Civil Liberties Restoration

[bikemutt]

In WA their is a legal procedure wherein a person previously convicted of most Class B and below felonies can petition a Superior court to have their gun rights restored. A certain amount of time must transpire since the conviction(s) and/or time served. And, AFIK, as long as all conditions have been met, the court MUST grant the petitioner relief from the disability.

 

[Sav .250]

Florida is one of the last 3 states to automatically restore a felons civil rights.

After successfully completing your sentence, you have to submit a request to the state for reinstatement.

That is 5 years "AFTER" you`ve completed your sentence. They tack 5 more years on to show you whose boss! Folks are left twisting in the wind .

After that 5 year waiting period, It could be another 5-10 years before they get around to you. Those are the facts!!!

Non-violent felons are considered the same as violent ones.

The local newspaper stated there are over 100,000 people on the list.

 

[Midwest]

Martha Stewart and G. Gordon Liddy are examples of those who should be able to have their firearm rights restored. They paid their debt and they didn't commit any violent crime.
.

 

[Red Wind]

^ I totally agree. And since both were convicted on Federal charges, only a Presidential pardon can restore their firearm and other civil rights.

They'll both die without that happening. This is wrong and a shame on America. I'll say that again and again. Until I die myself.

 

[DeepSouth]

I think a huge part of the problem is the term "paid their debt"

Who gets say when the debt is paid? What does that really even mean?

We all know people, or know of people, that have committed crimes and let off way to easy. So who says the debt is paid, not us (the public) generally nor is it the victims, but the Government..... Well, not always..... some judge decides.

Lots of those people never paid their debt, they just got released.
Like I said, that has to be fixed first THEN we can talk about them having rights back. Right now, with prison overcrowding, early release programs, and the fact that the victims usually don't get back whatever the criminals took I have no problem saying most, or at least a large amount of criminals never really pay their debt.

It's punishment, and part of the punishment for the crime sometimes includes loosing some rights permanently.

 

[Red Wind]

Like I said, that has to be fixed first THEN we can talk about them giving having rights. Right now, with prison overcrowding, early release programs, and the fact that the victims usually don't get back whatever the criminals took I have no problem saying most, or at least a large amount of criminals never really pay their debt.

Like I said , those violent, irascible,vicious ,wicked, irredeemable criminals should never be released. Or they should be put to death.

 

[DeepSouth]

Like I said , those violent, irascible,vicious ,wicked, irredeemable criminals should never be released. Or they should be put to death.

And I'm not just talking about them.

EDIT:
Besides you said in the above quote SHOULD...... But that's not always the case.
Therefore my position that we have to fix that FIRST.

 

[Red Wind]

And I'm not just talking about them.

Yeah. That's what so sad. You are a long ways from 1791. Heart of Dixie.

Late edit. Does not count!

 

[Red Wind]

Post being modified by DS. We await the result.

 

[Red Wind]

I will be a broken record. IMHO, once the charged criminal debts are totally paid, and all probation accounted for, then all civil rights should be restored, including firearms,jury duty and voting.

It's America.

 

[DeepSouth]

I will be a broken record. IMHO, once the charged criminal debts are totally paid, and all probation accounted for, then all civil rights should be restored, including firearms,jury duty and voting.

It's America.

I 100% completely agree, I just don't believe "the charged criminal debts are totally paid, and all probation accounted for" is the norm at this point. And that's the bigger problem that needs to be fixed FIRST.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

Post #24 should be read and those of you who think rights should be granted back really need to think about your mindset. His debt will never be paid, PERIOD!!!!!!

 

[Jim K]

My first post, in which I relied on my fallible memory, was partly iin error. I won't revisit it, though, unless someone asks. But the end result was the same. Congress wanted to eliminate the provision to allow felons to have their gun rights restored but didn't want to amend the Gun Control Act, so they sneaked in a "back door" ban in the appropriations bill to keep BATFE from spending money on any part of the appeal process.

West Kentucky said, "What malarkey. It's a ban on allowing people to do things legally."

Malarkey or not, there is no way any convicted felon can have his gun rights restored, and he can't own or buy a gun legally in the U.S. A state can restore other rights, like the right to vote, but he can't buy a gun from a dealer and he can't legally own a gun because states don't control those things. I didn't make that rule; BATFE didn't make that rule. Congress made that rule, so those who don't like it, write your Congressperson.

Jim

 

[Red Wind]

I 100% completely agree, I just don't believe "the charged criminal debts are totally paid, and all probation accounted for" is the norm at this point. And that's the bigger problem that needs to be fixed FIRST.

Totally agree. It is far from the norm. It has got to be fixed. Lifetime prison. Death. Hanging. Old Sparkie. Firing Squad. Whatever for violent, hopeless offenders.

 

[PowerG]

I have no doubt there is a significant portion of the felon population who get out of prison and never cause another problem. The reality is, however, that many convicted felons who are serving time are doing so for only a portion (or one) of the crimes they have committed, and just didn't get caught for the others. Many cases are pled down, so that the crime they are serving time for is not as serious as the one they actually committed, thus the sentence was shortened. I would have no problem with restoring rights on a case by case basis to those who have actually earned the privilege, but as a blanket policy it would seem to me to be a bad idea.

 

[Red Wind]

I would have no problem with restoring rights on a case by case basis to those who have actually earned the privilege, but as a blanket policy it would seem to me to be a bad idea.

Good observation. But how would you address the case by case supposition regarding the 2nd Amendment? Not to mention voting and jury duty.

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

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"???

No in all of these situations. That goes back to my assertion that if you can't be trusted to defend your own life, then you shouldn't be a part of society. Pretty simple.

As for pedophiles, I have my own suggestions, but your scenario should never come into play in the first place. I TOTALLY disagree with the pedophile registration thing. If you're such a despicable human being that you aren't allowed to live or be within a set distance from a school / daycare, etc, then you do not belong in society. If not prison then ok, secure mental hospital, but not free.

There have been many young men who did very bad things, even homicide, in their younger years who have changed at the heart level, and are now loving, kind, repentant men with much to offer society. I have a family member that fits that description (homicide; drunken argument with a fellow biker, but not cold blooded murder)...he's now a converted Christian and great family man.

BTW, ever here a speaker say "I used to be a pedophile, but now I'm a changed man".'...?

 

[CoalTrain49]

Does this answer your question?

Yes, didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

Like I said , those violent, irascible,vicious ,wicked, irredeemable criminals should never be released. Or they should be put to death.

Amen brother! It always goes back to the simple choice (or decision in a parole boards' case),....
1- free

2-bound

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

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?

Thank you, you just made my point! He shouldn't be "walking around" at all.

 

[Jim K]

"I would have no problem with restoring rights on a case by case basis to those who have actually earned the privilege..."

That is what the original law intended; but Congress has taken the decision making out of the hands of the AG or BATFE stopped the process completely.

Jim

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

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



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.

No no no! I don't want HIM having gun rights, HE shouldn't be here if he did in fact commit cold blooded murder...(and killing someone in their sleep to by drugs is pretty cold).

 

[DeepSouth]

Quote:
Like I said , those violent, irascible,vicious ,wicked, irredeemable criminals should never be released. Or they should be put to death.

Amen brother! It always goes back to the simple choice (or decision in a parole boards' case),....
1- free

2-bound

But the problem is we can't seem to keep them in jail, so the other option is release them, with full rights? Even when most agree they should still be jailed.... Doesn't sound reasonable to me. Right now the wrong choices are very frequent, that's what has to be fixed....FIRST

Thank you, you just made my point! He shouldn't be "walking around" at all.

But t he is walking around. The conversation we SHOULD be having is how to keep this from happening........instead we're talking about if he have his rights back when he IS walking around. NO, he shouldn't have his rights

"I would have no problem with restoring rights on a case by case basis to those who have actually earned the privilege..."

That is what the original law intended; but Congress has taken the decision making out of the hands of the AG or BATFE stopped the process completely.

This is the correct conversation, welcome back 1791.

No no no! I don't want HIM having gun rights, HE shouldn't be here if he did in fact commit cold blooded murder...(and killing someone in their sleep to by drugs is pretty cold).

I agree, I want him to have as few rights as possible. In out current situation, that means him getting out of prison with less civil rights, and that's insane.




All I'm saying is many, many people that should still be in jail are out.
And since they shouldn't be out, they shouldn't have civil rights.
AFTER we get it to where most people that should be in prison are in the prisons
Then we can start talking about giving civil rights to people that get out.

We're fighting the wrong battle.


It's like fixing immigration but keeping the open boarders.... You ain't fixed jack!

 

[Rusty Shakleford]

But the problem is we can't seem to keep them in jail, so the other option is release them, with full rights? Even when most agree they should still be jailed.... Doesn't sound reasonable to me. Right now the wrong choices are very frequent, that's what has to be fixed....FIRST



But t he is walking around. The conversation we SHOULD be having is how to keep this from happening........instead we're talking about if he have his rights back when he IS walking around. NO, he shouldn't have his rights






This is the correct conversation, welcome back 1791.





I agree, I want him to have as few rights as possible. In out current situation, that means him getting out of prison with less civil rights, and that's insane.




All I'm saying is many, many people that should still be in jail are out.
And since they shouldn't be out, they shouldn't have civil rights.
AFTER we get it to where most people that should be in prison are in the prisons
Then we can start talking about giving civil rights to people that get out.

We're fighting the wrong battle.


It's like fixing immigration but keeping the open boarders.... You ain't fixed jack!

Ok......now I finally see where you're coming from.

In my "panic" to see freedom restored to the US, I'm sometimes very jaded to supposed opposition when trying to make an argument......... my bad.

I guess you're saying SINCE criminals are being released early, or unduly (still criminal minded), we have no better option than to (try to) restrict his freedom, correct? I get that, but it still comes back to the fact that the criminal minded don't care about whatever restriction they're being placed under (that's not meant to be argumentative, it's just true and also an unneeded alternative.....which brings us back to your point).

Your example of the boarder/illegal situation is indeed appropriate, and one I totally agree with.

In the end, it's another example of government trying to fix a problem that they created in the first place, by not seeing justice through.

The reason I started this thread was because I'm passionate about my God given right to protect myself and my family. Because of the ILLEGAL "domestic violence" con, I'm an innocent victim, and want to warn others of this underhanded scheme before some other poor shlub believes it when he's told "it's no big deal, it's just a misdemeanor". What it really is, is a gun grab.

 

[garymc]

I don't have much problem with the position that if you commit a felony and even get caught, tried, and convicted, you get whatever sentence the court metes out subject to whatever modification the penal system decides on and you will be without the right to own and possess firearms, vote, and whatever other things the law provides for. The "debt" includes the loss of these civil rights until they're restored and I'd be ok with the vast majority of convicted felons not ever getting them restored. I see the gun and voting prohibition as just part of the debt.