Would you find it alarming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think some felons should be able to buy guns and I think NO violent offender should ever be allowed to buy a gun period.

Ok, so if you go to a party and someone insults your girl, spills some beer on you and then you.... punch them in the face and you..... then you get convicted of misdemeanor assault you should never be allowed to own a gun again?

I can't say I agree with you on that point but if that is your opinion....
 
If not alarmed do you support the right to bear arms unconditionally? Simple yes answer would be appropriate for this opinion and no explanation needed.

Sorry, a simple answer "yes" is not possible. I believe that once a person is released from prison, all rights, including the right to own firearms, should automatically be restored. I believe this unconditionally as I find any type of caste system, where citizens have partial rights, abhorrent.

However, I also believe that murders, people who commit grossly violent crimes with weapons, and serial rapists should be swiftly and publicly executed. Only idiots would turn a violent criminal loose into society and tell him: "Ok, Chuck - you're free, but no guns..." Only bigger idiots feed, house, clothe and care for murderous animals.
 
I work in a correctional facility and I just wanted to say that 99% of the people incarcerated their have no right to ever posses a firearm ever again in their life. These people are bad people, murders, pedophiles, rapists, robbers and run of the mill street thugs. Most of these people could give a crap about you or me, or anyone else but them selves. Just because they go to prison for robbing someone doesn't mean that, that is their only crime they have ever committed. Most of these people will also get out of prison, and go back to the same neighborhood, and get right back to the same thing that got them incarcerated. The fact the some people here think that some of these people should have their rights reinstated is crazy. These people are convicted felons, if you want their rights restored and these people be given guns, then by all means move in next doo to them, I won't. They don't need guns to defend their self, that is a bad argument, people defend themselves without guns all the time. We do it in correctional facilities all the time. Having a gun is a right, felons gave up that right.
 
So far no one has given any ideas to how we can keep guns out of the hands of people who we think shouldn't have them.

I'm certain we could come up with a few good ideas if we try. What do you guys think?
If the goal is to reduce violent crime, whether by first offenders or former inmates, it would be much more effective to infringe other of their rights. Eliminate their 4A right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, their 5A right against self incrimination; their 6A right to a speedy trial, their 7A right to a jury trial, their 8A right against excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment . . . But that is not acceptable (nor should it be). Denying the right to legally keep and bear arms appears to be acceptable to most here, but really isn't very effective.
 
Armorer-at-Law said:
If the goal is to reduce violent crime, whether by first offenders or former inmates, it would be much more effective to infringe other of their rights. Eliminate their 4A right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, their 5A right against self incrimination; their 6A right to a speedy trial, their 7A right to a jury trial, their 8A right against excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment . . . But that is not acceptable (nor should it be). Denying the right to legally keep and bear arms appears to be acceptable to most here, but really isn't very effective.

Actually, we do almost all those things and only one of them (denying a speedy trial) is "unintentional".

During their entire trial and prison sentence, a sentence that "violates" all that persons "rights" were they not convicted of a crime, they are denied their freedom in almost every respect. No privacy, no search restrictions, no freedom to travel... nothing.

Why? Because the laws that have been passed allow all those freedoms to be abridged and they have to, don't they? If we couldn't ever violate anyone's "rights", we couldn't punish criminals, could we?

Denying their access to firearms (and voting) is simply a penalty that extends beyond jail time. It's part of the debt that must be payed. When they're released, society has deemed that their other rights are restored. Society has deemed that voting and arms are rights that are NOT restored.

The real trouble is not that "felons" are denied these rights forever, it is the ever growing list of what constitutes a "felony", which has even now extended to serious misdemeanors.
 
As was said earlier here;
Society has decided that the price of being a felon is prison time AND lifetime loss of firearms. That's the price. It's not prison. It's not no firearms. It's prison AND no firearms.

We, society, could CHANGE the debt but the debt is currently both, not one.

It's more then just loss of their 2A rights, they can't vote either. In essence a person who commits a felony offense has removed themselves from our society. I am not so quick to forgive and forget. Coddling criminals is much of why it's all so messed up to begin with.

