reformed felons have right to self defense?

Therein lies the problem. In my state of Washington, people who have committed manslaughter or murder serve relatively short prison sentences. Do you actually want an ex-felon who has murdered another person living next to you, and owning guns?

I DON'T !!!!!
Click to expand...

He has the right to live next to you either way...and as for owning guns, aren't we the folks who always argue that gun laws will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals anyway?

If the problem is that he's out of prison in the first place, that' what needs to be fixed. But if he's completed his sentence (which again, IMO should include parole time) and has theoretically been deemed safe to be out on the streets then treat him like anybody else...at least legally.
 
I think that "felony" is the wrong place to draw the line.

Violent crimes, sure, take away his rights.

Non-violent crimes? Like "trademark counterfeiting in the first degree" ? No, that's just weird.
 
Do you actually want an ex-felon who has murdered another person living next to you, and owning guns?

I DON'T !!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't either. As I said if his crime is so bad then he shouldn't be out of jail anyway.

OK......I concede. He can live next door to you.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if he is such a horrible person, the gun shouldn't even be an issue, it should be whether he is safe to be in society PERIOD. He will come beat you with a crowbar or a bat or even illegally get a gun to come kill you (since he isn't willing to abide by the law in murdering you, why would you think he would obey the law and not have a gun?)
 
Therein lies the problem. In my state of Washington, people who have committed manslaughter or murder serve relatively short prison sentences. Do you actually want an ex-felon who has murdered another person living next to you, and owning guns?

Not sure of this but I think most murders are comminted during a robbery or by jealous lovers, sprouses, I don't hear to much about neighbors murdering each other. Anyway i'll be damned if i'm going to go thru life worring about the guy next door, if he's an ex felon that murdered someone, i'll try not to get him angry. although there is 600 ft of woods between us. If he's a drug dealer or child molester and i'm told about him, i'll have a talk with him before he's unpacked so we know how each of us feel toward the other.
 
I have a big problem with laws like this. The list of things that can consititute a felony is loooooong. Accidentally brining a 20 round mag into California, New Jersey, Maryland? Felony. Fill out a national park form and give the wrong address? Felony. Do your own taxes and forgets to report your gambling earning of 400 dollars? Felony.

have a bitch of a wife who cheats on you? she files for divorce and her slimeball lawyer tells her to take out a restraining order on you, your rights to own guns has just been taken away for LIFE.

These laws can be classified under the "unintended consequences" section of the penal code.
 
Once you are a felon, you are a felon for life.

A man should have thought before he became involved in drugs and crime.

You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.

Once you break the law, its not up to me to decide if your privilege should be restored or not.

But drug traffic is a serious crime and should not be taken lightly.

Once you restore that right to one person - you have to give it to all the druggies that just have not been caught again but are still violating the law.
 
I think depending on what you did and what you did since then to make sure it dosent happen again you should be able to have your rights restored.
I work with a guy that got into trouble a long time ago (drugs I think) and hes not supposed to even be around guns.
He really is a great guy now and he does carry a J-frame (illigally :eek: )
He lives in a real crappy neigborhood and says he'd rather be caught with it than without it.
 
The Gamemaster

You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.

You just Zumbo'd yourself right there. Gun/weapon ownership IS a right. The right to protect yourself IS a right.

A man should have thought before he became involved in drugs and crime.

Just because one is involved in drugs does not mean they are involved in crime. I did drugs when I was younger, the only "crime" I commited was having some plant material and chemicals that the government doesn't like. I quit on my own and went on to better things. Am I a "bad" person?

But drug traffic is a serious crime and should not be taken lightly.

Black market drug trafficing is not a very "serious" or violent crime by itself. However, the violence associated with black market drug trafficing is a very serious crime and serious issue. Legal drug trafficing is no more violent than any other trucking job. (When was the last time you saw Bayer and Pfizer shooting it out on the street when they had a dispute)

I encourage you to become more educated on this subject. We have many laws in this country that do far more harm than good and they should be changed.
 
The Gamesmaster says:

You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.
Click to expand...


The Constitution and Founding Fathers of our culture, history and tradition say:
....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
 
Black market drug trafficing is not a very "serious" or violent crime by itself. However, the violence associated with black market drug trafficing is a very serious crime and serious issue.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that often "Intent to Distribute" as far as the law is concerned has more to do with the amount you have or what paraphernalia you possess than actual intent to distribute. Or that handing a joint (or even a whole dime bag) to a friend is not considered "distribution" by what many people would consider a reasonable standard, but can be considered as such by the law.

Oh, and the fact that prohibition didn't work with alcohol and thus logically would fare little better with other substances...but that's the subject for another thread. If you're interested feel free to start it up, I'm likely to participate.

