Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 134

Thread: Let's restore felons' 2nd Amendment rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    :what:Okay, take a minute and wipe the spit-take you just did off the monitor. I just think that if it is a good idea to restore the voting franchise to convicted felons so they can vote for Ubama, then it is an even better idea to recognize that if they are out of the Criminal Justice System (Off parole, probation, with no sentence left to serve), then it only makes sense to return their 2nd Amendment rights. That will for one thing give them a good reason NOT to vote for Ubama.

    After all there is NO enumerated "right to vote", and no "right" to a government job etc; which is why the voting franchise restoration procedure is here in the Commonwealth referred to as "Petition for Removal of Civil Disabilities". But convicted felons retain every OTHER right in the Constitution unless they are still under conditions of release. A convicted felon may very well have learned his lesson, amd many do go back into society and marry and father children and thus have families to protect. And who knows but what the stigma of a felony conviction is a causal factor in recidivism??

    More important however is the question of why someone who cannot be trusted with a firearm is allowed back among us in the FIRST place?? This is not specious reasoning. If an ex-con is criminally inclined he will very easily obtain a firearm through the usual criminal channels, and inmany if not mostcases with greater ease than an honest citizen can purchase one legally. In fact if someone wanted a firearm for the express purpose of nefarious activtity one would think he would much prefer one that could not be linked to him via purchase records.

    Finally consider the puny, trumpery crimes that constitute felonies in many, many cases. Here in Virginia a kid (or an adult in a sily mood) can be arrested for throwing a snowball at a car on the road. it's called "Throwing a Missile at an Occupied Vehicle" It is a Class 6 felony here and there are - unbelievablbly but true - cases of mischevious teens getting a juvenile felony which becomes a 2A nightmare later in life. Another Class 6 felony is "Driving over a fire hose". Can you imagine telling your cell mate that you are in for driving over a hose?? In THAT case maybe the "felon" should be issued a sidearm by the Warden, lest he wind up riding on a hose, indeed. And then there is the infamous "Misdemeanor Domestic Violence" revocation, which is ditto for life. IMHO the revocation should be only so long as a court order exists, with clear rules for justifying extensions of the order.

    Now my Bretheren and Sisteren (and in at least one case Whateveren) it is my hope that you realize that this was written partially with tongue (or keyboard if you will but that's a tight fit) in cheek. The subtitle Should clue everybody in, but just as there are nourishing kernels in cow pies I believe that what I have written here as satire has that element of truth that makes satire what it is.







  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Last stats I saw had 40% of first time offending felons commit a second crime within one year of release and 50% within three years.



    snip from and article I quickly found:
    The high repeat offender rate in Florida is the central issue in this debate. The revolving door effect of restoring felons' rights only then to revoke them due to a new criminal offense would diminish the integrity of our democratic government and the rule of law. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, nearly 40 percent of offenders commit another crime within three years of release and 45 percent do so within five years; for those under 18 the rate skyrockets to 73 percent. Furthermore, a 2003 Department of Justice report found more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs, and studies show that drug traffickers live lives of violence.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Not a 'good idea' but a principle! Principle, that which may not be compromised.

    If a felon may be disbarred his Rights - such as RKABA - under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - perhaps to allegations of drug use (apropos today's news) or domestic violence.

    If 'they' are outlaw then isolate them, in or under the prison, from good citizens or kill them.

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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Unless convinced otherwise in the future, I agree.

    At this point, it seems to follow the same logic the rest of us apply to gun-control laws. They forbid otherwise lawful behavior in order to try to prevent illegal behavior (i.e., stop a person from carrying a weapon they could use to commit a crime).

    It's no different than when applied to a previous felon. The law tries to prevent them from committing another felony by forbidding the otherwise lawful behavior of carrying a firearm. The law will not prevent them from doing it, only give an added way of applying punishment post-crime (extra criminal charge).

    So, makes sense to me!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    We can discuss this after it is legal for law abiding citizens to go virtually anywhere with their loaded 6 shooter on their hip and carrying a FA M16. And live grenades are sold at flea markets.

    The vast majority of felons are just plainscum, and have no interest whatsoever in becoming LACs. There is a mechanism for the few who are LACsto regain their gun rights. Its called the pardon power.

    I do recognize there are a very few felons who do turn their lives around but they are a very small minority, certainly under 5%.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may be disbarred his Rights - such as RKABA - under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - perhaps to allegations of drug use (apropos today's news) or domestic violence.


    Big difference between being convicted of domestic violence or just being accused. If you're conviced then you deserve to have your rights taken away. If you aren't, they won't be taken away so you have nothing to worry about.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    I wrote this for a post about a year ago. Just something to think about if you really think we should violate the 2nd amendment for felons

    If felons can loose their 2nd amendment rights, it means the government can also do the following to anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony;

    Violate their 1st amendment rights and force them to convert to be Mormons. And prevent any felons from working in the media.

    Violate their 3rd amendment rights and quarter troops in their house during peacetime.

