Quantcast

Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Red Wind, Sep 8, 2016.

?

Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?

Poll closed Oct 8, 2016.
  1. Yes

    20.8%
  2. No

    37.9%
  3. Non violent only

    36.0%
  4. Undecided

    5.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Red Wind

    Red Wind Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Rock Harbor,Florida
    There has been much talk lately, and court opinions handed down, about this important issue. Definitely hot button. Hopefully, a civil discussion can proceed. ;) This is a gun forum, so the question is restricted to firearms. Voting/jury rights are another matter

    I'm an optimist. :)
     
  2. Kiln

    Kiln Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,465
    I voted no because the question says ALL. I'm against people who have proven they can't function in society, like rapists and pedophiles, getting their rights back.

    Otherwise I'd say handle it case by case.
     
  3. ColoradoMinuteMan

    ColoradoMinuteMan Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    401
    All rights should be restored upon full completion of commitments. This includes and post-prison parol, probation, etc. If there is belief that this individual is still a violent criminal, they should not be released from prison. The prison system today is completely broken. I have no statistics to prove it, but my suspicion, based on anecdotal evidence, is that prisons are not in fact an effective reform mechanism. Prisons appear to be an all expenses paid scholarship to a post graduate school in criminal behavior. That problem needs to be fixed, and if it was, there would be a much greater likelihood that only reformed criminals were released and those with a propensity for violence would never be released (alive).
     
  4. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,332
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    Agree.
     
  5. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    7,893
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    The way I see it is that a man has paid his dues once he is truly free again, but I do see a problem with folks labeled as career criminals regaining weapons rights, especially in violent crimes where weapons were used.
     
  6. cjwils

    cjwils Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    191
    Location:
    Seattle region
    Sometimes extremely violent people may complete a sentence and be released, only to be commit violent crimes again. To say that ALL felons should regain gun rights is definitely not wise.
     
  7. burrhead

    burrhead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    762
    Location:
    Chihuahuan desert
    Not only NO but...well you get what I think.
     
  8. Corpral_Agarn

    Corpral_Agarn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,170
    Location:
    Northern CA
    I voted yes. And I include Parole/community service/etc in that.

    Here's why:
    #1 If they are too dangerous to be in society then they shouldn't be in society.

    #2 If the debt to society wasn't enough to get their rights back, then it should be made so that it is (Extended sentences/parole/better rehabilitation/etc).

    #3 If they are going to do something violent/illegal with a gun, they will get one, and do it. How many times have we heard this argument?

    In my opinion, you are either a citizen same as everyone (rights, etc) else, or you are not. If you paid your debt, then let it be paid.


    I understand that we have people that go to prison on felony charges as a way to gain status with a particular group, and I honestly don't know what to do about that, but on its face, I feel that rights should be restored AFTER you have paid your debt in full.
     
  9. burrhead

    burrhead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    762
    Location:
    Chihuahuan desert
    Actions have consequences; or at least they use to. Some how we've gotten away from that in the current social metric. Forgot to learn anything in school? Get food stamps. Have more children than you can afford? Get welfare and a section 8 house. On and on.

    Want to keep your rights, don't do the crime. I have no sympathy but I grew up in a different time.
     
  10. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA
    I am of the mindset that once one uses their Constitutional rights to infringe on anothers rights, that the perpetrator should lose their rights.

    To crystallize my thoughts on the subject, and that point even further, in a perfect world no violent or sexual offender would ever serve prison time in the first place. They'd be in the ground.


    So, ABSOLUTELY NO.
     
  11. Shipwreck

    Shipwreck Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,702
    Location:
    Texas
    NO, NO, NO, NO, NO AND NO

    [​IMG]
     
  12. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,657
    I think the classification needs to be reviewed. I believe there has been some creep over the last 50 yrs that have classed lesser crimes as felonies.
    I think much of the issue would disappear with such a review.

    Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
     
  13. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,065
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    No.

    And if one has to ask why, one clearly has never spent much time around felons. Completion of a prison sentence and/or probation and parole doesn't rehabilitate or reform many felons.

    And I continue to believe that if one breaks the social contract, permanent loss of rights is not too harsh a punishment.

    Someone noted:
    Um, you are aware of the liberal factions in control of many of the federal and state government agencies, right?

    The reality is, few states can afford to incarcerate that many people for that long. All sentencing is a compromise.

    Well, speaking as one who's worked in the criminal justice system on and off throughout my adult life, you might be surprised. At the least, we have an obligation to make it harder for these people to get guns, and otherwise, if they do re-offend by accessing firearms as prohibited persons, we have an additional hammer to use with regard to their next sentence.
     
  14. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    NC
    The loss of certain rights forever IS part of the sentence. Anyone who has been convicted of a crime of violence of any type should not be given back the rights he lost. Repeat criminals should not ever get their rights back. Non-violent criminals should be able to petition to get their rights back and have the courts decide on a case-by-case basis. Violent felons choose to give up their rights when they commit the crime. They give up their rights, their rights are not taken from them.
     
  15. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,571
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Martha Stewart is a Felon, should she regain her gun rights ? (Assume for a second that she wants her gun rights back).

    What about anyone who did not commit a violent felony?

    And what makes up a felony anyway? And who makes that determination anyway. Doing one act in one state is perfectly legal. In another state that same act would net you a felony!

    I'm talking about here in KY, if you put a loaded gun in your glove compartment and didn't have a carry permit. You have broken no law whatsoever.

    If you did that same thing in NJ, you could be charged and indicted as a Felon and end up spending several years in a NJ prison and out of thousands of dollars in court costs, fines and lawyers fees.


    So should all Felons lose their gun rights forever. I don't think so. As previous posters have said, if someone is in jail, parole, probation and still owes restitution. They should not have their gun rights back until they done their time, paid their fines or restitution. And if after some time has passed and they stayed out of trouble. They should regain their gun rights back. As long they weren't violent felons and committed no sex offenses.

    If someone got busted for having four joints in their pocket in 1969 and got a felony. Is that really on the same level as someone who armed robbed a bank? Their both felons, right? This is why the whole concept of a felon gets distorted.

    So my point is felons should get their gun rights back. That guy who got busted in 1969 for four joints in his pocket and got a felony charge out of it. But led a crime free life since. He should get his gun rights back. So should Martha Stewart and thousands of others fitting their categories.
    .
     
  16. Corpral_Agarn

    Corpral_Agarn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,170
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Agree. But it does reform some.

    If people on probation cannot own/posses firearms, does that settle it? Should we extend the probation period?

    I am aware of the liberal influence and you can bet I am not happy about it.

    I am okay with being surprised but I don't agree with this line of thinking.

    I hear a VERY similar arguments from anti gun folks. A common response (from our side) is that they will get their guns illegally... Right?

    This is an interesting discussion and I am looking forward to reading responses.
     
  17. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA


    Well said. That should be the key element in this discussion.
     
  18. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,794
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Under our current system, I voted non-violent only.

    If our system was reformed to the point of not incarcerating people who posed no threat to society and keeping those who do pose a threat under lock and key, I would re-evaluate my opinion.
     
  19. vamo

    vamo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Missouri
    No, not automatically, but I do think the reformed should have an easier path to restoring their rights.
     
  20. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA
    Anyone who commits a felony is a threat to society. It matters not if it is violent or not.

    Used to be you'd meet the gallows for stealing horses, now we have Brock Turner's getting out after 3mths.

    We (most of us here hopefully) encourage gun owners/carriers to be informed of their states, and the feds laws regarding use/law. Why is it any different with any other laws?

    Ignorance has never held up in the courts and rightfully so. I have no sympathy for those who negligently commit crimes, or others who purposely commit crimes.


    I've been on this piece of dirt we call the U.S.A for 33yrs and have managed to not get more than a couple of traffic violations. I guess in this day and age I'm just an anomaly.

    Rules are pretty simple to follow if you're so inclined, and that's the key I guess.
     
  21. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,794
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    I suggest you look at what "felony" means now. Or rather, does not mean. Felonious crimes were, for the vast majority of of legal history (under English Common Law and legal systems derived from it) the most egregious. Lately, the term has been applied to whatever crime politicians, lawmakers, etc., want to tack stiffer penalties on. In other words, a felony today was not necessarily a felony previously.
     
  22. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,634
    Location:
    Calirado
    Personally, I think they ought to issue a 1911 and 500 rd of .45 ACP ammo to each one going into prison.

    That ought to solve a lot of problems.

    I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it. :p
     
  23. HANDLOADER

    HANDLOADER member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    WEST KENTUCKY
    The only difference between you and them is that you know what their sin is. If they do the time and make it right make them a "COMPLETE AMERICAN" again. All the macho talk of I am better than you is is horse ****.
     
  24. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,701
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    In my opinion, the restoration of gun rights (along with other rights outside the scope of this topic) should:
    • Not occur at all upon parole since that is merely a supervised form of release allowing the convict to complete his sentence outside of an institution.
    • Not be automatic upon completion of the sentence.
    • Be a process sufficiently comprehensible that the average convict, after completion of sentence, can apply to the court for without needing to hire an attorney.
     
  25. JB357MAG

    JB357MAG Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Over the hills & far away
    This, I voted for non violent only.

    I went through this, got it reduced to a misdemeanor and now can buy guns again.

    Never harmed a sole or stole from anyone ever.

    Jimmy
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice