Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: why would not this idea apply to felons & guns? paid their debt?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    why would not this idea apply to felons & guns? paid their debt?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo

    “People who have been convicted of crimes and have paid their ‘debt to society,’ eventually ought to have a fair shot in the job market -- especially if the conviction was years earlier and had nothing to do with the job they seek,” John Rowe, director of the EEOC’s Chicago-area office, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Discrimination in employment based on race is prohibited. The argument is that most felons who are discriminated against/merely not hired because of their convicted felon status are also members of a protected class because of the "overwhelming" numbers of convicted felons are members of a certain race. Discrimination in employment based on race is a violation of a fundamental right.

    2A rights are not yet fundamental rights and therefore in spite of the fact that the "overwhelming" numbers of convicted felons are members of a certain race, there is not the same need to protect this right as opposed to a fundamental right.

    Please be sure you look at the question you posed You asked why the notion would not apply, not whether the notion should or ought to apply.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I did not see this as a race issue but one of which a person pays his debt to society and should be able to enjoy life thereafter...

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I did not see this as a race issue but one of which a person pays his debt to society and should be able to enjoy life thereafter...
    As far as I know, the felon-possession thing is relatively recent, either NFA or GCA1968. We went for years in this country letting felons be able to defend themselves after they got out.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I did not see this as a race issue but one of which a person pays his debt to society and should be able to enjoy life thereafter...
    It really does not matter what you do or do not see. EEOC says it is a race-based issue. So there!

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    IMO, there are 'felonies' and then there are 'felonies'. A guy who murders three people and gets out after 25years graduating from 'Murder University' (hard time at the state pen) should be allowed to carry? I don't think so.

    Violent felonies vs other types - make the distinction and that's OK, I think.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    IMO, there are 'felonies' and then there are 'felonies'. A guy who murders three people and gets out after 25years graduating from 'Murder University' (hard time at the state pen) should be allowed to carry? I don't think so.

    Violent felonies vs other types - make the distinction and that's OK, I think.
    Somebody that murders three people should NEVER get out.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    If the are still a danger, don't let them out.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    If the are still a danger, don't let them out.
    May not be an option.

    Again, as I have said dozens of times before, our Constitution allows for the taking of life, Liberty, and property after due process. If the due process results in the loss of the RKBA for life, it is perfectly constitutional.

    IMO, we go way overboard in taking away the right. I would rather see a system whereby the loss of the RKBA and the time period for that loss is imposed by the judge rather than by a blanket law. Only violent felons should lose the RKBA. Then, too, there should be a way to use due process to regain the right. However, these are policy issues to be determined by the legislative process. They are not constitutional issues.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    May not be an option.

    Again, as I have said dozens of times before, our Constitution allows for the taking of life, Liberty, and property after due process. If the due process results in the loss of the RKBA for life, it is perfectly constitutional.

    IMO, we go way overboard in taking away the right. I would rather see a system whereby the loss of the RKBA and the time period for that loss is imposed by the judge rather than by a blanket law. Only violent felons should lose the RKBA. Then, too, there should be a way to use due process to regain the right. However, these are policy issues to be determined by the legislative process. They are not constitutional issues.
    Ummm. Not exactly.

    The 5th Amendment provides: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." This is not a blanket authorization to make whatever deprivations are determined by congress. And, it emphatically is not an authorization to deprive of enumerated rights. It is a guarantee of due process. If there is going to be a deprivation under the law, then there must be due process.

    Also, what do you think are the odds that here deprivation of liberty means being imprisoned, rather than loss of a right? The articles--life, liberty, and property--are the jeopardies in criminal matters.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-13-2013 at 10:07 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Besides the fact that the stupid law does not do what it was intended, or claimed.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Sophistry.

    That the Constitution says that life, Liberty, and property may not be taken without due process clearly means that they may be after due process. Otherwise, why not just say that life, Liberty, and property may not be taken period.

    Simple logic.

    I have made my point. There is no use in discussing this further after having disposed of this absolutely silly argument. Moving on.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    About 7 percent of the conditional offers made to non-blacks were rescinded for failing background checks, while about 10 percent of the offers made to blacks were withdrawn.

    “The gross disparity in the rates at which black and non-black conditional employees were discharged on account of defendant’s criminal background check policy is statistically significant,” according to the EEOC complaint.
    THREE PERCENT is a gross disparity?
    Seven percent out of 86% of the population (non-black) measured against 10 percent of a statistically much smaller population (black).

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Sophistry.

    That the Constitution says that life, Liberty, and property may not be taken without due process clearly means that they may be after due process. Otherwise, why not just say that life, Liberty, and property may not be taken period.

    Simple logic.

    I have made my point. There is no use in discussing this further after having disposed of this absolutely silly argument. Moving on.
    Silly argument? Thomas Jefferson would be surprised to hear that. See his memo to Geo Washington regarding whether the new fedgov had the authority to charter a bank.

    The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. The delegated authorities are elsewhere. Just because something is prohibited in the Bill of Rights emphatically does not mean its opposite is authorized. Read the history of ratification. The constitution came out of the convention without a bill of rights. Numerous, maybe all, Framers were opposed to a bill of rights. Their argument was that a bill of rights was not necessary, that the fedgov would have only the powers delegated, and, if a power was not delegated, it couldn't be exercised. They intended the constitution to stand alone. The Bill of Rights only came along after a lot people objected and threatened to derail ratification.

    Also, your argument can be applied to any right. For example, journalists can be denied free press as long as they receive due process (another surprise to Thomas Jefferson who saw the federalist party--his political enemies--lose the next election and fade away after passing the Sedition Act.) By your logic, self-incrimination can be compelled as long as due process is followed. By your logic, a defendant can be denied representation at trial as long as due process is followed. By your logic, people can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments as long as due process is followed.

    You can argue for the constitutionality of denying felons their RKBA if you want; but, you're going to have to find another clause.

    Now, please stop the intellectual dishonesty of declaring you've disposed of a silly argument merely by repeating your old argument without actually addressing the points raised.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Ummm. Not exactly.

    The 5th Amendment provides: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." This is not a blanket authorization to make whatever deprivations are determined by congress. And, it emphatically is not an authorization to deprive of enumerated rights. It is a guarantee of due process. If there is going to be a deprivation under the law, then there must be due process.

    Also, what do you think are the odds that here deprivation of liberty means being imprisoned, rather than loss of a right? The articles--life, liberty, and property--are the jeopardies in criminal matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Silly argument? Thomas Jefferson would be surprised to hear that. See his memo to Geo Washington regarding whether the new fedgov had the authority to charter a bank.

    The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. The delegated authorities are elsewhere. Just because something is prohibited in the Bill of Rights emphatically does not mean its opposite is authorized. Read the history of ratification. The constitution came out of the convention without a bill of rights. Numerous, maybe all, Framers were opposed to a bill of rights. Their argument was that a bill of rights was not necessary, that the fedgov would have only the powers delegated, and, if a power was not delegated, it couldn't be exercised. They intended the constitution to stand alone. The Bill of Rights only came along after a lot people objected and threatened to derail ratification.

    Also, your argument can be applied to any right. For example, journalists can be denied free press as long as they receive due process (another surprise to Thomas Jefferson who saw the federalist party--his political enemies--lose the next election and fade away after passing the Sedition Act.) By your logic, self-incrimination can be compelled as long as due process is followed. By your logic, a defendant can be denied representation at trial as long as due process is followed. By your logic, people can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments as long as due process is followed.

    You can argue for the constitutionality of denying felons their RKBA if you want; but, you're going to have to find another clause.

    Now, please stop the intellectual dishonesty of declaring you've disposed of a silly argument merely by repeating your old argument without actually addressing the points raised.
    Good points! I have reasoned that if taking guns can be done by this clause how about their right to exercise their religion, free speech, thoughts etc....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    15
    They can get their rights back,as long as it was non-violent,DV or a sex crime. In Alaska if your conviction is set aside or 10 yrs passes without issue. Federal felonys- forgetaboutit.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I did not see this as a race issue...
    You forgot that this is irrelevant. Most "race issues" have nothing to do with race.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    IMO the differentiation of violent v. non-violent felonies is just another point to cause splintering in pro-gun folks.

    fact is a felon is let out .... he can still kill w/o a gun .... if he is THAT dangerous then he should not be out, correct? If he's out, he should be a free man again..debt fully paid

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Mixed arguments showcase the folly of both.

    Is he out because he has "paid his debt" or is he out because he is "no longer a danger"?

    If we let them out because they have paid their debt, many will still be dangerous.

    If we lock them up until some government agency determines they are no longer a danger (not exactly in line with the other ideas presented by those who post the "no longer a danger" argument), then "paying a debt" has nothing to do with how long a person is in prison.

    The fact is that folks are in prison neither until some debt is paid nor until they are no longer a danger. They are in prison for a period determined by a combination of written law, the decision of a judge, and decisions during incarceration by government agencies charged with adjusting how sentences are carried out.

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    If felons lose their right to self defense by due process, then it is legal to kill them, or that is what the wisdom(cough, couch) of the statists imply. If indeed they do have a right to self defense, they have a right to all those tools that are available.

    Sounds very fascist to me...
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post

    If we let them out because they have paid their debt, many will still be dangerous.
    If they are still considered a danger, then you support letting them out? That's the folly of that argument.

    And its the argument that the antis put up for non-felons ... we are too dangerous to have guns ..

    And "this gun it too dangerous for citizens to have, but the government can"
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 06-16-2013 at 11:51 AM.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Scvette View Post
    They can get their rights back,as long as it was non-violent,DV or a sex crime. In Alaska if your conviction is set aside or 10 yrs passes without issue. Federal felonys- forgetaboutit.
    In theory, yes. In reality, its not so likely. There is a huge hurdle--petitioning the governor, etc. And, the legal expenses. We've had a few such folks show up here on the forum over the years. The thing I remember most from those discussions was how much of a burden the legal expenses were gonna be.

    Moreover, as the Innocence Project has shown by winning the release of over 250 prisoners, there are likely a lot of innocent people convicted of felonies. And, that's before we examine people who were convicted of malum prohibitum felonies.

    I'm guessing there are a lot of people who government not only refuses to recognize their right to self-defense, but actively threatens them against exercising it.


    Personally, I don't see any point in denying felons the right to self-defense. The genuinely bad one's are gonna get a gun and commit crimes again anyway. The wrongly convicted, and those who learned their lesson are not. Really, all it accomplishes is to give the cops a reason to arrest a felon-in-possession. If that arrestee is committing crimes, he's actionable for those crimes. If he's not committing crimes, but merely in possession for self-defense, so what?
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-16-2013 at 12:15 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    why would not this idea apply to felons & guns? paid their debt?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If they are still considered a danger, then you support letting them out?...
    I said no such thing. But that's why I don't ever bother to reply to you on topic. I will simply point out any dishonesty or idiocy that you post. You may guess in which category this particular bit of crap belongs.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I said no such thing. But that's why I don't ever bother to reply to you on topic. I will simply point out any dishonesty or idiocy that you post. You may guess in which category this particular bit of crap belongs.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Do you understand what a QUESTION is ... I guess not ... you need to take your medication daily

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    In theory, yes. In reality, its not so likely. There is a huge hurdle--petitioning the governor, etc. And, the legal expenses. We've had a few such folks show up here on the forum over the years. The thing I remember most from those discussions was how much of a burden the legal expenses were gonna be.

    Moreover, as the Innocence Project has shown by winning the release of over 250 prisoners, there are likely a lot of innocent people convicted of felonies. And, that's before we examine people who were convicted of malum prohibitum felonies.

    I'm guessing there are a lot of people who government not only refuses to recognize their right to self-defense, but actively threatens them against exercising it.


    Personally, I don't see any point in denying felons the right to self-defense. The genuinely bad one's are gonna get a gun and commit crimes again anyway. The wrongly convicted, and those who learned their lesson are not. Really, all it accomplishes is to give the cops a reason to arrest a felon-in-possession. If that arrestee is committing crimes, he's actionable for those crimes. If he's not committing crimes, but merely in possession for self-defense, so what?
    They do get them back,ask me how I know? I am one of them,something I did 29 yrs ago,non violent,not to anyone. My rights were restored 3 yrs after I was in trouble. If you notice on the form 4473 it's asks in question 11c if you have been,then it says see note A I believe,and it states,if you had it expunged,or set aside to answer NO on question 11c. I did have something come up recently after buying 2 stripped lower,got a call from a ATF agent,he looked into why it was denied and called me back 2 weeks later and told he has talked to both ATF and FBI lawyers and came to the conclusion there wasn't any problem,he had my whole history in front of him and saw my one and only time I did something completely stupid.
    I should mention I was delayed on the purchase of those lowers,went back 5 days later and they released the lowers to me since it had been more than 3 days,sometime after they gave them to me,NICS denied them,but I already had them,the ATF agent I delt with was very professional,I asked if the shop that gave them to me was in trouble and he said no,they did everything correct.
    Last edited by Scvette; 06-17-2013 at 01:17 AM. Reason: Forgot something

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •