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

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

  • Total voters
    286
Status
Not open for further replies.
The trouble with allowing felons to possess firearms is that you've got all sorts of people out there who should not have access to firearms. I'm thinking drug dealers, burglars, rapists, child molestors, arsonists, auto-thieves, robbers, who are deservedly disenfranchised from the right to own firearms. They have shown themselves to be irresponsible members of society and should not enjoy the full benefits of citizenship. The interest in keeping society safe from them far outweighs their right to possess a firearm. Taking a felon to the range, even if said felon has now proven him/herself a contributing member of society, only opens the host to legal problems that are best avoided.

The solution would be for said felon to seek a pardon which, if granted, doesn't impute any criminal liability for the host. BTW, I know of one man who was granted a Presidental pardon and carried a small, laminated photocopy of it in his wallet.
 
I couldn't vote ... I think it doesn't matter whether somebody committed a "felony" or not, I believe that what matters is whether the community he resides in believes that it would be a danger to the public safety if persons who had committed the crime in question have their RKBA restored. Actually ... I tend to think that if someone is safe enough to be let out of prison then he should be safe enough to keep a rifle or shotgun in his home, and that the restrictions against felons should regard carrying handguns and such.
 
It's pretty simple for me. Americans who have committed felonies, done their time, paid restitution, etc, should be given back their full rights. Currently, we tax them without giving them back the right to vote or own arms legally. This seems patently unamerican™ to me since it's blatant taxation without representation.

So, yes, Felons should have their rights restored including RKBA provided they've done their time and paid their debt.
 
It gets even worse. There are more and more "High Roaders" who are "closet gun grabbers", and take great pride in denying rights to others.

Let's look at it from a different angle:

Prior to 1934, you could legally own any machine gun without asking permission from anyone.

Prior to 1968, anyone could buy most firearms by mail order, once again without asking permisison from anyone. In fact, 10 and 12 years old children could plunk down their paper route money for firearms and ammunition.

Were we any less safe in those days? I think not. Heck, as a teenager, I carted rifles and shotguns to school in the trunk of my car or the gun rack of a pick-up. I also kept these self-same weapons in my bedroom closet, without any trigger locks or other devices designed to inhibit my use. Yet, I am awfully glad that I was young then, instead of now when the mere act of drawing a picture of a firearm will draw a suspension.

The incremental approach to gun control (and the overall erosion of our rights) is working. Even those who should know better have been conned into believing that it is good. As a result, I am fearful for our future, very, very fearful.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is a gift from our creator. I am just a man. I do not have the authority to decide who can and can't bear arms.

If you believe the government has the authority to decide who can and can't bear arms, you are no friend to liberty.
 
Sistema1927 said:
The incremental approach to gun control (and the overall erosion of our rights) is working. Even those who should know better have been conned into believing that it is good. As a result, I am fearful for our future, very, very fearful.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid our "frog" has boiled to death .... he (the frog), is just too stupid to realize it yet.
 
Actions of armed felons is why we have the majority of gun laws....really makes sense to re-arm repeat offenders so we can have more gun regulations.

Thanks to the actions of Al Capone (convicted of a non-violent felony, tax evasion), John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, and others we got the 1934 NFA. The list goes on and on.....throughout history major criminal acts by felons have resulted in more gun laws.

The logic that the rights of the felon should superceed the safety of the populace is flawed. They gave up their rights by their own unlawful actions
 
Thanks to the actions of Al Capone (convicted of a non-violent felony, tax evasion), John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, and others we got the 1934 NFA.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the others you list but Capone was convicted of tax evasion AFTER he committed all these violent acts (and then only b/c tax evasion was the only thing they could prosecute).

However, there is a point, and a good one, to be made here. Some people, having already crossed the line once seem to as be more willing as a group to do it again. These have a tendency to become increasingly more violent with each new infraction.

I don't know what the answer is, but a vast, overwhelming majority of felons knew exactly what they were doing at the time they did it, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over their plight.
 
Capone didn't become more violent .... just more emboldened. He was allowed to stay in business, thanks to the corrupt local "system".... that he bought and paid for. He had 'made his bones' long before he was taken down. He could have easily been taken out years earlier, if it wasn't for the corruption within the system.
 
Yes, although anyone convicted of a crime of violence should probably be subject to some period of "gun ownership probation" as it were.

They should also be able to vote as well.

The "bad" ex-felons, like all criminals, will just own guns anyway, of course, regardless of laws.
 
I voted YES

May I refer us back to Art's Post, #67

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2339531&postcount=67

And Gary's Post # 101

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2341366&postcount=101

There are great posts - just these two I chose to use.

Define: Felony
Define: Societal Definitions of Felony, Violent, or Phsycopath.

Whom has, currently is, or will be doing the defining?

Yes we have some folks wired totally wrong and no matter what, are going to inflict harm, maim, injury, rape, or death. Truth is, just use Capitol punishment and alleviate the monies, the cell space , polluting my air and maybe...just maybe...some others will not fall into this behavior ( deterrent) - still some will always be just plumb nuts.

Then again, what about the CPA that gets a felony from a tax mistake. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse - then again sometimes the IRS does not know what is what? So a non Fedgov gets busted, and now loses his rights to vote, own guns and whatnot. Hell we ought to use his knowledge and skills to protect us from .gov...

Take a look at history and what used to be legal, now a misdemenor, now a felony.

WE have to be careful what is "defined" when we open the screen door and whom is doing this "defining" and for "what purpose".

I am concerned about "make everthing a felony, therefore everyone becomes a "felon" therefore everyone is a criminal".

I was once out of state with my various CCW permits for instance . My permits were such and I was in a place where a two lane blacktop, out in the country divided state lines. One side I was legal, other side I was not. I was drinking a coke and stretching my legs.

A car comes into a sliding dust throwing wild stop across the road, another truck from behind narrowing misses, as the male driver actually seemed to be trying to run her off the road. I see a lady beating her fists on the steering wheel, and then I see the car seat. I am torn...

I go inside an tell the lady , she hollers for her husband, he calls Sheriff Office, wife runs to the lady, they get her car on "this" side of state line.

Abusive husband not happy with divorce filed. I saw the result of the recent beating, thank goodness the baby was at her mom's. Not my place to get involved - still if due to disparity...well I would have been in felony territory.

Too many "what ifs" and one easy one for anyone - "what if" you are CCWing and get run off the road, or choose to avoid an accident, and in doing so, end up on school property. In my state - a felony.

Decisons are not always black or white. Now TPTB would like to control, always have. Just should some control be guised as felony or not?

What could you do, innocent things that would label you as a felon? Would that put you in the same catagory as the raving maniac raping and killing serially?

I don't believe it does.

True criminals are wired different - that is why they are criminals. They do not adhere to laws anyway. Often time the law abiding are the ones most affected by enacted laws.

Like the man said, Think about it.

Steve
 
It depends...............

The type of crime and the amount of time since the crime was committed.

Some examples of my thoughts:

A) Selling Pot/Moonshine in the 80's (I did not say Hard Drugs). YES.
B) Manslaughter (under self defense conditions); didn't start fight. YES
C) Gun Law violations YES
D) DWI, Third conviction. NO
E) Robbery, 15 year old conviction, only offense YES
F) Hurting Children NO NO NO

These are MY guidelines. Obviously,not everyone will agree.
 
Poorly worded poll.

IMO, the term "felony" has has been debased. There are too many actions, inactions, and paper shuffles now considered felonies that have no business being such.
 
D) DWI, Third conviction. NO
Click to expand...

So, if the drunk driver has served a stiff prison sentence, and has since dried out, you are never going to allow him to legally own a firearm?

F) Hurting Children NO NO NO
Click to expand...

If he has hurt children, and is still a threat to hurt children, then why in the name of all that is good is he walking the streets?

Let's cut to the quick: Can anyone name even one gun control law that has stopped criminals?
 
I think it depends upon the crime you are "convicted" of. Like:
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?
Click to expand...

I have a neighbor who has some mental limitations. He had "friends" who started to take advantage of him and moved in. They(the "friends") were selling drugs. Now my neighbor is a convict for letting these people take advantage of him. Should he be a felon? NO. There shouldn't even be anything on his police record. How much do I trust him? To the max(a hell of a lot more than most politicians or CEOs).

So, in response to should a felon have the right to own. It depends on the crime. As you can see,my neighbor is not a criminal. But,he does have a criminal record.
 
I have a completely legal rifle (but an evil plastic one...).

If I put a plastic grip on it made down in Houston, I am a good legal citizen. If it breaks and I purchase and install one that is the identical shape, function, and color--but is made in England, then I would be a felon. And, according to a fair number of folks here, would no longer be able to own a firearm. Ever.

Its awful easy for a good person to commit a felony these days, and not just in the area of firearms. ('course, your property can be stolen if the government thinks some one else can do better with it and your guns can be stolen if the weather gets bad...no felony indictments there...)
 
Mudpuppy what are you talking about?

What does an England made grip have to do with felonious behavior?

cavman
 
I think it should depend on the crime and the individual.
For better then half of the United States history when a convict finished his sentence, he had served his debt to society and was released with his/her rights again. It changed somewhere around the 1930's. I believe there were some exceptions.
Some examples ex-cons who carried were Frank James, Emmet(?) Dalton, and John Wesley Hardin who even became a lawyer before he was gunned down, not exactly a pillar of the community.
 
If we just put violent offenders to death, we wouldn't have issues of them being back on the streets.

Also if we give up on the "war on drugs" overcrowding in the prisons wouldn't be a problem for the rest of the criminals to be incarcerated for a proper sentence, Then their rights can be restored when they have paid their debt to society.

Criminals do not fear loss of their 2nd amendment rights, nor of their right to vote. So it is no deterrant. It is only a weapon of fear to those of us who try our best to stay on the right side of the law. But these days it is getting harder and harder to do so....
 
Oh,

Contrasted against cars, trucks, washing machines, power tools, clothes, computers, cameras...

Gotcha.

cavman

thanks goodness we still have our ethanol. Oh wait. We now will need to import that too, from Brazil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
Getting FOID with felony expungement?
Replies
14
Views
2K
XxWINxX94
X
M
  • Locked
Military possession of weapons after conviction
Replies
20
Views
989
JShirley
JShirley
S
  • Locked
Felony conviction/hunting/muzzle loaders
Replies
5
Views
2K
rbrowning
R
C
  • Locked
Indiana Felony Reduced, Now What to expect?
Replies
4
Views
536
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
K
  • Locked
Felonies, rights to vote, automatic weapons, patriot act and other issues
Replies
16
Views
614
DRZinn
D
Back
Top