Restore gun rights for certain felons?

Restore rights for certain felons?

  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not going to vote a blanket yes or no. Having worked in corrections for 2 years, there is no blanket good choice when it comes to felons restoring their rights. The VAST majority of felons that get released from prison will offend again. The ones that learn from their mistakes and try to live as a law abiding citizen are rare in my experience.

I do think the process for rights restoration should be very simple. Serve your time, be conviction free for 1-3 years (minus small time crimes like speeding tickets, a few misdemeanors etc) and you should vote and get a clear NCIS record to buy firearms. There needs to be incentive for felons NOT to commit more crime. Typically a felon is a black mark that follows a person around forever. Few companies will hire a convicted felon for much more than gopher labor. One of my repeater inmates had all sorts of tattoos. His skin was essentially his jail and prison record all over his body. After his second arrest he started to get tattoos on his face. One day I asked him why he did that, that it would be hard to get a job when he gets back on the street. He told me the tattoos on his face were like the black mark on his record. He just decided to put it on his face so everyone would see and not just an employer who would turn him down anyway. There is a lot of sense in what he said. He is doing 15 years for armed robbery.
 
sherrick13 said:
No. The main reason is they overwhelming vote Democrat. Which is the real reason for the current push.

Also my LEO experience showed me that with very few exceptions, once a felon always a felon.

The pardon process is there for those that deserve it.
Click to expand...

The former Democrat Gov. released a few thousand convicts right before the Presidential campaign for Hillary. For sure voting rights were restored. They did not care who they put back on the streets. When you commit a crime it use to be you would lose your voting rights and gun rights. You did the crime, you paid the price. If you did not want to lose those rights, simply don't do the crime. This sick liberal world now will put a child molester on the streets again and say oh, he is now a nice guy. BS.
 
I am not going to vote a blanket yes or no. Having worked in corrections for 2 years, there is no blanket good choice when it comes to felons restoring their rights. The VAST majority of felons that get released from prison will offend again. The ones that learn from their mistakes and try to live as a law abiding citizen are rare in my experience.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!?!? You mean since PRISONS became Correctional Institutions, the bad behavior hasn't been corrected? SHOCKED I tell ya, just SHOCKED!:D:p

I don't care if it's violent or not; if the person does their FULL sentence, then their "debt to society" has been paid and they should get ALL of the rights back. If they are not fit to be in society, then why are we letting them out? This system of "justice" has turned into a game and a scam; someone does the crime, a "plea" is parlayed, the crook is let out early (because God forbid it gets too crowded) so they can do something again, get arrested and the DA and defense attorneys play the game again............and again............and again.

Simple: NO parole, no time off for good behavior - you serve your time and out you go back into society with full rights restored.
 
As an employer I have tried in the past to hire felons who had served their time and seemed to be trying to put their lives back together. So far I am 0 for 4. I now believe that there is something wrong in the brains of those who believe that committing whatever offense they were convicted of was okay. They can operate in society for periods of time but there always seems to be something that triggers an unacceptable response in certain situations. I have no medical proof for any of what I have just stated, it is merely from observation of my experiences with two white and two black felons.
 
larryh1108 said:
Losing your rights is part of the sentence. It is supposed to be a deterrent. If you decide to give up your gun rights for life by choosing to commit the felony, then you give up your right to be trusted by society to own one. Yeah, he can get it illegally. If caught, he should be put back in jail. Again, his choices put him there. Society didn't, he did it to himself.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a RIGHT, this is non negotiable, if you served your time for a non violent felony you should absolutely have your rights be reinstated. This is not a privilege that you get to decide that your "uncomfortable" with and even if you do feel that way you have no right to infringe on the rights of others if you do than ask yourself if you truly support this constitution?
 
Personally, I also object to the sexual predator label after a sentence is finished, ESPECIALLY when the incident was one of those 18 y.o. bfs and their 16-17 y.o. gfs. Again, if someone is a serious danger to society, why are we letting them out? I guess the Libertarian in me just sees this "stuff" as unjust and unnecessary.
 
Doc Samson said:
I don't think it's hard to understand. My point being that if we trust someone to act in a responsible, rational manner and become a productive member of society after serving their sentence; if we trust them to be back in the general populace, then they should be trusted to own a firearm. It's not like they couldn't get one if they really wanted one, right?

If we cannot trust them, then they shouldn't be out... and many of them shouldn't be out.
Click to expand...

Laws set incarceration time limits for a crime so once the time has been served the felon is released regardless of how good or bad he was in prison. What about the multiple violent offence felon? How can we trust him/her not to commit another violent crime because they served their sentence? I have no problem giving rights back to non-violent felons but a violent criminal should never get any rights back. Its been awhile since I've seen recidivism rates but they are high. Trust is earned not given just because the felon served his sentence.
 
George P said:
I don't care if it's violent or not; if the person does their FULL sentence, then their "debt to society" has been paid and they should get ALL of the rights back. If they are not fit to be in society, then why are we letting them out? This system of "justice" has turned into a game and a scam; someone does the crime, a "plea" is parlayed, the crook is let out early (because God forbid it gets too crowded) so they can do something again, get arrested and the DA and defense attorneys play the game again............and again............and again.
Click to expand...

Your oversimplification view is wholly flawed. Rehabilitation opportunities exist in prison. Few are taken seriously as a way to better themselves. So you think the automatic return of stricken rights is incentive to behave? I can guarantee you it isn't. One of my primary duties as an officer was to get inmate and their on hand property at the time of arrest ready to transport to prison. I sent over 400 people to prisons all over the country. Every single one of them was GLAD to go to prison. And not a single one of them would ever care to get their voting or gun rights back.
 
There's talk of people saying people never truly change, and how "once a felon, always a felon" and to a degree I even may feel sympathy for that notion. However we must remember that age old qoute from Jefferson "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". I did not serve this country's armed forces for one free citizen to restrict a brother their freedoms, even if they committed a non violent felony after they have paid for it. I said earlier how can we value our constitution if we state they cannot own weapons but I'll dig a little deeper, how can we say that we have Judeo-Christian values (with a central tenet being mercy/forgiveness) if we are not willing to move on from ones past? I don't know how many of you follow that faith and I won't talk less of you for doing so but for those that do, are you willing to say that man like St. Paul a notes persecutor of christians could be hated and vilified by his church brother's even after his conversion? Doesn't make sense to me.
 
Should it be automatic? No, probably not.

Should the process be more streamlined for nonviolent offenders to earn their rights back? In my opinion, yes.
 
herrwalther said:
Your oversimplification view is wholly flawed. Rehabilitation opportunities exist in prison. Few are taken seriously as a way to better themselves. So you think the automatic return of stricken rights is incentive to behave? I can guarantee you it isn't. One of my primary duties as an officer was to get inmate and their on hand property at the time of arrest ready to transport to prison. I sent over 400 people to prisons all over the country. Every single one of them was GLAD to go to prison. And not a single one of them would ever care to get their voting or gun rights back.
Click to expand...
I do NOT believe that getting "rights" back is any incentive. Most felons don't vote, as I said, and if they want a gun, they'll get one. It comes down to a point of law - either they did their time and have "paid their debt to society", or they haven't. If WE, as a society, deem them able to be released and debt paid, then give them back their rights.
 
George Dickel said:
Laws set incarceration time limits for a crime so once the time has been served the felon is released regardless of how good or bad he was in prison. What about the multiple violent offence felon? How can we trust him/her not to commit another violent crime because they served their sentence? I have no problem giving rights back to non-violent felons but a violent criminal should never get any rights back. Its been awhile since I've seen recidivism rates but they are high. Trust is earned not given just because the felon served his sentence.
Click to expand...

Then WHY is that violent person being set free in the first place? Maybe they should be placed under house arrest in the home of the judge, lawyer or DA who pled things down originally. THAT would stop this turnstile justcie and keep those who need to in prison or executed away from the rest of us - right?
 
The lefty’s are for all rights except gun ones. If you are an illegal alien, felon, that has a gun, that’s someone else’s fault, not yours...
 
George P said:
I do NOT believe that getting "rights" back is any incentive. Most felons don't vote, as I said, and if they want a gun, they'll get one. It comes down to a point of law - either they did their time and have "paid their debt to society", or they haven't. If WE, as a society, deem them able to be released and debt paid, then give them back their rights.
Click to expand...

The idea behind a gradual restoration of rights was to invoke a similar type of trust system a felon was accustomed to. While incarcerated, an inmate can earn benefits with good behavior. You can get work details and more free time out of your cell, by behaving. The ones that go through the process to earn their rights back typically value their freedom more. And it is not "we" who decide when someone is released. Judges and politicians do that. Overcrowding is a serious issue. And pressure valve orders happen all the time. Regardless of how good an offender has been.

What is the point of restoring rights? It isn't working as an incentive. And it is not an easy process. Bureaucracy is slow and lazy. Reactivating a voter registration or a clear NCIS record for a firearm isn't easy. Restoring rights isn't as easy as flipping a light switch. And if most offenders are just going to re offend anyway, why waste the process to restore rights they just lose again in 4 months or less?
 
Last edited:
George P said:
Then WHY is that violent person being set free in the first place? Maybe they should be placed under house arrest in the home of the judge, lawyer or DA who pled things down originally. THAT would stop this turnstile justcie and keep those who need to in prison or executed away from the rest of us - right?
Click to expand...

Plea bargains have nothing to do with the sentence the law stipulates for a crime. You need to ask your political representatives WHY, they are the ones who pass the laws establishing time to be served and pass laws allowing for plea bargains.
 
Then WHY is that violent person being set free in the first place? Maybe they should be placed under house arrest in the home of the judge, lawyer or DA who pled things down originally.
Click to expand...

Then they wouldn’t be let out.

Look at the people calling foul when folks are shipped from the TX boarder into their State. Crickets made more racket when it was “our” problem....
 
If someone is too dangerous to be allowed firearms, he's too dangerous to be running around loose. If mentally ill, he belongs in a secure psychiatric hospital where he can receive appropriate treatment. Otherwise, he belongs in a prison cell where he has no access to victims.

My own preference is for restorative justice for non-violent crimes. It does no one any good, for example, to put an embezzler in prison where he costs taxpayers' money and his victims lose what he stole. Instead, put him to work, in a job where he doesn't have an opportunity to repeat his crime, so that he he can repay his victims. For violent crimes where the law authorizes defense using deadly force, the only punishment should be imprisonment for the rest of the criminal's life. He shouldn't complain since he is still alive.
 
Alaska grants nonviolent felons their rights back after 10 years, automatically.

People make mistakes, some learn, some don’t, and there are innocent people in prison.

There are a lot of guys in prison who are motivated with the return to society and their former lives outside.

Most of the criminals who commit crimes against people don’t care about anyone’s rights, not theirs, not the victims.
 
Last edited:
I really don't like the idea of second class citizens. Any restriction of rights should have an expiration, by and large I prefer a society where the guy next to me has the same rights I do. Otherwise they're not really my peers, are they?

If you can vote, you can shoot. At least in my book.
 
zdc1775 said:
I've been saying this for years. If someone cannot be trusted to own a gun and not misuse it then they cannot be trusted to be in society in general.
Click to expand...
Doc Samson said:
As noted, it is a right. If, according to the law, you have served your sentence and have been deemed "okay" to return to society, then all rights should be restored.
Click to expand...
Spoken like people who really believe that their states' sentencing laws are not the ridiculous mess of compromises and efforts to save the states money on the costs of incarceration. Most folks have absolutely no clue about just how absurd sentencing laws have become, and how few people end up serving serious time for their offenses.

Some of you might also be taken in by the way most states game their recidivism statistics. For example, my state doesn't consider it recidivism if an offender goes three years without return to prison since their last incarceration. Clearly, that creates a sparkling, low rate to show off how effective our state's prison programs are. Yeah, right.

Also, as time goes by, I become truly disappointed by the decrease in the number of citizens who understand the concept of the social contract.

There are very few categories of felonies that I'd even consider letting those convicted of them to have their gun rights restored. If you have beaten a woman, you should never get your gun rights back. If you've sold drugs to minors, same. Sex offenses, same. I don't have a problem with there being a process for which felons can petition for restoration of their gun rights, but it should be difficult, and predicated on several years of crime-free behavior post-incarceration.
 
We are not supposed to have a caste society.

We are rapidly becoming one. We are making different classes of people with different sets of rights. Whether it is for employment, firearms, traveling or voting people are now placed in categories.

I can foresee a society where if you want to do just about anything you must declare what caste you belong to. Only class 3a citizens can buy guns, class 2b citizens can board airplanes, etc.

If you think it is ridiculous, look at China. They are doing just that.

So I think that if you are on this side of the prison walls you should be free.
 
If you oppose people being able to exercise their rights in full after being released from prison because of the high rate of repeat offenders...you are basically saying that individual rights are dependent on the crime rate.

If the crime rate is high then people should have their guns taken from them.

Think about that.
 
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
If you paid your time for the crime you should get all rights back that were previously surrendered. Not to hard to see the issue with that
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. I don't believe the "debt to society" can ever be fully repaid. There is a breach of trust between the felon and the society. Loss of rights and the negative stigma (employment discrimination, disqualification for certain career fields, etc.) that comes with committing a felony should be considered part of the punishment. If you want to own guns, vote in elections, and hold down a meaningful job, don't commit crimes. The laws of our nation are not so onerous so as to make it difficult to stay out of prison.
 
George P said:
Except most of those do not vote anyway; and if they want a gun, they'll find a way to get one - so no deterrent in that regard.
Click to expand...
That's okay. Felons don't follow laws, that's why they're felons. If it's illegal for a felon to have a gun and he "finds a way to get one" (your words), then we've got a nice 8x10 cell waiting for him. No problem at all.

As I said earlier, it's not hard to stay out of prison in America. And honestly, I'm pretty fed up with all the crime and drugs in this country. There is no excuse for it. At this point, I'm perfectly happy with half the population in prison and the other half guarding them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
For those who think felons should never have guns...
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Replies
346
Views
15K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
D
  • Locked
A legal argument for depriving felons of gun rights
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
3K
KiltedClaymore
K
G
  • Locked
Mention of "guns and felons" on The Dresden Files last night (3/25)
Replies
5
Views
757
morte
M
W
  • Locked
A MOTHER defends her kids; shoots attacker
Replies
20
Views
2K
TearsOfRage
T
A
  • Locked
Court: Arizona can restore gun rights to felons convicted in other states
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top