Criminals' right to arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

ksnecktieman

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
1,152
Location
Junction City, Kansas
Ok, I am curious about whether we really believe we should have a right to arms or not. If a person is caught, convicted and does time in jail, "pays his debt to society" as it has been referred to, should he be allowed to have firearms?
I am not talking about career criminals here. I am referring to a first time criminal, maybe someone broke out someone's car window, wrote bad checks for enough money to be a felony, or had a fight with their mate (domestic disturbance), or got in a fight and picked up a stick for a weapon, maybe even someone that stole a tv, even a bar fight, where someone broke a bottle over someones head (aggravated assault,felony?)

Should they forfeit their right to vote, and their right to own a firearm?

My opinion is,,,,, I believe the three strikes and your out law is good. Lock up career criminals. If someone breaks the law, and goes to jail for it, when they are released their punishment should be over, and their rights should be restored, completely. If someone is a threat to society he should be kept in jail. If he is freed, he should be free.
 
My own opinion is that losing the right to firearms (and to vote, etc.) is suitable punishment for a felony. I don't believe that jail time is the only penalty for committing a felonly, only the most visible one. The perp knew (or should have known - ignorance of the law being no excuse and all) what the potential penalties were and still made the choice to commit the act.
 
Absent a Best-Of-All-Possible-Worlds scenario:

In jail: No guns.
Out of jail: Guns.

"But what about people who [insert heinous crime here]?"
To which the logical response is: "What are they doing out of jail?"


My own opinion is that losing the right to firearms (and to vote, etc.) is suitable punishment for a felony.
Click to expand...

Define "felony". These days, having a bad CPA or filling in a mud puddle can be a felony... :uhoh:
 
One of the only just reasons I can think of for depriving someone of the right to keep and bear arms is their being found guilty of committing a violent crime. Such an act on their part is objective evidence that they do not posess the necessary qualities of self-control and ethical development to responsibly bear arms. Put another way, the presumption ought to be that all adults have the right to keep and bear arms unless their positive actions prove otherwise.

"But what about people who [insert heinous crime here]?"
Click to expand...

I don't consider it likely that, say, armed robbery will routinely land people in jail for life. But an armed robber has already shown by their own positive actions that they cannot exercise their right to keep and bear arms without harming others.
 
Such an act on their part is objective evidence that they do not posess the necessary qualities of self-control and ethical development to responsibly bear arms.
Click to expand...

Or walk around freely. Or breathe my air, come to think of it. My first thought is usually "Why didn't somebody just shoot them while they were committing the crime?" :uhoh:
 
Seems to me a large part of this issue is that of danger to the community. It seems to me that an embezzler is unlikely to have a propensity to violence, so why should he lose his right to self-defense or to hunting?

Texas law--superseded by federal law--held that even a violent-felon ex-con could have a gun IN HIS HOME for self-defense. He couldn't take a rifle hunting, though...

I'd approve a rational review system as regards the restoration of civil rights, with consideration given to the type of crime and the liklihood of future danger to the community. That seems to me to be no more difficult than our present system for allowing parole or probation.

Art
 
Or walk around freely. Or breathe my air, come to think of it. My first thought is usually "Why didn't somebody just shoot them while they were committing the crime?"
Click to expand...

Kind of utopian. My kind of utopia, though. :evil:

If the criminal basically forfeits their right to life by committing a violent crime, then it follows that any lesser punishment is not unjust, except insofar as it is too lenient.
 
Well said, Tamara
If they can't be trusted with guns, can they be trusted with knives, gasoline, cars, etc, etc, ad infinitum?
Felonies are slippery things. At one point a felony meant a "real" crime against someone else (murder, assault, armed robbery, and so on). Now, it could be because you've got an extra bit of metal hanging beneath your rifle barrel or any number of other similarly harmless "crimes".
I believe the three strikes and your out law is good. Lock up career criminals.
Click to expand...
You mean 3 convictions, I take it? Any discrimination between the severity of the crimes? Will 3 zoning violations get your guns taken away, or just things like 3 armed robberies?
 
Define "felony". These days, having a bad CPA or filling in a mud puddle can be a felony..
Click to expand...

I think the issue of "having a bad CPA" or "filling in a mud puddle" isn't really applicable. To me, that is a completely separate issue ("What is a felony?") from this one ("Should felons have weapons rights restored?").

Whatever the local/state/federal law defines as a felony is, by definition, a felony. And, as I mentioned, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There are punishments established for those crimes, and one of the punishments happens to be the denial of several rights.
 
ChiefPilot:

You recite "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But, as Tamara has inferred, we are all ignorant of some of the laws. Congress passes laws without repealing any others. State legislatures do the same, as do County, city and other local groups. We ordinary citizens can't possibly keep up!

I'm with Tamara here.
 
I think the issue of "having a bad CPA" or "filling in a mud puddle" isn't really applicable. To me, that is a completely separate issue ("What is a felony?") from this one ("Should felons have weapons rights restored?").
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a separate issue at all. You're using "felon" as a determining factor of whether or not someone can own a defensive weapon. As such, "what is a felony" is absolutely a question we need to ask. Espeically as "felony" continues to expand in meaning to encompass utterly harmless pseudo-crimes.

Are you willing to deny the means of self-protection to someone who didn't know that a magazine marked "11/94" was illegal for them to own?
Whatever the local/state/federal law defines as a felony is, by definition, a felony.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Have you seen what passes for a felony these days?
 
My question for the purists is this: if the right to bear arms is absolute and cannot be denied, why should felons be barred from having guns while they are incarcerated? I mean, they still have the right to practice freedom of religion, they still have the right counsel and a jury by their peers, they cannot be tortured, or enslved, or denied medical attention, they have a right to relate stories of abuse or unfair treatment to the press, so their right to free speech is still intact. Seems pretty intellectually inconsistent to me that you would support the denial of this fundamental, God-given, absolute right simply because of someone's residency status.
 
I don't think it is a separate issue at all. You're using "felon" as a determining factor of whether or not someone can own a defensive weapon. As such, "what is a felony" is absolutely a question we need to ask. Espeically as "felony" continues to expand in meaning to encompass utterly harmless pseudo-crimes.

Are you willing to deny the means of self-protection to someone who didn't know that a magazine marked "11/94" was illegal for them to own?
Click to expand...

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And, I might add, it's certainly not denying THE means of protection, but rather A means of self protection.

I think we both agree that there are crimes which shouldn't result in the loss of certain rights. Should posession of a post-AWB hi-cap be a felony? No, of course not. But I still think that's a separate issue and should be addressed as such. I think it would be silly for someone to lose voting/firearms/etc. rights over something like that. So make it a misdemeaner instead. Better yet, make it completely legal by letting the AWB ride off into the sunset, never to be seen again.
 
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with some of the folks here. Felonies aren't what they once were. At one time, felonies were grave crimes. That has been watered down to the point that many of us commit felonies every day. In some jurisdictions, pouring the wrong thing down the drain is a felony. Driving your car or walking in the wrong place can be a felony. Shooting a deer on the wrong side of an invisible, unmarked line may lead one to being charged with several felonies. To use a case currently in the news, one of the felonies Martha Stewart is being prosecuted for is the "crime" of proclaiming her innocence. I believe I read recently about a shop owner in NYC who was charged with a felony because he had an ashtray in his shop, a clear violation of the smoking laws in that city. This felony thing has become a pretty slippery slope.

The definition of "violent crime" is on the same slippery slope. What you can legally do in your bedroom in your state may well be a criminal, sexual offense in my state, thus a "violent crime". A loud, boisterous, heated argument, in some locals, may lead to an arrest for a crime of violence. If you are legally carrying a holstered sidearm under your jacket and walk across an exhaust vent on a city sidewalk and the air blows your jacket open, exposing your handgun, you may technically be charged with brandishing a gun in some jurisdictions, a "crime of violence".

These erosions of definition, these mutations of original concepts, are a poor basis for a lifetime deprivation of rights.
 
I think that once you've done your time, you should get back all your rights. In my wildest imagination, I can't come up with a reason why felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. When you can't vote you have no self-determination. I can't imagine anyone caring about their community when they don't have a say in its direction.
 
rock, that's a pretty silly argument

What about the 4th amendment? :) Do prisoners have a right not to be searched without a warrant? Of course not! However, how many hoops do those of us on the "outside" have to jump through because of the way things are done in prison? None, obviously.

I have no problems with certain rights being denied to certain persons while incarcerated (by due proces of law) or while on probation or parole.

But now, because of a "little bit" of gun control which doesn't work (except in an exceedingly closed environment, and sometimes not even then), we have background checks, no mail order delivery, and de-facto registration via forms 4473.

Not to mention the millions of persons convicted of victimless felonies (but that is a whole nother story in itself).

Isn't it rather amazing how the USA survived for almost 200 years without these restrictions? I suppose Butch Cassidy would have given up robbing trains and banks after being in prison if he couldn't have legally owned a gun ....? :rolleyes:
 
rock, that's a pretty silly argument
Click to expand...
No more silly than the idea that we should all have the right to own nukes, or that society can't prohibit violent felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms, or that we can stick our heads in the sand and the whole threat of terrorism will just go away, or that completely open borders will actually be a good thing, or that a nation can actually exist without a form of government in the absence of tyranny.
 
Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Click to expand...
That may be true.

However, have you exhaustively read all the City, Township, County, State and Federal codes under which each of your actions might fall? I wonder if any of our resident lawyers could even claim that they know all laws that apply to them. Because of this massive amount of legislation on the books, it is impossible for any mere human to understand or even know about every law they are expected to follow. That being the case, how can you say that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Is it that you expect the impossible, or simply don't care as long as you're unaffected?
I think we both agree that there are crimes which shouldn't result in the loss of certain rights. Should posession of a post-AWB hi-cap be a felony? No, of course not. But I still think that's a separate issue and should be addressed as such. I think it would be silly for someone to lose voting/firearms/etc. rights over something like that. So make it a misdemeaner instead. Better yet, make it completely legal by letting the AWB ride off into the sunset, never to be seen again.
Click to expand...
Well see, here's the thing ... if you agree that some of what are currently considered felonies are not just reasons for removal of a person's RKBA, then how can you justify saying that all felonies should result in loss of RKBA?

I think we're thinking along the same lines, you're just stuck on the way rules are written now and the word Felony. In which case, the proper question for you is "What should ideally define 'felony' - keeping in mind that a felony is something that will restrict the perpetrator's right to own guns."

Tallpine,
Since you think that a little bit of gun control works and is a good idea, shouldn't it follow that a LOT of gun control works a lot better ?????
Click to expand...
I disagree with rock jock too, but this is just bad logic.
A good response to your claim is reminding you that many drugs have proper dosages to treat an illness. Neither the removal of the drug or an overdose of the drug are ideal.

Like I said, I disagree with rock jock, but at least use a reasonable arguement to refute him.
 
A felon should forever be barred from owning a firearm. He should never touch firearms or ammunition, modern or antique.

A felon can use his fists for self defense.
 
WT? I run a small car repair shop. If I habitually change oil in a car, and carry it outside, and dump it in my gravel parking lot to keep down dust. The federal statutes say I am a felon for breaking laws about ground polution. Would you deny a right to carry for someone convicted of that? Or should we modify your meaning to be a "violent criminal"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
5K
joab
J
C
  • Locked
Felons and guns
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
5K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
R
  • Locked
Civil Liberties Restoration
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
5K
Red Wind
Red Wind
B
  • Locked
Reply Letter from JOHN CORNYN
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
skinnyguy
S
T
  • Locked
Senator Cornyn gets it
Replies
12
Views
770
anygunanywhere
A
Back
Top