Felons and their 2nd amendment rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlueHeelerFl

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
1,386
Location
Treasure Coast, FL
With the movement to return voting rights to felons, both nationally and locally like my home state of FL, is there any push to similarly return 2nd amendment rights to felons?
 
Hmmm, politicians have a natural born instinct to do whatever it takes to get votes, I can't think of a single thing a politician stands to gain from restoring gun rights to felons.

That said, many states have a legal process in place where a felon can have gun rights restored, it usually means having the felony set aside, expunged or otherwise made to appear as if it didn't happen. For all intents if a felony conviction ceases to exist it's no longer a gun possession impairment.
 
I doubt it's politically tenable at the moment. There are people who believe that once a felon has served their sentence and they're free (out of jail, prison and off probation or parole) that they should have 2nd Amendment rights. The reasoning is if as a society we can't trust them with a firearm, they should remain locked up. If we decide they can be trusted to drive a car or truck among the public, maintaining a firearms restriction is hypocritical. It can become problematic, however, to be identified as a person or organization that is advocating for firearms rights for convicted felons when a portion of the society views firearms possession as an activity with purely criminal motive.

Bikemutt pointed out that felony convictions can be reversed, expunged, pardoned. I believe this is the best way forward for a convicted felon as it almost always restores all rights (there can be some exceptions in some states). Because I believe it's the best way, I would advocate for the restoration of voting rights to be tied to pardon rather than another path that only restores the voting right. Efforts could be focused on making pardon accessible to more or even most convicts who have served their sentences. The way the criminal justice system works now, however, results in a high rate of recidivism, and prior convictions are a very influential factor in sentencing. In other words, the criminal justice system works in a way where it tests people over the course of several convictions before it determines a serious, powerful and effective remedy is needed. Because of that, we have a lot of convicts turned out of custody that are highly likely to repeat offenses, and smoothing the path to pardon for them won't be productive. So ultimately I don't think reform of criminal justice and restoration of civil rights is the goal of most felon-voter advocates. Instead, I think it's a ploy to increase Democrat, liberal, socialist votes. Reformed felons shouldn't be fooled and instead of doing a favor for shady politicians, should hope for full restoration of rights.
 
AlexA is right on, this is simply a ploy to get Dem voters. They are NOT interested in freedom nor rights, simply more votes.

I think a person should get their 2A rights back in time and depending on their criminal history. ie; a bar fight at 20 should not stop someone from owning a firearm forever. Now, if you like to rob people at gunpoint and do so many times that may be a different situation.
 
Watch out too for the misdemeanor expansion list; I don't believe there is any legal procedure to "expunge" a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor domestic violence is a kiss of death for firearm rights. Any crime where a judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence is a disqualifier. Frankly, I'm surprised more states haven't pounced on this, yet.

Not saying I think wife-beaters should get a pass, just pointing out that while watching for aircraft, keep an eye out for submarines.
 
The liberals who desire to substantially increase their voting base aren't thinking of 2nd Amendment rights. They know only that folks who've been to prison tend to overwhelmingly vote a straight Democrat ticket.
There are people who believe that once a felon has served their sentence and they're free (out of jail, prison and off probation or parole) that they should have 2nd Amendment rights. The reasoning is if as a society we can't trust them with a firearm, they should remain locked up. If we decide they can be trusted to drive a car or truck among the public, maintaining a firearms restriction is hypocritical. It can become problematic, however, to be identified as a person or organization that is advocating for firearms rights for convicted felons when a portion of the society views firearms possession as an activity with purely criminal motive.
Perhaps some seriously need to read up on the "social contract." There's long-standing philosophical and legal precedent for denying those who've broken the social contract their right to bear arms. I personally believe they should have to demonstrate over a period of years post-incarceration that they have reformed and should be allowed to vote.

While I consider myself a 2nd Amendment absolutist, there are absolutely people out there that I believe should not be allowed to possess firearms. Ever, again. The whole voting thing … several years ago, a couple thousand convicted felons (along with a couple thousand deceased folks still on the voter rolls) cast their ballots, which counted, and elected a liberal Democrat to the governorship of my state; she promptly turned a budget surplus into a record budget deficit.
 
It is a difficult philosophical question. What makes a citizen? Do you lose your citizenship for life once arrested for a felony? Should there multiple tiers of citizenship? It seems like a difficult position to endorse.
 
There's long-standing philosophical and legal precedent for denying those who've broken the social contract their right to bear arms.

Why is it that their right to bear arms is withheld, but not their right to drive a truck or fly an airplane?

I personally believe they should have to demonstrate over a period of years post-incarceration that they have reformed and should be allowed to vote.

While I consider myself a 2nd Amendment absolutist, there are absolutely people out there that I believe should not be allowed to possess firearms. Ever, again. ...

Should those same people be allowed to drive a truck on public roads? Some of them, if they remain incarcerated, obviously will not. But what would the 2nd Amendment absolutist say about those driving trucks?
 
Labnoti: "The way the criminal justice system works now, however, results in a high rate of recidivism, and prior convictions are a very influential factor in sentencing. In other words, the criminal justice system works in a way where it tests people over the course of several convictions before it determines a serious, powerful and effective remedy is needed. Because of that, we have a lot of convicts turned out of custody that are highly likely to repeat offenses."

That is an OUTSTANDING way to explain that. Articulate and concise.
 
labnoti writes:

But what would the 2nd Amendment absolutist say about those driving trucks?

Probably not much, since driving trucks isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment and, in the case of nearly every felon who has had his or her RTKBA suspended due to willful and wanton criminal activity, the use of a truck to cause harm was not involved. In fact, it's so rare as to be a non-issue. The "felon restriction" for firearms ownership was enacted more to "regulate" people who had "proven" themselves to be criminally-inclined, not necessarily just negligent. It may be outdated now, as the lines between "good" people and "bad" people has gotten so blurred.

I don't believe a person's driver's license should be automatically suspended or revoked when they're convicted of a crime unless the crime itself involved the criminal use of the privilege granted by that license (in many cases, suspensions or revocations of driver's licenses have continued long after an individual's release from incarceration.) I also have never believed that one's Second Amendment rights should be stripped automatically, either, unless the criminal use/misuse of weapons and/or violence was involved in the crime(s) for which the felony conviction is placed.

Someone who is charged with the responsibility to evaluate an appealing felon's case could certainly take into consideration the nature of the crime(s) that got him into trouble in the first place. I do believe there are people who should continue to remain under firearms-restrictions due to convictions of violent crime(s), but should be permitted to drive if driving was never a factor in that, or any other, criminal activity. I also believe there are those who should be disallowed from driving if they've proven unfit for it due to criminal activity or irresponsibility in driving, but should maintain their RTKBA if that was never a factor.
 
Last edited:
I categorize driving trucks as more of a privilege than a natural right. You may not, and if so, we'll simply agree to disagree.

And if you use a motor vehicle to commit harm on another human, I have no problem with you losing your driver license, forever. In my mom's homeland, if you get a drunk driving conviction, you lose your driver license permanently. It's a pretty good solution, because that nation doesn't have a DUI problem like ours. Anyone here believe that our country doesn't have an overwhelming problem of drunk drivers? Look to your own state's numbers of persons incarcerated for committing vehicular homicide. I have personally experienced far, far more encounters with the aftermath of drunk, impaired or stupid drivers than I have with firearms violence, so my tolerance level for vehicular misdeeds is probably much lower than most of you.
 
Most felonies don't involve the use of a firearm, and yet all felonies result in the permanent loss of firearm rights. Millions of felony convicts have never possessed a firearm, but still lost their rights.
There are far more felony DUI convictions than convictions involving firearms, and in most states, a felony convict's driving priveledges can be restored after one to a few years.

It would seem that priveledges lost due to their direct and specific abuse are easier to restore than rights that are lost due to actions that don't even involve the use of those rights.

What purpose does it serve to permanently remove a felony DUI convict's gun rights, but quickly restore his driving priveledges?
 
