Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Red Wind, Sep 8, 2016.
Once you have paid your debt to society, it is paid. Everyone makes mistakes.
I am of the opinion that if you are being freed then Rights should be restored, if someone is too dangerous then they shouldn't be freed. That beings said, I voted 'non violent only' because that at least is attainable and a lot easier to address.
The guy that downloaded music as an 18 year old that now wants a shotgun for home defense to protect his family should in no way be barred from doing so.
This is an interesting concept. Should thin the prison population considerably.
Before 1968, there was no concept of "prohibited persons". 40 years later, gun owners are in favor of stripping rights from other people because they never see themselves being part of that class. It's sad.
I voted yes; no qualifiers. If violent felons are getting out too soon, or non-violent offenders are training to be career criminals during their incarcerations, those are separate problems.
No because we have no idea of the people who will be in charge of deciding non-violent cases. Remember "it all depends on what your definition of sex is?"
To keep this gun related I'll use this example.
Say you have a father that for whatever reason dies before his children come of legal age.
His guns go to his brother with instructions to pass them on to his children. The brother/uncle then moves out of state and 10 years later fulfils his dead brothers wish at a family Christmas gathering. He is ignorant of the law as is the rest of the family so there is no FFL transfer involved, just a simple favor done.
The whole family uncle and nephews and nieces are felons.
This happens all the time in real life and an over zealous judge or prosecutor could make their lives hell.
These are the things that need to be cleaned up and the extend far past guns and go into business, relationships, property ownership and health and well-being.
Just because we are ignorant doesn't mean we are not committing felonies daily.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Violent felons, never.
Now if someone can answer how it todays world we can pay to keep them all locked up, go for it. We can not even afford to keep all the lawbreakers in prison the way it is.
I'm sure that most of you are aware that a Federal Felon has no means to apply for restitution of his or her Civil Rights. So a bank teller who embezzled some money from her Federal employer 20 years ago or a truck driver who was involved in an interstate heist 15 years ago has no where to turn for rights restitution, unlike felons who committed state crimes. Congress has allocated no funds since at least 1995 for penal review of Federal felonies.
The whole system is warped and unfair. To my mind, once a person is released,serves all their probation/parole and fullfills all financial restitution requirements, their firearms,voting and jury rights should be restored in full.
Obviously, I voted Yes.
Thank you all for the excellent, ongoing discussion. It's a serious matter and there have been many thoughtful,insightful comments on all sides of the issue.
My comment was meant as a joke, but it is not so funny when you think about the 1/2" wide "Gun Free Zones" around public schools. http://ok2a.org/fedgfsza Drive within a half mile of a school and you have a firearm in your vehicle and it is not per the silly exclusions, you are looking at a felony conviction in Federal Court. I am not a Lawyer but I bet there are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "gotcha" laws on the books. How about an $1000 fine (first offence) because the grass on your lawn is too high? Second offence, $10,000. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/06/1000-fine-for-not-mowing-your-lawn.html These laws were put into place to basically keep you, the sheep people, in control, placid, harmless and in perpetual readiness for fleecing.
Depending on the location, some City Governments are heavily dependent on finances from traffic violations. This particular problem, has a number of causes, the first is that there is no tax base, (because the jobs went to China!), and there is a legacy City Organization in an area where now it should now be an unincorporated area. The powers that be in charge of City Hall have to have a means to raise salary money, so they create predatory legal systems.
These are articles dealing with various Predator City Governments
Remember that the Founding Fathers were part of taking way people's rights since before there was a Constitution and after there was a Constitution.
My perspective has always been if they're not dangerous enough to keep out of the general public, they shouldn't have restrictions.. if they are indeed too dangerous they don't need to be free. just my personal opinion. worth what ya paid for it ;-)
They weren't being hypocritical. They just didn't think 200 years later people would take the BoR so literally considering the reality that always existed, before, during and after its creation.
I view the lifetime ban as part of the sentence. I don't see any problem with it. Essentially for that right you can never discharge it
Should only apply to violent felonies
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Many prison inmates are mental cases. In the early 1980s US and state politicians decided to defund and close most mental institutions.
At a training session for corrections officers that I attended in about 1982, WV prison warden Donald Bordenkircher summed up the situation really well: "They take a mental case, thorazine his ###, call him a behavioral case and send him off to prison."
The situation has gotten much worse over time. Today about 20 percent of prison inmates have serious mental problems. They suffer at the hands of other inmates.
One of the problems, as several have pointed out, is the creeping definition of "felony." As well as the differences in jurisdictions as to what's a felony.
Despite some impracticalities, I've suggested before that all rights should be restored but with the provision that if another crime is committed while free, the criminal's sentences for all previous crimes should be added to the punishment for the present crime. And again and again, for the Nth time.
However, just tossing this out there doesn't make it so.
The convicted felon hasn't "paid his debt to society" until he has completed his ENTIRE sentence. If he was convicted of a crime that carries a Civil Death penalty -- that is, the sentence deprives him of certain civil rights -- then he hasn't "paid his debt to society" until he meets the terms of the sentence -- which may be a lifetime deprivation.
Vern, you and others have mentioned this notion of having paid the debt to society, but part of that debt includes the disenfranchisement of specific rights which doesn't get paid of by the simple prison sentence. It is part of the penalty for being convicted of a felony.
If only prisoners paid their debt by working off the costs to incarcerate them, but that doesn't happen either. Society is still left with a large, unpaid debt.
i think once you have served your complete sentence, you should get your rights back. I don't think repeat violent offenders should ever get out of jail though. two strikes and you are out.
That's pretty much what I said. If the sentence includes Civil Death (loss of certain civil rights) then the "debt" is NOT "paid off" simply by serving time.
Rights are not granted by any government, and should not be capable of being taken away by any government. Privileges are another story.
Correct, if you don't want to lose your 2A rights then don't rob that store, carjack that BMW, rob that senior citizen, etc. 99.9% of the felonies committed are done by people who knew what they were doing, the penalty if caught and they figured that car was worth more than their rights. They didn't care. So, if you were/are a violent ex-con then you made the choice to give up your rights. You just didn't care. So now, we don't care.
ALL is way too broad. All nonviolent is too broad. I'll say yes only on a case by case basis. And then only if it's up to a panel. Never to the whims of one partisan politician.
Then what is the basis for arresting, trying and punishing criminals?
As with all things....
It depends, on the individual and the circumstances.
All Americans have a right too own firearms...allegedly
If courts feel you have served your debt, and are free to leave prison , then all rights should be restored.
If that same person can't be trusted to own firearms then they should not be let out of prison in the first place.
Separate names with a comma.