Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?

[jrdolall]

Any society has rules and our rules are constantly changing. There is no person on THR, or anywhere else, who has a working knowledge of all the laws in the USA. I would not wish to live in any society without laws and of course, like everyone else, I am more in favor of rules that support my own beliefs, such as gun ownership.

I believe that if a person is convicted of a felony that they make a choice and have to suffer the consequences. Those consequences include jail-time, financial liability, loss of credibility in their community, loss of their voting rights as well as the right of gun ownership. A person convicted of selling illegal drugs is a convicted felon. They made the decision that the money was important enough and they tacitly "agreed" to forfeit their rights upon conviction. If our society chooses to put in place a method for them to regain those rights then that is fine by me. Maybe 5 years after the original sentence (incarceration and probation) these rights can be reestablished. There is probably already a method to achieve this.

Persons with a violent felony should never be given the right to own a gun. Can they get one illegally? Of course they can. Should the fact that they are going to get one anyway influence us to change the "punishment"?

We make choices every day. Drink and drive, rob a C-store, beat up a neighbor, rape someone, etc, are the choices we make that have negative consequences. I know that there are some that were falsely convicted or truly did not know that they were committing a crime but those numbers are few. The vast majority of people who are incarcerated in this country are there because they knowingly committed a crime and I have no problem with those people paying the penalty. Murder=Death Penalty. Drug charges=25 years. Rape/Child Molestation/Violent sex crime=50 years OR 25 years and voluntary castration. DUI 1st offense= hand slap. DUI 2nd offense=1 year probation. DUI 3rd Offense= Jail 10 years. Our police departments do a great job of catching criminals but our justce system does a poor job of keeping them in jail.

Longer time spent in jail would solve so many of our problems. How many crimes are committed by people who have already done time for a similar crime and were released early? I was watching one show last week where a 20 year old shot and killed someone over a drug deal. The 20 year old had already been convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and something else. At 20 years old he had already been to prison for a violonet crime and been released. Hard to believe that he went straight back on the street and committed another violent crime.

 

[zxcvbob]

Any society has rules and our rules are constantly changing. There is no person on THR, or anywhere else, who has a working knowledge of all the laws in the USA. I would not wish to live in any society without laws and of course, like everyone else, I am more in favor of rules that support my own beliefs, such as gun ownership.

I believe that if a person is convicted of a felony that they make a choice and have to suffer the consequences. Those consequences include jail-time, financial liability, loss of credibility in their community, loss of their voting rights as well as the right of gun ownership...

Do you not see the problem with these two statements?

 

[brickeyee]

They are when you are being shot at.

They may be the best tool under certain circumstances, but are far from the only tool.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have to get REALLY imaginative to come up with a situation where someone was convicted of a felony and didn't know they were doing something wrong.

 

[bikemutt]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have to get REALLY imaginative to come up with a situation where someone was convicted of a felony and didn't know they were doing something wrong.

Probably the closest I can imagine is a lawfully armed person who walks into a post office or other gun-free zone and has no idea he just stepped in cow pie. Not every off limits place is posted and I'm sure there are probably some of those that not every honest person knows about.

 

[blaisenguns]

Personally, I dont feel that criminal rehabilitation is successful. I beleive that "bad guys" are "bad guys" and will always be "bad guys". Now different crimes should have different punishments, but people who commit violent crimes, especially several, I do not feel deserve to be forgiven. People with a history of violence, and/or mental impairment should not handle firearms. And yes I am strongly for the death penalty.

 

[jrdolall]

I see no problem with my above statements. I believe that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I travel a lot. I drive anywhere within 6-8 hours from my home and fly elsewhere. I DO NOT carry a weapon when I drive to South Carolina because they do not reciprocate on concealed carry. Fl, GA, MS, all are okay.I try my best to know the laws where I am travelling. Are there obscure laws that I am not aware of? Absolutely. I know the laws, not just gun laws, of my home state and community.

The vast, vast majority of felons knew they were breaking the law when they did it. I have no issue with hiring a person with a past felony. I do it fairly often actually. I will not hire a felon in a position of financial responsibility if his conviction was for fraud. I would not hire a felon for security if he had a past record of violence. I do not want people with a record of violence having easy access to a firearm, I can't stop him from aquiring one illegally but that is also the case for 12 year old thugs with guns. I do not think a 12 year old should own or possess a firearm unless under adult supervision even though my 11 year old is a lot more dependable than most adults.

 

[RobNDenver]

Felons. And the mentally ill and addicts and those who have demonstrated by conviction of misdemeanor assault that they are prone to violence. If you can't live right, avoid felonies and violent assaults then you ought not to have a gun. And yes, IMHO that includes domestic violence. And frankly, anyone who loses it to the point where friends, acquaintances snd family think that they need anger management, or frighten people enough that they have to get away from the angry individual . . . probably shouldn't have a gun. Live right, get to own a gun. Live wrong, don't get to own a gun.

 

[mortablunt]

People who ought to be prohibited for life:

* The severely developmentally disabled.
* People diagnose with Histrionic, Narcissistic, Antisocial, Paranoid, Borderline, and Schizotypical personality disorders.
* Convicted first degree murderers.
* Traitors
* Serial Killers
* Convicted terrorists
* Anyone with more than four felony convictions.
* Anyone with more than 20 misdemeanor convictions.
* Habitual offernders.
* Sociopaths.

Busyhands, do you have any idea what the recividism rate is for violent criminals?

It varies state by state. Arizona has the lowest, at 24%. California's is the highest at 70%

On the mental health you better be full blown retard or something. I dont believe in most mental illness. Psycology is a fake science to me. I dont believe in bi polar disorder, ADHD, etc. I think its just cause they were not disciplined as children.

How nice of you to prove the stereotype true.

Does WI not have a reasonable path for expungement?

A lot of states don't. Virginia's expungement requires that you be acquitted and then file fore epungement within 2 weeks.

 

[481]

Convicted felons should be prohibited for life.

Agreed, J.

Add to that all violent misdemeanants, too.

Those who choose to behave poorly (criminally) should have to pay the price.

 

[481]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have to get REALLY imaginative to come up with a situation where someone was convicted of a felony and didn't know they were doing something wrong.

That is a pretty good working definition of a sociopath, m. They shouldn't be permitted firearms of any sort either.

 

[RatDrall]

Add to that all violent misdemeanants, too.

Those who choose to behave poorly (criminally) should have to pay the price.

Lets add in anyone who ever recieved a speeding ticket, or a detention while in grammar school, while we're at it.

 

[jahwarrior]

Lets add in anyone who ever recieved a speeding ticket, or a detention while in grammar school, while we're at it.

Don't forget Muslims, adulterers, fornicaters, gays, atheists, and people who talk in the theater.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Agreed, J.

Add to that all violent misdemeanants, too.

Those who choose to behave poorly (criminally) should have to pay the price.

You really don't see the danger in allowing the government to create a class of citizens who can't vote or own guns, and then slowly shifting more and more people into that class?

 

[alsaqr]

You really don't see the danger in allowing the government to create a class of citizens who can't vote or own guns, and then slowly shifting more and more people into that class?

Convicted felons vote in about 40 states. Some states stipulate the felon must have completed supervised release. Two states allow incarcerated felons to vote.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

And the gun owning part? That is what THR is about.

 

[NG VI]

This should be understood by men anyways. There is no reason to get physical with a woman in an argument at any point.

Is it fair? Not necessarily but it is what it is. Do notice that I said "convicted" of a domestic violence charge, not charged with.

Well there's some merit here, in that as a man in today's society, you should be prepared to walk away from a significant other the moment she or he appears to be upset. Don't try to console them, don't stop to get some things, just leave whatever situation you're in. If she has your children, it doesn't matter. If you were five minutes of computation away from creating practical cold fusion, and can never recreate the work to get there, whatever, just leave.

And as we've seen in the Zimmerman/Martin situation, very large segments of society fully expects a man who has ever been implicated in any kind of dispute to be barred from ownership, even if the incident is nothing more than a temporary protection order.

Also, what does that mean for men who didn't get physical? Men are arrested and convicted of DV charges without a single piece of physical evidence or a reliable witness every day.

I love all the self righteous chest thumping that goes on with this topic.

BTW, in many states simply threatening or yelling at your partner to where she "felt" threatened is enough to net a domestic violence charge that will strip you of your 2nd amendment rights. You don't have to "abuse" her. Hell, all they need is her word anyways so you don't have to actually DO anything. If you think thats fair, I don't see what arguing with you would accomplish.

Fully agree. We have such a broken justice system in general, and I would say the two biggest areas of failure are the way drugs and drug laws are handled, no surprises to anyone there, and domestic/family/partner abuse or violence. The worst cases of abuse generally go unreported for years, and those are the types of domestic that people have in mind when they create these laws.

Legislators never put any time or money into curtailing the volume and severity of domestic violence in a real way, they just passed a law stripping gun rights from people convicted of domestic charges. To me that's nearly criminal.

 

[481]

You really don't see the danger in allowing the government to create a class of citizens who can't vote or own guns, and then slowly shifting more and more people into that class?

That's a strawman argument. Engaging in criminal conduct is personal choice, not a class.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that those who've chosen to engage in violent criminal conduct got there through no doing of their own.

Those who refuse to obey the law and commit acts of criminal violence that endanger other members of our society necessarily lose their right to own firearms among others.

There are rules and there are penalties. Break the rules, suffer the penalty.

 

[Neverwinter]

That is a pretty good working definition of a sociopath, m. They shouldn't be permitted firearms of any sort either.

Not all felonies involve the harming of others. So no, it's not a good working definition.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that those who've chosen to engage in violent criminal conduct got there through no doing of their own.

Those who refuse to obey the law and commit acts of criminal violence that endanger other members of our society necessarily lose their right to own firearms among others.

There is a faulty assumption regarding all felonies being violent or even harmful to others. A woman owning 6 dildos can be convicted as a felon in Texas for doing so. Do you mind explaining how that possession is violent or harmful to others?
Sent using Tapatalk

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That's a strawman argument. Engaging in criminal conduct is personal choice, not a class.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that those who've chosen to engage in violent criminal conduct got there through no doing of their own.

Those who refuse to obey the law and commit acts of criminal violence that endanger other members of our society necessarily lose their right to own firearms among others.

There are rules and there are penalties. Break the rules, suffer the penalty.

Except the same people who define the penalty are the people who decide what is or is not a crime. What constitutes a felony is not a concrete concept. Hundreds of new felonies are created in each state every years. Things that were previously legal now strip you of your gun rights for life.

What I'm saying is not a straw-man argument because A:what I said doesn't fit the definition of a straw-man argument and more importantly B: both the rules and penalties are on a sliding scale. A scale that is controlled solely by the same people who wish to strip us all of firearms ownership.

Do you think cheating on the SAT is a good reason to bar someone from ever owning guns?
There is a bill in New York that would make cheating on the ST a felony. They're trying it. They are trying to move more people into the "no guns" group that previously were able to. And there are hundreds if not thousands of things that are now felonies that weren't a few years ago. And every one of them is a permanent ban on gun ownership.

Step 1: Felony = no guns
Step 2: Create more felonies
Step 3: Number of citizens who can't own guns increases.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that a person who commits a felony is automatically a bad and dangerous person.

That's false. A person who commits a felony is, at the core, someone who committed an act a legislature decided was worthy of more than 1 year in prison. Could be anything from mass murder to cheating on a college exam. Selling 100 kilos of cocaine or possessing a few ounces of weed more than once. Terrorism to reckless driving. 3rd offense DUI to just making your own liquor. Stealing a priceless work of art to misreading a EULA and sharing the wrong digital files. All of those acts are not equally bad or dangerous. The people who committed them are not all equally bad or dangerous. So what do they have in common?

They are all part of the group that cannot own guns because the government said so. In each case, the power to bar firearms ownership for life is purely at the whim of the same government who made the rules in the first place.

 

[481]

That is a pretty good working definition of a sociopath, m. They shouldn't be permitted firearms of any sort either.

Not all felonies involve the harming of others. So no, it's not a good working definition.

Actually, it is a very good working definition of a sociopath which exactly what I said earlier.

You've obviously misread my post and managed to confuse "sociopath" with "felon". I never said that all felonies involve the harming of others. If you are going to attribute something to me, I'd really appreciate it if you'd take the time to read and understand what I said before saying that I said something that I didn't.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that those who've chosen to engage in violent criminal conduct got there through no doing of their own.

Those who refuse to obey the law and commit acts of criminal violence that endanger other members of our society necessarily lose their right to own firearms among others.

There is a faulty assumption regarding all felonies being violent or even harmful to others. A woman owning 6 dildos can be convicted as a felon in Texas for doing so. Do you mind explaining how that possession is violent or harmful to others?
Sent using Tapatalk

There was no such assumption.

Once again, I never stated or assumed that all felonies are violent or involve physical harm. If you cannot resist reading something into what I have said here, please don't bother responding to it. That sort of behavior is extremely rude.

 

[481]

Except the same people who define the penalty are the people who decide what is or is not a crime.

Yep, it is called a legislature and that is their job. Who else is there to make the laws? Unless you can propose a superior system of governance, there is always Somalia.

What constitutes a felony is not a concrete concept.

Sure it is.

What constitutes a felony and misdemeanor violation is delineated clearly and quite concretely in the criminal codes of every State and the United States Code.

Hundreds of new felonies are created in each state every years. Things that were previously legal now strip you of your gun rights for life.

And none of those "new" felonies is anything more than a variation on the theme. For example, now electronic theft of funds is illegal- not just the act of physically engaging in the act of theft. Wrong is wrong no matter how you parse the term.

A person who commits a felony is, at the core, someone who committed an act a legislature decided was worthy of more than 1 year in prison. Could be anything from mass murder to cheating on a college exam. Selling 100 kilos of cocaine or possessing a few ounces of weed more than once. Terrorism to reckless driving. 3rd offense DUI to just making your own liquor. Stealing a priceless work of art to misreading a EULA and sharing the wrong digital files. All of those acts are not equally bad or dangerous. The people who committed them are not all equally bad or dangerous. So what do they have in common?

They are all part of the group that cannot own guns because the government said so. In each case, the power to bar firearms ownership for life is purely at the whim of the same government who made the rules in the first place.

And all of those acts were wrong before the legislatures created the statutes, all they did was enumerate the offense and assign the penalty, sliding scales and all. You know the rules of living in this society. Live by them or pay the penalty. It sounds as if you are suggesting that we throw out all the laws simply because they are "man-made".

So what's left? Anarchy?

Do you know of a system of government that is superior to the one that we have in place right now?

 

[NG VI]

that crime is easier to prosecute than any crome he may have committed with the weapon.

(sic)


In general I am strongly opposed to any mechanism contrived for the purpose of making law enforcement and prosecutor's jobs easier. If they don't want to do good police and courtroom work and they don't want to bring good cases before judges, find a new line of work.

The legal system already has almost all of the advantages, as well as a general feeling of goodwill from the public and a tendency to view its agents as reputable people. Comfortable ballistic vests that offer good protection, top of the line photo equipment for crime scenes, excellent video and audio equipment to use in conjunction with a legitimately earned warrant or in a public setting, these types of support for law enforcement is great.

These camera systems they are attaching to cruisers so they can digitally scan every license plate within line of sight, this tendency to give out no-knock warrants that result in paramilitary raids instead of just doing good police work and arresting your suspect on the way to the gym or work, the way we constantly, actively strive for MoAr!?! severe punishment for people, this is unnacceptable to me.

Just like there is a difference between a person caught growing marijuana for their personal use and someone who raped four kids to death, there is a difference between giving our law enforcement and other first responders the tools to safely and effectively complete their objective and

 

[JRH6856]

this tendency to give out no-knock warrants that result in paramilitary raids instead of just doing good police work

SWAT teams are expensive to maintain. They have to be kept active to justify the expense.

 

[henschman]

I don't believe anyone should be prohibited from owning firearms unless he is currently being confined in a prison or mental institution. If a person is so dangerous that he cannot be trusted with a gun, he cannot be trusted to be free in society at all. Criminals who intend to kill or maim others generally wouldn't care about obeying a prohibition on gun ownership anyway, and even if they did, a gun is just one of many ways to kill or maim people.

Do you know of a system of government that is superior to the one that we have in place right now?

Yes -- a system of maximal correlative liberty. That means everyone would have the right to the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. It would result in a system in which laws cannot prohibit any activity unless it is actually a violation of the rights of an individual. In our current system there are SOME restrictions on things the government can prohibit; but the government is still allowed to prohibit plenty of activities which to not constitute any kind of threat to the rights of others. And under our current system, many such "victimless crimes" are felonies, and result in a prohibition on gun ownership.