budney
member
The trouble is that many felonies are not violent crimes.
--Len.
To those who would deny rights to ex-cons
- Thread starter jselvy
- Start date
- Status
--Len.
Stevie-Ray
Member
After a felon pays his debt to society, he should have all his rights restored to him. Nothing will stop a still-violent criminal from getting guns illegally. If a freed ex-con applies for a pistol permit, I would think that a good sign that he has indeed gone straight. After all, the system is telling us that he is no longer a danger to society, right?
If he can't be trusted with a gun then don't let him out.
If he can't be trusted with a gun then don't let him out.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i'm not opposed to restoration not sure it should be automatic though. if you aren't willing to jump through a few hoopd to get restored maybe you shouldn't be. va currently is right reasonable about it. a change from in the past
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Very few people get the Scooter Libby treatment: First offense and away you go. The majority of felons, particularly violent felons, have a long history of being slow learners. Probations, short terms in a local jail, and finally the Big House.
Any restoration of rights should be preceded by some evidence of an ability to behave--and for more than just some short period of time. I'd settle for five years of clean record before the hearing of a petition could be heard.
Like a guy said when he'd been released from the Barb Wire City at Pusan, back in 1954: "They don't put ya in there for doin' right."
You screw up and throw away your civil rights, ya gotta earn 'em back.
Art
Any restoration of rights should be preceded by some evidence of an ability to behave--and for more than just some short period of time. I'd settle for five years of clean record before the hearing of a petition could be heard.
Like a guy said when he'd been released from the Barb Wire City at Pusan, back in 1954: "They don't put ya in there for doin' right."
You screw up and throw away your civil rights, ya gotta earn 'em back.
Art
K3
Member
I am. If they're so dangerous, keep them penned up. If it's a matter of it being expensive to house a large number of inmates, I know of several government agencies that could be eliminated to pay for more prisons.
Should an 18 year old who banged a 16 year old be convicted of statutory rape and be registered for life?
As for the real sex offenders, while I am against registering them, I am all for hanging them.
It is a moot issue.
This topic is always sure to create lively discussion.
But, like its brother topic--the civilian possession of artillery, tanks, missiles, and other heavy implements of war, it will remain in the realm of discussion.
The body politic will not allow criminals to legally possess firearms, even if the prohibition is only symbolic. It won't happen. Criminals, especially violent ones, don't make up a very convincing constituency. Any politician who would propose such a rollback would be committing political suicide. No court will ever overturn such prohibitions.
So, discuss away. It's interesting as heck. But, don't think what you are proposing will become reality.
K
This topic is always sure to create lively discussion.
But, like its brother topic--the civilian possession of artillery, tanks, missiles, and other heavy implements of war, it will remain in the realm of discussion.
The body politic will not allow criminals to legally possess firearms, even if the prohibition is only symbolic. It won't happen. Criminals, especially violent ones, don't make up a very convincing constituency. Any politician who would propose such a rollback would be committing political suicide. No court will ever overturn such prohibitions.
So, discuss away. It's interesting as heck. But, don't think what you are proposing will become reality.
K
crazed_ss
Member
Same post I made in the last thread about this issue..
In the real world, I feel pretty good about the fact that an ex-con cant just walk into the local gun store and walk out with a bunch of weapons. Yea maybe he'll get a gun off the street somewhere else, but at least one of the easiest avenue for him to getting a gun has been removed.
Of course the argument I constantly hear is, "if he's cant be trusted with weapons, he shouldnt be out on the street" .. Once again, back in reality, criminals have pretty high recidivism rates and you cant feasibly locked people up indefinitely. Many crooks go right back to their old habits after getting out. With that knowledge, it's entirely reasonable to prohibit them from having weapons. The 14th Amendment says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".. Ex-cons got their due process, and now some of their liberty is being deprived.
I mean, how many people here would hire a person who served time for child molestation as a day care worker?
Im guessing no one here would say, "Yea, this person was convicted of harming children, but he's out now and supposedly rehibilitated, so I'll give him another chance and let him watch kids"
More likely, you'd say, "This person has proved himself to be a danger to others, even though he did 10 years in prison, there's no way I'm trusting him with kids."
In the real world, I feel pretty good about the fact that an ex-con cant just walk into the local gun store and walk out with a bunch of weapons. Yea maybe he'll get a gun off the street somewhere else, but at least one of the easiest avenue for him to getting a gun has been removed.
Of course the argument I constantly hear is, "if he's cant be trusted with weapons, he shouldnt be out on the street" .. Once again, back in reality, criminals have pretty high recidivism rates and you cant feasibly locked people up indefinitely. Many crooks go right back to their old habits after getting out. With that knowledge, it's entirely reasonable to prohibit them from having weapons. The 14th Amendment says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".. Ex-cons got their due process, and now some of their liberty is being deprived.
I mean, how many people here would hire a person who served time for child molestation as a day care worker?
Im guessing no one here would say, "Yea, this person was convicted of harming children, but he's out now and supposedly rehibilitated, so I'll give him another chance and let him watch kids"
More likely, you'd say, "This person has proved himself to be a danger to others, even though he did 10 years in prison, there's no way I'm trusting him with kids."
pcosmar
member
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
The Innocence Project has gone back through cases that can be proved through modern DNA testing. They have freed 204 people that were wrongfully convicted.
There are many that have no DNA connection. People convicted of crimes, but have no way of proving their innocence.
My case was my first offense. I have not gone back. I have no other criminal intentions.
Blanket statements that All Felons, or All criminals will re-offend is pure BS.
There are some sociopaths and there are career criminals, but not all. Many go on to live within the system.
A great many should not be there to start with.
Each state has different laws with regard to restoration, some partial, some full. Some states on a case by case basis.
Federal policy, and the NICS system circumvent the restoration of rights in most cases.
With big Buck$ and or Political pull you can get it done.
If you had that going for you , you would have beat the case to start with.
The Innocence Project has gone back through cases that can be proved through modern DNA testing. They have freed 204 people that were wrongfully convicted.
There are many that have no DNA connection. People convicted of crimes, but have no way of proving their innocence.
My case was my first offense. I have not gone back. I have no other criminal intentions.
Blanket statements that All Felons, or All criminals will re-offend is pure BS.
There are some sociopaths and there are career criminals, but not all. Many go on to live within the system.
A great many should not be there to start with.
Each state has different laws with regard to restoration, some partial, some full. Some states on a case by case basis.
Federal policy, and the NICS system circumvent the restoration of rights in most cases.
With big Buck$ and or Political pull you can get it done.
If you had that going for you , you would have beat the case to start with.
To be honest I wanted to address the morality of taking responsibility for society's rules and their unintended consequences.
We seem so eager to strip someone of a basic human right but are not willing to step into the breach to secure that person. A man like pcosmar who has not reoffended still has no recourse to reobtain his status as a full citizen and we seem quite willing to say that this is right and just.
I do not and can not see it in that manner.
Our legal system is predicated on the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" yet denial of this right to former convicts on the basis of "they might reoffend" flies in the face of this. The Brady Campaign uses this rationale to justify that all firearms should be removed because someone "might offend" and if the argument is not right one way it is invalid in any way.
Freedom is inherently dangerous, you pay your money and take your chances. If a single citizen is not free then inherently no citizen is free.
Are you willing to take personal responsibility for those you would keep disarmed? I am, and I do. Those children under my care are disarmed by statute and I take responsibility for their protection. I cannot do any less for anyone who is trying to work within the system. The reoffenders don't need our help or sympathy as they will obtain the arms they require by any means. Would you not say that merely putting up with the hoops of legality and trying to work within the system which saps time and treasure with no guarantee to be an adequate penance?
Jefferson
We seem so eager to strip someone of a basic human right but are not willing to step into the breach to secure that person. A man like pcosmar who has not reoffended still has no recourse to reobtain his status as a full citizen and we seem quite willing to say that this is right and just.
I do not and can not see it in that manner.
Our legal system is predicated on the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" yet denial of this right to former convicts on the basis of "they might reoffend" flies in the face of this. The Brady Campaign uses this rationale to justify that all firearms should be removed because someone "might offend" and if the argument is not right one way it is invalid in any way.
Freedom is inherently dangerous, you pay your money and take your chances. If a single citizen is not free then inherently no citizen is free.
Are you willing to take personal responsibility for those you would keep disarmed? I am, and I do. Those children under my care are disarmed by statute and I take responsibility for their protection. I cannot do any less for anyone who is trying to work within the system. The reoffenders don't need our help or sympathy as they will obtain the arms they require by any means. Would you not say that merely putting up with the hoops of legality and trying to work within the system which saps time and treasure with no guarantee to be an adequate penance?
Jefferson
Harry Paget Flashman
Member
In our county we use County Inmates from the Road Prison for public works projects and road building. I had occasion to observe inmates for 6 years while working as a former county employee and have many Corrections Officer friends. Those prisoners were in jail doing county time of 11½ months or less. The majority were felons and by the rules of the Road Prison were "non-violent". I wouldn't trust any of those I met with a gun, my money or the keys to my truck.
Ask a Corrections Officer. Prisoners are not trustworthy and reliable people. They are always working an angle and the world is all about them. I met few exceptions. They weren't nice people to land a spot in jail and they're not nice when they come out either. Let them earn their way back to a full restoration of civil rights after release based on sustained lawful behaviors. They do not deserve the kind of sympathy that is being proposed. If you really believe they do then adopt one and let him live in your spare bedroom while "he gets back on his feet."
I see no nefarious anti-2A issue here.
Ask a Corrections Officer. Prisoners are not trustworthy and reliable people. They are always working an angle and the world is all about them. I met few exceptions. They weren't nice people to land a spot in jail and they're not nice when they come out either. Let them earn their way back to a full restoration of civil rights after release based on sustained lawful behaviors. They do not deserve the kind of sympathy that is being proposed. If you really believe they do then adopt one and let him live in your spare bedroom while "he gets back on his feet."
I see no nefarious anti-2A issue here.
Criminals are in jail . People that have served their sentence are not . People IN jail/prison are criminals without rights . People released from jail/prison have paid their debt , prescribed by the justice system , and are released as free men . You can be a criminal outside of jail , but that eventually leads you to being IN jail . Cause and effect .
I see a lot of " they don't deserve rights" , but would bet there would be quite the uproar when "they" becomes "them" .
Zundfolge
Member
You're falling into the same fallacious logic that the antis use.
Making it illegal for a released felon to posses a firearm does not stop them from doing so, it just makes it illegal. So the only released felons that are NOT going to posses firearms is the ones that are rehabilitated.
Again, I return to the question I posed before, do we want crime reduction or do we want law enforcement?
Moot, moot, moot!
Moot: "In law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic."
Someone, anyone, post a list of current Representatives or Senators who would vote for (let alone, support or campaign for) restoration of felons' legal right to possess.
Post a list of anyone on the political scene who *wants* to be a Representative or Senator who would do so.
K
Moot: "In law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic."
Someone, anyone, post a list of current Representatives or Senators who would vote for (let alone, support or campaign for) restoration of felons' legal right to possess.
Post a list of anyone on the political scene who *wants* to be a Representative or Senator who would do so.
K
pcosmar
member
It is already the law.
It is often circumvented by policy.
Policy is not Law.
It is often circumvented by policy.
Policy is not Law.
nvshooter
member
The Founders said no felon is to have a gun again-- ever. I agree with them. They gave us the best governemnt we could ever have. Why question them?
I'm waiting for the slavery rebuttals...
I'm waiting for the slavery rebuttals...
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
"The Founders said no felon is to have a gun again-- ever. I agree with them. They gave us the best governemnt we could ever have. Why question them?"
i musta napped through that part of american history could you point it out to me?
i musta napped through that part of american history could you point it out to me?
bogie
Member
When one elects to commit an act which can result in certain rights being lost, well...
DOH...
chieftain
Member
The list begins with Pelosi and Reid and runs down the leg, sorry, down the Dimocratic roster. It is part of the Dimocrat agenda. Has been published and broadcast multiple times. Want quotes, look it up. Even a New York Times editorial.
All of them for your consideration and answer to your question. If you care enough to find them.
Go figure.
Fred
chieftain
Member
jselvy states:
Cervantes would be proud of your Don Quixote. Dulcinea awaits you.
Go figure.
Fred
Cervantes would be proud of your Don Quixote. Dulcinea awaits you.
Go figure.
Fred
crazed_ss
Member
You must be joking right?
You think this is a Democrat position? You honestly think Republican law makers would support giving ex-cons the right to legally own firearms?
gc70
Member
The Democrats want to restore the voting rights of felons. I am waiting for them to adopt a similar stance on firearms.
K3
Member
Indeed. It is my understanding that this started in 1968 with the GCA.
I would sure like the one who posted the bold to supply a reference for his assertion.
- Status