should ex felons be restricted

[Art Eatman]

For the absolutists:

Ever been in a fight? Even a teenage brannigan, not necessarily a late-night brawl in a bar...

"What if": You feel justified in slugging some guy, and when he falls he does the old crime-novel deal of hitting his head on something very hard--and dies.

You had no intent whatsoever of causing a death, but you did. Odds are, there's historical reason to believe you'd get some prison term for this unintended homicide.

Is a total loss of civil rights justified for this sort of crime?

For absolutists on the Second Amendment: Is it reasonable to go BEYOND the intent of those who wrote it? They weren't all-inclusive for all people and all the time...

Art

 

[why_me]

how would you go about

Getting the "public" to buy into restoration of rights for felons?
How would you get the "Im tough on crime" politicians to sponsor bills changing the laws?
Im all for restoration of rights but it is not going to happen. In the future i see even more restrictive gun laws even with the "pro gun agenda" politicians
The NRA has spent so much capitol on defining gun owners as different from "criminals" that to even suggest changing the laws that disinfranchise felons from owning firearms would be no goer.

 

[Ezekiel]

For absolutists on the Second Amendment: Is it reasonable to go BEYOND the intent of those who wrote it? They weren't all-inclusive for all people and all the time...

You did a much better job of framing the "Absolutism doesn't work" argument then I did.

 

[telewinz]

"What if": You feel justified in slugging some guy, and when he falls he does the old crime-novel deal of hitting his head on something very hard--and dies.

My point exactly poor judgement, speaks for itself!

White Collar felons maybe, violent low life convicts don't be insane. Why do you think they were in prison...too many parking tickets? IMHO Paying your debt to society is more of a legal term rather than a matter of fact.

Second, a violent felon should not be on the street if he or she can not be trusted. Screw the "debt to society" part, is this person a continuing danger? Yes? Then why are they out?

AMEN to that.

Remember one thing...in general for every day served an inmate gets anywhere from 1-2 days (depends on state) good time off his sentence. That turns a 10 year sentence into less than 4 years!

Visit your local prison (tour) take a look at the inmates. You will become hard on crime real quick!

 

[omega5]

Not only should they be restricted, they should lose all rights to "disability". I'm sick of these scumbags coming on to my case load and drawing SSI Disability cause they've been in prison and their "nerves" are shot. Bull ????. They can climb into your house at night and carry off your stuff but can't work. We need a lot more restrictions on the scum than we have

 

[Fletchette]

For absolutists on the Second Amendment: Is it reasonable to go BEYOND the intent of those who wrote it? They weren't all-inclusive for all people and all the time...

If it is necessary to go beyond the intent as originally written, then a Constitutional Amendement is required. For example, at the time the Constitution was written blacks in the south were not citizens and were forbidden to own guns. The Fouteenth Amendment rectified this injustice.

 

[beerslurpy]

Actually Dred Scott (pre 14th, pre civil war) was a great case for the 2nd amendment. They denied that blacks were entitled to be citizens because it would entiitle them to (among other things) bear arms wherever they went. It was claimed that since the founders could not have wanted such an absurd state of affairs that blacks were clearly not deserving of citizenship.

It was only in the past century or so (during the new deal?) that it became acceptable to actually start infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Until then every supreme court case that mentions it talks about it like an inalienable individual right like the 1st.

The real damage that has been done in the past 40 years is all of the circuit courts engaging in intellectual dishonesty about US v Miller and claiming it says things that it does not. The other half of the problem is that the supreme court keeps denying certiorari on these miscarriages of justice so they keep getting perpetrated. It really pisses me off that the supremes havent seen fit to make the whole bill of rights binding on the states, as was obviously intended from the start.

 

[DMF]

Ever been in a fight? Even a teenage brannigan, not necessarily a late-night brawl in a bar...

"What if": You feel justified in slugging some guy, and when he falls he does the old crime-novel deal of hitting his head on something very hard--and dies.

You had no intent whatsoever of causing a death, but you did. Odds are, there's historical reason to believe you'd get some prison term for this unintended homicide.

Is a total loss of civil rights justified for this sort of crime?

Art the only time someone is justified to use force is to defend themselves or others from an attack. Everything else is a crime.

In the case you describe, if "you feel justified" is BS unless it is self-defense. If someone does something to make you mad and you take a swing, well that's a crime. You may not have intended to kill the guy, but assaulting him was a felony in and of itself, and since you did intend to hurt him, and his death resulted from the intended harm you inflicted then you're on the hook for manslaughter, or homicide, depending on the state laws.

Again, if you aren't defending yourself why are you hitting that guy?

 

[Hypnogator]

A couple of points from one who has spent most of his life putting felons behind bars:

The "If they're not rehabilitated, why aren't they in prison?" crowd lives in the same Pollyanna world as the "If we could only outlaw those terrible guns, everyone would love and respect each other" bunch. The real world is full of violent felons who are out on parole simply because there isn't room enough or money enough to keep 'em where they belong.

If a person is convicted of a felony, it means (s)he is so contemptuous of the law that (s)he ignores it to the detriment of society. If you don't believe a law is just, work to change it. Don't disobey it unless you're prepared to accept the consequences. The consequences are, among other things, loss of your right to own or possess firearms.

Those who speak of the Second Amendment as an "Unalienable Right" are ignorant of the Constitution. The "unalienable rights" are innumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution as, the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However it specifically states that these rights are unalienable except when taken away by a court of law. Elsewise, we could have neither the death penalty nor imprisonment.

From an historical perspective, we must remember that at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, most felony crimes were punishable by death. The framers didn't have to spend a lot of time worrying about what to do with a former felon, since said felon was soon left hanging from a tree.

In my experience, the only reliable predictor of behavior is past behavior. I oppose allowing any convicted felon to have access to firearms unless his or her rights have been restored by a court of competent jurisdiction. I believe that this restoration process should be more readily available than it is, but that such petitions should be granted sparingly, and only after the petitioner shows evidence that (s)he has truly reformed.

Just my $.02 worth.

 

[Fletchette]

The real world is full of violent felons who are out on parole simply because there isn't room enough or money enough to keep 'em where they belong.

...because the prisons are filled with non-violent "felons" that shouldn't really be there.

My largest complaint with parole is the creation of a whole new class of second-class citizens. It used to be that you could go into a gunshop, say, "I'll buy that one," give the guy behind the counter cash and walk out. Under that system, the sky didn't fall, and crime rates fluctuated in the same ranges they fluctuate now.

Under the "new" system, you walk into a gun shop and must submit to a un-Constitutional breach of privacy, violating the First, Second Fourth and Fifth Amendments. You must pay for this injustice (equivalent to a poll-tax). The whole reason for all this is to prove what class of citizen you are - first, second, third, etc. This is exactly the type of system our Founders wanted to prevent.

If we didn't persecute pot-heads, there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep every violent criminal behind bars without parole. That is how the old system worked. First class citizens = everyone walking about. Second class citizens = those in prison.

 

[beerslurpy]

The system is broken because of three things:

1) the jails are full of people that shouldnt be in jail, taking away room from serious criminals
2) people are being put in jail for really serious crimes instead of being executed
3) background checks are creating a whole class of citizens who "might be dangerous" and denying them guns. This doesnt just apply to violent felons and the insane- it also applies to people going through divorces, people with any alcohol or drug offenses, many misedemeanors, people who were youthful offenders, non-violent felons, etc etc etc. And people like Ted Kennedy are lobbying to get it further expanded.

The solutions to these problems are:
-end background checks since the government just abuses it
-end the war on victimless crimes (most notably drug posession and trafficing)
-bring back the death penalty for more crimes (maybe a 3 strikes and youre out forever system?)

 

[Art Eatman]

DMF, "Intent" is built in to all phases of our criminal justice system, and always has been. Generally, "reasonable and prudent person" is in there as well.

In my scenario, sure, you were merely defending yourself, without using deadly force. Unfortunately, you committed a homicide. Unintentional? Sure. But you're going before a Grand Jury (in Texas, anyway) and they may or may not decide to indict for Involuntary Manslaughter. They can do so, and you can be found guilty and you can serve time.

My point, overall, is that "there ain't no always" in these sorts of situations, when one is talking about restorations of civil rights. It's case by case, as are most of them.

Next question: Does an ex-con lose his human right of self-defense in his home? Texas law held that he could, and could possess a firearm for such need--limited to within his home.

Art

 

[why_me]

texas

texas is a whole other country
restoration of rights for felons is such a hurdle it is almost impossible for a felon to get his rights restored.
i know MN has it automatically after 5-10 years but most states i know it is a court procedure or govenors pardon
govenors pardons are not going to happen

 

[telewinz]

Does an ex-con lose his human right of self-defense in his home

As an inmate...Yes, both combatants go to lock-up no matter who or what started the fight. In the home, no but the (ex)convict is restricted as to what "tools" he can legally use for self defense. I'm sorry but in most cases few have any idea what an inmate has to do to be in a maximum security prison. Inmates are very often Evil, Sick people who are in prison not to pay their "debt" but to protect society from them. The hard core MAX security types aren't going to change no matter what skills or treatment you provide then. They are too weak to master their own lives and blame everyone else for their poor decisions. If you aren't responsible enough to control your own actions, why should you have possession of ANY weapon? Monsters do exist, why is this so hard to believe?

 

[GAMALOT]

NON VIOLENT CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The guy who breaks into your house during the day and steals your guns is a NON VIOLENT CRIMINAL in most states.

Either you are a Law Abbiding citizen or NOT. Those who break the laws should have to jump through hoops to get their rights reinstated.
Prove to society you have mended your ways and a judge MAY reinstate your rights.

I would however agree that not all felony convictions should be automatic loss of the rights. Let the courts decide and state the loss of rights in the original conviction. A DWI should not be an automatic loss of the right to keep arms but if you get a DWI while in posession of a loaded firearm you are pushing the limits.

 

[Fletchette]

Inmates are very often Evil, Sick people who are in prison not to pay their "debt" but to protect society from them.

The people you are referring to should be in prison. The problem is that there are many people in prison that DON'T deserve to be there.

...and before I get the standard "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" BS, the following people commited very small infractions, if any at all. A small crime deserves a small sentence. Sheesh!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133204,00.html

Read the whole article. Many examples of "felons" that have lost their right to keep and bear arms, as well as much of their lives.

 

[telewinz]

The people you are referring to should be in prison. The problem is that there are many people in prison that DON'T deserve to be there.

It's very hard for a person to be sent to prison if for no other reason than the costs involved to the state. The Feds (and Texas) are a little different, they take a VERY tough stance against crime. The case you cite seems to me to be an exception, why did a jury convict him? Fox doesn't give both sides of the story. My experience as a juror indicates to me that his actions were illegal in some manner although his intent may have been reasonable (evidence determines guilt, not PR). I've got ministers (child rape) to Ex-correctional officers (VERY violent crimes), believe me I'm better off and you are better off with these monsters in jail.

If we didn't persecute pot-heads, there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep every violent criminal behind bars without parole.

Most of my inmates are "pot heads" but are in prison for other much more serious crimes.

 

[Bemidjiblade]

just for drugs?

Most felons I know don't go to prison because of drugs, unless they were dealing. Oh, sure, that's the first reason they give.

'course, while they were doing drugs they...
beat someone into hospitalization
ignored the word no
stole 7000 from their work to cover their gambling debts
decided it was quicker to sell drugs to school kids than go to college...

Here in MN, the 'just use' people tend to spend up to a year in jail and then get another shot... by the time they go to prison they've done something else to really screw up their lives.

 

[why_me]

i dont know the statistics

but i am sure a large proportion of felons never go to prison
you have to remember felon means anytime more than 2 years (maybe 1 year)
A lot of felony convictions are plea bargains where there is no time
Martha Stewart. She has some money. Lots. If i was a criminal. I would hit her. She is a felon she cant have guns> Although im sure her bodygaurds can.
Ok bad example. Heres another one.
The woman that steals lottery tickets at the gas station. She loses her right to possess firearms? I know there are examples out there. Of course there is the Bean guy who had a box of shot shells in his car.

 

[GAMALOT]

Martha and the lottery thief are both law breakers. If the courts took their rights away by virtue of the conviction then let the courts restore them by virtue of proven rehabilitation.
Steal money, steal lottery tickets, steal my guns or steal a young child. It is all NFG and they don't deserve the same rights that I have.
Everyone keeps referring to a "Mistake". I don't know where you are comming from because I was always taught I had to pay for mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the cost is too high then don't even think about making them.
There are many among us who have managed to stay above the law and maintain our rights and it is usually not a mistake.
Sure the laws need some tweeking and sure there are alot of miscarriages of justice but I basically believe the vast majority of law breakers were completely aware they were stepping over the line. I do not believe that there are all that many completely innocent fellons who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught, convicted and sent to prison. Sorry, that dog don't hunt!

 

[why_me]

the problem is

The courts either will not or cannot restore a persons rights. Rush Limbaugh is going to go down hard. And yes there are people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. How many drug addicts get charged with distributing just because they are at the drug house buying drugs when the LEOs' come in?
Another problem i see is the list of felonies is growing. You could lose your RKBA for a court ordered restraining order. Ive never had one but its easy for a woman to shed crocodile tears and get one againts her estranged husband.
He loses his right to purchase andhe cannot even go into his own house. Ive seen that happen. A freind of mine use to be a worthless drunk. Now he is born again. His old lady had enough of his crap. Went to court told the judge he was a menace and she was scared. Bingo. He cant even go into his own house. And now if he wanted to he cannot purchase a firearm.
That is wrong.

 

[Waitone]

My personal favorite is the pre-emptive restraining order. File for divorce and an automatic RO is issued.

 

[GAMALOT]

How many drug addicts get charged with distributing just because they are at the drug house buying drugs when the LEOs' come in?

How many DRUG ADDICTS would you like packing heat????????????????

I do not agree with the new laws regarding restraining orders and how easy it is for woman to totally screw up a guys future. I also do not agree with many of my buddies on how they handle their woman problems. If you get physical and loose it, weather it be with a man or particularly with a woman, you deserve what might come your way. I had a few buddies who were real "TOUGH GUYS" with their woman----- HAD!
I have relatives who are DRUG ADDICTS, sadly I can't get rid of them and will leave it up to the courts. They are not welcome near my home and will be shot if they cross the line at my front or back door!
What part of "Law Abbiding" do you not understand?????????????????????????

This crap about the guy who got caught out there is a bunch of BS. He got caught out there while breaking the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[why_me]

mmmkay

i smoked pot b4 i went into the us navy daily.
i havent smoked in 16 years. My "Dealer" a fellow class mate who runs a business now. Used to have 4 or 5 ounces laying on the table. So your saying "I" have no redeeming values?
If the cops had busted my freind while i was there i would of had a felony rap.
I can gaurantee you break laws every single day. Everyone does and they dont even know it.

 

[Fletchette]

What part of "Law Abbiding" do you not understand?????????????????????????

The part where actions that do not hurt anybody is considered a "crime". I am not argueing that these people broke the law. I am arguing that these laws are insane. Just because a law is passed does not mean that it is just...It was once a law that you could own slaves.

The guy I cited in the Fox article was in a wheel chair due to a previous auto injury. I seriouly doubt that he assaulted, raped or did anyone harm like you suggested. He simply forged one of his own prescriptions and got it filled by his pharmacy. He did not sell his drugs - he swallowed them.

Now he is in prison for 25 years without parole. Do you really think that this law is just?!?

:banghead: