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

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.
Click to expand...

I would think after a few assault convictions, the charges become felonies.

Unless I'm wrong you can't just repeatedly get misdemeanors without escalating consequences.
 
Yes. The system is so screwed up that many times even violent felonies are pleaded down to high misdemeanors. Any felony conviction should result in the loss of the right to own or carry a pistol.
 
Hmm... How about a compromise plan? (Isn't politics the art of compromise?)

1. Multiple Felony convictions for different incidents - lose RKBA forever.

2. To restore RKBA rights after felony conviction requires;
(a) First time offender.
(b) Persons convicted of 1st degree murder, treason, sedition and sex crimes involving children are not eligible.
(c) Serves 100% of sentence in prision (no parole)
(d) Upon release, after 4 years of no further felony arrests, restore voting rights.
(e) Upon release, after 7 years of no further felony arrests, restore RKBA.
(f) No previously convicted felon gets CCW rights. Sorry.
(g) Persons convicted of felony when under age [16?, 15?] must wait until age 21 for the clock to start ticking for (d) and (e).

We could modify (c) to be some other high percentage (85%?) but would have to include ZERO convictions of misdemeanors during parole. Likewise we should exclude "infractions" such as parking tickets or smoking within 20 feet of a door.

Theory:
Carrort & stick. Release felon, but give them something to work towards. First its the right to vote. This gives them incentive to stay "clean" for 4 years to get it back. If they can do 4 years the next 3 should be easier. After 7 years of no felony relapse they should be on their way to living like the rest of us.

This is a one-time offer. Only on the first felony offense. If the DA loads up the felony charges -- i.e. Possession of stole gun, possession of drugs, reckless driving, etc. -- this is their first offense. One chance to redeem. Screw it up and it's gone. If they get out and can prove they can behave themselves for 7 years its likely they will continue. But any subsequent felony -- any felony -- dumps them in the lose it for life category for both voting and RKBA.

Of course, people who go on some kind of "crime spree" where they rob 8 banks & liquor stores could be charged separately and thus rightfully lose their RKBA forever.
 
Nope, Sorry BillCA won't work for me. Oh by the way nice to see a fellow west coaster here. I'm just a few hours below you on the central coast. If your ever in Monterey or SLO counties we should hit the range together.
But back to the point.
Can people really change? Should a "convicted felon" be seen as a rehabilitated free man now that he has served his time in (as I refer to it) Criminal College or prison? Should he eventually be given his right to bear arms again?
NO!
In my experience any time someone crosses that misdemeanor / felony threshold its the rare bird that flys right. The Prison System (and I mean no offence to any LEOs in corrections when I say this.) is a messed up world. Our country, you know the home of the "free" has more incarcerated lost souls than any other country in the world. The Men's Colony in San Luis is overcrowded as is every prison in this country. But leave a new first time felon in that enviroment for say 3 to 5 years, when they come out they have generally networked and have friends inside, and out - and, they've changed. They are adapted to a completely different society than any of us non-felons. But let's chuk-em back in the stream and see how they swim.
Employment options for a convicted felon? Not good. So I guess they suddenly remember "Homey" from c234 has a 'crib' in this hood and he said he would set me slingin for him." Translation: That nice guy from cell 234 has a house around this neighborhood, and he said if I needed work I could sell drugs for him. He really has nothing to lose at this point. And I've heard tales of perps commiting REALLY stupid crimes just to get back into prison.
America's prisons are one of the most swept under the rug issues with the suits political and something that needs immediate attention, but I don't think offering the carrot of eventual Democratic Freedom and latent / restricted 2nd ammendment rights will in any effect their choices or encourage convicted felons to go straight.
But just my opinion.
 
99.9% of the time if you have gotten a prison sentence for committing a felony in MI, you do not deserve a gun, you have to work at getting prison time.

There is already a system in place to let felons get their rights back, it is just not funded.

Again what about people getting felony convitions in mexico, when they haven't broken the law. Read about Thomas Lamar Bean, atf agents testifed that he should get his rights reinstated. There are a lot of well documented cases of people entering mexico with ammo, and now they have lost their rights in the US.

There is a problem with the law since a felon can not have his conviction reviewed, the supreme court can not rule on the legality of granting felons thier rights back. So because there is a law that says felons have a remedy, the courts can not rule until there is an action by the board, which doesn't act. I think the law about felons is from the 1938 federal firearms act, the law granting Felon the right to get their rights back I think is a 1965 law. So it seems that Mr Bean, is now being denied his 14th amend, due process of law. It is a convient way for the governement to stop you from doing anything they want to.

A first time felon, should have redresses, to buy a gun. Getting a CCW in michigan, has numerous misdemeanors that you must not have commited in the last 8 years, and some in the last 3 year midemeanors, some of them are drunk driving, and public intoxication, I am not sure. A person, convicted of auto-theft, can buy a slide hammer, and somebody convicted of a BE can buy a 12" flat prybar. I think a CCW is a stretch for a lot of felons with victims.

A 15 year old was convicted of murder for killing his father, a Troy police officer, a sargent?, he got 4 years?, he was abused, and his father started to abuse his little brother, and the older boy killed the father, while he slept. They lived in Troy, I wonder how far a police report or any other report would have gotten. The world is not black and white, there is a lot of gray, I can not see denying every one convicted of some crimes, there rights. They are felons for life, but can vote, are allowed free speech, they even have 14th amendment rights while in prison. Is the 2nd amendment a right, or a privelege?
 
Last edited:
No, I don't think convicted felons should lose the right to keep and bear arms. I have several reasons for my position.

First, is the Second Amendment an absolute human right or not? If it is, I can't see how we can deny that right to anyone currently not in jail. We don't take the right to free speech or the freedom of religion from felons; why the right to self-defense? Do we now agree with the ani-gun folks that the Second is not as "inalienable" as all the other rights in the BoR? Is the Second somehow more dangerous? Either treat the Second as absolute as the other rights, or treat them all as relative...in which case, we hardly have a leg to stand on when the Left abrogates the Second Amendment by majority vote, '' 'cause it's just common sense," or when any other loudmouth anti-freedom group takes a magic marker to any of the other BoR articles.

Second, if you agree that the status "felon" makes you ineligible to legal self-defense for the rest of your life, you have just given the antis the perfect tool for dismantling that right for damn near everybody. All they have to do in turn is to make as many things as possible a felony...like putting the wrong piece of metal on your rifle, growing the wrong kind of plant in your garden, or having your books run by an incompetent accountant. Sooner or later, they won't have to abolish the Second Amendment, because you've given them the perfect way around it, by making so many things a felony that your right can be denied at will. Think you've never committed a felony? With the current local, state and federal penal codes, I guarantee you that you have, even if unknowingly...you've just not been caught.

Third, it doesn't make any sense to ban felons from self-defense, logically or ethically. If they've done their time, they ought to have the right to defend themselves. After all, muggers and burglars don't make the distinction between felony-free citizens and ex-inmates.

We all know that any felon who wants a gun can get a gun. Nothing you do or say will stop bad people from getting guns and doing bad things again, if they are so inclined. The only thing the law does is to force those who want to play by the rules again to remain defenseless for the rest of their lives, or shrug it off and break the law because they have no other choice. That is precisely the same logic used by the antis in NYC and DC when they make handguns illegal for everybody, just so a few really bad dudes "can't get guns easily". And guess what, the really bad dudes in NYC and DC still get their hands on guns...you've just disarmed the ones you don't have to worry about anyway.
 
Dan, you make a good point on the miscarrage of justice, and Marko: "Elen sila lumenn omentielvo Ar-toron." Translation of Tolkien's Quenya meaning: "A star shines on the hour of our meeting my brother." I've been a Tolkien fan since 1972 when he died and I decided to see what the fuss was about.
You as well make some very valid arguments. I have to deal with some work issues for the next few hours, but I hope to answer in kind as soon as possible. I need to research and check some facts before I say yea or ney.
You have both given me food for thought.
 
I have to ask, how many people could say that they did "bad" things at one time or another, and are now people, who do not do bad things. Maybe you never got caught.

My wife just got home, and told me that in MI, not paying child support, is a Felony, shoplifting any amount is a felony. She has worked in a real prison, most people are in for life, about 60% min are in and have no possibility of parole. There is not a big network of criminals like the movie heat, the biggest problem is contraband. She did about 50 pre sentence investigations this year, all felonies, 4 resultd in jail time, 2 were up to 1 year in county, since county is overcrowded, those 2 got no jail time, and the other 2 were murder, life in prison no parole. I know people who went to jail, and are in jail. Only 1 of about 8 turned his life around, the others were back in after about 6 months.
 
Last edited:
Well after several Googles, Lycos, and ect. not to mention excedrins, I located a logical and clear Constitutional path that address both Dan's "Out of the Country Felony Case", and Marko's "Felon's Personal / Civil Rights being Abused Case" Felons". Instead of looking up current precidents in simillar cases I went back directly to the Constituion it's Articles and Amendments to see how such precidents might evolve.
First off serving back to you Dan. I need to mention I leanred something that I didn't know today, and thank my lucky stars for the professionalism of the London LEOs otherwise I'd be in this felony boat.
I hadn't checked the London laws last January, when I was in England, or I would have known fixed blade knives are a felony there now. Needless to say I had one, and not till I was departing to Paris by way of the "Chunnel" did I, remember (and then the xray security know) about it in my luggage. When the Sargent and MI6 got there I was questioned and advised to sign and surrender the blade for destruction. Which I did with no complaint. I was sent about my business minus one Buck General with personally hone 'wicked edge'. NO charges were filed. But I was lucky, that and I have some positive history in England from other visits.
Taking a long knife to London; Felony
Getting questioned and detained; New chunnel pass, one knife.
Not getting areested; Priceless!
The meat of the subject is however had I been charged it would have been a felony and my entire collection here in the states would have been forfeit. Period the end. Why?

"Title 18 U.S. Code 922(g)(1) states:
It shall be unlawful for any person who has bee convicted "in any court" of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, to ship, or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition, or recieve"....yadda, yadda, yadda.

You get the picture. Sounds a bit draconian, but it's the law, so why is this not an enfringment of my Civil Rights?

"The U S Constitution outlines the structure and powers of the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) and the 3 levels of government (federal, state, local). The basic principles of the Constitution are the same today as when it was written:
1--the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) are separate and each is checked and balanced off by the power of the other two,
2--the U S Constitution is supreme,
3-all persons are equal before the law, as are all states and each state must be democratic and respect the law of others,
4--the people can change the U S Constitution by the methods outlined within it."

Basically if you don't like title 18 refer niumber 2 of Constitution Outlines, still don't like it, see number 4. At least according to the ATF and FBI who would have been waiting at my door for surrender of my arms, upon my return from England, had I been convicted. And as a citizen who enjoys living here in 'relative' freedom I would have complied 100%.
There is a case pending (Small vs U.S.) that has potential to ratify this out of the country felon rap, but don't count on it. Smalls got a negative history in Japan were his original felony occured. Extradition? But you can bet I be watching.

Best advise before you travel either foreign or domestic is.....KNOW THE LAWS! You could lose your Second Amendment without even realizing it.

So where did the whole felony denial of firearms rights begin?
Wel according to the ATF website:

" Federal laws regulating firearms traffic into, from and within the United States are the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778. Authority to administer and enforce these laws rests with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary has delegated responsibility to enforce the GCA, the NFA, and the importation provisions of the AECA to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The authority to enforce the exportation provisions of the AECA is delegated to the United States Customs Service (USCS)."

Now add title 18 (see above and mix thourghly.

Everyones favorite from 68' the GCA, was created to keep firearms out of the hands of of the bad guys. But is it a Civil Rights issue when the GCA also denies because of age, and incompetence, not just criminal background. Now that might be a case. But not just a Federal doctrine the GCA makes State firearms laws more "effective" :barf: , dur to its navigating of interstate commerce in firearms, because it requires federally licensed businesses and oversees and confinies the nonlicensed transactions to the individulals state of residence. For example if like me stuck in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

And for desert we now get Article IV U.S. Constitution, which states:

"Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

"Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered upon on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]*"

And this gives states their latitude regarding interstate laws.
Again don't like it, see C.O. 2, still don't like, see C.O. 4.

Which brings us to Marko's statement, violations of a felon's II, IV and XI Amendments when such denals of Right to Bear Arms, and Vote are made life long.
The answer I found in all places within the XIII Amendment:

"Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *(except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted)*, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Ratified December 6, 1865

So "Except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted." sound like a disfranchised citizen to me. The laws on Treason are very close to, although more Wig or Torey sounding.

"Free at last, free at last"
Rev. M.L. King

So it isn't the state which imposes the felon's restrictions, its the Constitution herself.
But if you don't like the XIII Amendment.... C.O. 2, or C.O. 4. :barf:

So perhaps most of you have followed and knew all this, sorry to re-hash it.
It's remarkably straight forward and clear compared to the lawyer speak of the tangled courts today. But admitedly, I'm no lawyer, so I'm sure one of them, or you can refute my research and have me eating crow before to long.

But just as the new readings of the II Amendment are being seen in "our" favor at this point in time, doesn't mean it shall aways be so. Note the 'our' there I'm on your side, but I try to live the letter of the law. I just hope my Government is too

"Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego" :eek:

Thanks for the patients hope I did't offend. :D
 
Last edited:
So "Except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted." sound like a disfranchised citizen to me.
Click to expand...

Section I of the Thirteenth Amendment addresses "involuntary servitude" as a punishment for crime, covering the fact that we can put people in jail for crimes. It does not address how the Bill of Rights is voided for these people, or that the punishment automatically extends for the rest of their lives, and not just for the duration of the punishment.

If you believe that Sec.I covers the loss of a felon's RKBA rights, does it also cover the rest of their civil rights, like freedom of speech and religion? Can a felon's house be searched without a warrant for the rest of his life? Can convicted felons be tortured, or put in double jeopardy? Does a felon lose the right to a jury trial forever?

Why, why, why would Sec.I of the Thirteenth Amendment only apply to one single civil right enumerated in the BoR, and not all others? Because the majority says so?
 
I'm afraid so. A good example "Meghan's Law" hear is a good example of reactioary puplic out cry that enacted FEDERAL not state legislation to in fact destroy a convicted child molester right to privacy. And depending on the state allows for search and seizure without warrent. The GCA of 68' was as well reactionary puplic out cry after the assination of JFK in 62'. The people scream "Do something, protect us." So the government did!
So how long should a molester be without his right to privacy?
So back to Article IV which I percieve to address extraditions in section 2. in the term of Service or Labor due (note capitalization of the two in the document. They are refering to penalties and punishment. And at the period these documents were penned being arrested and convicted meant labor, hard labor.
In section 1 its told that faith and credit shall be given in each State..

So isn't this molester than a ward of the State? And wouldn't that make each convicted felon a ward of the State. Even after his release there are things like parole, and probations making him still a ward of the State.

I didn't vote this stuff in, but I still say once a felon 95% of the time always a felon. And if getting the right to vote was such a big deal for them how come I have yet to hear of any Reformed Pimps and Pusher for the Right to Vote groups? I mean they already get guns illegally anyway.
Real world thought here the only real freedom you have is choice.
And I choose to let this rest and look into a bit more.
Thanks for the food for thought Marko
 
I guess the antis were right all along, then: a constitutional right can be nullified by majority vote, as long as there are enough emotional people behind the vote.

Silly me...and here I thought the BoR was specifically penned to make clear that there are some rights which are never subject to majority vote.

Just because it's done doesn't make it right. At one point, owning dark people was legal under the Constitution, because enough people thought it ought to be. That didn't make slavery right or moral.

Are we all created equal, endowed with inalienable rights that are ours by virtue of being human? Or is the Bill of Rights really only parchment, a "living document" that can be interpreted according to majority whim? If that's the case, then the whole RKBA struggle is completely meaningless.

You cannot argue for one right being expendable to majority opinion, and simultaneously argue another right from the same list as untouchable and sacrosanct. You lose the debate on the grounds of principle, and you're left with nothing but emotion when you try to safeguard the same rights for yourself which you deny to others based on a fluid and arbitrary legal status that can be bent to include everything the majority deems proper.
 
What about the system in place to get felons their rights back? The right to vote, or not vote, is not absolute, I think 2 states allow people in prison to vote, and a majority of states, allow felons to vote, once there sentence has been served. Only 8 states bar felons from voting, 1 bars it if your conviction was before 1984, 2 disallow voting after 2nd felony. If this Meghan's law is a law which posts sex offenders, you can look up anybody's criminal history, it is a FOIA request. The 2nd amendment makes laws regarding firearms illegal.
 
The right to vote, or not vote, is not absolute, I think 2 states allow people in prison to vote, and a majority of states, allow felons to vote, once there sentence has been served.
Click to expand...

The difference between voting and RKBA is that voting is a civil right established by constitutional amendment, whereas the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. While you can amend the Constitution legally with two-thirds majority of the States to include everything from voting rights to banning booze, you cannot circumvent the Bill of Rights, not even with a 2/3 state majority. They are majority-proof.
 
the problem, in my opinion, is not just whether convicted felons should be able to own a gun, but it's how the law is applied, who ends up with a felony conviction and who doesn't. Gun laws have historically been racist. That's why in vermont,(mostly white) you can carry openly, and in D.C.,(mostly black) guns are banned completely, as an example. Don't even get me started on california. The 13th amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The key word there is "except". way back when, in the south, did you guys know that laws were created, with the express purpose of putting black people in jail, and back into servitude? everyday behavior was criminalized. My point is, this is more than just a felon/non-felon or 2nd amendment issue. Our criminal justice system doesn't treat people equally, so that needs to be addressed, because that system determines who's a felon, and who isn't.
.
 
I look at it this way, they wrote the constitution, and then saw that it had loopholes in it, they then made amendments to the constitution, to cover the loopholes. The constitution does not give us rights, it prevents the government from grabbing power. The amendments spell out explicityly certain rights that the federal government must abide by. They have used so many ways to erode rights, the biggest is extortion, by denying states funds if they do not comply with the feds whims, to not funding there own program that now makes it impossible for it to be subject to the checks and balances of judicial review.
 
Just so you guys don't think I'm a softie for starting this thread, I would argue that even violent misdemeanors shold be considered possible bars to owning guns (for some amopunt of time). MY goal would be to keep gun out of the hands of those with a demonstrated propensity to misuse them, but at the same time not burdening society with irrational gun laws (we have enough of those already).
 
Yesterday at the range two urban gentleman came in. One was holding an SKS with the folding bayonet extended asking for a 30 round "clip" and the other had a 9mm. The one set the handgun on the counter and startled quite a few people behind the counter when they discovered it was loaded with one in the chamber. They knew nothing about firearms whatsoever as they were wanting to fire the SKS when the cosmoline hadn't been cleaned.

One of the guys that worked there was ex LE and was talking with them. He asked them if they got the SKS at a gunshow, and they said "uhh Yeah". He then asked one, "Where do you live? You Look familiar." and that he was a patrol officer etc.

They looked around for about 2 minutes and hauled ass.

They may or may not have gotten the firearms legally, but I'ts scary that people like this are coming to the range to "practice", but all the more reason to make it as hard as possible for them to get ahold of firearms.
 
Well, that's what the first gun control laws were intended to do...keep the guns out of the hands of the "urban gentlemen". Glad to see that intentions are consistent, even after all this time.

God forbid you use the opportunity to educate the gentlemen in question about safe gun handling and maintenance...

One of the most reliable regulars in my old shop is a gentleman who you'd probably classify as an "urban gentleman". He dresses in urban fashion, and talks in an urban vernacular. Thing is, he's a hard-working, tax-paying member of the community, he spends about $20,000 a year on guns (by my conservative estimate), and his gun collection probably makes Tamara's arsenal look modest. He also passes his background check every time, and he owns an NFA item or two...legally, with tax stamp.

Run him out of the store by bypassing him to help the good ol' boy who's there to haggle you down to 5% over cost on a Bersa (and "will you throw in a box of shells free if I buy the gun?"), and you've lost twenty grand a year in reliable business. But hey...whatever it takes to keep the darkies from getting their hands on guns. They're all felons anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top