Felons that lawfully carry

SFCRetired · Mar 8, 2013

I know a man who, when he was much younger, committed several felonies, at least one of which was federal. None of his crimes involved violence. He served his time and completely turned his life around. Yet it is almost completely impossible for him to have his rights restored.

Added to that is the fact that, once convicted of a felony, even after you have served your time, you have to notify the local police and you may not apply for a job without revealing your status as a convicted felon.

Bottom line: For whatever reason, we continue to punish those who have been convicted even after they have "paid their debt to society".

Granted that there are men and women who should never see the outside of a prison again, but I do think we need a better system than we have for those people. Something like Devil's Island, but more secure and under less barbaric conditions.

palerider116 · Mar 9, 2013

We really need to reform our penal code in regards to what constitutes a felony and the punishments attached. I do not see the equity in embezzler and a rapist receiving the same sentence and loss of rights.

Aknazer · Mar 9, 2013

If someone can't be trusted with their rights then they shouldn't be released. That isn't to say that one's sentence can't include some type of probation where you're out of prison but haven't had all of your rights restored in order to make sure that you have become a functioning member of society (which is the proper goal of the "Justice" system. It simply doesn't do this in actuality). But instead society stigmatizes those people which makes it that much harder for them to proper reintegrate into society.

Gil223 · Mar 9, 2013

Superlite27 said:
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?

Considering that "across the board" the recidivism rate averages 80%, I am not in favor of felons convicted of a violent crime having legal access to firearms. I understand the Constitutional legitimacy of the "served his time" argument, but because of the statistically high return to previous (or the acquisition of more destructive forms of) behavior, I wouldn't campaign for the restoration of the RKBA. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Pax...

eye95 · Mar 9, 2013

SFCRetired said:
I know a man who, when he was much younger, committed several felonies, at least one of which was federal. None of his crimes involved violence. He served his time and completely turned his life around. Yet it is almost completely impossible for him to have his rights restored.

Added to that is the fact that, once convicted of a felony, even after you have served your time, you have to notify the local police and you may not apply for a job without revealing your status as a convicted felon.

Bottom line: For whatever reason, we continue to punish those who have been convicted even after they have "paid their debt to society".

Granted that there are men and women who should never see the outside of a prison again, but I do think we need a better system than we have for those people. Something like Devil's Island, but more secure and under less barbaric conditions.

That is the flaw with the statement "paid their debt to society." Prison terms are not paying a debt. For most criminals, their misdeed cannot be undone, and nothing can pay society back for what they have taken from it. The purpose behind imprisoning criminals can be argued, but it does not involve paying back a debt that is miraculously paid in full upon release. One can argue that it is for punishment, for rehabilitation, or simply to remove the thug from the streets. But there is no "debt to society" being paid.

That phrase implies a finality to the consequences that does not necessarily exist. One particular consequence has ended, the one in which the offender is locked away from the law-abiding folk. There are other consequences--of varying terms--that remain in force. In some jurisdictions and for some crimes, that includes other rights beside the freedom of movement, such as the RKBA.

In the case you cite, it clearly sounds as if the criminal has been rehabilitated and never posed a violent threat to anyone. It is silly, and just plain wrong, that he is denied his RKBA. However, the solution is not to automatically restore the RKBA to all felons upon the end of one part of the consequences for their crimes.

We need to consider and change our laws regarding carry by felons, but they serve a purpose and, as I have pointed out above, have all the constitutionality as imprisonment itself does. Tossing them completely sends a valuable baby flying with the undesired dirty water.

A law that respects Liberty, but still retains the removal of the RKBA as another possible consequence for law-breaking, would limit that particular punishment to felons from whom violent recidivism can be expected--such a murderers, rapists, and other "violent felons." It would also have a provision for restoration of the Right that puts all the cost and burden on the individual trying to restore the Right. It would also be reasonable for that punishment to have a time limit, after which it is reasonable to assume that no recurrence so far means that there most likely won't be one.

But the above requires that we stop thinking of the prison term as "paying a debt" or as defining the term of ALL of the rights forfeit after due process as the result of having committed a felony. It isn't and doesn't.

