The historical application of the 2nd amendment to felons

M

Mort

New member
Bear with me, I'm ignorant. I need information.

Nowadays, if you're convicted of a felony, you don't get to have guns. Has this always been the case? If, 200 or even 100 years ago, a man was convicted of a felony, did the authorities really care if he still had his rifle?

It seems that ex-cons get all of the other rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why not the 2nd Amendment?

I realize this is a wild thought. Who has historical information to share?
 
Actually, barring felons from owning firearms is a "new" idea. At one point, ya done the crime and ya done the time, ya went back to being armed. Of course a lot of the time, if the crime was bad enough, ya did not have the chance to do the time. Tree & rope & criminal = tree & rope & former criminal.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
 
Hey it used to be that a judge would give the person a choice of either jail or the military, which included a high tech Springfield trap door, or Winchestor 1873, if they needed more targets for the injuns to shoot at ;)
 
Federal law barring felons from possessing firearms largely came into effect with the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before this time, some states may have had this law too.

I have long held the position that mere conviction of a felony should not relieve one of his or her civil rights, including the right to bear arms. However, in certain cases, as in the matter of someone who is particularly anti-social and violent, I would agree that abrogating second amendment rights is fitting in addition to prison time.

Such terms could be a part of reformed sentencing laws that would consider crimes within their context rather than as one blanket rule for all cases.
 
Trevor-
IMHO, either you reinstate a person's full civil rights or you keep him/her in prison. Either he's paid his debt or he hasn't. When we begin to play the game of abrogating individual claims to the Bill of Rights, we open the door to the types of tactics used by HCI.
Rich
 
Interesting thread. I too have wondered about this. For example, these days we have no shortage of possible felonies, and many of them are not violence-related. So, if someone is convicted of bank fraud (perhaps because the government changed the tax laws, destroyed the value of real estate, etc., etc. - but, that's another subject), does that mean they cannot be trusted with a gun, and cannot use a gun to defend themselves and their families?

It does under today's laws, but I don't agree. And, Rich makes a good point, although our justice system is so lousy now ... I understand the average murderer serves less time than someone busted for possession of drugs.
 
It seems there does exist a means whereby someone convicted of a felony can petition the gov't to have their 2nd amendment rights restored. I don't know what the process involves, but it does exist.
This raises an interesting point. Personally, I believe there should be no restrictions on any right. I don't like the idea of persons who have been convicted of VIOLENT felony crimes being in possession, but I can't figure a way to keep guns out of their hands without posing an infringement on the rights of everyone else who attempts to purchase a gun. Even if a -true- "instant check" system could be established, it still assumes that everyone who is purchasing a firearm MAY be a convicted felon. This is one of my biggest gripes about all gun control laws-they start with the assumption that YOU can't be trusted. I strongly resent any law which boils down to "prove you're innocent." Burden of prooof should always be upon the shoulders of the gov't, period.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
 
Errr, doesn't the no gun for crims law hinge on the honesty of said crim not to buy a gun ?


I also believe in the tooth fairy too & deep down that <all[/b] politicians are honest ! ;)

------------------
"The Gun from Down Under !"



[This message has been edited by HS (edited April 15, 1999).]
 
45King-

A convicted felon can file a petition with the ATF to have his firearms disabilities relieved, but in the 1980s, Congress removed all funding for processing such requests. I believe the US Supreme Court has ruled with the ATF in all of the cases they've heard.

So, the GCA of 1968 says you have the right to file the petition, but ATF is faultless when they refuse to process it, due to a subsequent act of Congress. Two laws that cancel each other out, amounting to nothing more than a bunch of useless paperwork. Plenty of funding for that!

-boing
 
With increasing Federalization, there are ever increasing "felonies" being invented. In the last 30 yrs, the # of "crimes and infractions" given felony status has increased over 400%.

I recall a few years ago that a bill to exempt non-violent felonies from prohibition was attempted, but failed to pass....anyone have info on that?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
1 million non violent offenders imprisoned in the US last year.

At about $60,000 per offender per year. $60 billion dollars.

Murderers and rapists paroled and walking the streets. I know of several here in Georgia who obtained parole for the authorities needed the space.

I also know of several people imprisoned for violent crimes that I think should not have been illegal. I think our laws on self defense should be broadened and our laws on what constitutes assault narrowed. After that occurs when someone commits a violent crime-throw away the key. Non-violent crimes? Flog them. It's much cheaper and does not associate them for years with other criminals.
 
Spartacus, I do hope that your flogging suggestion is in the spirit of Jonathan Swift.

Everyone, thank you for being the enlightened folks I know you to be. These are the sort of questions that I had about this issue, and y'all answered them without me asking!

I guess I am a little confused. We all know that programs like "Project Exile" work, but are they constitutional? What is constitutional? Sometimes, when I'm in a bad mood, I get the feeling that perhaps the Founders didn't have a crystal ball...but then I read more of their writings and change my mind. I think the problem is, as usual, public fear of an object used by criminals instead of criminals themselves. This is a difficult issue.
 
In line with Spartacus.....

This is a current real time deal: Right now there is a guy (under 25 yrs old) who was just convicted of murder at the Vandenburg Fed. Credit Union robbery about 18 months ago...he gunned down a woman in the parking lot (in front of her kids) just after robbing the place. He was on parole/probation for 3 homicides in Los Angeles at the time. His crew robbed the VFCU and skipped. Approx. 2 months later he was arrested in Las Vegas for attempted robbery of a liquor store....he had the loot and coldly tried to shoot the owner....misfire, the owner is a 54+ yr old ex-marine and beat the snot out of the guy. Cops come, extradited to my area for the VFCU job, trial and he gets life. Now Los Angeles wants to re-prosecute the guy for 3 murders in LA!!!!!!!....and they are serious, acting like they can make a dent in crime.


Interestingly enough, the Feds are not interested in this guy......but, have tax problems, get divorced in Texas, etc........ooooooo, you are a bad person.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Let's get back to the question of how can a convicted felon regain his civil rights? Simple. He goes to court, petitions the court for civil rights reinstatement, and the judge, may, or may not grant them My neighbor, who was convicted of aggravated assault, went through this procedure. He can vote, own guns,and just about anything else,EXCEPT, get a CCW permit. Yet his court order says "ALL civil rights are hereby restored. (emphasis mine) The people trying to get relief from the ATF and are unable to do so, have been convicted of Federal crimes. Even when ATF has had the money, they have NEVER (according to my attorney) granted relief. That is probably why Congress took the money away from them.(Now if they would remove their entire budget????) Hope this clears a few things up. Whether all states will grant restoration of rights, I don't know. You don't have to declare your conviction on the yellow paper either, if your rights have been restored. I got that one from the BATF.
Paul B.

COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
I haven't been able to get any information on this one. I have heard that denying felons their 2nd Amendment rights began with the federal Revolver Act (is that the correct name?) that was enacted before the National Firearms Act of 1934. I may be completely off base here.

Mort,

There was nothing of Jonathan Swift in my flogging suggestion. Flogging was a common punishment at the time of adoption of the Constitution. The framers saw nothing cruel and unusual about it. Neither do I. I do see something cruel and unusual about depriving individuals of their liberty as well as denying them the use of a significant portion of their lifespans for nonviolent crimes. Pain is a biological survival mechanism which lets an organism know at a cellular level that its survival is in jeopardy. Pain acts below the level of consciousness and will. The recidivism rate for touching hot stoves is quite low.

Our penal philosophy is not working. Warehousing criminals together is accomplishing nothing beyond sharing criminal knowledge. The only ones I am in favor of warehousing together are the ones that should never be let out. Three strikes? For violent crimes I wouldn't give but one. Attempted car jacking? See you in your next life. Burglary of a residence? Ditto. (Even if the burglar is unarmed this is a violent crime by its nature.) Unprovoked assault? Sayonara.

As far as our prisons go-millions of American soldiers lived in wooden barracks without air conditionining in WWII. No judge would consider this unconstitutional. It would not be unconstitutional for violent offenders. Put one strand of regular wire at knee height around the complex. Put about a mile of thickly sown land mines around this. Tell them to try to escape whenever they please.
 
Rich: Of course, you are right. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see a legal mechanism in place that restores the civil rights of felons (the right to bear arms and the right to vote) once they have provided evidence that they have changed their ways. Such evidence may include successful and ongoing treatment for alcohol and drug use, counseling for other problem behaviors, community service, and some effort to pay restitution to their victims.
 
Don't quote me on this, but i heard that in Canada, after you have served your sentence, regardless of the crime, that if you do not get into any trouble for five years, all rights are restored. I have a friend who now lives in the U.S., but came originally from Canada. He told me this. Maybe somebody here knows something about this.
Paul B.

COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
I'm with Rich. If a felon has 'paid his debt' then he has paid his debt, and gets ALL of his rights. If he hasn't, don't let him out!

Last presidential election convicted felon Irwin Schiff ran for the Libertarian Party nomination. He couldn't have voted, even for himself, yet he could have run and won. BTW, he was convicted of tax evasion. A brave man.

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken
 
Felons being restored their rights hinges on the premise that they pay a debt.
Ever watch the show "LAPD" and listen to how often after the arrest that the annoncer says that the person was "let go due to insufficient evidence" or the "charges were dropped" because the suspect already had a court case for another crime pending? I don't get it...so if you commit crimes fast enough, they only can charge you with one at a time?

My friend was stabbed in a bar scuffle, out front of the bar. The person who stabbed him was known to carry a knife, the knife was definitly theirs, then the stabber came into the bar and told us that our friend was "mortally wounded" (which he was) and that we should go take him to the hospital. We did. The stabber was arrested, weapon found, witnesses interviewed. The person who stabbed him was let go for lack of evidence, even after coming into the bar and admitting guilt! The Police claimed that they could not prove that the person actually stabbed him. This is a notoriously violent person who can now go buy a gun etc, and never payed any "debt".
With this kind of thing going on all the time in our justice system, I don't see how we can talk about debts paid. We need to fix the system before anything else, I am afraid.

I have another friend, for the flipside example, who was stabbed by a mugger, then pulled the knife out of his gut and stabbed the mugger back with his own knife. (For the record, there were two muggers, and the innocent party was with his fiancee, so he was defending both himself and his wife-to-be from the two muggers). My buddy was sent to prison for three years because a jury decided that the moment he was "wearing the knife like a posicle stick" in his gut, that he had posession of the weapon and should have calmly let the muggers go, and called an ambulance. This is a man that can now never own a gun again because of this record. He paid a debt that he did not deserve.

The whole system right now is so f***ed that it really needs to be fixed before anything else can stem from it.

Personally I call for the flogging of all minor violent offenders and the death to all major violent offenders from rape on up, given sufficient evidence. You will see no sympathy from me. Prisons should also be so hellish that they never want to go back, instead of being more like a resort away from home.


MHO,
thaddeus

[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited April 22, 1999).]
 
Reading stories like this makes me wonder if we are at war and just haven't noticed it.

On the plus side, TFL members and local beat cops had restored my confidence in *local* law enforcement officers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top