Would you find it alarming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Convicted of a violent felony -- never.

2. Convicted of a non-violent felony -- after completion of the complete sentence including any parole period plus a wait of five years. The five year wait period is necessary to see what the felon does when completely non-supervised and without an ax hanging over his head. As others have mentioned, the loss of the right to possess firearms (or at least some firearms) is part of the price for being convicted of a felony so I give no credence to the argument "he paid his debt to society." Nope, just like someone dishonorably discharged from the military faces a lifetime of consequences.
 
Maybe if we didn't treat ex-cons like 4th-class "citizens" (*way* behind illegal aliens) the recidivism rates wouldn't be so high.

Some people should never get out of prison. But once they are, full rights should be restored automatically. Then take that into account when you decide to let then out early.
 
What about immediately after being released? What about a child molester or rapist , gets 6 years and says he's reabilated. Done his time and released. Should his rights be restored? Maybe he hasn't had the opportunity to do evil yet or did he get smarter and perhaps be alittle harder to catch next time.
 
What about immediately after being released? What about a child molester or rapist , gets 6 years and says he's reabilated. Done his time and released. Should his rights be restored? Maybe he hasn't had the opportunity to do evil yet or did he get smarter and perhaps be alittle harder to catch next time.
Click to expand...

Yes. The problem isn't restoring his rights, it's letting him out in 6 years. (BTW, what does a gun have to do with being a child molester?)

1967.
 
Trust me, there's alit of things like this that ones have gotton 6 years, aqquited or other b. s. when they should have been executed. And alot of people could let locked up for next to eternity and they will never get rehabilitated. Sooner or later most will be released only to do what they do and will they get caught after the first time doing same things (even something happening to an innocent person is once too many) or will they have to hurt 20-30 people before they get caught again???? Look at the three girls who were locked up for 10 or so years. They got pregnant, raped, lost so many years but before he gotton caught no one could even imagine he could have done such. So sad. But there's always ignorant people who will say after 10 years he's reabilitated so he needs to be released and upon release he now gets all his right s back when he should have been executed in the first place. If there's no hope to help someone, end them. Don't release into society and just say When they screw up send them back because you know there's gonna be a next time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a person has fulfilled the terms of their sentence or parole, then they should have all their rights restored.

If at that time the government feels that one or more of their rights should be withheld, then government should make a separate application to the courts.
 
Rather than wade through all of the responses, I'm just going to state mine. There is supposedly a way for a felon to have his rights restored including gun rights. After 5 years without incident, the now model citizen can apply to have his record expunged. The problem with this? While this system is on the books, it has never received a dime of funding and so there is nowhere to send paperwork or apply. I personally believe that a felon can hold a job and contribute to society for five years, that they deserve a chance (evaluation) to gain their full rights back.
 
Buzzcook said:
If a person has fulfilled the terms of their sentence or parole, then they should have all their rights restored.
Click to expand...

Their sentence ISN'T fulfilled. Lifetime loss of possession of firearms is PART OF the sentence.

I'm not sure why folks think that the end of jail time is the end of anything except jail time.

If they're sentenced to 5 years jail, 500 hours of community service, a $10,000 fine and loss of firearms, when they get out of jail, do the community service and fines just vanish because they've "finished their sentence"? No, they haven't finished. They've still got community service and the fine, and the loss of firearms... which is never "finished". It's PART OF the sentence.
 
Here's a scenario for you. Of course there are other types of people, but this is a family member who went through this so I may be a little biased.

This guy was an avid hunter and shooter who taught his kids how to shoot and was outwardly a stable member of society. A couple of his so called friends talked him into running a few packages for a ton of extra cash. I'm sure he has no excuse here as he knew exactly what he was carrying. He gets caught of course and receives a 5 year jail term which he served. Also a ton of parole which he served. He lost his wife in the process and realizes that he made the biggest mistake of his life. Now, it's been 9 years or so since he got off parole. He works at the same company that was kind enough to give him a job after getting out of prison and holds a fairly high management position now. If you met this guy today, you'd never know that he was ever incarcerated.

I'll agree that many do, but do you think this guy deserves to lose his rights for the rest of his life? This particular fellow could pass any test given to him, and afford whatever lawyer needed...
 
I'll agree that many do, but do you think this guy deserves to lose his rights for the rest of his life? This particular fellow could pass any test given to him, and afford whatever lawyer needed...
Click to expand...
I have a nephew that was railroaded just after turning 18. He was blamed for something that even the prosecutor knew he didn't do.

Since complainant was from a different area, the political pressure for a conviction was too strong and he is now out on a felonious assault that he never committed.

I would never say this if was not %100 sure he didn't do it.I would go into detail but speaking the truth about the wrongs of one set of so called leaders who do things like this only creates a negative image as a whole that doesn't exist.

He now has definitive proof that he is innocent, but he must fight his conviction, even if after the fact to be legally allowed to own a firearm.

That's the law here and I agree with it even for the few cases of innocence or someone who is likely to never commit a crime again because when we start splitting hairs, we create more problems that we solve.

As far as what I feel personally about the person you spoke of, he made a bad choice and though I can Empathize with him there is still the price that must be paid for breaking the law.

The reason for sentencing to begin with, besides payment for a crime, is the deterrence factor. There needs to be a reminder to never do it again.

Remembering the time they spent for a crime is too easily forgotten by many and the deterrent is the daily reminder of what they lost the last time they did something wrong.

