Should a Felony Conviction Prevent Ownership of Firearms?

[twofewscrews]

If the right to bear arms or the right to self defense is a God given/human right, should a felony conviction prevent one from possessing or operating firearms?

In posing the question I understand that there are degrees of felonies and changes in life circumstances which complicate things. For example someone convicted of armed robbery, someone convicted of drug possession and someone convicted of vandalism committed vastly different crimes which resulted in felony convictions. Furthermore life changes such as becoming a family man, quitting drugs and getting clean, or simply growing older, in my opinion at least, change the likely hood that someone will continue to commit crimes or pose a danger to others.

In general I do not believe that a felony conviction should prevent one from possessing or owning a firearm as the right to self defense/bear arms is a God given/human right, but I do have some exceptions. Rapists, mass shooters, pedophiles, and those convicted of domestic violence are the few exceptions that I believe should not be allowed to possess or operate firearms based on the probability that they will commit such crimes again or pose a real threat to society/their spouse.

What do you guys and gals think?

 

[jmr40]

Initially yes. But I think there should be a method for those rights to be restored if certain conditions are met. Technically that is possible right now, but how to do it isn't well defined and almost impossible.

 

[unclenunzie]

I don't believe in second class citizenship. Once the debt has been paid, my answer is no.

 

[LaneP]

Tough one for sure. Perhaps non-violent felonies, yes. Not so sure about folks that have harmed others without provocation. In such cases I would lean to "no".

 

[GEM]

Non violent felonies such as financial crimes can ruin the lives of thousands of people. Is that the same evil as stealing from a bodega? Some old people lose all their retirement? That ok with folks?

Starting to parse out different felonies would be a horror show.

Give Martha Stewart her gun rights! Or not!

 

[herrwalther]

I say yes. Working in corrections, I saw many non-violent offenders go violent very quickly. And usually in a big way. Jumping from traffic violations or minor drug charges to index crimes. Just because a person has a history of non violent crimes does not mean they are going to stay non violent. One particular instance I remember was a non violent repeat offender that was the grandson of a corrupt county politician. Grandson had non violent felony charges, and the council member got plenty of charges plead down or dismissed with his undue influence. The grandfather died and the grandson got arrested not long after in a big way. Murder 3 counts, with a firearm he was not allowed to have from prior felonies.

I also believe felons should be able to restore their firearm rights in a long process. The typical revolving door offenders I dealt with could not stay out of jail for a few months let alone years. No felonies for 5 years? You can get your gun rights back. Unfortunately, no side of the political aisle wants to touch this issue of letting felons have firearms again. The rights restoration process will allow felons to vote and serve on juries after a period of time, but not legally buy firearms.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

If they get their right to vote; meaning the ability to determine the future of the nation. Then, yes, they should get their 2A rights back. Not a fan of doing it piece meal as that is intellectually dishonest to me.

 

[redcon1]

No, once their debt to society is paid in full, they should have their 2A rights and voting rights automatically restored as well as any other rights that may have been forfeited.

 

[arsterling180]

Once you've done your time (combination of time in the pen and parole if applicable) you get your rights back.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

Working in corrections, I saw many non-violent offenders go violent very quickly. And usually in a big way. Jumping from traffic violations or minor drug charges to index crimes. Just because a person has a history of non violent crimes does not mean they are going to stay non violent.

This is a good point, It points a pattern that people who commit felons regularly will eventually commit a violent one at some point.
It is by this we can gauge how threatening a person can be, if they're say a 'repeat offender' versus a one-time one.


To the question of the thread, it is something I've thought about before. If we can't trust someone with a gun why do we trust them in the streets anyway? I think if they haven't committed another felon for a certain time period, have proven they have left their previous life scenario behind them (if it was a factor in what lead them to the crime) and the offense was a non-violent one, i think they should have all their rights restored.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Wasn't this covered. Here not to long ago?

 

[herrwalther]

To the question of the thread, it is something I've thought about before. If we can't trust someone with a gun why do we trust them in the streets anyway?

