Do You Think All Convicted Felons should Lose the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

V

vitesse9

New member
I stirred up a lot of passion on this subject sitting around with a bunch of lawyers today. Thought I pose the question to you guys. My position is that only people convicted of violent felonies, drug felonies, organized crime-related felonies and the like should loose their rights (for good at least). My opinion was based on a desire to put the Second Amendment on par with other fundamental rights (like speech), which felons do not loose when they are convicted. I tried to argue that, if we allow even convicted felons to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights just like that, we are allowing the precedent to be set the Second Amendment to be treated as less important than other constitutional rights. I mean, everyone seems to think that the right to free speech is SO important that even convicted felons can't be stripped of it. Isn't the Second Amendment just as important? Is there a good reason that non-violent felons get treated the same way as violent ones? Is Martha Steward just as unqualified to own a gun as, say, a serial rapist?

However, most people took a hard line position: nope all felons deserve no gun rights, end of story.

What do you guys think?
 
If a person only has one felony conviction on there record. I believe they should be allowed to acquire a concealed carry permit after a 10 year period of no arrests. But,if a person has multiple felonys on there record,forget it,no permit.
 
I believe that each State has a right to determine which of their Citzens are dangerous and to make appropriate gun laws. And it seems to be a traditional American value to infringe on the RKBA of criminally violent people. I have some faith and trust that Virginia can infringe on the RKBA of the criminally violent or criminally inept without attempting to disarm everyone.

I don't see it as a Second Amendment issue.
 
After a felony conviction in MI, and spending time in jail, jou can be put on probation, this can be lifetime probation. A felony conviction is a funny thing, because if you are convicted of a felony in mexico, it is considered a felony here. So if you were out shooting your .22lr last week, and go to mexico, and get searched, and a .22lr rimfire is found in your vehicle, you are a felon, carring a gun or ammo in mexico is a felony. You carry too much money on a plane, and don't declare it, you are a felon.

I guess I have to agree that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and the things that are called felonies these days are pretty rediculous, and after serving your time, or paying a fine, you should be able to get the right to protect your family back, or hunt. With kids 12 years old charged as adults, they should be able to get their rights back. This can be prevented by a simple order of probation after, serving your time, and parole, if you convicted in MI, unlike on TV in MI your juvenile crime record is not sealed, it is used to determine your sentence. The MI constitution considers it an individual right "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
 
I agree with 70-101:

It's better to specify time limits than to specify certain felonies over others.

I also agree that if you don't learn your lesson the first time, you probably don't need to have a CC permit.
 
Call me hardnosed. I believe alcohol intoxication, DUI, all drug intoxication and sex crimes should be felonies. I don't believe a alcohoic U.S. Congress member should be treated any different than a crackhead living under a bridge either. I have dealt with prison parolees. I busted every single one I could. I didn't go looking for them. You just can't trust a child molester to be a child daycare worker. D'OH!
 
SW that is why some child molesters get a plea bargain to a few years in jail, to save the child from testifying, and then get probation, this isn't regular probation, this is the electronic tether unit, they have times to be home, they report weekly, and have a lot of home visits, to check on them, I know somebody that does this, not my wife, but her friend from the academy, and they will bust you for being home late 1 minute, and then it is up to the judge.

I have to ask what is alcohol intoxication?

When my wife worked in prison she could always tell the sex offenders, she said it was something in the eyes, or how they looked at her. They always said they were in for drugs, but she normally worked up front, and could check, but usually did not want to know what most did, but she wanted to know the sex offenders.
 
Alcohol intoxication=public drunk. Otis. I don't think an addict or alcoholic or a prescription drug abuser should be allowed restoration of rights. I knew a woman who had a DUI crash that put her in a wheelchair. She was abusing Oxycontin and trading drugs with another abuser. I was called at home by a state investigator on a related case. He advised me that she was married to a ex-con. Her son is a registered sex offender. In making entry to effect an arrest of the son for raping a 11 y/o boy, the entry team confiscated multiple firearms and the woman had a valid CCW permit. That is insane.
 
I think we should create an easy-to-use appeals system where, if a felon feels the need, he can file a 2nd Ammendment appeal with the gov't after serving out his sentence. The gov't would then be obligated to provide a hearing with a judge and a jury so the felon could prove he's ok to own a firearm. I also think that he should have a state-provided attourney if he so chooses.
 
Didto. Simply put: yes.

And SW, I agree with you on all but the public drunkeness. I mean...come on. (yes, thats the best argument I have) I live in a college town, and the idiot swaggering down the street at 1AM saying hello to EVERYbody he/she walks past is hardly a felon.
 
YES! No guns for felons.

Felons have proven their inability to play be the laws of our society, apparently thinking themselves above the law. It is a risky move becuase they are gambling with their entire future if caught and convicted. Too bad they are too stupid to consider this before committing the crimes.

Our society has two levels of labels, misdemeanors and felonies. The former are more minor infractions. The latter are the more serious infractions. Being convicted of either carries certain rammifications, but the rammifications for felonies are much more severe and are more severe because they represent more serious negative acts against people and society. You get prison time, loss of the right to vote, and the loss of the right to keep and bear arms.

Contrary to what some folks think, jail or prison time is not the full extent of their penalty for the felony(s). Contrary to what some folks think, time in prison isn't paying a debt to society. While felons may be EX-convicts on leaving prison, they are not EX-felons. Felon is an earned title that stays with the person even after leaving prison.

If felons wanted to keep their rights, then they should have not committed the felonies.

The notion of letting felons own guns is just plain stupid. Why would you want to give guns to people who have committed serious crimes, been convicted, and essentially proven that they have no desire to honor the laws of our society? I am repeatedly shocked by the naive statements that keep getting made about "Never Again" after various trajedies and yet some folks think that felons should be given back the right to have guns. Even more perplexing is that not only do some people think that felons should be given back the right to own guns, but that they should be allowed to have concealed carry! STOP THE MADNESS!
 
My point was not to give guns back to people who have committed violent or "serious" crimes. My point was that there are a lot of crimes that technically constitute felonies, but in the grand scheme of things seem no worse than misdemeanors. I mean, really, the guy who can't control his temper and has several misdemeanor charges for assault and battery can still own a gun. But Martha Stewart, who basically used her connections to her advantage, can't own a gun. Not that Martha didn't wrong society, but who is more dangerous with a gun, her or the guy who can't control his temper and who is willing to hurt other people in the process?

That's my point. Is a blanket prohibition on all felons owning guns fair? Is it constitutional? Or, should the nature of the crime also be considered?
 
The solution to that problem is NOT found in "allowing some felons to own a gun".

The real solution is to change many "crimes" from a felony to a misdemeanor, or some middle class.

I think any violent crime, and especially anyone involving a weapon.. should be disqualification for life. This would also include DUI, as that is a very lethal crime!

Where as, many "white collar" crime maybe restored after X number of years without further problems.
 
Is a blanket prohibition on all felons owning guns fair? Is it constitutional?
Click to expand...


I do not see how it could be constitutional. Under constitutional law, police powers were reserved to the States, and these police powers include gun control powers. So I think it would be constitutional for a State to prohibit felons from owning guns. But for the feds to do such a thing would be a gross violation of the Tenth Amendment.

I think a "felon" is someone who commits a crime that has a maximum sentence of over a year in jail.

I have heard antigunners say that anyone who breaks any law, even someone who writes a bad check, should lose the RKBA because they have demonstrated poor judgement. I don't think that would be fair. But I also don't think it's fair to give convicted murderers CCW permits. There is a line to be drawn, and I think each State must draw it as they see fit.

My question back to you is "what part of the Constitution delegates the federal government the power to prohibit felons from owning guns"? They ususally try to claim that their "interstate commerce" power includes gun control. I don't buy it.
 
Nope.

If you have paid your debt to society (aka completed your penalty) for the crime and are deemed safe to leave prison, all of your rights should be returned.

If a former felon cannot be trusted to legally own a gun, he cannot be trusted not to illegally own one and therefore should still be behind bars.
 
My question back to you is "what part of the Constitution delegates the federal government the power to prohibit felons from owning guns"? They ususally try to claim that their "interstate commerce" power includes gun control. I don't buy it
Click to expand...
.

You may not buy it, but so long as the government can show the firearm in question travelled in, or affected interstate commerce, the courts do. (See US v. Bass)
 
If you have paid your debt to society (aka completed your penalty) for the crime and are deemed safe to leave prison, all of your rights should be returned.
Click to expand...

But the permanent loss of the right to vote and own a firearm are part of the penalty for the felony. If you don't like the punishment and all it may entail, don't do the crime.
 
Straight forward "Yes!" There is too much liberal grey in our laws today as it is. Why go saying;
'Well he only stole a car and never used a weapon so its okay for him to get a pistol!'
So now we get a whole new set of regulations and laws which will apply to the new 'White Felon" able to own arms and the "Black Felon" not able to own arms. Of course the ACLU will hear of this system and want to add several more shades of color to the mix and rules as to what they and who, can own and can not own.
No, In my opinion we need less piece meal laws with their "Grey" twisted justice and more "Black and White" straight forward justice.

Follow me on this analogy: Justice is like a soup with the our Constitution being the meat, or base, that nourishes the body of our "Democracy" but when we keep adding law, after law, after law, add infin. then we begin to water down our soup until it no longer nourishes anything. :barf:

Just a quick .02 more and I'll slither back under my rock. I do some counseling for the local county crisis on the side, and I'm inclined to agree with Sir William. Got a DUI, Possession, substance history, ect. you just proved your irresponsible in my book, and a potential threat to the safety of the public. I mean really, I'm 43 and was a real brat as a child, but I managed to stay clear any of these afore mentioned plauges.
 
Gun ownership is different from freedom of speech. There is an element of personal resonsibility involved. Felons, by their actions have shown a disregard for society. As much as they would like to take away their crimes, they cannot. It is in their past. Just setting them free is a gift of faith from society. Give some people a cherry and they want the whole jar. Give some people a cherry and they take the whole jar.

We can only predict a man's future behavior by his past behavior. Thus, my answer is no, felons should not be able to regain that right. If they do not want to give up those rights, they should not commit felonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top