Why Not?

C

Christchild

New member
In response to the Thread "Living with a Felon"...

Why has anyone NOT "Pioneered" a "movement" to give some rights back to convicted felons (of non-violent and non-sexual), and to leave rights intact if/when someone is convicted of a felony, again, non-violent and non-sexual? The "Brady Bunch" "pioneered" when 1 man was shot (and survived), so came the "cool down" waiting period for HG in some states.

Some TFL members mentioned in their post that there are many felons that are felons for insignificant reasons and these felons are good, responsible, respectable people.

Why has this not happened, and what do You think the chances are of something like this being successful? Fire away...
 
Unfortunately keeping former felons from voting helps keep certain types of politicians in office.
In some states it's a remnant of Jim Crow.
Along with the loss of voting rights goes the rights of gun ownership.

It is very difficult to change things that support entrenched power.
 
Considering that there are significant court cases underway at this time intended to answer this very question, I'd say you'll have your answer soon enough.
 
I think it reflects the conservative trend in the country. In Virginia, for instance, there is essentially no parole. And what's more, even though a convicted offender is released, in some ways he is still being punished. I guess that's what conservative is. And did you ever notice how "crime control" bills make more things illegal?
 
When you say sexual - do you mean a violent sexual crime? Some consensual acts have been felonies. The SCOTUS found some laws unconstitutional but if someone was convicted of a felony before that, is that no longer a felony?

I don't know.
 
The same reason 18 year olds can vote, go to war, be parents/legal guardians, and pay taxes but not drink. They are a small demographic with limited impact or sympathy in the mainstream. Purely politics.
 
If you were convicted of any crime wherein the punishment could have exceeded incarceration (jail or prison) for more than a year, you are a felon, according to the Federal Law (18 USC § 922(d)(1)).

Regardless of whether the crime is listed as a felony or a misdemeanor, if the above is true of your conviction, you are a prohibited person.

The above does not have anything to do with the current Domestic Violence laws, which are addressed in a different portion of 18 USC § 922.

So it really doesn't matter if the crime you were convicted of was a misdemeanor or a felony. Under federal law, it matters what you could have been sentenced to.
Glenn said:
The SCOTUS found some laws unconstitutional but if someone was convicted of a felony before that, is that no longer a felony?
Click to expand...

Any crime that you have been convicted of, that has been overturned (ruled unconstitutional), you will need to have your rights reinstated by the court (generally the court where you were convicted). This because at the time of your conviction, it was in fact, a crime. Get an attorney, because the State you reside in may have more rules to follow than the general idea above.

Christchild, I would look at getting the law changed. That is not going to happen any time soon, however. Many reasons for this, but it is always easier to prevent a bill becoming law, than it is to revoke a law or have it declared unconstitutional.

Having said this, at some point in the current process of establishing the scope of the 2A right, this will be considered. But it is a distant consideration, compared to what has to be done first.

Krieger9, I can't tell if you are joking or not. In case you are not, do you really want to make everything someone does, a crime? We've gone down that road far too much already, it appears to me.

It's way past time to take a step back and examine why we have made so many laws that no one can hardly go a day, without violating some criminal statute or another.
 
Al Norris said:
If you were convicted of any crime wherein the punishment could have exceeded incarceration (jail or prison) for more than a year, you are a felon, according to the Federal Law (18 USC § 922(d)(1)).

Regardless of whether the crime is listed as a felony or a misdemeanor, if the above is true of your conviction, you are a prohibited person.
Click to expand...

Al, that's usually true, but not always. There are some interesting exceptions:
18 USC 921(a)(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Click to expand...
 
You're soft on crime!
Click to expand...

I disagree. :D I believe the death penalty should be implemented in all states with Texas leading the way.

They are a small demographic with limited impact or sympathy in the mainstream. Purely politics.
Click to expand...

At's a Roger.

When you say sexual - do you mean a violent sexual crime? Some consensual acts have been felonies.
Click to expand...

That's a tough one. Consenting is consenting, but come on, Bro's. Alot of that is plain sick. Let her grow up, then marry her.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of whether the crime is listed as a felony or a misdemeanor, if the above is true of your conviction, you are a prohibited person.
Click to expand...

But is it possible for a misdemeanor to carry a jail sentence of more than a year?
 
I am conservative by nature and have no sympathy for a convicted felon. They knew or should of known the consequences of their crime. How much did it cost the rest of us to convict that person and not to mention the cost of their incarceration.

My conservative side also feels the same way about a person who defaults on their mortgage or other loans to include credit cards. They should go for a long - long time before being trusted with another loan.

I gather I am from an earlier generation when draft dodging, talking back to a teacher or even any form of disrespect to a person of authority was not tolerated. We also did not use the foul mouth language which has been customary in public and with bleeps and more bleeps on television. It is indicative of an ignorant generation with reduced morals.

Yes, I am aware of how many are in prison and the overcrowed conditions. I also have a sence of awareness as to how many are out there on the streets with felony convictions and most likely early release from prison. I, for one, do not want them armed legally or otherwise armed. They relinquinshed any rights with their crime or crimes against our society. When you allow it for one who may of changed their ways, you have caved in to an entire mass of others with no redemptive qualities. The same goes for the right to vote. My rant for the day.
 
Alan Gura (spelling?) was at a college on you tube Disscussing Heller. He mentioned that many more offences have been elevated to fellony status than were in the past. I tried to research this but sadly lack the legal knowlege to get a handle on this. What I did gleen was felonies used to be defined by violence. Still I am not clear on what constitutes a felony, other than length of sentence.

I was reading the Indiana constitution and saw that it requires the state prison system to rehabilitate. I would assume in theory that this rehabilitation would include restoration of restricted or lost rights. Like a person who is a poor loan risk can in time become reinstated as a low risk. If a felon has no chance of rejoining society as a fully participating member...... well that seems counter productive.
 
Last edited:
He mentioned that many more offences have been elevated to fellony status than were in the past.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but all felonies used to punishable by death. Now it's hard to get serial murders executed.
 
Please name the politician who is going to open the door to the following attack ad?

"John Doe voted to allow convicted felons to have guns!"

Not going to happen.

Unless someone like Gura or a civil rights group mounts a legal battle to overturn the restriction as unconstitutional it will never be overturned.
 
If you don't think a person convicted of a felony should own a gun, what if the felony was owning a gun in a antigun state for the purposes of self-defense? From a good person, except that they wanted to protect themselves.

Oh, dear!!

As far as sex acts being a felony, let's not go there. I was just trying to clarify the OP. Consensual acts between adults are not the state's business just as they have no business prohibiting law abiding individuals from have guns. We don't need the government in our gun safes or in our pants.
 
Slim and none.....

Getting some laws changed so that conviction of certain crimes does not automatically revoke your right to arms, or to vote isn't going to be easy. And although the vote part would be easier, there still won't be any significant public support for the idea, and therefore, little or none from legislators.

And also, there is no need. Current law allows for convicted felons to petition for restoration of rights, after they have completed their sentence (all of it, including restoration fines, parole, probation, etc).

Courts, both at state and federal level can grant restoration of rights. And some do, sometimes. However, at the Fed level, the courts have, for many years refused to restore gun rights, without investigation and approval from (an agency I can't recall the name of) being submitted to the court. And that agency is not, and has not been funded by Congress for some time.

(help me out, guys, which agency is it?)

So, felons are in the catch-22 of having a mechanism in law to allow them to ge their gun rights back, but they can't use it, because the govt won't fund it.
 
grey sky said:
Alan Gura (spelling?) was at a college on you tube Disscussing Heller. He mentioned that many more offences have been elevated to fellony status than were in the past. I tried to research this but sadly lack the legal knowlege to get a handle on this. What I did gleen was felonies used to be defined by violence. Still I am not clear on what constitutes a felony, other than length of sentence.
Click to expand...

Here is an interesting article on Defining Felony in the Early American Republic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top