felons

Should people that were convicted of non-violent felonies still be able to own guns?

  • yes

    Votes: 102 73.9%

  • no

    Votes: 36 26.1%
  • Total voters
    138
P

psycho nut

New member
My dad was convicted of a felony 6 years ago and therefore cannot have a gun. The kicker is that the felony was that he was driving without a licence. I think that this is retarded and that the government should allow some felons that didn't commit violent (ie. rape, murder, etc.) crimes should be able to still have firearms. Driving without a licence I believe shouldn't alter your ability to own guns.
 
I think anyone not in prison should have that right. If you can't trust them with a gun, why are you setting them loose on society?
 
I think anyone not in prison should have that right. If you can't trust them with a gun, why are you setting them loose on society?
Click to expand...
Because we have to make room for all the potheads!
 
When a person is in jail or serving a sentence (i.e. parole, probation etc.) for a non-violent felony conviction, no guns. However, once the non-violent felon has "served his time" then the right to keep and bear arms should be restored in full.

Think about it, when a person is in jail or on probation, part of the punishment is that he loses some of his civil rights. He obviously doesn't have the same 4th Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches in his jail cell as you and I have in our homes etc. But, even hard core criminals get their 4th Amendment rights back when they have finished their sentences. Shouldn't non-violent felons get the 2nd Amendment RKBA back after they've done their time?

I admit there's a compelling governmental interest in keeping guns out of the hands of hard core, violent felons and I accept the government's intrusion into the RKBA to vindicate that interest. But there's no such reason when it comes to non-violent felons.
 
Psycho-nut

Should it alter your ability to get a drivers license?

Like drunk driving?

Or negligent/vehicular homicide?

In your specific case, it does seem harsh. :(
 
yes

I think it depends on both the felony and the state. I am, as far as I can tell, a 'convicted felon'... (little marajuana way back in 1978) seems S.C. did not think it was a problem... I reported it on my application for a CWP along with a drivers liscense suspention two years later and it went thru with out a hitch.
 
I call BS

"My dad was convicted of a felony 6 years ago and therefore cannot have a gun. The kicker is that the felony was that he was driving without a licence."

Merely driving w/o a license is a misdemeanor in the states I'm familiar with. What did he REALLY do?

Driving after revocation?
DWI?
Motor vehicle homicide while DWL?

Inquiring minds want to know......
 
In no state that Im aware is DUS/DWL a felony. Oklahoma has graduated charges for repeat offenses, but even the most severe is still a misdemeanor. Sounds like he filling your poo hole full of sunshine.
 
"I think anyone not in prison should have that right. If you can't trust them with a gun, why are you setting them loose on society?"

I keep hearing this argument, and it makes no sense to me, at least as written. Consider a violent felon, quite possibly a lifelong career criminal, who has served his sentence and is released. I no more trust him to be loose in society than I trust him with a gun, but there is nothing I can do to keep him in prison longer. I am not in favor of giving *every* released felon a clean slate.

I will grant that nonviolent felons, and especially the bogus "felons" created by absurd laws, present more of a gray area.

Tim
 
Consider a violent felon, quite possibly a lifelong career criminal, who has served his sentence and is released. I no more trust him to be loose in society than I trust him with a gun...
Click to expand...
Tim-
Understand that about 50% of the nation feels the same about ***your guns***. When you demand that government step between you and possible danger from others, guilty of no unpaid crime, expect to give others that same right. Some will argue, appropriately from their framework of Risk Aversion, that **you** are the Danger.
Rich
 
Should people that were convicted of non-violent felonies still be able to own guns?
I would say yes, IF their case was not plea bargained down to a lesser charge, and IF they had spent a year or more in society with no recidivism.
 
"When you demand that government step between you and possible danger from others, guilty of no unpaid crime, expect to give others that same right."

I have no idea what this sentence means, but I'm pretty sure it's a change of subject. We were discussing whether "felons" should be allowed to possess firearms.

Tim
 
Under the provisions of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, a convicted felon may petition the court for full restoration of rights, including possesion of firearms.
You can go to the BATFE's web site and look it up for your self. That's the federal law on the matter. Your state may have laws stating otherwise, but in any case, a consultation with an attorney can settle the matter once and for all.
Paul B.
 
+1 Rich.

Once the felon's debt to society is paid, restore ALL his/her rights. Certainly if the crime was not one of violence.

Keep in mind, even "violent" felons might not really be much of a risk to you ... besides, aren't we armed to the teeth? Wasn't the actor in Gladiator (awww ... his name escapes me at the moment) charged with felony assault because he threw a phone at somebody? Puh-lease. Seems like everything is now a felony...
 
No, not every felon should be denied the right to bear arms, but if the law is ever to be re-written, it must be done thoughtfully and carefully. The problem is, how do you sort out those that are almost certain to be a problem from those that made a mistake? And it's not restricted to felonies, either. In Ohio, domestic violence (usually a 1st degree misdemeanor) requires a mandatory surrender of firearms and prohibition of future ownership. One of my own officers was charged with DV and had to surrender his weapons, including his duty weapon. He was fired because of this (can't carry a gun, can't be a cop). The charge was eventually plea bargained down to disorderly and he was reinstated, but he was raked over the coals and (temporarily) lost his constitutional right to bear arms over a misdemeanor! Yeah, the law definitely needs to be revamped, but not to the point of a blanket statement for all felons.
 
If you use a car to kill someone, assuming you get out of jail, you would be able to get a drivers license, own and drive a car again. And driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

If you use a gun to kill someone, assuming you get out of jail, you would not be able to get a license to carry a concealed weapon, own or carry a gun again. And owning a gun is a right, not a privilege.
 
If you use a gun to kill someone, assuming you get out of jail,
Click to expand...

Well that's a big problem in my mind. If one is convicted of a homicide that wasn't in self defense, that man should never see the the outside of a prison again. Rape and murder deserve life sentences without parole, without any hope of ever getting out.

I understand that denying someone's right to carry is seen as an affront to the law for many of you...but far more important is the right to life and if a man denies that right to someone else he has forfieted his own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top