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

[22-rimfire]

redneck2: Your post just points out what everyone suspects to be true that our criminal justice system is just all screwed up. They parole violent criminals prior to serving their entire sentance and they label someone of this terrible thing for just whipping out his pee pee out in the woods or along a remote road. I guess they will have to start putting porta potties out in the woods to avoid indecent exposures during hunting season. And law enforcement wonders why some people get a bit irratated with some of the litteral intepretations of the law where no judement beyond the identification of a potential crime was exercised.

I'm an optimist and believe that basic human nature is good. There has to be more to this story Redneck2.

My earlier post assumed that the person had served their time before any consideration for rights restoration. That includes the time when they have to visit their probation officer.

 

[Pappy John]

Violent felony convictions? No.

With rights come responsibilities and they've pretty much proven to me that they're too irresponsible to carry weapons.

Whatever non-violent felonies the gummint decides to create? Case by case basis.

 

[Sistema1927]

I'm an optimist and believe that basic human nature is good.

Sometimes it is a good thing to be a Calvinist and believe in the total depravity of man. Probably a good thing that this was the prevailing belief during the formation of our nation, and the founding fathers instituted checks and balances to provide for protection from tyrants. Unfortunately, our present day has not only tossed this belief, but also basic civility and morality, to the wind. Part of the reason for the mess we are in.

 

[SIOP]

I find it interesting that whenever this subject comes up, the very same people that believe the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right and can't be infringed upon in any fashion by laws, treaties, etc., also believe that there ARE certain classes of people (felons for example) that CAN have their 2nd Amendment rights trampled on simply by some lawmaking body passing a law.

You can't have it both ways. Either the 2nd Amendment means what it says, or it can be modifyed or interpreted any way a governing body sees fit, whether that means felons can't own a gun, domestic abusers can't own a gun, or maybe YOU can't own a gun because of the way you voted last time, or because you cheated on your taxes, or got a speeding ticket, or whatever.

Take your pick.

 

[Lou629]

Circumstances...

There are degrees to everything in this life. Depending on the circumstances of the given case, I think there could be a chance for a 'felon' to own firearms legally once again. It would depend on the nature and severity of the 'crime' in question.
If we're talking about a hard core gang-banger that has three murder convictions by the time he's 15, then no, i don't think so. He'll just get his the old-fashioned way once he's ever allowed back on the streets anyway, either steal one, or buy it out of a car trunk, from one of his homies.
What about some poor schlub who is a legal, law & order type gun owner but has a AD in his house or yard, a pure accident? Some places, like here in NJ, would crucify this guy for "discharging a deadly weapon" in public, and the police or an over-acheiving prosecutor who wanted to make a name for himself, ( and is a real son-of-a ) could have this guy up on charges of reckless endangerment or what-have-you.
Upon his conviction, ( an almost slam-dunk sure thing for the prosecutor, in this stalinist state anyway ) should this guy lose his guns, and the right to ever own them again? Debatable.

 

[Lupinus]

do criminals obey laws? No thats why they are criminals. But that is no excuse to not prohibit them from doing something.

People still get murdered should we make it legal because obviously criminals disobey the law? How bout rape? Rapists still rape even though its illegal. Hackers? Should the guy that just stole the money from your back account be allowed to have a computer agian? Someone who constantly drives drunk should they be allowed to keep their lisence? I could go on but you get the point. Just because someone wont obey they law dosnt mean you should legalize it. If someone robbed a store and shot someone then hell no they shouldn't be allowed a gun agian. And if they are caught with one should be sent back to jail without passing go and collecting 200 dollars.

 

[hammer4nc]

I voted hell, no. But this question is such a small sliver of the larger, market-oriented approach toward LE. Doesn't the broader topic deserve discussion?

1. We should ensure that anyone let out of prison be disenfranchised for life. No gun rights, no voting rights, no professional licenses. This will protect society, and preserve jobs for us non-criminals. Make it much harder for the ex-convict. Encourage Recidivism!

2. We should create elaborate bureaucratic hurdles for rights restoration, and then, just de-fund the programs! This little bit of sleight of hand, allows self-righteous individuals to claim that the programs still exist, when in fact they don't. Neat trick, entertaining at parties! Of course, paid presidential pardons still exist (see: Rick Hendrick/Bill Clinton), for the well-heeled criminal.

3. We should create federal agencies whose main job is prosecution of paper pre-crimes (i.e, felon in possession of firearm). Dramatically increase sentences for these infractions, and maintain our status as #1, in terms of percent of population incarcerated. These programs are more effective when given secure-sounding names like "Project Safe Neighborhoods"; and coupled with billboard advertising campaigns. Side benefits for the ad industry, prison industry, LE and support bureaucracy! A winner all around!

4. We should dramatically increase the number of minor infractions counted as felonies, so the input side of the system is maintained and enhanced. Special emphasis on victimless crimes. An added feature would be to count some misdemeanors as felonies, AND to make these offenses retroactive! Would make it much easier to convict.

5. We should increase emphasis on law enforcement deceptive practices aka stings, buy-bust operations, and other LE-created crimes, in case the natural supply of criminals wanes. The point here is to avoid market saturation. Increased emphasis on using paid informants (snitches), and undercover ops. Desensitize the population to the concept of cops "breaking the law to enforce the law".

Wait...you say we're already doing these things???

 

[Werewolf]

Stupid POLL!

The law hasn't been written yet that will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Of course we could make a law that would solve the problem of criminals and weapons. Just execute the suckers on conviction - right then and there when the judge says guilty - take 'em out back and put a .22LR bullet in their head. Simple really - anyone can do it. Just place the end of the barrell behind the ear in that dimple down near the ear lobe. Point the gun forward and up at about a 45* angle (pointing so the bullet will impact the inside of the skull about an inch or so above the nose) and pull the trigger. Problem solved - for freaking ever - that criminal will never own a weapon and be a danger to society again.

BUT we all know that's never gonna happen (well at least not for another 50 years or so anyway) and since no law will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals then all laws that attempt to do that (meaning gun control laws) are little more than a waste of the ink and paper on which they are printed. :banghead:

In other words - Gun Control laws are the inane fantasies of people who live in a world with pink skies and blue bunnies. Either that or they are just BS thunk up by lying scum politicians to pander to the morons who believe in pink skies and blue bunnies.

So if society lets 'em outta prison then they must be safe so let'em buy all the guns they want. Nothing will change except that gun store owners will make a bit more money than they do now since gun store prices are cheaper than street prices and criminals will go for the best deal just like the rest of us.

 

[Stiletto Null]

Depends on the felony, really. While I do think that asshats like the Enron crew should be executed for being worthless human beings*, I suppose the natures of their crimes don't warrant disarmament.

* - I'm a bit on the bloodthirsty side.

 

[22-rimfire]

In the same vane, when did it become law that a convicted felon could not own a firearm after serving their sentance? I dont' think it was true when the Constitution was ratified. Maybe someone who is well versed with law could enlighten me (or us)???

 

[ReadyontheRight]

We need more time in prison for violent crimes. The "time" for murder, rape or pedophelia should be life in prison or death penalty -- so no worries for further gun ownership.

If the offender is out "on probation" for whatever reason, no guns.

IF we stop letting out murderers, rapists and pedophiles, and the offender has done their time, why should their rights be infringed?

 

[SIOP]

In the same vane, when did it become law that a convicted felon could not own a firearm after serving their sentance? I dont' think it was true when the Constitution was ratified. Maybe someone who is well versed with law could enlighten me (or us)???

This strategy is called incremental gun control. The government slowly and steadily broadens the list of those of who can't own a firearm, and noone complains, because heck, it's only felons. And guys that slapped a woman 35 years ago. And guys who stole a few grand from their company. But eventually it will get to you.

They came for the Communists, and I
didn't object - For I wasn't
a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I
didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I
didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't
object - For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me -
And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

1892-1984​

 

[LAWDOGKMS]

I'm a Law Officer, and I even think some of you take it too far..saying that "if they committed a felony, they should lose all rights forever"

I believe it should be left up to a "review board" of sorts..

For starters, I think it should depend on the original crime.

If the felony was a violent crime of opportunity (murder, assault with a weapon, robbery, carjacking etc etc etc....then HELL NO!!

I think those types of crimes are inexcusable, and cannot be passed off as "lapses in judgement"

If however, the felony was non-violent in nature, then I think it should be taken under review.

Even though I'm now a Criminal Investigator for a federal agency, by the letter of the law, I could be a felon.

Long before I applied to the Fed, I applied to Florida Highway Patrol. During the pre-polygraph interview and polygraph, they asked a number of very specific questions regarding narcotics, firearms etc.

One question in particular on the pre-polygraph questionnaire, was:

"Have you ever carried a firearm concealed without a permit?"

I answered yes, and they asked me to elaborate.

I told them that when I was 16-18 yrs old, several times a year, my dad and I would go to canoe-camping on the Blackwater River, and I would carry my dad's .38 spec in a fanny-pack. (he let me carry it in his presence)

I was not hired..and was not given a reason as to why..

I knew my qualifications were above and beyond, and my record spotlessly clean, so I filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see my applicant file.

The file said that I several "Undetected Felonies", and was considered not-suitable for a position.

The "Undetected Felonies" they listed for cause?

Carrying a firearm concealed without a permit...(camping with dad).

You see how ridiculous some laws are, if you follow the "letter" of the law without using common sense.

This is why I think an application from a felon to be able to own firearms again, should go before a review board, that takes into account employment, criminal history, type of crime committed etc..

 

[A. Patriot]

State legislatures today are making everything a felony. Twenty years ago, I would have said NO! Today, it would depend on the so-called felony.

 

[TallPine]

do criminals obey laws? No thats why they are criminals. But that is no excuse to not prohibit them from doing something.

So does it justify an excuse to hassle peaceful citizens, such as NICS checks for purchase (oops, the system is down today, you will have to drive a 100 miles again tomorrow to get your gun that you have already paid your money for )

If you don't think it is a slippery slope, then consider this:
1968 - felons prohibited from owning guns, but no proactive enforcement

1994 - "criminals" are still getting guns, so institute background checks and waiting periods

199? - add misdemeanor domestic violence to list of "felonies"

etc ...

2xxx - all of the above are not "working" (amazingly, criminals can still buy guns, along with dope, etc ) so enact some even more restrictive gun laws (add parking tickets to list of "felonies"....?)


Do I want dangerous felons to have guns...? Heck, no!
But there's some people I don't want to have kids either

 

[rbernie]

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.

If you believe that punishment can either act as a deterrent or have retribution value, then this reaction makes perfect sense - loss of civil rights after conviction for a felony has little rehabilitive value. I do not believe that laws generally act as a deterrent, but I'll admit that I'm not above the simple human desire for retribution. Given that, I agree with the concept that loss of some civil rights can reasonably be considered part of the package that goes with the punishment for being convicted of a felony. I'm not suggesting that there aren't other options, but as part of a package deal it does seem to have its place.

And frankly, I don't see this as 'un-American' at all. The membership bar into the fully-vested ranks of US citizens has always been set higher than ground level from the very beginnings of our country, rightly or otherwise. You may not like that, but that's 'The American Way' - women and human property need not apply. I find it interesting that all of the strict Constitutionists who defend the intent of the Second Amendment by framing it in the context within which it was written conveniently fail to remember that the original Acts and Amendments did *not* fully and equally apply to women or slaves and that the concepts contained within the Fourteenth Amendment were so uncomfortable and contentious to the Founding Fathers that their discussion almost scuttled the whole ball of wax. There is NOTHING in the original context of the Constitution that defends the rights of ALL PEOPLE as we currently define that term, and you can largely thank 'the liberals' of prior generations for the progress made in defining the legal protections we currently enjoy.

In the end, I believe that our system of removing civil rights from convicted felons is basic human nature at work. Screw with the health of the community and you lose some status within the community. Screw up big enough, and the loss of status becomes long-term. Failing to behave in that fashion is simply not healthy for the community organism. The alternative is what the British euphamistically called 'transportation' - exile from the community to a colony sufficiently remote as to render return of the criminal highly unlikely even upon their release.

 

[aufevermike]

Maybe I need to read up on felony laws. I have a friend who is a hunter and possesses a several long arms. He once told me that 30 years ago he spent a time in jail for forging a name on a check. Though it was his money in his girlfrienda account. They had an argument and she pressed charges. This was in Texas and now he live in Alaska. He was charges with the lowest charge of felonies. He tells me he can possess firearms but can't buy them. Now I'm wondering if this is true.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

I voted yes, and heres why.

As was said before. Criminals don't follow the law anyway. why make a rule your target audience is not going to follow.

2. The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I believe its a right. If you remember 1st it was the felony, then it became the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.(How many have ex wives that would say "he beat me" just to f%^ you up? Now you lose your guns if someone puts a restraining order against you. Next thing you know the bobby's are arresting you for anti-social behavior(can't have a gun if you've been anti social.)

Lets be real here folks.
1. We're not just talking about violent felons. This is the slipperiest of slopes.
2. Felonies are continually being added, things that were legal 100 years ago are federal crimes now. examples
a. Fighting with someone who happens to be gay, or black,or hispanic, or Jewish, or Islamic (hate crimes).
b. Growing certain plants
c. Owning certain very fun tools without a tax stamp.
d. Owning the vary same very fun tools that were made after 1986.

Remember, all of the founding fathers would be felons by todays standards.

[/rant]
AF_int1N0

edited by me (because my spelling is bad)

 

[beaucoup ammo]

There's Some Gray Area Here..Not Much

If I strive to tow the line, and enjoy the rights accorded me for doing so, I don't believe anyone guilty of a serious crime should be allowed the same rights and privileges.

 

[det.pat]

i think something that is important in this equation is that these felony "bans" or nullification of rights are a violation of the constitution. there are no provisions in the constitution that say that anybody can be stripped of there rights, ANYBODY. so by going with this crap, you are supporting a direct assault on the constitution, and all rights.

before the 20th century, when you got out out prison, your personal effects were returned to you, including any guns you had when arrested. if your debt to society is paid then that's it.
pat

 

[depicts]

I understand that in Massachusetts, a felon who has stayed crime free for five years after his conviction and sentence, MUST be issued a Firearms Identification Card that allows them to purchase long guns, ammo for said guns, and to hunt or use them for sporting and defensive purposes.

This does not apply to handguns here.

I also aggree that it depends on the type of felony committed. A violent offender who pays his dues, and is reviewed by some type of board should have his rights renewed (this is new thinking on my part). As many have said, if this person wants to get a gun for illegal reasons, they will get it. If they are willing to follow the law, we should encourage it.

 

[Mooseman]

I would say NO to ownership of guns by felons. I've noticed while working with them over the years that they tend to retain a certain mindset. Even if they're in recovery or have found God there is a difference that seems to remain. I'm not saying that they're aren't exceptions or that they're not nice people but I wouldn't want them owning guns. That said, I think they should be allowed to rent guns at ranges, I don't see the harm in that. Just my opinion.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

I'd Like To See The Sample For This Poll

".. in an article published in September, 1998, in the New England Journal of Medicine, as many as 95 percent of the general public -- and 91 percent of gun owners -- supported a policy of prohibiting persons who had been convicted of misdemeanor crimes from purchasing firearms."

...doesn't exactly jive with our results here. And this deals with Misdemeanor Crimes.

 

[Firethorn]

I also have problems with the poll, as it's too vague. Like what many people say, there's so many felonies today that you'd have to split it up. Personally, I'd change the definition of 'felon' to be somebody sentenced to confinement for a year or more, not 'potentially' sentenced. IE if you manage to stay in prison for less than a year, you're not a felon. This should solve the problem of the paper felons who plead guilty due to expense on some minor thing and don't even serve any time still being counted as a felon because their 'crime' carries a potential sentence of greater than a year.

Personally, I don't care; I'm always going to fight a felony charge.

Better Poll:

Nonviolent:
Immediately upon release from jail/prison
Automatically after a period of time (IE: parole+10 years)
After review board (no elimination of funding allowed. At worst, make the felon pay for the review).
Never

Violent:
Immediately upon release from prison
Automatically after a period of time (IE: parole+10 years)
After review board (no elimination of funding allowed. At worst, make the felon pay for the review).
Never

You'll still have some odd views like 'let them have most long guns, but not handguns or semiautomatics', because while a long gun is still good for self defense it’s difficult to conceal. Also, responses would be flavored by whether or not people think that sentences are long enough.

Personally, I'm for immediate or automatic for nonviolent, review board for the violent.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

With Over Crowding..

violent felons are rotated out at a faster rate every day. I have a problem with the very nature of "violent" crime.