Court Considers Voting Rights For Ex-Cons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes.

The only people who are ever disarmed by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey the law.

If the felon is inclined to obey the laws now that he's done his time, he'll obey the law and not own any guns or shoot any people.

If the felon is not inclined to obey the laws now that he has done his time, he will own guns and shoot people no matter what the law says.

So the only people who are disarmed by the ex-felon gun bans are people who are no longer a threat to the social order.

pax

Why don't they just put up a sign that says, "No robberies allowed"? -- Don Stahlnecker
 
Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.
 
Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.
Click to expand...

Sorry, there's just too much logic in your statement. You're gonna get pummled by the police state advocates on this board.
 
I believe if felons want all their civil rights restored, the burden of proof ought to be on them to demonstrate they've become solid, law-abiding citizens. Have they completed their sentences? Have they made restitution? Are they self-supporting? Are they tax payers rather than tax consumers?

If we're going to trust them to vote and run for public office, I think fairness dictates we're going to have to trust them to keep and bear arms—but I'd say this needs to be done on a case by case basis rather than class action law suits by assault lawyers.
 
skunk, that wouldn't really work. Ex-felons are stigmatized by society and cannot acquire many well-paying jobs once they're released unless they have friends in positions to get them hired or unless they lie on their job applications and don't get caught.

There's the option of living legally through low-paying jobs, and certainly not all are unable to break into the middle and upper classes through legal work engagements, but most choose to take on the odds and return to a life of crime because of actual or perceived roadblocks now in their life path. Most of those people end up back in jail; some manage to avoid it through luck and caution; others die. It's a really sad situation.

The voting issue is related to this. Because of the stigma attached to ex-felons, it is difficult to expect ex-felons not to use polls to exact sociopolitical revenge on others. Most ex-criminals do not have the moral scruples to avoid seeking revenge, whether purposeful or not, even when such ex-cons were convicted only of silly malum prohibitum laws. Similarly, ex-cons tend to support social programs to substitute for the free market alternatives which are made exceedingly difficult for them to take advantage of.
 
Hondo68-you are so right. I see no problem with a waiting period to see if the felon has learned to take his aggression out in a more constructive manner, but denying them the right to vote violates their right to representation, IMO. When it comes to owning firearms, consideration should be given as to the original crime and whether or not it was committed with a firearm or was of a violent nature. Also, the inherent right of self defense comes into play, but the most important right I think is with the peaceable citizens themselves. Should this felon be on the street in the first place? Cure them or kill them.
 
Why not? If they pose any danger to society, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. They are a continuing threat to society and yet they are let out of prison anyway. If our justice system worked the way its supposed to, I would say agree, but with its revolving door policy and rates of recidivism, you are simply equiping them for their next crime spree.
 
The BG's are getting guns by theft or other illegal means anyway-yet the government will hold law abiding citizens to an unnecessary, stoopid, and complicated standard. Felons typically don't use the money they might have to purchase a firearm legally anyway, so what exactly are we preventing in the first place?
 
I vote no, for violent felons and sex offenders, for other felons yes.
Click to expand...
You know, there used to be a distinction between felonies and misdemeanors for this very purpose -- it was the distinction between those who were dangerous and those who were not.

But it is the nature of government to grow. So "felon" has been defined downward, and downward again, even while the punishments for felonies have gotten more severe.

pax

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
 
even while the punishments for felonies have gotten more severe.
Click to expand...
When have punishments gotten more severe?
They haven't in my lifetime, they have gotten softer and softer. :(

Felonies such as burglary, auto theft and fraud have always been felonies, not misdemeanors.
So violence was not the factor between felony and misd, except in assault cases and that was dependent upon the severity of the injuries.
What is sad is that now in order to be a felony fraud in my county, it has to be over $15,000 otherwise it is treated as a misd theft. :rolleyes:
It gets softer and softer and all the more profitable to be a felon. :D
 
If their sentance is complete, they should have their rights restored completely.

