BATFE Restoration of 2A rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. I've gone my whole life and never been accused of a crime, much less convicted. I still have all my firearms. I guess I must be an anomoly.
Click to expand...
No, you've just never had the misfortune to be caught doing something illegal that you didn't realize was illegal, or that you were doing without your knowledge (yes, that's easy to do).

I'm a stickler for obeying every little law I know about, but it is literally impossible for any one person to know about every law. You just hope you're never unlucky enough to get on the radar screen of some bureaucrat who's having a bad day.

Remember the guy who filled in a mudhole on his own property, which he did not realize was a felony violation of wetlands regs? And got convicted of a felony, IIRC? That could be you someday...
 
I have read a few posts here and I have a simple question to ask M-Rex.


Reverse the rolls.

Say you were doing somthing that could be considered innocent...especially as seeing that you live in that wonderful bastion of democracy called California.

Say you were busted and convicted straight out.

Now...here is where I would ask "How would you feel about that?"

And you would possibly say "I would obey the law" (please note...I said possibly...not putting words in anyones mouth here...)

But what with all the thoughts and passions here that I have observed...can you honestly say that you would feel the same as you did before the conviction?

This isn't intended to start any flame-war here...I just know more than my share of LEO's here in Texas that would disagree with your ideals when it comes to certain liberties...

Perhaps the opening question was wrong for many of the answers received on this post...Do we believe of 2A restoration?

Do I? I feel that it should be, not so much as a case by case basis...but I do believe that the "burden of proof" that rights SHOULD be restored lay with the felon. IF he is of sound mind and body, and he has NOT commited any other unlawful act (save perhaps a speeding ticket...) then he should have the POSSIBILITY of restoration of gun rights. HE should hire a barrister to help him fill out the proper paperwork and petition the judge in the appropriate way. At the same time, showing proof of responsibility and good character to the judge presiding. Now...with all those fees invloved...who but a person that, at least in my oppinion, was truly devoted to staying within the confines of the law would be willing to do such an act?
I also think that this act should also restore the right to vote and also serve in the Military.

<stepping down off soapbox>

I pass the floor on to the next person. :)

D
 
#1 Bartholomew Roberts: ".... Would it be possible to get a restoration of
rights through the current BATFE process if you funded it yourself (or had
a group like NRA fund it?)"

#2 M-Rex: "Personally, I do not want the NRA funding the restoration of
firearms rights for felons, thank you."

BATFE: "The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to
grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the
person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety.
(See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual
appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to
investigate or act upon applications for relief..."

#105: The obvious answer to this question is that the convicted felon seeking
BATFE Restoration of 2A rights should have the option of funding
the appeal themself.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
As you may or may not know, the BATFE has a process to restore firearm rights to people who have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Unfortunately, Congress has not provided funds for this purpose since the Clinton administration - which means that any such request will wait indefinitely and never be processed.

Further cases through the judicial system have said that this is OK from a constitutional standpoint, even when the felony conviction was for a stupid crime in another country that is not even illegal in America.
QUOTE]

Once the person has been convicted then it may be unlawful to possess firearms depending on whether the crime is a felony or a misdemeanor. Generally it is permissible to possess weapons following a misdemeanor conviction except during the term of the sentence when firearm prohibitions are universally in effect as a condition of probation. Another exception is where the misdemeanor conviction is for domestic assault. Here, federal law imposes a permanent ban on firearms. (2)

For a felony conviction the rules are superficially simple. Federal law prohibits firearm possession following ANY state or federal felony conviction even if the sentence was suspended.(3) State law is less restrictive to some degree but the distinctions are immaterial at this point since the federal criminal sanctions apply across the board.

The difficulty arises when the person has finished the term of imprisonment or probation or parole. How do you get your "gun rights" back? First, remember that there is no such thing as "gun rights," the Second Amendment notwithstanding. Rather, think of it as firearm disabilities and the removal of same.

A synthesis of a series of federal precedents establishes the following points which must be addressed to determine if a client is in violation of the federal statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms.

1. Federal law generally makes it a felony for a person to be in possession of a firearm if the person has any prior felony conviction.

2. Federal law contains an explicit statutory exception which provides that the federal criminal offense of firearms possession is inapplicable to persons who have had their civil rights restored on the predicate state felony conviction.(4)

3. Whether a person has had his or her civil rights restored for a state conviction is determined by state and NOT federal law.

4. However, (this "however" is the first of two elusive parts of the analysis) federal law requires that for federal law to recognize the state restoration of rights, the state restoration must include the right to vote, the right to seek and hold public office, and the right to serve on a jury. (5)

5. If the state restoration of rights includes the three aforementioned rights the federal law contains an additional federal "unless" clause which looks to state law to see if the state imposes any restriction on the right of the convicted felon to possess a weapon (e.g., some states such as North Carolina prohibit the subsequent possession of a handgun but would allow the individual to possess a rifle or shotgun).

6. If there is some added firearms restriction under state law then (and here is the second elusive part of the analysis) the federal "unless" clause is triggered to make the possession of any firearms unlawful under federal law notwithstanding the state's restoration of civil rights. Thus, if the state says that a restored-rights felon may possess a shotgun but not a pistol, the state has allowed the felon to possess the shotgun under state law BUT, because the state has created some firearm restriction for a convicted felon, this means that the federal prohibition applies with full force notwithstanding a state restoration of rights. Thus, in the shotgun-pistol example, that person could be convicted under federal law for possession of the shotgun even though it would be perfectly lawful under state law.(6)
Click to expand...
 
Guys, M-Rex has stated his position and kindly tried to move the thread back on track. Please start another thread or go to PM if you want to continue responding.
 
Any ideas on how to bring up the issue, federal firearms disability relief, without mentioning the second admendment or felons?
Click to expand...

Now sure how you can not mention felons at all. Sounds like it would fit perfectly into some kind of criminals rights policy.

If youve been blocked from having normal citizens rights because of the justice system, it should be with a clearly defined and challengable status on your record.
Your either on parole, a sex offender, a violent but reformed criminal, mentally unstable, etc... but you cant just be an unspoken "he was in jail so dont trust him" blacklist with no way to get off or even file a complaint about it.

If your out of jail, your record should be reviewed in a timely manner for the restoration of rights automaticly. A right should only be blocked pending any special issues.
Say you whent down for drunkenly shooting up someones empty car in the parking lot. your 2nd amendment right would rightfully be blocked but your freedom to speak or to vote, wouldnt.

If the government cant prove anythings wrong, it should default to a clean slate. Its their burden to prove why your no longer trustworthy. Failing that theres no reason for them to hold you.

Innocent until proven guilty... again.
 
Maxwell said:
Now sure how you can not mention felons at all. Sounds like it would fit perfectly into some kind of criminals rights policy.

If youve been blocked from having normal citizens rights because of the justice system, it should be with a clearly defined and challengable status on your record.
Your either on parole, a sex offender, a violent but reformed criminal, mentally unstable, etc... but you cant just be an unspoken "he was in jail so dont trust him" blacklist with no way to get off or even file a complaint about it.

If your out of jail, your record should be reviewed in a timely manner for the restoration of rights automaticly. A right should only be blocked pending any special issues.
Say you whent down for drunkenly shooting up someones empty car in the parking lot. your 2nd amendment right would rightfully be blocked but your freedom to speak or to vote, wouldnt.

If the government cant prove anythings wrong, it should default to a clean slate. Its their burden to prove why your no longer trustworthy. Failing that theres no reason for them to hold you.

Innocent until proven guilty... again.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, but lets be practical for a second. Even among members of this forum, restoration of firearms rights is a sore subject. "Restoring Felony Firearm Disablity Relief" is the equivalent of "politically dead." The goal is to escape the microcosm of idealism and survive in the world of reality, something labelled as "Restoring Funding for Petitions of Felony Firearm Disablity Relief" won't survive. "Congress violating 1st, 4th, 6th and 8th Amendment Rights of accused persons, by deceitfully witholding funds from the BATFE" might have a better chance. It's all semantics, how can you describe a pile of slag, to look like silver?
 
restoration of firearms rights is a sore subject
Click to expand...

Can we agree, at the very least, that everyone deserves their day in court?
The case should be heard and a final decision made about the status of their rights.

Personaly I think if the batf wants to keep me from owning a gun, its their burden to prove why. Youve got a judge, a plaintiff and a defendant. You should have a trial and if no one turns up on behalf of the atf then let the man go with his rights restored.
Theres no reason to keep him.

Maybe you can hide it in some kind of "right to a fair trial" feelgood law.
If a government agency cant provide an answer then put a judge in charge of that. He's there to make a decision, not be held hostage by a paperwork snafu.
Once you get a decision at least you can appeal or something.
 
Bottom line: Want guns? Don't do crimes.
Click to expand...

Ok then, here's one for ya. How about if the person is convicted of a crime for doing, quite literally, nothing.

Several years back my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a -very- bad case, resulting in her hospitalization. The combination of chemical and radiological therapies rendered her bedridden, incapable of anything but the simplest of actions.

This was done, over the course of several months, as they tried to reduce the size of the cancer to the point where a mascectomy would be effective. She would be hospitalized, stay until the treatment was completed, then be brought home. I had to quit my job to take care of her at my parent's place while she was at home, because she quite simply couldn't function.

Finally, she had a double mascectomy, including cosmetic reconstruction. This had been approved by the insurance provider months in advance based off of the Doctor's diagnosis. The surgery was a success, the cancerous cells were completely removed, and she has been in remission since.

Unfortunately, she didn't know that her employer, Texas Jet, had changed insurance providers.

The new insurance had become effective approximately 2 weeks before the surgery. However, no one in the family had been advised of the change. As such, the hospital operated off of the information and approval provided previously by the original provider.

About three or four months after the surgery she is approached by the hospital, who wanted their money. This is when she first heard of the insurance change. The current insurance provider refused to pay, on the basis that they had not approved the surgery.

My sister was undergoing a lengthy appeals process with the insurance provider when the hospital filed a complaint with the State of Texas. They had written off the mascectomy, which was a critical surgery to resolve a life threatening issue. However, the cosmetic reconstruction was not.

My sister had a felony warrant issued for her arrest for fraud. She was arrested on Father's Day as we went to the lake. She had no knowledge of the warrant until this time.

Ultimately, and I'll give you the trial details if you like, she was convicted of fraud. Due to the amount it was considered a felony. She's on a 10 year probation, owes $14,000 restitution, and can never own a firearm again. She's a felon due to the actions her employer took while she is bedridden and lacking lucidity.

Why should she be punished, for the rest of her life, for something that someone else did, and for something they failed to do, while she was essentially unconsious?
 
Wynterbourne, you clearly don't get it. She's the one who went out and got herself all cancered up so she deserves to lose her second amendment rights ... its that simple.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.


edit: I hope it is clear this was sarcasm
 
Last edited:
I am getting into this thread WAY late and am not adding anything of value, but this felony thing IMO is another one of these media brainwashing things. I have a good friend that is pushing 40, and is your every day middle class guy. He owns a house and some property. He has a good job. And, he is a convicted felon.
It seems that when he was 18, he got busted with less than 1 oz. of marijuana which at that time was a felony in the state of Nevada. Since then, he has gone for about twenty years without ever touching the stuff again.
Yet, he is a felon and in some people's opinion on this board, he should be put right in the same catagory as a serial killer.
I have another friend who's marriage melted down. One evening, they had their final argument and his wife demanded that he leave the house. He refused saying that he paid for the house and his kids were living in the house. His wife called the police and said he hit her. The police responded immediately and put him in irons. After the police got there, the wife freely admitted that he never hit her: she just wanted him out of the house and knew that the police would respond if she said he hit her. She told the DA that she would not testify against him for domestic vilolence because he had never been violent with her. But, there was one fly in the ointment. My buddy didn't have any money for a lawyer. He was offered a deal. Plead guilty to domestic violence and the issue was over. Since he basically had no money to fight it, he agreed. He now had a criminal record of domestic battery and can not leagally own a gun. Dispite the fact that he never touched anyone. How could this happen ? The DA was running for office. That was an election year. The DA wanted to campaign on his tough stand against domestic violence and my buddy was just one more statistic in the political campaign.
Another media brainwashing thing is this convicted sex offender list. I was reading about a guy who was at a party in Park City Utah. He was drinking and had to take a leak real bad. All the bathrooms were full, so he went out on the patio (at night) and took a leak. He got busted for exposing himself in public (whatever that crime is called) and his name now appears on that convicted sex offender list along with the child rapists.
Some of you people on this board need to quit drinking the Koolaid and use some common sense. God gave us a brain that is capable of reasoning and logical thought: use it.
 
Wynterbourne said:
Ok then, here's one for ya. How about if the person is convicted of a crime for doing, quite literally, nothing.

Several years back my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a -very- bad case, resulting in her hospitalization. The combination of chemical and radiological therapies rendered her bedridden, incapable of anything but the simplest of actions.

This was done, over the course of several months, as they tried to reduce the size of the cancer to the point where a mascectomy would be effective. She would be hospitalized, stay until the treatment was completed, then be brought home. I had to quit my job to take care of her at my parent's place while she was at home, because she quite simply couldn't function.

Finally, she had a double mascectomy, including cosmetic reconstruction. This had been approved by the insurance provider months in advance based off of the Doctor's diagnosis. The surgery was a success, the cancerous cells were completely removed, and she has been in remission since.

Unfortunately, she didn't know that her employer, Texas Jet, had changed insurance providers.

The new insurance had become effective approximately 2 weeks before the surgery. However, no one in the family had been advised of the change. As such, the hospital operated off of the information and approval provided previously by the original provider.

About three or four months after the surgery she is approached by the hospital, who wanted their money. This is when she first heard of the insurance change. The current insurance provider refused to pay, on the basis that they had not approved the surgery.

My sister was undergoing a lengthy appeals process with the insurance provider when the hospital filed a complaint with the State of Texas. They had written off the mascectomy, which was a critical surgery to resolve a life threatening issue. However, the cosmetic reconstruction was not.

My sister had a felony warrant issued for her arrest for fraud. She was arrested on Father's Day as we went to the lake. She had no knowledge of the warrant until this time.

Ultimately, and I'll give you the trial details if you like, she was convicted of fraud. Due to the amount it was considered a felony. She's on a 10 year probation, owes $14,000 restitution, and can never own a firearm again. She's a felon due to the actions her employer took while she is bedridden and lacking lucidity.

Why should she be punished, for the rest of her life, for something that someone else did, and for something they failed to do, while she was essentially unconsious?
Click to expand...

If that story is true, and all the facts were presented, then I would say your sister absolutely should petition to have her rights restored. More than that, I believe she should petition the state of Texas and have her record expunged. Not to mention a healthy civil suit, with penalties for pain and suffering. Where was her lawyer in all of this?

Assuming your post was factually accurate, it sounds like the hospital jumped the gun. The insurance companies should have had some communication between them as well. Somewhere in there a good lawyer should have raised a stink. I hope everything works out.

Be that as it may, I still don't want the NRA paying for felons to have their rights 'restored'. You can roll out all the sad-sack cases of 'innocent' people just swept up into the justice system. Look for something long enough and eventually you'll find it.

I think everyone on this board knows exactly what a felon is, but some are simply searching for minutae simply for the sake of arguement, and more tired anti-government diatribe.
 
Somewhere in there a good lawyer should have raised a stink. I hope everything works out.
Click to expand...

That's the problem that we have with our current system.

She consulted with a number of 'private' lawyers prior to the trial. Each one that she spoke with assured her that this would be a relatively simple trial to win, but it would take time. As we are all aware, time is money. The lowest estimate she recieved was a little over twenty thousand dollars.

Had she been able to afford quality legal representation, rather than a court appointed attorney who's primary goal is to end the case as quickly as possible, she likely would have simply been required to make restitution. But she couldn't afford one then, still can't afford one now, and likely won't be able to afford one any time soon. Essentially, she will pay for not having $20,000 in savings to fight the effects of elses actions for the rest of her life.

A number of people are felons simply because of circumstances beyond their control, because of conflicting legalities, or because they simply couldn't afford proper represnetation. The number is not a high one, but they do exist. Personally, I can only think of 3 cases that fall into this category right off the top of my head, involving people I personally know/have known.

In these instances there needs to be some recourse to regain your personal rights. In several states simply having your record expunged would not be enough. In Texas, for example, having your record expunged no longer means that it does not appear on your record. Currently, having your record expunged means that the specifics behind the arrest and conviction are sealed and not available on a background check. However, it does indicate both a felony arrest and a felony conviction.

Or at least my record does, after the expungement of two Criminal Attempt: Prostitution charges from the late 90's. Admittedly, those are misdemeanors, but my understanding is that they operate in the same fashion.

Personally, I will agree with you that perhaps the NRA is not the best organization to fund this restoration of personal rights. However, I feel this way because I firmly believe that if they did certain 'anti' organizations would have an absolute field day. It would turn into a media frenzy of horrific proportions. I can see any number of news stations trotting out child rapists and murderers, fresh out of prison, with the quote, "The NRA wants to arm this rapist!"

But it does need to be funded. And if the Federal Government, a government ostensibly '...of the People, by the People, and for the People...' is unwill to fund one of their own programs, someone should be able to.
 
Wynterbourne said:
That's the problem that we have with our current system.

She consulted with a number of 'private' lawyers prior to the trial. Each one that she spoke with assured her that this would be a relatively simple trial to win, but it would take time. As we are all aware, time is money. The lowest estimate she recieved was a little over twenty thousand dollars.

Had she been able to afford quality legal representation, rather than a court appointed attorney who's primary goal is to end the case as quickly as possible, she likely would have simply been required to make restitution. But she couldn't afford one then, still can't afford one now, and likely won't be able to afford one any time soon. Essentially, she will pay for not having $20,000 in savings to fight the effects of elses actions for the rest of her life.

A number of people are felons simply because of circumstances beyond their control, because of conflicting legalities, or because they simply couldn't afford proper represnetation. The number is not a high one, but they do exist. Personally, I can only think of 3 cases that fall into this category right off the top of my head, involving people I personally know/have known.

In these instances there needs to be some recourse to regain your personal rights. In several states simply having your record expunged would not be enough. In Texas, for example, having your record expunged no longer means that it does not appear on your record. Currently, having your record expunged means that the specifics behind the arrest and conviction are sealed and not available on a background check. However, it does indicate both a felony arrest and a felony conviction.

Or at least my record does, after the expungement of two Criminal Attempt: Prostitution charges from the late 90's. Admittedly, those are misdemeanors, but my understanding is that they operate in the same fashion.

Personally, I will agree with you that perhaps the NRA is not the best organization to fund this restoration of personal rights. However, I feel this way because I firmly believe that if they did certain 'anti' organizations would have an absolute field day. It would turn into a media frenzy of horrific proportions. I can see any number of news stations trotting out child rapists and murderers, fresh out of prison, with the quote, "The NRA wants to arm this rapist!"

But it does need to be funded. And if the Federal Government, a government ostensibly '...of the People, by the People, and for the People...' is unwill to fund one of their own programs, someone should be able to.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Unfortunately, 'justice' costs money. I'm certainly not so niave to see that folks with funds have an easier time than folks without. I would like to see the shroud of mystery over the whole process of 'restoration' lifted, and presented in such a way that lay folks can understand.

I don't doubt that examples such as the situation you described exist, but I believe they are extreme examples of exceptions to the rule.
 
M-Rex said:
..............................................................................
but some are simply searching for minutae simply for the sake of arguement, and more tired anti-government diatribe.
Click to expand...


And there you have hit on the underlying basis for the whole proble.The Founding Fathers realized government was a nessecary evil, a constant threat to personal liberty, as did most folk.Today people think government is the answer to everything and don't want personal liberty. I'm not anti government I realize we need government to perform a realitively small number of tasks that cannot be done by individuals. Things like national defense,a limited number of federal laws,rules and standards, ensuring the constitution and BOR is followed and International(limited) intanglements.

Today people are dependant on the government and are willing to forsake hard won, paid for in blood liberty. My own person feeling is we are over due for a cleaning of the shallow end of the gene pool. People who do not appreciate their liberty are giving mine away.They do not realize that if one persons liberty is compromised for personal comfort, privilege or imagined safety everyone's liberty is compromised.
 
Kudos to Oldfart. I agree. And once a felon has paid a debt and is let out of prison, ALL of rights should be restored.

When the government passes anti-gun laws folks, they are saying We are the ones they do not trust with guns! The criminals will have them no matter what. Only law abiding citizens like us are affected by anti-gun laws, because we obey them. Once again We are the ones they do not trust!

And what does it say when the representatives that supposedly represent us, and are elected by us, do not trust us?
 
M-Rex said:
I think everyone on this board knows exactly what a felon is...
Click to expand...
No, and that is the root of our disagreement.

You seem to believe that anyone convicted of any felony is a clear danger to society whereas I (and many others) see more and more minor and BS crimes being elevated to the level of felony so that the original intention of "no 2A for Felons" is being twisted. And that its come to the point where an honest man cannot live 100% within the law because the law has become a complex web designed not to prevent bad people from doing bad things, but instead to increase the power of government officials over our lives.

Eventualy all they have to do to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms is to make something minor like traffic violations into felonies ... I'm sure than you'd come out against speeders saying something insipid like "If they can't be trusted to drive the speed limit they can't be trusted with guns."

I would say that that kind of creeping incrementalism is the very thing that the NRA should be fighting against (and part of that fight includes helping those caught up in the BS game of many antis in our government).
 
GruntII said:
And there you have hit on the underlying basis for the whole proble.The Founding Fathers realized government was a nessecary evil, a constant threat to personal liberty, as did most folk.Today people think government is the answer to everything and don't want personal liberty. I'm not anti government I realize we need government to perform a realitively small number of tasks that cannot be done by individuals. Things like national defense,a limited number of federal laws,rules and standards, ensuring the constitution and BOR is followed and International(limited) intanglements.

Today people are dependant on the government and are willing to forsake hard won, paid for in blood liberty. My own person feeling is we are over due for a cleaning of the shallow end of the gene pool. People who do not appreciate their liberty are giving mine away.They do not realize that if one persons liberty is compromised for personal comfort, privilege or imagined safety everyone's liberty is compromised.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly.
 
Doc2005 said:
Just because someone has been "labeled" a "felon" does not mean that they truly were/are. One African-American gentleman was recently released from prison following a DNA test that proved HE did NOT do the rape. So, was he a "felon" because of the rape he didn't commit or because he was African-American? But, facts are facts! He IS A CONVICTED FELON, not by HIS action, but by systemic prosecution and jury conviction! He shouldn't have his rights restored?!

Dang--thought we lived in America.

Doc2005
Click to expand...

Just wondering, but if the verdict was set aside and he was released from prison then technically he is NOT a felon any more. Or am I off here?
 
Hmm...
I hate arguing on the internet, and have no intention of doing so here. However, I do feel compelled to offer an observation. (If you have questions or opinions on what I am writing, lets have a civilized "question, answer, and discuss" discourse, not an "I'll quote your statements and prove you are logically fallacious you sorry excuse for a human being!"-style discourse... Please.)

NOTE: I want to discuss this in the context of CURRENT AND STANDING LAWS, not in the context of "how it should be." I hope I can do that anyway.

To the point of this. As I see it, M-Rex is arguing against restoration of the right to keep and bear arms for "felons". I'm going to put that in quotes here so I can expound the definition a little. What are we talking about when we say "felons"? Many here are looking at this as "Any person convicted of a felony." That seems to be the correct definition. Let's examine that a little more...

Why are the majority of felons convicted? That is, what are the most frequent crimes commited which make a felon? I'm actually looking up some information for that right now, as I type. Be right back...

Okay, I'm back. I found this: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/felony/charges.html
Lest's see if I can get a quote outta it...
"The most common felony charges that led to conviction in 2000 were drug offenses (35 percent); property offenses, such as burglary, arson, fraud and forgery (28 percent); violent offenses, such as murder, rape or aggravated assault (19 percent); and weapon offenses or other non-violent offenses, such as escaping custody or receiving stolen property (18 percent). Marijuana felony charges accounted for 6.4 percent of the total convictions in 2000."

So it looks like 35% drugs, 28% property offenses, 19% violent stuff, and 18% weapons/non-violent stuff. (If anybody has other data, post it too. I'm actually forming an opinion on this as I'm writing it.) Now the question here seems to me to essentially be, "Is it smart to allow ex-felons the right to keep and bear arms?" This is a matter for public safety (of individuals), and also for the safety of society as a whole. If we look at the data I found and make some assumptions, we might can come to some conclusions about who is and who is not likely to be...(poo, I can't find it spelled on this page) recidivistic.

(NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS, I WANT YOU (PLEASE) TO REDO THIS MATH WITH YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS IN ANOTHER POST. THEN WE CAN COMPARE AND DISCUSS, AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING. :) )
Let's assume that most of the people who commit drug offenses just made a dumb mistake. Only 1 out of 5 was really into some crap. Then let's go one further, and assume that only 1/2 of those people were actually doing stuff with guns, like robbing to get drugs or distributing. For property offenses, burglary and arson sound bad, but forgery and fraud don't seem so much so, so let's assume 1/2 of those people will commit crimes again, and giving them guns will be an enabler. Now let's assume ALL the violent offenders are gonna do it again. Remember, I am in the context of the CURRENT system of laws and rules, not ideal ones. Now the final group consists mainly of non-violent offenses, according to the info I found. Let's still assume that the people convicted of weapons offenses were mostly gun-runners, and will continue when released, because its their livelihood. Let's say that...man this is a hard one to guess reasonably...1 out of 5 is gonna recommit some crime when released. Now, let's crunch the numbers...

Of the 35% who did drugs-stuff, 3.5% are going to recommit crimes. Of the 28% doing property stuff, 14% will reommit. All 19% of the violent criminals are foaming at the mouth for a gun here, and 3.6% are lookin to go a crimin' who were in for other stuff. REMEMBER: If these seem off to you, I really ask that you redo it as you think it should be and post that data here too.
Now we have 35+14+3.5+3.6 = 56.1% of felons who are going to recommit crimes, and who we DO NOT WANT to get a gun under the current laws. Again looking at the above website, we see that this is a total (from their statistics) of 0.561x(985,000 people, so call it a million) = 561,000 armed and dangerous (and we are talking DANGEROUS) people who did not need to have their rights restored.

I looked on Wikipedia just now, and found that the population of the US was estimated by the census bureau to be (again, in 2000, the year our crime statistics are from) 281,421,906 people, for comparison to the above number (If you want to compare).

I guess the question now is, "What should we do about 561,000 criminals?" We'd be denying 439,000 people their right to bear arms as punishment for some crime, but does it make sense to award rights back to 439,000 while endangering 281,421,906? I'm hoping that these 439,000 are the cases we're hearing about here, the so-called "fringe" cases where violations occurred that shouldn't have been felonies, or occurred under "bizzare" circumstances, or were mistakes. Actually, I'm not really discussing the mistakes portion here, since I'm not sure that falls under felony convictions in the statistics.

Now, as I see it, M-Rex says:
"deny all". Under the current laws, we should protect those 281,421,906 from 561,000, and the 439,000 need to lobby to get the law fixed, since it is currently "broken", and they do not deserve to lose their right to keep and bear arms. But for Pete's sake, giving guns back to FELONS? To correct the mistakes of the law for 439,000 while endangering (some of, all of?) 281,421,906?! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS?!?!

The other prevailing opinion seems to say:
"reallow"/"reallow WITH important changes to the law". We need to reallow some/all of the convicted because they are being wronged. 439,000 innocent/reformed people without the right to arms is 439,000 TOO DAMNED MANY. Aside from the fact that 561,000 will not endager ANYWHERE NEAR 281,421,906, this is another incremental loss of freedom, and it CAN NOT AND MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. You say protect 281,421,906, but this idea is really hurting them just as badly by giving away their precious freedoms! These are our rights you're talking about!! Our God-given rights!!! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS??!?!

(If anybody else has other ideads/insight into these, let me know here. I want discussion! I want to learn something here, and understand.)

Now my opinion here...I've been pretty undecided up until now, honestly. The main problem I have is that I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that there are inalienable rights. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the government should not be allowed to merely strip away basic rights under the "its a felony! They're bad people!" argument. This sounds to me suspiciously like the "It's for the children" argument, and I have my mind made up on that one. (My opinion::barf: )
Now on the other hand, I'm a farm-boy and an engineer, and in that order. I'm about real solutions to real problems that work and work NOW. I love guns and I have done my best, on my end of the social contract, to obey the law, as well as I can. This includes stopping at a four-way stop even when nobody is there. I never have, and hope I never will, ended up on the wrong side of the law. This society has to be upheld and protected, and I will do my dead-level best to do just those things. In that vein, the idea of re-arming 561,000 people who have an intention of recividism (my poor spelling, again...) to try to save the rights of 439,000 seems ridiculous. It's bad economics. This is because I'm seeing the current laws and their status, and I see how laws change; Namely: slowly and only when forced to. If the 439,000 deserve guns, let's fight for them. But in our rush to do justice, do we really want to do an (approximately) equal amount of injustice?

I really cannot decide. You guys help me here. (M-Rex, this includes you. I NEED your opinion, with relation to the argument above, which is really an argument with myself.) How do we go about doing justice? Do we reform laws first? Do we allow a case-by-case basis? I know I've left out the whole "How do criminals attain firearms" business completely. Is that really a factor here? Will we be, even though not enabling criminals to re-attain arms (they could do this already) be SIGNIFICANTLY re-enabling criminals to be (The Lord is going to smite me for bad spelling in my sleep) recidivstic?

Please help me. I do not like having a non-opinion on an important subject.

Thanks guys. Again, let's DISCUSS. I'm looking for help here.

-the_ferret-
 
There was an African American last year in Indiana who has been in prison for 20 years or so for murder. DNA tests proved he did not commit the murder. The Indiana Attorney General at the time STILL refused to let him out of prison. How's that for fairness?

I don't know what the situation there is now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
(WY) State appeals gun rights ruling
Replies
8
Views
1K
Lew
L
R
  • Locked
Florida to restore felon's rights
Replies
2
Views
686
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
Judge overrules ATF, restores gun license
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
KyJim
K
A
  • Locked
why does Mr. Butterfield and other "journalists" keep missing salient points??
Replies
5
Views
547
WonderNine
W
D
  • Locked
Firearms cease-fire?
Replies
1
Views
394
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top