U.S. appeals court to reconsider ban on nonviolent felons owning guns

Going forward, it is completely evident to me that the government and its various media/propaganda outlets are trying to diminish firearm ownership in a similar way to how they discouraged cigarette use, by making it seem "uncool" and preventing us from voicing a dissenting opinion in any meaningful way. In time, this will erode our strength and make it harder to recruit like minded folks to our cause and our opponents will undoubtedly exploit that weakness and, thereby, make life even more difficult for us than they already have.
But, if these folks have their rights restored, they will want to A) exercise them and B) preserve them and, because of this, they will become recruitable. As it is now, they are more easily recruited to the other side. We want them on our team, not the other team. We can't continue this fight successfully without "soldiers" and the massive influx of soldiers that something like this could, potentially, create could, potentially, sustain us for decades. I'd rather add them to our ranks than theirs. I think it would be a huge victory for team 2A.
 
Ok, looked it up, 18 USC 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person, including as a juvenile—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Click to expand...
Nothing about violent or non violent. Nothing about "felony" either.

Which would need some sort of legal definition, to separate the "classes" of felonies.
Not only that, but some sort of method to determine how someone convicted of a felony, should be considered in one of the two categories after the fact. Which is going to be complicated for those who took plea bargains as "which kind" of felony would then be a substantial issue that they would need to know to make an informed decision.

What I fear is that this is something that can be dangled, a trinket, a simple, easy, notion which could be used for present political ends. But, precisely the sort of thing our civil service would simply clock out early and demand another two weeks' paid vacation rather than actually "do."
 
redcon1 said:
Going forward, it is completely evident to me that the government and its various media/propaganda outlets are trying to diminish firearm ownership in a similar way to how they discouraged cigarette use, by making it seem "uncool" and preventing us from voicing a dissenting opinion in any meaningful way. In time, this will erode our strength and make it harder to recruit like minded folks to our cause and our opponents will undoubtedly exploit that weakness and, thereby, make life even more difficult for us than they already have.
But, if these folks have their rights restored, they will want to A) exercise them and B) preserve them and, because of this, they will become recruitable. As it is now, they are more easily recruited to the other side. We want them on our team, not the other team. We can't continue this fight successfully without "soldiers" and the massive influx of soldiers that something like this could, potentially, create could, potentially, sustain us for decades. I'd rather add them to our ranks than theirs. I think it would be a huge victory for team 2A.
Click to expand...

In general I have never understood the logic of depriving a citizen of their constitutional rights once they have completely discharged their debt to society. Voting, firearm ownership, etc. - those rights enumerated in the Constitution should be restored once you have completely satisfied your debt to society (including parole). It seems philosophically suspect that once a felony is committed you permanently become a different class of citizen, with no real way to re-enter society completely.
 
roscoe said:
In general I have never understood the logic of depriving a citizen of their constitutional rights once they have completely discharged their debt to society. Voting, firearm ownership, etc. - those rights enumerated in the Constitution should be restored once you have completely satisfied your debt to society (including parole). It seems philosophically suspect that once a felony is committed you permanently become a different class of citizen, with no real way to re-enter society completely.
Click to expand...

Above all alignment is what is required here. It makes no sense to be able to vote but not own a firearm, or vice versa.
Some people however should never be able to re-enter society. If they were consistently prevented from doing so then I could see allowing the rest to regain their constitutional rights.
 
roscoe said:
In general I have never understood the logic of depriving a citizen of their constitutional rights once they have completely discharged their debt to society. Voting, firearm ownership, etc. - those rights enumerated in the Constitution should be restored once you have completely satisfied your debt to society (including parole). It seems philosophically suspect that once a felony is committed you permanently become a different class of citizen, with no real way to re-enter society completely.
Click to expand...
I think it's probably a political vestige of America's colorful past. Hopefully it won't be a part of our future. Perhaps it could be automatic for certain offenses and part of a process for other more serious offenders and not an option at all for truly heinous offenses. The reality is, there aren't enough prison cells to accommodate all the criminals in this country and so it becomes a kind of revolving door and people that shouldn't be released end up released to make room for newly convicted criminals. I don't like the idea of releasing dangerous criminals onto the streets but I also dislike the idea of building more prisons and I can understand why certain segments of the population are especially disinclined to vote for anybody that does like that idea. It's hard to be the land of the free when you have the largest prison population in the world and you're trying to increase it even more. That's also the kind of thing that could end up biting you in the butt later on down the road if, for example, you were to run afoul of increasingly onerous gun control legislation. So people are going to be released early and a process by which their civil rights are restored should be made available to them. That's what I think anyways but the movie Red Dawn still underlies most of my thought processes so perhaps my opinion is based on irrational fears of a communist invasion.
 
Why do we let people out of jail if they are still dangerous?
They let drunk drivers get their license back in new Mexico you have to get like 7 DUIs before you can't get your license back.
Might as well let felons have guns. Something like 10% of repeat felons in jail are there because all they did was have a gun.
 
In Alaska, you will get all your Rights back after 10 years from discharge of any felony punishments,IF you did not commit a crime against a person.

Even if your charges are set aside or vacated, they are on record as there is no expungement in Alaska.

As for the Communists, they are among us.......Big Bro, Big Gov, no diff.
Orwell warned us. Gov in our Social Media, Gov Censorship, Gun control, Politicized Gov Law enforcement, Cancel Culture/Unperson

1984; 2 + 2 = 5

2023; A Man who says he is a woman IS a woman.
 
Last edited:
Just me-
The whole thing about modern prisons
and incarceration in general is supposed
to be reform and rehabilitation, and
not "punishment " ( so they say)
So, by my way of thinking, if someone
is released from custody, they're supposed
to be all done and over with criminal
behavior and starting fresh and all
reformed and a good citizen ready to
move forward.
So if all that is real and true, why aren't
all of the person's rights restored including
the right to vote and own firearms?
If the person is still under suspicion and
can't be trusted, they should be under
lock and key. There's no grey area
about this. Either they're reformed or
they're not
 
If the government releases a felon who is still dangerous enough that we can't trust him not to kill people, why let him out? Any adult has the physical capacity to kill someone. If they let a killer out on the street and the only safeguard is that he can't legally buy a gun, that's not much of a safeguard.
 
wayneinFL said:
If the government releases a felon who is still dangerous enough that we can't trust him not to kill people, why let him out?
Click to expand...

Because it’s cheaper. Not a single other reason. If they don’t spend it keeping bad people locked up, they can grow the bureaucracy much faster. Instantly need more police, emergency responders, hospitals, lawyers, judges, probation officers……. It’s the machine feeding itself. At the publics expense but they voted in the situation.
 
jmorris said:
Because it’s cheaper. Not a single other reason. If they don’t spend it keeping bad people locked up, they can grow the bureaucracy much faster. Instantly need more police, emergency responders, hospitals, lawyers, judges, probation officers……. It’s the machine feeding itself. At the publics expense but they voted in the situation.
Click to expand...

So if all crimes carry a life sentence with the possibility of parole and they use genius bureaucrats that can determine when someone is no longer dangerous it would solve all the problems.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
The national standard for felonies is crimes that are punishable by more than a year of confinement.

Misdemeanors (misdeeds) are punishable by less than a year of confinement.
Click to expand...
Strange. This has always tripped me up, (question 11.c) is something to the effect of "have you been convicted of any crime that could have resulted in a sentence of up to 2 years, even if you were given a shorter sentence and/or probation".

Something to that effect, I have a friend with a DUI and he has asked a bunch of FFL's if that's a prohibiting offense and I think he even asked a lawyer and was told something about it being traffic code violation and didn't count and was told that it absolutely, positively was not a prohibiting offense even though the maximum penalty for DUI in my state is 2 years. The question seems pretty unambiguous, but it's apparently somewhat convoluted. I heard an FFL say once that at least a few people every week fill out the form and say "I've got a DUI, that's not a disqualifying offense, right?".

I would imagine if DUI was a prohibiting offense, we would have half as many gun owners as we do.
 
We've been long overdue for such a consideration.

It's been my opinion the deprivation of rights, most especially those codified into statutes, should be SPECIFICALLY addressed at each sentencing and, upon completion of the imposed sentencing ought to be either automatically reinstated, a clear path provided for reinstatement, or a specific justification for why any rights may NOT be reinstated.

A person convicted for non-violent crimes ought not to be automatically denied rights by the simple expedient of having been convicted of a crime for which a sentence term of more than one year may be imposed. The punishment or denial of rights ought to be applicable to the nature of the crime itself.

This is what the statutes are SUPPOSED to do in the first place: define an applicable range of punishments tailored to the specifics of a given crime.

Forgery itself is NOT a violent crime. Neither is tax fraud, simple theft, receipt of stolen goods, public intoxication, gambling, etc.

My opinion applies to ALL rights a person may be deprived of, not just the RKBA. And that also applies to those not specifically enumerated, as well. It doesn't matter to me if it's the RKBA, freedom of speech/religion/assembly, excessive fines, the right to vote, or whatever.
 
Last edited:
roscoe said:
In general I have never understood the logic of depriving a citizen of their constitutional rights once they have completely discharged their debt to society. Voting, firearm ownership, etc. - those rights enumerated in the Constitution should be restored once you have completely satisfied your debt to society (including parole). It seems philosophically suspect that once a felony is committed you permanently become a different class of citizen, with no real way to re-enter society completely.
Click to expand...

I don't know, how about they made a bad decision, bad enough to land you in prison, and we should trust you to make good decisions after you get out? Don't think so.
 
My thoughts are different from most, likely because I am in jail at least once a week.

All I will say is look at who is pushing this, where is the pushing coming from. And what could the possible reason be behind a push. Then what the end goal is.

Leave it at that because it is political, just like this thread.
 
Remington1911 said:
I don't know, how about they made a bad decision, bad enough to land you in prison, and we should trust you to make good decisions after you get out? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

However, my premise is that every removal of a right SHOULD be specifically addressed as to why and any limitations/restrictions/prohibitions attached to such rights should be clearly addressed INCLUDING how they may be addressed following completion of court sanctioned terms of punishment. Denial of rights should be applicable to the crime(s) in question.

If a person's rights are to be denied in perpetuity, they should be explicitly expressed. If not in perpetuity, then the limits clearly expressed and any required means for redress made clear in the law.

I'm not naive to believe that all convicted criminals can, or want to, be "rehabilitated" into upstanding citizens. Not by a long shot. But this isn't just about that.
 
And... down the rabbit hole we fall yet again.

While the righteous continue to bloviate about those who are deemed fit to return to society and why should they not have their 2nd Amendment rights restored, few bother to check out the recidivism rates in this country. Strangely, many of these same folks have never had more than casual dealings, if any, with actual criminals.

People, it's not about whether or not someone has committed a crime that can be classified as "violent" or "non-violent." It's a matter of breaking the social contract. The concept of forfeiture of rights is as old as the concept of the rule of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Court: Arizona can restore gun rights to felons convicted in other states
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
P
  • Locked
Federal Judge Restores Non-Violent Offender’s Gun Rights Following Landmark Case
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
theotherwaldo
theotherwaldo
A
  • Locked
Appeals court strikes down ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
Replies
2
Views
347
Robert
Robert
Y
  • Locked
NC Supreme Court: Felon wins the right to own a gun!
Replies
9
Views
2K
Zoogster
Z
A
  • Locked
Federal Government Bans Conservative Laura Loomer from Owning Guns
Replies
14
Views
2K
hso
hso
Back
Top