If they get a 20 year sentance they should have their rights restored at 20 years + 1 day, regardless of the time actually served.

As others have stated, the sentance should fit the crime and the convict should serve every day of his sentance.
 
Well since society won't execute all sex offenders and murderers, as I believe they should be, I agree with restricting their access to weapons and making it punishable if they do obtain them.

I know this is all theoretical, but I get the feeling that few if any of you have had contact with these predatory creatures, otherwise you might have a different point of view as I do.
 
Ex-felons/ex-cons have the same inalienable rights as anyone else once they've served their sentence.
Click to expand...

No, part of their sentence for being a leech in our free society is the loss of rights. We all know the rules of society and the consequences if we break them. If you can prove to me that a felon has re-paid their debt, I will be willing to reconsider position.

(this does not include the felony cases such as throwing leftover food in a dumpster in a state park)
 
Well since society won't execute all sex offenders and murderers, as I believe they should be,
Click to expand...
DE, I had to hiccup a little on your use of the term "sex offenders." I agree with you that sexual predators are in the same bag as murderers, and maybe some other categories of sex crime as well. But I'm aware of the over-zealous prosecution and subsequent conviction of too many "technical" sex offenses that are dumped into that category for prosecutorial convenience to agree that ALL sex offenses are deserving of death. Do you agree?

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Leatherneck,

I agree, the preditors must go. The guy who gets drunk and wags his talleywacker at some co-eds (albeit what it is) does not deserve death. But I suspect DE was speaking of the former, but who knows?

ehenz
 
I'm ok with it maybe. Violent felons should never have guns, true but...

But taking away votor rights opens some interesting doors. Let's say a radical Democrat gets into office and makes all gun ownership illegal. So now thousands of us have a record and lose voter rights.

Great tactic to stop Republicans from voting wouldn't you say?
 
What you people can't read my mind? ;)

I should be more specific once in a while.
As for sex offenders, I refer to the forcible predatory type of individual, not someone who got convicted of a bogus "he said, she said" case that could just as easily have been consensual.

Actually since we can't really be sure of the facts in alot of sex offense cases, we can't really afford to be executing them.
That is why I see the death penalty as impractical in our society, since there are so many questions as to the guilt of some people.

So sadly we have to keep them around in our society.
 
Dues payed

I may be in the minority here but I believe that if one has made restitution/ done time they may be considered to have paid their debt.

We impose a sentence and after that you have paid your dues/penence.

Under that view you are now clean and a citizen again!

If you violate again it is treated as a new infraction, though it may be mitigated by prior behavior.

Your behavior will betermine how you are treated!
 
Another thing to consider, if the govt can take away a right, guess what , it ain't no right at all, it's a privlige.
And yes ex cons should be allowed to vote, and violent sex offenders and murders should have their guns back when they leave. Put em in the coffin with them. For crimes commited with a firearm, the sentence should be measured in multiples of decades, not too many 50 and 60 year old muggers out there.
Of course, the voting laws are up to each state.
Jack
 
you are simply equiping them for their next crime spree.
Click to expand...

This point was already addressed in the thread. If they're going to arm themselves and commit a crime, they aren't going to honor any laws and avoid guns. Only those that won't go on a "spree" will honor the gun laws.

Besides, even among criminals the number one reason for gun ownership is protection.
 
SKUNK

THATS SCARY,OLE BOBBY HAS BEEN SAYING THAT ;[VERBATEM/] FOR A LONNG TIME. THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN IT I BELIEVE, THANKS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Jack Kemp says give rights back to felons..
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
solareclipse
S
2
  • Locked
National Association for the Advancement of Criminals and Parolees?
Replies
3
Views
450
vmi93
V
C
  • Locked
Montana: "Bill would reinstate right to vote for felons"
Replies
6
Views
685
tobeat1
T
R
  • Locked
Florida to restore felon's rights
Replies
2
Views
685
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
(WY) Bill reinstates felons' right to vote
Replies
2
Views
755
PATH
P
Back
Top