SavageOne · Mar 9, 2013

Those who argue in favor of stripping a citizen of their rights after they have served their term, keep forgetting one thing. It was an act of gun control that started this whole discussion. It has not always been the accepted norm to keep punishing a person for a crime after they have served their sentence, that came along in 1968. The Gun Control Act Of 1968 is when the government began stripping away these particular rights from citizens. Prior to 1968 there were a few local statues that did this, but nothing on the national level(think NYC's and Chicago's strict gun laws compared to those of the rest of the country, today), yet because of a series of national tragedies(most notably Bobby Kennedy's and Dr. Martin Luther King's assassinations) this law was passed to "make people safer". Even in '68 they knew not to let a crisis go to waste. Well, look at this way, when some gun grabber tells you how wrong you are for opposing "common sense" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, you can smile and say "Nope, I support the Gun Control Act of 1968". Of course that does open the door to more restrictions, but hey just close your eyes and keep repeating to yourself how pro 2nd you are, it won't make it any truer but it will help with the sting to your conscience.

To those who argue recidivism, is recidivism a new phenomenon? Has it only existed in the last 60 years? Surely, it didn't exist at the time of the Founders, or they would have written in special provisions to strip the liberties away from someone found guilty of such heinous crimes. Oh wait, it did and they didn't. While we make like to think that we are faced with new and greater dilemmas and problems than those that have come before us , the simple fact is we aren't. They are the same ones present during the forming of this country(hell, throughout all of human history), relabeled with some new shiny variations, but morally and ethically they are the same. The Founders didn't see any need to curtail the liberties of the citizenry because of them and neither do I.

As to "paying a debt" to society, that argument was used long before us and as a concept has helped to shape our legal system. One cannot simply remove it from the argument and act like it is now just a distraction. It is true that nothing can repay the losses to a victim of crime, but that has always been known. Still something had to be offered and it has long been accepted that an offender's time, life and freedom were what would be used. Of course, it was realized these things were a pale repayment, but since no true coin of repayment exists they must suffice. It is a system that has been used long before the founding of our great country and should not be lightly cast aside as a relic of an unenlightened time. If we do cast "paying your debt" to society aside, how long before someone else suggests we do the same with that contemporary idea of "all men are created equal"?

WalkingWolf · Mar 9, 2013

SavageOne said:
Those who argue in favor of stripping a citizen of their rights after they have served their term, keep forgetting one thing. It was an act of gun control that started this whole discussion. It has not always been the accepted norm to keep punishing a person for a crime after they have served their sentence, that came along in 1968. The Gun Control Act Of 1968 is when the government began stripping away these particular rights from citizens. Prior to 1968 there were a few local statues that did this, but nothing on the national level(think NYC's and Chicago's strict gun laws compared to those of the rest of the country, today), yet because of a series of national tragedies(most notably Bobby Kennedy's and Dr. Martin Luther King's assassinations) this law was passed to "make people safer". Even in '68 they knew not to let a crisis go to waste. Well, look at this way, when some gun grabber tells you how wrong you are for opposing "common sense" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, you can smile and say "Nope, I support the Gun Control Act of 1968". Of course that does open the door to more restrictions, but hey just close your eyes and keep repeating to yourself how pro 2nd you are, it won't make it any truer but it will help with the sting to your conscience.

To those who argue recidivism, is recidivism a new phenomenon? Has it only existed in the last 60 years? Surely, it didn't exist at the time of the Founders, or they would have written in special provisions to strip the liberties away from someone found guilty of such heinous crimes. Oh wait, it did and they didn't. While we make like to think that we are faced with new and greater dilemmas and problems than those that have come before us , the simple fact is we aren't. They are the same ones present during the forming of this country(hell, throughout all of human history), relabeled with some new shiny variations, but morally and ethically they are the same. The Founders didn't see any need to curtail the liberties of the citizenry because of them and neither do I.

As to "paying a debt" to society, that argument was used long before us and as a concept has helped to shape our legal system. One cannot simply remove it from the argument and act like it is now just a distraction. It is true that nothing can repay the losses to a victim of crime, but that has always been known. Still something had to be offered and it has long been accepted that an offender's time, life and freedom were what would be used. Of course, it was realized these things were a pale repayment, but since no true coin of repayment exists they must suffice. It is a system that has been used long before the founding of our great country and should not be lightly cast aside as a relic of an unenlightened time. If we do cast "paying your debt" to society aside, how long before someone else suggests we do the same with that contemporary idea of "all men are created equal"?

+1

eye95 · Mar 9, 2013

The right is not really "stripped." It is "forfeit"--after due process of law.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the laws aren't in serious need of adjustment. They are just putting forward that the idea that some crimes warrant a punishment that includes the loss of the RKBA, even to extend after another facet of the punishment is complete, and that such is absolutely constitutional after due process of law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Freedom1Man · Mar 9, 2013

eye95 said:
The right is not really "stripped." It is "forfeit"--after due process of law.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the laws aren't in serious need of adjustment. They are just putting forward that the idea that some crimes warrant a punishment that includes the loss of the RKBA, even to extend after another facet of the punishment is complete, and that such is absolutely constitutional after due process of law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

IF that is the case then it should mean the loss of life.

The RKBA is part of LIVING. You don't think that a gazelle should be stripped of it's horns for goring a predator do you?

ADobbs1989 · Mar 9, 2013

eye95 said:
Are you advocating indefinite terms of imprisonment? That would be the only way to completely stop the release of felons who are still violent.

I'm advocating much more harsh prison sentences for violent criminals, without any of the parole nonsense after a couple of years. And the consequences for being a repeat offender needs to have harsh punishments. I for one don't like to see criminals with 18 pages worth of offenses and many if not most of them are violent crimes. I say if a violent criminal is sentences to 25 years, I better not see him/her again for 25 years. If they get out and commit another violent crime then lock em up for life or put em to death, I don't really care which one. And when I say violent crime I mean a violent felony. In all honesty I wish we could get to a place where more times than not a violent criminal is faced with an armed citizen and doesn't get a second chance.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 9, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
I'm advocating much more harsh prison sentences for violent criminals, without any of the parole nonsense after a couple of years. And the consequences for being a repeat offender needs to have harsh punishments. I for one don't like to see criminals with 18 pages worth of offenses and many if not most of them are violent crimes. I say if a violent criminal is sentences to 25 years, I better not see him/her again for 25 years. If they get out and commit another violent crime then lock em up for life or put em to death, I don't really care which one. And when I say violent crime I mean a violent felony. In all honesty I wish we could get to a place where more times than not a violent criminal is faced with an armed citizen and doesn't get a second chance.

And I also guess you will completely support paying more taxes to incarecerate these people for much longer too right?

WalkingWolf · Mar 9, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
And I also guess you will completely support paying more taxes to incarecerate these people for much longer too right?

And I guess you support paying more taxes for the wasteful spending of BATF, and DEA?

EMNofSeattle · Mar 9, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
And I guess you support paying more taxes for the wasteful spending of BATF, and DEA?

The Federal Bureau of Prisons alone costs over twice as much as the DEA and the ATF combined, if you took the total budget for incacerations at all levels of government and totalled the DEA, BATF and all their state analogs I don't think the expediture of enforcement is anywhere remotely near what imprisoning people costs.

SavageOne · Mar 9, 2013

eye95 said:
The right is not really "stripped." It is "forfeit"--after due process of law.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the laws aren't in serious need of adjustment. They are just putting forward that the idea that some crimes warrant a punishment that includes the loss of the RKBA, even to extend after another facet of the punishment is complete, and that such is absolutely constitutional after due process of law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Forfeit is the word used by the taker, stripped would be the word used by the person taken from. As to due process, if due process could permanently strip someone of their rights all along, why didn't it prior to 1968? There is a longer history, in this country, of returning rights to those who have served their sentence, than denying them. Why is only in modern times we should add the additional punishment of curtailing a persons rights, for life, after they have served their time?

While you may view it as constitutional, there are many others who view it as cruel and unusual punishment.

WalkingWolf · Mar 9, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
The Federal Bureau of Prisons alone costs over twice as much as the DEA and the ATF combined, if you took the total budget for incacerations at all levels of government and totalled the DEA, BATF and all their state analogs I don't think the expediture of enforcement is anywhere remotely near what imprisoning people costs.

Release non violent offenders, move the money from DEA, BATF to prisons. Funny the states with tough sentencing are not having the problems that you are envisioning. IMO a felon knowing they are going to serve little to no time for their crimes entices them to continue to commit them. I believe when they have to serve ALL their time there will be a attitude adjustment. And remember you are using federal DEA and ATF, and excluding costs for local, AND then using the local against federal. Sneaky to say the least. Besides the fact that creating more laws to put them back in prison kinda makes your argument ironic.

The current method certainly does NOT work.

BTW could you give us the citation for your information.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 9, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Release non violent offenders, move the money from DEA, BATF to prisons. Funny the states with tough sentencing are not having the problems that you are envisioning. IMO a felon knowing they are going to serve little to no time for their crimes entices them to continue to commit them. I believe when they have to serve ALL their time there will be a attitude adjustment. And remember you are using federal DEA and ATF, and excluding costs for local, AND then using the local against federal. Sneaky to say the least. Besides the fact that creating more laws to put them back in prison kinda makes your argument ironic.

The current method certainly does NOT work.

BTW could you give us the citation for your information.

Nothing sneaky there, I was making a point at the federal level, then making a guess to the state level. I don't have the time to look up and tally 50 different systems exactly.... (about 58 or so if we count each territory as well)

DEA Budget summary
ATF Budget Summary
Federal Bureau of Prisons Budget Summary

ah but the Recidivism rate in most states is near 40% same for the federal, nationally the average is 52%.... meaning large numbers of offenders won't be back. saving money over simply incacerating them forever. in addition the vast majority of prisoners are in for "serious crimes"

ADobbs1989 · Mar 9, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
And I also guess you will completely support paying more taxes to incarecerate these people for much longer too right?

Well first off I would end the ignorant war on drugs and release all inmates who are serving a sentence due to possession. That should free up ample amounts of money to fund the incarceration of violent felons.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 9, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
Well first off I would end the ignorant war on drugs and release all inmates who are serving a sentence due to possession. That should free up ample amounts of money to fund the incarceration of violent felons.

Find out how many people are in jail for simple possession and then how much money it would really save....

*edit, how many are in prison because prison and jail are different things.

WalkingWolf · Mar 9, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
Nothing sneaky there, I was making a point at the federal level, then making a guess to the state level. I don't have the time to look up and tally 50 different systems exactly.... (about 58 or so if we count each territory as well)

DEA Budget summary
ATF Budget Summary
Federal Bureau of Prisons Budget Summary

ah but the Recidivism rate in most states is near 40% same for the federal, nationally the average is 52%.... meaning large numbers of offenders won't be back. saving money over simply incacerating them forever. in addition the vast majority of prisoners are in for "serious crimes"

Please explain how having laws that jail a person for a right AFTER they have been released early, AND then putting them back in jail for possessing a firearm saves money? Plus the added expense of trying them for another charge. Sounds real stupid to me. Just how does running them through revolving doors cost less?

BTW if you want to make your point, make it honestly. If you include local in the federal then you include in all the data, otherwise it is bordering on not telling the truth. And the ones that are not coming back is because they either don't get caught the second time, plead out to more charges to their jacket, OR it could be possible they learned their lesson and deserve to be treated like a honest person. Because if you treat someone like a criminal, they sooner or later are going to act like one.

ADobbs1989 · Mar 9, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
Find out how many people are in jail for simple possession and then how much money it would really save....

*edit, how many are in prison because prison and jail are different things.

(Drug Offenders in US Prisons)
On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other"). - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.yu32GrRY.dpuf

Don't know how many of them are for possession, but really if you end the war on drugs many would be released. I'm sure it would save enough to keep violent offenders behind bars..and if it doesn't then give them the death penalty for repeat offenders, wouldn't bother me any.

Felons that lawfully carry

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member