Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Should a felon's gun rights be restored...ever???

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Should felons' gun rights be restored...ever?

    Batten down the hatches...here's a loaded question. Be sure to leave a comment in the "Comments" section!

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d31-Gun-Rights-101-Should-felons-gun-rights-be-restoredever


    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/l43jqz




  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Of course this has never been discussed here on OCDO.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony', as has been done for domestic abusers and victims of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Non-violent felons should never have those rights taken away from them in the first place.

  4. #4
    Regular Member dukenukum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    Non-violent felons should never have those rights taken away from them in the first place.
    yea buddy this is a case of make sheeple feel good and forget the constitution.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Most criminals are back inside a courtroom or prisoninside of a year of release. If they can go as much as 5 yearsafter release or supervised parole or probation without another conviction, they should have their gun rights restored automatically.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  6. #6
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Why 5 years? If they are so dangerous that they are not to be trusted to own a gun, why were they released from jail? Nobody ever answers this simple question, because there is no good answer to it. If a man has served his sentence and paid his debt to society for his crimes, he should be a free man when he walks out the door of the jail. Speaking of being practical, no law regarding felons and guns has ever stopped those who intent to reoffend and are intent on staying criminals from getting a gun anyways. All these laws do is punish and put the lives at risk for those who have paid their debt to society and are trying to start over. Stop treating free men like criminals and they might not start acting like criminals again........the ones that would do so anyways, despite any and all laws to the contrary have very little problem finding a way to arm themselves and start committing crimes again.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    I've posted my thoughts in the comments section of the article under "Dave Robertson".

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Why 5 years? If they are so dangerous that they are not to be trusted to own a gun, why were they released from jail? Nobody ever answers this simple question, because there is no good answer to it. If a man has served his sentence and paid his debt to society for his crimes, he should be a free man when he walks out the door of the jail.

    Even though the victim may never be so lucky. Sure thing. I'll get right on that.



    What needs to be changed is the definition of a felony, not the treatment of felons.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Why 5 years? If they are so dangerous that they are not to be trusted to own a gun, why were they released from jail? Nobody ever answers this simple question, because there is no good answer to it. If a man has served his sentence and paid his debt to society for his crimes, he should be a free man when he walks out the door of the jail. Speaking of being practical, no law regarding felons and guns has ever stopped those who intent to reoffend and are intent on staying criminals from getting a gun anyways. All these laws do is punish and put the lives at risk for those who have paid their debt to society and are trying to start over. Stop treating free men like criminals and they might not start acting like criminals again........the ones that would do so anyways, despite any and all laws to the contrary have very little problem finding a way to arm themselves and start committing crimes again.
    Well, I picked that because it's the time span that Mr. Britt waited in North Carolina.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Hef wrote:
    I've posted my thoughts in the comments section of the article under "Dave Robertson".
    Saw them. Many thanks for contributing to what I'm already being told is a very worthwhile discussion / debate.

    I think perhaps I've hit a bit of a raw nerve with the question. Now we'll see where it goes.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    My mistake for not saying "violent" felons. I wanted to clarify my position some.

    I feel that violent criminals need to prove themselves. They have exrercised non retraint in the past and must show society that they can be law abiding citizens. I do, however, think that they should be allowed to have a firearm in their place of residence as soon as they are released from incarceration. It is not proper to not allow a person to defend themselves in their domicile.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    Gah -- Lemme take the computer off Burst fire.

    -Sorry guys - PC Acting off.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    Safety ... where's the damn safety on this thing ....
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Celina, OH, ,
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Hef wrote:
    I've posted my thoughts in the comments section of the article under "Dave Robertson".
    I posted as me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    .... he should be a free man when he walks out the door of the jail.
    What needs to be changed is the definition of a felony, not the treatment of felons.

    I am going to Agree with Styles here <dodges tomatoes> I personally think that we have way to many convoluted laws, and it's all to casual to be a felon these days. My friend and I were discussing this very subject this morning.... interesting.

    - My personal feelings are incredibly harsh, and i know most wont agree. I feel we need to reduce the amount of laws on the books. Laws should be easy to understand by the common man, eliminating the need for lawyers in most cases. Becoming a "Felon" should be an incredibly serious matter, more liken to life in prison, or death penalty. With less laws, it should be much harder to break laws or become an actual criminal. Punishments need to be much more in-line and on par with the actual offence. We need to observe intent, and meditation of the crime as well.... Extremely violent, or heinous criminals need to be dispatched and eliminated via death sentence or life of hard labor depending on severity of crime, but they should not be released ever - period. Lesser offenses need to dealt with in the light of "non-criminal" and consequences more linear with the offence. Becoming a felon should be attune to being a home invader or a murder / rapist, none of which should see the topsoil ever again.

    - So, in that light, Should Felons have their gun right restored ??? Sure, toss it in the coffin with em.

    Just my thoughts, harsh as they may be.

    P.S. This is a subject that understandably still has allot of "open ends" and (for me at least) is still in the contemplating stage. As always, i am open to retort or debate, and will consider all polite words of wisdom.


    Bat
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    What needs to be changed is the definition of a felony, not the treatment of felons.
    The definition is not consistent across jurisdictions. In SC felony is defined by the punishment for a crime. A murder is a felony only by virtue of its conviction requiring more than 365 days of incarceration.

    Further, in SC the privilege of jury duty is removed by mere liability for felony punishment. I was in a jury pool. During qualification the judge went to great lengths to explain 'felon' in SC law. Then he asked all potential felons to come to the bench. I counted 80 out of the 100 person pool that spoke to the judge, few returned to their seats. I was empaneled even though I admitted extreme conservative principles, politics and practices.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Celina, OH, ,
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    The more I think about it, the more truth there is to the fact that a dead offender doesn't repeat. Now you could make the case for loitering, but I presume that the state will pay to clean up the bodies rather than suffer a health code violation.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    DMWyatt wrote:
    Hef wrote:
    I've posted my thoughts in the comments section of the article under "Dave Robertson".
    I posted as me.
    Yes, I noticed.

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

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    What needs to be changed is the definition of a felony, not the treatment of felons.
    The definition is not consistent across jurisdictions. In SC felony is defined by the punishment for a crime. A murder is a felony only by virtue of its conviction requiring more than 365 days of incarceration.

    Further, in SC the privilege of jury duty is removed by mere liability for felony punishment. I was in a jury pool. During qualification the judge went to great lengths to explain 'felon' in SC law. Then he asked all potential felons to come to the bench. I counted 80 out of the 100 person pool that spoke to the judge, few returned to their seats. I was empaneled even though I admitted extreme conservative principles, politics and practices.
    Further emphasizing the stupidity of the current laws.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    Country: United States of America
    State: Missouri

    how can a person who has been found guilty of a drug related felony get his right to own a gun back?
    AnswerYou may as a first step call the clerk of the court that was involved to see if it is possible to have it sealed, expunged, cleared etc., or if an exception may be granted to you The clerk will normally know, and will often help direct you if it is indeed possible.






    Felony murderDefinition
    : a murder that occurs in the commission of a serious felony (as burglary or sexual battery)
    compare misdemeanor-manslaughter at manslaughter
    Felony murder is usu. considered first-degree murder. Felony murder does not require specific intent to kill, and an accessory to the felony may also be charged with the murder






    FelonyDefinition - Noun
    : a crime that has a greater punishment imposed by statute than that imposed on a misdemeanor
    specif
    : a federal crime for which the punishment may be death or imprisonment for more than a year
    see also attainder treason
    Originally in English law a felony was a crime for which the perpetrator would suffer forfeiture of all real and personal property as well as whatever sentence was imposed. Under U.S. law, there is no forfeiture of all of the felon's property (real or personal) and such forfeiture is not part of the definition of a felony. For certain crimes, however (as for a conviction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or a narcotics law), specific property, such as that used in or gained by the crime, is subject to forfeiture. Every state has its own statutory definition of a felony. Most are in line with the federal definition of a felony as a crime which carries a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year or the death penalty (where applicable). Other states, like Louisiana, define a felony as a crime which carries a sentence of death or imprisonment at hard labor

    http://www.law.missouri.edu/lawrevie...74-2/Hanna.pdf



    There's hundreds upon hundreds of results, the question I have is which one of the types of offenders would you rent a room in the loft of your home to?



  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I can't see how self-defense can be a basic human right and still deny firearms to all but those who have demonstrated conclusively a high likelihood that they would misuse them. In which case, one has to ask why the criminalis out of prison at all, given the accessibility of any weapon, not just guns.

    In that many criminals ignore the law and obtain guns anyway, what is the point of denying them to ex-cons?
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    The laws and prison system need to be reformed first and foremost. There are too many laws and the system is not set up to do much more than act as a timeout. The fact that some individuals can still continue to operate criminal enterprises from prison shows just how inadequate the system really is.

    If you're a free man you should be free, regardless of your past crimes. If you do your time that should be it.



  23. #23
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    I can make a constitutional argument that a felon's voting rights are restored the instant his time behind bars is over using Amendment 13 and 15.

    Right now, the courts agree that you still have 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment rights regardless of felony convictions. However, courts have ruled that your 2nd amendment rights and your voting rights are denied or abridged after some types of convictions.

    Amendment XIII
    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment XV
    1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 15 says the right of a US citizen to vote shall not be denied on account of previous condition of servitude. Amendment 13 clearly uses the term involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime, where a person has been duly convicted.

    Thus, because Amendment 13 defines involuntary servitude as a condition of slavery or as a punishment for a crime and Amendment 15 states that prior condition of servitude is not a basis for denying a voting right, anyone who has been released from involuntary servitude has a right to vote.

    My argument is that the courts have completely misinterpreted our constitution and its amendments on the voting issue, as is clearly stated above. Furthermore, their interpretation of the 2nd amendment right is based on the same false premise. Thus, once a person has been freed from incarceration and has been freed from parole/probation restrictions, that person has the right to vote and own firearms, as well as all of the other rights the courts normally allow them.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Celina, OH, ,
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    I can make a constitutional argument that a felon's voting rights are restored the instant his time behind bars is over using Amendment 13 and 15.

    Right now, the courts agree that you still have 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment rights regardless of felony convictions. However, courts have ruled that your 2nd amendment rights and your voting rights are denied or abridged after some types of convictions.

    Amendment XIII
    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment XV
    1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 15 says the right of a US citizen to vote shall not be denied on account of previous condition of servitude. Amendment 13 clearly uses the term involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime, where a person has been duly convicted.

    Thus, because Amendment 13 defines involuntary servitude as a condition of slavery or as a punishment for a crime and Amendment 15 states that prior condition of servitude is not a basis for denying a voting right, anyone who has been released from involuntary servitude has a right to vote.

    My argument is that the courts have completely misinterpreted our constitution and its amendments on the voting issue, as is clearly stated above. Furthermore, their interpretation of the 2nd amendment right is based on the same false premise. Thus, once a person has been freed from incarceration and has been freed from parole/probation restrictions, that person has the right to vote and own firearms, as well as all of the other rights the courts normally allow them.
    I want to make one clear distinction. Voting is a privilege granted by government, and not a right in and of itself. There is such a thing as a legitimate monarch under social contract, which would make the voting issue specific to the country of origin and structure of government. If in the Constitution there were not a second amendment, worded as it is, there would be an argument that the federal government has the power to infringe on RKBA. The central element of the natural rights argument isn't that they are absolute in and of themselves, but rather that rights not specificallyconceded in the social contract are still held by the people.

    The discussion about a felon's firearms rights is being carried out on a national level because the statutes regarding such are unconstitutional. There is nothing I see that would prevent a state from infringing on RKBA legitimately in this instanceif the state law allows for such. Because of the manner in which the government is structured, we have 2 separate social contracts we need to be mindful of in the argument. On a federal level, the right to bear arms is protected in language that would be nearly absolute. On a state level, however, it is often more ambiguous yet no less legitimate.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I feel it should be viewed on a case by case basis. Meaning that after the offender has served his punishment (incarceration, probation, parole, paid all fines, etc etc) then he should be able to go back to court and make a request to get his rights restored. The court would look at his history and make a decision from there. I don't think a "yes" or "no" answer blankets all felons.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •