Should non-violent first offense felons loose their gun rights?

[Guest Mad4rcn]

I do believe non-violent, first time offenders should have their rights restored. Violent or repeat offenders, no. They've proven they can't function in a civilized society.

​This.

[Guest conditionZERO]

I could not agree more!

[Guest lostpass]

I wasn't referring to drugs or anything related. I was referring to becoming a felon without

committing any act, like some of the gun crimes, however.

Is it not a felony to possess a machine gun without a tax stamp? I think one would do serious time in a barred facility

without doing anything more than doing just that and the ATF knocks on your door.

That's pretty much an act. You're actually doing something illegal. Though I don't agree with the law at all. I've heard tales of people who got slapped with that when guns failed and went accidentally auto. Though I don't have the reference at my fingertips. In that case I would agree, there was no intentional act involved.

There are a lot more on the Federal Register than just gun laws, too. This is out of the

scope of the OP's topic, but there are a lot of traps set that could make one a felon,

other than a situation like statutory rape or the like.

Felony can be an overused word. There are crimes so heinous that the word "felony"

doesn't fit. Some crimes that were misdemeanors have been made felonies nowadays,

I'll bet, but I don't know enough to understand the process.

I know of one individual who had been in prison for breaking into a house and went to

prison for a term. Later, he got it expunged, somehow, and got a job where I work. I

don't know how all that stuff works, but I wonder sometimes. He probably wouldn't

have gotten his job, otherwise.

What most people want when it comes to property crimes is for the crimes to stop. If your co worker hasn't broken into a house and stole a stereo for five years that is enough to make most people happy. In my opinion felonies should be generally reserved for the outrageous, violent and recidivist crimes and criminals. Imagine a guy was busted with cocaine 25 years ago. It's a felony. Tomorrow he has a gun and gets pulled over. That's ten years in the federal pokey as far as I know. And he's only been arrested once. Seems crazy to me.

[Guest conditionZERO]

What most people want when it comes to property crimes is for the crimes to stop. If your co worker hasn't broken into a house and stole a stereo for five years that is enough to make most people happy. In my opinion felonies should be generally reserved for the outrageous, violent and recidivist crimes and criminals. Imagine a guy was busted with cocaine 25 years ago. It's a felony. Tomorrow he has a gun and gets pulled over. That's ten years in the federal pokey as far as I know. And he's only been arrested once. Seems crazy to me.

Very well put...this is exactly the point im trying to make, now if we can only get the rest of society on board....

[Guest oldslowchevy]

i started a thread on here much about the same thing. and i do agree. do your time and your dept should be paid. do it again and well.... don't come looking for pity.

[Makiaveli]

Very well put...this is exactly the point im trying to make, now if we can only get the rest of society on board....

Some of these laws seem foolish when looking at one individual, or in a specific circumstance. Add in some are poorly conceived or executed. However, the idea is to prevent crimes by locking people up who seem incapable of obeying the laws BEFORE they kill someone.

Sure the guy may have had a small drug problem and kicked it, and then decided to carry a gun for legit reasons, but that is also the actions of a drug dealer, correct? It's a good idea to arrest the latter prior to a shootout, and the former should be seeking an expungement and not violating the law.

[Guest conditionZERO]

Bottom line is, we are all as a people born with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If someone commits a crime and their civil rights are suspended for the duration of their debt to society, those rights should be reinstated upon completion of that debt. It is not a case of what someone "could" or "might" do, it is about what they did, and whether their debt was paid.

Our country was built on principles that are supposed to protect the people from an overbearing government, because that is what we left behind in Europe. We can not continue to punish someone based upon what he or she might be capable of because of a past incident, that is bordering thought crimes.

If someone uses a firearm or extreme violence in the coarse of a crime, they should be locked away for life! Then the issue of their rights is , well, no longer an issue. If someone commits a non violent petty crime, their rights should be restored under our constitution.

Just because a man, or a group of men make a law, it does not make it right. The more citizens that are openly armed in this country, the more you will see the crime rate drop. Criminals are going to be armed no matter what the hell the law says..they are CRIMINALS they dont care! The only people that are affected and hurt by these laws are law abiding people, this includes some people convicted of ridiculous felonies, who in the end are the targets of violent criminals, and end up as victims. Wake up people!

Edited December 7, 2011 by conditionZERO

[strickj]

Bottom line is, we are all as a people born with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If someone commits a crime and their civil rights are suspended for the duration of their debt to society, those rights should be reinstated upon completion of that debt. It is not a case of what someone "could" or "might" do, it is about what they did, and whether their debt was paid.

Our country was built on principles that are supposed to protect the people from an overbearing government, because that is what we left behind in Europe. We can not continue to punish someone based upon what he or she might be capable of because of a past incident, that is bordering thought crimes.

If someone uses a firearm or extreme violence in the coarse of a crime, they should be locked away for life! Then the issue of their rights is , well, no longer an issue. If someone commits a non violent petty crime, their rights should be restored under our constitution.

Just because a man, or a group of men make a law, it does not make it right. The more citizens that are openly armed in this country, the more you will see the crime rate drop. Criminals are going to be armed no matter what the hell the law says..they are CRIMINALS they dont care! The only people that are affected and hurt by these laws are law abiding people, this includes some people convicted of ridiculous felonies, who in the end are the targets of violent criminals, and end up as victims. Wake up people!

Would it be A-ok for an older adult to have sex with a minor that he met at, let's say, a park in the middle of the day? No violence. No forcing. Just a pedophile preying on the mental instability and insecurities of a teen girl? His defense, once caught, is simply; "Your Honor, I met her in a park in the middle of the day. All minors are supposed to be in school at that time of day. How was I supposed to know she was underage?".

And you would be ok with that man having full rights for the rest of his life?

[Guest conditionZERO]

No it would not, I as do most courts, consider that a violent act anyway (sexual battery). I believe crimes of that nature should be punished with much harsher sentences like LIFE. But I do believe a line should be drawn between a sexual predator like that and a youthful adult (18-23 ) that unknowingly hooks up with a dishonest teenage girl...there is a huge difference. And picking a minor up in a park? To me there is no defense for that.

We can split hairs all day, my point is pretty clear. I do not want to protect criminals, I want to protect our constitution.

[Makiaveli]

It is not a case of what someone "could" or "might" do, it is about what they did, and whether their debt was paid.

I grant that the above is true. However, part of paying back their debt to society could include forfeiting the right to carry. Personally I think any crime that would justify such a penalty should be a capital offense, and we all know how effective the current laws are but I think my point stands.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Makiaveli

[strickj]

826739] No it would not, I as do most courts, consider that a violent act anyway (sexual battery). I believe crimes of that nature should be punished with much harsher sentences like LIFE. But I do believe a line should be drawn between a sexual predator like that and a youthful adult (18-23 ) that unknowingly hooks up with a dishonest teenage girl...there is a huge difference. And picking a minor up in a park? To me there is no defense for that.

We can split hairs all day, my point is pretty clear. I do not want to protect criminals, I want to protect our constitution.

Replace "park" with "bar" and we have your brother (and no, I'm not calling your brother a pedophile).

You can split hairs all you want, but that's what happened...

[Guest conditionZERO]

Come on dude...completely different situation, and you know the difference, this is getting ridiculous. So what your saying is there is no difference between a young unsuspecting man between the ages of 18 and 23 who meets a teen in a bar on a fake ID, or an older man who picks up a young girl in a park?? Common sense has to come in here somewhere.

I think you are smart enough to know the point I am trying to make, but there will always be a what if factor, and it can be spun many different ways. Kind of like a man who steals because of hunger, and a man who steals because of greed..which is worse? And please do not say both, at some point we have to be human here.

[Guest conditionZERO]

I grant that the above is true. However, part of paying back their debt to society could include forfeiting the right to carry. Personally I think any crime that would justify such a penalty should be a capital offense, and we all know how effective the current laws are but I think my point stands.

This I agree with.

[Guest 270win]

I believe it takes several DWI convictions in most states before the person is given a felony DWI conviction. Just being convicted of one or even two DWI's is still a misdemeanor and should not cause someone to be prohibited from owning a firearm. The state does have somewhat of a higher standard for folks who want handgun carry permits.

I do not have a problem with a person convicted of a NON VIOLENT felony owning a firearm if the person is allowed to vote. The good thing is a lot of people who are convicted of non violent felonies can get expungements which can allow gun ownership/voting rights. Voting rights and firearm rights go hand in hand to me.

I do have a problem with violent felons owning firearms or voting. Many should be in prison for a lot longer than they serve.

Martha Stewart even the crook Illinois governor Blago I don't have a problem with them owning firearms after their time has been served.

[1gewehr]

I grant that the above is true. However, part of paying back their debt to society could include forfeiting the right to carry.

Let's use words correctly. There is no possible way that losing a right can repay a debt. And the phrase 'debt to society' is not just slang. It really means to repay society for the expenses caused by committing a crime. If a book-keeper steals from the company accounts, then the amount they stole, the cost to the company of prosecuting the criminal, the court costs, and other expenses and damage caused by the crime are what the criminal 'owes' to society. Obviously, such non-violent crimes can be accurately accounted, and the debt repaid.

The problem comes in when you add violence to a crime. How do you put a price on a murder? A criminal cannot possibly pay back THAT debt. That is why we lock them up. Somehow, our system of justice has gotten away from that. So, now we lock people up for crimes that have no victims and take away fundamental rights without any means for that person to ever get them back. Where is the sense in that? If you cannot point to the damage, then there should be no crime. And thus, no 'debt to society'.

[strickj]

Come on dude...completely different situation, and you know the difference, this is getting ridiculous. So what your saying is there is no difference between a young unsuspecting man between the ages of 18 and 23 who meets a teen in a bar on a fake ID, or an older man who picks up a young girl in a park?? Common sense has to come in here somewher

Same thing.

I can understand giving him some lee-way given the circumstances. But, he still did the crime when it comes down to it. Doesn't matter how drunk he was. Doesn't matter how old she looked. Doesn't matter where they were. He committed a crime. Flat out. Point period.

And he still accepted the plea deal. He ****ed up twice there, didn't he....

He get's no sympathy

Kind of like a man who steals because of hunger, and a man who steals because of greed..which is worse? And please do not say both, at some point we have to be human here.

If a man breaks into my home to steal from me, he will leave in an ambulance or a body bag. It doesn't matter if he's hungry or not.

If he's really hungry, he can ask me for a couple bucks or to feed him.

He can ask a convenience story clerk for one of those day-old hod dogs. He can ask a restaurant for leftovers after breakfast and at the end of the day. He can go to a food bank. He can go to a church. He can go on welfare.

Don't give me that which is worse BS. A thief is a thief is a thief.

[RobertNashville]

...If a man breaks into my home to steal from me, he will leave in an ambulance or a body bag. It doesn't matter if he's hungry or not.

If he's really hungry, he can ask me for a couple bucks or to feed him.

He can ask a convenience story clerk for one of those day-old hod dogs. He can ask a restaurant for leftovers after breakfast and at the end of the day. He can go to a food bank. He can go to a church. He can go on welfare.

Don't give me that which is worse BS. A thief is a thief is a thief.

Part of me may feel compassion for someone who is breaking into my home because he is "hungry", etc. - I don't think I'd be much of a human being if I didn't "care".

However, if someone breaks into my home I"m not going to ask him his motives - the only reasonable course of action is to assume he/she is there to harm me and for me to defend myself with the best tool I have within reach (which I intend to be a firearm).

___________________

As to whether firearm rights should or should not be restored to a felon, I say that there should be a "path" to having the full rights of citizenship restored to someone who once committed a felony and especially so since many states do have a method/pat to restore some rights - the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be singled out for permanent removal while allowing other rights (such as the right to vote) to be restored.

Such a path should be available to those who committed non-violent crimes and should be after a proscribed period of time has passed during which they have lived a productive life. Obviously, violent felons and particularly those who committed their crimes with a firearm should never have rights restored...in fact, in my humble opinion, such criminals should never see the outside of a prison cell making any restoration of rights a moot point anyway.

Edited December 8, 2011 by RobertNashville

[thundersnow]

I really feel like it is an administrative decision on government 's part. Keeping up with who has been restored or not almost seems unenforceable with the current system.

------

ruger 10 / 22 target and sig 229 .40cal

[Guest conditionZERO]

Part of me may feel compassion for someone who is breaking into my home because he is "hungry", etc. - I don't think I'd be much of a human being if I didn't "care".

However, if someone breaks into my home I"m not going to ask him his motives - the only reasonable course of action is to assume he/she is there to harm me and for me to defend myself with the best tool I have within reach (which I intend to be a firearm).

___________________

As to whether firearm rights should or should not be restored to a felon, I say that there should be a "path" to having the full rights of citizenship restored to someone who once committed a felony and especially so since many states do have a method/pat to restore some rights - the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be singled out for permanent removal while allowing other rights (such as the right to vote) to be restored.

Such a path should be available to those who committed non-violent crimes and should be after a proscribed period of time has passed during which they have lived a productive life. Obviously, violent felons and particularly those who committed their crimes with a firearm should never have rights restored...in fact, in my humble opinion, such criminals should never see the outside of a prison cell making any restoration of rights a moot point anyway.

That is exactly what I am trying to say! Thank you for explaining it better than myself.

[Makiaveli]

Let's use words correctly. There is no possible way that losing a right can repay a debt. And the phrase 'debt to society' is not just slang. It really means to repay society for the expenses caused by committing a crime. If a book-keeper steals from the company accounts, then the amount they stole, the cost to the company of prosecuting the criminal, the court costs, and other expenses and damage caused by the crime are what the criminal 'owes' to society. Obviously, such non-violent crimes can be accurately accounted, and the debt repaid.

The problem comes in when you add violence to a crime. How do you put a price on a murder? A criminal cannot possibly pay back THAT debt. That is why we lock them up. Somehow, our system of justice has gotten away from that. So, now we lock people up for crimes that have no victims and take away fundamental rights without any means for that person to ever get them back. Where is the sense in that? If you cannot point to the damage, then there should be no crime. And thus, no 'debt to society'.

I don't think I used the words improperly. I think the difference between us is that I don't consider the debt to be purely monetary. That and some damages are near impossible to account for. The victim of embezzlement for example, what could the company have done differently if they had had that money? Expanded? Succeeded in getting a contract they lost? Who knows? So how can the person pay back that debt?

[hornett22]

If they're safe enough to be out in the general public,give them they're rights back. If not,keep them locked up or smoke 'em.

[1gewehr]

I don't think I used the words improperly. I think the difference between us is that I don't consider the debt to be purely monetary. That and some damages are near impossible to account for. The victim of embezzlement for example, what could the company have done differently if they had had that money? Expanded? Succeeded in getting a contract they lost? Who knows? So how can the person pay back that debt?

But money is the only real tool we have that enables a criminal to make good the damage he has caused. And it is for damages that cannot be made good with money (murder, rape, etc) that we should be utilizing prisons. And the courts DO have a long history and methodology of assessing damages caused by embezzlement, and other such non-violent crimes. My point remains that if the damages can be repaid, then after they ARE repaid, the person who caused them should get their life back.

And I stress my other point. If a crime has no person who has suffered damages, then there really has been no crime. Who is the victim if someone installs a toilet which uses 2 gallons per flush? Who is the victim if someone cuts their shotgun barrel down to 17", but it is never used in a crime? Who is the victim if someone has arthritis and carries a pocketknife which uses a spring to assist the opening? In these cases, the victim is the person being prosecuted who loses essential rights as a result of a conviction. That is supposedly why we have jury trials. To allow the jury to decide if a person should be prosecuted by a stupid law.

[Makiaveli]

But money is the only real tool we have that enables a criminal to make good the damage he has caused. And it is for damages that cannot be made good with money (murder, rape, etc) that we should be utilizing prisons. And the courts DO have a long history and methodology of assessing damages caused by embezzlement, and other such non-violent crimes. My point remains that if the damages can be repaid, then after they ARE repaid, the person who caused them should get their life back.

And I stress my other point. If a crime has no person who has suffered damages, then there really has been no crime. Who is the victim if someone installs a toilet which uses 2 gallons per flush? Who is the victim if someone cuts their shotgun barrel down to 17", but it is never used in a crime? Who is the victim if someone has arthritis and carries a pocketknife which uses a spring to assist the opening? In these cases, the victim is the person being prosecuted who loses essential rights as a result of a conviction. That is supposedly why we have jury trials. To allow the jury to decide if a person should be prosecuted by a stupid law.

I disagree that money is the only tool. Put the person to work to repair the damage, ie work gangs.

I can see the point you are making, and with purely monetary crimes I personally agree. I also don't have a problem with many of the crimes you list. However, crimes against society are just that. The argument can be made that pollution etc harms all of us. (toilet laws are feel good laws and truly meaningless).

Personally, I don't have a problem with creative sentencing. If some one chooses, and that's the key word chooses, to give up a right, then why not utilize that tool? Chemical (and in some jurisdictions physical is a option) castration has been used as an alternative to imprisonment for sexual offenders. Personally I think Drano would work better in that case, but that's beside the point. So if someone used a firearm in a crime, giving up the right to own one could be a viable option as opposed to a longer sentence. Prisons are expensive, and good luck getting restitution. So anything that reduces the expense without compromising safety is a good option.

Note: I am not implying the current laws banning possession by felons is working, but I think that's a failure to impose appropriate sentences. See Escape from NY for an example of what I consider appropriate if someone repeatedly violates the law.

[Guest JHansonLPN]

So their first offense was non-violent, may be it was just an act of , irresponsibility or poor judgement, it's still a felony and felons are still criminals, even if they are just major losers instead of minor predators I still don't think they should have the same rights as those of us who abide by the law and contribute to society.

[1gewehr]

So their first offense was non-violent, may be it was just an act of , irresponsibility or poor judgement, it's still a felony and felons are still criminals, even if they are just major losers instead of minor predators...

So, if you buy a used car, get pulled over at a traffic stop and a drug dog happens to find a hidden baggie of cocaine in your car, it's OK for you to lose all of your rights? It's happened more than once. Or, how about the SWAT team goes to YOUR place based on the testimony of a paid informer, conducts a raid during which you shoot at a cop breaking down your door. You survive, but go to jail for 'attempted homicide'. This has also happened more often than you would think.

Also, there are a LOT of laws that make violators felons that almost all folks would never guess. How about installing a classic toilet when you redecorate your house? If it flushes 2 gallons, you are a felon. Ever spilled oil while changing the oil in your car? In some places, it's a felony.