Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?

Is the point of preventing felons from legally buying guns to stop crime?

Red Wind said:

Sorry,Major. You can call it what you will. I respectfully disagree and my statement stands:

"There are some very hard hearts on this forum. If one of their loved ones or close friends made that one momentary lapse in sound moral judgement, I wonder if they would have the same harsh, take no prisoners, mindset?"

Click to expand...

Here in Georgia going to a college football game with a 2.5" bladed multi tool or pocket knife in their car in the parking lot is a felony. A weapons felony.

High school and college students have been charged with felonies for having simple run of the mill pocket knives in their car or dorm room desk, while doing absolutely nothing else wrong.

But hey, they broke the law, they committed serious (by definition) weapons crimes, they should be disenfranchised from basic, fundamental human Rights for the rest of their lives because, well, I'm not sure why, because the word felony is scary?

I'm conflicted. I see a difference between a moral and legal justification of Constitutional infringements, and I don't think the best interests of individuals always line up with the best interests of society in a collective sense.

In theory, I'd say all except the individuals that simply can't function in our society without destroying the lives of others. But in practice, I don't think it's always easy. For example, there are people in jail who have used a firearm in what I believe was a TOTALLY justified action of self defense. If/when released, they are a violent felon then-on. On the flipside, there are terrible people whom, the moment they get out, will go right back to doing awful things.

There are also certain incidents in which people can wind up with a sex offense for what I consider to be a momentary lapse in judgment more than an act of intentional malice, with relatively limited effect on others.

We also have a lot of people in jail for offenses that I would argue are more of a health-related issue than a criminal issue because such actions had minimal effect on others beyond their own willing actions that could cause self-harm. I don't think society benefits from this.

Then we have the slippery slope. Upon the passing of one gun control measure, gun control organizations immediately shift gears into pushing for more gun control measures, or a further expansion of those existing. Eventually, they'll exclude everyone!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-ER-yo1V3s&feature=youtu.be&t=38s

Perhaps if we didn't treat ex-cons as lower class than illegal aliens, so that it was actually possible for them to reintegrate into society and earn a living wage, recidivism rates wouldn't be so high. Part of that reintegration is the automatic restoration of all their civil rights when they finish their parole.

I don't want one moving in next door to me either, but if he does I like to think I'd give him a chance.

If he wants to get a gun and go on a crime spree, do you really think one more law is gonna make a difference? GCA '68 is to punish everyone (convict or not) who is *not* going on a crime spree.

In the past when I hired felons I had to be very careful where I sent them to work because a lot of government installations, colleges, and schools will not allow them on the grounds. Once again I will repeat that in my ACTUAL experience of hiring felons convicted of a number of serious crimes (up to and including second degree murder) indicates to me that they are unable to properly reason between right and wrong, as they seem to prefer always looking for the easy or fast buck and the idea that the rules were never intended to apply to them. I got to know a few probation officers and they never seemed surprised when the restrictions of parole were violated on a regular basis.....

Maybe make a probationary period for NON VIOLENT offenders. Take a class and let ur P.O. check things out every now and then for a while.

Not to take this thread off on too much of a tangent, but member "Warp" stated

Here in Georgia going to a college football game with a 2.5" bladed multi tool or pocket knife in their car in the parking lot is a felony. A weapons felony.

Click to expand...

Having spent a bit of time down there, my understanding is that Georgia law pretty much addresses only knives with blades over 5". I could be wrong. Or this could be another member in this thread simply perpetuating the hyperbole.

And the OP opines

"There are some very hard hearts on this forum. If one of their loved ones or close friends made that one momentary lapse in sound moral judgement, I wonder if they would have the same harsh, take no prisoners, mindset?"

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. My younger brother, in and out of prison, whom I love dearly, has no business possessing or carrying firearms.

Another poster says

We also have a lot of people in jail for offenses that I would argue are more of a health-related issue than a criminal issue because such actions had minimal effect on others beyond their own willing actions that could cause self-harm.

Click to expand...

Okay, so one presumes that you're referring to those incarcerated subsequent to mental health issues that landed them in prison. Do you truly believe that people in these categories should have full rights to possess and carry firearms?

Old Dog said:

Not to take this thread off on too much of a tangent, but member "Warp" stated
Having spent a bit of time down there, my understanding is that Georgia law pretty much addresses only knives with blades over 5". I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

A person without a Georgia Weapons Carry License may carry a knife up to 5". Longer and you need the weapons license.

It is a felony to possess a knife with a blade longer than 2" on any school or college property, bus, event, etc, to include parking lots.

Can you imagine how many people in Georgia have committed this felony?! Literally go park at a stadium for a college football game with a Leatherman multi tool in your car AND YOU ARE A FELON

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/politica...knives-schools-and-georgias-zero-tolerance-b/

"The assistant principal conducted a search of the young man’s locked car and found two pocketknives in the glove box. One with a 2 1/2-inch blade, smaller than the ones that Cub Scouts use in their first whittling classes. The other, a butterfly-style knife, had a 4-inch blade.

Either one was enough to charge the student with felony possession of a weapon on school grounds. He was jailed, booked and fingerprinted. His mug shot has already been picked up by one of those websites that will happily remove it. For a fee."

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/...lers-for-having-pocket-knives-locked-in-cars/

"Georgia cops hand out felonies to high schoolers for pocketknives locked in cars

MARIETTA, GA — A high school senior is facing felony charges after police searched his car in the parking lot of his school and found a tackle box with some fishing knives in it. The young man could now be sent to prison for 10 years if convicted."



I could list many more examples, but you get the idea.

Warp said:

A person without a Georgia Weapons Carry License may carry a knife up to 5". Longer and you need the weapons license.

It is a felony to possess a knife with a blade longer than 2" on any school or college property, bus, event, etc, to include parking lots.

Can you imagine how many people in Georgia have committed this felony?! Literally go park at a stadium for a college football game with a Leatherman multi tool in your car AND YOU ARE A FELON

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/politica...knives-schools-and-georgias-zero-tolerance-b/


http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/...lers-for-having-pocket-knives-locked-in-cars/

"Georgia cops hand out felonies to high schoolers for pocketknives locked in cars

MARIETTA, GA — A high school senior is facing felony charges after police searched his car in the parking lot of his school and found a tackle box with some fishing knives in it. The young man could now be sent to prison for 10 years if convicted."

Click to expand...

And this goes along exactly what I said about the college kid getting a felony 40 or 50 years ago for having a couple of joints in his pocket. Or someone who unwittingly violated the Lacey Act
https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/lacey-act.html

There is no way that these 'felonies' are on par with a bank robber, gang banger or murderer. The whole idea of how serious a felony is, has been watered down and muddled with these seemingly inane violations in my opinion.

Supposedly we have have gun rights in every state, except if you get caught open carrying a handgun on the streets in NJ you get charged with a 3rd degree indictable offense (a felony in NJ).

Try the same thing in Kentucky, the most you will get is a thumbs up or at worst a yawn.

I feel there needs to be some kind of reform to define what a felony really is. If the crime is really serious then it should be a felony. But seriously, does someone stealing Oreo cookies really warrant Felony charges against them?

And most importantly...should they be barred for life from owning a firearm over a couple of blessed ...cookies?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...theft-charges-against-worker-for-eating-Oreos
.
.

Robert said:

I go back and forth on this one, but if pressed for an answer I'd say no, not ALL should receive their firearm rights. Anyone convicted of a violent assault, murder or man slaughter, or sexual assault should not. In my opinion they should not be let out of prison, but short of a life, or death, sentence they will be released. Here is where I am seeing a lot of misunderstanding being posted.

I work for the local SO, in the jail. Most people that want to stay out of trouble do so. There are plenty of programs and opportunities out there to assist them in rebuilding and reentering society. In my experience the ones that truly want to stay out of trouble are successful at doing so. But far too often when released they go right back to the same crappy hotel with the same tweeker friends doing the same tweeker crap. Hell, some of them have even bragged to me that the first thing they are going to do when they get out is get high and raise hell with their old friends. I usually respond, "See you in a couple of weeks". Which generally proves to be true. It is a way of life for them, the life they have chosen. They only live to get high, nothing else matters. Not jail, not prison and certainly not death.

Gang members only live to make money, have sex and get high. They only purpose in life is the furtherance of the gang. They are drones that have bought into the popular myth of the gangster as portrayed by the music and film industries. A very, very few live long enough to see that the gang is a lie that has wasted their life. When they are ready they will leave the gang. Heck, the Feds will assist with relocation for their family, tattoo removal and even medical care for those that provide good, high level intel.

So no, I do not believe that ALL felons should regain their firearms rights. Those that are habitual criminals, as defined by law, should never regain their rights. That will not stop them though. Criminals, by nature, do not following the law.

Click to expand...

You've clearly have experience with people who made mistakes and turned their lives around, as well as people who did bad things and then moved to worse. Beyond just knowing of the existence, you have a contextual understanding of the resources available to people who decided it was time to make a change for the better. I would argue that qualitative experience as such provides the most solid degree of contextual understanding.

However, many of the people making decisions in planning and policy DO NOT HAVE THIS UNDERSTANDING, and I've always found there to be somewhat of a wall between policymakers and LE. For example, I have a few degrees in a field involving policy and strategic planning, and this field often spends a lot of time interpreting the wording of bills, implementing such as law, and tracking the implications/effect. You would think that frequent & direct collaboration with LE would be an essential part of this, for obvious reasons. Yet this interaction was almost nonexistent until the doctoral level coursework/framework, and even there I felt there were some information gaps.

Policy-makers are often guilty of an over-reliance on quantitative decision-making, sometimes outright ignoring qualitative data. Overemphasis on statistics without a solid contextual understanding can lead to some conclusions that aren't generalizable to reality.

For a topic concerning important aspects like civil rights, public safety, LE safety, rehabilitation vs. warehousing, and billions of dollars, do you think there needs to be significant reorganization in regards to the current state of policy and decision-making?

A fine post. Well, certainly the matter of Federal Felons petitioning for their rights back has to be refunded by Congress.

All 50 states have a mechanism for State felons to appeal. That Federal Felons are left with no court of appeal for the rest of their lives, no matter how minor the offense, is a travesty of justice.

Click to expand...

Not possible to refund it. Winchester -- the company that makes firearms -- was convicted of a felony, petitioned and received full rights. The liberals saw this as an opportunity to put gun makers out of business -- so any future violation of law by a firearms company will mean doom for that company.

People who can't be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with power tools, motor vehicles, pool chemicals, or a panel van with "free puppies" painted on the side. They should not be allowed to move freely within civilized society. People who have paid their debt should not be treated like second class citizens. Either lock them up, execute them, or release them, but if you can't trust them with a gun, don't let them out.

Maybe after completion of their sentence and making total restitution to all the people they harmed.

Absolutely not. The key word for me was in capital letters .... ALL
Certainly not ALL Felons should Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole.
and few in my opinion, if any, should.
Doing the time isn't a cure for a criminal mind. Where the law states felons don't get guns, they should have considered the consequences before committing the felony. I don't think they should vote either but that's another story.
Giving felons the right to have guns after paying for the crime is like giving them back the money they paid in fines if they behave. You play ~ you pay.

Didn't read the whole thing. WAY to many posts for me to dig through on a topic I'm already familiar with.

Anyway, YES. HOWEVER there are some conditions. First and foremost the American prison system was based on the Quaker ideals of rehabilitation. Now onto the personal opinion part, if we can't rehabilitate someone then why release them? If they cannot be rehabilitated then they will always be a menace to society. Since we can't really exile those types of criminals anymore that leaves us with execution or life imprisonment.

Now what if we do rehabilitate them? Well they served their sentence so why should we continue to punish them? They've been rehabilitated and therefor are no longer a threat to society right?

That's why I think felons, and anyone who has completed their sentence, should have a full restoration of rights upon release. HOWEVER this is after many legal reforms because with the massive prison populations we don't have the resources to properly rehabilitate a criminal.

As an interim solution I'd propose limiting 2A rights of people with a proven history of violence. That way someone who made a stupid mistake like carrying a multi-tool onto school grounds shouldn't get snapped up as some violent offender who is a threat to society.

Are you going to let them vote? Do you expect them to pay taxes? Are you going to allow them professional licenses? Will they be allowed to run for elected office? All this after paying their court ordered debt to society.
Well, then you ought to allow them to buy and use firearms.

This is such a difficult question to answer. Short answer, in a perfect world, yes; but in the real world, no.

Long answer... In a perfect world, there wouldn't be murder or crimes. In a slightly less perfect world, convicts would at least leave prison rehabilitated. Even people who have been found guilty of first-degree murder would/could be rehabilitated and rejoin us as productive members of society. Those people would return to society and find all their rights fully restored, including their right to own firearms. The sad truth is that we damn sure don't live in a perfect world. We don't even live in a mostly or partially perfect world. We live in a fallen world that's corrupted with sin. Our pitiful attempts at justice fail miserably. Most people (well over 50%) who go to prison end up committing crimes again and return to prison. Prison doesn't rehabilitate the great majority.

Most people who leave prison shouldn't have been released yet, and some others shouldn't have been released ever. Unfortunately, our "justice" system is so overburdened with criminals that we don't have enough room to house the nation's rule-breakers, so we let guys out early to make room for the new convicts. Some people will say, if they've been released from prison, we obviously trust them and they've paid their debt to society, so we should restore their rights. Except that we don't trust them; we just have no choice but to let them out of prison.

Our justice system is flawed. We're not going to make anything better by restoring rights to people who have established that they couldn't be trusted with them in the first place. Is it fair to throw the same strict blanket over every felon? What about the guy who truly is rehabilitated? To that person, I look you in the eye and say, "I'm sorry." I'm sorry that you chose to break the law, made someone else suffer, and now have consequences in place for the rest of your life. I'm happy that you've turned your life around, but I'm not willing to overlook the crime in your past. Crime isn't a "mistake," it's a choice. I'm all for forgiveness, but forgiveness doesn't require that we pretend the problem never happened at all. That's foolishness.

Most people have done something they regret. Everyone has made a mistake. I've made my share. All of those mistakes had repercussions. Some of those repercussions will be things that follow me to my deathbed. My opinion on this matter is coming from ANYWHERE but a superiority complex.

Long answer... In a perfect world, there wouldn't be murder or crimes. In a slightly less perfect world, convicts would at least leave prison rehabilitated. Even people who have been found guilty of first-degree murder would/could be rehabilitated and rejoin us as productive members of society. Those people would return to society and find all their rights fully restored, including their right to own firearms. The sad truth is that we damn sure don't live in a perfect world. We don't even live in a mostly or partially perfect world. We live in a fallen world that's corrupted with sin. Our pitiful attempts at justice fail miserably. Most people (well over 50%) who go to prison end up committing crimes again and return to prison. Prison doesn't rehabilitate the great majority.

Click to expand...

As a criminology instructor I once had said, "Before you try to rehabilitate a man, make sure he was habilitated to begin with."

One problem with the idea of rehabilitation is that we see it as something WE do for the criminal. In practice, the only way someone can be rehabilitated is if he rehabilitates HIMSELF.

I have no problem with providing a mechanism where a convict can show that he has rehabilitated himself and have his rights restored. But the ball is in his court.

The 2nd Amendment does not differentiate between who may or may not carry firearms. To carry them is a God-given right. When the definition of felon changes it can affect many people who otherwise wouldn't be considered not trust-worthy. A person's character or trust-worthiness has no affect on their right to arms.
Remember, all the American colonists who resisted the crown were deemed criminals too, had their weapons been taken, no revolution, no autonomous U.S.
So I say yes, when a criminal has served their time or paid the price then they should be reinstated into society. If that doesn't sit well, then reconsider the more appropriate sentence.
And why are specific rights taken and not all their rights taken?
When the majority of people are armed, when someone commits a felonious crime, the criminal gets defended against, or shot this is how it is supposed to go, its a great deterrent. Not a 30 year slumber party in a welfare state.

Unfortunately, our "justice" system is so overburdened with criminals that we don't have enough room to house the nation's rule-breakers, so we let guys out early to make room for the new convicts. Some people will say, if they've been released from prison, we obviously trust them and they've paid their debt to society, so we should restore their rights. Except that we don't trust them; we just have no choice but to let them out of prison.

Click to expand...

^^Very wise words.

As a criminology instructor I once had said, "Before you try to rehabilitate a man, make sure he was habilitated to begin with."

Click to expand...

I have no problem with providing a mechanism where a convict can show that he has rehabilitated himself and have his rights restored. But the ball is in his court.

Click to expand...

^^Very well written

Lots of wisdom on these boards.
Not everyone agrees but there is a lot to consider.