General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Should felons have their 2A rights restored after release from prison?
Rich B:
--- Quote from: bkoenig on August 19, 2009, 08:42:32 PM ---I have a hard time with this question. To me, by committing a felony you have given up some of your rights, and the fact that you continue to be denied them after the prison term is over is part of your punishment.
--- End quote ---
Is it though? It seems that prison should be the punishment. Felons are treated like untouchables in more ways than one and the failure to restore rights seems like some modern version of the scarlet letter.
It seems odd that they don't lose their other rights (right to vote excepted, depending on the state). By preventing ex-cons from regaining their rights, it further propagates the notion that the 2A is a privilege and not a right.
ScottC:
Felons have already shown (the majority of the time) that they disregard society?s laws. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between (and for them the board can review and restore those rights).
I'd side with bkoenig: they have given up their 'rights' once they crossed the line. Maybe they should have thought about those rights before they crossed the line...
Rich B:
If rights are unalienable, how can we take them away so easily?
And then there's the issue I mentioned in the OP about how easy it is to become a felon, especially in certain jurisdictions. Back when the founding fathers drafted the BoR, felonies were serious.
Today, you can be a felon for breaking a window, having a negligent discharge, or mailing a handgun.
I also agree that part of the reason many felons are released is due to the budget issues WRT to prisons. However, IMO, prisons do not need to be as nice as they are and prisoners should have to work while they are there.
ranger04:
I tend to think that everyone has a right to self defense. A person that commits a felony, payed their dues and has been a productive member of society should be able to posess a firearm for self defense of themselves and their families. For example; a guy steals a car when he is in his late teens, gets caught does 2 years in jail, gets released, gets marrried has kids and is a productive memeber of society. He cannot posess a firearm without going through the pardons process,if that state of residence has one, Someone kicks in his front door how is he suppose to defend his family? emphisis is on family. Don't do the time if you can't pay the time, pay the time get your rights restored.
armed and humorous:
As I said earlier, there are certainly cases such as ranger04 describes above, and I wouldn't argue against them. The problem is who and where do we draw the line on who gets rights restored, and who doesn't? And, who is going to explain it to the family of the victim when some felon who got his right to own a gun back uses it in a murder? If someone comes up with a plan that sounds good, I'll back it. In the mean time, I'd prefer it as it is. One reason for that, is that many felons who have not had their rights restored but are none the less out of jail, go ahead and get a firearm anyway. They do this because they have not been "rehabilitated" and plan on continuing their criminal life style. As it is now, if they are caught with the illegally owned gun, they can be put away again, perhaps before they shoot someone with it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version