vis-à-vis
Member
Should convicted felons be barred from enjoying the second amendment and what was were the rules early on in this country?
Felons
- Thread starter vis-à-vis
- Start date
- Status
Titan6
member
Here we go again.
cambeul41
Member
I have no objections to Martha Stuart having a gun or carrying it
Last edited:
Regolith
Member
If a person can't be trusted with a weapon, they shouldn't have been let out of jail. Pretty simple.
Notice I said weapon. If we can't trust a felon with a gun, how can we trust him with a knife, or a vehicle, or anything else that can be used as a weapon? And yet, only guns are denied purchase to felons (who can get them using illegal means anyway, if they really wanted to).
Notice I said weapon. If we can't trust a felon with a gun, how can we trust him with a knife, or a vehicle, or anything else that can be used as a weapon? And yet, only guns are denied purchase to felons (who can get them using illegal means anyway, if they really wanted to).
Titan6
member
I say we issue single shot shotguns to all the felons while in prison. If they can be trusted there to act responsibly than they can keep it upon release.
Seems as sane as giving them to known criminals. Of course we may have to up the guard pay....
Seems as sane as giving them to known criminals. Of course we may have to up the guard pay....
tnieto2004
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,389
I believe it is circumstantial ..
jefnvk
Member
I'm no historian, but I would believe that early on in this country, those that couldn't be trusted in society were either executed or sent to the wilderness.
Today? If you can't have full rights, you shouldn't be walking around in public.
Today? If you can't have full rights, you shouldn't be walking around in public.
FieroCDSP
Member
I am also of the belief that it should be case dependant, but here's an idea. After you have served your full term for the crime (none of this 20-life, but out in three years for good behavior crap. You can choose to serve the term without parole for this program), and after you are released from a probationary term of two to four years (with no run-ins with the law), then you may have your voting and 2A rights back. If you can jump through these hoops, you've probably learned something while in prison, and migh be capable of living among the people again.
I am simply of the belief that a person nailed for some felonies (say, GTA as a punk teenager) who has done their time and maybe learned something along the way, should not be defenseless both on the street and at home. I would have to carefully consider CCW permit rights on such people a bit more, but certainly they have the right to defend their selves and family while at home with something more than a ball bat.
Again, this would have to be a system that is fair, and takes into account the nature of the crime, and whether the person has reformed. If their felony-removed rights are worth something to them, they should be able to earn them back.
I am simply of the belief that a person nailed for some felonies (say, GTA as a punk teenager) who has done their time and maybe learned something along the way, should not be defenseless both on the street and at home. I would have to carefully consider CCW permit rights on such people a bit more, but certainly they have the right to defend their selves and family while at home with something more than a ball bat.
Again, this would have to be a system that is fair, and takes into account the nature of the crime, and whether the person has reformed. If their felony-removed rights are worth something to them, they should be able to earn them back.
No. Felons should not have access to firearms.
That being said, felonies should only involve violent or potentially violent crimes, i.e. murder, rape, armed robbery, etc... Also, possibly acts of treason, and/or illegal invasion...er... immigration.
Insider trading and other white collar crime should not be considered a felony. These crimes may need a new category, but the perpetrators of such crimes (should insider trading even be a crime??) are typically not violent people.
That being said, felonies should only involve violent or potentially violent crimes, i.e. murder, rape, armed robbery, etc... Also, possibly acts of treason, and/or illegal invasion...er... immigration.
Insider trading and other white collar crime should not be considered a felony. These crimes may need a new category, but the perpetrators of such crimes (should insider trading even be a crime??) are typically not violent people.
Zundfolge
Member
I wouldn't have a problem with keeping felons from owning guns (and voting and other stuff) if it wasn't for the fact that there are just too many laws on the books that make very mundane things into felonies.
Once upon a time a felony was a serious crime ... now days there are felonies on the books that are akin to jaywalking in seriousness.
If rights are too easy to revoke, they cease to be rights anymore for any of us.
I also fail to see how making it illegal for felons to possess firearms makes us even slightly safer. Those felons that are going to do bad things with firearms aren't going to care that its illegal to possess a gun.
Its the same argument against any form of gun control.
Once upon a time a felony was a serious crime ... now days there are felonies on the books that are akin to jaywalking in seriousness.
If rights are too easy to revoke, they cease to be rights anymore for any of us.
I also fail to see how making it illegal for felons to possess firearms makes us even slightly safer. Those felons that are going to do bad things with firearms aren't going to care that its illegal to possess a gun.
Its the same argument against any form of gun control.
Any man or women in free America until 1968 could own a firearm. It worked pretty well until then.
However with movement groups arming themselves in the civil rights era, they wanted to legaly be able to keep people previously arrested for demonstrating or radical activists from being able to assemble once again legaly armed.
A whole number of laws were aimed at stopping this. From laws against being armed in or around a state or federal building many places, to laws against felons having firearms. To laws against anyone being armed while demonstrating or striking.
The effect on crime has been nill, it however is a useful tool in implementing a more authoritarian state as anyone at will can be branded unfit to legaly possess effective deterent.
However it also has an effect against our culture. In many places felons can still vote, some while in jail or prison, others after they are out, and others have to do some steps to have that restored. Once someone is permanently barred from possessing arms you can be very sure they are going to vote in favor of bills that reduce the number of arms others have, or restrict thier possession or transport.
It is hard to find exact numbers on the percentage of felons in the nation. At any given time there is over 7 million people incarcerated, or on parole/probation, 1 in 31 adults. But that is only the people who recently did something. If we use statistics and assume that based on them most of the offending population is 18-25, then adjust for total number of Americans in that age bracket. Lets see census says http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts on front page that there is 182,211,639 over 25, and 209,128,094 over 18. That gives us 26,916,455 people in America 18-25. If even just half of the 7 million people incarcerated or on parole/probation are of that age group 4.5 million, then that means about 1 in 6 Americans in the age bracket most adults earn criminal charges in, then close to 1 in 6 from 18-25 in modern society become prohibited.
If we use closer to the whole 7 million, say 6 million, then its about 1 in 4.5 adults 18-25.
That means as that age bracket goes to 26-32, and a new 6 million adjusted upwards for population gain are branded every 7 years then we will have a lot of people unfit to own a firearm. Yet most of these people will still be able to vote.
By the time current 18-25 individuals reach 50-60 years of age close to 20% of American adults will have been on parole, probation or incarcerated based on current statistics.
If a good portion of them are felons, we just gained a very large segment of the population who will not vote for others to be allowed to have something they cannot. Much larger than the number of people that belong to the NRA.
Also if we look at the purpose of the 2nd amendment, to deter tyranny, government being able to brand trouble makers unfit to be armed basicly undoes the purpose. Every founding father we had was a felon under British law.
I first took note of just how many American's are felons at least in my district when I was reporting for jury duty. They called various groups up who had circled one of the numbers that made them ineligable to serve. When they called the number that was "have you ever been convicted of a felony" to turn thiers in seperate, about 20% of the room got up and turned it in and left. I looked around the room, noticing even the nice old lady who I had just had a short polite discussion with was among them.
Going into debt and being unable to pay your debt was liable to end you up in debtor's prison. Well based on the current housing market slump and people being unable to pay thier mortgages and homes defaulting all over the nation, a lot of Americans would be eligable for prison.
Yet most sentences were relatively short back in the day. Someone was either killed if it was serious enough, or they spent at most a few years and then were put back into society a free man. Many crimes that are felonies or serious misdemeanors today were punished by a night in the local jail back then, or some time in the pillory or stocks in public being humiliated.
Yet once released they were free to rejoin society as a free man, having paid thier dues.
However with movement groups arming themselves in the civil rights era, they wanted to legaly be able to keep people previously arrested for demonstrating or radical activists from being able to assemble once again legaly armed.
A whole number of laws were aimed at stopping this. From laws against being armed in or around a state or federal building many places, to laws against felons having firearms. To laws against anyone being armed while demonstrating or striking.
The effect on crime has been nill, it however is a useful tool in implementing a more authoritarian state as anyone at will can be branded unfit to legaly possess effective deterent.
However it also has an effect against our culture. In many places felons can still vote, some while in jail or prison, others after they are out, and others have to do some steps to have that restored. Once someone is permanently barred from possessing arms you can be very sure they are going to vote in favor of bills that reduce the number of arms others have, or restrict thier possession or transport.
It is hard to find exact numbers on the percentage of felons in the nation. At any given time there is over 7 million people incarcerated, or on parole/probation, 1 in 31 adults. But that is only the people who recently did something. If we use statistics and assume that based on them most of the offending population is 18-25, then adjust for total number of Americans in that age bracket. Lets see census says http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts on front page that there is 182,211,639 over 25, and 209,128,094 over 18. That gives us 26,916,455 people in America 18-25. If even just half of the 7 million people incarcerated or on parole/probation are of that age group 4.5 million, then that means about 1 in 6 Americans in the age bracket most adults earn criminal charges in, then close to 1 in 6 from 18-25 in modern society become prohibited.
If we use closer to the whole 7 million, say 6 million, then its about 1 in 4.5 adults 18-25.
That means as that age bracket goes to 26-32, and a new 6 million adjusted upwards for population gain are branded every 7 years then we will have a lot of people unfit to own a firearm. Yet most of these people will still be able to vote.
By the time current 18-25 individuals reach 50-60 years of age close to 20% of American adults will have been on parole, probation or incarcerated based on current statistics.
If a good portion of them are felons, we just gained a very large segment of the population who will not vote for others to be allowed to have something they cannot. Much larger than the number of people that belong to the NRA.
Also if we look at the purpose of the 2nd amendment, to deter tyranny, government being able to brand trouble makers unfit to be armed basicly undoes the purpose. Every founding father we had was a felon under British law.
I first took note of just how many American's are felons at least in my district when I was reporting for jury duty. They called various groups up who had circled one of the numbers that made them ineligable to serve. When they called the number that was "have you ever been convicted of a felony" to turn thiers in seperate, about 20% of the room got up and turned it in and left. I looked around the room, noticing even the nice old lady who I had just had a short polite discussion with was among them.
No what was circumstantial was the number of people that would have been allowed to live. Consider that horse theft was punishable by death. Horses were people's transportation back then, so that would be the modern equal of grand theft auto. Yet nobody is executed for grand theft auto in modern times.
Going into debt and being unable to pay your debt was liable to end you up in debtor's prison. Well based on the current housing market slump and people being unable to pay thier mortgages and homes defaulting all over the nation, a lot of Americans would be eligable for prison.
Yet most sentences were relatively short back in the day. Someone was either killed if it was serious enough, or they spent at most a few years and then were put back into society a free man. Many crimes that are felonies or serious misdemeanors today were punished by a night in the local jail back then, or some time in the pillory or stocks in public being humiliated.
Yet once released they were free to rejoin society as a free man, having paid thier dues.
finnerandr
Member
In my opinion, if you served your time, to include parole, then you have paid your debt to society and should be given back all of your rights. But thats just my humble opinion.
Frog48
Member
Once someone has been released from prison and successfully completed the terms of parole, they should be allowed to own firearms. They've done their time, let them get on with their lives.
Lets put a spin on the question... what if other Constitutional rights were treated the same as the 2A? I'd have a problem with it if there was a blanket prohibition against ex-cons from attending church services, etc.
It just annoys me how lawmakers treat the 2A as if it is somehow has lesser importance than the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Lets put a spin on the question... what if other Constitutional rights were treated the same as the 2A? I'd have a problem with it if there was a blanket prohibition against ex-cons from attending church services, etc.
It just annoys me how lawmakers treat the 2A as if it is somehow has lesser importance than the rest of the Bill of Rights.
There has to be a line somewhere on returning convict's rights. I'm not sure where that line is, but, to say flat out that once they've served their time all rights restored is not it.
For example, John Q. Pervy served his 12 years for molesting a couple little kids. He served his time, debt to society paid in full. No reason he should be denied that job as a kindergarten teacher for your kids right?
For example, John Q. Pervy served his 12 years for molesting a couple little kids. He served his time, debt to society paid in full. No reason he should be denied that job as a kindergarten teacher for your kids right?
Autolycus
Member
Yes they should be.
As for felons voting while in prison... I believe only two states allow that. I believe it is Maine and Nebraska but I am not 100% sure.
As for felons voting while in prison... I believe only two states allow that. I believe it is Maine and Nebraska but I am not 100% sure.
That sounds like it is relying on an emotional response.
Logical response is that if you or society think he needed more time, he should have been given more time. That is at the discretion of the law and the courts. So the number of years is irrelevant as it pertains to this discussion.
The conviction and record however are very relevant. Who will choose to employ someone based on thier record is employer discretion. Nobody for at the minimum liability purposes is going to hire someone with such a criminal record to work with children. Employers have every right to judge the man based on documented history if he applies for work. That has nothing to do with his rights as a citizen granted by the constitution once he is a free man.
So your comment intended to get an emotional response is just that, valid if thinking with emotions because you mention a heinous crime generaly despised to gain support.
crazed_ss
Member
The problem is more "time" isnt gonna fix the child molster or the repeat violent offender. Everything in life doesnt have to be Black or White, Off and On, 1s and 0s.
Since it is unreasonable and impossible to lock everyone up indefinitely until they're "cured", some extra (reasonable) steps should be taken to mitigate these people again. IMO, not letting violent offenders buy guns and not letting child molsters work with children seem pretty reasonable to me.
Since it is unreasonable and impossible to lock everyone up indefinitely until they're "cured", some extra (reasonable) steps should be taken to mitigate these people again. IMO, not letting violent offenders buy guns and not letting child molsters work with children seem pretty reasonable to me.
Zoogster- Nothing emotional about it. It's hyperbole. And, its based on facts and common sense. My argument goes to denying felons guns is along the lines of not giving an alcoholic with three DUIs a job as a bartender. You wouldn't do it. Just as in my previous example. But if truly all rights were restored then that person should be able to sue you for discrimination if they are qualified and not hired because they paid their debt.
It seems to me that the felon that I need to worry about with a gun will probably get one anyway, so sure, why not?
So you're not going to fix a repeat violent offender but you're just going to let him go even though he's still a threat? You won't be able to fix a child molester but you'll turn him back out onto society? Why would he respect your laws disallowing him to own a gun but doesn't seem to mind the ones that prohibit him from committing acts of violence?
Cannonball888
Member
They can legally own a .44 BP revolver or BP shotgun. Nothing to sneeze at.
FieroCDSP
Member
That's a good point, cannonball. Thanks for pointing that out, as I didn't even think of it. 
I think what we've seen in this thread is that most of us agree that the legal system is overly complex in areas it shouldn't be (like the plethora of crimes being felonies), and not harsh enough in others.
I think what we've seen in this thread is that most of us agree that the legal system is overly complex in areas it shouldn't be (like the plethora of crimes being felonies), and not harsh enough in others.
Blackfork
Member
Grow a Government big enough...
...and this is what happens.
Folks who are OK with Schumer expanding and clarifiying the NICS check for mental disorders should keep in mind what fed, state, and local governments have done with felonies.
...and this is what happens.
Folks who are OK with Schumer expanding and clarifiying the NICS check for mental disorders should keep in mind what fed, state, and local governments have done with felonies.
ShunZu
member
+1
alsaqr
Member
"For example, John Q. Pervy served his 12 years for molesting a couple little kids. He served his time, debt to society paid in full. No reason he should be denied that job as a kindergarten teacher for your kids right?"
Good thinking.
"They can legally own a .44 BP revolver or BP shotgun. Nothing to sneeze at."
Not true for the most part. There are several cases that pertain here. I can guarantee you that possession of black powder, black powder substitutes or caps by a felon is illegal according to federal law.
"The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled against the possession of black powder guns by a convicted felon.
Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
Al P ^ | 6/28/06 | staff
Posted on 06/29/2006 10:22:18 AM PDT by Redcloak
Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
Cheyenne- Posted 6/28/06
Associated Press
The ruling comes in an appeal by a convicted felon who says he thought he was allowed to own a black powder rifle. Such rifles are excluded from the federal definition of firearms.
A spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the ruling will come as a blow to some Wyoming residents who have felony convictions in the past but who are now dedicated black powder hunters.
Governor Freudenthal says he would favor changing the state law to allow convicted felons to continue to hunt with black powder guns.
The court ruling released Wednesday upholds the conviction of Frank Alan Harris in a Casper court on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
According to the court ruling, Harris was previously convicted of aggravated robbery and robbery."
Good thinking.
"They can legally own a .44 BP revolver or BP shotgun. Nothing to sneeze at."
Not true for the most part. There are several cases that pertain here. I can guarantee you that possession of black powder, black powder substitutes or caps by a felon is illegal according to federal law.
"The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled against the possession of black powder guns by a convicted felon.
Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
Al P ^ | 6/28/06 | staff
Posted on 06/29/2006 10:22:18 AM PDT by Redcloak
Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
Cheyenne- Posted 6/28/06
Associated Press
The ruling comes in an appeal by a convicted felon who says he thought he was allowed to own a black powder rifle. Such rifles are excluded from the federal definition of firearms.
A spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the ruling will come as a blow to some Wyoming residents who have felony convictions in the past but who are now dedicated black powder hunters.
Governor Freudenthal says he would favor changing the state law to allow convicted felons to continue to hunt with black powder guns.
The court ruling released Wednesday upholds the conviction of Frank Alan Harris in a Casper court on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
According to the court ruling, Harris was previously convicted of aggravated robbery and robbery."
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
This is about the fifth thread on the subject. No problem with that, but:
1. Stay polite.
2. Realize that the issue won't reach any sort of consensus.
Art
1. Stay polite.
2. Realize that the issue won't reach any sort of consensus.
Art
- Status