And that's just drugs. That doesn't get into the variety of other non-violent offenses that can be considered felonies.

You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.
Click to expand...

As others have said, you fail hard. Obviously the government can suspend those rights for individuals who are incarcerated. And it could be argued that that suspension should continue for those currently serving their sentence in other ways (parole, probation). But once somebody's sentence is complete, theoretically those rights should apply once more. Including the right to keep and bear arms.

Once you restore that right to one person - you have to give it to all the druggies that just have not been caught again but are still violating the law.
Click to expand...

If they've not been caught again then in the eyes of the law they are still innocent until proven guilty, no?
 
Once you are a felon, you are a felon for life.

A man should have thought before he became involved in drugs and crime.

You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.

Once you break the law, its not up to me to decide if your privilege should be restored or not.

But drug traffic is a serious crime and should not be taken lightly.

Once you restore that right to one person - you have to give it to all the druggies that just have not been caught again but are still violating the law.
Click to expand...

So... if your kid swiped some valium from your medicine cabinet and gets popped for a drug felony for controlled substance, your okay with him never being able to vote, own a gun or get a decent job for life?

Jim
 
If you wouldn't trust

someone to live near you and own a firearm, or to vote,

Why in the hell did you let them out of prison!!??!!

Either we assume that lessons can be learned, and that the length of time someone is incarcerated is somehow proportional to the lesson they need to be taught, or we assume that reform is not possible, and we never let them out.

The way this is supposed to work is:

1) The punishment fits the crime

and

2) Once the punishment has been endured, the crime and its guilt have been counteracted.

Once you are released from prison (including parole time, if you want to allow parole) you are no longer a felon, at least in my book. Debt to society paid in full. You should be allowed to vote, and own guns. Your past is the business of no prospective employer. Clean slate. The only time your past is the business of anyone is if you commit another crime.

If someone is incapable of being a productive, non-criminal member of society, with full rights and privileges, they should still be in prison. If you're willing to let them out, give them full status. You don't get to have it both ways.

--Shannon
 
The Gamemaster

"You have to pay for your mistakes and gun ownership is a privilege and not a right."
Click to expand...

Gamemaster shoots himself in the foot again.

In your opinion should the 1st 10 Amendments to The Constitution be re-named "The Bill of Privileges" ??
 
In your opinion should the 1st 10 Amendments to The Constitution be re-named "The Bill of Privileges" ??
Click to expand...

For those that believe the government or even the Constitution per se "gives" you your rights I guess it might as well be.
 
In my opinion, if a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced to say a prison term of 10 years...that should be their punishment. Period.

If their sentence is complete..then to continue to deny them their constitutional rights continues to punish them indefinitely.

But I don't agree with the plea bargain system. If a person is guilty (of a violent crime) then they should serve the maximum sentence. Violent individuals should not be released back into the streets because of a plea bargain, where they c an be a threat to us again. That would do a lot to curb the problem of convicted felons having guns and using them to commit crimes.
 
I'll let the new mayor of Oakland spell it out for ya:

By JASON DEAREN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 27, 2006

"When former U.S. Rep. Ron Dellums takes over as this city's mayor next month, he will inherit a seemingly intractable problem: a skyrocketing murder rate.

As of Wednesday, Oakland police had recorded 148 homicides — a 57 percent increase from the previous year and the most murders the city has seen since 1993.

"We have a 71-percent recidivism rate in California," he added. "Sending parolees in and out of neighborhoods, they spend 80 days there and go back to prison."
Click to expand...

A 71% recidivism rate..........WOW!!
 
wow great feedback.Im surprised that a good amount of the posts do indeed support a felon getting his rights back after his time has been served.I can say this,if I was convicted of a felony like a barfight that got outa hand or a drug charge like too much pot I would still own and carry firearms no matter what the goverment says which would make me a repeat offender I guess.I would be careful not to get caught with a firearm and god forbid I had to use it in self defense of my family then I would happily deal with the punishment later for having a gun.whats the saying?rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6?
On a side note it has been hard for both of them over the years to get good paying jobs untill both of them paid a fee and had there charges dropped and expunged.but they were both told that firearms were still not legal for them to own,though neither one of them checked to see if that was possible to change that.
 
I believe that in Texas that convicted felons, after (I believe) five years can have guns at their house but nowhere else. I consider that to be a fair standard for violent criminals, as that's five years to let them either get sent back to prison or get onto a firmly non-criminal track for life.

Non-violent criminals, however, I don't think deserve to lose any of their rights (unless they are habitually criminal, in which case I think they lose their right to life outside of a state work camp...). I don't even know why they can't vote (what, are you afraid they'll vote Snoop Dawg for president?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top