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

[DaveTN]

[quote name='CZ9MM' timestamp='1353866133' post='850464']


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? [/quote]
Yes, not only knives, but guns and anything else the person may use to intimidate another for financial gain. Armed Robbery is near the top of the list of violent crimes and anyone that would walk into a store and threaten an innocent person with death should not have their rights restored, they certainly have no business carrying a gun.

I’m okay with a Judge hearing his case and making a decision; but I don’t expect many Judges would restore the rights of an Armed Robber.

As I said some things you can’t just walk away from. Using a weapon in an act of violence against an innocent person is one of them. Edited November 25, 2012 by DaveTN

[Dolomite_supafly]

And if a person looses their firearm ownership rights they also loose the right to vote.

I am for restoration of rights but not for everyone and not for every case. Life is not fair and there should be consequences for your actions. And there should be some long term consequences for certain crimes.

I think that if a person is convicted of a [b][color=#FF0000]non[/color][/b] violent felony then allow the judge to made the determination of whether they are allowed to have firearms [u]and[/u] the right to vote. If they are convicted of a non violent misdemeanor then allow them to keep their right to vote and have a firearm. But if a person is convicted of, or plead guilty to, a violent crime they should loose their gun rights as well as the right to vote for the rest of their life.

That is unless they are later proven innocent of the crime they were convicted of but that doesn't really matter anyways because anyone who is found to have been wrongfully convicted gets all their rights restored anyways. So that argument doesn't even pertain to them.

But if they [u][b]plead[/b][/u] guilty to a violent crime, misdemeanor or felony, they loose the right to vote as well as their firearm rights. When someone pleads guilty they are doing that of their own free will.

I do not loath guns but I do loath violent criminals. And those violent criminals I loath should not have their gun or voting rights restored.

What about those people who have a mental condition that have never been convicted of a crime? They should also be allowed to own firearms as well I guess. They have never shown a propensity for violence yet they are not allowed to legally own a firearm. Or lets let all the illegal aliens have firearms and the right to vote. They are not felons.

As I said before my line is whether the crime is not misdemeanor or felony but if the crime was violent in nature. If a person had 100 felony convictions for non violent crimes then I say give the judge the option to restore their rights. If a person has a single violent conviction then your gun and voting rights are gone, period. No appeals to restore the rights unless the conviction is overturned.

How many are saying that once a person does the time they should be back at square one and trusted? I know I will not because I am jaded by working in LE. I seen violent crimes and their victims.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353881985' post='850552']And if a person looses their firearm ownership rights they also loose the right to vote.[/quote]
I don't believe that's true in all circumstances and/or all states. Maybe it is but I don't believe it is. I do know that it is quite possible to have the right to vote restored but still be barred from firearm possession.


[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353881985' post='850552']But if they [u][b]plead[/b][/u] guilty to a violent crime, misdemeanor or felony, they loose the right to vote as well as their firearm rights. When someone pleads guilty they are doing that of their own free will.[/quote]
I don't see any logic in putting a higher penalty on someone who pleads guilty as opposed to someone who goes through a jury trial or a trial with only a judge presiding and is found guilty...guilty is guilty; how the ultimate conviction came about seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

I also don't see how a misdemeanor, "violent" or otherwise should ever strip someone of his rights; at lest not forever (especially since some "violent misdemeanors" don't even necessarily mean that ANY violence was ever actually committed...it any case, it seems to me that if a crime is so serious that a person should lose their right to own a firearm. perhaps forever, it's more than serious enough to be a felony and the punishment should be at the same level as any similar felony.


[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353881985' post='850552']What about those people who have a mental condition that have never been convicted of a crime? They should also be allowed to own firearms as well I guess. They have never shown a propensity for violence yet they are not allowed to legally own a firearm. Or lets let all the illegal aliens have firearms and the right to vote. They are not felons.[/quote]
People who are a danger to themselves or to others due to mental illness should be in a care facility so having a firearm is moot...for those whose mental instability controlled by medication I think caution should still prevail when it comes to firearms since they may chose to stop medicating. As for the illegal aliens, by definition, they don't or at least shouldn't have the same rights as legal citizens; you can't "restore" a right they were never entitled to in the first place. If they eventually become legal citizens then fine.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Domestic violence is a misdemeanor and that is one case in which firearm ownership should be gone. Heck a person could be convicted of domestic violence a dozen times and it will still be a misdemeanor.

So the misdemeanor vs felony should not be the deciding factor. Whether the crime was violent or not should be. Think about it, a person who has 10 joints on him is likely to be charged with a felony yet he is not violent like a domestic abuser is.

