Your opinion on felons owning guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is one of those issues that always gets me riled up, because I think people on gun boards don't take a very holistic view of the situation. The system is not ideal, but the situation the system addresses defies one-size-fits-all solutions. I think there is a large stream of gun people who think it would be better if convicted felons were either fully restored to civil society on release or kept locked away indefinitely until they 'can be trusted.'

I think that's unabashed idiocy for the following reasons:

1. Indefinite imprisonment is a much grosser violation of constitutional rights than denial of 2A rights. Sometimes I think that gun people forget that there are nine other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and that the second is not the only one that is important.
2. None of the people promoting this viewpoint have yet brought forth a compelling system by which we can determine how and when convicts are 'trustworthy' enough for release.
3. We already have overcrowded jails in which people who probably should be in jail don't make it there, so extending all sentences for felons to 'indefinite' is not only unlawful and immoral but also impractical.

I do think that restriction of 2A rights should not be an automatic occurrence based on a felony conviction, because I think that punishments should be related to the crime. White-collar offenders, nonviolent drug offenders, etc. perhaps should not be automatically denied their right to own guns for the remainder of their lives.
 
If it were not for drug and alcohol addiction the above mentioned crimes would be trivial.

Have you sat down in a jail lately and talked to a inmate lately? I have and not one of the thousands of men and women I have spoken with in various programs has not been under the influence in regards to what got them there.

Yeah white collar, non drug exists but it's so rare in the general population.

What's your point, though? You might as well say that if it wasn't for violent crime, violent crime wouldn't be a problem. The point is that nearly a million people who are currently incarcerated are in that state because they were convicted of violent crimes, regardless of whether drug or alcohol addiction was a factor in that.
 
Like other's have said, if someone is deemed OK to release back into society then they should have full rights restored.

If we are THAT afraid of a "violent offender" owning a firearm, they should still be locked up because as we all know, they'll obtain a firearms if they want one regardless of what the law says. Are we also going to bar violent offenders from owning baseball bats, crowbars, duct tape and gasoline?
 
I grew up with a whole bunch of career criminals. All in their forties now, most still in and out of prison, and every one of them has at least one gun. These guys are mostly drug guys,a couple of career burglars, one guy that thought he was a stick up kid. I don't go around these people anymore, and I don't believe they should own guns. The way the world works, though, they will always have access to one if they need it.
 
A guilty pleasure; I like to ask more progressive/liberal minded people when they think convicted felons should have their voting rights and other civil liberties restored to them after their sentence has been served. Almost without exception they tell me as soon as they are released (if not while still incarcerated). I remind them that Illinois does exactly that. And then I ask them when their right to own a firearm should be restored...THAT zinger usually clashes the gears. Personally I believe that a restoration of liberties after a sentence/parole have been completed must needs include the right to arms or the entire concept of 'paying one's debt' goes out the window.
 
It's not a simple question because people are complicated and diverse. If you rob someone at gunpoint or fire into an apartment complex, I don't see any reason to give you another bite of the apple. It is likely you are going to do what you bloody well please because laws didn't stop you in the first place, but there is no way you should have the same treatment as all other citizens. Long term imprisonment isn't the solution, but total restoration without regard to the facts of the felony committed is not wise.

More worrisome for me is the ever-expanding universe of acts now defined as felonies, such as tax evasion, bribing an official or possessing a gun with evil features. None of those should be felonies, much less forfeit rights of American citizens.

If I recall correctly, the federal laws prohibiting gun ownership by persons convicted of a felony had a provision for restoration of rights, but anti-gun lobbyists were able to remove that office/process from the budget, so that part of the law could never be discharged. Now there's behavior that qualifies as a felony in my eyes.
 
This is a complicated question.
Until 1969, there was not a uniform proscription for felons.
There had been a patchwork of State laws on the topic; it was really down to the Judge in a case to gin up a lifetime prohibition. And, that had served the United States for most of the 20th Century; and a significant portion of the 19th as well.
The number and scope of felonious crimes also vastly expanded from the 70s on, too.

And to some absurd levels, too. Carrying a live plant over State lines without a permit being one.
 
Met my fare share of felons. Accidentally sold a shotgun to one aloooooooooong time ago. Ftf sale didn’t know he was one. Nothing happened to me. He got a year. Cool dude. Until I got that phone call at work. He called to get bonded out. Couldn’t help him.
 
Should we pay for our mistakes we made in our younger days until we die? Should we lose our driving license forever because we had one accident during our younger, inexperienced days?

I think if you paid your debt to society and did your time, you should be allowed to defend your life and lives of your loved ones.
In much of the world one DUI and you lose your license for life. The US is one of the few countries that lets drunks drive and the driving fatalities bear that out.
 
Well you asked so.

I am absolutely for restoring rights to many, if not most felons, but I only support it after other things happen and those things will never happen,

So I am currently against restoring rights to felons, and I don’t see that ever changing.
 
Since when do felons give a darn? You should be more worried about child molesters, and violent offenders.

Freedom and liberty has never been safe. If these people earned the right to go back into society, they should be allowed the entire deal.

I do think that we need fair game laws. No non-felon should be convicted from a troublesome run in, with released violent felons. Under any circumstance. They'll have to be on their best behavior, if a scared society can hunt them on a whim.
 
. White collar or violent you made a decision that has consequences of loss of firearm ownership,that you knew before doing the crime. If you cant do the time(time including not owning or possesing a firearm when released) dont do the crime.
 
. White collar or violent you made a decision that has consequences of loss of firearm ownership,that you knew before doing the crime.

This is nowhere near always true. Their have been entire books written to explain how most Americans commit multiple felonies a day, without even knowing it.

That said, and to your point, the overwhelming majority of the people in prison didn’t unknowingly commit a felony.
 
Do our prisons rehabilitate criminals, and change them into law-abiding citizens so when they get out they finally know right from wrong?

Didn't think so.

So, what does "serving your time" have to do with anything?
 
When did this whole “felon owning guns” become a thing anyway? ‘68 GCA?
 
Do our prisons rehabilitate criminals, and change them into law-abiding citizens so when they get out they finally know right from wrong?

Didn't think so.

So, what does "serving your time" have to do with anything?
Maybe we should rethink that whole thing.
 
Mixed feelings on this subject: in the case of non-violent crimes and "process" crimes, sure let them have their rights restored. In the case of violent crimes, it gets a bit trickier and needs to be handled on a case by case basis; for instance, a paroled armed robber who, within a week of release, gets another "street gun" and repeats the same crime? Hell No! Recidivism should probably be a bar until a certain period of "good behavior" on the outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top