Should people with Convicted Felonies be able to buy and carry firearms again?

[FordMan08]

I voted never. If the person showed a serious lack of judgement in the past(felony arrest) I don't want to put a gun in their hand.jmo.

Must be hard being a saint.

 

[smitty12b]

I'm no saint, the water splashes when I walk throught it but I also have never been arrested. Judgement.

 

[42769vette]

my point is that some/most people have done somthing in the past that they could have been arrested for even if they did get lucky

 

[Nathan]

my point is that some/most people have done somthing in the past that they could have been arrested for even if they did get lucky

i've done something in my past that i should have been arrested for, but i got lucky. i'll never do that again.

 

[paddling_man]

So, your rights really aren't rights after all, they are privileges.

Voting and RKBA = Rights as an US citizen of legal age. Just like your Freedom (and life.) The latter can be removed just like the former for a criminal conviction/sentence.

Not really giving an opinion in this particular post, only relating that just because something is a "right," is can still be suspended/curtailed through our court system as a form of penalty.

Privilege = Something you ask for and are granted.
Right = Something inherently yours that can be taken away through criminal or legal means. Sometimes that line between criminal and legal blurs.

 

[FordMan08]

I'm no saint, the water splashes when I walk throught it but I also have never been arrested. Judgement.

He who is whithout sin, cast the first stone.

 

[Ruiner]

Felonies are serious crimes. Misdemeanors are non serious crimes. They are classified that way for a reason.

Anyone who commits a felony, has forfeited their rights. I hate to be harsh about it, and over the top, but that's what I believe. I can't see any plausible reason you should be able to get those back after committing a serious enough crime to accused, committed, and found guilty of one.

If you don't want to lose the right to own a firearm, don't commit a felony. Very simple.


Most people who commit crimes are repeat offenders. We do not need to be allowing them to purchase firearms legally, ever. That will definitely hurt our cause of 2A rights.

 

[bwframe]

Felonies are serious crimes. Misdemeanors are non serious crimes. They are classified that way for a reason.

Anyone who commits a felony, has forfeited their rights. I hate to be harsh about it, and over the top, but that's what I believe. I can't see any plausible reason you should be able to get those back after committing a serious enough crime to accused, committed, and found guilty of one.

If you don't want to lose the right to own a firearm, don't commit a felony. Very simple.


Most people who commit crimes are repeat offenders. We do not need to be allowing them to purchase firearms legally, ever. That will definitely hurt our cause of 2A rights.

The definition of "felony" changes as the years go by. A lot of "felons" have learned from their non-violent convictions and have been "rehabilitated."

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

This post is asking a separate question from the one we are voting on, it took me a while to realize this.

This post is not asking about the right to keep and bear arms, although that is it's intent.

I believe this post is really asking the following question, "When a person is convicted of a heinous crime and serves their time in prison (or is punished in some manner), is that person accepted back into the community again as an equal?"

You will certainly find some ways to rephrase the question, but it really is broken down into multiple parts.

It may also ask the simple question, "Do you believe a person can change AND that you will accept that they have changed?"

The RTKBA is really ancillary to these questions. You could substitute any freedom in place of bearing arms. Does a person who has been convicted of a felony have freedom of speech?

Some may argue that of course a person who has been convicted of a felony has the freedom to speak, after all, what harm could that do? My answer would be Adolph Hitler, who was convicted and sent to prison for five (5) years. When he got his speeches incited hatred and violence and in the end caused the death of millions.

What about Freedom against searches? Wouldn't it make sense to be able to freely search folks who have already been in prison? After all, they've shown a propensity toward criminal behavior and it would be prudent to search them from time to time, making certain that they haven't strayed.

We could go on and on. As for me, until we can be as certain as Almighty God in our judgment I would choose a nation of armed former felons and armed free men/women than a country where we give power to the government to destroy our rights rather than protecting them.

Respectfully,

Doug

 

[Jack Ryan]

He who is whithout sin, cast the first stone.

Sinning is not a felony.

 

[Dogman]

Sinning is not a felony.

It is if you murder someone, and depending on how much one would steal it could be a felony.

 

[finity]

Sinning is not a felony.

Depends on the sin.


I agree with Metro 40.

non-violent crimes only
non-repeat offender
sentence served
reviewed by a judge

 

[jsgolfman]

Voting and RKBA = Rights as an US citizen of legal age. Just like your Freedom (and life.) The latter can be removed just like the former for a criminal conviction/sentence.

Not really giving an opinion in this particular post, only relating that just because something is a "right," is can still be suspended/curtailed through our court system as a form of penalty.

Privilege = Something you ask for and are granted.
Right = Something inherently yours that can be taken away through criminal or legal means. Sometimes that line between criminal and legal blurs.

The question was should they have that right restored after they have served their sentence. While I agree you can have you right suspended while serving said sentence, that right legally and morally should be restored when that sentence is complete.

 

[smitty12b]

He who is whithout sin, cast the first stone.

I can't, bad shoulder...So after serving his sentence and being an upstanding citizen for,say,five years are you going to let a convited pediphile watch your daughter? or even be around her ?

 

[dburkhead]

The question was should they have that right restored after they have served their sentence. While I agree you can have you right suspended while serving said sentence, that right legally and morally should be restored when that sentence is complete.

This is much like what I said, with the proviso that the "sentence" isn't necessarily just the time in prison. But it does need to be spelled out something like "three years plus no possession of firearms for an additional five years." And just has other portions of sentence can be commuted by the appropriate authorities so should this be able to be--neither more nor less.

 

[Paul]

I can't, bad shoulder...So after serving his sentence and being an upstanding citizen for,say,five years are you going to let a convited pediphile watch your daughter? or even be around her ?

No, i wouldnt but i dont want the government telling him he cant. If you have done your time, your rights should be restored. If they cannot be trusted with the rights of citizens, they should not be let out of jail. How can they lose their 2nd Amendment right but not their 1st Amendment rights?

 

[smitty12b]

If they have committed a felony then the odds are they didn't care about the victim's rights. All your rights can easily be revoked if you commit the right crime..old sparky...

 

[paddling_man]

I've made mistakes in my life... several. I'll probably make more before my time here is finished. There are some things (behaviors) of which I have no tolerance. Behaviors I find intolerant may be acceptable for others - we're all a bit different.

I have difficulty calling myself a liberal or a conservative - Republican or Democrat. Still, I tend to lean more right than left. There are special interests planks on both sides that I have issues with supporting.

The common thread for me is self-reliance and non-interference from the government in issues which, I feel, should be outside their bailiwick. I lived in the South for a couple of decades and found a thin line existing between hillbillies and hippies (and bikers) at least those populations that lived in the mountains of East Tenn and Western NC. They were self reliant. They didn't impose on their neighbor. They felt their own actions, when not effecting others, were surrounded by a circle of privacy which the government and community should not intrude.

They also accepted responsibility for their mistakes.

Should the RKBA/vote/freedom be restored for some/all crimes? That is something we'll have to work out as a society of majority rule (or majority tyranny, depending on your perspective position.)

However, until those laws are changed, my children will be reared with the knowledge that if you break the law, there are consequences. Depending on the severity of the crime: loss of freedom, voting rights, the RKBA - all of these may be infringed. (Maybe even be placed in a violent incarceration that could result in physical harm or rape.)

Is it worth doing that crime, kids? If you answer "yes," suck it up and deal with the consequences. If not, then continue on the straight and narrow.

Someone could injure one of my children in such a way that I answer "yes" someday. Until then, I'll avoid punching the j-a that cut me off in traffic.

 

[smitty12b]

I've made mistakes in my life... several. I'll probably make more before my time here is finished. There are some things (behaviors) of which I have no tolerance. Behaviors I find intolerant may be acceptable for others - we're all a bit different.

I have difficulty calling myself a liberal or a conservative - Republican or Democrat. Still, I tend to lean more right than left. There are special interests planks on both sides that I have issues with supporting.

The common thread for me is self-reliance and non-interference from the government in issues which, I feel, should be outside their bailiwick. I lived in the South for a couple of decades and found a thin line existing between hillbillies and hippies (and bikers) at least those populations that lived in the mountains of East Tenn and Western NC. They were self reliant. They didn't impose on their neighbor. They felt their own actions, when not effecting others, were surrounded by a circle of privacy which the government and community should not intrude.

They also accepted responsibility for their mistakes.

Should the RKBA/vote/freedom be restored for some/all crimes? That is something we'll have to work out as a society of majority rule (or majority tyranny, depending on your perspective position.)

However, until those laws are changed, my children will be reared with the knowledge that if you break the law, there are consequences. Depending on the severity of the crime: loss of freedom, voting rights, the RKBA - all of these may be infringed. (Maybe even be placed in a violent incarceration that could result in physical harm or rape.)

Is it worth doing that crime, kids? If you answer "yes," suck it up and deal with the consequences. If not, then continue on the straight and narrow.

Someone could injure one of my children in such a way that I answer "yes" someday. Until then, I'll avoid punching the j-a that cut me off in traffic.

well said

 

[jsgolfman]

This is much like what I said, with the proviso that the "sentence" isn't necessarily just the time in prison. But it does need to be spelled out something like "three years plus no possession of firearms for an additional five years." And just has other portions of sentence can be commuted by the appropriate authorities so should this be able to be--neither more nor less.

But, how do you enforce that provision of the sentence if the felon in question is not incarcerated? What is to keep him from obtaining a weapon once outside?
Similarly, why is it that he loses his second amendment rights and not his first, fourth, etc.?

Don't get me wrong, I am not soft on crime or criminals, but either you have paid for your crimes or you have not. If 3 years really means 3 years plus 5 years of life as 1/3 person, just make the sentence 8 years.