Ex-Felon Should they or shouldn't they?

Well, we're getting into another topic, here, aren't we? I think there should be no such thing as a victimless felony. That is, without a HUMAN victim, as opposed to a raptor. I hear what others are saying about stupid and antiquated laws, and I agree. But those laws should be changed, and if they are not the felon still should lose his right to a firearm simply because it is self-protection to the rest of the populace without unduly messing his life up.

And if anyone comes into my bedroom to discover if my wife and I are engaging in oral sex, oral sex will be the least of anybody's problems, as there will be some punctured bodies lying around real quick.

We do not have laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, we have laws prohibiting CONVICTED felons from possessing firearms. If raising game birds is a felony, work on getting that changed without allowing rapists and murderers to have guns. Examine the prison records of the state and discover whether owners of game birds or murderers are the biggest segment of the population there.

Yes, they're gonna have them anyway, but when I plug one it would be nice for the police to discover that he was an armed convicted felon, leaving little question about who was the good guy and who was the bad guy.

Larry P.
 
So a guy commits a felony, serves his time and is set free. For ten years (20? 30?) he then leads upright life. Because he was convicted of a felony he has no right to protect his wife and family, with a firearm, in his own home? I'm uncomfortable with that but I don't have a good answer to which felonies?, how long?, and other questions.

I tend to think "arm 'em all" but I don't trust the legal system to weed out the bad folks or to support the good folks. This is a problem for me.

(Damn! It isn't often that I can't even form an opinion!)

Hesitant Grump
 
Once again, I am drawn back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was meant for all citizens. While we have appropriately redefined who is a "citizen" (eg: orientals, blacks, women), we should not be redefining the Bill of Rights to apply only to certain classes of citizen.

Either you restore a convicted felon's rights or you don't. All of them. To do otherwise is to play into the hands of the ProTyranny side by setting the precedent for abrogating the rights of "certain" classes of citizen for life.

Now, I know this will never happen because people would rather believe that the convicted rapist is not armed, due to the prohibition, rather than deal with the issue of self protection directly. However, if it came to pass and John Q. Citizen started thinking about self protection on a personal level, those stupid enough to repeat their violent mistakes would quickly cease to be a societal burden.

I wonder how the Swiss handle this?
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited June 11, 1999).]
 
For non-violent felons, yes - give them a reason to rebilitate! Especially since a lot of them are low-level druggies. Absolutely, give them back the RKBA after the jail sentence is served (with the parole/points/good behavior sysem built into the calculation - i.e. if you're good and show signs of rehab, then you're paroled; if you're paroled, another beneifit is RKBA).

For violent folks, I'm thinking the same setup would work, PROVIDED the sentences are fitting/long, and the rehab real (this assumes that OFTEN the fitting sentence for violent felons is life without, thus no release/no RKBA of course).

I deleted the rest of my original post as it strayed too far from RKBA.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 22, 1999).]
 
Having seen the Soviet approach to this (slapping "Treason against the Soviet country" article 58, 10 years to capital punishment) on every minor offense, I have about zero trust in official justice.

Count me in Guns for Violent Felons support group...because the definition of "violent felon" as used now is so screwed! Now, no guns of other civil rights for US Senate/House members...that sounds attractive! Still, I would let even those folks own guns, though with more reservations than I'd have about Joe the serial killer.
 
It depends on the state as to what rights felons lose. I say that they should be armed after they pay their debt. I believe that had these folks paid it on their first conviction, and not their 25th, then they wouldn't have gone back those 24 additional times, esp. w/ education and job training for something other than stamping liscense plates. In K.C., we have a multimillionaire ex-air force pilot/ bank robber who can't own a gun for obvious reasons. Do you think he is going to knock over a 7-11? Me neither, so why can't he vote and get to own a gun. He served his time, paid his debt to society, and contributes a fair amount in charity and civic works.
 
Felony...
Violent Felons...
With-holding of rights by class or cause...

Any of us upstanding citizens can be made a felon with the stroke of a pen on a decree. The same effort can make a violent multiple killer into a hero.

I'd have to agree with Rich and Cornered Rat (something I rarely do) vis-a-vis improving the gene pool and making the society a bit more polite and a lot less politically correct. Arm it!!



------------------
Mykl
~~~~~
"If you really want to know what's going on;
then, you have to follow the money trail."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
i say if you do the crime , do the time. afte that, i think that all civil rigts should be restored. part of our problem with repeat offenders is that"convicted felon"
tag that follows a person forever. idon't think that it serves much purpose to lock up non violent offenders, seems like it would be better for the court to supervise their activities for the term of their sentence, and require restitution as part of their sentence.if their pay went to the court first, there would be no problem collecting.
if they won't work, lock them up and work them anyway.
real violent offenders,(defined as those who have caused serious physical injury or death, should be locked up, and made to earn their keep. if, after completion of sentence they stay out of trouble for a specified period, then they could apply for review and possibly have their rights restored.
like all other simple approaches, this has problems, but with 3 million statutes, we need simplification somewhere, and i think that the 2nd amendment applies to everyone, regardlessof circumstance, as english common law did not restrict rights after sentence served. JMHO cmore
 
Bear in mind that anyone who has finally been adjudicated a (violent?) felon has worked hard to get there. Usually a significant juvenile record (sealed, of course) precedes it, and as an adult there is usually a great deal of dropped charges, diversions, and reduction of original felony charges to misdemeanors before the felony convictions start showing up. Having reviewed literally hundreds of rap sheets I can say that this is the usual pattern. I happen to be very much in favor of the 'felon in posession' statutes because they are slam-dunk convictions and target the precise individuals we need to lock up. (Rehabilitation is a myth--steel doors are not.)

------------------
 
The Constitution does not exclude felons from owning guns nor should we. Today, if all laws were enforced aggressively, most Americans would be in prison. Government is making thousands of new laws yearly making almost every human behavior illegal. One must conclude that this zeal for legislating has tyranny as its ultimate goal. Once most everything is a felony the agents of the government can arbitrarily arrest those who show the slightest hint of resistance to their authority.
 
This question seems to relate to the defense the ACLU uses when charged with protecting the free speech of racists, ie, "if we don't protect their rights, then ours are in jeopardy."

Rights are inalienable. Protect everyone's if you wish to have YOURS intact.

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
 
This is a weighty question, but I do not feel it takes much deliberation to answer...in fact, I answered this same question earlier today. A large quantity of "felonies" are victimless crimes, most noteably drug offenses. Before anyone with more time than sense chimes in, let me point out the slim risk one faces of being assaulted by several ounces of weed, or an evil coca product on the street. If an actual crime such as assault or murder is committed, it is as surely committed whether the perpetrator is "influenced" by any substance or not.

I feel that violent felons should perhaps not be allowed to own guns, but if I had to choose between no legal gun ownership, and gun ownership without constraint, I would surely choose gun ownership without constraint. Perhaps tomorrow, the discussion we are having will be ruled a violent felony. Where are we then, friends?

Several weeks ago, I had to have my van towed. The truck driver asked me what I thought about the NRA! (Don't ask me why- he brought it up.) I replied that I had been on my way to a "Friends of the NRA" dinner when my vehicle broke down, but that I thought that the NRA was not agressive enough in protecting our rights. We spoke about gun ownership for some minutes. Then, this gentleman informed me that he could not own a gun. It seems he had been convicted of a felony DUI offense years ago. "I can understand even having a few year probationary period," he said sadly, "but it don't seem right to take away my right to defend myself." Amen.

...and, what Spartacus said. Incidentally, I understand that the sodomy law here was recently overturned. Guess I can rest easy now.
wink.gif


[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited June 13, 1999).]
 
This is a good discussion.

A case to consider: A friend who was convicted of transferring .5 gram of cocaine during the freewheeling '80s to a narc who had spent a year undercover at taxpayer expense trying to "score". The big bust caught a lot of people, but not any real dealers.

Instant felon. No jail time, but my friend can't vote any more. She lives alone with her cats and catnip is as close as she's gotten to any sort of drug in the last 10 years...but when her apartment was recently broken into, the cops ran her name and were more interested in what she had that a thief might be interested in than in protecting her property rights or finding out who the criminal was.

Should someone with ill intent break in during the middle of the night, she is not only deprived of means of self-protection. But the cops don't care about her..she's "branded".

Fewer laws, more justice!
 
I guess it depends upon the state you live in. My neighbor, a law-abiding dude from the word go, was convicted of a felony when he stopped the burglary of his neighbors car. his neighbor was out of town for 3 months, and he was watchinging the car and house for her. The car was a Mercedes-Benz, by the way. When the cops showed up, he was arrested for aggravated assault. The perps? They were given immunity to testify against him. The neighbor whose property he protected sold him down the river, because her lawyer said she could be sued by the perps if she backed him up. Another thing. One of the investigating deputies was the uncle of one of the perps. Justice rules in Arizona. Anyway, he was able to petition the court for restoration of his civil rights. This was granted, and he was able to get a substantial gun collection back. The only thing he is unable to do is get a CCW. My thought on this is, if the court order says "all civil rights are restored" then no CCW is a violation of his civil rights. This man has gotten only one traffic ticket since Oct of 78. This is how law abiding he is. So much for justice.
Paul B.
 
The people running the show are not interested in justice. They are interested in power. The vast majority of prosecutors are not interested in justice. They are interested in convictions.
 
Well, I hate to do this, and you guys are probably gonna eject me from this list because of it, but I confess; you have actually changed my mind. What a horrible precedent, eh?

I will happily go along with the "arm everyone, felon or not" crowd, henceforth.
 
I use to think that no felon should have firearms, but Ive long since changed my mind and believe now that once your sentence has been served you should be allowed the right to own a firearm.
Its interesting to me that a man who has been charged with domestic violence and is wealthy enuf and cares enuf to pursue his rights through the courts gives the 2nd amendment its first real shot at being before the supreme court...this being the doctor in texas who's wife accused him of brandishing one of his firearms at her and the family(she had been having an affair),his firearms were confiscated and he went to court to have them returned and the judge agreed that he had not been convicted therefore the firearms should not have been confiscated........perhaps its not a stellar situation, but it address the much need situation of ''unreasonable search and seizure''--with unreasonable being the operative word here.....fubsy.
 
I guess that it depends on the crime, I mean I know a guy that has a felony that was from bad checks, non-voilent all the way, but he can not legally protect his wife from a stalker (true story), I think it should be on a more case by case basis when we start to take away peoples rights... I hope this is not to far off the mark, but this has been bugging the sh** out of me for a long time. Up here in Minnesota, when a sex offender gets out of prison, they have to tell the police that they are moving into the area, and the public is notified, (town meeting, paper, news etc...)and then they let everyone know what level the sex offender is, level 1,2,3 or what ever. Well a level 3 sex offender is one that is most likley to reoffend. So my question is this, if this ******* is probably going to rape some little 6 year old kid, why is he even out of prison at all???

------------------
---snoman---
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top