Recidivism and Felon carry.

[wjh2657]

<o:p></o>

Bureau of Justice Statistics:<o:p></o>

Summary findings

• Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. <o:p></o>
  
• These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release. <o:p></o>
  
• Released prisoners with the highest re-arrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%). <o:p></o>
  

The methodology, State breakdown and raw data can be found at:<o:p></o>

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1134<o:p></o>

A full, .pdf copy of the report is available at:<o:p></o>

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf<o:p></o>

<o:p> </o>

I have noticed the reaction of many posters on whether or not the second amendment is to be taken literally, with no reservations or limitations whatsoever, seem to encounter friction from other second amendment supporters when it comes to the question whether convicted felons should be able to legally acquire and/or carry weapons (note the disclaimer: legally acquire.) <o:p></o>

In light of above, do you believe that the Second Amendment pertains to all,released felons included or do you believe that there should be a restriction not allowing released felons to legally acquire and/or carry a firearm (note disclaimer again:legally carry.)? <o:p></o>

<o:p> </o>

The fact that Felons can and do carry guns illegally is not the point of dispute here. The question is simply do you believe that the restrictions for legal carry and possession currently incumbent of released felons be nullified or enforced?<o:p></o>

Edited June 5, 2011 by wjh2657

[mikegideon]

With all of these statistics, the most important one is missing. How many repeat offenders went from non-violent crime, to violent crime with a firearm? How is a gun even related to a crime that uses a screwdriver to execute the crime?

Once again, gun laws that make a lot of things happen, but do NOTHING to address the problem. A criminal that uses a gun for his area of specialty is NOT going to be worried about a gun charge. The crime itself has much greater risk.

[Guest bkelm18]

Personally I do not have an issue with having gun right removed from felons. We're never going to have a country free of gun laws, as much as we may wish. So, in my mind, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[mikegideon]

Personally I do not have an issue with having gun right removed from felons. We're never going to have a country free of gun laws, as much as we may wish. So, in my mind, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Not sure I disagree with you. Just pointing out that it's just another gun law that impacts a bunch of the wrong folks (in terms of preventing "gum crime"). I kinda believe that you should take guns away from people that misbehave with guns.

[deerslayer]

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

+100

Should Bernie Madoff or Robert Hannson own a gun? Should non-violent convicted felons be allowed to become FBI agents? Violent/non-violent criminal is not an issue.

Edited June 5, 2011 by deerslayer

[mikegideon]

+100

Should Bernie Madoff or Robert Hannson own a gun? Violent/non-violent criminal is not an issue.

Everybody has an opinion about who should own a gun. Boxer, Brady, Obama, etc. Bernie may be a bad example, but I doubt seriously he would actually shoot somebody, excluding self defense.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I wonder if it would be "equally constitutional" with the practice of prohibiting felons from voting?

This article claims that it is constitutional to permanently ban felons from voting though only a few remaining states still enforce felon disenfranchisement.

Felony disenfranchisement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is the practical matter of whether it would benefit society to ban felons from legally having guns. Which may be a different issue than the constitutional question?

There have been felon hackers banned from owning or using a computer. Am not certain if there are constitutional clauses violated by a computer ban. Maybe that would constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

The courts seem to have repeatedly ruled that no right is absolute. So I guess they can keep on whittling rights as long as it pleases the whim of the supreme court. Once the supremes have decided to restrict a right, then justices in years afterwards rarely reverse earlier decisions. It seems to work like a one-way valve or a ratchet. Rights can be repeatedly incrementally weakened, but they are rarely if ever strengthened by the court. So over time it only moves in one direction-- fewer and more restricted rights.

Intuitively it sounds like a good idea to ban felons from legal firearms, but on the other hand the ban may not benefit society if the felon happened to have got that way via non-violent crime. Maybe the one-size-fits-all prohibition is easier to legally defend? If only gun-crime felons were barred from having legal guns, then perhaps it would somehow violate the principle of equal protection under the law?

Ain't a lawyer or even thunk about playing one on TV, and haven't even stayed in a Holiday Inn lately.

[deerslayer]

Rights can be repeatedly incrementally weakened, but they are rarely if ever strengthened by the court. So over time it only moves in one direction-- fewer and more restricted rights.

