Your opinion on felons owning guns?

[Bennj]

First, let me say I appreciate everyone's opinions without having to agree with everyone's opinions. I agree that once their sentence has been served they should have to go through a process to have any lost rights restored, regardless of how onerous that process may be (Heck, have any of you tried to get a FPID and permits in some parts of NJ without being a felon). I also believe the list of possible felonies is much larger than many think, not paying state sales tax for every online purchase can be considered tax evasion/fraud, which I think can be a felony. Please take all this with a grain of salt, as I've never been the victim of a serious crime.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

First of all, I'm absolutely against carte blanche removal of a person's RKBA based solely on a felony conviction.

This is because a felony can be anything from a violent criminal act to things which have absolutely nothing to do with violence at all. Which means that a lot of felony convictions carry punishments disproportional, and not related to, the crime many are convicted of.

A felony crime can be defined as any crime for which a penalty of one your or more can be adjudicated.

NOTE: That does not mean that a person has to be convicted and SENTENCED to a year or more...merely that the POSSIBLE penalty INCLUDES a sentence of a year or more for the crime in question.

So, of you are convicted of a crime and sentence to 30 days imprisonment, which you serve out, but the crime itself carries a maximum possible sentence of (say) 5 years, then you are a convicted felon.

There are a number of non-violent crimes for which the blanket removal of one's RKBA is not related to, and a disproportionate, punishment. Theft involving no violence, for example. White collar crimes such as embezzlement or tax evasion. Many drug related crimes are also non-violent.

Additionally, I believe that if a person is convicted of a crime and rights are to be removed/inhibited, then they should ALL be specifically adjudicated as such. There ought to be time limits and justifications for those limits, whether temporary or permanent. There ought to be a clear process delineated for the restoration of rights after a person has "served their time".

Many states have a process in place whereby a person may seek to have their rights restored. The federal government, however HAS NO SUCH PROCESSES IN PLACE.

That. Is. Wrong.

If a person has served their time and is otherwise judged "safe" to be released, then that person's rights ought to be restored unless they are specifically to be denied for additional time. And a process ought to be in place for people to seek to affect restoration.

 

[Old Dog]

Lots of people apparently consider drug crimes as minor. Frankly, I don't want anyone who's ever sold heroin or meth to children to be able to ever legally own a firearm. Nor chimos, rapists, murderers or anyone who's ever committed a crime with a firearm or other weapon. For that matter, I don't support letting someone who's killed another person with a motor vehicle ever drive again. Actions should have consequences.

Break the social contract, there must be consequences. Problem in our society now is that we (collectively) are just a big bunch of enablers and don't believe in holding people accountable for their actions anymore.

Maybe I read too much Hobbes in college. .

 

[theotherwaldo]

Since they have different categories of felonies, why don't they have different categories of felons - especially after the ex-convict has been released from incarceration?
Child molesters and other sexual predators lose certain rights for the rest of their lives.
People that commit certain financial crimes may lose access to certain financial occupations and services.
Lawyers that break certain laws may get dis-barred.
Folks that have been caught for certain or repeated driving infractions may lose the right to drive,
Why shouldn't folks that have misused weapons be banned from using weapons until their neighbors agree to allow them to have weapons again?

 

[Jack Ryan]

As a career LEO, most of the felons that were caught with guns really didn't care what anyone thought. Making a law to exclude gun rights from a felon doesn't make practical sense, if they are going to possess and carry them anyway.

If we just drop all the laws criminals are going to ignore, there won't be much need for police will there?

 

[Deanimator]

Whom would you trust more with a firearm:

• Martha Stewart
• Mark Milley

One of them is a convicted felon.
One of them colluded with a hostile foreign power.

 

[DustyGmt]

You do understand that going to prison is nothing but punishment and does nothing to rehabilitate the prisoner or repay any debt to society. If anything prison adds to to debt to society. Society gains nothing from throwing someone in prison. It is actually quite expensive.
Any repayment of a debt to society (or to victims) would begin when the felon is released.

I understand your angle on that, but it doesn't really speak to the heart of the issue which is, in addition to the prison sentence, probation, whatever the case may be, should that person resume being punished for the rest of their life for whatever they did. The "whatever they did" part of it is what I'm getting at.

I have a friend who got into a brawl as a teenager, he was wearing steel toe boots and the prosecutor charged him with assault with a deadly or something to that effect. Nobody was badly hurt and only some punches were thrown. He can't own a gun for the rest of his life because this incident. It just doesn't seem proportional and I know of plenty of other similar cases.

 

[gifbohane]

Lots of people apparently consider drug crimes as minor. Frankly, I don't want anyone who's ever sold heroin or meth to children to be able to ever legally own a firearm. Nor chimos, rapists, murderers or anyone who's ever committed a crime with a firearm or other weapon. For that matter, I don't support letting someone who's killed another person with a motor vehicle ever drive again. Actions should have consequences. .

YEP ^^^ I have "friends" who are drug addicts and managed to get NYC permits. Cash, you know. Also some mentally unstable persons that I know.

 

[jmr40]

Dude, did you miss the part where felons already *can* get their rights back?
What are you ranting for?
All they gotta do is go by the rules, the same as the rest of us.
If they don’t want to do the red tape and jump through the hoops then that’s on them.

While it is true that it is theoretically possible for a felon to have their rights restored the system needs to be consistent. As it is now one person, in one state, may easily have their rights restored. Another person in exactly the same situation may not, especially if in a different state. It just depends on which judge hears the case. There should be certain criteria that is met to make these decisions.

 

[kmw1954]

I do not agree. Humans are all born with the ability to be violent, and being peaceful,caring and loving are the learned behaviors.

Each and every one of us has the power and capability to take another human life. It is the ingrained survival instict, Fight or flight. It is present in all nature.

 

[kmw1954]

If they make more crimes felonies they make more felony arrests which gives the illusion that they are cracking down on crime.

But once we make the arrests what is one of the first things to happen? Plea bargain away all gun charges!

 

[kmw1954]

Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc, should not be preserved.

My eldest brother was struck and killed on a motorcycle in 1972. The other driver was drunk. Is that Murder? That driver that Killed my brother received a ticket for failing to stop. That was it!!! No vehicular manslaughter, just a ticket. Yet he is still just as dead. Should that person be locked up for life ? Or canceled?

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I think some felons should be able to get their 2A rights back. It does depend some though.

I don't give it a lot of thought though until the left wants to give them their voting rights back, or let them vote while in jail, then I get spun up about it as I do not think it should be an ala-carte system. If they can vote, then they should be fully restored citizens with all their rights back. If the left does not like that simple option then I guess they don't get to vote.

 

[kmw1954]

In today's world felony convictions run the gamut for possession of a few pot plants to mass murder to conceived insurrection on the Capital. No distinction between any act. Violent or nonviolent, all the same.

A first time, one time offender should be restored after completing whatever punishment was doled out. Repeat and Habitual offender No way.
Violent offenders once again this should be a case by case with some form of redress. Many state and Federal Laws DO NOT allow any redress.

I do believe people change throughout their lives, some for the better others not so much. Such as someone that may have been convicted of a violent assault when young because of a stupid fight may never find themselves in that position ever again. After a given time that person should be able to redress and renew all their constitutional rights.

I will add that yes some people should never be allowed a firearm the same as some should never be allowed to reproduce!

 

[Deanimator]

In today's world felony convictions run the gamut for possession of a few pot plants to mass murder to conceived insurrection on the Capital. No distinction between any act. Violent or nonviolent, all the same.

There are a lot of people in positions of authority who would try to convict you of murder for shooting somebody trying to burn down your store while you were in it, while not charging an attempted arsonist (and murderer) at all.

The rule of law in this country, never mind "justice", is corroding away like a sunken ship in Truk Lagoon.

 

[JFrank]

Convicted of a felony ' you loose your rights plain and simple.

 

[DeepSouth]

I’ve read this entire thread top to bottom and I’m still trying to figure out what felony I committed yesterday and which will I commit today.

Well to state the obvious maybe you should read the law for that.

or possibly read one of the books on the matter…

 

[crstrode]

My eldest brother was struck and killed on a motorcycle in 1972. The other driver was drunk. Is that Murder? That driver that Killed my brother received a ticket for failing to stop. That was it!!! No vehicular manslaughter, just a ticket. Yet he is still just as dead. Should that person be locked up for life ? Or canceled?

Similarly, if an innocent bystander reads your post, and subsequently chokes to death in astonishment at the absurdity, should you be convicted of murder?

 

[crstrode]

I’ve read this entire thread top to bottom and I’m still trying to figure out what felony I committed yesterday and which will I commit today.

A person that commits a felony does not lose any rights whatsoever. That is reserved for those that are convicted of a felony.

 

[valnar]

The laws are all over the place, as are opinions. If you believe when someone serves their time that they should have full restoration of rights, then you should believe it for other rights too, right?

For instance, if somebody is a tier 3 sex offender, went to prison and "served their time", should they still have to register for life, or should the slate be wiped clean?

Likewise there are different categories of felonies - with the most obvious being violent vs non-violent. Should both classifications get the 2A rights back? What if somebody commits a SECOND crime, with a gun, goes to prison a second time, then is released again. After those 2 strikes, should that person still be allowed to own a gun?

 

[kmw1954]

Similarly, if an innocent bystander reads your post, and subsequently chokes to death in astonishment at the absurdity, should you be convicted of murder?

Now prove their astonishment was the cause of death? No One can be held responsible for your choking. In the same vein if I drop dead of a heart attack after ready your response can my wife hold you responsible and sue you for wrongful death?

 

[brickeyee]

I have no opinion on this matter, heck Martha Stewart is a felon.

For the most part financial violations do not carry the full impact of a felony conviction.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

For the most part financial violations do not carry the full impact of a felony conviction.

Under Federal law, a felony is ANY crime for which the POSSIBLE sentence exceeds one year, even if it is classified as a misdemeanor under the laws of the State. So yeah, most financial crimes (and virtually all Federal crimes) are felonies.

 

[crstrode]

Now prove their astonishment was the cause of death? No One can be held responsible for your choking. In the same vein if I drop dead of a heart attack after ready your response can my wife hold you responsible and sue you for wrongful death?

According to your way of thinking; yes.

 

[LiveLife]

According to your way of thinking; yes.

My wife thinks since I was "present" when bad things happened during our 28 years of marriage, I am guilty ...