• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Felons that lawfully carry

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
In another thread in N.C. about the 4th Circuit's ruling on U.S. vs. Black that determined officers wrongfully violated Black's 4th Amendment protections by searching him and finding a firearm without probable cause or RAS, the discussion has digressed into a discussion about Black wrongfully having a firearm because he was a felon. (Irrellevant. The topic is 4th Amendment protections, not felons in possession.)This is not the point of the thread.

Therefore, I decided to open a thread concerning felons in possession of firearms in order to not sidetrack the discussion of 4th Amendment protections in the N.C. 4th Circuit thread.

There seems to be two divergent lines of thought on this.

Some seem to think that once a person decides to use a firearm illegally, they should forfeit their right to posess a firearm in the future.

The other camp seems to believe that, once a person has "paid their debt to society", they should be allowed to posess a firearm for self defense, reason being: If they were still considerd dangerous, why were they released from prison in the first place?

Where do you stand on felons lawfully posessing firearms?

I know here in Missouri, felons are lawfully allowed to posess muzzle loading firearms for the purpose of hunting. Are there any other states that allow felons to posess firearms?
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
I oppose rearming violent felons. Property crimes, white collar crimes, and other offenses where physical harm or death was not threatened or caused, I support their right to bear arms.

Recidivism is an interesting study.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Kudos you to you for proactively keeping two diverse discussions going and on-topic. Thanks.

The Constitution allows for the denial of life, Liberty, or property as a result of due process of law. It is up to the People of any given State to determine whether a life is to be forfeit and what Liberty or property is to be given up as the result of conviction of any given crime. If the People of a State determine that one consequence of a particular class of crimes is the loss of the RKBA, so be it.

However, that decision ought to be made carefully. Taking away someone's RKBA because of an excessive number of speeding tickets rising to the level of a felony would be stupid. Absolutely lawful and constitutional, but stupid.

Removing the RKBA from someone who has demonstrated a propensity to commit violent felonies is reasonable--again, only after due process.

Personally, I would also support a restoration process, the costs and the burden of proof being borne by the applicant. It would be up to him to show that he is a changed man, that he can once again be afforded the same presumption of other People: that there is no reason for the community to fear his exercise of the RKBA.

Most States deny the RKBA to too many "felons" and provide no way for the restoration of the Right. That is the problem, not that some criminals have been denied the RKBA because a court has found them to be a criminal.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I think felons convicted of a crime of cruel and wanton violence should not be allowed to own guns. Like rape, murder, some degrees of a assault, but degree of violence matters, I don't think gun rights should be restricted becuase someone burns down their truck to file a false insurance claim or because two drunks were scrapping it out over a girl at the bar... It should be a kind of felony involving intending to cause violence to someone else.....

Everyone else, once they're out of prison and off of supervision from the DOC should automatically have rights restored IMO
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Then we need to be vigilant when it comes to laws that would remove the RKBA when someone is convicted of a crime. Work to change your State and federal laws either not to restrict the RKBA for convicted criminals, or to more narrowly define the crimes that would result in the loss of the Right.

Again, I have no problem with laws that remove the RKBA for violent felons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I believe violent felons belong in prison/jail. There is nothing in the constitution about a person permanently forfeiting their rights because they are a felon. Any of those rights! Because YOU(general) think otherwise does not change the constitution, it is only for your own comfort level or touchy feel good that you can justify violating rights. Hitler was very good at getting otherwise good people to violate other good people's rights. Don't be surprised when the day comes your feet are in the oven.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
I believe violent felons belong in prison/jail. There is nothing in the constitution about a person permanently forfeiting their rights because they are a felon. Any of those rights! Because YOU(general) think otherwise does not change the constitution, it is only for your own comfort level or touchy feel good that you can justify violating rights. Hitler was very good at getting otherwise good people to violate other good people's rights. Don't be surprised when the day comes your feet are in the oven.

+1
 

liberty404

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
19
Location
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Felonies that should not be

I think that origonally felony applied only to truly terrible crimes, such as murder or armed robbery. In the last several decades the legislatures, federal and state, have made tens of thousands of things into a felony. Tens of thousands of felonies have absolutely nothing to do with force or violence or any serious jeapordy to property or safety. Some legal experts claim that the typical law-abiding person commits about three felonies each business day, without being aware of it.

Depriving all persons convicted of a felony of their right to keep and bear arms is an injustice in many cases, but not all. The underlying problem is overuse and misuse of law by foolish voters and legislators.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA

I did not see the post until you quoted it.

There is indeed something in the Constitution that permits the removal of the RKBA. The Constitution prohibits the taking of life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. With due process of law, criminals in this country are routinely deprived of one, two, or all three of them, in some cases permanently.

This is not a rights issue. It is a political policy issue. If you don't think that violent felons, once released from prison, should be denied firearms, campaign for the laws in your State to be changed. Personally, I am glad that folks who have a demonstrated propensity to committing violence on others are not allowed to legally possess or carry a firearm. Of course, I am not so foolish as to think that they won't anyway.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
I did not see the post until you quoted it.

There is indeed something in the Constitution that permits the removal of the RKBA. The Constitution prohibits the taking of life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. With due process of law, criminals in this country are routinely deprived of one, two, or all three of them, in some cases permanently.

This is not a rights issue. It is a political policy issue. If you don't think that violent felons, once released from prison, should be denied firearms, campaign for the laws in your State to be changed. Personally, I am glad that folks who have a demonstrated propensity to committing violence on others are not allowed to legally possess or carry a firearm. Of course, I am not so foolish as to think that they won't anyway.

There are a lot of felonies that are not violent and the first post says that those who are violent should be locked up.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I believe violent felons belong in prison/jail. There is nothing in the constitution about a person permanently forfeiting their rights because they are a felon. Any of those rights! Because YOU(general) think otherwise does not change the constitution, it is only for your own comfort level or touchy feel good that you can justify violating rights. Hitler was very good at getting otherwise good people to violate other good people's rights. Don't be surprised when the day comes your feet are in the oven.

AZ had a law on the books for a long time that stated once a felon was released from prison they were to be given a shotgun and a (I think it was) mule.

The only time I can see your rights being 'justly' denied in only while in custody. Once you're out a right that is unalienable needs to be recognized otherwise the right, if it can be denied, is not unalienable at all.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
AZ had a law on the books for a long time that stated once a felon was released from prison they were to be given a shotgun and a (I think it was) mule.

The only time I can see your rights being 'justly' denied in only while in custody. Once you're out a right that is unalienable needs to be recognized otherwise the right, if it can be denied, is not unalienable at all.

Agree!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
There are a lot of felonies that are not violent and the first post says that those who are violent should be locked up.

Again, lobby for changes in the law if you feel that the group of felons from which the RKBA is removed it too broad. It is a political policy issue.

Violent felons are almost all eventually released. They don't stop being felons. And almost none of them stop being violent. I am absolutely down with them not being allowed to be armed until and unless they can establish that they are no longer a threat.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Again, lobby for changes in the law if you feel that the group of felons from which the RKBA is removed it too broad. It is a political policy issue.

Violent felons are almost all eventually released. They don't stop being felons. And almost none of them stop being violent. I am absolutely down with them not being allowed to be armed until and unless they can establish that they are no longer a threat.

Then go for the death penalty.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Again, lobby for changes in the law if you feel that the group of felons from which the RKBA is removed it too broad. It is a political policy issue.

Violent felons are almost all eventually released. They don't stop being felons. And almost none of them stop being violent. I am absolutely down with them not being allowed to be armed until and unless they can establish that they are no longer a threat.

If I were to be president I would be down with making felons out of those that diss the constitution. But I would just lock them up forever, IMO they are more dangerous than the most dangerous felon.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I say let them keep their RKBA, but we need to reform the prison system to stop letting violent criminals back out on the streets. All felonies should not be subject to loss of a right, and the ones that should, they shouldn't be walking free in the first place.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I say let them keep their RKBA, but we need to reform the prison system to stop letting violent criminals back out on the streets. All felonies should not be subject to loss of a right, and the ones that should, they shouldn't be walking free in the first place.

Are you advocating indefinite terms of imprisonment? That would be the only way to completely stop the release of felons who are still violent.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
There are a lot of felonies that are not violent and the first post says that those who are violent should be locked up.

I didn't see this post until someone quoted someone who quoted you.

An argument can be made that depriving someone the right to defend themselves is cruel and unusual punishment(Eighth Amendment). That is why it is NOT constitutional to take away someone's right to self defense because of successive speeding tickets.

Controlling someone outside of state custody is the vehicle used to control everyone outside of state custody.
 
Top