they are not kept in a prison long enough, with time hard enough, to ensure proper rehabilitation.

The lost their right to live in society. They should lose this one as well.

wacki
December 18, 2006, 01:25 PM
If you're good enough to be trusted to be out in public, you're good enough to be trusted with a gun. We don't need multiple classes of 'free' citizens.

Unfortunately the world isn't perfect. The system frequently lets go of violent felons to make room for the war on drugs.

TallPine
December 18, 2006, 01:28 PM
The real question here is do you agree with YOUR rights being limited because of violent felons? Should it be a huge pain to obtain a full auto, etc. for everybody because is supposedly makes it harder for felons?

Yep, you're asking the wrong and/or a loaded question (designed to make anyone who answers "yes" look like a "loony") :rolleyes:

Besides, aren't most violent felons released into some sort of parole/probation supervision...? Firearms prohibition as a condition of parole/probation is ok with me, since they are still serving a sentence.

ronto
December 18, 2006, 02:00 PM
Once a violent felon...Always a violent felon...They proved they can't be trusted.

P.S.The original question assumed they were not in prison although they should be. If they were, who would vote for letting them have a firearm?

JesseL
December 18, 2006, 02:06 PM
Once a violent felon...Always a violent felon...They proved they can't be trusted.

Fine, don't let them out of prison.
It's wrong to try to have it both ways (as we do).

SolaScriptura139
December 18, 2006, 02:10 PM
This is similar to an older thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=191154

ArfinGreebly
December 18, 2006, 02:22 PM
If someone is a "violent felon" and you send them to jail, then clearly you will keep them there until they are no longer a threat to society.

I mean, the parole board would not let them out otherwise, right?

Now, you have a kind of "limbo" status while you're on parole. You're still in prison but not really. During this period, you don't get to own weapons.

If you successfully complete your parole, you've demonstrated you can re-integrate into society, right? If you screw that up, you go back behind bars.

You can't control the commodity itself (in this case, guns), and the attempt only creates a black market.

If the objective of your "penal" system is rehabilitation, then do it for real, turn them loose, and give them back their rights. If a guy can't be rehabilitated, then you don't let him loose, since he'll just do something violent again. And he'll get his equipment on the black market.

If rehabilitation is impossible, then we quit kidding ourselves and keep them locked up. Tighten up the sentences until actual deterrent effect kicks in. Death penalty as needed.

What you DON'T do is house them for a while, decide you have no room, let them go, and then have a stupid "rule" (that they will ignore) about what they're allowed to own. Once you let them out, you don't control them any more.

And the alternative SUPREME STUPIDITY of trying to control what EVERYONE may own, so that people you can't fix and won't restrain "can't get them" is among the more mind-boggling idiocies of our time.

If they are trustworthy enough to let out, then leave them the hell alone.

Otherwise don't let them out.

SoCalShooter
December 18, 2006, 02:24 PM
Personally, if you violent criminals: rapists, murderers, violent robbers, corrupt CEO's, corrupt politicians should all not be allowed to have any rights and should either be put to hard labor or death.

Walkalong
December 18, 2006, 02:27 PM
Do you think violent ex-cons such as muderers, rapist, and armed robbers should be allowed to legally own firearms upon their release

No. They would not be getting out if I ran the world. If you murder, rape, or molest children, and you are caught red handed, you should be executed. :fire:

kfranz
December 18, 2006, 02:35 PM
Not only should they not be allowed to have guns, they should not be allowed to have children. Both should be seen as a privilege not a right.

Wow. Just wow. :scrutiny:

S&W 910
December 18, 2006, 02:41 PM
All felons should be denied imo

up_onus
December 18, 2006, 02:43 PM
what a question....
Well, I do not believe non-rehabilitated felons should be allowed out of prison...No matter what the weapon they get, they will hurt somebody.
I mean, they can get a CAR or TRUCK??? but not a gun??? hmmm....

If they are rehabilitated...then sure, its a RIGHT.

Depchief
December 18, 2006, 02:56 PM
Violent criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a felony give up their right to ever legally own a firearm the second they commit the crime, period. They may serve their time in prison, but how would anyone really know if they were ever rehabilitated or not. If they did it once, they have proven that they have the ability to do it again, why give them the chance!

Sean Dempsey
December 18, 2006, 03:09 PM
Violent felons SHOULD have their gun rights revoked.

I know I am in the minority here, but oh well. A similar incidence is DUI's. My dad has had a few... 5 I think. He now has a permanent zero-tolerance drivers license. If he is pulled over with ANY alcohol, he loses his license for a year and does 90 days in jail.

Sorry. You play you pay.

308win
December 18, 2006, 03:10 PM
Convicted felons have already demonstrated that they will not live by the rules society has adopted. They will gain access to firearms if the want them so prohibition of ownership as another charge to hang them with.

wacki
December 18, 2006, 03:10 PM
All felons should be denied imo

What about marijuana related felonies? Despite what you hear on the anti-drug commercials, any medical journal will say weed is far far far safer for your brain than beer.

FYI: I don't smoke weed. I am a scientist that abuses his body with the much more damaging Cabernet Sauvignon.

ArfinGreebly
December 18, 2006, 03:15 PM
by Depchief
Violent criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a felony give up their right to ever legally own a firearm the second they commit the crime, period. They may serve their time in prison, but how would anyone really know if they were ever rehabilitated or not. If they did it once, they have proven that they have the ability to do it again, why give them the chance!

1) "serve their time in prison" This paradigm is part of the problem. Putting an arbitrary number on a sentence does nothing to address returning a person to full status as trustworthy member of society.

2) "really know if they were ever rehabilitated" Just so. If rehabilitation is possible, then get a metric that assures you it's been accomplished. If it's not possible, then isolate the bad guys. Why on earth would you release a violent criminal back into society, knowing he can't be trusted, and imagining that you can make rules about what he may own and where he may go? This is just makes me squint.

3) "proven that they have the ability" Everyone has the ability. The vast majority of us are able to manage our abilities and not use them for harm. The question has never been "does he have the ability" but "is it likely he'll do it." If rehabilitated, he's okay now. If not, why are you letting him out?

What is it we think we "owe" criminals? A career criminal is going to be trouble until the day a) he is reformed, or b) he is dead.

This popular objection of "well, by law we have to . . ." -- as though the existence of a law means that rational and logically sound thinking was used in creating the law -- is a common way of sidestepping the need for actual critical thought on the matter.

It's just as well this isn't a law forum. I could rant on for days. Let's not contemplate what the sentence ought to be for writing a stupid law that damages society.

Zen21Tao
December 18, 2006, 03:24 PM
I ususally tend to agree that once a person commits a violent crime he has told society that he isn't willing to live peacful within that society and thus shouldn't be allowed to retain the rights that members of that society have. However, one questions that weighs heavy on me is whether or not a violent 16yr old killer is the same person after he has spent 30 years in prison and been paroled.

Ultimately, I think that violent felons should lose their rights but, after a sufficent amount of time without reoffending, they should have a process avaliable to them through which they can prove they have changed and earn those rights back.

f4t9r
December 18, 2006, 03:36 PM
First let the person that was raped or Family member of murder victim decide.
I think it should be after they have 10 or 15 min. to discuss the matter with said felon , with no penality for what happens in that time. Maybe they could show them some gun safety and what could happen if you do not follow all the rules.
Just an idea !!!!!!!!!

PILMAN
December 18, 2006, 03:38 PM
Personally I feel if someone has a felony for a violent crime, I doubt any ammount of rehabilitation is going to change that person. They should be executed for their crimes or kept in prison. The fact they are able to even breathe the same air as us should be way more than enough for them. If they want a gun, maybe they should have thought about the consequences.

Sean Dempsey
December 18, 2006, 03:58 PM
I know it's not possible here, but I'd love to hear the stories from THR members who willfully committed a violent crime, their reasoning, and their current feelings of rehabilitation.

There's GOT to be some registered users here who have harmed/killed someone in a robbery or something. One can only wonder how they would reply. I know there's no chance that the moderators would allow anyone to talk about such things, but seriously, if you've stabbed/shot someone because you wanted their money, I'd LOOOOOOVE to hear why you should have access to gun rights now that you're paroled.

wacki
December 18, 2006, 04:15 PM
I know it's not possible here, but I'd love to hear the stories from THR members who willfully committed a violent crime, their reasoning, and their current feelings of rehabilitation.

I gave a thief a black eye once. Apparently that's a Class A misdemeanor. Without going into too much detail he took me out to the bars while his friends broke into my car and apartment.

It's violent and it's a crime. If I broke his nose it could have been a felony. Luckily my record is clean now as this guy as a reputation for doing this stuff. So the powers that be were very understanding. It could have very easily turned out differently. Not what you were looking for but I would hope this shows the need for some form of discretion.

.45&TKD
December 18, 2006, 04:18 PM
I'm getting sick of these polls with a faulty premise.
This is what the libs do to sway public opinion, no offense to you personally.

The correct question should be, should violent felons be let free with probation or early parole?

MrDig
December 18, 2006, 04:32 PM
I am a member of the 12 step community (read alcoholic/addict) I haven't had a drink or used drugs for over 18 years. What do you think guys am I rehabilitated? I have never been convicted of a crime, but as an addict/alcoholic I must admit I commited them. That was 18 years ago I am so far removed from the person I once was that I can and have Legally purchased firearms. I currently Have an active premit to purchase a hand gun in the state of MN. I passed all the background checks, I work for a living and when I'm not at work I spend most of my time helpng others to work the 12 steps of AA. Don't tell me that rehabilitation is not possible. I've seen miracles at work on a day to day basis. Again I would ask how long is it reasonable to consider a person a felon. I will grant you the recitivism rate is high, but what about those of us who actually do turn our lives around. Spare me you self righteous BS once a criminal always a criminal I know it's not true from personal experience.

Sean Dempsey
December 18, 2006, 04:36 PM
Spare me you self righteous BS once a criminal always a criminal I know it's not true from personal experience.

No offense to you, my mother, father, and brother are all serious alcoholics that have been in and out of many programs.

You say you're rehabilitated? If so, you can casually drink, right? If one is an alcoholic, and then is rehabilitated through the 12 steps and AA, then once finished "rehabilitating", you are able to drink again, in responsible moderation?

This is not a flame or an insult, so don't take it as such. But my family experience with AA has taught me that most of them believe "once and addict, always an addict", which is why most recovering alcoholics can NEVER drink again.

So if it is not true from personal experience, how many alcoholics and drug addicts do YOU know who have a serious problem, get rehabilitated, and then start drinking and using drugs responsibly and in moderation?


But to answer your question: Yes, if you can now drink and not become addicted or succumb to alcoholism, then yes, you are rehabilitated.

JesseL
December 18, 2006, 04:44 PM
Sean Dempsey:
I believe that MDig was not referring to no longer being an alcoholic, but rather no longer being a criminal.

Trying to apply your reasoning to a felon would be like saying that unless they can still commit a petty crime once in a while without sliding back into old habits of rape and murder, they are not rehabilitated/reformed.

Walkalong
December 18, 2006, 04:47 PM
my family experience with AA has taught me that most of them believe "once and addict, always an addict", which is why most recovering alcoholics can NEVER drink again.

23 Years and counting. No you cannot. The drug of your choice. It does not have to be alcohol.

crunker
December 18, 2006, 05:05 PM
Unless we seriously step up punishments for violent criminals, then I'd say no.

I mean think about it, a guy who's killed a person only seven years ago should not be trusted with a gun so quickly.

Now if we really bumped up punishment and probation period, and made it necessary for violent felons to get approval from the court, then I'd say plausible... but until then, hell no. Our current justice system is too pussy for this to be allowed to happen.

MrDig
December 18, 2006, 05:14 PM
I don't drink today because I choose to abstain. I know the problems it would create in my life. As an active participant in the 12 step community I don't attempt to drink because every other time I have it has caused problems. Somewhat scientific process wouldn't you say? If an action produces the same or similiar results every time it is applied and the results are undesireable stop taking that action. Took me years to fugure that out also took me years to accept that no one but no one or thing is responsable for my actions but me. For me the only answer is to not drink since drinking produces an undesireable effect. Can I drink I sure can, do I drink absolutly not. I don't like who I am when I drink. To ask me if I can drink responsably is to completely and totally misunderstand the problem. Furthermore to tell me that rehabilitation means I can drink responsably is slightly off the mark. It is like asking a felon if he/she can commit felonies responably. When the obvious answer is no, the only answer is not to commit felonies. What does it take to consider a person a functional member of society?
PS to walkalong you made my point before I could, thanks, and good to meet another freind of Bill W's

allmons
December 18, 2006, 05:16 PM
I worked a rape case several years ago that had the conviction overturned later by DNA evidence. The woman who made the accusation was really angry with her ex-husband and accused him of rape. Turned out her new boyfriend beat her up and had sex with her. The accused spent 18 months in prison for assault and rape. Getting all rights reinstated was a nightmare for him.

Then, consider what happens if you have to use deadly force and you run afoul of a zealous anti-gun prosecutor? Despite what you may think, innocent people GO TO JAIL EVERY DAY.

If you pay your debt to society and the parole board lets you out, you should get all rights back. If you are dangerous, you should not be let out.

Twycross
December 18, 2006, 05:30 PM
In order to prohibit ex-criminals from owning personal firearms, you must accept that they are not protected by the BOR. You can't just pick and choose in the "well, they can have the right to jury trial and freedom of speech, but they can't vote or own guns" manner. They are either under the protection of the BOR, or they are not. If you accept that ex-violent criminals should be denied the right to keep and bear arms, then you must also accept that the state is not obligated to respect their right to freedom of religion, or jury trial, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you are going to make an argument in favor of denying rights to ex-felons, at least be consistent.

It's rather sad, watching us argue with the antis and claiming that gun control doesn't work, and then turning right around and claiming that it does as long as it is not us we are talking about. Freedom for me but not for thee.

"'Cause you might go off and shoot somebody." Where have I heard that before? :banghead:

Durruti
December 18, 2006, 05:59 PM
I think one of the problems with the premise is the assumption that violent felons are automatically bad people (bear with me here). Allmons pointed out that there are innocent convicts, but I'll go one better: some people who actually do the crime are good folks.

There are plenty of murderers who will never get punished because the government doesn't view what they do as murder (I'd say Bush and Clinton, but you throw in your own names; I do not want to hijack the thread on names :) ). On the other hand, we have plenty of women in prison for murdering their abuser and/or rapist (most often their husband in both cases). According to the way the law is written, many of them did indeed commit murder (for example, when the act is not committed in immediate self-defense). I think they should not only retain their gun rights, they shouldn't even go to prison. Give them a pat on the back and help them with whatever counseling they feel they need.

308win
December 18, 2006, 06:23 PM
It's rather sad, watching us argue with the antis and claiming that gun control doesn't work, and then turning right around and claiming that it does as long as it is not us we are talking about. Freedom for me but not for thee.

I suppose if your premise is that all gun owners or potential gun owners are murderers waiting for the right victim.

pcosmar
December 18, 2006, 06:25 PM
All felons lose the right to own firearms. The law does not distinguish between violent and non-violent. There are many states that restore rights after the sentence is finished, but it does not automatically change the status as a "prohibited person" under Federal Law. Just because a person had their rights restored does not mean that the NCIS check will come back clear.
There are a lot of felons that could and should be able to own firearms.
There are some non-felons that should not walk around unsupervised. I know idiots who are unsafe with hand tools.
I have also seen some evil men, that I would never want to see on the outside.

I like to think of myself as an EX-felon, but the policy is not so.
A person can become a felon for something as simple as peeing in an alley, or a violent felon for spanking a child.
Some have made mistakes, paid the price, and want to get back to a normal life.
I believe that if someone makes an effort to be a productive citizen that effort should be rewarded.
Unfortunately once a felon always a felon. It is not the Law, but it is the policy.

Mannlicher
December 18, 2006, 06:58 PM
not that the legalities of gun ownership worry the criminal mind much in the first place.

GRIZ22
December 18, 2006, 07:28 PM
Violent felons should never be restored the right to own firearms. How many chances do you have to give someone? Those that propose violent felons should be allowed to own firearms are only giving the anti-gun people ammo to use against the RKBA. If they are not to be trusted then they should stay locked up is another response that is not based in reality. It costs $20-40K a year to keep someone locked up and guess who pays that. I will agree that some reform is needed as to what constitutes a felony. Although a convicted felon I don't think Martha Stewart would be a danger to society if she was permitted to own a firearm. Ted Kennedy pled guilty to leaving the scene where a death has occurred which is called a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. However, you can get 2 years which makes it a felony under federal law. Ted is pretty dangerous just being around.

My understanding is that the first factor in gaining relief from disability is if the state will expunge a felony conviction. Some states are more willing to do this that others.

Felons of all types will acquire firearms if they want to. Why make it easier for them?

harvester of sorrow
December 18, 2006, 07:33 PM
I posted this in the other thread that you are referring to, but I'll add it here, too:

I'll go over this one more time. Violent, dangerous criminals shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place. However, in today's criminal justice system, they are. It is currently illegal for a convicted felon to possess a gun. Surprising as it may be to some, this doesn't appear to discourage any of them who are set on committing more crimes upon their release. They aren't affected by waiting periods. They aren't affected by background checks. They aren't affected by "one gun a month" legislation. They aren't affected by the requirements set out in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Based on the fact that the North Hollywood bank robbers acquired their guns in Mexico, they don't appear to be affected by the importation laws under the Gun Control Act of 1968. They aren't affected by having to get a Firearms Owners Identifcation Card. They aren't affected by the Sullivan Act. They aren't affected by registration or taxation. The only people affected by any of these things are you and me. The only convicted felon who is affected by any of these things is the one who has decided that he's going to obey the law from now on. If he's decided that, he's not a danger to you or anyone else.

SolaScriptura139
December 18, 2006, 09:17 PM
Violent felons should never be restored the right to own firearms.


How can one restore a right? Shouldn't rights always exist? I'm not so sure about throwing out the judgment here on this situation. I don't like the idea of violent felons getting guns, but trying to prevent a murderer from getting a gun isn't going to stop him from killing someone. EVEN if you were able to complete prevent a violent ex-felon from getting a gun, what's to stop them from getting a knife? or a bow? or a slingshot? or anything remotely deadly? By that logic, the one that says we should prevent ex-felons from having deadly weapons, then we should ban these people from knives, bows, slingshots, etc. It's pretty much impossible to stop people from getting things that they want, for a good example look at our prison system.

And if we take the most literal interpretation, the 2A does say that the RKBA shall not be infringed. It is a pretty absolute statement about RKBA. Taking away one's right to vote is also one way the gov't. prevents people from having a voice. Yes, you may have broken the law and you did accept the consequences when you broke the law, but those consequences should be dealt with either in physical punishment, prison, or rehabilitation. Punishing someone for the rest of their life for peeing in public (which can be prosecuted as a sex crime felony) is ludicrous. And if you're too dangerous to be in public or can't be trusted, you should be kept in prison.

You don't keep punishing a child for doing something wrong after he's served his 10 minutes (or more) in the corner. And the boundaries you set for the child afterward have to be reasonable and enforceable.

crebralfix
December 18, 2006, 09:24 PM
Yes!

We all have rights...period. Mere laws *should not* nullify rights, though we allow this as a culture for some reason. If the Constitution is supreme, then why allow piddly laws override it?

If the felon can be let out, then presumeably they won't misbehave like that again. Why let them out if it's not the case? (besides excuses like budgets, political correctness, etc, etc etc)

We really need to make up our mind as a culture. Is it punishment? Therapy? Free room and board? Incidentally, my vote is for punishment with no TV, no gym, no training, terrible food and lots of hard work.

The main problem I see is that we have created a FELON CLASS. There is no forgiveness anymore...no second chance. Once you have a felony on your record, a law abiding life becomes much more difficult (I think; maybe they don't have trouble).

SO, AGAIN, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO GO OFF:

If a felon is capable of reintegrating back into society peacefully, then all rights should be restored. If the felon is NOT capable of reintegrating into society peacefully, then that felon should be "banished" to prison until such time as he or she is capable of coming back or dies. Think of prison as a "rights timeout" with lots of unpleasant experiences. I think we, as a society, should discourage "repeat customers".

shotgunkevin
December 18, 2006, 09:59 PM
(posted from the middle of the ocean, on an asbestos boat, in the rain, while wearing a flamesuit)...

In the Bible, God instituted three levels of punishment: restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. Our society would be well served by returning to this principle.

Restituion would be the sentence for crimes involving property: theft, burglary, white-collar crime, etc. The victim of the crime would receive their property or money back, between two-fold to seven-fold, depending on the judge's sentence. Pretty simple.

I know this one is touchy, but corporal punishment is for crimes involving injury to another person, from a minor to moderate amount. This could entail a drunk driver smashing into an occupied vehicle and breaking a little girl's legs, or a punk teenager that bullies and beats up another kid. Corporal punishment could take the form of lashes, caning (as is still being done in Asia), or something similar.

Lastly, capital punishment is reserved for those who take another's life, or take away another's lifestyle. It is fitting that if a man rapes a woman, thereby damaging her body and degrading her self-image, he has forfeited his life. If a person lies in wait for an elderly man to return home, and he beats the old man to death for his social security check, then we as a society must remove him from our midst.

There should be no violent felons released back into society.

geekWithA.45
December 18, 2006, 10:03 PM
I didn't vote in this one, but the policy I would suggest is that it should be _possible_ for such people to have their rights restored, through some genuine and fair process that actually works.

(Unlike our current situation,where some process of unknown fairness or effectiveness exists on paper, but the bureau tasked with performing the process hasn't been funded in 30 years)

While I think that a great most of the folks who've committed violent felonies are likely to offend again and wouldn't qualify, I leave room for the some who might. There is always the possibility of a geniune reformation of an individual, and one must also account for the possibility that the original crime was the result of one time, extraordinary circumstances, or that the conviction itself was a miscarriage of justice. (ie: Corey Maye)

10-Ring
December 18, 2006, 11:13 PM
In my book if you mix together "VIOLENT" & "FELON" you should mix in "life w/o the possibility of parole" If they do make it back into society the last thing they should have are firearms :scrutiny:

MrDig
December 18, 2006, 11:38 PM
It would appear cannonization is in order for all of the no redemption positions stated here. Glad to hear that no one among you has done anything ever that you needed to make amends for. I am also glad that none of you are the entity that I have to answer to when my time is done.
I know the person I am today is not the person I once was, I also know I am not the person that my Higher Power (God) has intended me to be. The truest spiritual journey is one the leads to something greater than the here and now. My prayer is that you all find your path and find meaning greater than you have expressed here. I would make one final suggestion but it is probably asking to much, If you never have and or forgotten read the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. Good night and God Bless.

c_yeager
December 18, 2006, 11:47 PM
In my ideal world the answer would be "yes". However that is a world in which incouragably violent individuals would be either excecuted or placed in indefinate imprisonment. If your asking should violent felons simply be granted the RKBA today with our current justice system I would have to say "no".

Glockfan.45
December 19, 2006, 07:30 AM
In the Bible, God instituted three levels of punishment: restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. Our society would be well served by returning to this principle.

Restituion would be the sentence for crimes involving property: theft, burglary, white-collar crime, etc. The victim of the crime would receive their property or money back, between two-fold to seven-fold, depending on the judge's sentence. Pretty simple.

I know this one is touchy, but corporal punishment is for crimes involving injury to another person, from a minor to moderate amount. This could entail a drunk driver smashing into an occupied vehicle and breaking a little girl's legs, or a punk teenager that bullies and beats up another kid. Corporal punishment could take the form of lashes, caning (as is still being done in Asia), or something similar.

Lastly, capital punishment is reserved for those who take another's life, or take away another's lifestyle. It is fitting that if a man rapes a woman, thereby damaging her body and degrading her self-image, he has forfeited his life. If a person lies in wait for an elderly man to return home, and he beats the old man to death for his social security check, then we as a society must remove him from our midst.

There should be no violent felons released back into society.


I could not have put it better myself. The problem here, and on the other thread is that the question has been muddled by opinions not relevent to the question. I didnt ask if violent felons should be released, I didnt ask if innocent people sometimes end up in prison. Some people who fall into the catagory of a violent felon are there wrongly such as the father who killed his daughters rapist, or the guy who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught the blame for a crime he didnt commit. No system is perfect, and sadly mistakes will be made. Yet most guilty people in the courtroom will claim innocence, and there are no criminals in prison if you ask them. The odds of finding the 1 in 100,000 innocent person with a felony conviction are slim, nothing I would bet money on nothing I would bet life on. The question was and still is "should murderers and rapist be allowed to own guns if they are released".

On A side note I would like to thank those that have commented on the issue for keeping it civil so far. That is the great thing about this forum over others. I know it is a passionate issue for most of us, and I will admit that a few times I was tempted to break out the flame thrower but I resisted, and so have you. Good job

308win
December 19, 2006, 08:59 AM
We are falling into the anit's argument here - if a felon wants a firearm he is going to have one regardless of the law. Many of the posts (at least to my interpretation appear to take a position that banning ownership thru a law works). Proscribing this right through law simply adds another count to convict him of - which is fine IMHO.

javacodeman
December 19, 2006, 09:30 AM
In the Bible, God instituted three levels of punishment: restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. Our society would be well served by returning to this principle.

Restituion would be the sentence for crimes involving property: theft, burglary, white-collar crime, etc. The victim of the crime would receive their property or money back, between two-fold to seven-fold, depending on the judge's sentence. Pretty simple.

I know this one is touchy, but corporal punishment is for crimes involving injury to another person, from a minor to moderate amount. This could entail a drunk driver smashing into an occupied vehicle and breaking a little girl's legs, or a punk teenager that bullies and beats up another kid. Corporal punishment could take the form of lashes, caning (as is still being done in Asia), or something similar.

Lastly, capital punishment is reserved for those who take another's life, or take away another's lifestyle. It is fitting that if a man rapes a woman, thereby damaging her body and degrading her self-image, he has forfeited his life. If a person lies in wait for an elderly man to return home, and he beats the old man to death for his social security check, then we as a society must remove him from our midst.

There should be no violent felons released back into society.


I agree.

jeep-2
December 19, 2006, 09:42 AM
if they didn't use a weapon to commit the crime, why should they lose their gun rights?,
up until recently a child molester or rapist would lose his gun rights when convicted, their crimes had nothing to do with guns, now thankfully there is a registery for them, make the punishment fit the crime.
why should a person the gets convicted of DWI or smoking dope lose their gun rights, wouldn't losing their driving license fit the crime better??

Feanaro
December 19, 2006, 10:28 AM
Either the Bill of Rights applies to felons or it doesn't. If they have forfeited their right to own firearms, do they still have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redressing of grievances? Can we station soldiers in their homes during a time of peace without their permission? Are their effects, papers, houses, and persons not secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Are they denied the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury?

To suppress some of their rights but not others implies a hierarchy to our rights. I do not think my right to redress my grievances against the goobermint or to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is any less important than my right to own weapons, nor the reverse.

In short, YES.

rangerruck
December 19, 2006, 10:45 AM
if you are out of jail , and have paid your sentence, then you should be able to particpate fully in all laws of this coutnry , right? you are still subject to all laws, and will quickly go back to prison if you break any laws, right? then you should be able to vote/carry. Of course, if you do something wrong and are carrying a gun, in the committing of a crime, it should be a whole lot easier for someone to blow you away, without getting into too much trouble, after all we just blew out a former violent , gun carrying ex-con.

dfaugh
December 19, 2006, 10:50 AM
Other "felons"? We need another class of crime, I think. There are too many "felonies" that don't warrant stripping someone of his/her basic rights. We need a class of crime that's not a misdemeanor, but also differentiates someone convicted of this class of crime from someone that the average person would consider a "felon."

I agree---currently the rights involving gun ownership are too "black and white"....There are many shades of grey in between.

I would say there's at LEAST 4 catagories.

1) Minor crimes--mostly what we would call misdemeanors today.
2) Major VICTIMLESS crimes--Embezzlement, "insider" trading, etc.
3) Major crimes without violence-- Dealing large quantities of drugs, smuggling, counterfeiting, etc.
4) VIOLENT Felonies--Rape Murder, kidnapping, etc.

1) should not lose any rights.
2 or 3) serve you penalty, right restored after a short period of staying "clean"
4)VIOLENT Rights restored ONLY after a long period of staying clean, examined on a case-by-case basis. Probably NO restoration of all rights depending on the circumstances.

Deathrider1579
December 19, 2006, 11:02 AM
My position on this is simple.
If I don't trust you with a gun you don't belong on the street.

Ergo, if the violent felon is not stable enough to own a gun he should still be in jail.

I don't agree with the whole losing your rights when you commit a felony, there are too many felonys I mean you can get busted for felony speeding Thats a felony for GOING TOO FAST ***?

-DR

TallPine
December 19, 2006, 11:33 AM
ok, you all - carry this logic (or lack there-of) one step further....

You don't want released felons to have firearms, so you institute background checks on gun purchases. So then criminally minded felons break into homes and steal legally owned guns. Therefore, you and I must not have guns in our homes :uhoh:

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. :rolleyes:

jerkface11
December 19, 2006, 12:48 PM
What other rights can we take away? Maybe their 4th amendment rights? Then the cops can search their home any time they feel like it. How about their first amendment rights? Then we can make them go to sunday school. If we let them out of prison and they want a gun they'll get one. So maybe the poll should be
"Should violent felons be allowed out of prison?"

Essex County
December 19, 2006, 01:39 PM
My son in law is a felon. New Year's Eve, ayear ago he was arrested in N.H. for DWI after a minor accident durring an ice storm. Solid citizen, totaly non violent , but guess what? A first offense DWI in New Hampshire had just become a Felony. Not a real threat to society but it's a good thing He's an avid fisherman. On the other hand I know others that abuse their wives and children.........I see this as a big diffrence......Essex

jeep-2
December 19, 2006, 01:44 PM
My son in law is a felon. New Year's Eve, ayear ago he was arrested in N.H. for DWI after a minor accident durring an ice storm. Solid citizen, totaly non violent , but guess what? A first offense DWI in New Hampshire had just become a Felony. Not a real threat to society but it's a good thing He's an avid fisherman. On the other hand I know others that abuse their wives and children.........I see this as a big diffrence......Essex


exactly what i'm saying, take his drivers license, not his hunting license

jeep-2
December 19, 2006, 01:48 PM
What other rights can we take away? Maybe their 4th amendment rights? Then the cops can search their home any time they feel like it. How about their first amendment rights? Then we can make them go to sunday school. If we let them out of prison and they want a gun they'll get one. So maybe the poll should be
"Should violent felons be allowed out of prison?"

1) SEARCH YOUR HOME AND NOT EVEN TELL YOU.
The USA Patriot Act expands law enforcement’s ability to conduct secret “sneak and peek” searches of your home. Investigators can enter your home or office, take pictures and seize items without informing you that a warrant was issued, for an indefinite period of time. (SECTION 213

2) COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT BOOKS YOU READ, WHAT YOU STUDY, YOUR PURCHASES AND YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY. The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement broad access to any types of records – medical, financial, gun, library, educational, sales, etc. – without probable cause of a crime. It also prohibits the holders of this information, like librarians, from disclosing that they have produced such records, under threat of imprisonment. The court orders are issued by a secret intelligence court in Washington and judges have little power to deny applications. (SECTION 215)

3) SEIZE A WIDE VARIETY OF BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS, and in certain instances access the membership lists of organizations that provide even very limited Internet services (message boards on your church website for instance) using “national security letters,” or NSLs, which are issued at the sole discretion of the Justice Department. The Patriot Act expanded access to these NSLs, which also impose a blanket gag order on recipients and are not subject to judicial review. (SECTION 505)

4) READ PARTS OF YOUR E-MAILS AND MONITOR WHAT YOU LOOK AT ON-LINE. The Patriot Act lets the government get records that could show the subject lines of your e-mails and details about your Web surfing habits (like your recent research on Google), all without probable cause. (SECTION 216)

beaucoup ammo
December 19, 2006, 01:48 PM
Given the question as is..with no caveats or hypothetical assumptions..the answer, IMO, must be NO. "Violent" is the operative word.

You'd be hard pressed to find a stronger advocate of the 2nd Amendment than myself. Not to the exclusion of common sense, however. To allow a "violent felon" a gun would be arming the "Anti's" with enough ammunition to advance their agenda beyond even their wildest dreams.

c_yeager
December 19, 2006, 01:49 PM
One could look at the prior Felon as a sort of in-house exile. We let them stay here but they dont really "count" as full Americans. If you look at it that way, it isnt quite so distastefull. I do not think that exile is a cruel or unusual punishment.

Sistema1927
December 19, 2006, 01:50 PM
Mannlicher: not that the legalities of gun ownership worry the criminal mind much in the first place.

I think that I have found a new sig line. (Properly attributed and with your permission first.)

BTW, I didn't vote in the poll on this thread. It was poorly crafted and biased to the viewpoint of its author. He doesn't see that some of us don't want violent criminals in our midst, but are perfectly willing to uphold the God given rights of those who walk among us.

MrDig
December 19, 2006, 01:53 PM
My point would be that according to some of you that those rights should NEVER be reinstated period end of discussion. Some people are actually capable of turning their lives around, strange as it may seem. Recitivism stat's being what they are, I will still introduce you to half a dozen people who haven't had so much as a parking ticket for thirty years. After being released from prison they have become for all intents and purposes become model citizens, and leaders in the AA / religious communities, and actively worked with youth groups to try and intervene before those kids make the same mistake. And yet even after all that and Thirty years between the crime and present day, You still say "Once a Felon , always a felon. and there is no redemption for them.
You quote the Old Testament to say that these people should suffer consequences of their behavior. The very Scripture you quote recinds the Old Testament laws by Stating "Let he among you without sin cast the first stone" and furthermore stating the one true Law "Do unto others as you would have done unto you"
So do you really think a thief should have his fingers cut off for his first offense? a hand for his second and his head for the third? Do really believe that those old laws apply in any way shape or form to this Society?
I believe a person must be held accountable for their behavior I honestly do, but at what point do you consider the account Paid? Is there absolutely no way to Redeem oneself in a society that purports to be founded on Christian Ideals, the primary one being redemption?

jeep-2
December 19, 2006, 01:57 PM
ok, you all - carry this logic (or lack there-of) one step further....

You don't want released felons to have firearms, so you institute background checks on gun purchases. So then criminally minded felons break into homes and steal legally owned guns. Therefore, you and I must not have guns in our homes

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

I think everyone should have their weapons locked in a secure place, either in a safe or in a locked cabnet with trigger locks. the ammo should be locked in a different area in a fire proof safe. that should make the owner exempt from charges if they are stolden.
just common sence, we get ticketed if our auto is stolden because the keys were left in it and are liable for the damages done while it is gone.
the same should be for weapons, lockem up.., the good old days of leaving the rifle hanging in the rear window of the pick up and bullits all over the floor are gone.

MrDig
December 19, 2006, 02:09 PM
My point would be that according to some of you that those rights should NEVER be reinstated period end of discussion. Some people are actually capable of turning their lives around. Strange as it may seem. Recitivism stat's being what they are, I will still introduce you to half a dozen people who haven't had so much as a parking ticket for thirty years. After being released from prison they have become for all intents and purposes model citizens, leaders in the AA / religious communities, and actively worked with youth groups to try and intervene before those kids make the same mistake. Yet even after all that and Thirty years between the crime and present day, You still say "Once a Felon , always a felon. and there is no redemption for them.
You quote the Old Testament to say that these people should suffer consequences of their behavior. The very Scripture you quote recinds the Old Testament laws by Stating "Let he among you without sin cast the first stone" and furthermore stating the one true Law "Do unto others as you would have done unto you"
So do you really think a thief should have his fingers cut off for his first offense? a hand for his second and his head for the third? Do really believe that those old laws apply in any way shape or form to this Society?
I believe a person must be held accountable for their behavior, I honestly do, but at what point do you consider the account Paid? Is there no point of Redemption in a Society that purports to be founded on the principles of Christianity. One of the primary tenets of Cristianity being the blessing of Redemption.
There has to be a middle ground between the anarchy of the Liberal Left and Fundamental Old Testament Law.

Glockfan.45
December 19, 2006, 02:12 PM
Jeep, following your advice would negate one primary purpose of owning a gun. It does no good if you need to protect your home from a threat if you have to spend 5 minutes trying to get to your guns and ammo.

Feanaro
December 19, 2006, 02:14 PM
I think Jeep was being sarcastic. At least, I hope so.

jeep-2
December 19, 2006, 02:23 PM
Jeep, following your advice would negate one primary purpose of owning a gun. It does no good if you need to protect your home from a threat if you have to spend 5 minutes trying to get to your guns and ammo.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a weapon near the bed where a kid can't get hold of it, I'm speaking of guns in general, just a while ago a second grader took a pistol to school, the cops have his gun collection til the parent spends $$ and time in court to get them back.

Sean85746
December 19, 2006, 02:38 PM
Okay, retired cop chiming in here.

I don't believe violent felons should be allowed to own guns, i.e. rapists, those convicted of murder in the first degree, child molestation.

I DO believe non-violent felons should be allowed to get their rights back in steps, thru a Parole Officer, or Probation officer IF they demonstrate 18 months of model behavior post-incarceration. I know, I know....details,. paperwork nightmare, but that is why we have this forum.

Their are a lot of poor damned fools out there who have been dinged on felony traffic beefs or other non-violent felonies that are in no way violent(Non DUI, but speeding in excess of 100mph, or college kids making fake ID's to get into their local campus gin-palaces) Crimes of that nature, or screwing Uncle Sugar on your taxes...non violent, not likely to repeat shouldn't lose their rights after their sentences have been served.

Just my .02

I personally know a guy who was convicted of a felony in 1952, after he came back from Korea where he served as a decorated US Marine. He was in Tijuana with some buddies, they got caught bringing back, if you can imagine 2 mexican hookers for some fun, and he got a felony beef. He was allowed to remain in the Marine Corps, and was allowed to own guns until the GCA of 1968 I believe. When he went to purchase a Ruger 10-22 post Brady, he was denied.

This guy is now 77 years old, and can't even buy a daggum .22 for plinking. He has lived an exemplary life, and served our country in combat, yet he is a felon and cannot legally own a gun.

TallPine
December 19, 2006, 07:41 PM
I think everyone should have their weapons locked in a secure place, either in a safe or in a locked cabnet with trigger locks. the ammo should be locked in a different area in a fire proof safe.
See - you just proved my point :rolleyes:

You want to legislate what I do with my property inside my own home :uhoh:

Clipper
December 19, 2006, 08:12 PM
To paraphrase a cop I knew, "Once a scumbag, always a scumbag". Getting out of prison is just graduation from crime school. Recidivism is way too high for reasonable people to risk restoring gun rights to ex-convicts. I've kept my nose clean for 50+ years, and so can you. If you choose to victimize other folks, you have forfieted your freedom and very existence to their sufferance.

Steam dragon
December 19, 2006, 08:19 PM
Your poll is skewed. It is designed to generate controversy and false results.
Kinda like an ABC/NY Times Poll.
I knew it was before even opening the thread.

I've said it before, and others have said it here.

If a person can be trusted on the street, he can be trusted on the street with a gun.
If he can not be trusted on the street with a gun, then he can not be trusted on the street.

Let him out the full citizen, or keep him locked up.


It is morally reprehensible to REQURE someone to go about their daily lives without the benefit of the tools to protect themselves.
No, it is DISGUSTING.

What, he should just dial 9-1-1?

Let the ad hominem attacks commence. I can take it.

Glockfan.45
December 19, 2006, 09:43 PM
Your poll is skewed. It is designed to generate controversy and false results.
Kinda like an ABC/NY Times Poll.
I knew it was before even opening the thread.

I've said it before, and others have said it here.

If a person can be trusted on the street, he can be trusted on the street with a gun.
If he can not be trusted on the street with a gun, then he can not be trusted on the street.

Let him out the full citizen, or keep him locked up.


It is morally reprehensible to REQURE someone to go about their daily lives without the benefit of the tools to protect themselves.
No, it is DISGUSTING.

What, he should just dial 9-1-1?

Let the ad hominem attacks commence. I can take it.
Today 07:12 PM



JESUS H CHRIST! :banghead: . What is so hard to understand about the question? Word it however you want but the question remains the same. Our legal system sucks and bad people who have already proven that they are scum get released from prison every freaking day I didnt ask if you thought bad people should be let out. Fixing that issue is a whole other can of worms, and letting a guy that beats an old man to death by his mailbox so he can steal his social security check legally buy or posess firearms after his release (his release being a seperate :cuss: issue) is morally reprehensible. I honestly have to wonder at times listening to people from both sides pro, and anti who displays the bigger lack of common sense. So what you are getting at steamdragon is that we should feel sorry for the murdering thug released from prison because he lost his right to protect himself :scrutiny: ? He chose to forfit that right when he chose to KILL PEOPLE!

Panthera Tigris
December 19, 2006, 09:45 PM
My first reaction is to say no. I don't think murderers, rapists and child molesters should ever get out of prison in the first place, unless evidence surfaces to exonerate them.

Lupinus
December 19, 2006, 09:46 PM
since we are talking in terms of "should" I am going to say yes and no. If they are out of prison they are safe enough, if not they should still be doing time or depending on the exact crime be hanging by the end of a rope.

Oak jr.
December 19, 2006, 10:41 PM
Just because a felon has "done the time" he or she was sentenced for does not mean they are now "safe enough". Their "sin" against society is NOT forgiven by society and their right to bear arms must be taken away permanently. Who committs violent crimes with weapons good lawful citizens ? No. Bad unlawful citizens committ violent crimes. So when they can't follow our societys laws they loose their rights.

JesseL
December 19, 2006, 11:05 PM
Glockfan.45:

The issues of whether violent felons should be released and whether released felons should have all their rights restored cannot be disentangled. When you suggest that because our broken legal system releases dangerous people, we should fix it by restricting the legal rights of those people; you are attempting (futilely) to cure a symptom rather than the disease.

Releasing criminals that are still a threat to the public and then trying to protect the public by saying those criminals can't have weapons is dangerous, wishful thinking.

If you came across a rabid dog, would you just pull his teeth? If possible you might treat the disease and if it worked he'd be as safe as any dog. If you couldn't cure him, you'd shoot him.

Hkmp5sd
December 19, 2006, 11:29 PM
If not incarcerated, all persons should have the same rights.


Restricting firearm ownership by felons is merely another useless, un-enforceable law. Anyone that wants a gun, will get a gun. The law only effects those felons that want to go straight by denying them the same self protection that other law abiding citizens enjoy.

Gator
December 19, 2006, 11:45 PM
Of course not. They should never be allowed out of prison.

Old Dog
December 20, 2006, 02:00 AM
If not incarcerated, all persons should have the same rights.Right-o. Of course you should believe that the young man who committed any number of violent assaults and a handful of shootings over several years before finally being convicted of one ag assault and doing a nickel over in "Gladiator School" (where he put on thirty pounds of pure muscle pumping iron in the yard and learned from the pros how to not get caught the next time) should be allowed to legally acquire handguns ... heck, let him get a CPL, too ... He's done his time, you have no problem with him being out on the street with his homies when your teenage son or daughter is walking home from school.

Sorry, can't agree. Let him have to work harder to get his guns, and let the punishment be harsher should he be caught with a gun. You are only a citizen with full rights when you prove over your lifetime that you are worthy of these rights.

ArfinGreebly
December 20, 2006, 03:25 AM
I realize that, with a hundred previous posts, it's kind of a drag to wade through them all, but . . .

I seem to detect two distinctly different views
1) those who advocate a different framework (e.g. you don't get out until you can be trusted), and
2) those whose answers assume the current framework (people serve arbitrary sentences).

Consequently, I think we have a little "talking past each other" going on.

I postulated allowing a FULLY REFORMED AND REHABILITATED former felon being allowed to keep & bear. That's got nothing to do with how many years the guy spent inside. Within my framework, if you can't be trusted, you don't get out.

If the penal system contains the implicit assumption that redemption is not possible, then why on earth would you let someone like that out?

From a purely rational point of view, what's the point of having sentences metered in years? That's got nothing to do with rehab, it's entirely punitve, and the only thing you can reliably count on is that, on release, the felon is going to be resentful.

Yeah, sure, you'll get the occasional inmate who says, "damn, I sure don't want to go back there, I'm going straight." But with strictly punitive sentences, that's not something you can count on.

Now, if someone assuming the current (punitive only) framework, posits that a violent felon has "paid his debt" after his sentence has expired, and that it's okay to trust him with weapons, I would most emphatically disagree.

The problem here isn't with the "control of guns" to keep them out of his hands. That already doesn't work. The problem is the control of the criminal. If he's not reformed/rehabbed, letting him out is worse than pointless.

Now, I happen to believe that people can actually be salvaged. Seen it done. There's just no feeling like having really helped with someone's redemption.

I'm also stone certain that the system we currently have doesn't achieve that.

For the original question to be meaningful, you need a different system.

Autolycus
December 20, 2006, 05:22 AM
I voted yes simply because if you cant be trusted with a gun how can I trust you with any weapon? And if you cant be trusted you should not allowed on the streets.

Just my take.

ilcylic
December 20, 2006, 06:43 AM
Hrmmm. Old Dog brings up a point I can almost see. We consider RKBA to be a Human Right. The operative term in this case perhaps being "human". If you don't act like a human, and instead act like some rabid animal, perhaps you've forfeited your rights as a human.

And then there's what Arfin has said (or, at least what I think I have understood him to say) in that we should trust "rehabilitated" animals as humans again.

Part of rehabilitation could be--in fact, I fail to see how it couldn't be--interacting with non-criminals outside of prison. This is part of what Parole is supposed to accomplish, I believe. If you are in prison, supposedly making restitution and being rehabilitated, but every contact you have is with an extraordinarily unsympathetic guard, or another criminal, rehabilitation would be extremely difficult. But if you demonstrate an intent to behave better, and then spend time among the non-criminally-inclined, you may just make the grade as rehabilitated.

So I can see a point in this transition where a person would not be in prison, yet still might legitimately have his rights restricted--because he's not fully human again yet.

What is so hard to understand about the question? Word it however you want but the question remains the same.

There is nothing difficult to understand about the question. You asked about "Ex-Cons". "Ex" implies "No longer". If they are no longer a Con, they are human, and posess every human right you or I do. So I answered yes to your precise question. Ex-Cons should be allowed to posess firearms legitimately and legally.

If the question you really meant to ask was whether I supported letting anyone who is simply outside of the walls of a prison posess firearms, then of course the answer is no. Only those who have either never committed a violent crime, or have demonstrated rehabilitation should be considered human, and therefore have that human right. Now, if the system is letting Cons out, it's broken. But there's a right way, and a wrong way to fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right, aye? All this background check nonsense, by definition, only affects those who follow laws. If the Navy has a hole in one of their ships, they don't just wrap the whole ship in duct tape and cover it with paint (well, I imagine there's some J.G. out there who's tried it, but that's another issue...) they fix the actual hole itself! If you seek to prevent Cons from having firearms, you need to fix the real problem, not just apply a patch-job and slap a coat of paint over it and call it done.

TallPine
December 20, 2006, 12:46 PM
Someone please answer me this: how did our country possibly survive before 1968 ...? :confused:

Sindawe
December 20, 2006, 12:56 PM
I'm in the "not sure" category. I understand and support the concept that once a person has served their time, "paid their debt to society" and is judged to be fit to be released from incarceration, all rights should be restored to them.

But I'd rather that those who ARE violent theives, rapists and murders be exiled from our society forever.

ArfinGreebly
December 20, 2006, 01:03 PM
There was a short-ish story once, Heinlein I believe, called Coventry.

People who could not work/live/function within the framework of the society were sent there.

They were only permitted back once their conduct indicated they would not be in conflict with the social order.

It wasn't a prison, really, it was just "out there" somewhere.

That idea has always appealled to me as a concept.

Messy details, but it simplifies certain things.

beaucoup ammo
December 20, 2006, 01:54 PM
"There is nothing difficult to understand about the question. You asked about "Ex-Cons". Wrong, he did not. The original question is: "Should violent felons be allowed firearms?"

"Violent Felons"..not "Ex-Cons." The difference between the two is as vast as the opinions being expressed here. Let's not allow the man's original question to morph into Anything other than what it was.

The poll, IMO, is Not skewed. It's one of the more direct posted here in quite awhile.

Caimlas
December 20, 2006, 02:03 PM
I voted "no" but that was only because I seem to have missed the "No, they should be tried and then swiftly hung publicly as an example to other would-be violent people, as a pubilc service, and a source of entertainment."

cropcirclewalker
December 20, 2006, 02:45 PM
Just what I thougt.

This forum contains many closet gun grabber elitists that think

"OK for me, but not for Thee."

Mr. Feanero tack drove the nail upon it's head.

The BoR applies to everyone.

If we didn't have our jails so full of victims of the war on drugs then we would have room to keep the bad ones locked up where they belong.

More holier than thou elitism.

JohnL2
December 20, 2006, 03:16 PM
Uh, the person is an ex-con. They paid their debt to society and have made enough license plates or government furniture.
Upon release they should have all their legal rights restored. Yes, even to own a firearm. I am sure there are some ACLU folks out there that would concur with this.
I would think the worst would have long enough prison sentences so that they live out the rest of their natural lives behind razorwire and steel doors.

JesseL
December 20, 2006, 03:33 PM
Felons of all types will acquire firearms if they want to. Why make it easier for them?

Felons of all types will acquire firearms if they want to. Why make it easier for them harder for us?

Do you know why so many kids smoke pot? Because it's easier for them to get than alcohol. (I don't want to see kids drinking or getting high, but I can face reality)


Prohibition creates black markets.
Black markets don't care how they are supplied.
Black market goods are either produced by unscrupulous manufacturers, stolen from legitimate sources, or smuggled from freer markets.
Attempts to stop illicit manufacture, theft, or smuggling of prohibited goods always result in less individual liberty for non-criminals.
Prohhibition results in more crime with no positive benefit.


I don't want dangerous people running around armed any more than Barbra Brady does, but we will never get any safer by trying to construct a (impossible) situation where we let dangerous people run around without arms.

rhubarb
December 20, 2006, 06:17 PM
Tallpine, the answer is that we are lucky the country did survive. From what I hear, guns were everywhere. You had them for sale in bins in the hardware store, at the service station, in barber stores and probably next to the popcorn in movie theaters. Interest in firearms had reached a fever pitch. We had been spiraling out of control for nearly two centuries and NFA68 put us on the right track.

Or so I hear. I wasn't even born yet. Why do you ask, were felons allowed to purchase firearms before 1968? Why, that would never work![aghast icon]

pcosmar
December 20, 2006, 06:48 PM
beaucoup ammo
"Violent Felons"..not "Ex-Cons." The difference between the two is as vast as the opinions being expressed here. Let's not allow the man's original question to morph into Anything other than what it was.

There is the problem. I have known violent people that I would never want to have a weapon.
The law does not distinguish between violent or non-violent. The law is all felons. Period...
I would like to own firearms again, and am working on it. I would like to be able to legaly own hunting rifles. I own a farm, in a very rural area. We have preditors and pests, and I would like to have the means to deal with them.
If I wished to, I can go out to my barn, and build a firearm. I have tools and knowledge to do so. I do not want a firearm for criminal purpose, But I would like to have Legal access to a normal Farm Tool.
The law says I may not, and so I do not.

dbn
December 20, 2006, 08:22 PM
Violent felons should hang by a rope until dead or spend the rest of their existance doing hard labor.

Otherwise, all free men should have the same rights.

JN01
December 20, 2006, 09:51 PM
After being afforded due process, being tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, a criminal is stripped of many rights. While in prison they are prohibited from bearing arms, voting, their rights to assemble and free speech are restricted to some degree, the practice of their religion can possibly be curtailed to some degree. The consensus seems to be that this is acceptable/constitutional while the criminal is locked up.

Can anyone tell me where it says that prison is the ONLY place that a convicted criminal's rights may be restricted? Where does it say that incarceration is the only constitutionally acceptable method of punishment?

Probationers/parolees often have restrictions on their liberty as a condition of release (i.e. not using alcohol, not associating with known criminals, etc). If they don't play by these rules they go back to prison.

Why can't life time restrictions on certain violent felons legally possessing weapons be PART of their sentence?

I agree that legally prohibiting them from possessing weapons doesn't prevent them from doing so- therefore all the background checks, assault weapon bans, etc, are ineffective and unnecessary. They should be done away with. However, if a convicted violent criminal was caught in possession of one, he could be put back in prison for violating a condition of his release from prison, much like the parolee.

For those that argue "If they can't be trusted with a gun, you can't trust them to be out of prison" I see two options:

1) All violent felonies must be punishable by life in prison without parole or execution. (An option that would be OK with me)

2) Life in prison until "rehabilitated" (You might have to wait until someone invents the mind reading device, because the current system does a pretty poor job of identifying who is fit for release)

Juna
December 20, 2006, 10:06 PM
Violent felons lose all their rights in my opinion. Personally murders and rapists all deserve the death penalty, let alone being released from prison ever.


While I understand your viewpoint, the only gray area in my mind is someone who is wrongfully accused or convicted of a violent crime (e.g. someone kills someone defending their child/spouse from an intruder/rapist/kidnapper and gets convicted of murder or manslaughter). That's the tough spot for me. In my mind, that person should be allowed to own firearms again. That, combined with the 'guilty as soon as accused in the media' mentality of this country, and I'd have a tough time with that. If there were a way to prove someone's guilt, I'd have no problem agreeing with you.

Imagine (for the sake of argument) that your neighbor's daughter accused you of rape or sexual abuse when you were really innocent (for whatever reason--attention, revenge, whatever). The local media would have a field day, and before you know it you're rotting in prison from a jury stacked full of people who view rapists as the scum of the earth (as we all do) but who assume immediately that you are one. The problem is that you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But, unless you're Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson (or really rich & powerful), you're probably going to prison. Or if you were wrongly accused in the murder of your neighbor when someone else really did it, it would be the same scenario. Instead of trying to prove you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you're assumed to be guilty and the defense has to try to prove you're innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the unfortunate reality of our legal system.

Plus, the definition of violent crime is a little shady, too. I agree that real murderers and rapists have no business owning firearms and that they should forfeit their rights when they commit the crimes. However, how do we prove that they actually committed them (or that "murder" wasn't actually in self defense)? Our legal system is about winning and losing, not about right and wrong. I have little faith the the right decision is reached most of the time. These are the reasons for my hesitation on this issue.

ilcylic
December 21, 2006, 01:01 AM
Boucoup Ammo: From the very top of the page, directly cut and pasted. "View Poll Results: Should violent ex-cons be allowed firearms?"

ripcurlksm
December 21, 2006, 01:06 AM
Glockfan, I want to respectfully say that this is an acenine question.

Glockfan.45
December 21, 2006, 07:06 AM
Glockfan, I want to respectfully say that this is an acenine question.
Today 12:01 AM


What is acenine? It sounds familiar but I cant quite place it. You know it almost reads like the word asinine. However that cant be right because surely if you were going to criticize the legitimacy of my question or intelligence you would at least know enough about the words you chose to do so with to spell them correctly. I mean what business would I have in calling somebody a moeronn if by that I meant moron? That would kind of be the pot calling the kettle black now wouldnt it? I think perhaps acenine is new slang for awesome, in that case thanks ;) .

ilbob
December 21, 2006, 07:18 AM
I also believe that violent felons should not be let out of prison.

I am inclined to agree but do we really want to put people in jail for life for armed robbery, attempted murder, manslaughter, etc.?

Better to just execute someone than to put them in jail for life IMO.

The way may be that violent felons get a life sentence, and get to earn their way out of jail, but never out of the corrections system. They can be paroled if they show they can behave, but get supervision forever, or until pardoned, when they get their rights back.

ksnecktieman
December 21, 2006, 09:19 AM
I am shocked!!! EIGHTY percent of us, as gun owners, and "supporters" of the second amendment DO believe in gun control. That IS what the poll numbers say. I hope Sarah Brady's supporters do not see this poll.

I read every entry before I voted because of my shock. What I find in the replies is more on the lines of "Do not let violent felons out of prison."

Here more than anywhere, we should know that gun control does not work, criminal control does. If you want to punish him by keeping him from owning guns, the 4473, and registration, and nics check do nothing to help.
Make your law against him, not the guns.

Are we all ready for the mainstream media headline, "Gun owners, and freedom lovers approve of gun control by EIGHTY percent."

mohican
December 21, 2006, 11:57 AM
The whole concept of limiting arms to released (reformed?) criminals is an extremely slippery slope.

Part way down this slope, we picked up the boulder of certain misdemeanor crimes (non felonies) stripping you of the legal ability to own a gun. In many parts of the country, verbally threatening someone may lead to a restraining order and a group dressed in black pajamas coming for your guns under the color of law.

The "cool" way for many of the white trash women around here now is justified or not to seek a restraining order during a divorce. A kinda un subtle dig. Now, this may or may not be granted, and if granted, it is kinda rare that someone will show up to collect the collection, but when filling out the form to purchase another gun through FFL channels it's one of the check boxes.

IMO, way to many gray areas. Charged with domestic violence as/or child abuse?? One county away from me people have been charged with child abuse for public spankings of unruly brats. Where I am, I have witnessed deputies offering to spank kids for single moms.......So you have two "legal" standards for the denial of gun ownership withing 20 miles.

Another key part to the arguement - rights as defined and described by the founding fathers were inate, inborn and not granted by the government. Voting as such may not really be a right as defined by the founding fathers or it may be a "restricted right". The right to bear arms and to self defense should have no restrictions. It falls into the catagory of if you were living in a place with no government, at some point you would aquire a weapon.

The denial of guns to ex felons is a hey look at me grandstanding. The ease that anyone with funding or theft can aquire a gun makes these laws meaningless.

Besides, some ex felons have been granted voting rights under the color of "discrinination". So maybe "minority" criminals will be given RKBA

GRIZ22
December 21, 2006, 12:07 PM
Qoute:

Felons of all types will acquire firearms if they want to. Why make it easier for them harder for us?

I can't see how the law preventing convicted felons makes it harder for me to won firearms.

Black markets in guns, drugs, or anything else is illegal.

Many in favor of felons owning firearms don't realize mere possession of a firearms by a felon is a felony under federal law and has been for a long time.

shotgunkevin
December 21, 2006, 02:18 PM
The system is broken.

Texas9
December 21, 2006, 03:49 PM
Don't wanna repeat too much, but the letter of the law is clear. If you commit a felony, you lose rights. It's a consequence of the action. If you want to lawfully own firearms, be a lawful citizen. It's that simple, to me...

JesseL
December 21, 2006, 04:03 PM
I can't see how the law preventing convicted felons makes it harder for me to won firearms.

The law doesn't prevent felons from getting guns it makes it illegal.

You need to go through an FFL to buy a firearm from a seller from out of your home state. You have to fill out a 4473 form every time you buy a gun. Your taxes have to support the federal NICS system. These are all unacceptable infringements on my liberty and yours.

All for what? So you can have an extra charge against a released felon that's been caught misbehaving again when they should never have been released in the first place.

Why would so many people here say "gun control doesn't work" & "criminals don't obey the law" in one breath, and "we need laws against felons owning guns" in the next?

If laws against murder, theft, and rape aren't stopping criminals, what makes you think more laws will?

ripcurlksm
December 22, 2006, 03:52 PM
Glock, I cant spell. I respectfully stand by my opinion. NO. :rolleyes:

MrTuffPaws
December 22, 2006, 04:12 PM
Why would so many people here say "gun control doesn't work" & "criminals don't obey the law" in one breath, and "we need laws against felons owning guns" in the next?

If laws against murder, theft, and rape aren't stopping criminals, what makes you think more laws will?

Because a lot of people here think that if they are doing nothing wrong, then it does not affect them. Sad to say, but true. I wonder how many of them would change their minds if they became a felon by breaking one of the many truly stupid laws that carry a punishment of a felony.

Fosbery
December 22, 2006, 04:19 PM
My 2p:

If someone is so bad that they cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they shouldn't be let out of jail at all. For the rest, prison is your punishment. It should not follow you around after you have served your time (and it will even do that since you will have a criminal record making work hard to find).

Zoogster
December 22, 2006, 04:46 PM
Well this question seems to be a bit far ahead of itself. Currently all felons are barred, not just violent ones. A single CCW interpretation error, an upset LEO or a huge list of felonies that do not require any violence or malice whatsoever could ban people from having a voice in politics for life or from protecting themselves or others. I think if someone is free in America they deserve all the rights of an American. If they are unsafe or a danger to others they do not deserve to be free. Creating different levels of freedom and catagories of who are entitled to the rights of an American seems like a way around the words of the constitution. Wouldn't every single founding father have been considered a felon of Britain?

Taking it to the extremes of murderer etc when someone that misfiled thier taxes could also be a felon seems to be a way of voicing your opinion in favor of from the start. In fact I would really like if someone could compile a list of what appear to be the most minor felonies in some states to accurately paint a proper picture of the discussion. One of my favorite I just stumbled upon recently was the creation of a 'hidden compartment' if some LEO decides to interpret a spot as a hidden compartment for carrying contraband even if there is no contraband. Glad I stumbled across that before I decided to make a safe place to store things I didn't want a criminal to find making myself a felon waiting to be charged.

cropcirclewalker
December 22, 2006, 05:32 PM
I think the results of this poll only prove that we are doomed as a free people.

I yam sure that the Brady Cartel is happy to see that 80 percent of a pro-gun forum are in favor of "common sense" gun control.

To admit being willing to infringe upon an uninfringable right is granting the majority the right to do the same. What fools we be.

Plain and simple as 2a is, we are still so simple as to fall for it.

Yes, we think that common sense is to prohibit violent felons.

Moderates may think it common sense to prohibit ANY felons.

Gun grabbers may think that any gun owner should be a felon.

80 percent of us are our own worst enemy.

Shame.

GRIZ22
December 22, 2006, 06:09 PM
Jesse L,

Even if I were to agree with everything else you say what's wrong with having an extra charge against a convicted felon with a firearm.

The fact is convicted felons are released. They will not be locked up forever. Not a bad idea but it won't happen. There is another part of the Constitution after the 2A that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Society has dictated and liberal judicial systems won't lock up someone for the rest of their lives for most violent felonies.

thexrayboy
December 22, 2006, 11:34 PM
After thinking about this I have to say no...Felons should not be allowed to own firearms. Now having said that I would consider some exceptions.

The theory is that once you have served your time you have paid your debt to society has some merit. However many felons have multiple convictions and a history of crime. This indicates that they cannot be trusted. Even if they only are convicted for one crime often they are guilty of many crimes they are not convicted of.

If in fact the really violent and dangerous types were removed via execution or self defense so they no longer existed to menace society I might reconsider. However as our society gets softer and weaker these violent predators tend to serve shorter and shorter sentences before being sent back into the public to continue preying on the populace. Again, another reason to not make it legal for felons to own.

If a person with a felony conviction who indeed has gone straight and shown he is a useful and trusted member of society would like to reassert his right to own a gun we could try this as a solution. If said person meets criteria determining he has paid his debt to society and been reformed he should be able to petition the legal system for a judgement restoring his civil rights including the right to vote and own firearms. Once definitive criteria have been set forth and this person meets them it would be the burden of the state to show cause why his rights should not be restored.

This would give those who really wish to rejoin society in full a valid option without automatically giving full rights to all felons.

SAG0282
December 23, 2006, 01:50 AM
No, not legal for violent felons IMO.

Zoogster
December 23, 2006, 01:51 AM
Also keep in mind that as long as it is legal you can control what type of weapon. Once you ban them completely they might as well have whatever they like that they can find. Banning guns in England has caused lots of unregulated smuggled guns the local government has no control over and very sneaky key chain and such guns looking like normal items. It actualy encourages full auto, and other things government can regulate into near non existence when they are legal, but lose control over when they ban large segments of the market.

fireandforget
December 23, 2006, 03:33 AM
I voted no, but for those who said yes, your creating a target rich enviroment.

jeep-2
December 23, 2006, 11:33 AM
Let them lose all their rights, including the right to protect their family( oh hell, why let them have a family?)
also take away their right to pay all taxes, land, school, state, federal, and sales taxes, lets punish them til it hurts. if they start to go strait, lets kickem back down.

BobMcG
December 23, 2006, 11:39 AM
Q: Should violent ex-cons be allowed firearms?

Key word: violent

A: NO.

jeep-2
December 23, 2006, 11:49 AM
Q: Should violent ex-cons be allowed firearms?

Key word: violent

Voilent--- did he butcher a couple innocent people like a person we all know or did he catch a 28 yr old taking advantage of his 14 yr old daughter? every case is different..
If a cop is going to give you a ticket and turns to go toward his car, you tap him on the shoulder to say something to his face, you just commited an assault if the cop is in the wrong mood.

Justin
December 23, 2006, 02:15 PM
This discussion? Again?!

If you enjoyed reading about "Should violent felons be allowed firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!