Convicted felons owning guns

[inSight-NEO]

I voted yes...but, this vote was for obviously "violent offenders," in any sense of the word. For most "non violent" offenders, I would hesitantly accept their maintenance of the "right" to own a weapon. But, then again, various "non violent" offenses could be indicative of a certain mentality and therefore, might one day escalate into more violent behavior (possibly involving a weapon). Tough choice....

 

[Tim the student]

Depends on the felon, and the crime that was committed.

Personally, I don't feel that Martha Stewart is a hazard to my safety, or ever will be.

On the other hand, some guy with 2 DUI's, and numerous misdemeanor assaults may be.

I have a buddy that is a felon for something he did when he was 18, and I sure trust him to be a safe, responsible gun owner more than I trust a lot of legal gun owners, but that doesn't mean I feel the same way about all felons.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, back when common law first segregated felonies from misdemeanors, there were far fewer felonious crimes to be aware of. Which made it reasonable to expect that it could be commonly known that additional, life-long penalties could also be incurred.

Poignant to recall, too, that these used to be crimes less than the "justice high and low" the nobility could enforce by their own hand. Poaching, robbery, assualts on the upper classes were all capitol crimes. The risk was known to one and all.

Now that ther eare thousands of felonies, some intertwined with misdemeanors, I am of the growing belief that a case can be made that no reasonable man can know enough of the 9-10,000 laws, rules, and ordinances each and every one of us are expected to know and obey, to actually be able to do so.

Which should be a very important issue here in our community. A majority of the the 10 or 20,000 "gun laws" are felonies. How easy would it be for one of "us" to inadvertently lose our gun ownership rights?

The old "proscriptions" existed in another time and place. One before plea bargaining, one before redundant regulations. One before a justice system so bogged down in a gordian knot of its own making, that expediency would become a virtue even over logic, rhyme or reason.

 

[chuckusaret]

I like the law as it is, I also like the 5-10-20 law also. What percentage of past convicted felons will be repeat offenders? Based on the press reports it appears the percentage to be very high.

 

[wrs840]

This is a really difficult question.

Philosophically, no: ...No American citizen should be barred from a right guaranteed them by the 2A because of a past they've left in the past. The problem is that our society has de-volved into one that tolerates, even celebrates, recidivist dirtbags who's threat to polite society comes not from "legal" access to weapons, but from the fact that unrepentant thugs are still regularly walking among civilized people at all. There was a time that these types were either reformed of their anti-social ways, or else good men saw to it that the incorrigible were on a fast-track to assuming room-temperature... Not so anymore. Therein lies the modern gun-rights conundrum.

Les

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Should Convicted felons be allowed to own firearms? I would argue that if they are dangerous enough to not be able to own them, they should be in jail.

I agree.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I like the law as it is, I also like the 5-10-20 law also. What percentage of past convicted felons will be repeat offenders? Based on the press reports it appears the percentage to be very high.

So why should they get out of prison early?

 

[pinstripe]

The way that I see it is this. If I have to walk the line in order to protect my rights, so should everyone else. If you think about it, it is this mentality that make civilization possible. Just my opinion.

 

[sqlbullet]

I see this question resurrected from time to time. I am always amazed by the responses I see here.

Our prime argument against gun control is that those intent on committing crime will not abide restrictions on gun access. Criminals break laws.

This doesn't change once they become an ex-convict. If they intend mayhem that requires a gun, they won't be deterred by a law restricting their access.

 

[oneounceload]

IF someone has done their time for their crime, then they SHOULD be returned all of their previously lost rights. The issue that I see though, is that criminals do NOT serve their time - they are plea-bargained, early-parole, etc. leading to jail NOT serving as its original intent. Serious crimes need serious sentences - and their complaints about over-crowding, etc. be damned.

 

[9MMare]

You need to separate violent and non violent felons. My vote would be yes for non violent and no for violent felons.

Agreed, and also I believe there should be a period of no violations (not sure how long) before they can carry.

Perhaps 5 years.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ok, so you guys who are saying, 'keep the in until they are ready to come out', are you willing to budget for that? Grow the prison system by a factor of at least five or six? Face the fallout for the perceived human rights travesty? If you are, you are the only ones.

Maybe when Joe Arpaio is Attorney General. Until then, there will be no significant changes. And the VAST MAJORITY of people coming out of our prisons should never touch a gun again.

 

[41magsnub]

the poll is too black and white, can't answer it

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Ok, so you guys who are saying, 'keep the in until they are ready to come out', are you willing to budget for that? Grow the prison system by a factor of at least five or six? Face the fallout for the perceived human rights travesty? If you are, you are the only ones.

Maybe when Joe Arpaio is Attorney General. Until then, there will be no significant changes. And the VAST MAJORITY of people coming out of our prisons should never touch a gun again.

Should they touch a car again? Much more lethal than a gun.

If some law has determined that a person is too dangerous to use a tool, why are they out of prison?

Funny how we can never afford to enforce existing laws, but we keep voting in people that insist on making up new ways to break the law.

I like Remington shotguns. I refuse to tell you whether Remington has paid me to tell you so. I just broke a new federal law.

 

[mljdeckard]

I didn't say they SHOULD be out of prison. But they are getting out anyway. This will not change anytime soon.

 

[longbeard48]

I know a few convicted felons. It doesn't bother me one bit that they can't legally own firearms. If they had not broken the law, they could still be enjoying the benefits of the Second Amendment with the rest of us. They should have thought of that before they broke the law.

A convicted felon got caught here recently driving recklessly, carrying a semi-automatic pistol with the serial numbers filed off. I've got a feeling he wasn't headed for a handgun match or going hunting. I am very glad that the law can be used to put him away again for a long time.

 

[outerlimit]

Yes,
if they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be in society.

More than 80% of guns used in crime are stolen anyways.

I didn't say they SHOULD be out of prison. But they are getting out anyway. This will not change anytime soon.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[ChristopherG]

In my state Unlawful possession of a firearm is divided into first and second class depending on the nature of the previous felony conviction. First class is for 'serious' (i.e. violent) felonies--and possession of a firearm by these folks is an additional felony. As a LEO, this law is a good tool.

Second class is for all other felonies. In my experience, a lot of these folks just made a stupid decision when they were young. I would have no problem with a restoration of their firearm rights after some kind of fixed time after their release.

The idea that good enough to get out of jail is good enough to have guns? I worked in corrections before working the road, and I guarantee you do not want some of the people who walk out those doors to have a gun waiting at home.

 

[astrolite]

Yes, this is known as the "Collateral consequences of criminal charges". Simply paying your debt to society through incarceration or fines is not enough. A lot of felons can't finds job... or even vote, depending on the state.

What does this do? Many of them find it easier to repeat old habits to survive due to a faulty system - which makes it more dangerous for everyone!

 

[outerlimit]

The idea that good enough to get out of jail is good enough to have guns? I worked in corrections before working the road, and I guarantee you do not want some of the people who walk out those doors to have a gun waiting at home.

And yet they still easily obtain them, despite everything.

 

[ChristopherG]

And yet they still easily obtain them, despite everything.

So what do you propose?

 

[lions]

I would argue that if they are dangerous enough to not be able to own them, they should be in jail.

I agree that it should be that way, but it's not. As soon as our criminal justice system actually works that way, then I would agree with letting convicted felons own guns.

 

[ScottG1911]

agreed, if they're not able to be trusted lock'em up. we forget the very words that we fight to protect. no where in the second amendment does it say that a criminal cannot own a gun. the action of depriving criminals of guns is unconstitutional. so if you are like me and know how to follow the constitution, let criminals have guns, and keep the ones you can't trust locked up.

 

[9MMare]

He goes to jail for assault because the mistress won't give him an alibi for the alleged assault. In TN he loses his guns.

Another example of why gun owners need to follow the high road.

 

[wrs840]

So what do you propose?

I propose that what we wish government-applied law could do for us, and what it can do for us, will perhaps never reconcile.

Les