Can people who have finished their felony sentences recover their 2nd A Rights

[myhightechsec]

This topic tends to bring out odd responses from pro-gun folk. Some are completely unwilling to allow any felon to regain their rights while others are more lenient. I've seen this argued pro and con for the past ten years with no clear consensus from our community. For the record, I fall towards the "regain" side.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cond-amendment-rights/?utm_term=.89e921af25fa

 

[Hoosierdood]

Tough call, and one that would likely be determined on a case-by-case basis - effectively creating long delays, piles of paperwork, and more government spending. I personally feel that anyone who has served their sentence for the crime committed should have their rights restored once the sentence has been served. As it stands right now, anyone who has been arrested and/or convicted of drug related offences cannot pass a NICS check for 12 months from the last event on record. I wouldnt be opposed to that being the case for felons.

The part that I am somewhat hesitant about is in regards to violent felons. If someone has demonstrated a propensity for violence, should they be able to possess a firearm? I'm still not sure. This would be where an appeal system would come in handy. Any violent offender could appeal after X number of years, and be required to demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated, and are no longer a threat. Supporting documentation and personal references may be required.

The only part that I am sure of is that I don't believe that anyone should be deprived of their constitutional (God-given) right of self defense for the rest of their life. People make mistakes. They should have to pay for those mistakes. Hopefully they learn from them. But don't continue to punish them for the rest of their life.

My .02

 

[Vamptepes]

I agree with case by case basis. But anyone willing to try can hire a lawyer and try to get it expunged. I've seen marc halata do quite a few. Some people did things when they are very young and 30 years later are still screwed but sometimes you can get rights restored other times not.
Another thing about felons that is debated alot is their right to vote.

 

[genXer]

I agree with regaining as long as the felony was nonviolent or a rather significant amount of time has passed, even then it would still have to be a case by case decision

 

[Alamo]

I don't think you can tinker around with restoration of rights with the current structure of misdemeanors and felonies -- that is, I don't think you can fairly make blanket restrictions of rights based on everything that constitutes felonies now, nor blanket restoration of rights for everything that constitutes "time served" or "paid his debt to society." It needs a radical restructuring.

And one element of that restructuring would be "if I don't think this person should be have a gun because of his heinous past violent convictions, why I am I letting him out of prison in the first place?"

 

[CampingJosh]

If a person is fit to be trusted in society, then that person should have all the rights of a free person.

If a person has committed serious crimes and is untrustworthy with basic rights, then why was the person released from prison?

 

[Double T]

If a person is fit to be trusted in society, then that person should have all the rights of a free person.

If a person has committed serious crimes and is untrustworthy with basic rights, then why was the person released from prison?

This.

 

[Ghostseeker61]

My opinion is this, No. As I see it it may be one more thing that will cause them to think of what they have to lose if they commit a crime.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If a person has committed serious crimes and is untrustworthy with basic rights, then why was the person released from prison?

Take a look at the arrest record of your average murderer (and your average murder victim) and you'll ask that even more. It's a good question, and a simple one that I suspect has no simple answer or solution.

 

[Sylvain]

My opinion is this, No. As I see it it may be one more thing that will cause them to think of what they have to lose if they commit a crime.

I don't think it stops anyone.Death penalty doesn't stop people from killing, not sure why the fear of losing their rights to own guns might do that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you're not incarcerated, on probation, or parole, then all rights should be restored. If they are too dangerous to ever own a gun, they shouldn't be free. That's my utopian view, thought admittedly somewhat unrealistic.

 

[Hornett]

There is too much recidivism in the prisons to say that once you have served your sentence, your rights should be restored.
I think there has to be a time of proving.
Where they get and keep a job, keep out of trouble, contribute to society in general.
THEN go before a judge and argue to get their 2A rights back.
IMHO

 

[nighthawk80]

If you're not incarcerated, on probation, or parole, then all rights should be restored. If they are too dangerous to ever own a gun, they shouldn't be free. That's my utopian view, thought admittedly somewhat unrealistic.

This is my view as well, but I'm not naive enough to know that life just doesn't work that way.

There is too much recidivism in the prisons to say that once you have served your sentence, your rights should be restored.
I think there has to be a time of proving.
Where they get and keep a job, keep out of trouble, contribute to society in general.
THEN go before a judge and argue to get their 2A rights back.
IMHO

I'd say that my view over time has changed to a combination of Kut's and Hornett's. Once your out, You have to show that you are a responsible citizen.

 

[TheSpark]

Unless you obtain a felony for something like rape/sex crimes, murder, assault, or other violent offense I do not believe there should be any restrictions on your gun rights post sentence. I would even go further to say that even violent felons should have a right to keep weapons in their home for protection. Honestly, any violent felon who intends to do harm again is not going to be persuaded or stopped by laws saying they can't have guns.

Either way, I think it is unfair that people who did something stupid in their late teens or early 20's can't have full rights for the rest of their lives. Felonies should automatically drop off your record after so many years (dependent on the offense) of no convictions. For most, if not all, non-violent felonies this should be as little as 5 years.

This is the opinion of someone who has never been arrested or charged with a crime.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't think it stops anyone.Death penalty doesn't stop people from killing, not sure why the fear of losing their rights to own guns might do that.

Stops them from killing again, though. Same with locking them up for felon in possession. That's a few years they aren't out slinging dope, robbing, etc. Some robbers also elect to use air guns or the like because they know the penalties are higher for getting caught with a gun. It doesn't deter everyone, but it does have an effect.

 

[Beowulf]

Unless you obtain a felony for something like rape/sex crimes, murder, assault, or other violent offense I do not believe there should be any restrictions on your gun rights post sentence. I would even go further to say that even violent felons should have a right to keep weapons in their home for protection. Honestly, any violent felon who intends to do harm again is not going to be persuaded or stopped by laws saying they can't have guns.

Either way, I think it is unfair that people who did something stupid in their late teens or early 20's can't have full rights for the rest of their lives. Felonies should automatically drop off your record after so many years (dependent on the offense) of no convictions. For most, if not all, non-violent felonies this should be as little as 5 years.

This is the opinion of someone who has never been arrested or charged with a crime.

I agree. There are way too many non-violent crimes that have been labeled as felonies (including plenty of victimless ones, unless you count the uptight sensabilities of social conservatives). We should not be stripping these people of their civil liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Now, if you've been convicted of rape or murder/attempt murder, that's a different story. But if you were caught with some weed or tried to cheat Uncle Sam out of his right to steal your wages like Wesley Snipes, it's ludicrous that we hang a millstone of felony conviction on people, which pretty much screws them over for the rest of theirs lives (much beyond losing the right to own firearms).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think a regime such as Indiana's is the right approach.

Disqualification for a period of time and then apply to restore rights. Heinous felonies (SVF, though I am not convinced on all 26) are exempted out from restoration process.

 

[DRob]

I think a regime such as Indiana's is the right approach.

Disqualification for a period of time and then apply to restore rights. Heinous felonies (SVF, though I am not convinced on all 26) are exempted out from restoration process.

How difficult is it to wade through the restoration process? Specifically speaking about a person with a conviction for DUI involving an accident with serious personal injury. Something like 10 years ago.

 

[Woobie]

Well, since we're flirting with the unrealistic, how about if someone kills a person, they don't get to leave prison.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How difficult is it to wade through the restoration process? Specifically speaking about a person with a conviction for DUI involving an accident with serious personal injury. Something like 10 years ago.

Depends on the disqualification, depends on offense, depends on your guy. Many ways to do it--sentence modification, expungement, PCR, pardon, inter alia.

Depending on: clean record since disqualifier, age when committed and age now, property owner, gainfully employed, position of victim, type of offense, etc.

Sometimes prosecution will agree and that can speed it up. I can tell this one (without names), I had a guy who came back from Vietnam after tour with USMC in '70. He slugged the son of a cop in a bar. Spent the night in jail and paid fine of $25 by the Justice of the Peace (yes, really, a Justice of the Peace! I was stunned, had never seen a JOP case). 35+ years later FBI reads/twists this battery as a "domestic battery".

I take this to the elected Prosecuting Attorney of a nearby very small county. The Republican Prosecuting Attorney went into a 5 minute diatribe about the injustice of it and then agreed to a PCR on the spot. Signing the order and walking it directly to the judge for signature (it was great!!!). I think the prosecutor was more upset than my client.