General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Should felons have their 2A rights restored after release from prison?
Rich B:
Should felons have their 2A rights restored after release from prison and completion of any parole or probation?
Something to consider before you answer: In NE, keying a Rolls-Royce can possibly make you a felon (look up the criminal mischief statute).
If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why are they being released?
Should other rights be denied too? Should ex-cons be subject to random searches by the police? Should their personal property be taken without due process? Should repeat offenders be denied the right to counsel?
FarmerRick:
Big gray area there for me. I think that it depends on the type of crime that was committed.
Keying a car - you keep your gun.
Crimes of violence(not self defense) - no gun for you.
In-between....well... that's where it gets complicated.
Some felons have regained their voting rights at times, seems to me the second amendment should be more important than being able to vote.
armed and humorous:
Yes, very many gray areas here. As to why people who can't be trusted with a gun are released, it's because too many people are whining about overcrowding in the jails and such, or judges who must be afraid they won't have a job if they put all the criminals in jail for too long (no more incoming since most everyone ever sentenced to actual jail time is a repeat offender of some sort).
Roper:
a & h has a good point, a reason for release may be for reasons other than the person involved- overcrowding and lack of state budgets. This question is very personal to me as I have two family members with criminal records. I would present the arguement that both are extremley well informed as to the political and economic events and would be very well informed voters. In fact I would argue that they better informed than most people I know and I think they should be able to vote.
The nature of their offenses will never allow them to legally own a firearm, which I agree with. That being said, if SHTF, I can't think of two other people I would want beside me.
Giving criminals the ability to own a firearm is tough for me. Where do you draw the line and when you draw the line, what's to say that the new line is right? Non violent offenders? What about having a few ounces of pot or kiting checks?
If society collapses or if we start fighting zombies, then all bets are off.
armed and humorous:
There are undoubtedly people with felony backgrounds who would not pose any more of a threat by owning/carrying a gun than anyone else (probably less of a threat than many who only have misdemeanors or no record at all). To me, voting is no big deal. There are plenty of law-abiding idiots voting, a few criminals is not likely to make a difference. The difficulty, as you said, is how to decide who should or shouldn't get that right back. One way of looking at it though, is that even if the crime is not a violent or gun related crime, the fact that someone violated the law tends to indicate that they may lack the moral/ethical discipline to obey the law, and as such, are more likely to violate other laws in the future.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version