A legal argument for depriving felons of gun rights
- Thread starter damien
- Start date
- Status
Dustinthewind
Member
Once again I feel that i must point out that not all felonies should result in a loss of your second amendment rights. My grandfather is a farmer and carries an '06 in the back window of his pickup, and yes it is loaded. In the county that he lives in this is perfectly legal, however some cities in neighboring counties have laws that make this a felony. If he needs a part for his tractor and ventures into said city should he lose his right to own a firearm? By the way, this man is a WWII vet that jumped out of a perfectly good airplane on D-Day.
TCB in TN
Member
Not all felonies should end up with a loss of rights. That said those who murder, rape, and commit violent crime should not be pushed back off on society.
KiltedClaymore
Member
agreed. folks make mistakes, sometimes they really stomp on themselves with the golf shoes on. but no one (my opinion) really makes a violent mistake that lands them in prison.
lions said:
Sad but yes. In the greater scheme of things it is better for humanity to accept a personal loss in order to further the greater good. Also, you're using emotional appeal which you shouldn't use in a logical debate. Does the argument "Would you still like guns if you or your family are the victim of guns?" sound familiar?
Correct me where I'm wrong but your "greater good" is letting out felons for the sake of the repentant ones and letting the rest continue hurting people. Very idealistic but I don't feel bad for reformed felons that have not been let out. The fact that they are still "in" tells me two things, they committed a felony and they have not served their sentence. If a felon has been reformed that is great but it doesn't change the facts. Action... consequence. If a felon has to serve a life sentence for something they did, regardless of if they are now reformed or not, so be it.
Very familiar but one big difference, we have the right to own guns.
Convicted felons gave up their rights when they committed and were convicted of a felony.
The reason so many people are against guns is because of gun crime. They think taking away guns will help lower crime rates, good intentions but a little off. My solution to crime rates would be more severe penalties for all criminals, hence my position on letting out criminals.
People with over a pound of black powder in CA can be charged with a felony. Yeah I am sure the founders would have agreed with that. 
People with a firearm even in the home without a permit requiring government permission and fees can be charged with a felony some places.
Even many insane felonies exist in a place like Texas.
The list goes on and on and is far too numerous to cite all the silly felonies. There is many felonies.
The purpose of the 2nd, so all the people possessed firearms capable of resisting tyranny, foriegn and domestic soldiers and other agents, and providing for effective deterent involves even what qualifies as 'violent crime'.
A term like "felony" is highly misleading, felonies are created by legislation of those in power.
The very rulers the 2nd is supposed to balance.
Even a simple term like "violent felony" can involve felonies that are not predatory.
Anyone that opposes even pickets or protests injustice by the government in non violent ways and then resists arrest is by definition often a violent felon. Don't hold still to be cuffed? Violent felon.
There is both misleading terms and double standards not in line with the founding fathers logic that are in place now.
That makes over simplifying things with terms like "felony" or "violent felony" dangerous.
Resisting an illegal SWAT entry, even if they got the wrong address will be charged as a violent felony (if you live). The Redcoats would be proud.
None of that coincides with the beliefs and ideals set forth by the founding fathers in our republic.
When even having an unlicensed handgun is a felony in New York City (and they permit very few handguns to even be owned througha prohibitive process) do you believe the founders would agree someone that violated such a law should forever be barred from future ownership?
The writer of this nonsense is wirting from just that place.
Be careful with oversimplifying.
Predatory criminals preying on innocent victims, and 'violent felon' can mean totaly different things.
Just "felon" can mean even more things. Things decided by many people that don't want firearms possessed in general.
People with a firearm even in the home without a permit requiring government permission and fees can be charged with a felony some places.
Even many insane felonies exist in a place like Texas.
The list goes on and on and is far too numerous to cite all the silly felonies. There is many felonies.
The purpose of the 2nd, so all the people possessed firearms capable of resisting tyranny, foriegn and domestic soldiers and other agents, and providing for effective deterent involves even what qualifies as 'violent crime'.
A term like "felony" is highly misleading, felonies are created by legislation of those in power.
The very rulers the 2nd is supposed to balance.
Even a simple term like "violent felony" can involve felonies that are not predatory.
Anyone that opposes even pickets or protests injustice by the government in non violent ways and then resists arrest is by definition often a violent felon. Don't hold still to be cuffed? Violent felon.
There is both misleading terms and double standards not in line with the founding fathers logic that are in place now.
That makes over simplifying things with terms like "felony" or "violent felony" dangerous.
Resisting an illegal SWAT entry, even if they got the wrong address will be charged as a violent felony (if you live). The Redcoats would be proud.
None of that coincides with the beliefs and ideals set forth by the founding fathers in our republic.
When even having an unlicensed handgun is a felony in New York City (and they permit very few handguns to even be owned througha prohibitive process) do you believe the founders would agree someone that violated such a law should forever be barred from future ownership?
The writer of this nonsense is wirting from just that place.
Be careful with oversimplifying.
Predatory criminals preying on innocent victims, and 'violent felon' can mean totaly different things.
Just "felon" can mean even more things. Things decided by many people that don't want firearms possessed in general.
Last edited:
Nitrogen
Member
I think this whole argument shows flaws in our current legal system.
First of all, rights should be restricted for felons on a case by case basis, preferably by the judge at sentencing. All those rights should be returned when the felon finishes their "sentence"
Sentencing needs to change a bit, too. I'd expect sentencing should go something like this:
"John Doe, you are sentenced to 25 years for X." Your 2nd amendment rights are suspended for the duration of 25 years no matter your status in prison or parole or on early release.
Then, let's say John was a model prisoner. He found Jesus/God/Yhwh/Allah/whomever andhas changed his life. He's gotten his degree from prison, and he's up for parole in 5 years.
The parole board grants him parole, with supervision for 2 years.
Parole should continue for the remainder of the 20 year sentence, with supervision much like it is today, for a limited number of years, say, in this example, 2. You report to your PArole officer, etc.
If, after 2 years, you're still a model citizen, you are still on "parole" but with much more limited supervision. The police might still have the power to search you for any reason, let's say. You still have your 2nd amendment rights suspended, and cannot vote.
After 25 years, your "parole" ends, and all your rights are restored, assuming you were a lawful citizen for all that time.
If Mr. Doe
First of all, rights should be restricted for felons on a case by case basis, preferably by the judge at sentencing. All those rights should be returned when the felon finishes their "sentence"
Sentencing needs to change a bit, too. I'd expect sentencing should go something like this:
"John Doe, you are sentenced to 25 years for X." Your 2nd amendment rights are suspended for the duration of 25 years no matter your status in prison or parole or on early release.
Then, let's say John was a model prisoner. He found Jesus/God/Yhwh/Allah/whomever andhas changed his life. He's gotten his degree from prison, and he's up for parole in 5 years.
The parole board grants him parole, with supervision for 2 years.
Parole should continue for the remainder of the 20 year sentence, with supervision much like it is today, for a limited number of years, say, in this example, 2. You report to your PArole officer, etc.
If, after 2 years, you're still a model citizen, you are still on "parole" but with much more limited supervision. The police might still have the power to search you for any reason, let's say. You still have your 2nd amendment rights suspended, and cannot vote.
After 25 years, your "parole" ends, and all your rights are restored, assuming you were a lawful citizen for all that time.
If Mr. Doe
The problem is that would over time be abused to give everyone charged with most offenses lengthy prohibited status. Relatively petty crimes people are only expected to serve a very short sentence over would have the technical sentences significantly lengthened to allow for long term denial of rights, long after they are expected released.
Rights far in excess of just firearms, including search and siezure, etc
In fact there was just a post about probation I commented on.
Probation in CA can and usualy will have a condition that includes no weapons even for minor offense, as it is the policy of many probation departments to include that provision standard.
That can include even very minor offenses only punishable by less than a month in jail as a maximum sentence. Any criminal probation whatsoever, no matter the crime.
Disturbing the peace for example, which can be for loud music, using profanity etc could result in probation lasting years that has as a condition that no weapons will be possessed.
Does that not undermine the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd in particular?
Such people found in possession of a firearm are the same as a felon under CA law.
So essentialy any minor offense in the state can be a lengthy prohibition of arms lasting years, and anyone that violates that can be charged with a felony.
Your proposal of denial of rights continuing upon release would have the same effect on what sentences were given over time. Crimes people felt deserved an actual year of confinement time would in fact have a few years given to allow for a lengthy denial of rights period.
Crimes commited people felt deserved 5 years would result in 10-20 year sentences to allow for a lengthy denial of rights period.
Etc
The sentences would over time adjust to compensate for the denial of rights period.
Parole and probation really should not exist. People should recieve reasonable sentences for a crime, and be expected to serve the time. That way realistic sentences are given and things are not clouded.
Sentences are not longer than reasonable because the individual is expected not to serve most, and where rights begin and end is not clouded.
Sure that might make motivating good behavior in jails and prisons more difficult, but it seems better than clouding the rights of society in general for that minor benefit.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
"I feel so much safer now that Martha Stewart can no longer possess a gun." -Unremembered wag on THR.
I'm with the theory that once they've served their time or have been appropriately released, their rights should be restored. Screw up again with another, though, and the sentence is doubled.
What bothers me is that, as others have stated, the idea of what constitutes a "felony" has been so expanded that it has become ridiculous from just about any viewpoint. I don't know how one can prove it, but it sure looks like "they" are trying to back-door firearms control. But then again, over the years, I have become more paranoid about the motivations of some lawmakers.
Call the Swat Team. I spit on the sidewalk today.
I'm with the theory that once they've served their time or have been appropriately released, their rights should be restored. Screw up again with another, though, and the sentence is doubled.
What bothers me is that, as others have stated, the idea of what constitutes a "felony" has been so expanded that it has become ridiculous from just about any viewpoint. I don't know how one can prove it, but it sure looks like "they" are trying to back-door firearms control. But then again, over the years, I have become more paranoid about the motivations of some lawmakers.
Call the Swat Team. I spit on the sidewalk today.
TCB in TN
Member
One major problem with this whole argument. Most of the respondents are talking about VIOLENT felons, and some keep bringing up ALL other felonies. Two groups that should be looked at in very different lights. Violent crime, keep you in PRISON for a long time period. Anyone released from prison should have their rights restored. If you are safe enough to be free then you should have access to all your rights!
jakemccoy
Member
It’s correct to point out the problem of using all felonies as the standard. Currently, the right to keep and bear arms is stripped for any felon. Anybody can see that such laws are clearly unjust if they spend five minutes researching nonviolent felonies.
The folks who are associating a felony with only violent crimes are incorrect. However, I don't think they really care they're incorrect. I've seen this same topic several times. That basic error screws up the whole thread every time.
It’s frustrating to me how a potentially good thread is basically useless because of a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. The article of the original post even jumbles terms.
The folks who are associating a felony with only violent crimes are incorrect. However, I don't think they really care they're incorrect. I've seen this same topic several times. That basic error screws up the whole thread every time.
It’s frustrating to me how a potentially good thread is basically useless because of a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. The article of the original post even jumbles terms.
TwitchALot
Member
I don't even understand why this whole thing is a point of contention. As far as I'm concerned, it's simple. If you want to restrict someone's rights, it must be done through due process of law.
It's not fair to say, "you're a felon, so you lose you're rights forever" arbitrarily. Passing a law that bans felons from owning firearms is no better than passing a law that bans black people from owning firearms. The group is different, but the principle is the same- you're banning firearms from an unpopular group.
If you have a repeat offender or something like that, and you think they are so heinous that they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms after their prison sentence, why not ask for a prohibition on firearms purchase and ownership as part of the sentence? Why not ask for, in addition to jail time, a ban on firearms purchase and ownership for X years as well?
Why should all felons be treated the same? The fact is that some things that are felonies today really shouldn't be. People change. People make mistakes. There are a number of factors that make it unjust to brand a group by law and then restrict their rights.
You think think Joe, who killed forty people and has a history of violence, jail time, and criminal behavior shouldn't own firearms after his jail sentence is up (if ever makes it out, that is)? Fine. Add a prohibition on firearms purchase and ownership for X years as part of his sentence.
You think that Jim, who had sex with a "minor" is responsible enough to own firearms even though he's technically a felon? Fine. Don't add a prohibition on firearms purchase and ownership as part of his sentence.
But don't pass some law that bans all felons from exercising their rights once their sentence has been served. If you serve your sentence, you should have all of your rights back. If you aren't worthy enough to exercise some rights after your release as determined by a jury of your peers and through the due process of law, then those restrictions should be a part of your sentence. How complicated is that?
It's not fair to say, "you're a felon, so you lose you're rights forever" arbitrarily. Passing a law that bans felons from owning firearms is no better than passing a law that bans black people from owning firearms. The group is different, but the principle is the same- you're banning firearms from an unpopular group.
If you have a repeat offender or something like that, and you think they are so heinous that they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms after their prison sentence, why not ask for a prohibition on firearms purchase and ownership as part of the sentence? Why not ask for, in addition to jail time, a ban on firearms purchase and ownership for X years as well?
Why should all felons be treated the same? The fact is that some things that are felonies today really shouldn't be. People change. People make mistakes. There are a number of factors that make it unjust to brand a group by law and then restrict their rights.
You think think Joe, who killed forty people and has a history of violence, jail time, and criminal behavior shouldn't own firearms after his jail sentence is up (if ever makes it out, that is)? Fine. Add a prohibition on firearms purchase and ownership for X years as part of his sentence.
You think that Jim, who had sex with a "minor" is responsible enough to own firearms even though he's technically a felon? Fine. Don't add a prohibition on firearms purchase and ownership as part of his sentence.
But don't pass some law that bans all felons from exercising their rights once their sentence has been served. If you serve your sentence, you should have all of your rights back. If you aren't worthy enough to exercise some rights after your release as determined by a jury of your peers and through the due process of law, then those restrictions should be a part of your sentence. How complicated is that?
FWIW, I'm pretty happy about felons not being able to possess guns. Sorry, but if you commit and are convicted of a felony, you may suffer some long term adverse consequences. Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. If that bothers you, don't break the law.
rainbowbob
Member
This is simply not true. As pointed out by divemedic and others, the government prevents most felons from re-establishing their rights by refusing to fund the process whereby it can be accomplished. End of story. Due process in many instances is a bad joke.
A friend I grew up with committed the crime of manufacturing marijuana. He got busted. Before any conviction or plea, he and his family had their home and cars confiscated. Clearly unconstitutional - and yet done every day.
OK...fine - he shouldn't have committed the crimes. He pleads guilty and is given a mandatory ten-year sentence. There are child-rapists and other violent monsters that do less time.
Now that he is out of prison, even though he has never committed a violent act in his life, he can't get his rights restored. What's wrong with this picture?
As others stated...violent criminals should remain behind bars and should lose their rights. Non-violent criminals that pay their debt and are not considered to be a threat to society should have their rights automatically restored upon release.
Last edited:
wyocarp
Member
Anyone not in jail should legally be able to have a gun in my opinion. People we can't trust, can't be trusted whether it is legal or not! If they aren't people who can be trusted, maybe they should stay in jail.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Convicted Rapists, Violent Robbers and Murderers should not be allowed back out of jail alive. Ever.
If it is somehow figured that they are safe to walk and drive amongst us after being convicted of such crimes, their right to possess a gun is less dangerous than their right to drive, practice medicine, own a 5-gallon bucket or build a swimming pool in their backyard.
Looking at it another way...
If attacked, we are all called to fight as members of the "militia". Are these "felons", then, no longer members of the "militia"? If they are not...what good are they? Do we all go out to fight and they stay here?
This idea of a "citizen" with "limited rights" is just plain old B.S. Why should a "parolee" have any of the OTHER "Rights" in the Bill of Rights?
yeti
Member
I must admit, 1/2 hour ago I was on the side of convicted felons should lose their gun rights for ever. Now I need to give my position some thought, I must say, I can think of a few crimes that really don't meet my measure of a crime that should be punished with the life time loss of any of our Rights.
Harsh penalties for a crime I can accept, but a life long sentence for a rather minor crime, even though it is a felony just grates on my sense of fairness. I need to ponder this a bit more. Part of me rebels at admitting I could be mistaken on this issue, another part cries that it is just not fair for a 'minor' infraction to carry a life sentence.
Harsh penalties for a crime I can accept, but a life long sentence for a rather minor crime, even though it is a felony just grates on my sense of fairness. I need to ponder this a bit more. Part of me rebels at admitting I could be mistaken on this issue, another part cries that it is just not fair for a 'minor' infraction to carry a life sentence.
There are Assaults and Murder (bad).... and then there are Felonys.
It sure seems that now-a-days Felonys are handed out like parking tickets!
Must just be Coincedence in our criminal laws and firearm laws.
Ouch.
* I have a criminal record... I am a gun owner.... I am the safest, kindest, law abiding person in my household and possibly neighborhood.
Gun control is about one thing..... Control.
It sure seems that now-a-days Felonys are handed out like parking tickets!
Must just be Coincedence in our criminal laws and firearm laws.
Ouch.
* I have a criminal record... I am a gun owner.... I am the safest, kindest, law abiding person in my household and possibly neighborhood.
Gun control is about one thing..... Control.
loop
Member
My son was convicted of a felony when he was 18. I attended his wedding on Sunday.
I wanted very badly to give him the hunting rifle I bought him when he was 16. He was not a violent felon, just stupid.
Every time I see him it hurts that he cannot continue the family tradition. He and I both know why.
But, he'll never use that old .303 Brit in a crime. It makes me sad I can't give him what I gave him already a decade ago.
He made a stupid mistake when he was one month past being a child.
My grandpa would not understand the situation. Our family has fought in every war since 1760.
Every signer of the Declaration of Independence would have been hung had we lost that war. My son's ancestors fought and died for that right.
I get bitter. I can't pass on a key piece of heritage to my son. He made a mistake, but no one was hurt. Can't we, as a nation, forgive those who erred?
The boy works 60 hours a week and acts as a father to little girl who will never meet her real dad. I have problems with him. He's my son. But, he's done what needs to be done to qualify him to have his rights restored.
Topic makes me angry, sorry.
I just want to give a weapon I've had for decades to my son. Every father in my family has been able to do that - I can't.
I feel like I've been ripped off.
I wanted very badly to give him the hunting rifle I bought him when he was 16. He was not a violent felon, just stupid.
Every time I see him it hurts that he cannot continue the family tradition. He and I both know why.
But, he'll never use that old .303 Brit in a crime. It makes me sad I can't give him what I gave him already a decade ago.
He made a stupid mistake when he was one month past being a child.
My grandpa would not understand the situation. Our family has fought in every war since 1760.
Every signer of the Declaration of Independence would have been hung had we lost that war. My son's ancestors fought and died for that right.
I get bitter. I can't pass on a key piece of heritage to my son. He made a mistake, but no one was hurt. Can't we, as a nation, forgive those who erred?
The boy works 60 hours a week and acts as a father to little girl who will never meet her real dad. I have problems with him. He's my son. But, he's done what needs to be done to qualify him to have his rights restored.
Topic makes me angry, sorry.
I just want to give a weapon I've had for decades to my son. Every father in my family has been able to do that - I can't.
I feel like I've been ripped off.
whosyrdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 332
It's reassuring to know that so many members on this board have the good sense to see the importance of balancing the safety of the general public with an individual privilege to bear arms.
If it weren't for the support of such enlightened folks, Sarah Brady and the likes would have surely floundered in their noble quest.
Please accept the thanks and gratitude on behalf of all remaining, albeit temporary, gun owners. For it is your wisdom alone that keeps us safe in the world today.
If it weren't for the support of such enlightened folks, Sarah Brady and the likes would have surely floundered in their noble quest.
Please accept the thanks and gratitude on behalf of all remaining, albeit temporary, gun owners. For it is your wisdom alone that keeps us safe in the world today.
Just do it. Give it to him.
Don't tell nobody, and instruct him to do the same. He's straight...he will find no problem (hopefully).
We live in a free nation. Right?
Who cares.... give it to him! Family rules. Have you ever seen The Patriot?
Why not pass it now? They try, but they can't take our thoughts and memories away.
(am I violating federal law?)
(shaw.)
divemedic
Member
It is a felony to gamble online in Washington State.
In Texas, it is a felony to own more than 5 dildos.
Smoke pot in your home in Texas- misdemeanor, unless your house is less than 1000 feet from a school (including college), day care, school bus stop, church, or government building, then it is a felony.
So a college kid, being stupid, smokes a joint in his dorm, or owns 6 sex toys, is a felon and has his rights taken away for life? No more voting, hunting, or even protecting his own life? To me, that is insanity.
It is easy for some to say "Don't break the law, then." But really, why not just use that logic to make exceeding the speed limit a felony?
whosyrdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 332
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
