Convicted felons owning guns

Should convicted felons be allowed to own Firearms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 203 41.4%

  • No

    Votes: 287 58.6%
  • Total voters
    490
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a felon has paid his dues, then he's PAID HIS DUES and no more debt should be held against him.
Click to expand...

Too hard to nail down in my opinion. Ok, so... maybe for firearms. What about sex offenders? They are limited as to where they can live... same rules apply for them? They did their time, they can run a day care if they want.

Once you become a felon, agree with it or not you will live with it for the rest of your life.
 
Too hard to nail down in my opinion. Ok, so... maybe for firearms. What about sex offenders? They are limited as to where they can live... same rules apply for them? They did their time, they can run a day care if they want.
Click to expand...

Depends on why. A 16 year old busted for distributing kiddie porn because she sent a nude pic of herself to her boyfriend? Sure.

A 50 year old man sexing up a 12 year old boy? He needs to not get out of jail. Ever. This would be possible if we weren't busy filling the jails because someone owned the wrong kind of plant.
 
frogomatic said:
...If a felon has paid his dues, then he's PAID HIS DUES...
Click to expand...
At present, part of those "dues" includes the loss of the right to possess a gun.

agd1953 said:
...The 2nd amendment does not have an "except" ...
Click to expand...
In accordance with the Constitution, one may be deprived of "life, liberty or property" by due process of law. Someone convicted of a felony, once he's exhausted or abandoned his rights of appeal, has had his due process.
 
No one should be prevented from having a gun.

If someone is a violent offender, they should never have been put back on the street to begin with.

Therefore, felons should have their rights reinstated once they have completed their prison terms.
 
The 2nd amendment does not have an "except". All Americans should have the right to self defence.
Click to expand...


Is that the only part of the Constitution that you know? Because saying stuff like that makes me think so. Life, liberity, or property can be taken away by the law, and that, is in the Constitution as well.
 
If a felon has paid his dues, then he's PAID HIS DUES and no more debt should be held against him.



What!?!

Removal of his/her rights to own a firearm ARE PART of their "dues". Jail-time is not the only consequence for breaking a law.
 
The law is the law. If you break it you suffer the consequences of your actions. You don't make firearms more available to convicted violent criminals just because your logic is "they will get one anyway". That is what some are spewing even though it is being sugar coated. Take an innocent life, rape someone, molest a child, commit arson, etc, no guns for you. You lost your rights along with your humanity. Don't like it? too bad, petition the Governor or the President, see if they agree with you, still don't like it, move out of the country. There are certain things in life you just cannot condone like killing innocent people burning down houses and molesting kids, and yes you no longer get to keep the rights you had, you violated the public trust. Many of these people are psychologically disturbed, no one knows if they will re offend or not, most will, most do. Why would you want to arm them.
 
Just like someone that gets too many DUIs has their DL taken, someone that has committed a crime (a felony) should have their rights taken away.

I'm sorry but I firmly believe that anyone that has commited a SERIOUS crime like murder, rape, armed robbery should not have any rights. period.

As for the "paid their dues" bs, I don't believe in that either. Why do criminals that robbed, assulted, ran dog fighting rings get a second chance after they paid their dues, but an 18 yer old kid that has sex with his long time 17 year old girlfriend or aguy that takes a leak outside gets labeled as a sexual offender and is FOREVER forced to register and have their face plastered all over web sites?
 
fireside, I agree with you that violent offenders should not be put back on the street to begin with. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. They are put back on the street. I know this is a sticky topic. I've made three posts before in this thread that were pretty politically incorrect and rather callouse, and don't apologize for them, but you guys are correct that say it should be seperated into violent and non violent felonies. I'll agree there.
 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sounds to me that felons have received their due process, AND only then are they removed of their right to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

Privileges,Immunities, Life, Liberty, property? I fail to see where it says he shall be deprived from his RIGHTS. The 2nd amendment in a constitutional RIGHT. I work with federal inmates. I see guys locked up all the time who continued to own guns for many years after being convicted as felons. They didn't commit crimes with the firearms, they were criminals because they HAD the firearms. The guys who commit crimes with the them are not inclined to obey a law that says they can't. Prohibition from owning a firearm is an ineffective and unnecessary infringement on the constitutional rights of one class of people so the other class can "feel" safer. It does nothing to promote that uin my experience.
 
If someone is safe enough to be put back in society I see no reason to deprive them of their constitutional rights. Either keep them in prison or restore their rights fully.
 
BTW. The 13th Amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

So by your logic, slavery is ok too as long as he was convicted of a crime? Slavery WAS done through due process. That didn't make it correct.
 
jon_in_wv said:
...I see guys locked up all the time who continued to own guns for many years after being convicted as felons. They didn't commit crimes with the firearms, they were criminals because they HAD the firearms. The guys who commit crimes with the them are not inclined to obey a law that says they can't....
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean we have to let them possess guns legally. They've had due process, and the loss of gun rights is part of the price they pay for their crime.

You think it should be different? Well throw some money into the pot to finance litigation to change things. How much should we put you down for?
 
If someone is safe enough to be put back in society I see no reason to deprive them of their constitutional rights. Either keep them in prison or restore their rights fully.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
You think it should be different? Well throw some money into the pot to finance litigation to change things. How much should we put you down for?
Click to expand...

Yes I think it should be different, (didn't I just say that?) but if you weren't trying to be melodramatic you would admit that it just isn't going to happen. What I think of the situation has no more merit than for the sake of discussion.

Should an inmate's judgement also remove his right to free speech? Remove his right to due process? Why is it ok to strip away one right but not others? They would be equally effective at preventing crime.
 
Just my 2 cents. It appears that we lots and lots of law and order types. "You did the crime, now do the time". Reality is that these things follow you for the rest of your life. Doing the time is only the beginning. In my state, 20 grams of pot, less than the amount of tobacco in a pack of cigarettes, is a felony. Now, I'm 52. I grew up in the 70's. I've known folks who went to prison for things that I'd consider pretty minor. I am sure that most of them never knew that they were committing a felony. My point is that far too many things are punishable for life, essentially. Think about it, should an 18 year old who has sex with his 17 year, 11 month, 28 day old girlfriend be a felon? The kid with an ounce of weed? And would your opinion change if it was your kid? And should that record follow them forever? I'm just asking. Now, feel free to flame me.
 
Last edited:
The law is the law. If you break it you suffer the consequences of your actions.
Click to expand...
Problem is, you don't know what political actions ended up putting someone in prison.

I'm not going to go into detail here, but a lifelong friend of mine just completed a six year sentence on a felony charge that had no basis in fact. A good man who tried to do everything right, ended up doing hard time on the word of someone else, mainly because he was trying to shield his family from the effects of lies by the opposition.

Don't tell me that every felon in our society is guilty. I know better. My friend's children grew up without a father because of the PC attitude our society has, that the accusor is always right.

It amazes me that the same members who are shouting that the gov can't be trusted, will turn right around and say that if the gov said someone is guilty, then they must be, and taking their rights away is a just thing to do.

Take a step back and examine exactly what you are advocating. My friend paid the price for "he must be guilty, she said he was".

To stay with the theme of the thread, my friend misses hunting with his two boys. He's doing his best with a lawyer friend in Denver to get his record expunged before he's too old to hunt with them again.
 
i dont mean to come across rude, but if a person commits a crime its usually premeditated and they should live with their punishment which includes loss of certain rights, just as the victim (and/or their families) live with the memory. personally, i'm tired of supporting convicted killers,sex offenders,& violent criminals that were CAUGHT RED HANDED commiting the crime. an eye for an eye. charlie daniels said it best in the song"simple man"
 
I think that the big problem here is that many people are assuming that felony= violent crime with a victim.

The truth is, the vast majority of felonies in this nation today are non-violent malum prohibitum laws like buying too much SudaFed in a 30 day period, or downloading a movie from the internet.
 
whoever voted yes felons should be allowed to have guns should be not be allowed to own guns either - they have as bad judgement as the felons !:banghead: NOOOOOOOOOOO FELONS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED GUNS THERE BE ANARCHY!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Does anyone have a convicted felon as a family member and a firearms issue?
Replies
21
Views
2K
akodo
A
M
  • Locked
becoming a felon/losing your guns
Replies
20
Views
1K
scythefwd
S
A
  • Locked
If a law is ruled Unconstitutional & a person was convicted under it is their conviction overturned?
Replies
5
Views
851
stonecutter2
stonecutter2
B
  • Locked
NY Post article....
Replies
5
Views
459
MikeyBee
M
A
  • Locked
Federal Government Bans Conservative Laura Loomer from Owning Guns
Replies
14
Views
2K
hso
hso
Back
Top