Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Opinions on Restoring Felons Gun Rights

medic07
The post on the rapper brought up several good points from people.

So I thought maybe I should pick everyones brains to get some feedback. I am almost always open to seeing other points of view on topics.

So with that said...lets look at some key points:

1. What felonies would you feel are eligible to having a persons right to own firearms restored (rape, armed robbery, assault and battery, murder, negligent manslaughter, etc)?

2. Would you support restoring them ONLY upon full completion of the sentence or would you support them upon parole from prison?

3. Would you feel that it should be a blanket policy to restore their right or should it be on a case by case basis?

Playing devils advocate on this one. I will post my thoughts in a seperate reply...to give others a chance to respond first. Oh and there is no animosity towards anyone on this board (from me at least [:D])...I respect everyones opinion...no matter how wrong they are. Just kidding.
0

Comments

37 comments

Date Votes
  • sharpshooter039
    I think after full completion plus lets say 5 years for a first time felon. you should be able to petition the courts to get back all your rights and then a judge can go case by case . I do not think a person should be judged for eternity by one bad deed they may have done in life,,If a person is willing to work to help themselves then we should give them the chance,,If they have a 2nd or 3rd felony,,,forget it
    0
  • Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by medic07

    1. What felonies would you feel are eligible to having a persons right to own firearms restored (rape, armed robbery, assault and battery, murder, negligent manslaughter, etc)?


    Non-violent, negligent manslaughter included. Basically, if there was no intention of bodily harm to any other person. Crimes such as rape, murder, armer robbery -- I'd say life long ban. Assault and battery are questionable 'cause if I soak some nice person's nose in a bar brawl I could be charged and convicted of battery and in some cases even assault even if I was defending myself, in no way that is basis for me not owning firearms in the future. After all I didn't shoot that nice person [;)]

    quote:Originally posted by medic07
    2. Would you support restoring them ONLY upon full completion of the sentence or would you support them upon parole from prison?


    Parole, conditionally.

    quote:Originally posted by medic07
    3. Would you feel that it should be a blanket policy to restore their right or should it be on a case by case basis?


    Blanket.

    Now then, having said all that, I'd also review and rehaul the whole punitive system, but it's a subject for a completely different discussion.
    0
  • spurgemastur
    Not all felonies should result in the loss of fire-arms rights; only those that indicate a violent nature. The array of crimes that are now considered felonies is broad; taking gun rights from all those people is ridiculous.

    For a person who has lost their right to bear arms (and as a society we do reserve the authority to take peoples' freedom from them under certain circumstances), there should be a process by which they can petition to have them restored. But if the class of people from whom we strip such rights is reasonably narrow, then the restoration or rights process should be on a case-by-case basis.
    0
  • medic07
    Alrighty...I promised I would put mine down after someone else did.

    1. Most felonies should be allowed to have rights restored with the exception of the following:
    - Premeditated murder
    - A violent crime in which a gun was used and a person was injured
    - When a person threatened another with a visible weapon

    2. Only upon FULL completion of the sentence. Parole should be allowed, but the person needs to complete the parole prior to restoration.

    3. Each case should be reviewed. Not sure if by a judge or by the correctional system (they should have input as they are the ones that saw how the person acted in prison) or possibly even a parole officer.

    Sharpshooter. I hadn't honestly thought about the repeat offenders. Good point. If the repeat...loss of rights for ever.
    0
  • dheffley
    I would say any felony that was committed under the age of 18 should qualify. After 18, no gun related or sex related crimes should qualify, but all others should be measured against the persons previous criminal record (how many, at what age, how much violence involved, any misdemeanors and what violence was included, was there drug or alcohol use with arrest or convictions, etc.) upon a 5 year completion of the original sentence.

    For anyone who made a mistake, paid for it, stayed out of trouble after being released, I don't have a problem restoring their rights to hunt or defend themselves. For the consistent law breaker, no way!
    0
  • Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by medic07

    - When a person threatened another with a visible weapon


    Again, this presents a problem that if you deter a potential crime with a weapon and that other nice person in turn calls cops and you get charged with brandishing and menacing, what happens then?

    quote:Originally posted by medic07
    3. Each case should be reviewed. Not sure if by a judge or by the correctional system (they should have input as they are the ones that saw how the person acted in prison) or possibly even a parole officer.


    Can you imagine the amount of strain it would put on the system and how much it would cost? And what is your reasoning for doing it case by case?
    0
  • medic07
    sneaky...I exclude the simple fights that occur as they usually do not result in a felony conviction. And self defense is definitely not grounds for loss of rights.

    There are laws that need to be changed/readdressed. Domestic violence is one of those. A verbal disagreement can lead to loss of gun rights...that is total BS.
    0
  • ginmaster
    I'm not in a position to matter so, I'll speak my mind. The term felony refers to crime which are generally more serious than others. It takes a certain mentality to commit a felony or do something that isn't just wrong, but really wrong. If you are willing to do something really wrong then you should really pay the price, with both short and long term effects.
    0
  • AZEX
    Doesn't matter. The Feds have consistently failed to provide ATF the funding to do background checks on those convicted of federal felonies. Therefore, once convicted of a Federal felony, the convicted can never have their gun rights restored.

    It's like being a man without a country. The case, IIRC, which took it all the way to SCOTUS was Bean v. US and the SCOTUS held, again IIRC, that it was irrelevant that the man had served his sentence, and that his only "crime" was that he had inadvertently taken shotgun shells into Mexico, when he went there to have dinner with some business associates.

    So, the object lesson is, never get charged with a federal crime, and if you do, don't take a plea. Fight, lose (because the whole Fedrule Kangaroo Kort system is a sick parody of "justice"), and then become a real outlaw.

    D.
    0
  • medic07
    quote:originally posted by sneakyrussian
    Can you imagine the amount of strain it would put on the system and how much it would cost? And what is your reasoning for doing it case by case?

    Point taken on the amount of time and cost. I consider case review because how a person acts while in prison or on parole should bear on restoration of rights. I understand that if they are paroled then they SHOULD have been model inmates. I think that the review process could be integrated into the release process.
    0
  • bobski
    if you restore the right to bear arms to felons, the fear of loss will be lost. restoring rights is a reward. criminals do not get rewards, they get punishment and a RECORD.
    there has to be a sense of loss for wrong doing or else wrong doing will flurish.
    no.
    you screw up, you lose it.
    ex-felons will never be equals to law abiding citizens. they may pay the dues, rejoin the public, and be productive, but will never be equals, NEVER.
    law abiders are rewarded.
    excons are marked for life as examples to others.[^]
    0
  • cce1302
    I say they should have their cases submitted to a new message forum here on gunbroker, called "Felons' Rights" and we vote on them. Of course, there would have to be some controls or they would just have all their friends vote yes. No new members starting riiiiighht...NOW!
    0
  • dheffley
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    Can you imagine the amount of strain it would put on the system and how much it would cost? And what is your reasoning for doing it case by case?


    Let them pay for it. They got themselves in this position, now they want to roll back their punishment. Let them pay enought to cover the extra courts and judges required to do the work, and the law enforcement costs of checks.

    If I do something stupid like racing my car and blowing the engine, I have to pay for the cost to have a running car again, they need to do the same.
    0
  • dheffley
    quote:Originally posted by bobski
    if you restore the right to bear arms to felons, the fear of loss will be lost. restoring rights is a reward. criminals do not get rewards, they get punishment and a RECORD.

    So if you screw up on your taxes and get busted (a felony) you can never pay for that crime enough? You pay the government back and do your time, but you never have a "paid in full" stamped on your record?

    I don't think so.

    I know a guy who stole a cooler of beer out of the back of a truck when he was 17 years old. Stupid, yes. A felony in Texas at the time, yes. Today, he is a convicted felon who can't own a gun, hunt, or even go to the range and shoot with us.

    That's fair, right?
    0
  • Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by medic07
    quote:originally posted by sneakyrussian
    Can you imagine the amount of strain it would put on the system and how much it would cost? And what is your reasoning for doing it case by case?

    Point taken on the amount of time and cost. I consider case review because how a person acts while in prison or on parole should bear on restoration of rights. I understand that if they are paroled then they SHOULD have been model inmates. I think that the review process could be integrated into the release process.


    Makes sense. Again, it all depends on whether the punitive-"correctional" system is rehauled or left intact, 'cause in the state it is in now, and pardon me for stating the obvious, there's nothing correctional, people become better criminals while incarcerated, not better citizens. Well, not having much information on numbers of convictions, I can't really draw any conclusions of what percentages are violent felons, so I guess that would be a condition of a release, and like dheffley said there earlier, it would make a lot of sense to have some sort of waiting period. Maybe not 5 years, maybe based on the offense, but yeah, after being "rehabilitated", one must prove that he/she is capable of staying on track.
    0
  • Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    Can you imagine the amount of strain it would put on the system and how much it would cost? And what is your reasoning for doing it case by case?


    Let them pay for it. They got themselves in this position, now they want to roll back their punishment. Let them pay enought to cover the extra courts and judges required to do the work, and the law enforcement costs of checks.


    Very good point.
    0
  • charliemeyer007
    I know a guy that hit some hard times and was arrested for felony back child support. It is all paid off now but he still has a heck of a time buying a gun sometimes.

    So didn't Bo and Luke Duke use a bow cause they couldn't have a gun?


    I'd call that bold talk for a one eyed fat man!
    0
  • Colt Super
    If the government puts the guy on the street, his rights should be fully restored.

    Which means... far fewer crooks should ever be released.

    Doug
    0
  • 788-308
    Don't know about other states, but here in OK, after a period of time equal to the original sentence + probation has passed (example-5 year sentence, 5 year probation) would equate to 20 years after the original sentencing date, one can hire an attorney to petition to have some rights restored, or for a pardon. Restoration of voting right does not require an attorney.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    The founders believed gun ownership was a right, not a privilege.

    I agree with them
    0
  • ripley16
    Never for a violent crime.
    Maybe for non-violent, depending on the crime.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    I would say any felony that was committed under the age of 18 should qualify. After 18, no gun related or sex related crimes should qualify, but all others should be measured against the persons previous criminal record (how many, at what age, how much violence involved, any misdemeanors and what violence was included, was there drug or alcohol use with arrest or convictions, etc.) upon a 5 year completion of the original sentence.

    For anyone who made a mistake, paid for it, stayed out of trouble after being released, I don't have a problem restoring their rights to hunt or defend themselves. For the consistent law breaker, no way!

    High lighted in red is allready the case!

    I know from experience![:(]

    A juvinile (as long as they were charged as a juvinile) upon thier 18th birthday can patition the court to have thier records sealed and therefore resore all rights!

    I had a pretty extensive juvinile record as a teenager includeing 1 felony and all those records are long gone to never be seen again!

    The prosses is very easy to get done and in most cases a lawyer is not even nessisary to have the records sealed.
    0
  • David Nunn
    I wouldn't have a problem with restoring all civil rights to any felon who has COMPLETELY DISCHARGED his entire sentence, including parole, and paid any court-ordered fines and/or restitution, and who is not required to register as a sex offender.

    The catch is, that fellow is a rare animal indeed. Ask mateo.
    0
  • ladyhunter
    i have a real problem with this subject and on some of the replies. yes i believe a person should have their rights restored but not all felons. my sister was covicted on invol mansluaghter when she was 16 in a selfdefense case. will she always be a felon? s she not EQUAL to everyone else?in some cases she is better then some of the non-felons i have met in my life time .she hasrtecieved butstillcan not buy a firearm. she will tell you straight out if she had the same thing to happen she would protect herself again in any way she had to. a person who goes out just to murder, rape or rob should be punished. not all felons are scum just had to do what they had to do.
    0
  • iwannausername
    Anything where there isn't a victim....
    0
  • David Nunn
    quote:Anything where there isn't a victim....

    ???????????????????

    In a perfect world, if "there isn't a victim," then there would be no crime, no criminal, no one in jail to have to be concerned about whether his rights are restored.
    0
  • barto
    The single BIGGEST catch is it's "big brother" who gets to decide who qualifies for reinstitution.
    Therin lies the rub.
    [:(!]barto[:(!]
    0
  • bobski
    restoring rights is like making history go away. you cant make history go away.
    thats why felons have RECORDS.
    if youre bad, you pay a price for the wrong.
    when you pay the price, youre welcome back into public, but the record of your past stays with you.
    we are all cabable of wrong doing.
    the ones who are wise never put themselves in a position where they can be harmed by evil and flee evil. they fear laws power.
    law is for everyone.
    felons should count their blessings they live in america. other countries would just plain kill them. i like the countries that cut fingers off thieves. this way you can tell them in public and steer clear of them. i also like the ones that have their tongues cut out for lieing and deception. its real easy to pick them out in a crowd.

    so, what do our felons get to warn us of their past? nothing.

    or, they dont get to buy guns.

    i like that.[^]
    0
  • bgjohn
    NOPE!
    JM
    0
  • iwannausername
    nunn - my point exactly. Until there is a victim, no crime has been committed. Granted, there won't be a lot of things changed by that (possession laws, crossing state lines, conspiracy, intent, etc would all go...) but based on that alone - never mind restoring rights - we'd see a tremendous drop in prison populations, court schedules, etc.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity