Restoration of Rights (to own a firearm, to vote, etc.) SURVEY

[RobertNashville]

[font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]There have been several threads over the past few months and two or three just in as many weeks where a “convicted felon” has been arrested for using a firearm to protect himself from an intruder or some similar instance.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]My basic question is; should someone convicted of a crime and, as a result, has lost his/her “rights”, such as the right to vote or the right to own a firearm, be able to get those rights back at some point in time?[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]Of course, restoration of rights already happens on a state by state basis and with many variations but I think it’s a subject that is worthy of discussion and it’s a question I’ve been wrestling with for some time now. I’m interested in knowing not just what you think but why you think it…your reasoning behind it.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]Please answer the survey and then, if you would, post your thoughts.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]Regards.[/size][/font] Edited November 25, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest richief]

Yeah period of time and non violent crimes should be water under the bridge. We all make mistakes, and speaking for myself, were real stupid as young men. Anyway their are many felonies that can and should be forgiven, upon say 10 yrs of poductive citizenry, maybe 5 yrs for misdemeanors.

[DWARREN123]

Maybe, depends on crime and person. You have to be accountable for your actions and if illegal then you may lose some rights. Don't do wrong and don't lose what many have died to give us.

[Mike]

There's no option for my vote.

Yes. If you are released from prison, you have paid your debt. All rights restored, regardless what you did.

Mike

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Mike' timestamp='1353830579' post='850369']
There's no option for my vote.

Yes. If you are released from prison, you have paid your debt. All rights restored, regardless what you did.

Mike
[/quote]Sorry about that...I added that option

[Guest Carfreak70852]

I am pretty much okay with the way the law is now. I do think in certain cases, rights should be restored. Do I think a criminal who murdered a person 20 years ago with a gun should be able to own a gun again? Hell no.
It should be a case by case judgement. And even then there should be some sort of grace period before one has their rights restored.

Obviously this is my personal opinion, and I am sure many would disagree.

[Guest cardcutter]

[quote name='Mike' timestamp='1353830579' post='850369']
There's no option for my vote.

Yes. If you are released from prison, you have paid your debt. All rights restored, regardless what you did.

Mike
[/quote]
I have mixed feelings on this one. While I like the idea of full restoration upon completion of sentence too few actually complete their full sentence. I think it should be done on a case by case basis but levered twords restoration. Edited November 25, 2012 by cardcutter

[Dolomite_supafly]

For me the criteria is if the crime was violent. Not misdemeanor and felony because there are misdemeanors that are violent and fell us that are not.

I don't care if it is only a misdemeanor, if it is violent they should not be allowed to own a firearm. Domestic violence is a prime example of this.

There are felony convictions that should not affect gun ownership as well like most drug convictions.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

If the right to own a firearm has been taken away it should never be automatically restored. Life isn’t fair and some actions have consequences you don’t get a second chance on.

I think the way it is handled in Tennessee needs to be changed to allow the Judge presiding over the hearing to make the decision. Right now if the conviction involves drugs or violence he can’t restore your rights.

This isn’t an issue of entitlement; I believe it should be up to the Judge. That isn’t a choice so I didn’t vote.

[RobertNashville]

If someone is truly violent and has committed a crime of violence they should be in jail...if I had my way they would never leave a jail cell but of course, that is not how our society works. Since violent criminals do walk among us it is reasonable that they should not be allowed to legally possess a firearm.

However, how many of us have heard of rapists and murderers who have spent years or even decades behind bars (or perhaps even executed) for a crime they didn't even commit? That bothers me a great deal and one of the reasons I'm been changing my view on the death penalty; but that is getting off the subject I suppose.

A "violent misdemeanor" seems an oxymoron to me; akin to "jumbo shrimp". Is there any good reason why a crime of violence is only a misdemeanor such as is the case with "Domestic Violence"?

From the Domestic Abuse Hotline website:
[quote][i]Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. [/i]
[i]Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure or wound someone.[/i] [/quote]

Note the phrase "threats of actions"...if I walk up to a stranger and threaten physical violence but don't act on the threat, am I going to be charged with a felony, locked away for a few years and lose my right to possess a firearm [u][i]forever[/i][/u] because I "threatened" violence without acting on the threat? Not likely; in most if not all states, just a "threat" is a misdemeanor and you don't lose your basic rights such as the right vote or to own a firearm - you certainly don't lose the right to possess a firearm automatically and irreversibly.

If that "stranger" is not a stranger but a spouse or a lover or even just a roommate; should that truly change the outcome in terms of seriousness of the crime, the charge or the automatic and irreversible loss of rights? It doesn't seem to me that it should.

I'm not dismissing the seriousness of the crime of Domestic Violence or any other crime here...but it does seem to me that our legal system has some very significant inconsistencies and I suspect that many of those inconsistencies are driven by politics and special interest groups which is something that should be resisted.

[Chucktshoes]

I agree with Mike on this one. If you have served your sentence, then your debt has been paid and you should not be forced into a second class citizen role with diminished rights and opportunity. The manner in which we handle ex-cons promotes recidivism.

What it boils down to for me is that a gun is nothing more than a tool. If I can't trust you with a gun then I can't trust you with a knife or a screwdriver or a hammer or even a car. All are potential weapons. If you can't be trusted with anything that can be used as a weapon, then how can I trust you to walk free in society? Edited November 25, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353857675' post='850422']

I'm not dismissing the seriousness of the crime of Domestic Violence or any other crime here...but it does seem to me that our legal system has some very significant inconsistencies and I suspect that many of those inconsistencies are driven by politics and special interest groups which is something that should be resisted.[/quote]

This is very closely related to hate crimes legislation for me, in that it blurs (or obliterates) the line between criminalizing an action, and criminalizing thought.

While motives are useful in understanding why a crime was committed, or to help build the case against who committed the crime, they should never be used as an enhancing element.

[Smith]

My issue is more with how punishment is served. Few actually serve their full time or what they deserved. I would like to see crimes punished without all the pleas and sentencing guidelines and when time is served it is over. Of course I'm big on the death penalty and think a lot of recidivism crimes need to be punished to the full extent of the law. However, It's a judicial system not a justice system.

[mikegideon]

Removing gun rights for a non-violent offense (especially) is just another gun control law. I don't like gun control laws.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Everyone makes small mistakes.. If they where non violent or just a real dumb stupid and desperate crime where no one got hurt ( IF there is such a thing) I would say ..yes..
If you rape. kill. or a pedophile ..or you hurt other physicaly in any other way.. no gun for yoooo.. period.. Dont care if you served your time in prison..You are still a murderer, rapist or a pedophile.. Prison doesnt magically make you innocent again.. Just because you sat in there for 6 years and all of the sudden found God..

[GlockSpock]

[quote][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(250, 251, 252)]Yes, all rights restored once sentence has been served regardless of the crime[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(250, 251, 252)] [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#747474][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=2][background=rgb(250, 251, 252)](4 votes [18.18%])[/background][/size][/font][/color][/quote]

After someone serves their time they have paid their dues. If you cannot trust them with a gun in society, you probably cannot trust them at all in society. If you cannot trust them with a gun after their sentence, perhaps their sentence should have been longer?

I'm advocating full restoration of rights after your sentence, and for those serious crimes to carry longer or even true life sentences. Because seriously, if you do not trust selling a gun to one of these convicts after they get out, do you really trust them at all?

[DaveTN]

[quote name='CZ9MM' timestamp='1353864464' post='850458']


After someone serves their time they have paid their dues. If you cannot trust them with a gun in society, you probably cannot trust them at all in society. If you cannot trust them with a gun after their sentence, perhaps their sentence should have been longer?

I'm advocating full restoration of rights after your sentence, and for those serious crimes to carry longer or even true life sentences. Because seriously, if you do not trust selling a gun to one of these convicts after they get out, do you really trust them at all?
[/quote]
I don’t have to trust them with a gun to let them out of prison. Just because you aren’t serving the rest of life in prison doesn’t mean you are okay to carry a gun.

Nope, as much as some think there should be black and white for everything; there isn’t. You petition the court to get your rights restored, you bring witnesses, friends or family members that want to testify in your behalf and a judge makes the call.

[GlockSpock]

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I don’t have to trust them with a gun to let them out of prison. Just because you aren’t serving the rest of life in prison doesn’t mean you are okay to carry a gun.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Nope, as much as some think there should be black and white for everything; there isn’t. You petition the court to get your rights restored, you bring witnesses, friends or family members that want to testify in your behalf and a judge makes the call.[/font][/color][/quote]

What if someone used a knife to holdup a convenience store? Should we take away his right to own a knife after he serves his time? Someone used a pen to commit fraud or forgery, should we prevent that person from owning a pen?

I will cooperate a bit and agree that requiring a court to get your rights restored for some crimes is a good idea? How about a tiered system in which you are on probation for a certain number of years after being released, in which you receive certain rights after a certain amount of time if you have stayed clean.

[Oh Shoot]

Unless you're serving a sentence (parole is part of a sentence), you should be a citizen with full rights.

Anything less harkens back to the 3/5 of a person compromise in our Constitution.

- OS

[strickj]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353857756' post='850423']
I agree with Strickj on this one. If you have served your sentence, then your debt has been paid and you should not be forced into a second class citizen role with diminished rights and opportunity. The manner in which we handle ex-cons promotes recidivism.

What it boils down to for me is that a gun is nothing more than a tool. If I can't trust you with a gun then I can't trust you with a knife or a screwdriver or a hammer or even a car. All are potential weapons. If you can't be trusted with anything that can be used as a weapon, then how can I trust you to walk free in society?
[/quote]

Not me.

I say a big N-O. Part of the punishment for felonies is the loss of rights and I'm fine with that.
The "if they can not be trusted, they should be locked away" argument just does not work as well as it sounds. For one, excessive punishment can be unconstitutional. For two, tax payers are not willing to pay for the jails and prisons we have now. they sure as heck would not pay for doubling or tripling the budget to keep them locked away.
Then there's the whole thing about who determines the trustworthiness. I'm not conformable with the power courts have currently with all of the sentencing standards and limits in place. I durn sure wouldn't want a judge with the power to incarcerate someone for life due to the court's opinion of trustworthiness. I wouldn't want lawmakers to determine this by writing blind and blanketed laws either.

I think a much better option would be to change some of the felony offenses to non-felonies.

[Chucktshoes]

I don't know what happened there, lol. I had Mike in my head and your name came out of my fingers. Sorry 'bout that.

[Reservoir Dog]

If you have paid your debt to society (served sentence and off probation/parole), and it was for a non-violent crime......then, yes. You should be able to get your rights restored.

If you committed a crime involving violence....then, no. Too bad. You should have thought about your actions beforehand.

[Commando68]

When convicted of a felony you serve your time and hopefully get released. Then, guess what? If you are ever re-arrested you have the following: The right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to not have troops quarter in your home, the right to a speedy and fair trial, protection from unreasonable searches w/out warrant or probable cause, the right to not be punished cruelly and unusually, the right to assemble, speak freely and practice religion as you wish. However, the one right in the "bill of rights" or bill of limitations on the fedgov that gives you the right to defend yourself with a firearm is taken away forever? Why the prejudice? Why is the 2nd amendment taken away but these other "rights" are restored? Because spineless gun fearing, freedom fearing, hoplophobic slaves of the nanny state allow it to happen. Sick. Pitiful and Sick.

[Caster]

Sorry, but I say no. I can forgive a man for stealing from me but I will never trust him around anything I own no matter what he does, says or attempts to prove. Forgiveness is a divine mandate but I was never told to trust anyone.

Penalties for just about any crime in this country are paltry and weak. If the punishment was severe enough, a major shift in any crime would happen in the course of a generation. A slap on the wrist and possible restoration of status does nothing but if a man knows he will have his hand cut off for theft or be executed the day he is convicted of murder, castrated or executed for rape, so on and so forth, he will think twice. THere will always be crime but it can be dramatically reduced if the people of amerika were not so spineless and cowardly.

I DO believe in forgiveness but I will never believe in rehabilitation. A person who steals may serve his time and never steal again but he still a thief to me.

The biggest problem in this country is peoples' unwillingness to accept responsibility for themselves and their actions. Edited November 25, 2012 by Caster

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1353872135' post='850503']
When convicted of a felony you serve your time and hopefully get released. Then, guess what? If you are ever re-arrested you have the following: The right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to not have troops quarter in your home, the right to a speedy and fair trial, protection from unreasonable searches w/out warrant or probable cause, the right to not be punished cruelly and unusually, the right to assemble, speak freely and practice religion as you wish. However, the one right in the "bill of rights" or bill of limitations on the fedgov that gives you the right to defend yourself with a firearm is taken away forever? Why the prejudice? Why is the 2nd amendment taken away but these other "rights" are restored? Because spineless gun fearing, freedom fearing, hoplophobic slaves of the nanny state allow it to happen. Sick. Pitiful and Sick.
[/quote]Very good points. There is little if any reason why a person who commits a crime should either have never lost or have all his "rights" returned after his conviction sentence except for one. The restriction on firearms ownership is, I believe, largely driven by politics and an irrational loathing of firearms.

Despite the obvious and often significant shortcomings of our society and our judicial system; we do at least attempt to be a nation where the rule of law and justice is appreciated and sought; were that not the case then there would be no reason why we shouldn't just execute everyone who commits even the smallest offense and save society the gross expense of a penal system (as well as most of the court system)...not be unlike the "justice" administered by the Street Judges in the Judge Dread movie (I guess it would just suck to be innocent).

Put another way, I don't believe a young man who committed a robbery when he was 18, served his time and lived the rest of his life on the right side of the law should go to jail when he is 70 for possessing a handgun - a handgun he used to protect his own live when his home was broken into in the middle of the night. There is no justice or fairness in such a situation (a situation which just happened recently although I may not have precisely the right ages listed).