View Poll Results: Should released felons be barred from owning guns?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 5.88%
  • No

    7 20.59%
  • I have no opinion on this topic

    0 0%
  • It's a natural right once released you should have all your rights recongized.

    25 73.53%
  • They should not have any rights at all once convicted.

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Should released felons be banned from owning guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463

    Should released felons be banned from owning guns?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/1...ent-1492543627

    A Michigan man facing multiple felony weapons charges argued that police violated his God-given rights by searching his home and confiscating several weapons.

    Philip Zapata argued Tuesday in court that he was not bound by state laws, reported Monroe News, citing legal theories promoted by the sovereign citizen movement.

    “Your laws are violating my rights,” Zapata said. “My rights don’t come from the Constitution. My rights come from the creator.”

    Police executed a search warrant Feb. 6 at Zapata’s Erie Township home, where officers said they found a rifle in the bathroom, a 9 mm handgun behind a trap door in a wall, and a shotgun behind a freezer.

    The 36-year-old Zapata is a convicted felon, which bars him from legally owning firearms.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    I voted 'no'

    The 'It's a natural right once released you should have all your rights recongized.' answer is too simplified and generalized...

    By no I simply mean that a person should not be automatically legally barred from possessing or owning firearms just because they've been convicted of a felony. That doesn't mean I don't believe it could ever be appropriate to legally bar someone from owning or possessing firearms, even outside of incarceration.

    Felony conviction is such a stupid, over-generalized, over-simplified criteria for prohibiting firearm ownership and possession. But just leave it to our government to make up stupid rules... and you won't be disappointed.
    Advocate freedom please

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,939
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I voted 'no'

    The 'It's a natural right once released you should have all your rights recongized.' answer is too simplified and generalized...

    By no I simply mean that a person should not be automatically legally barred from possessing or owning firearms just because they've been convicted of a felony. That doesn't mean I don't believe it could ever be appropriate to legally bar someone from owning or possessing firearms, even outside of incarceration.

    Felony conviction is such a stupid, over-generalized, over-simplified criteria for prohibiting firearm ownership and possession. But just leave it to our government to make up stupid rules... and you won't be disappointed.
    Well said.+1

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I voted 'no'

    The 'It's a natural right once released you should have all your rights recongized.' answer is too simplified and generalized...

    By no I simply mean that a person should not be automatically legally barred from possessing or owning firearms just because they've been convicted of a felony. That doesn't mean I don't believe it could ever be appropriate to legally bar someone from owning or possessing firearms, even outside of incarceration.

    Felony conviction is such a stupid, over-generalized, over-simplified criteria for prohibiting firearm ownership and possession. But just leave it to our government to make up stupid rules... and you won't be disappointed.
    You can be deprived of some of your rights while you're incarcerated.

    I am using felony as a, faulty, litmus test due to the article that I was referencing.

    I could have left it at, yes or no, but I wanted people to have more outlets.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    If someone is trust worthy enough to be let out of their cage then the should not have their gun rights taken from them. If they can't be trusted with a gun they shouldn't be let out into society in the first place
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Well the anti-gun logic in this can be applied to any other rights also.

    Felons can no longer have free speech.
    Felons cannot travel freely.
    Felons have no right to not incriminate themselves.


    Those can all be applied so long as they can be denied the right to keep and bear arms.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    Ones released from prison and they satisfy all the requirements of their probation, then Yes, their right to keep an bear arms for defence of life, liberty and property should be restored.

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    If someone is trust worthy enough to be let out of their cage then the should not have their gun rights taken from them. If they can't be trusted with a gun they shouldn't be let out into society in the first place
    My thoughts exactly. One of the biggest arguments we use for not banning guns other than they are our right is that criminals will always have them. Prohibiting felons from owning guns just means the law abiding former felons will be prohibited while the career criminal will still have a gun.

  9. #9
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    188
    I answered yes... but the choices are pretty bad.

    It really depends on the person and what crimes they committed. Should all felons be banned from owning guns.... no.... should most, yes. While on parole, yes, in almost every case... Its a case by case basis. Also, violent felons should spend a lot longer in prison or have a lot harsher punishments... I think we go way too easy on them.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    I answered yes... but the choices are pretty bad.

    It really depends on the person and what crimes they committed. Should all felons be banned from owning guns.... no.... should most, yes. While on parole, yes, in almost every case... Its a case by case basis. Also, violent felons should spend a lot longer in prison or have a lot harsher punishments... I think we go way too easy on them.
    So, who will protect them while they are on parole?

    So, while on parole, you have no right to the means to defend yourself?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,728
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    I answered yes... but the choices are pretty bad.

    It really depends on the person and what crimes they committed. Should all felons be banned from owning guns.... no.... should most, yes. While on parole, yes, in almost every case... Its a case by case basis. Also, violent felons should spend a lot longer in prison or have a lot harsher punishments... I think we go way too easy on them.
    Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a waste of resources. Everybody knows if a criminal wants a gun, they will get a gun, and commit crime with it. That is why they are criminals, but the freemen with a past, who served their time, payed their debt and are law abiding should be treated as people.
    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
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    629
    According to their definition of Soveriegn Citizen, I geuss nearlly everone ob this forum is one. I mean.. how dare people think that we have Rights in spite of laws insyead of because of them.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    92

    if they've served the sentence...........

    then haven't they paid their debt to society and thereby should have all their rights restored? I can see an argument saying that if they used a gun in the commission of a violent crime, then they should never again be allowed to possess one, but other than that, I'm not sure we as a society have the right to take away all of their other rights for the duration of their life.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    Quote Originally Posted by RK3369 View Post
    then haven't they paid their debt to society and thereby should have all their rights restored? I can see an argument saying that if they used a gun in the commission of a violent crime, then they should never again be allowed to possess one, but other than that, I'm not sure we as a society have the right to take away all of their other rights for the duration of their life.
    IF they used their fists, should they have hands no more?
    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)

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,109
    What harm is done to "society" for any citizen to merely possess a gun?

    If a citizen should use a gun for evil he must answer for his crime regardless of the weapon used, or no weapon used at all.

    If a citizen uses a gun for good he will be brought forward to answer for the crime of merely possessing a gun regardless of his good deed.

    Cops gladly enforce this ridiculous law just because they can.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, who will protect them while they are on parole?

    So, while on parole, you have no right to the means to defend yourself?
    Parole doesn't mean free to go... They are still paying their debt. If they don't like the consequences they shouldn't have done the crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a waste of resources. Everybody knows if a criminal wants a gun, they will get a gun, and commit crime with it. That is why they are criminals, but the freemen with a past, who served their time, payed their debt and are law abiding should be treated as people.
    The problems are our lax laws and letting people off without really paying their debts. The punishments need a major overhaul. If the were correctly done, I'd have no problems with felons getting guns legally. There are people released that should never be released, and that is one reason they aren't trusted. Felons have proven they cannot be trusted to be law abiding citizens. Doing your time in no way changes that. Many should be locked up for life, but at least they lose some of their rights since they are let go. I think as a whole, the US is much too easy on criminals. I cannot be for giving felons guns, until AFTER the actual system is fixed, not before.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,109
    Being convicted of a felony for giving too much of your money, freely, to a politician. Not all felons are created equal.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    Parole doesn't mean free to go... They are still paying their debt. If they don't like the consequences they shouldn't have done the crime.


    SNIP
    They are no longer in a cage, it means that have to interact with 'free' people. They have a right to defend themselves, who is going to defend them from aggressors?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    Parole doesn't mean free to go... They are still paying their debt. If they don't like the consequences they shouldn't have done the crime.


    The problems are our lax laws and letting people off without really paying their debts. The punishments need a major overhaul. If the were correctly done, I'd have no problems with felons getting guns legally. There are people released that should never be released, and that is one reason they aren't trusted. Felons have proven they cannot be trusted to be law abiding citizens. Doing your time in no way changes that. Many should be locked up for life, but at least they lose some of their rights since they are let go. I think as a whole, the US is much too easy on criminals. I cannot be for giving felons guns, until AFTER the actual system is fixed, not before.
    Who did they reimburse for their crimes?
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Who did they reimburse for their crimes?
    Most modern felonies are against the state now, so, I guess the state.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Most modern felonies are against the state now, so, I guess the state.
    Silly right? The previous poster talks about felons paying their debt, shouldn't the victim have a say in that payment and what it involves?
    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Silly right? The previous poster talks about felons paying their debt, shouldn't the victim have a say in that payment and what it involves?

    That has never been how it works.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Silly right? The previous poster talks about felons paying their debt, shouldn't the victim have a say in that payment and what it involves?
    No.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    That has never been how it works.
    Yes it was part of common law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    No.
    Why not?
    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)

  25. #25
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    599
    I voted "No" because if they cannot be trusted with a gun, they should not be released.

    If they complete their probation without getting in to trouble, their rights should be restored, all of them.

    Otherwise, don't let them out.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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