I believe that removing deterrents is a bad idea and if you remove it for one person, you have to remove it for more and when someone who had a deterrent removed commits a crime with a gun, it is used against people who obey the law as well.

I won't risk my rights for someone else who lost them for whatever reason. I hope anyone who has their rights now, feels no need to risk them on such cases either.:)
 
Lifetime denial of firearms rights for all classes of felonies, based on what possible sentance could have been imposed (regardless of what the crime specifically was) is a very harsh penalty. And it has been imposed during living memory, although the more time that passes, the more people think that it is right, proper, and the way its "always" been.

But, because it is a stiff, and blanket penalty, there is a mechanism in law to allow for the restoration of firearms rights. Just as there is a mechanism to allow the restoration of voting rights.

I won't risk my rights for someone else who lost them for whatever reason. I hope anyone who has their rights now, feels no need to risk them on such cases either
Click to expand...

I can easily understand this sentiment. I just don't fully agree with it. I don't see it as risking our rights to want the government to play by the rules that they told us were the rules. Losing your rights, "for whatever reason" I think should depend on the reason. Not just an arbitrary govt decree.

There are a great many people caught in the system that are no threat to anyone, and deserve the opportunity to have their rights restored. It doesn't have to be easy, and of course, it likely won't be cheap, but it should be available. Petition, investigation, review, and decision are all provided for in our system. As a case by case matter. And its the right thing to do.

The trouble is that its not being allowed to work. Various state systems do work, and I have met people who have had their rights restored, by the state. But at the Federal level, the system isn't, and hasn't been funded for a long time. Catch-22 comes to mind.
 
Here's a scenario for you. Of course there are other types of people, but this is a family member who went through this so I may be a little biased.

This guy was an avid hunter and shooter who taught his kids how to shoot and was outwardly a stable member of society. A couple of his so called friends talked him into running a few packages for a ton of extra cash. I'm sure he has no excuse here as he knew exactly what he was carrying. He gets caught of course and receives a 5 year jail term which he served. Also a ton of parole which he served. He lost his wife in the process and realizes that he made the biggest mistake of his life. Now, it's been 9 years or so since he got off parole. He works at the same company that was kind enough to give him a job after getting out of prison and holds a fairly high management position now. If you met this guy today, you'd never know that he was ever incarcerated.

I'll agree that many do, but do you think this guy deserves to lose his rights for the rest of his life? This particular fellow could pass any test given to him, and afford whatever lawyer needed...
Click to expand...

He IMO should never be allowed to own a firearm. You implied he was convicted of drug trafficking.
 
When someone makes the decision to knowingly break the law of the land they also make the decision to lose their rights. If you want a guarantee to be able to legally posses firearms, come home for dinner, make a phone call at will, etc., then don't break the law. It's all about choices...
 
44 AMP said:
Lifetime denial of firearms rights for all classes of felonies, based on what possible sentance could have been imposed (regardless of what the crime specifically was) is a very harsh penalty.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. There are a great many crimes that are labeled as felonies or serious misdemeanors that cause the lifetime loss of firearms rights that really shouldn't be.

I believe that crimes of physical harm should be the only such crimes. These would include drug related offenses (dealing/distributing not using).
 
"Their sentence ISN'T fulfilled. Lifetime loss of possession of firearms is PART OF the sentence."

I guess you are a person who believes a felon should be punished until the day they die. :mad: No wonder there are so many repeat offenders. They never get a break. I wonder? How many felons who after they got out lived exlemopery lives after they goy out? Should they continue to be punished?
Paul B.
 
"The trouble is that its not being allowed to work. Various state systems do work, and I have met people who have had their rights restored, by the state. But at the Federal level, the system isn't, and hasn't been funded for a long time. Catch-22 comes to mind."

The catch 22 is the Congress is willing to give BATFE and FBI the money to handle rights restoration. The fact it those agencies REFUSE THE MONEY. The do not want to restore rights at all.
It's miracle they allow the states to do so, if they wish and I figure it's only a matter of time before the feds disallow even that.

It strange that so many people approve of this BS. After all, the 1968 Gun Control act which disallows felons from their rights was Adolph Hitler's 1935 gun control law as modified by Senator Thomas Dodd and Congressman Emanuel Cellars. Do the research. Dodd was involved in the Nuremberg trials and came across a document that he had translated by an interpretor. It was Hitler's gun law and he substituted felon for Jew. It gladdens my heart to see such support for something that monster Hitler did. NOT! :mad:

"What good fortune for government that the people do not think." Adolph Hitler.

Paul B.
 
And so, here we are at 75+ posts in and it appears very few are on the same page. Why? Well, I already provided why.

Look, since the scenario isn't being narrowed down to reasonable specifics, let's all take a deep breath and understand viewpoints are more likely given with a generalized assessment.
 
The catch 22 is the Congress is willing to give BATFE and FBI the money to handle rights restoration.
Click to expand...


Not so.

Since October 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has prohibited BATF from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief submitted by individuals. BATF claims that as long as this ban remains in place, it cannot process such applications.
Click to expand...

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm

For several years the federal government investigated the cases of individual felons and restored the gun rights of some. Some of those convicted felons used their newly restored gun rights to commit new violent crimes, including murder. Not surprisingly, congress ended the program.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/us/supreme-court-9-0-rebuffs-a-gun-seeking-felon.html
 
This is another post when through you're still gonna have those that believe one way and others believe another way. Either way it still won't change how it really is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top