Do you think a person convicted of a felony should be allowed to own a firearm?

[SolaScriptura139]

I was kind of interested to get all your opinions on this topic. I had a friend who was convicted of a felony about 30 years ago. He's a good guy now and is a completely different person. I wanted to take him shooting, but he informed me that he couldn't because of a prior felony which he didn't even get jail time for. I'm actually not sure where I stand on this for various reasons.

 

[JoseM]

Once you're a felon, you've screwed yourself...can't vote, can't own a gun. It's part of the package for committing the crime.

 

[1911 guy]

Depands on the nature of the crime.

I didn't vote, because none of the three options represent what I think. Yes or No paint with a broad brush, but I am sure about my opinion, so option #3 is out. A felon with a violent rap sheet or a criminal history that includes robbery should be prohibited. Why allow a criminal the tools of the trade? The same reasoning applies to drunk drivers. Take their licenses and prohibit possesion or operation of a vehicle.

A non violent offender, though, should not be prohibited from owning/using. The 40-something white collar crook is more likely to be a danger to society with a computer than a gun. In all reality, though, the prohibition is useless, because the basically good guys or the reformed guys are going to play by the rules (your friend, for example) while the incorrigibles and truly violent will break that law, too. Yeah, I'm shocked, too.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Yeah, I agree, and that's kind of where I stand. I probably should have added "depends on the crime" to the poll. Because if you commit a felony for writing a bad check, why should you have all your rights stripped from you? It seems a little extreme while pedophiles get probation.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think it depends on the felony conviction. Violent crime. probably no restoraton of rights. I could see consideration being given after an extended period of time demonstrating (10 years) rehab and being a productive citizen. Auto related felonies, depends but probably restore rights.

Making and selling moonshine, why not? Reminds me that George W gave a pardon for making and selling moonshine to a aging fellow in Tennessee and restoration of gun ownership rights were specifically included.

There are different classes of felonies and the least severe would be the most likely candidates for restoration of voting and gun ownership rights. The so called white collar crimes might be candidates too.

 

[Rembrandt]

No, in fact Hell No!....laws are such that there are different degrees of felony's which eventually muddy the waters of right and wrong. There are provisions for the felon to get their gun rights restored, if the person can prove they've dramatically turned around, they can receive a pardon.

To give felons gun rights cheapens it for the people who have obeyed and followed the law.

The percentage of felons who are repeat offenders would make the process a gamble....with the odds in the felons favor.

 

[pythonguy]

HELL NO. Start removing penalties for crime and you have no reason the the laws. What next, give the poor rapists and murderers a second chance??? Because someone gets religion, or feels reformed, society can't take a chance they are reformed. In looking at the statics for recitivism in criminals, its not a good bet.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes, when they get out of prison.

If they were still a threat, they should remain in prison.

If they want a gun, they will get one easy enough whether its legal or not. Just wait til the weekend gun show and buy one face to face from an individual.

I do not see how making it illegal for felons to own guns will reduce crime. If they have decided to break the law and rob a bank, why do you think that they would have a problem with breaking the law to get a gun first?

It would be better to have it illegal for a felon to use a gun in the commission of a crime. That way, if he does something illegal with his gun, you can pile a few extra years on him when he goes back to prision.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

It depends upon the felony.

 

[RyanM]

I can't believe no one's mentioned this yet.

If a criminal, any criminal, convicted or not, wants a gun, they're going to get a gun. No matter what laws there are. If someone is actually going to obey a law and not get a gun if it's illegal, they aren't much of a threat to society, are they?

That's the point behind getting rid of all gun control laws. All they do is selectively disarm the law-abiding citizens. What, and convicted felons operate by completely different laws of physics? Making it illegal for felons to own handguns only seperates them into the unarmed reformed felons, and the armed non-reformed felons.

 

[old4x4]

Nope, absolutely not. If you can have a lapse of judgement severe enough to commit a felony, you cannot be trusted with a firearm. You have already proven you cannot function in society. You had your chance and you blew it. Boo Hoo.

 

[Maxwell]

I think if someone is so dangerous that they cant be trusted with a gun, they should not be out on the street.

Once they are free, their going to get a gun if they want it.
"Logical gun control" at its best says they wont be able to get it from a store....so they walk out the store, around the corner, and get weapons anyway.
Thats no good.

The system to instantly background check and track people, to make sure their clear to buy a gun and track the weapons sold, will not be used for its intended purpose.
More chance for harm to legal gun owners than for any good to be done.
More of a chance to harm non-gun owners too, Who the hell wants to have their background checked by every tom dick and harry when they go to the gas station?

I think former criminals should be allowed to own, but not out of any sympathy to someone whos screwed their life up. I think they should own for the simple fact that gun control has been an exceuse for releasing dangerous people onto the streets and developing the tools for an electronic police state with our tax dollars.

If their dangerous, lock them up or send them away. Dont let them go to commit another crime, and Dont hamper me from buying a gun to defed myself from those people.

 

[aerod1]

I voted no because we (gun owners) should be above reproach when it comes to being honest citizens and role models. We already have an image problem and we need to constantly be aware of how we are percieved by the public at large.
I have lived 62 years and have never been convicted of a felony. What's the problem.
You may disagree and that is OK. These are just my thoughts on the subject.

 

[dracphelan]

I voted not sure. This is because it depends on the felony. In my opinion it needs to be handled case-by-case.

 

[Gun_nut]

if this were up there...
I think that the person should wait 5-20 year *depending on the judge's final say* and then after the time is spent up they should see if they had any more history of crime from when the judges final say till the 5-20 years is up. And if any more crime then the answer is no if not then yes

 

[DunedinDragon]

I didn't vote for the same reason as some of the others here, because the answers to the question are too simplistic. The best answer to this question is, "it depends".

Everyone makes mistakes in their lives. Some continue to make mistakes and others learn from those mistakes and straighten themselves out. We already have techniques to identify these situations. One is "expungement." If a person commits a felony but is later able to have it expunged that indicates he's been able to straighten out his life and should have all his rights restored.

Likewise, it's possible that a person may be found guilty of a felony, but due to circumstances such as being a youthful offender or no previous criminal record may have adjudication withheld. I that case, given they do not commit any more serious crimes they should be able to own a gun.

 

[MrTwigg]

Not just no but Hell No !

I voted no because we (gun owners) should be above reproach when it comes to being honest citizens and role models.

+1 aerod1 !

I've known a few folks (A "friends of friends" kinda thing.) in my life whom you could say have had a "Checkered" past. Every one of them has had more than one felony conviction.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I think that someone who has committed a felony should have ALL their rights restored only IF and AFTER they've served their entire sentence, including the payback of any fines and community service/probation.


I do not believe in this branding of people for life. The idea is, you do the crime, you do the time. Not you do the crime, you pay for it for the rest of your life (unless the crime is that severe, in which case you should be locked up forever no parole, or executed).


I believe this because I have an extremely different, perhaps extremist (I call it old-fashioned) view of criminal justice. The reason people chime in and believe that you shouldn't allow a felon whose served his time to own a gun is because they don't want to give them access to the "tools of the trade"...this is blatantly UN-AMERICAN.

For one, it is labeling the person guilty till proven innocent.

Secondly, you do not prevent someone from having something because they *might* do something wrong with it. That's the mentality of the entire gun-control movement towards US!!

Thirdly, that whole idea implies that the felon is going to be a repeat offender. That's the key to all of this. If you think and fear they will be a repeat offender, then why are they back out on the streets? You either put full faith into them and let them be free men again after serving their time, or you simply determine they will re-offend, and at that point you must decide to keep them locked up. If you think their a threat, then sentence them to a period of time which you feel will be sufficient. If you think they will always be a threat, then don't let them out at all.

Finally, if they do decide to repeat offend, getting a gun shouldn't be a problem, regardless of whether or not they have access to legal sales.

By having such draconian laws because of the violent thugs in our society, this type of denial of rights then spreads of lesser offenses. There are an aweful lot of felonies that do not warrant suspending one's 2nd Amendment rights indefinately... truth is, rights cannot be taken away from anyone. You cannot take a person's right to religion away because they are a felon, and neither can you take away any rights, whether it be free speech,a gun, privacy..you name it.


It is very simple. Punish the crime. Once the punishment is over, that's it, they are a free man in every aspect. The problem with our society is that we are not willing to enforce strict and complete punishment. As a result, the system lets a lot of scum back out onto the streets. They don't want to keep them in, but on the other hand, they want to still limit them after they've served. The whole thing is very stupid.

 

[Sistema1927]

Not a very well written poll. I would hope that nobody wants incarcerated convicted felons to own firearms. In that case, itt might be a bit hard to find corrections officers!

The problem with disenfranchising all felons is due to the fact that not all felonies are alike. Add to that the mess that our criminal justice system is in, and it is a quagmire.

In a perfect world, anyone who poses a threat to society (violent felons) would be executed or locked away with no hope of ever getting out. In that case, once society had determined that a person had paid their debt and was no longer a threat to anyone, they should be released and allowed to resume their life.

In the end analysis, though, is there anyone here who believes that criminals will obey any kind of gun control laws? As a result, the efforts of the law enforcement and legal systems should be directed to punishing those who are truly scary, and not creating a whole new class of people who become criminals by virtue of their possession of inanimate objects.

 

[redneck2]

I know a guy that is a registered sex offender. His offense was that he and some other guys were out in the country and he had to relieve himself. While "in the act" a county cop happened to drive around the corner. He got nabbed for indecent exposure. This is on a gravel road miles from town.

Now he's labeled for life for something that we've probably all done. Should he lose all his guns for this??

For all those "hell, no"...think a little before you make a decision. Felony isn't always armed robbery.

 

[Lupinus]

yes and no-

If it wasn't violent then I see no reason to deny a basic right. If you drove to fast, didn't pay your parking tickets, ran a little football gambling, whatever then theres no reason to take it away.

Then we move into the middle ground where you should loose them but be able to petition to have them restored on release or after a time. Broke into a house, picked a fight, etc. You should be able to go before a judge and ask for your rights to be restored. If they wont say 15 years for the sake of argument later they are automaticly restored.

Then the final group are people who probably should either be dead or locked up for the rest of their life let alone have a gun. Murderers, rapists, serial offenders, etc. So long as it wasn't self defense related (someone entered your home you shot got convicted anyway for example) you loose it forever. Self defense related and you can get them back later on like the other groups.

 

[TallPine]

I can understand such restrictions as a condition of probation or parole - in that case the person has not yet fully served their sentence. But not as a blanket lifetime restriction.

Otherwise it is just a slippery slope to a total ban on guns, and in the meantime an increasing inconvenience to peaceful citizens.

is there anyone here who believes that criminals will obey any kind of gun control laws?

Apparently, there is ...

But not me

 

[Sistema1927]

Wow! I read all the posts after posting my original answer, and it just amazes me that the enemy has done its brainwashing so well that even gun owners think that some form of gun control is OK.

Guess what: Criminals don't obey laws, that is why they are criminals.

Just what level of gun control will work? And, when will we know that we have arrived?

I would imagine that some of the answers here would change if we woke up tomorrow and discovered that:

1) Possession of a firearm is a felony.
2) Possession of a single round of ammunition is a felony.
3) Possession of any ammunition reloading component is a felony.
4) Possession of a Bible is a felony.
5) Possession of a printing press is a felony.
6) Possession of a computer is a felony.

Get the message? Gun control isn't about guns, it is about control.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Maybe a better, and more realistic way to put this poll would be:

You have an 18 year old daughter who is a senior in high school and gets a ride home with a friend. The friend has a crack pipe openly displayed in the car, but hasn't been using it. The car gets pulled over and both your daughter's friend and your daughter are convicted of a felony, "constructive possesion of drug paraphenalia." Should your daughter now be prohibited from ever owning a gun for the rest of her life?

 

[cavman]

I voted not sure.

Generally, however I would say knee-jerk "no". There is a cautious side of saying absolutely no in me due to a feeling that I have. The feeling that I have is one that is without a lot of factual base however. The feeling that I have is that what legally constitutes a Felon is being lowered every year. That is, the crimes that were once not felonies now in some cases are.

Like I say, not sure about this factually but I think that is true.

If it is true that the ceiling for a felony is being lowered, then I am not sure that some of today's felons are the same as yesteryear's. Bad example but here goes: A number of years ago reckless driving was 30mph over. Now it is driving to endager and reckless driving for 15mph over on the highway, with jail time, I think. That is 81 in a 65. Not advocating that this is good but just thinking of how the ceiling of "serious offenses" have been dropping.

have a great day,
cavman