Has anyone ever challenged non violent crime felonys being a bar to the 2A.

For any one to say that I would be a danger to the community by having a firearm just because of the felony dui is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

Good for you that you got your rights restored and being sober. Are you a danger because of your felony DUIs? Nope, the felonies aren't what would make you dangerous. They just represent the times you got caught endangering other people in the community that admittedly was due to being an alcoholic. I don't doubt that you are fine, so long as you remain sober. Most alcoholics that I have met are that way.
 
Like I said in my previous post, I voluntarily gave my guns to a family member while I was an alcoholic, I did not hunt nor possess at anytime. One who has complete respect for firearms should never be denied the "right to bear arms"...being behind the wheel of a car is always a danger to the community, being a delivery driver I've seen it every day...people not using a turn signal, speeding, talking on a cell phone, texting, and of course being intoxicated...had a buddy of mine get caught poaching, did his rights get revoked??? Of course not, that to me would be a disrespect of firearms.
 
Millions?
Click to expand...

Yes millions. The US has the highest number prisoners both as a persent of the population and probably in total numbers.

USA and territories.[8]
Incarcerated population Number of inmates

in 2008
Total 2,424,279
Federal and state prisons 1,518,559
Territorial prisons 13,576
Local jails 785,556
ICE facilities 9,957
Military facilities 1,651
Jails in Indian country 2,135
Juvenile facilities[9] 92,845
--- Additional:
Foreign and secret prisons [10] ~400-20000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

That's just one year. I suspect that over the decades there may have been more prisoners that have sense been released.

7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[15] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes.[15] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge.
Click to expand...

With the exception of state prisons, violent offenders are in the minority.
2,424,279 - 52% is still over one million non-violent offenders. Once again there might have been one or two that have cycled through the system over the decades and returned to the general population.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that millions of people have lost their rights because of a single stupid mistake.

The odds of returning the right to own firearms to people who have "paid their debt to society", is small. It would open the door to returning the right to vote as well. That ain't happening.
 
The courts may and have found "shall not be infringed" to be something other than uninfringeable but take that phrase and apply it to some other item and ask the general public what shall not be infringed means as a literal definition. i think you will find the general interpertation of the public would disagree even if you applied it to something other than guns.

Further it seems there were few if any anti gun laws prior to the 1800's, why? could it be they felt it was unconstitutional? Could it be that guns were though to be so protected that they truly felt it was uninfringeable? Why is it some places you were required to own a gun and ammuniton and what does that tell us about the origional beliefs of this nation concerning Constitutional rights and rights in general?

The arguement above is the "millions" of people arent being held back from hunting and shooting by felony convictions and yet I bet you would be hard press to find anyone in this forum or any other gun forum who doesnt know someone who lost thier right to own a gun over some trival matter that did not involve any sort of violence or threats. We are in a society that hands out felonys like bubblegum.

I have both a younger brother and a younger sister that use to own guns and shoot and both have felonys for things that caused no physical harm nor any sort of violence nor threat of violence to anyone.

Inalienable rights means rights that do not go away and I would argue that if you are not in prison or jail or awaiting trial or under arrest then you have these rights under our Constitution and Bill of Rights and it would seem if you werent put to death for a given crime (at the time of the founding of our nation) they when you finished serving your sentence you got your rights back because they were inalienable.
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine owns a gunshop and tells me that a person has to petition to get his record cleared after a specified period of time, but even if he's cleared at the federal level, he may not be allowed at the state or county level to own
 
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that millions of people have lost their rights because of a single stupid mistake.
Click to expand...

Very few people are actual first time offenders. They may be first time porsecutees, but they are not first time offenders, like Slim with his multiple DUIs. They weren't the only times he drove drunk, just the only ones where he got caught.
 
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that millions of people have lost their rights because of a single stupid mistake.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say this, and it say it with the utmost respect, but in almost every criminal case the whine is either I didnt do it, someone else did it, it was a mistake or it wasnt my fault:rolleyes:

Is the rule against felons unfair? probably in some cases. Is it constitutional? Yes. Can the rule be made less stringent? probably. It that a high priority? Probably not in these days of budget problem.

But one cannot say one is deprived of the rights forever due to a "single stupid mistake" (cough)..one can petition your state governor for a pardon (in many states after 10 years).

WildwhyisntthatsufficientAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
Very few people are actual first time offenders. They may be first time prosecutees, but they are not first time offenders
Click to expand...
Ask any probation or parole officer. Folks don't get busted back the first time they violate the terms--they get busted back the first time they get caught.
 
WildwhyisntthatsufficientAlaska
Click to expand...

It is insufficient because having your rights restored is readily available to Charles Colson but not so much to John Doe.
It would be interesting to see the demographic breakdown of former felons that have had their rights fully restored.
 
It is insufficient because having your rights restored is readily available to Charles Colson but not so much to John Doe.
Click to expand...


Really? Are you saying there is a bar to the average felon petitioning for a pardon?

WildtellmehowAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
Very few people are actual first time offenders. They may be first time prosecutees, but they are not first time offenders
Click to expand...

Ask any probation or parole officer. Folks don't get busted back the first time they violate the terms--they get busted back the first time they get caught.
Click to expand...

And so the single mistake is the single mistake of getting caught.
 
Really? Are you saying there is a bar to the average felon petitioning for a pardon?
Click to expand...

Yes. You word it rather oddly, "petitioning", that is only the first part. Actually "getting" rights restored is the sometimes end result.

In my own state interest on unpaid court costs and fines accrues at 12%.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Ex-felons-face-roadblocks-in-regaining-voting-1177525.php
So, many ex-felons face a financial burden that they can't overcome. Lack of wealth shouldn't be a bar to the rights of citizenship.
 
Just how much are your court fees to petition the court?

I see the article cited is for felons who have done time but NOT paid their debt to society.

But many are split on whether states should make it easier for ex-felons to get their rights back. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is suing for ex-felons to get their rights back if they have served their prison terms but owe money. But a bill addressing that issue never even made it to the House floor for debate this year.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...in-regaining-voting-1177525.php#ixzz1RBKeXyqN

So now folks are trying to get rights restored for those who haven't even paid their debt to society? Maybe next we can get their rights restored while still in prison too? :rolleyes:

So, many ex-felons face a financial burden that they can't overcome. Lack of wealth shouldn't be a bar to the rights of citizenship.
Click to expand...
Court fees usually are not substantial, so a lack of wealth won't prevent felons from petitioning the court...once they have paid their debt to society.
 
is the money owed for restitution or to a victim?

If a guy has served his time and has truly turned his life around I could support him getting his rights back including 2A rights. If the person owes money as restitution or to a victim or to the state then I would agree with him getting his rights back as long as he makes payments that are reasonable based on his income. If he refuses to make payments without some kind of legal relief then his rights should be suspended if he has the means to make payments. Then after a period they could be terminated for refusal to pay if you have the means.

If you havent paid what you owe then you haven't completed your punishmnet.
 
I do not think however that just any crime qualifies to do this and I truly belive a lot of felonys are more about being some kind of gun control than anything having to do with the crime itself.
Click to expand...

Felonies are about gun control? You think Bernie Madoff was about gun control? That is very upside down.

Your brother did a crime. The penalties for the crime were established prior to the crime; however, as we see over and over, criminals do not think about what happens when they get caught as they typically believe they won't get caught.

Maybe you should be arguing that his particular crime shouldn't be a felony, not that his felony wasn't "felonious enough" to warrant him losing his rights


So now folks are trying to get rights restored for those who haven't even paid their debt to society? Maybe next we can get their rights restored while still in prison too
Click to expand...

Why Not? They are getting rights "restored" to illegal immigrants who never had them in the first place
 
Free Will

Is a poor decision made in your youth nullified by time? No. How many remember the great debate in the 60s and 70s regarding the change in the age of majority from 21 to 18? The pro-18 argument was "they can be drafted but can't vote". Maybe, the argument should have been "when they hit 21 they can serve". It's still about freedom...of choice. An old acquaintance of mine said "beyond childbirth, defending your life and CPR you always have time to think about it and get counsel". Perhaps, the OPs stated case didn't know this, that's a parenting issue. I learned this lesson from my Dad. If you aren't so sure you're willing to gamble your life on it maybe you shouldn't do it. If you do it's your right and responsibility/accountability.
 
Why Not? They are getting rights "restored" to illegal immigrants who never had them in the first place
Click to expand...

So stupid something stupid or wrong in one place means we should do something stupid or wrong elsewhere? That seems to be what you are implying. Sorry, but that does not sound like a good way to justify ones actions.

Of course, there is the practical downside that giving guns to prisoners just isn't very bright at all, is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top