Should violent felons be allowed firearms?

[crunker]

Unless we seriously step up punishments for violent criminals, then I'd say no.

I mean think about it, a guy who's killed a person only seven years ago should not be trusted with a gun so quickly.

Now if we really bumped up punishment and probation period, and made it necessary for violent felons to get approval from the court, then I'd say plausible... but until then, hell no. Our current justice system is too pussy for this to be allowed to happen.

 

[MrDig]

I don't drink today because I choose to abstain. I know the problems it would create in my life. As an active participant in the 12 step community I don't attempt to drink because every other time I have it has caused problems. Somewhat scientific process wouldn't you say? If an action produces the same or similiar results every time it is applied and the results are undesireable stop taking that action. Took me years to fugure that out also took me years to accept that no one but no one or thing is responsable for my actions but me. For me the only answer is to not drink since drinking produces an undesireable effect. Can I drink I sure can, do I drink absolutly not. I don't like who I am when I drink. To ask me if I can drink responsably is to completely and totally misunderstand the problem. Furthermore to tell me that rehabilitation means I can drink responsably is slightly off the mark. It is like asking a felon if he/she can commit felonies responably. When the obvious answer is no, the only answer is not to commit felonies. What does it take to consider a person a functional member of society?
PS to walkalong you made my point before I could, thanks, and good to meet another freind of Bill W's

 

[allmons]

Don't be so certain that all "violent felons" are guilty

I worked a rape case several years ago that had the conviction overturned later by DNA evidence. The woman who made the accusation was really angry with her ex-husband and accused him of rape. Turned out her new boyfriend beat her up and had sex with her. The accused spent 18 months in prison for assault and rape. Getting all rights reinstated was a nightmare for him.

Then, consider what happens if you have to use deadly force and you run afoul of a zealous anti-gun prosecutor? Despite what you may think, innocent people GO TO JAIL EVERY DAY.

If you pay your debt to society and the parole board lets you out, you should get all rights back. If you are dangerous, you should not be let out.

 

[Twycross]

In order to prohibit ex-criminals from owning personal firearms, you must accept that they are not protected by the BOR. You can't just pick and choose in the "well, they can have the right to jury trial and freedom of speech, but they can't vote or own guns" manner. They are either under the protection of the BOR, or they are not. If you accept that ex-violent criminals should be denied the right to keep and bear arms, then you must also accept that the state is not obligated to respect their right to freedom of religion, or jury trial, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you are going to make an argument in favor of denying rights to ex-felons, at least be consistent.

It's rather sad, watching us argue with the antis and claiming that gun control doesn't work, and then turning right around and claiming that it does as long as it is not us we are talking about. Freedom for me but not for thee.

"'Cause you might go off and shoot somebody." Where have I heard that before? :banghead:

 

[Durruti]

I think one of the problems with the premise is the assumption that violent felons are automatically bad people (bear with me here). Allmons pointed out that there are innocent convicts, but I'll go one better: some people who actually do the crime are good folks.

There are plenty of murderers who will never get punished because the government doesn't view what they do as murder (I'd say Bush and Clinton, but you throw in your own names; I do not want to hijack the thread on names ). On the other hand, we have plenty of women in prison for murdering their abuser and/or rapist (most often their husband in both cases). According to the way the law is written, many of them did indeed commit murder (for example, when the act is not committed in immediate self-defense). I think they should not only retain their gun rights, they shouldn't even go to prison. Give them a pat on the back and help them with whatever counseling they feel they need.

 

[308win]

It's rather sad, watching us argue with the antis and claiming that gun control doesn't work, and then turning right around and claiming that it does as long as it is not us we are talking about. Freedom for me but not for thee.

I suppose if your premise is that all gun owners or potential gun owners are murderers waiting for the right victim.

 

[pcosmar]

All felons lose the right to own firearms. The law does not distinguish between violent and non-violent. There are many states that restore rights after the sentence is finished, but it does not automatically change the status as a "prohibited person" under Federal Law. Just because a person had their rights restored does not mean that the NCIS check will come back clear.
There are a lot of felons that could and should be able to own firearms.
There are some non-felons that should not walk around unsupervised. I know idiots who are unsafe with hand tools.
I have also seen some evil men, that I would never want to see on the outside.

I like to think of myself as an EX-felon, but the policy is not so.
A person can become a felon for something as simple as peeing in an alley, or a violent felon for spanking a child.
Some have made mistakes, paid the price, and want to get back to a normal life.
I believe that if someone makes an effort to be a productive citizen that effort should be rewarded.
Unfortunately once a felon always a felon. It is not the Law, but it is the policy.

 

[Mannlicher]

not that the legalities of gun ownership worry the criminal mind much in the first place.

 

[GRIZ22]

Violent felons should never be restored the right to own firearms. How many chances do you have to give someone? Those that propose violent felons should be allowed to own firearms are only giving the anti-gun people ammo to use against the RKBA. If they are not to be trusted then they should stay locked up is another response that is not based in reality. It costs $20-40K a year to keep someone locked up and guess who pays that. I will agree that some reform is needed as to what constitutes a felony. Although a convicted felon I don't think Martha Stewart would be a danger to society if she was permitted to own a firearm. Ted Kennedy pled guilty to leaving the scene where a death has occurred which is called a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. However, you can get 2 years which makes it a felony under federal law. Ted is pretty dangerous just being around.

My understanding is that the first factor in gaining relief from disability is if the state will expunge a felony conviction. Some states are more willing to do this that others.

Felons of all types will acquire firearms if they want to. Why make it easier for them?

 

[harvester of sorrow]

I posted this in the other thread that you are referring to, but I'll add it here, too:

I'll go over this one more time. Violent, dangerous criminals shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place. However, in today's criminal justice system, they are. It is currently illegal for a convicted felon to possess a gun. Surprising as it may be to some, this doesn't appear to discourage any of them who are set on committing more crimes upon their release. They aren't affected by waiting periods. They aren't affected by background checks. They aren't affected by "one gun a month" legislation. They aren't affected by the requirements set out in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Based on the fact that the North Hollywood bank robbers acquired their guns in Mexico, they don't appear to be affected by the importation laws under the Gun Control Act of 1968. They aren't affected by having to get a Firearms Owners Identifcation Card. They aren't affected by the Sullivan Act. They aren't affected by registration or taxation. The only people affected by any of these things are you and me. The only convicted felon who is affected by any of these things is the one who has decided that he's going to obey the law from now on. If he's decided that, he's not a danger to you or anyone else.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Violent felons should never be restored the right to own firearms.

How can one restore a right? Shouldn't rights always exist? I'm not so sure about throwing out the judgment here on this situation. I don't like the idea of violent felons getting guns, but trying to prevent a murderer from getting a gun isn't going to stop him from killing someone. EVEN if you were able to complete prevent a violent ex-felon from getting a gun, what's to stop them from getting a knife? or a bow? or a slingshot? or anything remotely deadly? By that logic, the one that says we should prevent ex-felons from having deadly weapons, then we should ban these people from knives, bows, slingshots, etc. It's pretty much impossible to stop people from getting things that they want, for a good example look at our prison system.

And if we take the most literal interpretation, the 2A does say that the RKBA shall not be infringed. It is a pretty absolute statement about RKBA. Taking away one's right to vote is also one way the gov't. prevents people from having a voice. Yes, you may have broken the law and you did accept the consequences when you broke the law, but those consequences should be dealt with either in physical punishment, prison, or rehabilitation. Punishing someone for the rest of their life for peeing in public (which can be prosecuted as a sex crime felony) is ludicrous. And if you're too dangerous to be in public or can't be trusted, you should be kept in prison.

You don't keep punishing a child for doing something wrong after he's served his 10 minutes (or more) in the corner. And the boundaries you set for the child afterward have to be reasonable and enforceable.

 

[crebralfix]

Yes!

We all have rights...period. Mere laws *should not* nullify rights, though we allow this as a culture for some reason. If the Constitution is supreme, then why allow piddly laws override it?

If the felon can be let out, then presumeably they won't misbehave like that again. Why let them out if it's not the case? (besides excuses like budgets, political correctness, etc, etc etc)

We really need to make up our mind as a culture. Is it punishment? Therapy? Free room and board? Incidentally, my vote is for punishment with no TV, no gym, no training, terrible food and lots of hard work.

The main problem I see is that we have created a FELON CLASS. There is no forgiveness anymore...no second chance. Once you have a felony on your record, a law abiding life becomes much more difficult (I think; maybe they don't have trouble).

