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

[Citizen]

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?

 

[N00blet45]

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.

 

[shad0wfax]

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.

 

[DMWyatt]

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.

 

[Aaron1124]

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.

 

[6L6GC]

imported post

Yes.

 

[virginiatuck]

imported post

This is an interesting read:

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

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.

In Texas I believe a felon can have a long gun on his property, or property "under his control", after parole is complete. I'd have to look it up though. Anyway, non-violent felons should get their rights back after they've completed parole. After you've beaten the recidivism rate you've likely found a place in society where you can contribute.

I see little difference if a sociopath who shouldn't have been paroled in the first place buys a gun at a store, or through the channels of the criminal world.


Aaron1124 wrote:

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.

I can go along with the idea, but then you have a whole level of buearucracy in addition to everything else in the system. On top of that, if you end up with a judge who is against reinstatement, you have to appeal. Then of course some judges will be too "liberal" and then the system gets blamed when a felon commits another violent crime.

There really is no perfect answer here.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

DMWyatt wrote:

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.

Holy smokes! Very well said. I have a new hero.

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.

 

[wally1120]

imported post

If there felonies are non violiant then they should be allowed to own any weapon that they choose. If they got a violiant backround then no they shouldn`t have a toothpick and be taken care of properly.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

This brings up a previous post (or two or three) I made on the subject.

What's wrong with specific due process to decide which rights get disabled?

What we have now is automatic disabling of rights due to possibly unrelated crimes. Totally uncool.

Of course, this brings us around to a larger question as well. If people truly did the time for their crimes and were truly reformed then there would be no need to further restrict their rights when they got out of prison. We all know that's not going to happen without a lengthy amount of time devoted to restoring our system back to how it should work.

 

[Soon2BaLEO]

imported post

I was a felon. I got a class D in Indiana a long long time ago. It was expunged earlier this year and I now have a conceal carry permit. I don't see what the big deal is. I am by no means a violent person and haven't been in any touble for over 21 years. So I have to say yes, non violent ex felons should have the right to bear arms.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

Well, we really opened a can of worms here! What about a convicted pedophile. Has he done the time for the crime? Should he/she have rights restored upon completion of their sentence? I have four DWI convictions. I've been arrested for anything to do with alcohol except making it. I have twenty seven misdemeanor assult convictions. I've been sober for twenty years now and have 0 points on my driving record and have had no arrest during that entire time. When the current CCW laws went into effect a few years ago I was in the first group in my county to be in line. I got my permit. Should I have gotten it?I really can't say but it's a grey area in a lot of ways. My DWI convictions were'nt violent offenses. My violent offenses were'nt felonies. I've never had a drug conviction but I've used a lot of drugs. That's been over for twenty years too but I hope I'm making a point here. Each case should stand on its own merit. Perhaps we do need to revisit the definition of "felon" but that wasn't the question. I will say that if it came down to a flat answer of yes or no I'd have to say no. We all know that if it's a matter of protecting one's self we will do what we have to do. I carry concealed because I feel a human right to protect myself and my family. I carry openly to help support the 2nd ammendment. Either way I'll always find a way to be prepared... hell, we're gonna' wind up in court anyway!

 

[Dishman]

imported post

Do you think Martha Stewart should have that right restored.

What about U.S. Congressman Dan Rostenkowski conviction on mail fraud

And the list goes on and on. If convicted on white collar crime, nonviolent crime,

one should not serve a life sentence for the conviction. Anyone that recieves probation for a sentence, and anyone that has been out of prison for
(x) number of years with no history of violent behavior etc. should have the rights restored.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

This is where my thought is 2-sided. 1)...I think in most cases the punishment of crimes commited is too light. Sentences need to be tougher.

2)....When the full sentence has been served, to include any parole and/or probation, I believe that full rights should be restored. Most criminals that get out of jail go right back for commiting another crime, while on parole/probation. If they can get through all of that clean, then yes, their rights should be restored. They did the crime, paid the price, and proven they can be productive members of society.

 

[Ezrider]

imported post

ill give two examples of people i know and my opinion.

person 1

2x ex felon on drug trafficking charges been on the straight an arrow for about 15 years now has had there right to vote restored and can currently ask the courts for the right to own a hunting riffle but is banned from owning a hand gun for life. this person got wrapped up in the easy money and paid the price and been living a honest life sense. I think this person should have the right to own a handgun.

person 2

1x ex felon - has had there right to vote restored not sure on status of hunting rifles. he had beaten a man within inches of his life for rapping his g/f's daughter he tracked the guy down a few days after it happened. been living straight and arrow for a little over 20 years, but can be a little hot tempered especially when drinking. even though i don't blame him for his actions that got him his felony i feel its probably for the best that he is not allowed to own a gun.

so in short non violent fellony should = gun rights restored
violent fellony = no gun rights.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Freedom is freedom. A free person has the ability to arm himself whether he is a "prohibited person" or not.

Forget the ethics. As a truly practical matter, once a man is free we need to recognize the practical reality of that freedom.

If a man is not to be trusted with the freedom to arm himself, he cannot be trusted with the general freedom of being released into society, since these freedoms are, as a practical matter, one and the same.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

So I'll ask this question. Should a convicted pedophile have gun rights? Just a simple yes or no would be fine.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I'm not sure what guns have to do with pedophilia, to be entirely honest. It seems like a poor attempt at a red herring, to me. Guns, or the lack of them, seem to have no bearing on pedophilic recidivism.

Rather than trying to win arguments with logical non sequiturs, you could try actually attempting to understand the arguments you're encountering.

For example, had you bothered to grasp my post, you would realize that my answer is already there. Either a person is a threat to society, and should not be in that society, or they aren't, in which case, as a practical matter, they have the ability to arm themselves whether you (or the law) like it or not.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I'm not sure what guns have to do with pedophilia, to be entirely honest. It seems like a poor attempt at a red herring, to me. Guns, or the lack of them, seem to have no bearing on pedophilic recidivism.

Rather than trying to win arguments with logical non sequiturs, you could try actually attempting to understand the arguments you're encountering.

For example, had you bothered to grasp my post, you would realize that my answer is already there. Either a person is a threat to society, and should not be in that society, or they aren't, in which case, as a practical matter, they have the ability to arm themselves whether you (or the law) like it or not.

It was a simple yes or no question, had you bothered to grasp my question. Rather than try to enter into some offhanded series of insults why didn't you just not respond. Three paragraphs without the one sylable answer response is indicitive of your personality and thats not in question. The question was and still is, should a convicted pedophile have gun rights?No need tobe such a pr*ck about it.