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

[thatguy]

Well, it's a tough question. But I think that once a person has "paid his debt" he should not continue to be punished.

The Dems are calling for ex-felons to vote, but they cringe at restoring gun rights. I guess I think all rights should be restored once full restitution to society and the victim is made.

BTW- Your friend with the old conviction can petition a court to expunge his record. If he has gone 30 years with no further legal trouble a judge will most likely grant the request. The result is that the conviction never happened and all of his rights are restored.

 

[aufevermike]

In Alaska this is the law:
It is unlawful to sell or transfer a firearm capable of being concealed on one`s person to anyone who has been convicted of a felony or adjudicated a delinquent minor for conduct that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. It is an affirmative defense that 10 years or more has elapsed since the unconditional discharge on the prior offense.

 

[Dmack_901]

We're caught in a catch 22. There three ways to treat criminals:

1. Correct their problems. (Ideal, but impractical)
2. Keep them away from society. (Practical, but expensive and doesn't fix anything)
3. Punish(pain, torture, etc.) them in to stoping. (Unconstitutional)

Choice Three is out of the question. Altough a suprisingly high number of people would like to see criminals tortured, beat, raped and killed, it's unconstitutional(and rightly so).

So, Our system now, most closely follows the Second choice. This is the loical arguement for the death penalty. It keeps, hopless criminals away perminately, and ideally in a less expensive manner. But in the end, the only people it helps are the ones willing to use the time to help themselves(very few).

The problem is, we're partionally a Correctional system. Well, that isn't in its self the problem, but it causes confusion. If they're correct, they should have their rights back, but they leave after a given time, corrected or not. And most of the time, it's not. Just look at our rates of recitivism. Also the problem with this is the question of when to let criminals out. What if they never correct their criminal tendencies. That's generally ok for misdomeanors, but what about non-violent felonies, how about violent felonies. Do we keep those guys forever?

My point is, untill we choose a system, no universal answer can be reached.

PS. After reading aufevermike's post, it sounds to me the best solution is a system based strongly on correctionalism, but with a timeline. Then rights gradually returned after a period of time.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I voted "NO". Sometimes I think people who commit non-violent felonies should be allowed to own but then I think that the kind of person that would commit a felony at all does not have the neccessary character to be a proper gun owner.

 

[Twycross]

The problem I see with stripping criminals of the right to keep and bear arms is that it assumes that they are now no longer under the protection of the Bill of Rights. You have to consider them to be either:

1). Some sort of second-class citizen who's constitutional rights can be taken away without explanation
2). A non-citizen

They have kept their citizenship, so they must be in category #1, if you hold to the idea that they cannot bear arms. And if that is the case, then they no longer have any rights. They have privileges, some of which are taken away (voting, bearing arms, etc) and other of which are kept (freedom of speech, right to due process of law, etc).

There is no constitutional basis for the creation of this second-class 'citizen.'

If you are in favor of stripping the right to bear arms from felons, then you have no right to complain if the government decides to strip the right to freedom of religion from them too. Because they don't have rights anymore.

And that is my rant. You can probably tell that I voted 'yes' on the poll. We shouldn't take away a felon's right to bear arms. Because we cannot take constitutional rights away from a citizen.

 

[Monkeybear]

I think most of us can come up with a few situations where it seems illogical that all felons should be undable to leagaly own a firearm Sure if my daughter is caught with an openly dissplayed crack pipe she will be charged with a felony conviction and never be able to own a gun, but I like to think my daughter would get out of a car with a crack pipe in it and if that is not possible at least cover up the crack pipe.

Back on topic, I think people who have committed felonys have proved that they have lapses of judgement, particularly bad lapses of judgement. Sometimes you get caught and you gotta pay the price. Sometimes its not fair but its just too damn bad, but hey no one made your friend or my daughter f-up. We diddnt pick their friends and we diddnt make their choices. If I had to choose if felons could own guns or not I would choose "not". Some mistakes you just cant make up for. Maybe its not always fair.

 

[GigaBuist]

Voted Yes.

Younger guy I know wanted to hit the range, and he's a felon, but I said yes. Idiot assaulted a police officer while hopped on "magic mushrooms" a while back. No jail time served, but a felon none the less. (He was punching on a stop sign, police got called, idiot resisted when grabbed.)

Why would I trust the guy?

Well the yahoo has been training with a SAW since his little incident, and as a Marine Reserve he's being called up to the line of duty come April. He wanted to remind himself that he knew how to operate an AR is all. I obliged.

This guy can't own (or touch) a single-shot shotgun but we'll hand him a SAW for urban warfare training here, and for deployment "over there" and that makes no sense to me.

 

[GigaBuist]

Monkeybear said:

Back on topic, I think people who have committed felonys have proved that they have lapses of judgement, particularly bad lapses of judgement.

That would include me. I am not a violent person by any stretch of the imigination. I simply didn't get caught.

I left the range one day with my Kel-Tec .380 pistol and after having dispensed of all the ammunition I brought with me I had only a pistol, a simple zip-up bag for it, and my hearing protection. As a gun guy I think nothing of these possessions. In my disgust for the pistols performance that night I chucked them onto the passenger seat and drove home.

That's a five year felony where I'm from.

Of course that was a lack of judgement on my part, but it was not a lack of judgement that would endanger a single human being. I realized my mistake halfway home, which is but 5 miles, and got PARANOID about the whole thing.

It boggles my mind that a SIMPLE mistake can make you a felon in today's world.

 

[WT]

My standard reply.

HECK NO!

A person convicted of a felony should NOT be allowed to possess firearms or ammunition.

If a felon needs to defend himself he can use his fists.

This 'survey' comes up on THR about every 3 months. Gettin' old.

 

[LaVere]

Depends on the type

It depends on the type of felony.

 

[rbernie]

There is no constitutional basis for the creation of this second-class 'citizen.'

Actually, there is, best I can tell.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it defines specifically who gets what rights. When you can't find any verbage of much use, turn to the writings of the framers for background. And then tell me how you could *possibly* think that there is any Constitutional basis for NOT defining segments of the population as second-class citizens. Our Founding Fathers clearly separated the community into discrete classes, each with a separate set of rights and responsibilities. It ain't pretty, but it's true.

There may be many arguments for why felons should not have their rights stripped as they do, but historical context or Constitutional protections doesn't get you there based on what I've seen...

 

[MICHAEL T]

What part of the 2nd don't you understand Our founding fathers didn't say Shall not be infringed except in case of following. Part of living in a free socity is you take good along with bad..

 

[Twycross]

If a felon needs to defend himself he can use his fists.

If that is the case, why isn't that true for everyone, felon or not?

One of the big things that bugs me, both here and at TFL, is the way we turn people who have committed a crime, been punished for it and then released, into monsters. There is this 'once violent, always violent' assumption that views anyone who have violated the law as some sort of inherently evil, almost subhuman creature who cannot be trusted with any weapon (as if such laws actually worked ). If GigaBuist had been caught, it seems the majority would be saying that he should be turned into a second-class 'felon' without constitutional rights, all for leaving a weapon on his passenger seat.


We are mentally turning normal people into monsters here.

How many of us can truthfully say that we have never once violated the law in any way, either purposefully or accidentally? I can't. Mine was accidental. Thankfully I realized my mistake and didn't get caught. But if I had been caught, I would be viewed here as inherently dangerous and unworthy of the rights enjoyed by the rest of society. The RKBA is a fundamental human right, isn't that what we say here?

Whatever.

 

[Mark in California]

This is a Constatutional question. The Second Admendment applies to almost everyone. Once you get out of prison you should be able to function totally as a free person. If there is any doubt, then you should never get out.

 

[Twycross]

Our Founding Fathers clearly separated the community into discrete classes, each with a separate set of rights and responsibilities.

Such as?

Please tell me where in the Constitution it defines specifically who gets what rights.

The Second Amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not "the people with the exception of ex-felons."

 

[Dmack_901]

Twycross makes a good arguement(specifically refering to post #55, I havn't read after that). By having restrictions on a certian type of person, we are creating a seperate class of people. It may be constitutional, but it shouldn't be.

As it stands now, this is included in the list of "punishments" that felons get. We take life via execution, liberty through jail, freedom from siesures through drug tests of people on probation, and the RKBA through this.

The RKBA should be treated the same as life, liberty, etc. The judge should specifically sentance it for a given time within the limitations of the statue.

With the precident the '68 GCA(right law?) has set, a law could be passed making all felons go to prison perminately, and superscede the rights of the states. Now that I think about it, it does go against the 10th amendment.


(I don't even know if I've answered the question.)

edit

There is no constitutional basis for the creation of this second-class 'citizen.'

Yep, I agree, It forbids it via "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:"

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ammendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefor, the people have all rights except those specifically forbiden.

 

[Art Eatman]

The Anti-Federalists were the ones who demanded that there be a Bill of Rights.

Their position on the Second Amendment was that it did not apply to persons who were "...insane or of ill repute". (See "The Anti-Federalist Papers".)

"Ill repute", in the context of the times not only meant what we now call felons, but also those with a community reputation for violence.

If original intent means anything, nowadays...

, Art

 

[Molon Labe]

I have had "felons" shoot on our property.

Ask me if I care.

 

[torpid]

Some things that are perfectly legal in some states are guaranteed felonies in others.

I wonder how many folks here have already, or will unintentionally commit a felony without even knowing it was illegal?

Just some food for thought.

.

 

[Firethorn]

What GigaBuist said.

If he'd been caught, he'd have likely been offered a plea-bargain that would have him serving no jail time, only a year or two of parole, and, oh, by the way, he'd still be a felon because he could have been sentenced to 5 years in prison. Do you know that in some areas spraying graffeti is a felony?

I'm not saying don't prohibit them firearms, just make it so there's a process to restore the rights if the felon proves that he's reformed. Something like prove that he's been gainfully and legally employed, and hasn't been in trouble with the police for ten years since his parole expired. Violent? Put together a report showing you've reformed, pay $1,000 to have the board review your case and make a decision. I've have it be a little easier for non-violent.

Note: My definition of non-violent is where nobody was physically hurt and you didn't threaten anybody with harm/deadly weapon/etc...

Anybody else think that finding a punishment other than confinement, usually with other criminals, would be a good idea? I mean, there's so many people who say that sending young criminals to prison only puts them into 'criminal skills college', hardens them up and educates them in a life of crime.

 

[Ala Dan]

Aswering Your Question "Fair & Firm" And To The Point-

NO, a convicted felon should not legally be allowed to
own a firearm, REGARDLESS of his/her crime~!

Why reward some one for their past behavior? I refer to this slogan
as an example, "Once a drug addict, ALWAYS a drug addict".
Reason? I have not seen a rehab program this works, period~! So,
the way I see it, "once a robber, ALWAYS a robber and so on.
Maybe a tough stance folks, but that is the way I see it.

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

A violent felony, no. Particularly if that crime involved a gun, such as assault, battery, domestic violence, or robbery.

But, this is a sketchy issue. Even a lawful, registered gun owners in one of our more ridiculous states (NJ, MD?) could find themselves being charged with a felony for improperly transporting a firearm, moving into a state here one of his existing guns is banned, or accidentally bringing hollowpoints to a range..

 

[joab]

Once all your time, including probation is done all rights should be restored.

Probation should be the trial period to see if you have learned your lesson if you pass that test you get a do over

 

[Safety First]

As long as the person was convicted of a non-violent crime, I feel the person should have the same rights as any one else to protect him/her self....I know everyone has a different opinion, I respect every ones opinion but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.......

 

[Maxwell]

NO, a convicted felon should not legally be allowed to
own a firearm, REGARDLESS of his/her crime~!

A slippery slope.
All you need is a tyranical president and a few of his kronies to get in charge, they could make convicted felons out of millions of Americans with the sweep of a pen. Its already happend from the civil rights movements, prohibition, and the drug war.
I wouldnt put it beyond them to make an underclass of citizens then make a law that dumps all gun owners in it. Gun control without taking a single weapon away from "legal owners".