    Violate their 4th amendment rights, stopping and searching them at any time for the rest of their life

    Violate their 5th amendment rights, to prevent double jeopardy. That way when a felon gets out of jail, they can just keep re-trying him for the same crime over and over and keep sending him back to jail after his time is served.

    Violate their 6th&7th amendment rights to a trial by jury. Relate this to removing double jeopardy protection and you are really screwed.

    Violate their 8th amendment rights, and treat them with cruel and unusual punishment. Here comes your torture.

    Violate their 9th amendment rights, thus giving authority to violate any other rights they have freely.

    Violate the 10th amendment which will allow them to do anything not already allowed above.

    Seriously, if you think you can take away felon's rights after they have served their time, think about the big picture and what you are realy saying. If we don't treat the 2nd amendment as an equal to the others, why would we expect anyone else to.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Big difference between being convicted of domestic violence or just being accused. If you're conviced then you deserve to have your rights taken away. If you aren't, they won't be taken away so you have nothing to worry about.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/17072.html

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Good points, drkarrow. The simple fact is, people have gotten so used to the fact that felons aren't allowed to own firearms that they no longer question its constitutionality. It MAY be partially constitutional as the 14th amendment implies that rights can be suspended by due process of law by stating that they can NOT be suspended EXCEPT by due process of law. However, I sincerely doubt that a blanket denial of 2nd amendment rights for anyone convicted of a felony is constitutional. Making that one of the penalties of a sentence? Sure, I can see that. Making it automatic? definitely not constitutional.

    Also there is the inescapable fact that stripping convicted felons of their right to keep and bear arms does absolutely NOTHING to stop them from commiting more crimes, including crimes involving guns.

    GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK. PERIOD.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    IMO if the felon has served their time, and completed all of the post incarceration requirements they should have ALL of their rights restored. Either they've paid their debt to society or they haven't. If they have then be done with it, they're not a felon anymore, period; remove the label from them and maybe they can get on with their life as a LAC. If we're going to continue to deprive them of essential rights and keep them labeled then perhaps they should all stay in prision or be executed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    icode wrote:
    IMO if the felon has served their time, and completed all of the post incarceration requirements they should have ALL of their rights restored. Either they've paid their debt to society or they haven't. If they have then be done with it, they're not a felon anymore, period; remove the label from them and maybe they can get on with their life as a LAC. If we're going to continue to deprive them of essential rights and keep them labeled then perhaps they should all stay in prision or be executed.
    The problem is that many commit crimes again and once released work harder at not getting caught the nexttime.

    What permanant punishment is there after a felony conviction?

    We all know the following

    1. Cannot possess a firearm (But they can have a black powder pistol)
    2. The cannot vote
    3. Their record prevents them from getting certain jobs
    What others are there?

    OK

    #1. They really cannot BUY a gun from a dealer but can still do so privately so this means nothing unless they are caught.

    #2. Many people choose not to vote anyway so to some... they could care less.

    #3.There are plenty of other jobsout there and many criminals go back to crime anyway.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    icode wrote:
    IMO if the felon has served their time, and completed all of the post incarceration requirements they should have ALL of their rights restored. Either they've paid their debt to society or they haven't. If they have then be done with it, they're not a felon anymore, period; remove the label from them and maybe they can get on with their life as a LAC. If we're going to continue to deprive them of essential rights and keep them labeled then perhaps they should all stay in prision or be executed.
    The problem is that many commit crimes again and once released work harder at not getting caught the nexttime.

    What permanant punishment is there after a felony conviction?

    We all know the following

    1. Cannot possess a firearm (But they can have a black powder pistol)
    2. The cannot vote
    3. Their record prevents them from getting certain jobs
    What others are there?

    OK

    #1. They really cannot BUY a gun from a dealer but can still do so privately so this means nothing unless they are caught.

    #2. Many people choose not to vote anyway so to some... they could care less.

    #3.There are plenty of other jobsout there and many criminals go back to crime anyway.

    But what about the ones albeit few that really realize the error of their ways and want to become LAC? I just think that if they've done their time, then it should be done, without regard to the ones who choose to continue a life of crime.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    icode wrote:
    But what about the ones albeit few that really realize the error of their ways and want to become LAC? I just think that if they've done their time, then it should be done, without regard to the ones who choose to continue a life of crime.
    Sure.. there are one time offenders that NEVER break the law again. Not many... but they exist.

    But how do you know who will be the one. Only time can prove one way or the other.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    icode wrote:
    But what about the ones albeit few that really realize the error of their ways and want to become LAC? I just think that if they've done their time, then it should be done, without regard to the ones who choose to continue a life of crime.
    Sure.. there are one time offenders that NEVER break the law again. Not many... but they exist.

    But how do you know who will be the one. Only time can prove one way or the other.
    I agree, where we differ is on the time. I think when the time imposed by the judge is up they've proven whether they deserve another chance.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    i've always believed that once someone's time is erved taht they should regain all of their rights.

    LEO229:

    in answer to your question regarding incentive not to become a criminal again, the answer is simple. get legislation passed that ups their time. and go back to "work farms" If a criminal actually had to work 12-16 hours a day 6 days a week hard labor, rather than get a college diploma, pump Iron and shoot heroin while they were locked up, I guarantee that many would decide against repeat offenses

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    The voting restriction for felons is handled on a state-by-state basis. Felons can vote in Ohio -automatically, without requiring a pardon or expunction - as long as they are not physically incarcerated at the time of the election (ex-cons or people on "community control"/probation).

    -ljp

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    674

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may be disbarred his Rights - such as RKABA - under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - perhaps to allegations of drug use (apropos today's news) or domestic violence.


    Big difference between being convicted of domestic violence or just being accused. If you're conviced then you deserve to have your rights taken away. If you aren't, they won't be taken away so you have nothing to worry about.
    In AWDstylez's world, anyone defenseless is guilty.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    I really see no constitutional basis for the federal government barring anybody not incarcerated in a federal penitentiary from RKBA.

    No I don't want hardened criminals allowed to have guns (If they want them they will get them no matter what the law is) but it should be the call of the sovereign state, on whether a felon should have firearms.

    If we are all part of the Virginia Militia, then what business does the federal govt have in reducing our numbers?
    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

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Big difference between being convicted of domestic violence or just being accused. If you're conviced then you deserve to have your rights taken away. If you aren't, they won't be taken away so you have nothing to worry about.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/17072.html


    Dee dee dee! You use drugs. Drugs are illegal. You can't have weapons. No surprise there. :hammer: :hammer:

    Again, big difference between being accused of something and actually doing it.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    I think it's wrong to prohibit felons from keeping and bearing arms. Once out of jail their rights should be fully restored.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    The constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed period end of discussion blah blah blah.

    With that in mind, Yes i think that felons should have all rights (more on that in a second.)

    Essentially, a felony conviction is a life sentence. Not only do you loose your right to vote, bear arms, etc. but you also loose a lot more. Jobs and housing are difficult to come by. Soo, you take a person that screws up once, stick them in a place with a bunch of screw ups, let them out, they can't really make themselves worth something, and they hang around screw ups once they're free. Hell, what did you think would happen? They get released, get a great job, buy a house, and become upstanding citizens?

    The bottom line is that as it stands now, i have little to no faith in our justice system, and i think that allowing felons to own guns is just a small piece of the puzzle, but until then why not? Once they're done with their incarceration, parole, etc let them keep their act clean for a few years and then remove the felony conviction from public record. Give them their rights back and a chance to actually do something with their life.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Butler, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    I think it's wrong to prohibit felons from keeping and bearing arms. Once out of jail their rights should be fully restored.
    I must agree with this. It used to be said that the "ex-con" has "paid his/her debt to society." As we are always talking about needing weapons for self defense. It seems strange to me that we would say to an "ex-con", "You do not have the right to defend yourself."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Cannot possess a firearm (But they can have a black powder pistol)
    1. The cannot vote
    2. Their record prevents them from getting certain jobs
    What others are there?

    OK

    #1. They really cannot BUY a gun from a dealer but can still do so privately so this means nothing unless they are caught.

    #2. Many people choose not to vote anyway so to some... they could care less.

    #3.There are plenty of other jobsout there and many criminals go back to crime anyway.

    Actually, Virginia is one of very few states that does not let felons vote without a restoration of rights.

    Almost all states let felons vote as long as they are not in prison. Vermont and Maine let them vote in prison by absentee ballot.

    Felons overwhelmingly vote democratic which is why the democrats have been trying to get them to be allowed to vote everywhere.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    I have, at this time, 57 felons under my watch in the local jail. I just left there. Work release section. They get 63 cents a day.

    Of those...MANY wish their rights returned to be able to bear arms. SEVERAL wish to vote and/or get better jobs when they get out. ALL wish they hadn't been caught. Over 60% or so are repeat offenders.

    ONE....just ONE has expressed real remorse to me and constantly asks the procedure involved to get his rights back. He wants to hunt...to vote and wants to return to Puerto Rico with a clean record. And he is a liar.

    You do the math.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Why do we equate the total punishment of a felon only with how long they spend in jail? Suppose someone hits someone a cripples them while DUI. The felon in this case goes to jail for10 years but the victim suffers for the rest of their life. After getting out of jail the ex-felon is now free to get on with their life with all the rights and enjoyments that they always had but their victim is still ina wheel chair. The felon may no longer be dqngerous, shouldn't be supported by the state and should be out of jail but to say that they have fully paid their debt is BS. That person that they crippled can't even fire a gun to protect themselves. The felon had no insurance or assets to pay the medical bills of their victim. Let that felon suffer for the rest of their life having to look over their shoulder like their victim. There are more ways to punish someone than just keeping them in jail. BTW that victim is a close frined of mine and an actual story.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •