imported post
I don't think a blanket law disarming all felons for life makes sense.
Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm felons only if it's part of the sentence they received when convicted. Then, someone convicted ofnon-violent crimeis not necessarily disarmed, and the length of disarmament could be spelled out by the sentence to something less than life, perhaps.
I've always had problems with taking people who can legally walk down the street and imposing extra restrictions on them, like disarming them or forcing them to be registries and so forth. If someone can't be trusted to possess a firearm or to stay away from little kids, then why are they allowed to walk around the street unsupervised?
In addition, when certain people on the street are subject to extra restrictions, the only real way to enforce this is to subject everyone to intrusive measures to make sure you're not selling guns to felons, etc. This means we "need" things like the unconstitutional NICS, for instance.
There's also the serious issue of how, if ever, you can pay your dept to society off when your rights are stripped for life for even minor offenses. Whatever happened to the idea that if you commit a crime, you go to jail, and when you get out you are free unless you screw up again? How can there be justice if you never give a former criminal a chance to earn back his freedom?
To Citizen: In the case of the Micky D's employee in the story above, that ex-con was justified in carrying a gunonlyduring the few minutes in which he was in danger. Prior to that, he was not allowed to possess a firearm. But of course, if you wait until you're being robbed at gunpoint to ignore the law that says you can't carry, well, it's a little too late, isn't it?