....I don't believe a person's driver's license should be automatically suspended or revoked when they're convicted of a crime unless the crime itself involved the criminal use of the privilege granted by that license (in many cases, suspensions or revocations of driver's licenses have continued long after an individual's release from incarceration.) I also have never believed that one's Second Amendment rights should be stripped automatically, either, unless the criminal use/misuse of weapons and/or violence was involved in the crime(s) for which the felony conviction is placed.

Someone who is charged with the responsibility to evaluate an appealing felon's case could certainly take into consideration the nature of the crime(s) that got him into trouble in the first place. I do believe there are people who should continue to remain under firearms-restrictions due to convictions of violent crime(s), but should be permitted to drive if driving was never a factor in that, or any other, criminal activity. I also believe there are those who should be disallowed from driving if they've proven unfit for it due to criminal activity or irresponsibility in driving, but should maintain their RTKBA if that was never a factor.

It sounds like the sensibility of this reasoning could be addressed by giving judges the power to sentence convicts appropriately instead of having automatic consequences based on mostly arbitrary categories of offenses. Our justice system does have a measure of accountability for judges that sentence with an inappropriate lightness of severity, and I believe there is also relief available to those sentenced with inappropriate hardness. I imagine if the judiciary were to have more power over sentencing and consequences that those things might need to be revisited, but as it is, we have the legislature dictating sentences and consequences based on political motivations rather than for the sake of justice.
 
In general I think that if a felon is too dangerous to have a firearm, they should still be incarcerated. But, I do have some conflicting thoughts.

My biggest issue is how the definition of felon has expanded over the years. The big categories like murder, assault, rape, etc I don't have much sympathy for. However, violent and morally reprehensible crimes are not the only convictions that constitute felonies. IIRC in Alabama the difference between misdemeanor and felony theft occurs at $500. I don't think a guy who (nonviolently) stole a cell phone or a TV is really deserving of a lifetime ban on firearms, but that's how our legal system is currently structured.
 
These threads always seem to devolve into shouting that felons should either have their gun rights restored immediately upon release from prison or that they should be locked up until they can be trusted to have guns again. Someone always chimes in saying that millions of felons aren't violent.

The latter statement is broadly speaking, untrue - research fairly consistently shows that something like 90+ percent of prisoners were convicted of a violent crime or were repeated nonviolent offenders; and the former statement is nonsensical in the context of a Bill of Rights that has a Fifth Amendment as well as a Second Amendment; and it is also inconsistent with the gun rights community's consensus belief about firearms rights in all other respects.

With the movement to return voting rights to felons, both nationally and locally like my home state of FL, is there any push to similarly return 2nd amendment rights to felons?

Obviously not, because felons would reliably vote for one particular party, whereas said party would derive no benefit from the restoration of their firearms ownership rights.
 
Last edited:
i don't have a problem with felons permanently losing their Second Amendment rights.

Yep, some folks on these boards shill for the Second amendment rights of convicted felons. Does anyone
ever check the recidivism rate of released felons?

  • "Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
  • Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
  • Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
  • Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders."
https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx

IMO: Drunk drivers should permanently lose their drivers license after the third offense. A friend of mine went to prison for the third offense of drunk driving. The man had inherited two large businesses, a construction company and a trucking company. Couple years after release he drove a heavy truck drunk and killed a 12 year old girl. This time the jury called it second degree murder. He lost both companies in the civil lawsuit that followed.

A good read on the conditions felons faced at the time the Constitution was written:

https://nypost.com/2008/07/22/gun-rights-for-felons/
 
Last edited:
Most felony crimes in America are not violent offenses.

Consider the case of Joe Robertson. Joe was a 78 year old Navy veteran who was sentenced to 18 months in Federal Prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks.

His crime? Digging a series of small ponds near his home to supply water for firefighters. According to US Government he dug the ponds to close to “navigable waters” which was a stream one foot wide and one foot deep.

I wonder how any members of THR have committed a felony drug offense? Easily well over half. More likely 2/3. The only difference is they were not or have not been caught.

But what the hey? The law should only apply to other folks right?
 
There is also a massive number of felony convictions that do not result in any prison time. As someone already pointed out, stealing an item worth more than ~$500 (exact amount varies by state law) amounts to felony grand theft, but I can assure you that first offenders that steal a phone, a bicycle, a television, even a gun or a car are unlikely to spend any time in prison at all. The most likely sentence for these first-time *felony* convictions (assuming charges are not reduced to a misdemeanor in a plea deal), is 6 months in county jail (not state prison), and the convicted person could actually spend as little as 0 to 30 days in jail because they get credit for "good behavior." Full sentences are rarely served except by the most troublesome convicts. They could also go to a diversion program, work furlough, weekend work, home arrest with an ankle monitor, or simply receive a suspended sentence (no jail time) and probation.

I'm not offering an opinion on this. It's just a fact. I think some people mistakenly believe that convicted felons have all spent a year or more in state prison. Felonies are generally offenses punishable by more than 1 year in prison, but there are a lot of felony convictions that go with no prison time, and very little or no jail time.
 
Fix the 70+% recidivism rate and I’ll agree with giving them rights back, until then, sorry.

Basically, I completely agree with the general sentiment of “if they’re to dangerous to own a gun, then they are too dangerous to be out of prison .”
That’s correct the problem is, they are to dangerous to be out of prison! But they are still out. Out....but with a gun rights isn't the fix.
 
The recidivism rate of released prisoners isn't the same as that of convicted felons because as we've seen, felony convictions do not mean prison time, but recidivism itself isn't a justification for stripping firearms rights. I already mentioned the drunk trucker whose firearm rights are permanently stripped, but his driving privilege quickly restored. Some people may feel good that a chronic car thief or meth trafficker's firearms rights are permanently stripped even if they suffer no consequence that actually stops them from repeating their offenses. Let me be clear I'm not advocating for the preservation of their firearm rights, just pointing out the irrationality and hypocrisy of those who insist on and are happy with stripping away those rights while nothing meaningful is accomplished by it.
 

Not all felons even broke the law......
19 seconds in is the most cut, not a pause, as a pause wouldn’t have missing info, according to Olympus Tec, makers of the recorders used by Troopers that day. Both AST had differences in recorded verses actual recorded time lost due to editing and each edit being snapped to or back to the whole second.
Alaska State Troopers Chris Bitz 5 seconds, Gordon Young 11 seconds are “missing” from their recordings.

I’ve been approached by two other men who claim AST G Young alters their recordings.

Nothing like being framed with edited recordings for perjury.....cutting out the relevant parts and using the tampered recordings to indict and convict me took years to unravel, and dealing with the FBI , lawyers, courts, etc, is a long, slow process........and the two Troopers still work as Troopers......and evidence tampering IS a felony........
As was lying about it in court, and obstructing justice, and false imprisonment.

As I was a felon for 5 years and did a year in prison, I’ll let you know the Dems have few friends in the system. Every criminal in there recognized Hillary was a crook, no doubts.

After probation,I had black powder guns, but pyrotechnics ain’t much good below zero, I had to wait until Dec 2017 to be legal to own and use guns again, both state and Federally.

I sued to get the conviction set aside, as Alaska has no expungements, I’m further sueing for a full dismissal.

Most guys in prison are just regular guys, like cross section of America, and not so violent. Don’t get me wrong, most deserve the time in, but losing basic rights all your life shouldn’t be the punishment for all of them.

In Alaska, if your not a violent felon, you do your time, and after 10 years of no further legal problems, you get firearms rights back for long arms. State and Fed laws differ, and that ,too, can trip a lot of guys up. If you get your Rights back, be sure you consult a lawyer and a second opinion....
 
Last edited:
P5 Guy writes:

Certainly not part of the 2nd, but what about the amendment that talking about those not mentioned are still rights?

The rest of the post from which you pulled this line:

Probably not much, since driving trucks isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment..
(and the line wasn't even pulled in its entirety.)

.. covered my opinion on it.
 
Most guys in prison are just regular guys, like cross section of America, and not so violent. Don’t get me wrong, most deserve the time in, but losing basic rights all your life shouldn’t be the punishment for all of them.

Don't tell me that line. i worked as a corrections officer. 20 percent of convicts at the prison i worked at would be comfortable in cutting a persons throat then sitting on the body and eating a sack lunch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top