I strongly believe in the death penalty. I strongly feel we give criminals too much in the way of putting off their demise. Our justice system is no longer swift nor sure. I do not favor rehabilitation. If prison were really prison again, harsh and definitely not comfortable, fewer would be so cavalier in risking it.

And before I would ever be sold on the idea of changing it, we need to get back to doing it right to begin with. The current system is broken in how it is executed. Fix it first, then you can look at reform.

The simple fact that we have so many prisons and felons is proof enough to me that we have been doing it wrong. Fix it first, then you can look at how you treat felons after release.
 
Actually, we do almost all those things and only one of them (denying a speedy trial) is "unintentional".

During their entire trial and prison sentence, a sentence that "violates" all that persons "rights" were they not convicted of a crime, they are denied their freedom in almost every respect. No privacy, no search restrictions, no freedom to travel... nothing.
I'm taking about infringing those rights of people not in prison -- those who have not (yet) committed a crime and those who have been released. All of the recently proposed restrictions on the 2A would not affect those in prison, only the rest of us.
 
Those who have not been convicted is a different question.

My point is that a sentence that includes a lifetime prohibition on firearms even after release from prison is no more unconstitutional than is the prison sentence.

I don't understand why we think getting out of jail is some sort of end-point. It's simply the end of one portion of the debt that must be payed. Society has deemed that the debt includes a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms. Getting out of jail is just that, getting out of jail. Imagine if it was deemed that someone convicted of a felony had to pay a $50,000 fine. Should they be freed from that fine when they're released from jail? They're out of jail, their "debt is paid"? No. The fine is separate and distinct and unrelated to jail. So is the lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms.
 
It's more then just loss of their 2A rights, they can't vote either.

This is a popular myth.

Convicted felons vote in at least 38 states. Maine and Vermont allow incarcerated felons to vote by absentee ballot.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

I don't understand why we think getting out of jail is some sort of end-point. It's simply the end of one portion of the debt that must be payed.

Bingo!!

We law abiding US citizens are having a very hard time maintaining our Second Amendment rights. We would greatly complicate matters by demanding felons be allowed to own guns: That one is a sure loser.

Gun ownership by felons will not change anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on the crime the law in the UK.

Section 21 of the 1968 Act sets out restrictions on the possession of firearms by certain categories of persons convicted of crimes. In short, persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more are never allowed to possess firearms and persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than three years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release. Having served a custodial sentence, upon release, a person is informed of the provisions of section 21 of the Act.
 
how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns

SERIOUSLY? You can't figure that out? It is real simple - KEEP THEM IN PRISON - if they are violent offenders they should NEVER be allowed out.
 
SERIOUSLY? You can't figure that out? It is real simple - KEEP THEM IN PRISON - if they are violent offenders they should NEVER be allowed out.
True but they are not kept in prison and they do get out.
 
Let's put up a case I'm familiar with as it happened to my next door neighbor.
His neighbor, an elderly womon leaves Tucson and goes somewhere back east every summer to escape the heat. She leaves my neighbor in charge of her house and car and he has the keys to both. The car BTW is a Mercedes Benz. Hearing noises, he arms himself and it's 4 punks trying to get into the car. The punks take off. A short while later, the aunt of one of the punks whose husband in LEO shows up and my neighbor get arrested and ends up eing charged with aggravated assault on minors with a firearm. Big bad juju.
When he goes to trial, that nice little old lady throws him to the wolves because if she doesn't, she can be sued by the parents of the perp. Neighbor is literally forced to plead guilty to the felony. He has a totally clean record, not even traffic tickets. Judge gives him one year of supervied probation and community service for I forget how many hours which he faithfully completes. The judge them adds 6 months unsupervised probation which again he completes. At the end of the probation, the judge by court orders his complter rstoration of right including owning firearms. I'm sure most of you would not approve. We live in the free state of Arizona. Ny neighbor not only applied for but has received his CCW. In AZ law, any felon who has had his rights restored of his crime expunged may apply for a CCW permit. Other than this incident, that man has NEVER been in any kind of trouble in is life, served honorably in the military when others were saying, "Hell no, I won't go." The man is my hunting partner and I know him as if he was my own brother.
Considering the attitudes I see here, I have to wonder??? How many first time offenders would do another crime if society would be a little more forgiving. He tries to find a job but no one will hire him. What's left?

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03112.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

The pertinent part is E.:
---
E. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to an applicant who meets all of the following conditions:

1. Is a resident of this state or a United States citizen.

2. Is twenty-one years of age or older.

3. Is not under indictment for and has not been convicted in any jurisdiction of a felony unless that conviction has been expunged, set aside or vacated or the applicant's rights have been restored and the applicant is currently not a prohibited possessor under state or federal law.

4. Does not suffer from mental illness and has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution.

5. Is not unlawfully present in the United States.

6. Has ever demonstrated competence with a firearm as prescribed by subsection N of this section and provides adequate documentation that the person has satisfactorily completed a training program or demonstrated competence with a firearm in any state or political subdivision in the United States. For the purposes of this paragraph, "adequate documentation" means:

(a) A current or expired permit issued by the department of public safety pursuant to this section.

(b) An original or copy of a certificate, card or document that shows the applicant has ever completed any course or class prescribed by subsection N of this section or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club or organization that conducted or taught the course or class attesting to the applicant's completion of the course or class.

(c) An original or a copy of a United States department of defense form 214 (DD-214) indicating an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions, a certificate of completion of basic training or any other document demonstrating proof of the applicant's current or former service in the United States armed forces as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 5 of this section.

(d) An original or a copy of a concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or a license as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 6 of this section.
---

Paul B.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once a person is released from prison they should have all rights restored. If they are so dangerous we can't trust them with a legally obtained firearm what makes anyone think he won't obtain an illegal one? Either release them and restore their rights or keep them locked up.
 
Paul B. said:
I'm sure most of you would not approve.

This, sir, is the very definition of "The exception that proves the rule."

Except for proving the rule, though, it really doesn't prove anything. If the judge ordered what he ordered and the guys record was expunged and he can get guns, the law worked exactly the way it's supposed to work. Your friend ISN'T a threat to society, he SHOULD have his rights restored and they WERE restored. I don't think anyone is advocating a "Zero Tolerance Policy" or something but 99.99% of violent felony convictions are not like your friend.
 
That sounds more like OJ - "my lawyer gave me bad advice"

either that, or his lawyer was an idiot - pleading to a felony when he is innocent? Sorry, this just doesn't pass the smell test
 
I know two convicted fellons that own firearms. They have also purchased legal guns from FFL dealers as well.

They paid an attorney, and went through the proper chanels to have thier 2nd Amendment Rights restored. Both were non violent, non drug related (non DUI as well) convictions. Neither ever served more than 48 hours in jail.

Note the legal fees were not cheap either. Both also waited 5 years after thier probation was completed before starting the process as advised by the attorney.
 
Once a person is released from prison they should have all rights restored. If they are so dangerous we can't trust them with a legally obtained firearm what makes anyone think he won't obtain an illegal one? Either release them and restore their rights or keep them locked up.

Can't keep people locked up forever for smaller felonies. Though I feel many places they get off easy.

Now my Question to your response would be, how would an Ex-Con who just used his new handgun that he purchased legally to kill someone illegally affect your rights to legal ownership?

Guns should be in the hands of those who think right and act right and when they aren't they threaten the rights to all law abiding owners and adding more trouble to our freedoms is not my view of a good idea.

We don't need new laws or changes for the most part, just better enforcement from the judicial level IMO.
 
I think it should depend on the crime. I think a person convicted of a nonviolent crime, misdemeanor or felony, should be allowed to buy a gun if all else is legit. Rape, murder, armed robbery, child molestation should be prohibited. Assault would depend on the particular case. Even a convicted felon can straighten up and become a good citizen if they try. Often too much is held against them such as housing requirements and job requirements somewhat encouraging them back to the criminal lifestyle. I don't mean to sound too liberal, but let's not keep potential productive citizens down by rotating them through the criminal justice system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top