I did not say those that plead guilty should be punished more. Just that they should be punished the same as those who have been through a trial.

Should we not err on the side of caution with those have been [u]proven[/u] to be violent in the past?

I think if you look at violent vs non violent and compare it to felony only you will see more people gaining their rights back. There are a lot more felonies out there for non violent crimes than for violent crimes. I just do not believe a violent person should get any breaks in society.

Dolomite

[Dolomite_supafly]

Also, IMHO, anyone who has went to jail and finished their senence has [u]not[/u] repaid their debt to society. What they have done is been punished for the crimes they committed. They have not repaid anything.

In my eyes their debt has not been repaid unless they paid the state back for the cost of their arrest, trial and housing. Until that time they have not repaid their debt. Oh yeah, lets not forget about all that is owed to the victims of those they committed the crime against. I guarantee most victims of violent crimes need counseling and in some cases medication to deal with the trauma of a violent action agaist them. Do you think the criminal pays for that? No they do not, they go to jail and serve maybe 35% of the original sentence and then they proclaim they have repaid their debt to society.

So under those rules if a criminal has repaid all those debts then yes they can go back to having everything they had before they were a criminal but not a penny before.

Dolomite Edited November 25, 2012 by Dolomite_supafly

[RobertNashville]

Other than political pressure/political correctness and special interests groups, there is no reason why Domestic Violence should be treated any differently than any other similar crime.

If a person walks up to a stranger and threatens physical violence but doesn't act on the threat that person is not going to lose his right to possess a firearm [u][i]forever[/i][/u] just because he "threatened" violence or, for that matter, even if he followed through with the threat. How then can there be any logic whatsoever in that same person losing his right to possess a firearm forever if the conditions are exactly the same but the "stranger" is a spouse or a lover or even just a roommate?

I believe that the only reasonable answer is that there is no logic in it; only emotion based arguments and emotion based arguments are generally provide a really bad basis for passing laws.

As for the "payment"; no one was suggesting all-encompassing definition and/or dollar value to "payment"; just a simple way to describe the condition where someone has served the sentence imposed. Edited November 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest CCI]

Perhaps some should read, "EXCEPTION to 11.c", and 11.i"! Also, "Question 11i"!


[url="http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf"]http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf[/url]

[Dolomite_supafly]

Ok what about a husband that slaps his wife?

Should he loose his gun rights forever?

Dolomite

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353904478' post='850701']Ok what about a husband that slaps his wife?

Should he loose his gun rights forever?

Dolomite[/quote]
On a couple of occasions my wife has slapped me. Should she lose her gun rights forever?

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353906146' post='850706']
On a couple of occasions my wife has slapped me. Should she lose her gun rights forever?
[/quote]

If [u]you [/u]thought is was serious enough to call LE and then LE arrested her and then the DA decided to prosecute her and she was tried and finally if convicted of, or plead guilty to, domestic violence then yes she should loose her rights to a firearm. But you obviously thought it was not a serious enough case to call LE and in that case she should not.

Most people who are abused do not call the first time. Most have been a victim for quite a while when they finally decide they have had enough. It causes mental, and sometimes physical problems, for the victims that last a lifetime. Domestic violence isn't just husband and wife, it can be children abusing their parents, or parents abusing their children it can be the elderly being abused by their grown children. And if the fear of loosing their right to own a gun prevents a person from abusing another then I am all for it. I am for anything that will prevent the abuse.

The way the law is right now regarding domestic violence is how it should remain. They make no distinction between male and female although it can sometimes be jaded to make the female more of a victim than what she really is. It is up to the person on the receiving end to determine if it is abuse or not. What may be abusive to one person might not be to another. I would also say that if the victim is posting bond for, or continues to live with, the abuser the charges should be dropped and the convictions expunged.

And just because someone is a female does not mean they have carte blanche to assault or abuse someone. Some of the most abusive people I have come across were females.

For me the distinction is whether the crime was violent or not. If a person has been convicted 100 times of non violent crimes then they should be able to own a firearm, felony or not. If they have a single conviction for a crime that is violent they should not, misdemeanor or not.

Dolomite Edited November 26, 2012 by Dolomite_supafly

[RobertNashville]

Or if [u]you[/u] thought a slap [b][i][u]might[/u][/i][/b] happen and you call law enforcement, it's likely that someone is going to go to jail and possibly charged and lose their 2A rights forever. What some are ignoring here is that "Domestic Violence" doesn't require that there actually be any physical violence; the threat of it or even if a responding officer thinks there might be some later it enough to cause someone to be arrested.

Perhaps there is one but I know of no other crime in Tennessee where a "violent" crime, when there is only a threat made, is sufficient for the person making the threat to lose his/her 2A rights forever.


[b][i]EDIT[/i][/b]: I've never been a big fan of "absolutes" when it comes to punishment for crimes. Real "justice" is difficult enough to obtain in our overburdened and often politically driven judicial system - absolutes tend to take away what is left of the slim change we currently have left to obtain justice.

I personally know a man who served almost two decades in jail for passing three bad checks that, in total, was less than $300 while murderers and rapists served less time. He had to be sentenced to the term due to the "three strikes" law in place at the time. Likewise, anyone losing any basic, God-given right forever with no chance of ever getting the right back is, in my opinion, a recipe for extreme injustice. Edited November 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What some are saying is, there are conditions and degrees to everything concerning justice. Some things
evidently can never be repaid. Society punishes, but the criminal can never have his inalienable rights
restored. Personalities get in the way of justice. Justice is permanent, regardless. This will eventually get out
of hand when we are all criminals. You can make an assumption based on a typical criminal, but you must remember
there are too many laws, already on the books, that incriminate a large part of society who may not even know
it.
It's too easy to lock away someone and strip them of rights, and then say some of those rights can never be
restored. Voting, guns, registered sex offenders, doesn't matter until the punishment fits the crime. Our system
has been allowed to "brand" people of certain things. In the matter of the registered sex offender, they are on
parole for life, effectively. Sounds like the punishment doesn't fit the crime to me. Just came off the top of my
head for that one.

I think for justice to prevail, there has to be correct punishment, and it has to have a finite term. If that is for one's
lifetime, it has to be correct. If not, restore their rights. If they are released from their punishment and no parole,
they should be citizens again. After all, their record lives with them, for the rest of their lives. If, somehow we ended
up in a war on our own soil, would we let those same people defend themselves in that situation? Just saying.

[Dolomite_supafly]

We no longer have a justice system, we have a legal system. Way too many things are crimes that should not be, especially those laws that were created to protect us from ourselves. Heck, there should be no reason why a 20 something year old with 10 joints in his pocket gets sentenced to 10 years while a 50+ year old man that raped a 15 year old gets 15 months. I was there and as well as followed both cases closely. One was violent and should have resulted in decades in prison, if not death, while the other should have never been a crime in the first place.

For me, as I have said before, it comes down to whether the crime was violent. Thats it. Not felony or misdemeanor but violent vs non violent.

As far as threats go only allow it to be used to effect an arrest if the person making the threat is capable of carrying the threat out. Like if a person threatens to use a "phazed plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" to kill someone most people would just laugh. If the same threat was made except replace the plasma rifle with a 357 magnum people are not going to be laughing. Or someone holding up a wet, limp spaghetti noodle saying they are going to stab someone to death, that is hardly a threat. Same person holding a butcher knife, very much a threat.

And I think you, Robert, would agree that if someone is holding a knife and threatening to kill someone a crime has been committed. Your friend who spent decades in jail over bad checks should not have his gun rights removed because it was not violent. Should he have spent decades in jail? I don't think so but he should have been punished as harshly as to make him change his ways. But as far as gun rights he should be able to own a gun because his crime was non violent.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353946592' post='850801']...I think for justice to prevail, there has to be correct punishment, and it has to have a finite term. If that is for one's
lifetime, it has to be correct. If not, restore their rights. If they are released from their punishment and no parole, they should be citizens again. After all, their record lives with them, for the rest of their lives. If, somehow we ended up in a war on our own soil, would we let those same people defend themselves in that situation? Just saying.
[/quote]Considering some recent stories like that 60 year old man who shot two intruders and was then arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm from decades before or the 80 year old in Chicago arrested in a very similar situation; I guess if we had a "Red Dawn" event they would simply be SOL!

If you punch a stranger in the nose you'll probably get your firearm rights back (assuming they were taken in the first place); if you slap your domestic partner on the cheek, you'll never get them back; at least that's how it is now.

As for the knife to the throat abuser it should be obvious that such threatening is NOT the threatening I'm talking about but even including that, with the exception of Domestic Violence, I still know of no crime that, with conviction, prevents the restoration of 2A rights [i][u]forever[/u][/i].

Edited November 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353949657' post='850825']


As for the knife[color=#FF0000] [/color][b][color=#B22222][u]to the throat [/u][/color][/b]abuser it should be obvious that such threatening is NOT the threatening I'm talking about but even including that, with the exception of Domestic Violence, I still know of no crime that, with conviction, prevents the restoration of 2A rights [i][u]forever[/u][/i].
[/quote]

Never said this. Please quote where I said knife to the throat.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353952389' post='850836']
Never said this. Please quote where I said knife to the throat.[/quote]
You are right, I embellished...you only said "holding a knife" although I'm not sure that "holding a knife" or "holding a knife to the throat" really changes the picture that much and the point, even less so.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The threat of it is all that matters.

[Commando68]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353868092' post='850477']
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.
[/quote]

It is a felony in Daytona Beach to hit a surfer with your fishing rig when you cast even if it is by accident. This is one of the many erroneous "mala prohibita" BS laws in this secular progressive, entitlement, police state we call the "United States". Lose the right to defend my family in a crisis over that? Get real.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1354036356' post='851377']

It is a felony in Daytona Beach to hit a surfer with your fishing rig when you cast even if it is by accident. This is one of the many erroneous "mala prohibita" BS laws in this secular progressive, entitlement, police state we call the "United States". Lose the right to defend my family in a crisis over that? Get real.[/quote]

The important question is; did the fisherman slap or threaten to slap the surfer first???

[strickj]

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1354036356' post='851377']
It is a felony in Daytona Beach to hit a surfer with your fishing rig when you cast even if it is by accident. This is one of the many erroneous "mala prohibita" BS laws in this secular progressive, entitlement, police state we call the "United States". Lose the right to defend my family in a crisis over that? Get real.
[/quote]

So, your solution to one over-punishing felonious law is to do away with the same punishment for all felonies?


Like I said, there's no reason to go all bleeding free love on felons when all that is needed is to repeal a few bad felonies on the books.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1354036356' post='851377']
It is a felony in Daytona Beach to hit a surfer with your fishing rig when you cast even if it is by accident....
[/quote]

Not calling you out or anything, 'cause I certainly don't know, but got a reference for that? as it seems totally beyond the pale.

Matter of fact, assuming this is a Daytona Beach law only, I didn't think municipalities could even designate an ordinance as a "felony"?

- OS

[Commando68]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1354051713' post='851543']


Not calling you out or anything, 'cause I certainly don't know, but got a reference for that? as it seems totally beyond the pale.

Matter of fact, assuming this is a Daytona Beach law only, I didn't think municipalities could even designate an ordinance as a "felony"?

- OS
[/quote]You have a point. I took the word of a local on the pier while fishing. Still the slime in DC make it easy to get tagged by breaking an erroneous law.......NFA 1934 ring a bell?

[Q-tip]

People always have the capacity to kill another human being, unless they are in chains or don't have limbs. If a person convicted of a violent crime is released and still bent on killing somebody else, they will, whether it be with a gun, knife, pointy stick, backhoe, or a sucker punch with their bare hands. Laws will do nothing to stop it. It's the same simple argument we use against gun control all the time. If they're gonna kill somebody, they will regardless. If they're not, they won't even if they own a whole arsenal.

Short version: If not in jail or on probation, rights should be restored. Edited November 28, 2012 by Q-tip

[RobertNashville]

Clearly some of us have different conditions that we think should apply but I find it both interesting and encouraging that over 85% of respondents (as I write this anyway) agree that there should be a restoration of 2A and other rights after being convicted of a crime or at least, a path to making that happen.

I am a person who has made mistakes, none serious enough for me to have ever lost my Constitutional rights but my point is that I know I'm not perfect and I know people make mistakes...I also know that sometimes the system we depend on to protect the good guys from the bad guys also makes mistakes (and more often than many would like to admit or think about). Given that, I believe that no one should lose their rights forever except under some very specific circumstances.

Thanks to all who participated so far!

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='Q-tip' timestamp='1354067539' post='851699']
People always have the capacity to kill another human being, unless they are in chains or don't have limbs. If a person convicted of a violent crime is released and still bent on killing somebody else, they will, whether it be with a gun, knife, pointy stick, backhoe, or a sucker punch with their bare hands. Laws will do nothing to stop it. It's the same simple argument we use against gun control all the time. If they're gonna kill somebody, they will regardless. If they're not, they won't even if they own a whole arsenal.

Short version: If not in jail or on probation, rights should be restored.
[/quote]

Most criminals, at least those who are violent that I have met, have self control issues plus a ton of other issues. If the criminal is not carrying a firearm then he has to go look for one. Hopefully it can delay the urge to kill long enough that the would be killer may realize what he is about to do and change his mind.

Robertnachville, under what circumstances should a person loose his rights?

Dolomite