NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => General Firearm Discussion => Topic started by: Rich B on August 19, 2009, 09:59:07 AM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. I do think nonviolent offenders should be able to petition to have their rights restored at some point, if they can prove they've changed their ways and become productive members of society. But I don't think it should be automatic.
-
Nebraska already has a system for restoring full rights, including gun rights, to felons on a case by case basis. Not exactly sure how it work, but I think it is part of the pardons board system
-
I heard Hieneman (SP?) on the radio yesterday. You have to appeal to the pardons board and ask for it, then they review the cases and decide which ones will get a hearing. I wouldn't count on it if it was anything violent, or in the last 10 years.
-
I had an ex co-worker who got into a bar fight and put the hurt on a fellow real bad. The cost of the medical bills had something to do with the felony charge and prosecution in upstate NY at the time. He was in his early 20's when this happened. So this happened in app. 1976 he mentioned to me that it bothered him and that he regretted what happened also that it follows him to this day. Job applications especially. With the length of time and the kind of crime yes, there should be some exceptions. Oh yeah part of his sentence was time served and join the Navy which he did. There are a few laws that are classified as felonies that are quite easy to get one into trouble easily many are white color crimes.
-
Apparently, law enforcement doesn't think this felon should be charged for posession: http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=10626680&nav=menu606_23_9_1
-
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.
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm also rather split on the issue. Going to have to read up on the percentage of felons who repeat their offences.
On the other hand, the list of 'prohibited persons' doesn't really match to 'problem areas'... 70% of the NICS prohibited persons are illegial aliens, but 1.31% of denials come from illegals. More than two-thirds of the denials come from felons, but they barely make up 4.5% of the list.
The idea of adding the 'no-fly list' to the prohibited persons is also troubling. Ted Kennedy had trouble getting off that list.
This quote has just nudged my opnion a little:
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine
-
I completely agree with RichB's and Ranger04's statements. If you have served the time, you should get your rights back. Once you get out of prison you should be able to defend yourself and your family if you have one.
If we are afraid of these people having guns, then why are they back out on the street? Overcrowding you say? You are right about that. The real problem here is that the justice system sucks because we have become too weak. Society has become too soft in regards to evil people by not putting them to death. We are putting people in prison who we are mad at (drug addicts, drug offenders and so forth) not people that we are afraid of such as violent people and child molesters. Murderers, persons that commit extreme acts of violence, and child molesters and child rapists should be put to death. People that use marijuana should not be imprisoned but fined, as long as they have not hurt anyone. I would rather we throw the real bad guys in prison than these dumb drug offenders. And trust me I am not advocating legalizing pot or any other illicit drug, just stop filling the prisons with them and letting the violent and perverts go so they can hurt more people again.
Prisons need to go back to what they were intended to be; punishment and not entertainment. Prisoners should be in solitary confinement and in 10foot by 10foot cells with a cot and a hole in the ground to use the toilet with. Solitary confinement prevents riots, conspiring to escape, and prisoners from committing more crimes against each other while in prison. No TV, No video games, No weight lifting, and No eating like kings. These reforms would free up more money to build bigger prisons if they are at all needed when all reforms are put in place.
Also today a felony can be anything. Government keeps adding different misdeeds or offenses to the felony list. A felony should only be something SERIOUS not animal cruelty, not keying cars, not mailing prohibited items, not threatening something with mere words (terroristic threats) and should exclude most but not all non-violent crimes.
Sheesh people have been getting charged with terroristic threats because people have broken into their homes and they threatened those persons "If you ever come back to my property I'll kill you".
This is ridiculous! A woman who had a restraining order against her ex-husband and who threatened to call the law on him because he showed up at her door was charged with.......you guessed it; terroristic threats. THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
Terroristic threat charges have gotten out of hand! The whole idea behind this federal law was to fight terrorism not deal with domestic issues or punish people for threatening violence against someone that is violating the law in any way.
Also Senator Lautenberg's new introduced Senate Bill would allow for people on the "no fly list" or better known as the "Terrorist watch list" to be barred from purchasing firearms. There are over 1.2 million people on that list and people are getting on it who shouldn't be on it. See link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/19/tsa.watch.list/index.html
Senator Kennedy was also put on that list and it took them forever to get him off. Now if a Senator has a hard time getting off that list, it will not be easy as an average Joe to get off. Also the POTUS can put anyone he chooses on that list. And the list keeps growing at an alarming rate which means that people who are just ordinary American citizens are being put on that list. Many are law abiding and peaceful citizens who have done so much as spoken against government policies.
-
Even Denny Crane was on the list!
-
Well said, Dan!
Lautenberg's law is seemingly (gag!) well-intentioned, but it is reprehensible that they are trying to deny rights to people have not been convicted of any crime. If it does pass, I hope it is struck down as unconstitutional since it is a violation of the 5th amendment (due process).
-
Part of the problem is that as a society matures, it tends to creates overlapping laws and regulations that crowds the average citizen into the gray areas of potentially becoming a criminal. Leaders are inclined to make and pass legislation to modify our Rights (to own and use firearms) for the benefit of all. This progressive limitation of individual rights is why I would lean toward developing a system that would enable felons to regain their productive rights back. Including the Right to Bear Arms. All of course within reason. Thankfully our Forefathers wrote the Constitution to protect our basic rights. That is if we continue to exercise our rights.
-
A warning to those that comment on this topic... The poll thread has been locked. This thread has been fine, but I will not allow controversial topics to degrade into verbal attacks.
KEEP IT CIVIL.
or you may lose your posting privileges.
-
Part of the problem is that as a society matures, it tends to creates overlapping laws and regulations that crowds the average citizen into the gray areas of potentially becoming a criminal. Leaders are inclined to make and pass legislation to modify our Rights (to own and use firearms) for the benefit of all. This progressive limitation of individual rights is why I would lean toward developing a system that would enable felons to regain their productive rights back. Including the Right to Bear Arms. All of course within reason. Thankfully our Forefathers wrote the Constitution to protect our basic rights. That is if we continue to exercise our rights.
Good response, DJ. One point you made that I am hesitant about supporting is a "system" of restoring rights. I take a pessimistic view in this regard and feel the .gov is more likely to make the process onerous in some way or another. It might be complicated enough to require a lawyer, incredibly expensive, or be open to arbitrary and capricious behavior by the decision makers.
-
uh, Dan - I don't get your preaching/warning on this one????
-
Dan - disregard my last post, I saw the comments posted with the poll; I understand where you are coming from.
-
Thank you, Dan.
-
I do like the thought of forgiveness. And in some cases there are no issues with returning a felons rights (voting and 2A amoung them) but honestly there are too many that come out and start right back down the path that put them there in the first place if not doing worse.
There are plenty of stories of felons coming out and restarting right where they were and alot seem to end in the "they are not taking me back there alive." Like the shooting of a cop in omaha by a man who had several felony weapons counts. I understand there are felons that are not dangerous. But the "system" of restoring rights seems to negate any good that would come out of it. Seems to me it would be biased at best. Corrupt at worst. Returning them all is not a good option. And the whole thing about the "terror watch list" well that's a whole nother rant for a whole nother day. Since Our fearless Homeland Security office has decided to publish a report on "right wing extremists" that encompasses most of my personal views. Does that mean that Vets (both of my grandfathers) are on that list as well? And does that mean that since I have publicly spoken of my view on guns, abortion, and several other topics mean that I am joining them? At least I guess I would be in good company.
I have heard (not here that I know of) some people say we need to just include the wording for this into the punishments defined by law. Say, adding "at the completion of punishment all rights are restored and the record noted but no further punishment shall be imposed." Now I like this in a way it would give the people that are not dangerous, or were being young, and dumb a chance to go straight and right the wrong and then move on with life. However I do see that there is a problem with this system as well. I can see a County Prosecutor that is Anti gun going to a higher charge specifically to take the 2A rights from someone. And this is the quandry we find ourselves in. There is no clear path for this and it creates more laws and more government to enforce/interpret. So I am honestly going to say I don't know how to go about returning the rights, However if someone smarter than me has an idea, I would like to hear about it.
-
Thought this might be of interest to those in this discussion...
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1670142.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1670142.html)
Felon wins the right to own a gun
Narrow ruling causes big stir
RALEIGH -- A state law barring felons from owning firearms unfairly prevented a Garner man from owning guns, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled Friday, thrusting the court into the national debate over gun ownership.
The opinion applied only to Barney Britt, who was convicted of a drug crime in 1979, and it didn't have an immediate effect on the thousands of other felons in the state. Criminal defense lawyers who practice in federal courts said they don't know what effect, if any, the opinion will have on federal rules, which prevent felons from buying and owning weapons except when a state has restored that right.
The ruling authored by Justice Edward Thomas Brady held that Britt should be able to own guns and that the state unfairly took away his right to own a firearm with a 2004 law that barred felons from owning firearms. Britt was convicted in 1979 of selling Quaalude pills, but he didn't have any further tangles with the law.
Though the opinion focused just on Britt's case, both sides of the gun control issue saw the ruling as significant because the state's highest court found that Britt had a right to bear arms that trumped the state's ability to restrict him from owning any weapons.
Advocates spent Monday poring over the 5-2 decision in Britt v. State of North Carolina. The decision was seen as a victory for those who view government restrictions as too strict, while those in favor of tighter gun control described it as an alarming blow.
"This has implications beyond just North Carolina," said Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, a Washington-based Libertarian think tank that opposes gun control. "North Carolina has now decided that some felonies are not so serious to result in deprivations of the right to defend oneself."
Roxane Kolar, director of North Carolinians against Gun Violence, said the decision was troubling.
"I've never heard of this before, of a felon having an inalienable right to own a weapon," she said. "It's putting a lot of our state gun laws at risk."
The decision could spark a rush to local courthouses as felons try to have their rights to own and store firearms in their homes restored. Those with the best chance would likely be those with cases similar to Britt's; people convicted of nonviolent crimes who had their right to own a gun restored and then taken away with a 2004 law, said Jeanette Doran, a senior staff attorney with the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.
Legal e-mail message boards lit up over the weekend, with lawyers swapping tales of clients convicted of felony littering charges then barred from hunting deer for the rest of their lives.
The state legislature may address the issue with a bill introduced for the 2009-2010 session by Rep. Phil Haire, a Democrat from Western North Carolina, that would give limited hunting privileges to nonviolent felons.
Ready to hunt again
Britt said he's excited about hunting this fall and relieved that his four-year legal battle is over.
"It's not a privilege; it's a right," Britt said about gun ownership. "It's a constitutional right."
The office of N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, who defended the state law in the case, declined to comment on the ruling.
A passionate hunter who never had any subsequent arrests, Britt had his right to own guns restored from 1987 until 2004, when the new law went into effect.
Brady wrote that the law was too broad in including nonviolent felons like Britt, who had otherwise been law-abiding and had owned guns for 17 years after he successfully petitioned in 1987 to have his civil rights restored, including owning a gun.
"He is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety," Brady wrote.
Troubled by the ruling
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson said she was alarmed that her fellow justices ignored state law by giving Britt an exemption. She said the ruling made North Carolina the first jurisdiction to uphold a convicted felon's right to own firearms over a state's power to regulate gun ownership.
"Today's decision opens the floodgates wide before an inevitable wave of individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but our statutory provisions prohibiting firearm possession by incompetents and the mentally insane," Timmons-Goodson wrote.
Her fears were shared by those seeking tighter gun-control laws.
Kolar of North Carolinians against Gun Violence expressed concern that judges would be the ones to decide whether felons could own guns, something she says gives too much discretion to the courts.
Jim Woodall, the district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, said he found the opinion worrisome and hoped it wouldn't be applied broadly to others.
"They're carving out a one-person exemption," he said.
-
Lautenberg's law is seemingly (gag!) well-intentioned............
For good intentions and their consequences, contact the Infernal Transportation Department, Office of Paving Materials.......
-
Awesome story, Rick.
For all of the talk in our society about a prison system that's about rehabilitation and religious institutions that preach forgiveness, people seem hell-bent on denying rights to people.
JimP - you are quite correct about good intentions!
-
Wow FarmerRick. This is definitely a victory in my opinion, too bad the ruling does not apply broadly to others. The NC legislature should reword their law to allow non-violent felons to get their rights back once out of prison. He is right, it's not a priviledge, its a right. Other than when a person is in prison, rights cannot be taken away. I would like to see people's rights restored.
-
If it's someone that just did something stupid when they were young, and it wasn't a violent crime, I see no problem with restoring their right to bear arms.
The gun control fanatics need to wake up and realize that gun control is an idiotic idea in the first place.
Criminals don't care about law - the only people that are hurt by gun control are law-abiding citizens. They are not only hurt, but MURDERED by criminals - because no one else is carrying a gun.
Gun control opens the door for mass murders, because it keeps law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and others. It's a simple truth.
-
I'm sure many, many people have said the same thing - but feel free to quote me on this:
Gun control opens the door for mass murders, because it keeps law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and others. It's a simple truth.
-
Ben Franklin would have agreed with me. :)
-
Well considering the amount of legally licensed CCW permit holders that weren't allowed to carry at VT. I would have to say that's pretty accurate. But when we legislate because of "feelings and emotions" as they do every single time one of these events happens (van Mauer, VT, Columbine, ETC.) we will never have a law that is logical since logic seems to escape the emotional.
-
Gun control opens the door for mass murders, because it keeps law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and others. It's a simple truth.
[/quote]
I will have to agree with your quote and points. Well put GunFun!
-
I agree with you GunFun.