Case: Should Felons be allowed to own firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a person has served their time and competed whatever punishment they received for their crime they should have all rights returned to them with vanishingly few exceptions. If you do not have all your rights you are a second class citizen and that is pretty un-American IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I am going to keep my opinion as brief as I possibly can.

1. Things that are considered felonies today didn't even exist in the 18th century or they certainly weren't considered felonies.

2. In the 18th century capital punishment was a thing. So the things that we consider to be violent felonies if you were convicted you weren't around to reoffend.

3. I believe that there should be a certain class of violent felonies (things for which you could receive the death penalty) the penalties of which should also include being stripped of your right to keep and bear arms.

4. Since 80% of the murders that are committed with a firearm in this country (Uniform Crime Report) are committed by convicted felons. Operation Exile should be instituted throughout the United States.
Anytime a convicted felon(see point 3) is caught in possession of a firearm. They should be federally prosecuted and if found guilty they should do 10 years in the federal penitentiary.

5. I know four people who have done time for murder. One is doing life in Texas somewhere. One spent 9 years in the California penal system and has got off parole and has become a productive citizen. One is pastoring a church in Arizona. The last one is dropped off my radar and I haven't seen him for years.

I said all that to say that there should be an Avenue for someone who has has lost their second amendment rights to petition the course to have them restored. I know somebody's going to tell me that such an Avenue already exists but in reality it's not funded or staffed so it doesn't exist.
 
There are probably a lot of things that are felonies that shouldn't impact owning a gun.
If most crimes are committed by convicted felons its unlikely the recidivist criminals would worry about legal concealed carry anyway.
 
My opinion is we should not be creating second class citizens who permanently lose their rights (to arms, to vote, or to get a job) after they have paid their debt. I believe once the debt is paid such person should return to society with their rights intact. If they break the law again, they can and should be prosecuted again for whatever new crimes were committed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He does have a good point. Making laws based of historical tradition is nothing more than cherry picking the answer you want from some point in time rather than looking at the merits of the case and applying relevant law.
 
In an ideal world, people who are too dangerous to be allowed guns would be considered too dangerous to be let out of prison.

Beyond that, I understand that a relatively small percentage of violent criminals obtain their guns through legitimate channels. I'm not at all sure that "allowing" them to buy guns is going to make any difference.

Having said that, in this world, dangerous felons are let out of prison every day. If we aren't going to keep these folks away from civilized society, I see no reason why they should be allowed the privileges thereof.
 
I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist. Everyone should have the right to self-defense, with few exceptions, as follows:

1) If you are presently incarcerated.
2) If you have been adjudged mentally incompetent.

However, for this to work, our justice system needs to have some teeth. Those who are a threat to society, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. need to either be executed or incarcerated as long as they are a threat to others. If you are not a threat to others, and allowed to walk free among us, then there should be no limitation placed on you, and no loss of the right to self-defense.

Unfortunately, we don't take crime seriously, and violent repeat offenders are the norm rather than the exception. In this case, those who serve their time for non-violent offenses should regain their right to own firearms after release, while those who are violent should forfeit theirs forever.
 
Nope they shouldn't be able to not that it matters, most felons have guns. Just look at all the offenders that go out and do other crimes once released. A person with a criminal mind will keep doing criminal things.
 
Last edited:
I was raised by a man who lost most of his citizenship rights after committing some infraction while in the Marines.
He could have had these rights restored but he refused.
He had no liking or trust for the government or its ways and was a rebel until the day that he died.

There is a mechanism for restoring the rights of an ex-convict if that ex-convict wishes to pursue it.
If the ex-convict is unwilling to go through that effort or if the crime in question is too heinous to be forgiven then I don't see why those rights should be automatically restored.
 
Aim1 said:
I'd say that if it is a non-violent felony like DWI you should be able to possess a firearm after you serve your time.

Sexual assault or robbery with a firearm would be a ban.


However, the court may see it differently.



https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/01/poli...supreme-court-judge-carlton-reeves/index.html




View attachment 1113401

View attachment 1113402
Click to expand...
I'm very firm on this. Either you served your time or you didn't.
I could see a 5 year probationary period of violent offenders. But none violent offenders don't deserve to lose their gun rights as soon as they walk out of prison.
 
Even in colonial days felons were disenfranchised of rights (vote, hold office or bear arms).

Liberalize the laws and all you do is promote crime. It happens in all the blue areas where Soros funded district attorneys are elected to office. Violent crime always increase because there is no consequences for their actions. Same thing happens in area where the police are defunded for "social workers" who themselves probably get beaten up. We are nowhere where we can can restore felons and not expect a new wave of violent crime.

Anyone who thinks felons should be restored all their rights should work in the inner city or visit the hood. Then get back to us if they want felons to have firearms.
 
A human right exists for all people, at all times, in all places, or it ceases to be a human right. The right to self protection does not cease to exist when a person breaks a law or crosses from one geographical location to another.

A felon should be able to legally own a firearm. A felon should also do significantly more time if they use a firearm, legal or otherwise, in the commission of a crime.

Felons do in fact lose their right to self incrimination and a fair trail while on parole/probation. They have no right to privacy (their house can be searched anytime without a warrant) and if they are not honest about their illegal conduct when confronted it can be used against them to increase their prison/jail sentence.

The right to a fair trial, to not self incriminate oneself, and the right to representation are legal rights whereas the right to self protection is a natural/human right. The two are similar but natural/human rights exist with or without government whereas legal rights are in fact granted by a governing body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4v50 Gary said:
Even in colonial days felons were disenfranchised of rights (vote, hold office or bear arms).
Click to expand...
Not enough people understand history.
4v50 Gary said:
Anyone who thinks felons should be restored all their rights should work in the inner city or visit the hood.
Click to expand...
Or go to work in a jail or prison for a while.
twofewscrews said:
The right to self protection does not cease to exist when a person breaks a law or crosses from one geographical location to another.
Click to expand...
Firearms are not the only means of self-protection.
 
As I expected, the answers given cover a wide spectrum... that said, one of the failings of our legislative system is that often tough or un-popular topics tend to get avoided by Congress (the folks actually charged with proposing, writing, and passing our laws - and this is certainly a good example of that). If and when a convicted felon should have his or her rights restored and what if any penalties are in place for a convicted felon - are all over the map (remember here we're talking both state and federal law - which are sometimes at odds with each other... ).

I have no problem with a non-violent offender automatically having their rights restored - after their sentence runs its course (getting out early on parole or probation shouldn't change whatever the original penalty was in my opinion.). I don't have any problem with a mechanism for a violent offender to petition for restoration of their rights - after a specific number of years have passed (and once again that's something our representatives need to weigh in on...). If we ever do establish a reasonable path to restoration - it should actually be something that's not overly complicated or beyond the average person's ability to ask for relief.... I really dislike a world where it's a rich man's justice and a poor man's jail in many cases - but that's what I learned on the street over the years - is all too often the case...

When it comes to agencies charged with enforcing and/or regulating firearms purchases and ownership - that's been a political matter from day one - and certainly changes with the change of administrations. I doubt that will ever be on a higher plane -but the laws that they operate under can certainly (and should) be changed if the majority approve (and can get Congress to act...).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firearms and voting should be tied together, I think that is something we can agree on. The socialists should not be able to enfranchise felons to vote for them while denying them the 2A rights.
I tend to agree that someone should not be made a second class citizen after they have served their time, but that presupposes that the punishment served is adequate to deal with the crime.
 
Bfh_auto said:
Make the penalty appropriate for the crime.
If you killed someone committing your crime. You should be executed.
I know too many people who are ex convicts and haven't returned to crime to agree with the current laws.
Click to expand...

You mean "too many people who are ex convicts and have not been caught again"
 
Should someone who ran afoul of law for matters involving taxes, for example, and completed their sentence, be treated the same as someone with a history of criminal violence? I know some politicians work tirelessly to restore the constitutional right to vote to all felons. I can't help but wonder why these same politicians don't work towards restoring their 2A rights with an equal amount of vigor?
 
Old Dog said:
Firearms are not the only means of self-protection.
Click to expand...
Yep. BTW, California penal code does allow a felon to temporarily possess/use a firearm for self-defense. Once that immediate need for self-defense passes, so does the temporary right to possess one passes and the felon must relinquish control of that firearm.
 
Aim1 said:
I'd say that if it is a non-violent felony like DWI you should be able to possess a firearm after you serve your time.
Click to expand...
Well I'll share this much. This question has come up in this and other gun forums many times. My friend of many years, over 50 years was living in NY where we all grew up. NY has come down pretty hard on DWI offenses. Call it driving while intoxicated or simply drunk driving. Well my friend managed not one, not two but three DWI convictions. Now in NY a single DWI is not a felony, even two DWI convictions is not a felony but three is the charm. So now after three DWI convictions Louie is a felon. He will not pass a background check anywhere. Louie now lives in North Carolina and after all the years he can't get a NC drivers license let alone buy a gun. To get NY to just allow him to get a NC license he needs to come up with about $5K for an attorney.

The real problem here is a felony is a felony and not broken down like Felony 1, Felony 2 and the list goes on. There was a time when Felons couldn't vote but we see all that has changed. So why is a felon denied their constitution right to have a gun? Can they be denied a right? Felons can vote so they should be able to legally purchase a gun and the law should not pick and choose who may own a gun anymore than allowing convicted felons a right to vote. Personally and just my opinion if I need to be 21 to buy a handgun I should be 21 to vote.

Just My Take....
Ron
 
I can count on both hands the number of felons I know that actually and legitimately turned their life around. And have a few fingers left over. The argument of "done their time, rights restored" is utter nonsense in my opinion.

I know of a woman that rented her three kids to adult men to pay for drugs and rent. A convicted felon but due to political connections, never served more than a few months in jail. Never can vote. Never can own a firearm. And never be allowed to work around children. One of her children was raped so badly as a toddler, the state declared him "dead" and adopted away to give her no chance of ever reconnecting. Should she be have all rights restored? I don't think so. Felons get released all the time. And it is never because the court feels their "debt has been paid." It is usually because prisons are overcrowded and "pressure valve" releases are done to reduce burden on the correctional system.

Final anecdotal story. When I worked in corrections, they were 8 hours shifts. At the beginning of one shift I was releasing an inmate whom we called on the "revolving door" program. Long rap sheet of felonies including arson, drug trafficking, and armed robbery. Not even at the end of my shift, he came back in the very same clothes I released him in a few hours prior. The charge? He had illegally bought a gun and assaulted (pistol whipped into a coma) his ex with it. The process to restore rights should be a long one. Otherwise there would be immense backlog in just this case of rights restored because of a release and nullified the same day from another arrest.
 
twofewscrews said:
Felons do in fact lose their right to self incrimination and a fair trail while on parole/probation. They have no right to privacy (their house can be searched anytime without a warrant) and if they are not honest about their illegal conduct when confronted it can be used against them to increase their prison/jail sentence.
Click to expand...
But, this is a condition of accepting parole/probation. It is more or less voluntary. While you are still serving your sentence it is perhaps appropriate to have some level of rights restriction. This is less of a restriction than being locked up in a cell.

However, once one's sentence is completed, it seems appropriate to consider allowing for resumption of normal rights.

If someone is inclined to violence than put them in jail for life, or put them on parole for life and limit their rights.

Personally, I would like to see the pardon used more in these cases. Most violent offenders never really change, but some do, and they should be rewarded for making that change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Good article on potential upcoming SCOTUS 2nd Amendment cases
Replies
1
Views
323
GEM
G
A
U.S. appeals court to reconsider ban on nonviolent felons owning guns
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
dcloco
D
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS to act on 2 Gun Cases
Replies
17
Views
2K
Aim1
A
alsaqr
  • Locked
SCOTUS Declines Felon's Firearms Case
Replies
6
Views
745
alsaqr
alsaqr
A
  • Locked
Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds gun ban for deadbeat dad
Replies
3
Views
449
Robert
Robert
Back
Top