Should a Felony Conviction Prevent Ownership of Firearms?

[Pat Riot]

This is a good question. Before people answer it they should think “What if that felon moved in next door?” Then answer it.

 

[kmw1954]

This is a good question. Before people answer it they should think “What if that felon moved in next door?” Then answer it.

I know a couple of young men that were arrested for Felony Drug possession (pot). Today in many places this is no longer the case so should they be restored? I would rather have them living next door than a couple other people I also know,

 

[Atavar]

And or all prohibited persons caught with a gun it should be a mandatory ten year prison sentence with no bargaining or parole served consecutive to any other sentencing.

 

[Atavar]

I know a couple of young men that were arrested for Felony Drug possession (pot). Today in many places this is no longer the case so should they be restored? I would rather have them living next door than a couple other people I also know,

So encourage them to follow through the process that already exists to have their rights restored. I have no problem at all with this.
The facility to restore gun rights exists. It should be used whenever appropriate.

 

[Alte Schule]

There was a thread on this four months ago. I remember because someone took offense to what I stated:
"With the exception of the mentally impaired everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. As a retired LEO my thoughts on this subject are somewhat callous. I have no sympathy for criminals. Most convicted felons made a conscious decision to violate the law. They all know what the consequences are or will be if caught. If we make exceptions for felons or certain felonies where does it stop?"

 

[DeepSouth]

And or all prohibited persons caught with a gun it should be a mandatory ten year prison sentence with no bargaining or parole served consecutive to any other sentencing.

Let’s think about this.

a guy with a felony that’s been a productive citizen for years can borrow a car from someone that forgets to take a 38 out of the glove compartment and go to jail for a decade.

The word “mandatory” in law is nearly always a bad idea, imo.

 

[Atavar]

Let’s think about this.

a guy with a felony that’s been a productive citizen for years can borrow a car from someone that forgets to take a 38 out of the glove compartment and go to jail for a decade.

The word “mandatory” in law is nearly always a bad idea, imo.

Yes. Exactly. People in extraordinary circumstances need to take extraordinary precautions.
We need to start enforcing and prosecuting gun law violations to let criminals know we are serious. The liberal slap on the wrist style of enforcement is not effective.
We don’t need more gun laws. We need more gun crime enforcement. If we enforced and punished the gun crime laws already on the books we wouldn’t need any gun laws at all.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Should a felony conviction prevent a person from possessing or operating a firearm?

Back when it was first proposed in the build up to the 1968 Gun Control Act, it was pitched as keeping violent criminals from legally owning guns.
1968 was when my home county repealed local option prohibition. I was 20. In the neighborhood I knew criminals and they got their guns illegally and the 4473 was not a barrier for them getting guns. But if you didn't support felony conviction = no gun rights you were cast as supporting armed criminals.

Now there are so many non-violent, victimless "felonies", I wish I had protested more against 68GCA.

I would support it if it was directed at serious crimes with real victims, the seven classic capital (as in "off with their heads") crimes: high treason, capital murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, mutiny, piracy, talking in the theater.

 

[Atavar]

It is easier to recover gun rights if the crime was non violent and did not involve firearms. The process exists and should be used whenever appropriate.

 

[PapaG]

Murder, rape, child molester......no way. Theft, simple assault, drugs (not big dealing), maybe.
You do the crime, you do the time.
Politicians.....never.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Certain crimes IMO, those folks should either not be free or not be here (on earth).

For all the lesser felonies, if they're deemed fit for society then they should have all the rights of a free citizen.

If you can't trust them to hold firearms then they should still be in a cell.

 

[AzShooter1]

I go along with most of the post. If someone is a felon they should not be allowed to own a firearm and should be prosecuted when found with one. They also should lose their right to vote.

 

[Pat Riot]

I know a couple of young men that were arrested for Felony Drug possession (pot). Today in many places this is no longer the case so should they be restored? I would rather have them living next door than a couple other people I also know,

Oh, well, this changes everything! You’ve changed my mind…I feel a rendition of Kumbaya coming’ on.

 

[dcloco]

There is a process, in every state, for convicted felons to recoup ALL of their civil rights. What is the issue?

 

[1942bull]

I was pleased to see that the majority of voters opted for the “depends-on-the-crime” option. I am a staunch defender of 2A. However I do believe some. People should not. Be allowed th have guns. I think that convicted violent criminals should be banned from having guns. They have already proven that they are violent. So why give tem agood tool for future violence. But white collar criminals are not violent offenders. Many did stupid things, many did evil things,but the did not engage in violence. I think they should be able to own guns based upon some reasonable criteria foe evaluating that possession. I will neither propose nor debate that criteria. It’s a dilemma.

 

[SquidBubble]

Nope, full stop. If someone is deemed fit to be released into a free society, then they should have all of their rights restored immediately - no application process, no waiting, no paperwork, nothing. There's no use in making them pinky swear that they won't be criminals anymore because if it's decided that they still have criminal tendencies, then keep them out of free society.

 

[Atavar]

I go along with most of the post. If someone is a felon they should not be allowed to own a firearm and should be prosecuted when found with one. They also should lose their right to vote.

I will agree with the caveat "until such time as they prove themselves to be a productive contributing citizen again"

 

[Atavar]

Nope, full stop. If someone is deemed fit to be released into a free society, then they should have all of their rights restored immediately - no application process, no waiting, no paperwork, nothing. There's no use in making them pinky swear that they won't be criminals anymore because if it's decided that they still have criminal tendencies, then keep them out of free society.

I think they need some time to prove themselves. Release carry’s no magic power to reform.

 

[SquidBubble]

I think they need some time to prove themselves. Release carry’s no magic power to reform.

I disagree. They get time to prove themselves while being incarcerated, that's one of the purposes of incarceration.

 

[Atavar]

I disagree. They get time to prove themselves while being incarcerated, that's one of the purposes of incarceration.

Wrong. Incarceration is punishment, not rehabilitation. I might agree with you after they have paid us back for the cost of their incarceration.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Oh it's this thread again.

 

[SquidBubble]

Wrong. Incarceration is punishment, not rehabilitation. I might agree with you after they have paid us back for the cost of their incarceration.

Nnnope, not wrong. Incarceration is at all times punishment, other times rehabilitation included, and other times deterrence instead of rehabilitation. Those who aren't serving life, their lockup serves as both punishment and (supposed to be) rehabilitation. Those serving life sentences or on death row, the purpose is (again, supposed to be) deterrence to others.

 

[kmw1954]

There is a process, in every state, for convicted felons to recoup ALL of their civil rights. What is the issue?

For most the issue in monetary. Lawyers cost money and the courts are not always friendly..

 

[twofewscrews]

Some of you have pointed out that past criminal activity is a generally good predictor of future criminal behavior, to which I generally agree, and have argued that this is enough to deny them the right to bear arms/self defense. If we are using past criminal activity to predict future criminal activity, how many actions constitute a pattern upon which we deny them the right to bear arms/self defense? In my mind something like say 2 or more violent felonious convictions could reasonably be used to impose a lifetime ban on firearms possession, excluding non violent felonies such as possession of narcotics/vandalism. On the other hand, I see it as a human or God given right which complicates the matter.

If you believe in 2A as a human right/God given right, how does, or does, denying a felon the right to bear arms/self defense based on the harm we believe they will impose upon society or individuals conflict with the idea that the 2A is a human right/God given right? To my mind the Bill of Rights is meant to enshrine/protect the rights of individuals, specifically from the government or government actors. Rights cannot or should not be stripped from an individual except in the most dire of circumstances. The notion that we could deny an individual the right to bear arms or deny them anything considered a human or God given right for any reason doesn't quite sit right with me, but I also understand the reasoning behind it.

The real trouble becomes once we accept the ability to deny an individuals rights based on harm reduction principles, what other rights can strip from people in the name of the public good?
Can we also deny someone their right to speak their mind (1A) because we feel their speech would harm others? I know this is a bit of a slippery slope, and while a slippery slope is sometimes a fallacy, sometimes its not.

 

[WestKentucky]

The process for expungement of records is pretty straightforward. If a charge can be expunged then there should be no further consideration of the crime. For felonies it is much more difficult, but perhaps it shouldnt be.
Stay out of trouble for X years and file the paperwork. Get in trouble and the clock starts over.