Free felons have a constitutional, moral, and natural right to bear arms

There are different classes of felonies, and it differs between the states, I would guess.

It is probably a felony somewhere to have even an unloaded, disabled firearm on school property (IANAL!!), locked in a car. Would I then be a felon if I were told to pick up my daughter after school, on my way home from work, with my carry gun locked in my glove box? In some places, yes. Now I can't vote, or ever own a gun again, and now be unable to protect my family and myself as long as I live.

So many laws, so many hoops, so many exceptions, so many degrees! No wonder so many lawyers make laws (the legislative branch is rife)! They gotta secure proliferation of their own.

I am a good, honest, well-meaning member of society, but to become a felon due to a mis-step is frightful! Lawyers can spin just about anything, anyway they want.

The Tacoma mall incident, for example:
The brave, CWP-holder could be guilty of "depraved indifference" if the shooter had killed someone behind the CWPer (the shooter wouldn't have aimed in that direction had the CWPer not shown a weapon), or a myriad of other such nonsense "what-if" laws.

Just watch Law & Order, and see how many times Jack convicts someone on periphial laws!

Once a debt is paid, it is paid, whether to an individual or to society. A man who serves a felony sentence and pays his debt to society will either; a) learn and be better, or b) not learn and get a firearm anyway!
 
Individuals convicted of forceable felonies should never be able to possess, own or use any type of firearm for the duration of their natural life.
Click to expand...

Why?

If the fear is that one of these people, in possession of a handgun, is such a danger to the citizens around him that he should never have a gun again, what about the fact that nothing prohibits him from owning flammable liquids and matches? What about knives?

The fact remains that if such a person gives us reason to continue to fear his violent tendencies, he should never be allowed out of prison after his first conviction for such a crime.

It is a tautology that IF they are allowed out of prison, it ought to mean that they are good enough to be out of prison. And that means having the rights of people who are not in prison. Anyone who can't be trusted with guns or other weapons after release from prison tautologically should not be allowed out of prison. If we say that oh well, the sentence for armed robbery is only 7 years, and while the guy is still a bad guy and we think he's gonna do it again, we have to let him out, then that means we have to reexamine why we put him away for only 7 years! And if we are honest with ourselves about this whole problem, we just may have to force ourselves to the realization that YES, we DO have to burden ourselves with maintaining a large prison population and all the expense that incurs. The alternative is to save money (?? :confused: ) by allowing them back out to do more crimes and go through the system all over again. (How does that save money over the idea of throwing a 27-year-old violent criminal in jail for the rest of his life?)


Now, you may feel that this means azurefly wants violent people to have guns. NO. Azurefly wants violent people to have ONE STRIKE, and go to prison for life after that first violent crime -- or the gallows if they murdered someone.


-azurefly
 
I say, lets get the RKBA straighted out for us regular law-abiding folks, then we can worry about the felons.
 
It is probably a felony somewhere to have even an unloaded, disabled firearm on school property (IANAL!!), locked in a car. Would I then be a felon if I were told to pick up my daughter after school, on my way home from work, with my carry gun locked in my glove box? In some places, yes. Now I can't vote, or ever own a gun again, and now be unable to protect my family and myself as long as I live.
So many laws, so many hoops, so many exceptions, so many degrees! No wonder so many lawyers make laws (the legislative branch is rife)! They gotta secure proliferation of their own.
Click to expand...
i think this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they outlined the practice of jury nullification. from what i have read about it (not much) they intended it to be used alot more than it is today. in fact Jefferson put the right of a jury to nullify a bad law right up there with the right to vote.
If the fear is that one of these people, in possession of a handgun, is such a danger to the citizens around him that he should never have a gun again, what about the fact that nothing prohibits him from owning flammable liquids and matches? What about knives?
The fact remains that if such a person gives us reason to continue to fear his violent tendencies, he should never be allowed out of prison after his first conviction for such a crime.
Click to expand...
excellent point. and if violent felons (i.e. felon that should be felons) actually were kept in jail untill they were no longer a danger to society (reformed or dead), i would have no problem restoring their rights. unfortunatly that is not the case.