That's easy. Politics and practicality. Jails and prisons can only hold so many people. Every jail and prison in my state is over capacity than what they were intended to hold. The prisons with the most room are over double their original capacity. It is not uncommon to have inmates sleeping on floors or tables when bunks run out. Release of some is called a safety valve measure in criminal textbooks. At that point you are rolling the dice on hoping the supposed non violent offender you just let out doesn't "graduate" to something worse and come back. FWIW I released an inmate during a shift one time that made bail and he was back during the same shift. About 4 hours after I released him. I think that is a record for our county.

Wasn't this covered. Here not to long ago?

Somebody saw the horse move.

 

[DeepSouth]

Once the recidivism rate is cut in half, twice, then no. For now in the world we live in, yes.

Wasn't this covered. Here not to long ago?

Many times.

 

[dranrab]

What difference does it make? If a prohibited person wants to own a gun, they'll own one, and if they happen to get caught, very little will be done to them.

 

[DeepSouth]

What difference does it make? If a prohibited person wants to own a gun, they'll own one, and if they happen to get caught, very little will be done to them.

I’ll tell you.

In reality there are some people who have felonies that are seeking to be productive law abiding citizens, they will not own firearms and they should be able to.

Also, most convinced felons will go back, many shouldn’t even be out of prison much less out of prison and legally armed. Forbidding them a weapon is a tool to put them back in prison where they should be. You say “little will be done to them” maybe that should change.

“people will do it anyway” is simply an argument for anarchy…..If every law is broken why have laws?

 

[unclenunzie]

I know a woman who as a foolish, very upset upset girl pulled a deputy's weapon from his holster. She has a felony conviction because of it. Being poor she can't afford lawyers needed to get it dealt with. Thus she is a felon, and for the rest of her life. That's just wrong to me.

 

[Old Dog]

“people will do it anyway” is simply an argument for anarchy…..If every law is broken why have laws?

We would do well to remember this.

Just like "everybody does this" doesn't make it right.

 

[Atavar]

I will say the right to bear arms is not a god given right. It is a privilege and can be lost.
If you can’t live within societies rules the you don’t deserve the basic privileges accorded to basic citizens.
When a felon has earned the right to bear arms that privilege can be restored by the courts. Until then they cannot be trusted and possession of firearms should violate any parole and should be prosecuted with penalties imposed.

 

[Atavar]

I know a woman who as a foolish, very upset upset girl pulled a deputy's weapon from his holster. She has a felony conviction because of it. Being poor she can't afford lawyers needed to get it dealt with. Thus she is a felon, and for the rest of her life. That's just wrong to me.

Do the crime do the time. I don’t feel sorry for this person at all.

 

[Atavar]

What difference does it make? If a prohibited person wants to own a gun, they'll own one, and if they happen to get caught, very little will be done to them.

This is the problem. We don’t need more gun laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

 

[Atavar]

This is a good point, It points a pattern that people who commit felons regularly will eventually commit a violent one at some point.
It is by this we can gauge how threatening a person can be, if they're say a 'repeat offender' versus a one-time one.


To the question of the thread, it is something I've thought about before. If we can't trust someone with a gun why do we trust them in the streets anyway? I think if they haven't committed another felon for a certain time period, have proven they have left their previous life scenario behind them (if it was a factor in what lead them to the crime) and the offense was a non-violent one, i think they should have all their rights restored.

This is already built in to the system. Once a felon proves they deserve it they can have their rights restored. Why does everyone talk like this path does not exist?

 

[Steve S.]

Laws are obeyed by the law abiding; felons have demonstrated that their behavior is their priority, not the law. I agree with the above respondent, it simply doesn’t matter if felons are governed by a right revocation, most do what they want anyway or they would not be felons to begin with.

 

[kmw1954]

I say yes. Working in corrections, I saw many non-violent offenders go violent very quickly. And usually in a big way. Jumping from traffic violations or minor drug charges to index crimes. Just because a person has a history of non violent crimes does not mean they are going to stay non violent. .

In the same vein just because someone has never been arrested does not exclude them from becoming murderers.

 

[kmw1954]

Once you've done your time (combination of time in the pen and parole if applicable) you get your rights back.

I also believe in Capital punishment. Some should never be allowed back into society.

 

[WrongHanded]

My opinion is, no, gun rights should not be withheld from those who've committed felonies and sever their sentences.

But I also believe that if you cannot put a loaded gun in a felons hands when they walk out of prison, because they present too much of a danger to society or any individual, they should not get released at all.