Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[88GT]

If a felon is not in prison should that automatically allow that individual the right to a firearm?

Yes. If he's considered safe enough to release, he's safe enough to trust him with all of his rights.

No, we see this many of times in states with over crowding.... felons are released after serving fractions of there sentences and this is why they are repeat offenders.

Partially correct. They are repeated offenders because they don't give a rat's ass about laws or others. They are allowed to do it because they are released.

Should that person be allowed to have a firearm, just because the state cant control crime and over crowding?

Wrong question. Should that person be released in the first place? You can't tell me there aren't thousands of other inmates that couldn't be released before we start releasing the violent ones.

Perhaps, all situations are different, all felons are different. I think if a person serves a full sentence and did their time, they should have the right to own a firearm.

So a guy does 15 years of a 25 year sentence for multiple rapes (none of which were committed with a firearm). You're okay with loosing him on society but not allowing him to possess a firearm? And you're okay with letting him have that firearm if he served all 25 years? Tell how that makes any sense because it sounds like most bass ackward logic I've seen in a short while.

 

[Pitmaster]

Tell how that makes any sense because it sounds like most bass ackward logic I've seen in a short while.

There are 3 ways to look at gun laws.

1. Tool to address criminal behavior (added offense to "catch lawbreakers" when there is not enough evidence of other crimes).

2. Restrict use to "appropriate/approved" individuals. (Standards can change with the wind, political climate, and presiding government)

3. Inherent right of man to protect himself and guaranteed by the United States Constitution within its borders. (All have same rights)

I personally support number 3. I'm opposed to any restrictions on anyone owning firearms or the commercial trade of firearms. This includes ammunition, accessories, etc. IF, there is a need to restrict a person from having a firearm, it should be through a separate and specific court hearing where the petitioner must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that individual should have this right restricted. This should not be a rubber stamp operation but the evidence should be overwhelming.

The GOA of 1968 was in response to the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK; the race issues of the 1960's, increased violence in various cities in their ghettos, and race riots. The goal was to disarm these people. It hasn't worked. While MLK was killed by a felon, it wasn't his felonious behavior that caused him to do kill it was his "racist attitude" that did.

The riots were frustration and a very disorganized attempt to bring about change. Unfortunately, IMO the change that was brought about has done more harm than good. Less prejudice and racism would have solved some of these problems.

Ghetto violence, which was really black on black crime for the most part would have been better served by allowing the availability of more self defense options and the decrease in racism.

 

[LordTio3]

Stschil and I agree very closely on this issue. This will be long, so please skip if you are not interested.

___________________________________________

I have gotten very preachy for years about exactly this issue. My viewpoints have been scorned by the Gun-Owning community as "Liberal". To that I say, "I am WAY too liberal to be a liberal. I am a paleo-conservative, constitutional libertarian; and this is what we believe.

Recidivism is out of control in this country. When criminals are released from prison, the VAST majority of time, they simply return to a life of crime. This problem is multi-faceted, so I'll start at the beginning and work my way forward:

1. We encourage released criminals to keep being criminals. This is not a cop-out, or an attempt to excuse criminal behavior. It is almost never okay to break the law. Period. But the vast majority of ex-felons have THIS pitched to them upon their release: "Okay, now you're free. You have paid your debt to society based on your crime and you are now free and clear. But you can't vote in elections. Or own a firearm. Or live near a school. Or get an operator's license. Or hold any public office. Or serve on a jury. Or even get a job, let alone one above minimum wage. Now take your freedom and DON'T go back to being a criminal; regardless of how easy it is.

What the hell do we expect from these people? Look at the correlation of poverty level and interpersonal crime. We're dooming these people to poverty and stripping away half of their other rights and expecting them to do what exactly? Prosper? They need their rights in order to become a productive member of society.

"But LT, they need these restrictions so that we can be sure they don't commit more crimes."

How's that working out? These citizens need and deserve their rights back after their release. If they DON'T deserve their rights back, then they DON'T deserve to BE RELEASED. Keep them locked up.

"But LT, the prison systems are incredibly over-crowded. There's just no room for that."

2. Prisons are Over-Crowded with the Wrong People. We lead the entire world in number of citizens incarcerated per-capita. As on 2008, 90.7% of federal prisoners were incarcerated for NON-VIOLENT OFFENSES.

People go to jail for doing drugs. If you go to jail for doing drugs enough times in most states, you go to jail forever. People go to jail for doing drugs because in the 1960's Richard Nixon found himself in the middle of a morally-questionable war in the Pacific that lacked nearly all public support. In order to combat their politically unpopular decisions, they found a boogeyman and waged a "Moral War" against it (sound familiar ala gun control?). Enter The War on Drugs; just 3 decades after the end of prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

"But LT, you aren't seriously going to say drugs aren't bad are you?"

3. The War on Drugs accomplishes NOTHING of substance. It keeps certain chemicals illegal and under the government's control... Kind Of. Look at the BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These are 4 things that are PERFECTLY LEGAL TO OWN and we have a trans-national governmental agency whose sole purpose it is to regulate these legal things. Where the hell is the department of Illegal Substance? Department of Narcotics, Barbituates, and Organic Hallucinogens? Nope, just legal things.

Why? Because they know they can't control it and it keeps the States' police and governments busy enough that the Feds can get away with murder. Even if they COULD control it, people would just huff gasoline and hold their breathe to get high. People will use drugs; any drugs they can get ahold of. Alcohol is a drug that's perfectly legal, and with $20 at any time of the day, I can walk down the street to the gas station and purchase enough of it to walk out into the parking lot and kill myself with it. And marijuana is public enemy number one. Wake up.

And besides being a governmental Red Herring to keep the States busy, it CREATES and entire class of violent criminals (ever hear of prohibition Chicago?). These people, and habitual/recreational users (exactly like bar-goers and social-drinkers) comprise 90% of our incarceration and litigation budget in this country. THINK OF THE MONEY FOR EDUCATION!

"I thought we were talking about violent criminals..."

4. When you get back $0.90 for every $1 you WERE spending by not having to incarcerate the Non-Violent Pot-Heads, you can keep the REAL criminals LOCKED UP: CHEAP. We can stop creating a recidivistic criminal class that rides on the legal turnstyle on top of an over-population of non-violent people who have never hurt anyone a day in their lives. Certainly no more than Drunk Drivers already are.

"Oh... I see what you did there..."

_________________________________________________

Now I'm open to debate, and am an incredibly reasonable person. But these are some savage hypocrisies that are absolute Bull-squat. I think, until we solve some of these fundamental issues and stop ONLY SPENDING 10% OF OUR TIME AND MONEY ON THE REAL PROBLEM, we will be having this debate forever.

So, to answer the OP Question.

Yes I think Ex-Criminals should get their rights back. And the Violent Ones should stay locked up much longer. And they should let out the Non-Violent, 3-Strike, Giggling-Stoners to make room for the Pedophiles and Rapists.

~LT

 

[DMND1]

only if it was a non violent offense and they can get it overturned . but a BIG NO vote for convicted murderers to ever get their rights back to own or carry a gun !

 

[terrehautian]

A family member was accused and convicted of a felony that doesn't involve a firearm. They cannot own one, and don't want to either. I feel as though if the offense does not involve physically hurting someone and it is their first offense, they should be able to. If they use a fire arm or physically hurt someone (punch, batter, etc), no they shouldn't.

 

[Bunnykid68]

only if it was a non violent offense and they can get it overturned . but a BIG NO vote for convicted murderers to ever get their rights back to own or carry a gun !

A family member was accused and convicted of a felony that doesn't involve a firearm. They cannot own one, and don't want to either. I feel as though if the offense does not involve physically hurting someone and it is their first offense, they should be able to. If they use a fire arm or physically hurt someone (punch, batter, etc), no they shouldn't.

Shouldn't they still be in prison?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The days when you could go about your normal life without worry of prosecution and incarceration for violating some obscure law that is a felony are gone.

It's a sad time we live in. One should not have to *try* not to become a felon.

Exactly. There was a time in this nation when you could follow the Ten Commandments, pay your taxes, and never have to worry about the law. As you said, not being a felon should not require a deliberate effort.

 

[-Rogue-]

Considering that there are bills on the hill that in their current language make certain things "trafficking", yes I believe that that Felon should be able to get the ability to own a gun.

That does not include the consistently growing number of stories where a Felon turns their life around (who is NOT stupid in their 20-30's?), has a familiy, and the need to protect themselves?

 

[terrehautian]

Shouldn't they still be in prison?

The family member in question was never sentenced to prison and the charge was not related to anything violence related. They are back to being full time employed in a factory now (not where they worked before). The only reason I believe they took a plea deal was because it involved no jail time and they wanted the case over. I am not sure exactly what happened in the case as it is a cousin's husband.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The family member in question was never sentenced to prison and the charge was not related to anything violence related. They are back to being full time employed in a factory now (not where they worked before). The only reason I believe they took a plea deal was because it involved no jail time and they wanted the case over. I am not sure exactly what happened in the case as it is a cousin's husband.

I should have mentioned that I was only talking about the last portion of your post, not your relative

 

[IndyDave1776]

The family member in question was never sentenced to prison and the charge was not related to anything violence related. They are back to being full time employed in a factory now (not where they worked before). The only reason I believe they took a plea deal was because it involved no jail time and they wanted the case over. I am not sure exactly what happened in the case as it is a cousin's husband.

Oh, but this is a win/win/win, at least for the other side. This relative of yours provided another head on a pike for the local prosecutor, transferred himself from first- to second-class citizenship for the neo-feudalists in government, and is now working and paying taxes to support the people who have funneled him into second-class citizenship, hence paying for his own repression. Isn't it great?

 

[terrehautian]

There is some felonies that involve very little prison time. A friend of mine got upset one night (maybe alcohol was involved, I don't know) and shot at his former employer building. While I don't know what is going to happen, it is very possible that he may get away with time served (been in jail for about a year now).

 

[Bunnykid68]

Oh, but this is a win/win/win, at least for the other side. This relative of yours provided another head on a pike for the local prosecutor, transferred himself from second- to third-class citizenship for the neo-feudalists in government, and is now working and paying taxes to support the people who have funneled him into second-class citizenship, hence paying for his own repression. Isn't it great?

FTFY

 

[88GT]

There are 3 ways to look at gun laws.

1. Tool to address criminal behavior (added offense to "catch lawbreakers" when there is not enough evidence of other crimes).

2. Restrict use to "appropriate/approved" individuals. (Standards can change with the wind, political climate, and presiding government)

3. Inherent right of man to protect himself and guaranteed by the United States Constitution within its borders. (All have same rights)

I personally support number 3. I'm opposed to any restrictions on anyone owning firearms or the commercial trade of firearms. This includes ammunition, accessories, etc. IF, there is a need to restrict a person from having a firearm, it should be through a separate and specific court hearing where the petitioner must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that individual should have this right restricted. This should not be a rubber stamp operation but the evidence should be overwhelming.

The GOA of 1968 was in response to the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK; the race issues of the 1960's, increased violence in various cities in their ghettos, and race riots. The goal was to disarm these people. It hasn't worked. While MLK was killed by a felon, it wasn't his felonious behavior that caused him to do kill it was his "racist attitude" that did.

The riots were frustration and a very disorganized attempt to bring about change. Unfortunately, IMO the change that was brought about has done more harm than good. Less prejudice and racism would have solved some of these problems.

Ghetto violence, which was really black on black crime for the most part would have been better served by allowing the availability of more self defense options and the decrease in racism.

Great response. But where is the part that addresses my question?

Tell me how it's logical to say that a man who committed multiple violent crimes is okay to be released early but can't possess firearms (that alone is just asshattery by itself) and then turn around and say that the same man who committed the same crimes should have his rights restore in full, including firearms possession, just because he served his full sentence.

Do you not see how stupid that is?

 

[JollyMon]

Just because a person is out of prison, does not mean that a persons sentence has been completed....Probation and parole all play into whether a person is fit in the eyes of the law to be "free" again. I was merely stating that if a persons sentence has been completed, they should get a firearm back. If its 15 out of a 30 year sentence, That is a full sentence in Indiana because you get an extra day for every day served (with good behavior), but that still doesnt mean they have met all the requirements to be "free" due to other legal requirements (probation) that still has to be accomplished outside of prison.

Just because a person is not in prison doesn't means they are free, in the eyes of the law.

People often get 20 years and 10 years on probation during sentences and often times if they are release early they still have to fulfill the full parole and probation requirements... so according to your logic, After 20 years, they should automatically be allowed to own a firearm, since they are out of prison. But the way I see it, they have to complete all requirements with the law (probation and parole) before being allowed to own a firearm again.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just because a person is out of prison, does not mean that a persons sentence has been completed....Probation and parole all play into whether a person is fit in the eyes of the law to be "free" again. I was merely stating that if a persons sentence has been completed, they should get a firearm back. If its 15 out of a 30 year sentence, That is a full sentence in Indiana because you get an extra day for every day served (with good behavior), but that still doesnt mean they have met all the requirements to be "free" due to other legal requirements (probation) that still has to be accomplished outside of prison.

Just because a person is not in prison doesn't means they are free, in the eyes of the law.

People often get 20 years and 10 years on probation during sentences and often times if they are release early they still have to fulfill the full parole and probation requirements... so according to your logic, After 20 years, they should automatically be allowed to own a firearm, since they are out of prison. But the way I see it, they have to complete all requirements with the law (probation and parole) before being allowed to own a firearm again.

But even after they do all of that they are still not allowed to own or touch a firearm.

 

[JollyMon]

But even after they do all of that they are still not allowed to own or touch a firearm.

I know but I believe that after a felons sentence has been "fully" completed they should be able to get back the right to firearms.

 

[tallend]

If they have been convicted of a crime,using a firearm--Then NO

I know of a friend that got caught up in a ATF straw man purchase----promises of BIG money for guns to go to "THE MINUTEMEN of(Chicago)"-------they were dissapointed that he only had about 10 guns for them-----so they tore his house
apart---even took the insulation from his attic-clothes thrown on the flool--beds overturned-----silverware on the floor--tore his woodpile apart--etc----took him to court --5 years(suspended),$30,000 fine---10 years probation-------now,30 years later he had a lawyer check to see if he could get a pardon so he could shoot again---------"THERE IS NO RECORDS OF HIM EVER BEING ARRESTED"
I know all this happened I know the guy-----------------

Yes----I think he needs to get his gun rights back...

tallend

"Some of the scarriest words you will ever hear--"We are from the Government--We are here to HELP you"

 

[Smokepole]

If they are released to rejoin Society, then they are obviously no longer a danger. Give 'em their Rights back...

Are you REALLY sure about that and are you willing to back it up with your life or that of your family's lives? Are you really so naive to believe that with the way our justice system currently works and the inconceivable way that the parole system works that an ex-con is no danger to society just because the "SYSTEM" put them back in circulation with the rest of us? REALLY??

Or did you just forget your purple?

 

[HavokCycle]

I do not believe that Indiana disenfranchises former "felons". That said, there is no "right" to vote. Rights come from our Creator. To call voting a right is to say that anyone and everyone has a say in our governance. Voting is a privilege of citizenship.

l

privilege of citizenship no. RIGHT of citzenship yes. however, if someone is bound and determined to be evil, sorry, you're no longer deserving to be a citizen.

call me a tyrant, go for it, i dont mind. its why i dont run for office. i speak from a point of business, nothing more, which indeed most business practices can be considered tyrannical.

ive said for a while now, there indeed SHOULD be two tiers of citizenship, one level is a right, another is EARNED. no more sucking off the system and giving nothing back, no more 'oh, your parents were illegals, but you were born here, sure here's everything you want'

my parents were indeed immigrants, recent ones too. they were treated like second-class citizens by those that were here first. they worked their ASSES off to build for themselves, and wound up building a legacy, which i won't mention but resulted in a memorable pharmaceutical company jingle.

tell me they didn't build that. tell me they're equal, and I'M equal to the system sucking entitled *******s that are indeed bankrupting the nation, both ethically and financially.

tell me folks, that you dont consider yourselves better than someone who contributes NOTHING to our society but takes everything. by definition i'm a tyrant. i'm also benevolent, considering, caring, empathetic and patient, and i don't **** others over to achieve my goals.