SO, AGAIN, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO GO OFF:

If a felon is capable of reintegrating back into society peacefully, then all rights should be restored. If the felon is NOT capable of reintegrating into society peacefully, then that felon should be "banished" to prison until such time as he or she is capable of coming back or dies. Think of prison as a "rights timeout" with lots of unpleasant experiences. I think we, as a society, should discourage "repeat customers".

 

[shotgunkevin]

(posted from the middle of the ocean, on an asbestos boat, in the rain, while wearing a flamesuit)...

In the Bible, God instituted three levels of punishment: restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. Our society would be well served by returning to this principle.

Restituion would be the sentence for crimes involving property: theft, burglary, white-collar crime, etc. The victim of the crime would receive their property or money back, between two-fold to seven-fold, depending on the judge's sentence. Pretty simple.

I know this one is touchy, but corporal punishment is for crimes involving injury to another person, from a minor to moderate amount. This could entail a drunk driver smashing into an occupied vehicle and breaking a little girl's legs, or a punk teenager that bullies and beats up another kid. Corporal punishment could take the form of lashes, caning (as is still being done in Asia), or something similar.

Lastly, capital punishment is reserved for those who take another's life, or take away another's lifestyle. It is fitting that if a man rapes a woman, thereby damaging her body and degrading her self-image, he has forfeited his life. If a person lies in wait for an elderly man to return home, and he beats the old man to death for his social security check, then we as a society must remove him from our midst.

There should be no violent felons released back into society.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I didn't vote in this one, but the policy I would suggest is that it should be _possible_ for such people to have their rights restored, through some genuine and fair process that actually works.

(Unlike our current situation,where some process of unknown fairness or effectiveness exists on paper, but the bureau tasked with performing the process hasn't been funded in 30 years)

While I think that a great most of the folks who've committed violent felonies are likely to offend again and wouldn't qualify, I leave room for the some who might. There is always the possibility of a geniune reformation of an individual, and one must also account for the possibility that the original crime was the result of one time, extraordinary circumstances, or that the conviction itself was a miscarriage of justice. (ie: Corey Maye)

 

[10-Ring]

In my book if you mix together "VIOLENT" & "FELON" you should mix in "life w/o the possibility of parole" If they do make it back into society the last thing they should have are firearms

 

[MrDig]

It would appear cannonization is in order for all of the no redemption positions stated here. Glad to hear that no one among you has done anything ever that you needed to make amends for. I am also glad that none of you are the entity that I have to answer to when my time is done.
I know the person I am today is not the person I once was, I also know I am not the person that my Higher Power (God) has intended me to be. The truest spiritual journey is one the leads to something greater than the here and now. My prayer is that you all find your path and find meaning greater than you have expressed here. I would make one final suggestion but it is probably asking to much, If you never have and or forgotten read the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. Good night and God Bless.

 

[c_yeager]

In my ideal world the answer would be "yes". However that is a world in which incouragably violent individuals would be either excecuted or placed in indefinate imprisonment. If your asking should violent felons simply be granted the RKBA today with our current justice system I would have to say "no".

 

[Glockfan.45]

In the Bible, God instituted three levels of punishment: restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. Our society would be well served by returning to this principle.

Restituion would be the sentence for crimes involving property: theft, burglary, white-collar crime, etc. The victim of the crime would receive their property or money back, between two-fold to seven-fold, depending on the judge's sentence. Pretty simple.

I know this one is touchy, but corporal punishment is for crimes involving injury to another person, from a minor to moderate amount. This could entail a drunk driver smashing into an occupied vehicle and breaking a little girl's legs, or a punk teenager that bullies and beats up another kid. Corporal punishment could take the form of lashes, caning (as is still being done in Asia), or something similar.

Lastly, capital punishment is reserved for those who take another's life, or take away another's lifestyle. It is fitting that if a man rapes a woman, thereby damaging her body and degrading her self-image, he has forfeited his life. If a person lies in wait for an elderly man to return home, and he beats the old man to death for his social security check, then we as a society must remove him from our midst.

There should be no violent felons released back into society.

I could not have put it better myself. The problem here, and on the other thread is that the question has been muddled by opinions not relevent to the question. I didnt ask if violent felons should be released, I didnt ask if innocent people sometimes end up in prison. Some people who fall into the catagory of a violent felon are there wrongly such as the father who killed his daughters rapist, or the guy who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught the blame for a crime he didnt commit. No system is perfect, and sadly mistakes will be made. Yet most guilty people in the courtroom will claim innocence, and there are no criminals in prison if you ask them. The odds of finding the 1 in 100,000 innocent person with a felony conviction are slim, nothing I would bet money on nothing I would bet life on. The question was and still is "should murderers and rapist be allowed to own guns if they are released".

On A side note I would like to thank those that have commented on the issue for keeping it civil so far. That is the great thing about this forum over others. I know it is a passionate issue for most of us, and I will admit that a few times I was tempted to break out the flame thrower but I resisted, and so have you. Good job

 

[308win]

We are falling into the anit's argument here - if a felon wants a firearm he is going to have one regardless of the law. Many of the posts (at least to my interpretation appear to take a position that banning ownership thru a law works). Proscribing this right through law simply adds another count to convict him of - which is fine IMHO.

 

[javacodeman]

In the Bible, God instituted three levels of punishment: restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. Our society would be well served by returning to this principle.

Restituion would be the sentence for crimes involving property: theft, burglary, white-collar crime, etc. The victim of the crime would receive their property or money back, between two-fold to seven-fold, depending on the judge's sentence. Pretty simple.

I know this one is touchy, but corporal punishment is for crimes involving injury to another person, from a minor to moderate amount. This could entail a drunk driver smashing into an occupied vehicle and breaking a little girl's legs, or a punk teenager that bullies and beats up another kid. Corporal punishment could take the form of lashes, caning (as is still being done in Asia), or something similar.

Lastly, capital punishment is reserved for those who take another's life, or take away another's lifestyle. It is fitting that if a man rapes a woman, thereby damaging her body and degrading her self-image, he has forfeited his life. If a person lies in wait for an elderly man to return home, and he beats the old man to death for his social security check, then we as a society must remove him from our midst.

There should be no violent felons released back into society.

I agree.

 

[jeep-2]

if they didn't use a weapon to commit the crime, why should they lose their gun rights?,
up until recently a child molester or rapist would lose his gun rights when convicted, their crimes had nothing to do with guns, now thankfully there is a registery for them, make the punishment fit the crime.
why should a person the gets convicted of DWI or smoking dope lose their gun rights, wouldn't losing their driving license fit the crime better??

 

[Feanaro]

Either the Bill of Rights applies to felons or it doesn't. If they have forfeited their right to own firearms, do they still have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redressing of grievances? Can we station soldiers in their homes during a time of peace without their permission? Are their effects, papers, houses, and persons not secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Are they denied the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury?

To suppress some of their rights but not others implies a hierarchy to our rights. I do not think my right to redress my grievances against the goobermint or to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is any less important than my right to own weapons, nor the reverse.

In short, YES.

 

[rangerruck]

if you are out of jail , and have paid your sentence, then you should be able to particpate fully in all laws of this coutnry , right? you are still subject to all laws, and will quickly go back to prison if you break any laws, right? then you should be able to vote/carry. Of course, if you do something wrong and are carrying a gun, in the committing of a crime, it should be a whole lot easier for someone to blow you away, without getting into too much trouble, after all we just blew out a former violent , gun carrying ex-con.

 

[dfaugh]

Other "felons"? We need another class of crime, I think. There are too many "felonies" that don't warrant stripping someone of his/her basic rights. We need a class of crime that's not a misdemeanor, but also differentiates someone convicted of this class of crime from someone that the average person would consider a "felon."

I agree---currently the rights involving gun ownership are too "black and white"....There are many shades of grey in between.

I would say there's at LEAST 4 catagories.

1) Minor crimes--mostly what we would call misdemeanors today.
2) Major VICTIMLESS crimes--Embezzlement, "insider" trading, etc.
3) Major crimes without violence-- Dealing large quantities of drugs, smuggling, counterfeiting, etc.
4) VIOLENT Felonies--Rape Murder, kidnapping, etc.

1) should not lose any rights.
2 or 3) serve you penalty, right restored after a short period of staying "clean"
4)VIOLENT Rights restored ONLY after a long period of staying clean, examined on a case-by-case basis. Probably NO restoration of all rights depending on the circumstances.

 

[Deathrider1579]

My position on this is simple.
If I don't trust you with a gun you don't belong on the street.

Ergo, if the violent felon is not stable enough to own a gun he should still be in jail.

I don't agree with the whole losing your rights when you commit a felony, there are too many felonys I mean you can get busted for felony speeding Thats a felony for GOING TOO FAST ***?

-DR