So, what rights were "incrementally weakened" by SCOTUS during the 60s? More recently, ever heard of DC v. Heller?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So, what rights were "incrementally weakened" by SCOTUS during the 60s? More recently, ever heard of DC v. Heller?

Hi deerslayer.

I'm not smart enough to non-foolishly discuss this.

Did you mean just gun rights, or any right?

I was merely rambling about the supreme court being loathe to contradict previous supreme court rulings.

After more than two centuries of the court inventing thousands of pages details mystically divined from the few pages of original constitutional text-- Every new ruling is a refined estimate of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. As long as the court remains loathe to contradict its forebears, then every new decision limits future justices' "wiggle room".

The situation may resemble the logical consequences of an "infallible pope" concept? After centuries of "infallible pope" declarations, then how much wiggle room remains for a modern pope? To express divergent opinion, a modern pope would necessarily have to contradict previous popes, thereby demonstrating that previous popes were NOT infallible?

In D.C. v. Heller the trick was to "thread the needle" opening some breathing room on the 2nd while contradicting as little as possible in 200 years' previous rulings.

It just seems unlikely that this system is set up in such a way that freedoms are likely to expand in the future. Future justices would have to more often say, "Those old men were wrong and we are turning everything on its head." If justices become too willing to reverse earlier decisions then that would become a hazard if we end up with too many big gov statist justices on the bench. If the court became too willing to reverse previous decisions, then a big gov statist court could rapidly wreak serious damage on freedoms. If they become too willing to reverse previous decisions then the knife could cut both ways.

====

I don't much care whether felons are banned from owning weapons. It might bug G. Gordon Liddy.

When googling about it this afternoon, noticed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Surely selected states must have had laws against felons owning weapons before 1968?

The 1968 law contains a phrase anyone who has filled out a gun purchase background check would recognize--

Section 1202: "Any person who - "(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony, or "(2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, or "(3) has been adjudged by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of being mentally incompetent, or "(4) having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship, or "(5) being an alien is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

That part of the act has been appealed several times, though the judgements seem to side-step the central issue and decide based on peripheral trivia.

Am now curious whether felon gun ownership bans are a relatively recent phenomena?

Had just assumed that felons had "always" been banned from owning guns.

[bajabuc]

Had just assumed that felons had "always" been banned from owning guns.

yeah...me too

[1gewehr]

Hi deerslayer.

Am now curious whether felon gun ownership bans are a relatively recent phenomena?

Had just assumed that felons had "always" been banned from owning guns.

Nope, this is an outgrowth of the '60's mostly. Previous to the '68 GCA, some states banned felons from owning firearms, but most believed that if you weren't dangerous enough to be in jail, then you were safe to have a gun. Of course, that was before we started filling the jails with non-violent criminals. You may have heard the phrase "pay his debt to society'. Americans used to believe that crime was ALL property crime. As such, you could 'pay your debt' for almost anything short of murder. And once that debt was paid, you could make a fresh start.

Now, of course, we are much smarter and know that once you have committed any felony such as buying some marijuana or bringing a toilet down from Canada that doesn't meet the EPA standards, you are permanently going to be too dangerous to be allowed to mix with normal folks. Therefore, you should be permanently branded as a 'felon', lose basic Constitutional rights, and have to tell the world you are a felon every time you apply for a job, open a bank account, or fill out a loan application or pretty much do anything.

Is there any wonder that recidivism rates are much higher now than they were 50 years ago? Then, someone had a chance at a fresh start. Now, that person might as well be branded with a huge red 'F' on each cheek. And since all felons are too dangerous to mix with normal people, we have a much larger percentage of our population in jail, in spite of a lower violent crime rate. I'd like someone to logically explain how that makes any sense?

[gregintenn]

Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong, but why do we have adults loose in public that couldn't be trusted with a firearm?

[mikegideon]

Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong, but why do we have adults loose in public that couldn't be trusted with a firearm?

Well, there are those that believe you and I shouldn't be trusted.

[deerslayer]

Lester,

I was not specifically talking about gun rights.

Now, of course, we are much smarter and know that once you have committed any felony such as buying some marijuana or bringing a toilet down from Canada that doesn't meet the EPA standards, you are permanently going to be too dangerous to be allowed to mix with normal folks.

I don't know about the toilet thing, but I would wager that the majority of marijuana arrestees are not charged with felonies. I would lose no sleep if they were, though. Whatever the case, they will "mix with normal folks" either way.

Edited June 6, 2011 by deerslayer

[Guest HvyMtl]

Well, then that is the easiest way to remove firearms. Label ownership a felony.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

It really is a tough question. Our Constitution does not leave room for us to take away anyone's rights to have a gun for protection period.

But then there are those who agree that it is OK to do just that to a felon. Then we have the violent vs non violent felons and of course there is a world of difference in types of felonies.

Then of course as was said at one time a person could indeed "pay their debt" and have a chance to start over, these days that just dont seem possible.

To me if the person is found to be worthy of their freedom after serving their time and trustable enough to walk freely among us then they should be able to protect themselves just like the rest of us but we have grown into a society that does not see things that way.

The bottom line as we all know is that if a person wants to have a gun that they will find a way to have themselves a gun no matter how many laws there are against it.

We also know that there are many folks who would gladly disarm everyone of us tomorrow if they could.

I sure dont claim to know all about anything but I would bet that there has yet to be a single gun law that prevented a single gun crime EVER.

So in a more direct answer to the OP.....I dont think such a law is Constitutional, I dont think that even if somehow it was found to be, that it would matter to someone who wanted to aquire a gun anyway.

So I find such a law to be just as useless as any of the other "feel-good" gun laws that we have.

[deerslayer]

It really is a tough question. Our Constitution does not leave room for us to take away anyone's rights to have a gun for protection period.

Does the Constitution leave room for us to execute criminals?

To me if the person is found to be worthy of their freedom after serving their time and trustable enough to walk freely among us then they should be able to protect themselves just like the rest of us but we have grown into a society that does not see things that way.

So the previously non-violent convicted felon who shot my father in his driveway should be able to walk into Guns and Ammo and buy a Glock 17 after he gets out of prison for attempted 2nd degree murder, no strings attached? You people are NUTS.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Does the Constitution leave room for us to execute criminals?

So the previously non-violent convicted felon who shot my father in his driveway should be able to walk into Guns and Ammo and buy a Glock 17 after he gets out of prison for attempted 2nd degree murder, no strings attached? You people are NUTS.

Nuts I am, but I mean that in a good way.

I think you mis-read the intent of my post, which in a nutshell is only that any law would not stop these people. They never have that I know of.

I am sorry about your dad from the bottom of my heart friend....but the law didnt stop that asshat from doing what he did, nor will it stop him from doing it again or stop anyone else. The BG's are going to be BG's no matter how many laws we make.

As for the death penalty, I dont know just what the Constitution says about the extent of criminal punishment other than cruel and unusual, but I certainly agree with capitol punishment. No matter how it is carried out IMO it will never be anymore cruel and unusual that what the BG dishes out to start with.

If I offended you, that was not my intent. I just dont know how we can make sure that any gun laws are effective, I sure wish that I did as I lost a dear friend years ago to a convicted felon, the laws did not stop that scumbag either, a LEO's bullet finally did.

[deerslayer]

I did not misread the third sentence of your post, which ridiculed those who want to disarm all those poor, harmless felons. That set the tone of the rest of your post. I do agree that few, if any laws will stop motivated criminals from acquiring weapons. However, I don't understand why law-abiding people would wish to grease the skids for the non law-abiding to acquire weapons. It's much easier for me to go to the gun store and legally buy a weapon than it is for me to meet a thug in a dark alley and buy a stolen one. Why make it just as easy for criminals?

Should convicted felons be allowed a carry permit?

[vontar]

I started to right a long winded story, but then to get back to the topic I believe I can cut it short.

Only for Non violent offenders and then with special restrictions that need not be applied.

Does the Constitution leave room for us to execute criminals?

well, some states are just locking them away for life so it is like a lay away death penalty plan.

So the previously non-violent convicted felon who shot my father in his driveway should be able to walk into Guns and Ammo and buy a Glock 17 after he gets out of prison for attempted 2nd degree murder, no strings attached? You people are NUTS.

Sorry about your father. When he gets out he would be considered a violent offender at least and I would say NO.

But someone that has been non violent, there could perhaps be a process to allow them to regain the right.

I am not saying an over night process.

Maybe a graduation type process to regain for only non violent felons.

Maybe X time probation with with. X time they are only allowed to have 1 for home defense and since they are a felony it must be registered as part of the process. After X period of time with no problems they may be allowed to gain a better status and maybe a HCP/CC. (however I know something like this would never happen). It would be political suicide.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I did not misread the third sentence of your post, which ridiculed those who want to disarm all those poor, harmless felons. That set the tone of the rest of your post. I do agree that few, if any laws will stop motivated criminals from acquiring weapons. However, I don't understand why law-abiding people would wish to grease the skids for the non law-abiding to acquire weapons. It's much easier for me to go to the gun store and legally buy a weapon than it is for me to meet a thug in a dark alley and buy a stolen one. Why make it just as easy for criminals?

Should convicted felons be allowed a carry permit?

If you can take my simple statement of fact that has occurred in this country to mean that I am ridiculing anyone there really isnt anything I can say to make you understand otherwise.

The sentence you speak of did not contain the words Poor, Harmless or Felons, it was simply a statement of fact.

Whether you or I agree with the current laws concerning felons and guns or not, they still do not work.

I dont really have any problem with our current laws other than they are just like the rest of the gun laws in this country.....they do not work.

Given what happened to your dad I can certainly understand your frustrations and opinons about this matter, as I said I also wish the laws in place did work but they dont.

I would be 100% behind anything that would have stopped what happened to my friend or to your dad but I have no idea just what that would be. If written laws actually stopped criminal activities we would not even need prisons or jails.

The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine, it was in no way directed at you or anyone for that matter, it was simply my opinion and answer to the OP's question and seems to fall in line with both 1gewehr and Vontar.

They are just opinions plain and simple.

[deerslayer]

If you can take my simple statement of fact that has occurred in this country to mean that I am ridiculing anyone there really isnt anything I can say to make you understand otherwise.

The sentence you speak of did not contain the words Poor, Harmless or Felons, it was simply a statement of fact.

Whether you or I agree with the current laws concerning felons and guns or not, they still do not work.

I dont really have any problem with our current laws other than they are just like the rest of the gun laws in this country.....they do not work.

Given what happened to your dad I can certainly understand your frustrations and opinons about this matter, as I said I also wish the laws in place did work but they dont.

I would be 100% behind anything that would have stopped what happened to my friend or to your dad but I have no idea just what that would be. If written laws actually stopped criminal activities we would not even need prisons or jails.

The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine, it was in no way directed at you or anyone for that matter, it was simply my opinion and answer to the OP's question and seems to fall in line with both 1gewehr and Vontar.

They are just opinions plain and simple.

I ask again, should felons be allowed to obtain a carry permit?

[DaveTN]

For those of you that were asleep the last two years, let me fill you in.

Where and when you carry a gun is not a individual constitutional right. Owning a gun and keeping it on your property is a right.

It is a crime to carry a gun in the state of Tennessee. It is also a crime for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm. If I'm not mistaken in the last couple of years Tennessee passed legislation that made that offense mandatory prison time.

Now that we have determined that this is a state issue and not a constitutional one, I will say this; If a person has done their time and the state has seen fit to release them, they should have their rights reinstated. If a person committed a crime so violent that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun; they either shouldn't be out of prison or they should be on parole for life, and the gun restriction can be a condition of parole.

[deerslayer]

Madness

[East_TN_Patriot]

For those of you that were asleep the last two years, let me fill you in.

Where and when you carry a gun is not a individual constitutional right. Owning a gun and keeping it on your property is a right.

It is a crime to carry a gun in the state of Tennessee. It is also a crime for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm. If I'm not mistaken in the last couple of years Tennessee passed legislation that made that offense mandatory prison time.

Now that we have determined that this is a state issue and not a constitutional one, I will say this; If a person has done their time and the state has seen fit to release them, they should have their rights reinstated. If a person committed a crime so violent that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun; they either shouldn't be out of prison or they should be on parole for life, and the gun restriction can be a condition of parole.

^^^ This.

Also, many people assume that felons are inherently evil people and that they will always be evil people. That simply isn't the case. Many times, the convicted felon is just like the rest of us, but they got caught and most likely didn't have the money to obtain a good defense attorney. Most people have committed a felony at some point in their life whether they realize it or not, whether they got caught or not. There are so many felony crimes out there, it isn't too difficult to stumble into one during your life.