Civil Liberties Restoration

[Rusty Shakleford]

Sorry I don't have a link to this (or even the whole scoop yet), but I know there's a push to restore civil liberties to those convicted of "non-violent felonies".

I think it's great that someone in government is trying to actually restore a liberty/right, instead of looking for yet another means of taking them (which is what most of them seem to think they were elected to do).

Although I have no felonies, I believe ANYONE convicted of ANYTHING should have full restoration of ALL rights after having "paid their debt to society". After all, a debt paid should be paid indeed and paid in-full. In my opinion, if you pay your debt only to be released back into society as a "sub-class" citizen, then you are STILL being punished (for the rest your life). To me, that's a life sentence.

I believe this should include 2nd Amendment rights, because if you can't be trusted to defend yourself and your family, you should still be incarcerated (or institutionalized). I know in the past when a wrangler/thief/drunken cowboy did his time, he got his guns back because he needed them to survive as much as he needed food or a good horse. And the human threat in modern times is worse than the "wild west" when everyone was armed- (Google a great article called "The Wild West Wasn't So Wild").

Plus, many studies have shown that even violent offenders who are released and stay clean for as little as six years, are no more likely to commit violence than someone without even a parking ticket (once again, sorry for no link yet, but will find one).

Does anyone know of a group, movement to restore all rights (I know it's a stretch, but could one day be possible). It would go a long way to returning the United States to the freest country on earth.

 

[WestKentucky]

Restoration of rights already exists however it is a lengthy, burdensome, often expensive legal process. Moves to cut through the red tape are happening but they often get nowhere because...well, ya know it's for the children, we gotta protect the children...and people are afraid that a guy who gets busted for trafficking drugs when he is 19 will do something illogical when he is 44 and is released having spent more than half of his life behind bars. Apparently the sins of the young are the burdens of the aging, and the haunts of the elderly. Because the folks who committed a crime early in life don't need to be able to defend themselves when they are senior citizens. Thankfully cap and ball guns don't count in some states so that gives these folks an option.

IT is VERY political in nature and this thread will probably close soon, so I will simply say this...
So many backwards laws are changing for the better, but are encountering great resistance due to a gut reaction by the generally uninformed or uninterested to learn. We owe it to ourselves and our society to fix the wrongs that still exist in our legal system to not only punish those needing punishment, but to also not permanently label and perpetually punish those who have served their sentences.

 

[Jim K]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically allows convicted felons to appeal to have their Second Amendment rights restored; BATFE has to approve the request. However, every year since 1973, Congress has added a proviso to the BATFE appropriations bill banning spending any money to do that, so the section of the law is effectively voided.

Why 1973? The answer is Spiro Agnew, Nixon's Vice President, who pleaded no contest (guilty) to bribery charges. He tried to have his gun rights restored, and the Democratic Congress, in a fit of pure personal hatred, attached the provision to prevent BATFE from approving any and all such requests.* No one in Congress has made any effort to delete the provision since, although Agnew has been gone for many years.

*To have named Agnew specifically would have been a "bill of attainder", prohibited by the Constitution.

Jim

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Ummm...

Restoration of rights by STATES exists because most (if not all) have a legal process for it.

Restoration of rights by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, however, is another story altogether...because the feds DON'T have a process for it:


Criminal Resource Manual 1435: Post-Conviction Restoration of Civil Rights

A frequently litigated issue under § 922(g)(1) is whether a convicted felon is exempt from the prohibitions of the statute because of a post-conviction restoration of civil rights under State law. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted "has had civil rights restored." In § 922(g)(1) cases based upon a State felony conviction, courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant's civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction's incidental prohibition on firearms possession. With respect to Federal felony convictions, the Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. This is so, the Court ruled, even though there is no Federal procedure for restoring the civil rights of Federal felons.

In United States v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003, 1009 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 113 S. Ct. 364 (1992), the court held that the term "restored" in § 921(a)(20) requires the State to make an "individualized official judgment" that the defendant should be excepted from the prohibitions of § 922(g)(1). The Criminal Division takes the position that where State law contains any provision purporting to restore civil rights -- either upon application by the defendant or automatically upon the completion of a sentence -- it should be given effect. It is not necessary that the State issue an individualized certificate reflecting the judgment of State officials regarding an individual defendant. The Ramos case should be limited to its unique facts and not extended in attempts to nullify the effect of other State schemes for civil rights restoration. A State restoration document that is absolute on its face should disqualify the affected State felon from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) unless the facts of the case strongly support a finding that the felon had actual notice of his/her continuing State firearms disability despite the terms of the restoration document.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01435.htm


So if one is convicted of a felony in a federal court, it looks like one is up the creek without a paddle with respect to restoration of civil rights.

It'd be nice to hear some input on this from some of the attorneys on this site.

 

[Red Wind]

Although I have no felonies, I believe ANYONE convicted of ANYTHING should have full restoration of ALL rights after having "paid their debt to society". After all, a debt paid should be paid indeed and paid in-full. In my opinion, if you pay your debt only to be released back into society as a "sub-class" citizen, then you are STILL being punished (for the rest your life). To me, that's a life sentence.

I believe this should include 2nd Amendment rights, because if you can't be trusted to defend yourself and your family, you should still be incarcerated (or institutionalized). I know in the past when a wrangler/thief/drunken cowboy did his time, he got his guns back because he needed them to survive as much as he needed food or a good horse. And the human threat in modern times is worse than the "wild west" when everyone was armed- (Google a great article called "The Wild West Wasn't So Wild

I applaud your zeal and spirit on this issue and agree completely that once the prison debt has been paid in full, all civil rights should be restored.

As WestKkentucky stated, restoration is possible on a state by state basis. Some states show celerity, such as Arkansas, and others, including my home state of Florida, make it a long difficult expensive process.

And if it's a Federal felony, restoration is virtually impossible for all but a select chosen few. Only a Presidential pardon can bring back the ability to vote, serve on a jury and gun ownership among other civil rights.

The process of changing this unfair and,IMO, un-American system, is certainly going to be a long and arduous process. I'm certainly with you in the hope of someday attaining this goal.

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

Here in NC a felon can have his rights restored to own long guns once he has paid his debts to society both penal and civil. He can appeal to the judge that handled his criminal trial to have his rights restored. It is an expensive process so very few felons bother to get their rights restored. Due to our pistol purchase permit law it is unlikely a sheriff will issue a purchase permit. If a felon is convicted of federal charges it is very unlikely he will get his rights restored.

We do have a problem with federal agents who do not get out to try to make an arrest. They sit in an office looking for a way to bring federal charges for gang members. But these guys have to earn their pay. Quite often they go after people with no gang connections or are just people who do business with gang members. Some have nothing to do with the criminal aspects of a gang, they just hang around with a bad crowd.

This is going on everywhere. Here in Raleigh we went from just having essential federal officers to squads of ABC agencies.

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

A collective thank you to all who have responded at this point. As I said, I'm not a felon (by a long shot), but my gun rights are "questionable" according to some attorneys I've spoken to (15yrs ago my ex-wife claimed I pulled here hair). So, until I get it straight, I'll keep open carrying this beautiful "1858 New Army black powder revolver. Perfectly legal in (open carry) North Carolina.

***************************
As for "this thread may close soon", I apologize to the administrators if this thread is inappropriate, I assumed it was about legal issues, so this is where I went.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Line 11g on form 4473 about a dishonorable discharge pops up for me. I was in the military so I know how some things get really screwed up. So now I ask a question. How should something you did in the military (totally different code with UCMJ) effect your civilian 2A rights to purchase a firearm? Maybe it doesn't but if it has no bearing on a purchase why is the question on the 4473?

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

Line 11g on form 4473 about a dishonorable discharge pops up for me. I was in the military so I know how some things get really screwed up. So now I ask a question. How should something you did in the military (totally different code with UCMJ) effect your civilian 2A rights to purchase a firearm? Maybe it doesn't but if it has no bearing on a purchase why is the question on the 4473?

Never in the military, but I totally agree with your premise.

Just by reading random things on the web about gun rights/gun laws, I'm astounded at the juggernaut of regulations/restrictions/exceptions, proposals, etc. in federal and local laws, or codes. It has to be the biggest target for politicians there is, outside of maybe commerce. And they NEVER actually make anyone safer, only controlled.

Abraham Lincoln said, "prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite through legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

In other words, if his appetite is for death, destruction, evil, he will satisfy his appetite regardless, while the restrictive law only makes criminals of good people....ie, me!

 

[RustyShackelford]

Rights felons 2A issues...

Hi Rusty,
First I disagree with restoring civil rights or 2A/gun-CCW to all felons.
It negates the intent and purpose of our criminal Justice system & doesn't punish violent offenders for their crimes or makes them accountable for their behaviors.

Also, in my county, the recidity rate or amount of offenders released that will be arrested again in 12mo or less is about 68%.

There are many, many felons(most violent offenders or registered sex offenders) who are arrested 15/20/30 different times.
In 2011, I was doing a security post & was attacked by a convicted felon with a lengthy record of violent crime. This felon was 57 years old & 6'08".
Should he be walking around with a firearm or a valid CCW?

 

[smalls]

Should he be walking around with a firearm or a valid CCW?

He shouldn't be walking around in public, period. We need to seperate those who have proven to be a danger to society, not let them free. But if they can prove they are no longer a danger, then give them their rights.

ETA: if someone is a convicted felon, they've already proven they don't care about breaking the law. So valid carry permit or not, if they want to shoot you, they will. Having a permission slip to carry that gun means nothing to anyone set on doing harm.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

The problem with restoration of civil rights is that nobody wants to be wrong. Elected officials know they will swiftly be out of a job if they restore the rights of someone who then goes on to rape and murder a child/rob a bank/shoot up a school etc.

Think about how hard it was for a (military aged) Arab business person to come to America after 9/11. It might sure seem like they are flying here to do business, but that immigration officer sure doesn't want to be the bozo that lets the next terrorist into the country. Similar situation, but you know that the ex-felon is indeed an ex-felon who has done some bad things in the past.

 

[PowerG]

Convicted of "anything"? Absolutely not.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

Although I have no felonies, I believe ANYONE convicted of ANYTHING should have full restoration of ALL rights after having "paid their debt to society". After all, a debt paid should be paid indeed and paid in-full. In my opinion, if you pay your debt only to be released back into society as a "sub-class" citizen, then you are STILL being punished (for the rest your life). To me, that's a life sentence.

I believe this should include 2nd Amendment rights, because if you can't be trusted to defend yourself and your family, you should still be incarcerated (or institutionalized). I know in the past when a wrangler/thief/drunken cowboy did his time, he got his guns back because he needed them to survive as much as he needed food or a good horse. And the human threat in modern times is worse than the "wild west" when everyone was armed- (Google a great article called "The Wild West Wasn't So Wild").

For non violent felons, yes they should be able to have their rights restored. But saying anyone convicted of anything should be able to get their rights back isn't real good thinking IMO. Do you feel that murders who took someones life in a violent way, whether it be shooting, stabbing, or whatever, should be allowed to carry a firearm?? Would you give a pedophile the right to teach a classroom full of students?? Would you give a alcoholic with multiple DUIs who killed a family while drinking and driving a right to drive a greyhound bus transporting people across the country?? And finally, what if it were your family he killed, or your father he shot, or your child he touched?? Does he still get his rights back "for being convicted of anything"???

 

[Red Wind]

There are many, many felons(most violent offenders or registered sex offenders) who are arrested 15/20/30 different times.
In 2011, I was doing a security post & was attacked by a convicted felon with a lengthy record of violent crime. This felon was 57 years old & 6'08".
Should he be walking around with a firearm or a valid CCW?

All those he's should never have been released in the first place. That is why we have the asinine recidivism rates in the United States. Keep those violent offenders locked up.

Once a person is released and all penalties are paid, their civil rights should be restored in full. I said that before. And like Vaughan Monroe in 1945, "There I said it again"!

Gotta keep the Rusty's straight on this thread .Most confusing.

 

[barnbwt]

"people are afraid that a guy who gets busted for trafficking drugs when he is 19 will do something illogical when he is 44 and is released having spent more than half of his life behind bars."

A big chunk of it is this. It's much like the push to disarm vets; the experience they went through 'must' have been so traumatizing, that they are permanently damaged for it and must be controlled. Though rife with hyperbole for extreme majority of combat servicemen and inmates, there is at least some logic behind it --which is why it is so appealing (and dangerous). The injustice is especially grave for inmates, in my opinion, because the trauma they may be scarred or killed by is in large measure the punishment meted out for their crime. Judges, juries, and lawmakers know what prison conditions are like, and send convicts into them to serve their time in accordance with their transgressions to dispense justice. If that dispensation of justice itself is cause for further incarceration/restriction, that is just plain wrong. At least servicemen go into the line of duty willingly, informed of what could await them (at least, ostensibly so), while prisoners have no say in the matter once convicted.

My personal view is much of this extends from modern society's reluctance for capital punishment. All sorts of tricks and games are played to get around the basic fact that some crimes and criminals cannot repay their debts to society, and can therefore never again be fully trusted. In the bad old days, when resources were scarce and life was hard, there was no time or effort to spare on looking after these cases for the remainder of their lives, most especially once they had been released from prison. Prison was known to be a difficult environment (kind of the point) so sentences were kept shorter, so that a person would not be so likely to be damaged by them (today, we subscribe to the notion that a 50 year sentence is somehow different in deterrence or justice than a 40 year sentence), and the threshold for capital punishment was much lower, and the process much shorter.

Life and long term/repeat sentences seemed like a mercy to early 19th century Progressives armed with Freud and phrenology, until you realize that inmates live their entire lives in a state our forbears considered worse than death or torture (real torture, at that)

TCB

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Line 11g on form 4473 about a dishonorable discharge pops up for me. I was in the military so I know how some things get really screwed up. So now I ask a question. How should something you did in the military (totally different code with UCMJ) effect your civilian 2A rights to purchase a firearm? Maybe it doesn't but if it has no bearing on a purchase why is the question on the 4473?

OK, let's set the background for this.

To obtain a "Bad Conduct Discharge" or a "Dishonorable Discharge" requires a Courts-Martial conviction. And herein lies the crux of the matter:

There are three types of Courts-Martials: General Court-Martial, Special Court-Martial, and Summary Court-Martial. General Courts-Martial and Special Courts-Martial are actual federal criminal trials. However, Summary Courts-Martial are really nothing more than administrative hearings (pretty serious administrative hearings, though) that do not result in a federal criminal conviction because they do not afford a military accused the same due process rights as required for an actual federal criminal trial.


So if a person has received either a "Bad Conduct Discharge" or a "Dishonorable Discharge", then they have received a criminal conviction by General or Special Courts-Martial, the equivalent of a federal court, with all the due process involved in that. And that makes a conviction by General Courts-Martial or Special Courts-Martial a federal felony conviction.


So a person who has received such a discharge is a convicted felon. And THAT'S why it's on the Form 4473.

Does this answer your question?


Here's some reading for you:

http://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/court-martial-trials/

 

[Art Eatman]

BATFE is authorized by law, on a case-by-case basis, to restore the right of ownership of a firearm. E.g. a non-violent felon who embezzled money. Or somebody who'd been a paragon of virtue for twenty or forty years after some non-violent mess-up.

The agency claims that its budget precludes having the personnel to do that paperwork--and it has never had the needed funds. The reality is that they've never asked Congress for that money--and won't.

 

[hatt]

Coming up with an "enemy" group of limited rights citizens was a stroke of genius that will be used to come after everyone. They'll simply keep expanding the group. Next was misdemeanor DV. And it'll continue.

 

[WestKentucky]

Honestly can't believe this thread is still open, so I wanted to say thank you to everyone for behaving yourselves and not getting this shut down. Fostering open discussion on this is even a step in the right direction as these threads do show up on Google searches.

 

[Jim K]

Correction: Above, I discussed the origin of the Congressional (not BATFE) ban on restoration of gun rights and said it dated from 1973. That is apparently not correct. This from the BATFE web site:

"Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for restoration of Federal firearms privileges submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place."

Jim

 

[WestKentucky]

Correction: Above, I discussed the origin of the Congressional (not BATFE) ban on restoration of gun rights and said it dated from 1973. That is apparently not correct. This from the BATFE web site:

"Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for restoration of Federal firearms privileges submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place."

Jim

What malarkey. It's a ban on allowing people to do things legally.

 

[Art Eatman]

IMO, the odds are that if BATFE requested the funds, the Republican-dominated House Appropriations Committee would provide the money.

 

[DeepSouth]

IMO, your trying to fix the wrong part of the justice system first.

Although I have no felonies, I believe ANYONE convicted of ANYTHING should have full restoration of ALL rights after having "paid their debt to society". After all, a debt paid should be paid indeed and paid in-full. In my opinion, if you pay your debt only to be released back into society as a "sub-class" citizen, then you are STILL being punished (for the rest your life). To me, that's a life sentence.

I personally know a man that shot a friend of his, who was asleep, so he could steal some money to buy drugs. He was convicted of capital murder, 7 years later he's out and has his old job back, the guy he shot is still dead.

His debt is not paid, it will not be while he draws air. And you want to give him the rest of his rights back?

Fix the unjust part of the justice system THEN we'll talk. The hoarse has to be before the cart, that's the only way it will work.

 

[herrwalther]

There is already a process for removing felony cases from your record and clearing your name to "full" citizenship. A former friend of my wife is a non-violent felon. However her crime, even though it is "non violent" is still pretty heinous and her 2A right was taken away. I would never want this person to be able to legally own a firearm. Even though her "debt" to society was paid after her police chief father made it go away.

A different friend of my wife is another non violent felon. Went to prison over marijuana with intent to distribute. He went through the process to clear his name, and recently got himself a "yay" gift of a brand new Kimber. There is a reason why the process is long. If your crime was a stupid young kid mistake, you can fix it with effort.