View Poll Results: Should convicted felons be permanently stripped of their rights?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, any felony is grounds for permanent removal of gun rights.

    1 3.57%
  • Only if it was a violent felony.

    9 32.14%
  • No, once the person serves their time in jail their debt to society is paid.

    18 64.29%
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Permanent deprivation of rights

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Obviously, the main focus here is gun rights, but voting rights are also part of this issue.

    My opinion: debt to society ends with the jail time.

    The 'violent felony' option is posted because I've heard this argument many times before. However, as most of us here will agree, if the person wants to hurt you, they won't care about breaking the law by using a gun. Also, guns aren't the only weapons that could be used to commit violence.

    People do stupid stuff; permanent punishments don't make any sense to me. Once a debt is paid, it is done. Once someone is set free, they have as much right as you or I to defend themselves and their families.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    I think that violent criminals should be permanently stripped of their rights. I support the 2nd amendment, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that alevel 3 sexual predatorshould be allowed that right just because he served his 7 years.

    I don't approve of stripping peoples' rights because of the war on drugs, or simple things that really shouldn't be felonies. But violent crime is a different story.

    Also, I don't understand why they lose their right to vote. The gun thing makes sense, but voting? :?

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    I think that violent criminals should be permanently stripped of their rights. I support the 2nd amendment, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that alevel 3 sexual predatorshould be allowed that right just because he served his 7 years.
    Consider this scenario (something a friend was convicted of):

    A man is convicted a felony - assault with a deadly weapon - for hitting another guy with a 2x4 plank during mutual combat in a fight in an alley. The 'victim' actually started the brawl, but the guy with the 2x4 didn't fight 'fair,' so he's the one that goes to jail.

    This guy no longer has the right to defend himself (or to vote).

    Does the 'violent crime' option include this incident? Where do you draw the line?

    Consider this:
    Having a law against gun possession will not stop your 'level 3 sexual predator' from committing any other crimes (with or without a gun). I say that if you can't trust the person with a gun, then they still belong in jail.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    The voting thing varies by jurisdiction. In Ohio, a felon can vote as long as he/she is not actually incarcerated at the time of whatever election.

    -ljp

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    I think that violent criminals should be permanently stripped of their rights. I support the 2nd amendment, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that alevel 3 sexual predatorshould be allowed that right just because he served his 7 years.
    Consider this scenario (something a friend was convicted of):

    A man is convicted a felony - assault with a deadly weapon - for hitting another guy with a 2x4 plank during mutual combat in a fight in an alley. The 'victim' actually started the brawl, but the guy with the 2x4 didn't fight 'fair,' so he's the one that goes to jail.

    This guy no longer has the right to defend himself (or to vote).

    Does the 'violent crime' option include this incident? Where do you draw the line?

    Consider this:
    Having a law against gun possession will not stop your 'level 3 sexual predator' from committing any other crimes (with or without a gun). I say that if you can't trust the person with a gun, then they still belong in jail.
    Exactly! If they are too dangerous to be allowed to have guns/be around children/walk into banks/vote.... Why Are They Not Still Confined!!! Of course this means that each criminal will have to be individually evaluated to determine if she/he is still an unacceptable risk to society. Mistakes will be made. (Mistakes are made NOW.) Bad people will roam free, good people will bewrongly convicted. This is the price of living in a non-totalitarian state. Decide what your acceptable level ofsecurity is, and you will have determined your maximum amount of freedom. Mathematically, S+F=c (security level + freedom level = a constant). Raise security, reduce freedom. I would personally weight the scale soas to minimise the number of wrongconvictions. This means that more critters will be out in the wild, but if we are able to exercise responsibility for our own safety, this will be a self-correcting problem.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Which part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood. If a felon cannot be trusted with a child, or gun, or the vote even, then he should still be under the jail. That is said with the caveat that it is the government, the legislature that defines 'felony' and it is not consistent among jurisdictions.

    As long as disbarrment of Rights under color of law is allowed then we are all at risk.
    Rights being granted by our Creator, we cannot be 'deprived' of rights - they cannot be taked away.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    It's interesting, in my other criminal justice class we were discussing Megan's Law and similar sex criminal registry legislation. It's amazing how many people think that everyone's entire criminal history should be available for public online viewing.

    I'm agreeing with PavePusher and Doug Huffman here. If a person is so violent and so psychologically deficient that the prison system feels they need to warn his neighbors and permanently strip him of his rights to so much as look at a gun, that person should still be either in prison or in a mental institution, or some other places where they're kept away from the non-criminal part of society. If the person is seemingly rehabilitated, then release them and let them become a normal member of society again. If there is a mistake made and someone is released who is not fully rehabilitated, well folks, that's why the rest of us carry guns.

    I also take issue with the nonchalant attitude a large portion of people have toward discrimination against "former" criminals. I hear more often than not that if someone is released from prison and can't find a job, can't find anywhere to live, can't ask anyone for help (because he is shunned) because he's been blacklisted as a human being, it's his fault. That's another reason I believe that criminals should either be kept in jail or have their "records" completely expunged; regardless of the crime, throwing a person into a situation of de facto poverty with next to no chance of getting out is inhumane. Then again, I'm some wacky liberal Democrat who doesn't love Jesus enough to have his opinion matter. Really, though, the punishment philosophy toward crime is yielding a 70% (or so) recidivism rate, which I'm sure is even higher than that when including former inmates who recommit crime but just don't get caught. It can't really get much worse, IMO, so perhaps it's time for something different.

  8. #8
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    I agree someone that can't be trusted with a gun should still be in jail. However, that is not the reality in the USA. I would go for a time period of no more incarceration, say 5 years, maybe 10, then rights are restored. Non violent felons should not lose their 2A rights.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    I agree someone that can't be trusted with a gun should still be in jail. However, that is not the reality in the USA. I would go for a time period of no more incarceration, say 5 years, maybe 10, then rights are restored. Non violent felons should not lose their 2A rights.
    Eh, it would be better than what we have now... but I still wouldn't be happy with it.

    Now, legalizing drugs would free up those prisons of those there on purely drug-related offenses... then maybe we could keep the violent criminals in jail where they belong.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Now, legalizing drugs would free up those prisons of those there on purely drug-related offenses... then maybe we could keep the violent criminals in jail where they belong.
    That's a mighty fine razor you have there, Bishop Ockham, that's able to slice 'violence' from 'drugs'.

    Since this thread is kind'a about 'Constitutionality' and I understand the lack of Constitutionality of one these red-hairings[sic], perhaps someone could trace the Constitutional-logic of the other?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth, LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    I put 'violent only', but I also agree with the time limit. First offenders get a 5 year suspension after they get out, 10 more for a second offense, permament removal for a subsequent offense. Of course, you can see that this is clearly based off the 'three strikes' laws, so I'd rather just lock their a** in prison after the 3rd offense.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    I think that each state should make the determination.

    The Federal Government has no business in determining who should be allowed to vote or KABA.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    It's interesting, in my other criminal justice class we were discussing Megan's Law and similar sex criminal registry legislation. It's amazing how many people think that everyone's entire criminal history should be available for public online viewing.

    I'm agreeing with PavePusher and Doug Huffman here. If a person is so violent and so psychologically deficient that the prison system feels they need to warn his neighbors and permanently strip him of his rights to so much as look at a gun, that person should still be either in prison or in a mental institution, or some other places where they're kept away from the non-criminal part of society. If the person is seemingly rehabilitated, then release them and let them become a normal member of society again. If there is a mistake made and someone is released who is not fully rehabilitated, well folks, that's why the rest of us carry guns.

    I also take issue with the nonchalant attitude a large portion of people have toward discrimination against "former" criminals. I hear more often than not that if someone is released from prison and can't find a job, can't find anywhere to live, can't ask anyone for help (because he is shunned) because he's been blacklisted as a human being, it's his fault. That's another reason I believe that criminals should either be kept in jail or have their "records" completely expunged; regardless of the crime, throwing a person into a situation of de facto poverty with next to no chance of getting out is inhumane. Then again, I'm some wacky liberal Democrat who doesn't love Jesus enough to have his opinion matter. Really, though, the punishment philosophy toward crime is yielding a 70% (or so) recidivism rate, which I'm sure is even higher than that when including former inmates who recommit crime but just don't get caught. It can't really get much worse, IMO, so perhaps it's time for something different.
    Antarctic Penal Colony??
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    I think that each state should make the determination.

    The Federal Government has no business in determining who should be allowed to vote or KABA.
    I hope I misinterpreted your post, but...

    The Federal (i.e. National) government has no power to restrict these rights, but they certainly have the power to uphold them. Isn't it the failure of the Federal government to bitch-slap the states into adhering to the Constitution the reason that the "right" to keep and bear arms varies so drastically from state to state?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    I think that each state should make the determination.

    The Federal Government has no business in determining who should be allowed to vote or KABA.
    I hope I misinterpreted your post, but...

    The Federal (i.e. National) government has no power to restrict these rights, but they certainly have the power to uphold them. Isn't it the failure of the Federal government to bitch-slap the states into adhering to the Constitution the reason that the "right" to keep and bear arms varies so drastically from state to state?
    The question was about violent felons. The felony liability is made by the legislative branch of each state.

    To answer your question about the variation of RKBA in the states, it is because we are a republic with 50 sovereign states. This is how our constitution is structured.

    The U.S. Constitutionlimits to the sovereignty of the states.The final arbiter is the Supreme Court. Thus the importance of the D.C. v. Hellercase.

    My original comments were (I thought obviously) about the federal legislative branch authority to place limitswhere the Constitution gives primacy to the statesor the people.

    Of course the Federal Judicial Branch is the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of both State and Federal law.




    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    I think that each state should make the determination.

    The Federal Government has no business in determining who should be allowed to vote or KABA.
    I hope I misinterpreted your post, but...

    The Federal (i.e. National) government has no power to restrict these rights, but they certainly have the power to uphold them. Isn't it the failure of the Federal government to bitch-slap the states into adhering to the Constitution the reason that the "right" to keep and bear arms varies so drastically from state to state?
    The question was about violent felons. The felony liability is made by the legislative branch of each state.

    To answer your question about the variation of RKBA in the states, it is because we are a republic with 50 sovereign states. This is how our constitution is structured.

    The U.S. Constitutionlimits to the sovereignty of the states.The final arbiter is the Supreme Court. Thus the importance of the D.C. v. Hellercase.

    My original comments were (I thought obviously) about the federal legislative branch authority to place limitswhere the Constitution gives primacy to the statesor the people.

    Of course the Federal Judicial Branch is the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of both State and Federal law.
    Thanks for clarifying. Shows that I really did need that cup of coffee this morning...

Posting Permissions

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