To those who would deny rights to ex-cons

[GTSteve03]

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.

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

We have an imperfect legal system and I do not condone the ultimate punishment to anyone. There is a chance, no matter small, that they are innocent.

I also believe that all rights should be fully restored to anyone who has served their time and is not on probation, house arrest, etc.

 

[pcosmar]

I doubt any would or could offer "protection".
I would not ask it.
I still have my brain, my 2 hands, and an ax.
My home has been a place of protection. 4 women have found shelter from abuse. That is aside from my wife and step-daughter.
One of those was brought by a county Sheriff. And that while on parole.
I will not turn away a beat and bloody girl from my door.
Being "disarmed" is not unarmed.
A crime in the past does not make one a Criminal today.

 

[Harry Paget Flashman]

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?

-jselvy

No. Please note that I implied that criminality is a life-style choice. The bad consequences of bad choices is on them, not me. How about I meet you half way and say that there should be a 5 year "good behavior" period after prison before rights are restored? After all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I just choose not to be too quick to re-arm criminals. Kind of like I wouldn't be too quick to give a BB gun back to a son I caught shooting song birds or the neighbor's dog. (I only have daughters, so I'm citing a hypothetical.)

 

[scout26]

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?

First of all they are not denied the tools they can use for self-defense. They can still use knives, rocks, clubs, swords, baseball bats, pointy sticks or a good seven iron. There is nothing that says they can't defend themselves, just they do not get to defend themselves with a gun. (Also known as "Living in Chicago.")

Loss of the right to own firearms is part and parcel of the PUNISHMENT, along with going to the slammer you also lose your right to vote and hold an elective office (at least here in Illinois). It is meant to be part of the deterent factor.

"Hmmm, if I do X, then I might go to prison, lose my 2A rights, lose my right to vote or run for office. Maybe I won't do the crime."

While I'll agree with Ayn Rand that there are lots of "crimes" that should not be felonies, the answer to that is with getting our elected representatives to change the laws.

 

[ChiefPilot]

First - no such thing as an "ex-con" unless you are somehow "unconvicted" of a crime. Once convicted, always convicted.

Second - jail time is only one component of punishment that results from a felony conviction. Loss of voting rights and loss of firearm rights are also components that are known ahead of time.

Sorry, but anyone who's committed a violent crime isn't trustworthy enough to carry a firearm ever again. That's just the way it is.

 

[chieftain]

Recidivism aside,......

The reason the right to own a firearm is withheld is because of Recidivism. So how can any rational person try to put that aside in this argument. It is central to the argument.

I have worked with criminals for years. I don't trust criminals. In or out of jail or prison. Are there exceptions, of course. Enough exceptions that make folks that don't understand criminals to believe that this kind of thing would work.

In most things 10% of the folks are the aberrations or might become criminals. With Criminals 10% might do the right thing, post prison.

That leaves folks like you that want to give 90% of that million Plus criminal population the right to acquire firearms when they get out. I don't.

Think about the Lautenberg bill, not allowing folks that have, at the least criminal level, only had a restraining order placed against them not being able to own a firearm. Without a conviction.

Let us go after one at a time. Get rid of Lautenberg then talk about convicted Felons rights.

Personally I would require a 7-10 years of "totally clean living" post total prison/parole/fines to "prove" they are ready and responsible enough for firearm ownership.

As to your fallacious question about "protecting" them 24/7, HELL no! Their bed, they made it.

Would you make the same 24/7 offer to the young left wing couple down the street? I doubt it. Their problem is naiveté and ignorance, the criminal made a choice and committed a crime. HELL no!

Go figure.

Fred

 

[ilbob]

I would argue that violent criminals have shown they can never be trusted, EVER again. They have a means by which they can show they have changed and be restored their rights to keep and bear arms - it is called a pardon.

I would not be averse to restoring rights to non-violent felons.

Only a very small percentage of violent offenders, probably less then 5% of those who go to prison come out changed for the better. Most come out much worse.

The real answer is swift and sure punishment, including liberal use of capital punishment, so these thugs won't ever be getting out to come back and prey on the rest of us.

 

[ptmmatssc]

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."

--Thomas Jefferson

"The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes,... was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies, etc., a certain time proportioned to the offence... Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge or of the executive power will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man."

--Thomas Jefferson

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

James Monroe

"A free people ought to be armed."

George Washington


Any ways , the old axiom "if you can't do the time , don't do the crime" still holds true . So once you HAVE done the time , you once again become a free man . Therefore , as a free man , you should have all your rights restored . The fact that the class of felonies has expanded (and is still expanding) to such a degree should be a concern to all people since,before you know it , you too could be a felon . Or maybe that's what certain people want .

True justice would follow along the lines of Jefferson's quote above , and there would be no probation , since the initial sentence is the punishment .

 

[Wheeler44]

I have posted on another thread and will repeat here; I am uncomfortable with returning a convicted violent felon his or her firearm when they check out of prison. The way our Justice system works in this day and age, violent offenders are relased without rehabilitation. Giving a murderer or an armed robber back the tools they used to commit their crimes would be foolish indeed.

 

[AJ Dual]

I have posted on another thread and will repeat here; I am uncomfortable with returning a convicted violent felon his or her firearm when they check out of prison. The way our Justice system works in this day and age, violent offenders are relased without rehabilitation. Giving a murderer or an armed robber back the tools they used to commit their crimes would be foolish indeed.

Yes, but most of us who feel that someone who's returned to society can have a firearm also feel that violent and sexual offenders should never get out. And that our penal system wastes a huge proportion of it's beds on non-violent offenders, forcing the "revolving door" justice on the violent ones.

 

[glummer]

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.

False dichotomy. There is a need, it is a basic right, but it certainly can be denied (just as it was in prison) on the basis that people in question have made choices that leave the rest of us unable to know who is dangerous, and who is not.
If you would care to describe a plausibly accurate procedure for certifying ex-cons as harmless, I would be glad to hear it. Seriously.

 

[glummer]

A1+ !!

DogBonz

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.

Amen, brother.
That has always been my big problem with this; it stigmatizes gun-ownership.
As if ex-cons were allowed to practice any religion, except Judaism. What would that say about Jews?

 

[AlabamaFamilyMan]

Agreed

Most who are non-violent will remain non-violent unless pushed too far, much
like many of us.

Many 'felonies' should not be, and there are getting to be more and more all the time.

My uncle is a felon, from argueing/refusing to go along with county mandated payments for unneeded/unwanted garbage collection. Not even over trashy yard or some such, just, I'll take care of my own trash. Should he have lost his rights, especially to vote about what they forced him and others to do?

Also, from information from over 20 years ago in college, 'many' people in jail for murder are 'heat of the moment' types, and the odds of them coming up again for charges for violent behavior are quite slim. No, I don't know numbers any more, and no, I do not know how relevant this still is.

Just for discussion.

 

[glummer]

'many' people in jail for murder are 'heat of the moment' types,

"heat of the moment types" are the very ones who are most likely to be violent again. It's a criminal characteristic. Poor judgment, strong emotion, and no self-control.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Personally I would require a 7-10 years of "totally clean living" post total prison/parole/fines to "prove" they are ready and responsible enough for firearm ownership.

Two things . why would they be out in the first place? Did the punishment not fit the crime? If that's the case , change the punishment .

Clean living? By who's definition?

BOJ stats are a far cry from your "90%" . And it says more about lenient sentencing than anything else . I mean , how can someone have "several" offenses , yet still be let back out into society?

* Fifty-three percent of jail inmates were on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of arrest.
* Four in 10 jail inmates had a current or past sentence for a violent offense.
* Thirty-nine percent of jail inmates in 2002 had served 3 or more prior sentences to incarceration or probation, down from 44% in 1996.

Btw , I have yet to see anything in the BOR etc stating that a free man :

"prove" they are ready and responsible enough for firearm ownership

 

[ConfuseUs]

Statistically speaking, a felon who has been in prison is EXPECTED to recidivate. So that's why I don't think a violent felon should have their RKBA reinstated (although they will exercise their RKBA regardless of what the state says). But, like other posters have stated, if we can't trust them in free society with a gun, we shouldn't let them out to play. Nevertheless, the law says that after a specified period of time we have to let them out.

The problem with the felons can't own guns situation is that it is a felony to do all sorts of things other than violent crimes. For instance it is a felony in repressed parts of the country to own an "assault weapon". By the standards of say, Washington DC, many members of the board are felons, and should lose their RKBA. Fortunately most of us don't live in that former malarial swamp.

In short, for proven violent felons, I do not support RKBA reinstatement. They have already shown that they are not up to the responsibility. However, for nonviolent felons, I don't see a clear public safety reason for denying RKBA after they have paid whatever penalties deemed appropriate.

 

[jselvy]

f you would care to describe a plausibly accurate procedure for certifying ex-cons as harmless,

Its called release at the end of the sentence. No more, no less.
If we can deny, without providing for defense, the tools of self defense to any man then how can we baulk when those self-same tools are denied to anyone else.
Because I once committed a crime does NOT mean I will do it again. That's why we get new trails for every offense. This is not a matter of trust.
I do not trust most people to come in out of the rain much less with a firearm, but that does not mean that I think you should be disarmed. Because my trust is personal and the law should, nay MUST be impersonal and impartial.

Jefferson

 

[STAGE 2]

Its real simple. If you want to own a gun, don't commit a felony. Its really not that hard. Most people on this board will never be arrested, never see the inside of a jail, and never be charged with a crime. Why? Because not committing a crime isn't that hard.

Everyone is charged with knowing the law. If you do something and didn't know it was a felony than you're an idiot for not doing some research.

I have no obligation to defend you or protect you because you waived your rights due to stupidity, or worse intentionally.

 

[Tim James]

This thread is a valiant attempt to encourage consistency in our ideas (as gun owners) to make sure we don't leave any holes, but I don't think we will solve crime and punishment here in this forum.

If we can deny, without providing for defense, the tools of self defense to any man then how can we baulk when those self-same tools are denied to anyone else.

Because society has set up its own rule -- that if you reject society so much that you commit a felony, we will punish you by imposing a restriction on your rights. You are more than welcome to argue whether that is moral and right on another forum, but that fact is how everything stays consistent. I don't believe that law-abiding gun owners have anything to fear from this angle; and if we did, it is certainly in the noise right now.

As for me personally: I'd give Jean Valjean a gun, but I'm not so sure about the rest.

 

[Pepper46]

There have been several comments about a persons "right" to defend themselves. I agree. BUT.
Where does it say that you have to defend yourself with a firearm? Also.
These felons chose to become what they are, no one told them to rob a bank, forge checks, rape, pillage and plunder or what ever.
At what point do they take responsibility for their actions, and the consequences for them?
It is going to take more than some pencil pusher government employee who doesn't know a felon from a baloney sandwich to assure me that this "felon" is rehabilitated.

 

[Tim James]

BUT. Where does it say that you have to defend yourself with a firearm?

Okay, ignore my previous post. Maybe we should hash this out so people don't start going down crazy paths like this one!

 

[pcosmar]

This thread is a valiant attempt to encourage consistency in our ideas (as gun owners) to make sure we don't leave any holes, but I don't think we will solve crime and punishment here in this forum.

Very true. But it may be possible to correct some misconceptions.
Many here are under the impression that all "felons" are career criminals. This is just not true. There are bad choices and stupidity involved. To some it is a first time mistake. Some are Justifiable.
I knew a man that shot his wifes rapist, the rapist was protected by the local law. He was sentenced to 40 years.
A man attacked by 5 men shot the one on top of him. His self defense cost him 35 years.
Then there are cases where a prosecutor pushed an issue (Nyfong?) and the man did not have the legal resources to effectively defend themselves.
Folks can end up in prison for many reasons. Most of them deserve it, but not all. Some should never get out, but will because room has to be made for the guy who (unknowingly) bought a car from a shady car dealer. Or the kid that gets caught with a bag of weed.

 

[Prince Yamato]

We have an imperfect legal system and I do not condone the ultimate punishment to anyone. There is a chance, no matter small, that they are innocent.

That's not true, because there are crimes that CAN be proved 100% because there are witnesses and video/audio tape. And by that logic, how can you use lethal force on anyone? They COULD be innocent. Look, if your "DNA" is on or IN a child, you deserve to die... period (I don't want to get any more graphic here). Yes, there was that guy who "claimed" to have murdered Jessica Lundsford a while back but it turned out that he was lying. You know what? Execute him too. If he has fantasies about that crap, get rid of him. The problem today is that we've cut the balls off of society as a whole and we tolerate too much from too many. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like something, it means you put up with it. We shouldn't have to tolerate child molesters/rapists or killers of any sort in society. Period.

You steal a child's lunch money, you go to jail. You steal a child's innocence, you go to Hell.

 

[Tim James]

I knew a man...

Everyone is using their narrow view of this issue to support sweeping generalized statements. One guy will say that he doesn't want violent felons out there owning guns, and another guy will bring up a story about someone made a felon over a blue law. I don't see a reason in any of that to decree that all felons should or should not own guns.

At least the original poster is framing the discussion in terms of consistency in our views on gun rights, even if it started out sounding like a snarky attempt to support full rights restoration by using a leading question.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Its real simple. If you want to own a gun, don't commit a felony. Its really not that hard. Most people on this board will never be arrested, never see the inside of a jail, and never be charged with a crime. Why? Because not committing a crime isn't that hard.

Everyone is charged with knowing the law. If you do something and didn't know it was a felony than you're an idiot for not doing some research.

I have no obligation to defend you or protect you because you waived your rights due to stupidity, or worse intentionally.

Yup , your right . We should all have a personal law library at home and know it through and through . We should also never question why crimes are "felonies" in the first place or be concerned that misdemeanors are being turned into felonies. Heck , no one's ever been falsely imprisoned either . And it's a good thing that people can be denied their rights without even getting convicted of anything .


It's not about not getting arrested , it's about a free man and his rights . Either you are free or not .