as far as "nothing prohibits him from owning falmmable liquids, knives etc" if all felons that should be felons lost every single right they had for the rest of there life, and spend it in a 6x9 cell. i wouldn't lose a minute of sleep because i don't believe violent felons can be reformed. i'm sure there are extenuating circumstances, but i would think that's what the restoreation of rights petition is for.

now to debate myself, (i like doing that no matter what, i win!). i think a quote from H. L. Menken seems to be written for this thread. that and Marko's post
Singling out the Second Amendment as a "special" and "dangerous" right is both making the anti-gun point, and setting a dangerous precedent when it comes to the nature of our "inalienable" rights.
Click to expand...
may just have made me change my mind.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H.L. Menken.
Click to expand...

yep, after thinking about it from a diffrent prospective i think you have changed my mind.
 
In addition to losing rights to own firearms, convicted felons normally lose other rights such as the right to vote and the right to sit on a jury to judge others. They often also lose the right to run for office.

While I am a strong believer in the the right to keep and bear arms, I have no sympathy for so-called "free felons." As they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

If you are truly rehabilitated and have remained clean long enough, seek a pardon from the governor. Otherwise, be grateful they didn't cut your arm off or other organ off when you were convicted of the felony.
 
I fail to understand why those of you who argue that free felons should be allowed the right to keep and bear arms because of the constitution and yet you don't want felons to have arms when they are in prison. What were those words in the 2nd Amendment, "...shall not be infringed," and yet y'all seem fine with violating a felons supposed rights when he is in prison.
Click to expand...
:confused:
We suspend their rights while they're in prison. The fact that they're in prison at all is a suspension of their rights.

We also don't let three-year-olds carry concealed. Do you consider that a violation of the 2nd Amendment ?
 
My main argument for this comes down to the fact that they are free to walk the streets.

If a person is a danger and is not being supervised like with probation or something, I really wonder if not letting them vote or own a friearm is going to do much.

It is far to easy to get a car, 2 ton missile when talking to people worried about how teen agers drive. Gasoline is easy to get, household chemicals are easy to get, basically there are ten million other ways to harm people.

If a person is trusted enough to walk the streets with no supervision then I don't see why they are not given their complete rights back.

I realize the prison population is way too big and overcrowded and what not and I don't know the answer.

I just feel the answer is not releasing the least violent criminals early to make room for more violent people.

So either a person is a danger, or they are not. If a person is a danger they should have more of their rights restricted and be stuck in prison.

If they are not a danger, they should have no rights restricted because they did their time and paid their due and made up for what they did the best they can do.
 
A major logical disconnect has emerged...

Someone posted a chart of prison population by country. What about rate of incaration?

US appears to have the first or second highest incarceration rate in the world (depending on which timeframe considered).

Within the USA, State of Texas has the second (to Louisiana) incarceration rate in the USA
Texas has a rate of 1,035 people behind bars for every 100,000 in the population, the second highest incarceration rate in the nation (second only to Louisiana). If Texas was a nation separate from the United States, it would have the world's highest incarceration rate--significantly higher than the United States (682), and Russia (685) which has 1 million prisoners, the world's third biggest prison system. Texas' incarceration rate is also higher than China (115), which has the world's second largest prison population (1.4 million prisoners).

* If the US shared the incarceration rate of Texas, there would be nearly three million Americans behind bars (2,822,300)--instead of our current 2 million prisoners.

* The Texas prison population tripled since 1990, and rose 61.5% in the last five years of this decade alone. In 1994, there were 92, 669 prisoners in Texas. This number had increased to 149,684 by mid-year 1999.17

* The Texas correctional system has grown so large that in July 2000, corrections officials ran out of six digit numbers to assign inmates, and officially created prisoner number 1,000,000.18

Characteristics of Inmates

Contrary to the view that most of the people entering Texas prisons represent a threat to public safety, the majority of prisoners in the Lone Star State are serving sentences for non-violent offenses. When the composition of the prison population is examined, it appears that most are being incarcerated for low level crimes.

* In 1998, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice reported that of its then 130,000 prisoners, 54.8% were being held for a non-violent crime. If these offense proportions held true for the 1999 BJS prison counts, there would be 89,428 inmates held for non-violent crimes in Texas. Just by itself, Texas' non-violent prison population represents the second largest state prison population in the country (next to California). Texas' non-violent prisoner population is larger than the entire incarcerated population of the United Kingdom (73,545)--a country of 60 million people-- and bigger than New York's prison system, our 3rd largest state.19

* Of the almost 37,000 inmates entering the Texas prison system in 1998, more than two out of every three entered prison on a parole or probation violation. Of these, an estimated half were charged not with breaking the law by committing new crimes, but for committing technical violations, such as missing a meeting with a parole officer.20

* Twenty one percent (21%) of the people in Texas prisons are there for drug related charges. While a large number on its own, the 21% figure understates the role drug incarceration policies have played in driving up the prison population totals, as it does not include people serving time for drug related crimes such as theft or burglary. Eighty-five percent of the prison population has a history of drug or alcohol abuse.

source: http://www.justicepolicy.org/print_article.php?&id=16
Click to expand...

Yet, we have line level Texas LE posting how difficult it is (4-6 arrests for drug offenses?) for a person to snag jail time. Well, apparently there are plenty of folks going to prison, after all. Causes a person to wonder just how much police activity is focused on drugs, if it takes a handful of arrests to yield one real prison sentence.

And this burgeoning prison population happens midst a level or decreasing crime rate?

As to the focus of this thread: "rights restoration for released felons"... the present system of re-jailing released felons for technical violations (esp. gun possession; aka ATF's "Project Safe Neighborhoods"). How could anyone argue that the present system is even remotely successful?
 
For the comment on 3 year olds having their rights restricted I think that comes down to a person is given adult responsability when they legally become an adult. Right now kids are not given a time when they truly become an adult because they vote at 18, drink at 21, and some of the gun laws apply to 21 year olds as well.

Make it all come together on one day. Make people responsable for their actions.

And most of all start raising kids to act like adults instead of coddling them and letting them get away with crimes when they are underage.
 
+1 Mannlicher.

Owning, possesing, having a firearm is NOT an inalienable right. It is a legal right that is granted to us under the Constitution subject to statutory regulation.
 
I just hate the fact that it is easier to put a good man in jail than a truly bad man and keep him there.

A person visiting Washington DC to tour the historic sites while carrying concealed (not wise, but prudent) could get more time in prison than a serial armed robber plying his trade in the same area! (no stats to back up this ascertation).

It just seems backwards that the cities that are a symbol to the world here in the United States (LA, NY, Chicago, SF, DC) are the most restrictive of basic human rights of self defense!

Most of the places that are restricted for concealed carry are the places where it is most needed, no matter what state! Most "massacres" occur in places where firearms were illegal in the first place!

Back to the original thread, if a person has served his time, probation, etc, and he is deemed safe to be released among society, then he should be able to defend himself and have all rights restored.

An unrepentantant felon will get a firearm, regardless of any laws to the contrary.
A reformed felon should have those same rights as any other American.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't have any exceptions!

Sure, we'd like to keep arms out of BG's hands. We'd also like to keep them from stupid people's hands! If meaning that I get to keep what firearms I want means an idiot can get one too, then so be it! If the idiot uses it to commit a crime, then let the law deal with the crime! Once again, if autos were held to the same standards as firearms, we'd all be walking!

Now, if my girlfriend gets upset with me, she can take out a restraining order on me for nothing more than her say so! Well, now the county LEO can come in and confiscate all my firearms and revoke my CHP for however long they want to, even though I've committed no crime! I just may have well have had an orgy with all her family and videotaped it for all the grief she may cause! (thing is, what I could do is legal!) There'd probably be a bribe somewhere on someone's part to keep it all quiet, but that's illegal!

Ok, too much personal info situations! But if I could be subject, so could anyone else! (Turned out no RO--yet. cooler heads prevailed)

I have yet to meet a sane, unmarried, unattached woman! I know they are out there, I just wish one would come and slap me upside the head and ask for dinner!

Give a man who's done his time all his rights back!
If he's too violent to have basic human rights, then keep him in prison!
Make the judge's home that paroles him be his half-way house and watch how many are paroled! Give every judge a free house during his/her term, but make every house on the block house people he/she has deemed fit to rejoin society a starting point! If they're reformed enough to live beside me, they're reformed enough to live beside he judge that freed him! If not, then keep them in prison!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top