To those who would deny rights to ex-cons

[jselvy]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Forum,

Recidivism aside, there are a fair portion of former inmates who do change their ways after serving a sentence. Unfortunately they are also of the lowest income brackets and are therefore forced to reside in crime ridden neighborhoods.

My question to you is: Are you, personally, willing to take on the responsibility for their protection and security on a 24/7 basis in order to deny them the tools for self-protection?

We can't have it both ways. Either there is no need for them, or anyone, to own arms for self-protection, or defense of self, family, and property is a basic human right that cannot be denied on the basis of past mistakes.

Please choose a side and argue it out, unemotionally if at all possible.

Thank you for your responses

Jefferson

 

[Florida_Cracker]

Jefferson,

The bigger issue to me is this. The way Leviathan grows, we may all soon be convicted felons (or worse) for simply exercising basic God-given rights.

 

[JWarren]

Jefferson,

There is a much deeper issue within your question than is apparent.


I can agree with an arguement that if a person has "paid his/her debt to society" that should be the end of it.

One could also argue that the conviction on the crime permanantly alters your status of rights and IS part of the "debt to society." Frankly, I don't buy this arguement, but I only bring it up because you are likely to hear it.


As I alluded to earlier, the REAL issue is our legal system as a whole. There ARE people that have committed crimes that I would NEVER want to see armed again. However, these are also the same persons I NEVER want to see allowed in society again.

Fixing that essentially fixes the issue for me. The ones you can't trust with a gun are the ones you can't trust in society. Those that you trust in society should be trusted with a firearm.


And that's my take on it.


Good topic.


-- John

 

[REOIV]

Inalienable Human rights means just that they cannot be taken away.

The right of a free man to defend himself, his family and property is inalienable.

Therefore unless we are actively protecting felons, they should be able to defend themselves.

Making laws that deny a set of citizens basic human rights creates a dangerous precedent. What keeps society from deciding that poor people become criminals more often than rich people, we already deny felons their rights, why not add poor people. That will keep them from committing further crimes and allow the rich people weapons the poor don't have to defend themselves.

Hey look at that we are well on our way to making peasants and nobility again. Hooray.

 

[.45&TKD]

If they are responsible enough to be free, they should responsible enough to be armed. Because if they are free and they want to be armed, they will be, whether it is legal or not.

The problem is that many of these violent felons should not be free, or living.

 

[AJ Dual]

Since it's extremely easy for a felon to get his or her hands on a black-market firearm anyway, many here advocate not allowing someone out of prison unless they can be trusted with a firearm. And the "sitting duck for life" argument for a felon and his/her family does have some pull with me. A felon, (especialy a non-violent one) got sentenced, and served it. I don't see where being defensless against home invasion, murder, rape, or kidnapping etc. for the restof time was part of the judgment.

Personally, I'd like to see prison time done away with for most non-violent non-sex offenses, with a focus on restitution, probation, or some kind of civil service, so we can use the bed space for repeat aggravated assault, armed robbery, murder, rape/molestation sex offenders, and kidnappers in "life means life" sentences.

At some point the penal system has to stop worrying about penalizing, or "rehabilitating", and instead the protection of society from dangerous individuals has to take precedence.

 

[Frog48]

The bigger issue to me is this. The way Leviathan grows, we may all soon be convicted felons (or worse) for simply exercising basic God-given rights.

Exactly. Denying convicted felons civil rights can be used as a backdoor method of gun control, rather than banning gun sales themselves.

Criminalizing everything would serve as de-facto gun control. We'd all be banned from gun ownership if they made speeding or jaywalking a felony.

Think about that for a moment.

 

[jselvy]

There is a much deeper issue within your question than is apparent.

That's why I am asking a very narrow question. The idea behind starting this debate is to help with clarity of thought for those who have seemingly inconsistent ideas.
Again assuming that said ex-felon chooses not to reoffend, are those who advocate lifetime removal of rights willing to stand guard over them 24/7 in order to do the job that they are forbidden to do for themselves?

Jefferson

 

[fletcher]

Ideally, if someone is truly a threat to society, he/she should be locked up. Therefore, if someone is free, all rights should be preserved.

But, that's not the case.

In reality, I would support the right for an ex-con to keep arms.

 

[DogBonz]

I'm Torn

I have always been torn on this. In principal, I think that they should not be prohibited from buying/ possessing a gun. After all, if they are out of prison they have repaid their debt to society, other wise why are we releasing a dangerous person back into society, right? But in practice, leopards rarely change their spots. We release dangerous criminals all the time because of prison over crowding, botched police work, etc. Not to mention that you can’t (nor should we) lock someone up and throw away the key just because they think a certain way, aka the “criminal mind set”.

Right now we prohibit any one who has committed a felony for buying/ possessing a gun. But lets look at it this way; why it that they only loose their 2nd amendment rights, but not any of their rights. They can still worship any way that they want, can speak freely, address the government about grievances, still entitled to speedy trial, still free from cruel and unusual punishment, we don’t make them quarter soldiers in their homes, so why do we focus on their right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t have an answer as to what we should do, but it does seem to be that someone who was a criminal who has gone straight would probably need a gun for legitimate purposes more that your “regular Joe” because they are known the those who would do him harm for no other reason than because he no longer wishes to participate in criminal activities.

I think that a good start would be to change the law from all felons to only those who committed a violent crime. Or to only limit those who have used a gun to commit a violent crime in the past.

 

[JWarren]

Jefferson,

I appreciate that you DID ask this narrowly-defined question.


Let me be clear on my response for the sake of answering your narrowly-defined question:

My question to you is:

Are you, personally, willing to take on the responsibility for their protection and security on a 24/7 basis in order to deny them the tools for self-protection?

No, I am not.

And essentially that is what society would be required to do-- and will fail miserably due to the inability to do so. Its a condition that cannot be met.

Frankly, there are only two conditions I see possible:


1. You are a sociopath that cannot be trusted in society in any condition, and therefore should NEVER be in that society again.

2. You have paid your debt to society and are free to join it as a citizen with full rights and privileges.


Anything between those is dangerous terrritory.


-- John

 

[Kentak]

This won't fly with you, but since you asked.

I'm not for prohibiting felons whose crime had *no* component of violence. Let's say grand theft. However, commit grand theft while armed, and it's no longer excluded, even if the weapon is not used.

I might be able to go along with a restoration of rights for some violent felons after a suitable period of probation. This would apply to violent crimes where threat of deadly force was not a factor--say, mugging someone but without a verbal or apparent threat of deadly force.

K

 

[Prince Yamato]

Execute the worst elements (rapists, murderers, etc. )of society so that they no longer pose a threat and then all the ex-felons you want can own whatever they want.

 

[HiroProX]

Depends how you define rights.

But if one follows the inherent rights view, then the state would, post release and completion of sentencing, have to present a compelling case to permanently infringe those inherent rights. This would of course open the question that if the fellow is so dangerous to never be allowed to vote or own a firearm again, why would he be released into society?

 

[pcosmar]

I am glad to see many positive responses, though this is not an un-emotional subject to me.
The laws as written, provide for the restoration of rights. My rights were restored in 2005. I can vote, I can run for public office, and have been called for jury duty.
The FOPA states that IF your rights are restored, you are no longer a "Prohibited Person". That is the law.
Unfortunately, this is not the practice. Barriers, jumps and hoops are set in the way.
I was arrested last year because my wife had a shotgun. I should have been legal. But now I have another Felony, for "Attempted possession".
I would like to see things change.

 

[.45&TKD]

Execute the worst elements (rapists, murderers, etc. )of society so that they no longer pose a threat

This has my vote.

 

[jselvy]

Mr. Warren,
Thank you for such a succinct answer. That is exactly what I was looking for.
I know that there are many side issues at work here but I cannot help but agree with Frederick Douglas

when you fasten a chain around the ankle of your fellow you fasten the other end around your own neck

-paraphrased. He was speaking of slavery but I think the analogy holds true in this case.

Jefferson

 

[romma]

The funny thing is, I recall ZERO education on what it would mean to become a convicted felon when I was growing up. No one explained to me that you or I could and probably would lose their 2nd ammendment rights. Or what that meant...

At least educate children as they grow toward adulthood on what a felon status means in our society.

And yes I believe public schools should teach this based on the fact it is our rights that are getting stripped.

 

[Zundfolge]

The recidivism argument doesn't hold water.

Those that get out of prison and return to a life of crime are going to be armed regardless of the law.

Just like gun control in general, laws against ex-cons being able to legally own guns only effects the honest ex-con.


And don't give me this "well, I don't want to make it easier for the bad ones" crap ... buying a gun out of the trunk of a car in a back alley is SIGNIFICANTLY easier than a law abiding citizen buying a gun from a gun shop.



As someone said in another thread, what do you want? Crime Reduction or Law Enforcement?

 

[anygunanywhere]

Great Question

In some other post an individual made the profound point that there are much more laws on the books thus more crimes classified as felonies now than 100 years ago. Without a doubt, based on the actions of the senate and the latest immigration fiasco, I see more and more laws on the books that will create felons out of what are currently law abiding citizens. The recent phenomena where an individual loses his access to firearms as a result of certain domestic "offenses" and the word "offenses" is used loosely here is a prime example.

I will not go to where non-citizens will be made legal.

The death penalty must be enforced in a timely manner. IMHO, rape and other sex crimes especially where children are concerned should be capital crimes with the appropriate sentence carried out in a timely manner.

IMHO, executions should be public, and the needle is too kind.

This is the first time I have said this, but I am leaning towards legalization of certain drugs and thus changing those criminal offenses unless violence is involved. Make it a revenue generating item and lower my taxes. Prohibition of alcohol and guns does not work either.

If an individual can not be trusted with their 2A right and the associated right to self defense, keep them in the pokey.

If they are paroled and free of probation, restore their rights. Like Reagan said, trust but verify.

Anygun

 

[Harry Paget Flashman]

You can argue that a person released from prison has paid their debt to society and should not be further penalized. You could also argue that people are released from prison because of overcrowding....never even doing a fraction of their sentence.

Considering that most criminals are that way because of a life-style choice I'd rather they were legally disarmed. The individual can always petition for a restoration of rights. Why make it automatic? Are felons allowed in the military? No. Then why allow them in the "militia"?

 

[jselvy]

Col. Flashman,
Are you, personally, willing to take on the responsibility for their protection and security on a 24/7 basis in order to deny them the tools for self-protection?

Jefferson

BTW I love the Flashman novels and have read them all

 

[ozwyn]

I think there are good arguments on both side: paying debt to society vs repeat offenders gaining tools for more crimes.

In the spirit of annoying compromise - a fixed number of years after they are released before gun and even voting rights are restored. Might be 5, might be 10. Enough time to see if the person has actually learned and grown and changed... it is not common, but it does happen.

Because given the widespread labelling of non violent offenses as felonies on one side, and the violent repeat offenders on another side of this issue, a "timer" should it out in a sensible manner.

Yes, this is the ugly word "compromise", but it would be vast improvement.

 

[budney]

As I alluded to earlier, the REAL issue is our legal system as a whole. There ARE people that have committed crimes that I would NEVER want to see armed again. However, these are also the same persons I NEVER want to see allowed in society again.

Yup. The folks you "never want to see armed again" are usually the ones that should have been executed for their crimes in the first place.

--Len.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Frankly, there are only two conditions I see possible:
1. You are a sociopath that cannot be trusted in society in any condition, and therefore should NEVER be in that society again.
2. You have paid your debt to society and are free to join it as a citizen with full rights and privileges.

Anything between those is dangerous terrritory.

+1 from me.