Criminals' right to arms

[TallPine]

Like I said, I disagree with rock jock, but at least use a reasonable arguement to refute him.

The argument is not unreasonable at all.

If we absoulutely must have background checks to keep felons and the mentally ill from purchasing a gun, then wouldn't it be better to have everyone pass a psychological exam to prove their mental stability before buying a gun ....? And then make them keep their guns and ammo locked up at the gun club? Oh, heck - just take them all away, just to make sure. That's what they did in England.

You see, that is where it is headed, whether we like it or not. If you think "step 1" is a "reasonable restriction" then step 2, 3, 4 ... N is also reasonable. (actually, we are well past step 1 - background checks are a step beyond GCA 1968 ).

That's why it is bad to agree to existing laws.

Warning: anything you say can be used against you by the anti-gunners.

 

[ChiefPilot]

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?

So, let's see here :

1) You do something that you know may be considered a felony by a court of law.
2) You know the possible consequences of your actions before taking them.
3) Knowing the consequences of your actions, you choose to do it anyway.

Seems to me that if you were caught and prosecuted (how likely is that, BTW - I'm guessing not very), you have no one to blame but yourself. Is the penalty more severe than it should be? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you chose to take the risk (of being caught) anyway.

 

[tyme]

Violent felons should get a forehead tattoo - "poor impulse control" - when released.[1]

[1] The tattoo part of the idea shamelessly cribbed from Snow Crash, of course.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

rock jock:

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.

Whenever the Supreme Court reviews a restriction placed on a fundamental right they review it under a standard of strict scrutiny. There has to be a compelling need for the restriction that serves an overwhelming public good.

There's no suc compelling need or public good served by a State restricting the 1st amendment rights of the incarcerated, there is one however for restricting thier 2nd amendment rights. You couldn't run a prison without such a restriction and incarceration is a power granted to the State by the Constitution.

As for the court's authority of Judicial review, that's granted by the constitution. As for Congress's authority to pass restrictive laws, there's not much to restrain that other than SCOTUS's power of Judicial Review and ultimately the people's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

WT:

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

Virginia allows felons the use of Tasers and mace for self defense in the home only.

 

[Sean Smith]

There is an important distinction to be drawn between "felon" and "violent criminal." A person can be a felon, but have committed what is objectively an inconsequential act. Non-violent felons can have all their rights restored the moment they walk out the jailhouse door as far as I'm concerned. Violent criminals are an entirely different matter, and you don't need a degree in law to know that you shouldn't carjack somebody, or whatever.

 

[Drjones]

It's this simple:

Jail is punishment for some wrongdoing.

When someone is released from prison, it is because they have served their time, "paid their dues to society," as it were.

If we release someone from prison and say, "since you did [insert crime here], we will not allow you to own firearms," that is continuing the punishment.

How is that right?

And if the person is so dangerous that we don't feel they should posess weapons, be around children, etc., then what the HECK are they doing out of prison?

 

[Sean Smith]

Unfortunately, the fact is that most violent criminals go free. Usually after SHORT terms in prison. Child molesters in particular seem to get off light when it comes to sentencing. And of course recidivisim for violent criminals (and child molesters in particular, go figure) is stunningly high.

That being the case, is there anything wrong with them being denied certain rights, when ideally the people in question should still be in prison or dead anyway?

 

[rock jock]

There has to be a compelling need for the restriction that serves an overwhelming public good.

I agree, but the purists would not.

 

[brownie0486]

Most releases from prisons have the felon on probation don't they?

And what if they are released on parole? Has their time been served fully?

Question: If you are on parole or probation, are you a freeman?

Question: If the perp got 20 to life, paroled at 15 years, is he free or is he still serving the time to life, even though paroled?

Brownie

 

[Drjones]

Pardon the OT, but what exactly is parole and probation?

Is there a difference between the two?

What is the purpose of them?

To the best of my understanding its basically a "now that you are out of time out (prison), if you do one more thing wrong you get spanked HARD."

Further explanation, anyone?

 

[tyme]

If someone is walking around free, he gets the right to defend himself just like anyone else. Required weekly meetings with a PO doesn't mean someone's a ward of the State.

The state can restrict rights for those in custody.

I'm close to a purist, and I don't see anything wrong with prohibiting weapon possession in prisons. As far as shanks go, it may not be enforceable, but the State is welcome to try.

 

[Tamara]

Sean Smith,

Unfortunately, the fact is that most violent criminals go free.

So, because we're letting child molesters out early, violators of the National Wetlands Coddling Act lose their right to self defense?

Maybe, just maybe... we could, you know, keep the kiddie botherers in the pen and let the puddle-fillers go and own all the guns they want. Call me crazy...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Either that or do away with prisons -- fine of some sort or death.

Or, prison as a voluntary alternative to other nastier punishments. They used to hang people for stealing horses didn't they? Isn't the modern analogue a car?

 

[Tamara]

Either that or do away with prisons -- fine of some sort or death.

Well... in a perfect world.

 

[Sean Smith]

So, because we're letting child molesters out early, violators of the National Wetlands Coddling Act lose their right to self defense?

Try reading my posts, Tamara.

Quoting myself (God, but I love doing this ):

There is an important distinction to be drawn between "felon" and "violent criminal." A person can be a felon, but have committed what is objectively an inconsequential act. Non-violent felons can have all their rights restored the moment they walk out the jailhouse door as far as I'm concerned.

That being the case, is there anything wrong with them being denied certain rights, when ideally the people in question should still be in prison or dead anyway?

(Edited to add mysteriously missing smileys )

 

[WT]

This thread comes up about once a month. Sounds like a bunch of ex-cons want to carry a piece without getting their PO's all bent out of shape.

Yes DrJones, there is a significant difference between probation and parole.

And yes Sergeant, a home where a convicted felon lives should be bare of firearms. That includes the people living with him. Too bad. Life ain't fair.

I see no distinction between "nice" felons who deliberately, intentionally and knowingly pollute the environment (and groundwater and drinking wells possibly poisoning someone) and "violent" felons. Neither should be allowed firearms.

It will be a very cold day in hell before I go around campaigning for felons to be given firearms.

 

[cordex]

I see no distinction between "nice" felons who deliberately, intentionally and knowingly pollute the environment (and groundwater and drinking wells possibly poisoning someone) and "violent" felons. Neither should be allowed firearms.

Can you see the difference between a "nice" felon who was shipped a "pre-ban" upper receiver for his "post-ban" AR-15 lower by Bushmaster on accident which was mounted once just to check for function, and a real criminal? Or are they vile people in your eyes too?

 

[Car Knocker]

WT,

How about those folks that are felons due to non-deliberate, unintentional and unknowing acts?

I seriously doubt that there is anyone on this board who can quote EVERY law, regulation and code that does, can or may apply to their every act. Let's face it, most people can't even ace the written test when they apply for a driver's license. Heck, even the people that MAKE the laws often can't agree on what they mean or exactly what the intent of the law was. The IRS, when asked for tax advice, warns the people that the advice given may be incorrect and they follow the advice at their own risk!

I'm going to line up with those folks who say that when the custodial authority releases a felon, restore his rights...all of them!

 

[WT]

cordex - what are the facts in the particular "alleged" case? Was he prosecuted as a felon? Did the jury convict him as a felon? Did he serve more than a year in prison? Can you give me a link to the case?

I can't make an informed decision without more info.

However, a guy who trumpets to the world admitting that he regularly commits a felony by illegal dumping, a federal felony at that .... well, I certainly am not going to support his actions.

 

[WT]

car knocker - Interesting name. My wife's grandfather was a "car knocker".

Like the last few times this thread erupted, people try to equate a felony conviction with a mere motor vehicle violation. They ain't the same as far as importance is concerned. A felony conviction is a whole world different than an expired driver's license.

 

[Car Knocker]

Sorta like Martha Stewart saying she's innocent is in itself a felony? That's one of the charges she's being prosecuted on.

 

[cordex]

cordex - what are the facts in the particular "alleged" case? Was he prosecuted as a felon? Did the jury convict him as a felon? Did he serve more than a year in prison? Can you give me a link to the case?

I knew a high-school teacher who got shipped the wrong upper for his lower about 4 years ago. He shipped it back as soon as he realized the mistake and was not arrested in the meantime. That was the basis for my example.
Regardless of whether a prosecution for this exact sequence of events has taken place, the described action is a felony right now. If anyone was caught while doing it, they'd be subject to prosecution. So, would you condemn them with the rest of the felons?

I can't make an informed decision without more info.

Agreed. And yet you support using the designation of "felon" to deny people RKBA?

 

[WT]

cordex - if the school teacher was prosecuted and convicted of a felony and served more than a year in prison, in my eyes and the law, he is a felon. He should not be allowed to possess firearms, ever.

I have to question the veracity of the teacher. I've heard some pretty good stories in my time.

Yes I know, the US prisons are full of people (3 million at last count) who claim to be innocent of any wrongdoing, they were "railroaded". In my experience it takes a lot of work to get sent to prison (on the part of the criminal, not necessarily the law).

I've had some convicted felons work for me as parolees. Most did fine work when they were on parole but once off, to a man they reverted back to their old ways.

No guns for felons.

 

[rock jock]

Either that or do away with prisons -- fine of some sort or death.

How do intend on fining people with no money or assets? Where do you put the folks awaiting execution? Another example of political ideals crashing hard into practical reality.