Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[88GT]

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.

I know what you're saying. And it's absolutely illogical. You're picking some asinine arbitrary standard of time served to determine whether or not the individual being released should have his rights restored. I'm trying to understand what makes him suddenly not dangerous just because he's served his full sentence. The 20 years was just an example. It doesn't really matter how long it is. Probation and parole are jokes. They fall under the same stupid argument that we need to release people but we can't let them be completely free because we don't trust them to behave. Then why the **** are we releasing them?

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?

It should be obvious that time served doesn't change a person's proclivity to do harm to others. But that's exactly what some people (*cough*JollyMon*cough*) are arguing. The better question is why are we releasing people who still pose a danger to society?

 

[dfranks]

I think the lifetime ban is excessive for many felonies. I don't think you can lump all felonies under a blanket lifetime ban. But there are some crimes that deserve a lifetime ban. I'm not a a legal expert, but maybe we need to take another look at what which felonies deserve a lifetime ban and which ones do not.

From what I have read here I would have to agree that maybe we should take a second look at which felonies deserve a lifetime ban

 

[88GT]

From what I have read here I would have to agree that maybe we should take a second look at which felonies deserve a lifetime ban

If a behavior is so bad that it warrants the permanent stripping of a man's rights, why is that man released back into society?

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

In my opinion, if the laws were fair, only very serious crimes would be considered felonies, like murder, rape, child molestation, etc. then things would be a different story. Also, if the punishment fit the crime, murder-death penalty, rape-(true aggrevated rape) life imprisonment, then the question would be moot. Most felons would never see the light of day again.

 

[Shadow8088]

In my opinion, if the laws were fair, only very serious crimes would be considered felonies, like murder, rape, child molestation, etc. then things would be a different story. Also, if the punishment fit the crime, murder-death penalty, rape-(true aggrevated rape) life imprisonment, then the question would be moot. Most felons would never see the light of day again.

okay there Todd Aiken

 

[Gluemanz28]

Being convicted of a felony is kind of like buying insurance. It all goes by the risk that the provider is taking. Felons made a bad decision and are at a higher risk. just my .02

 

[CLR]

I know some felons that are completely different people then they were. I also know some that were just ignorant 18 years olds. In the same light, I know people who have clean books that are off the wall.

 

[Gluemanz28]

A majority if not all people on INGO know that if they are convicted of a felony that we will lose our rights. This is an added deterrent to commit a crime.

 

[Scutter01]

A majority if not all people on INGO know that if they are convicted of a felony that we will lose our rights. This is an added deterrent to commit a crime.

A Right is not a deterrent. I think you're confusing that with a privilege.

 

[88GT]

A majority if not all people on INGO know that if they are convicted of a felony that we will lose our rights. This is an added deterrent to commit a crime.

It doesn't seem to have been a very good one then, does it?

 

[88GT]

okay there Todd Aiken

I think he meant forced rape as opposed to the statutory rape that is actually consensual sex between an adult and a minor.

 

[Gluemanz28]

The right to bear arms is not a privilege it is a right. Just like you right to vote. If to commit a felony you lose those rights

 

[Scutter01]

The right to bear arms is not a privilege it is a right. Just like you right to vote. If to commit a felony you lose those rights

Yes, we know that. The question of the thread is "should those Rights be returned after you have served your time?" Rights are not something granted by the state and they are not the state's to take away. If you have repaid your debt to society, then you should have all the Rights of a free citizen.

 

[public servant]

If a behavior is so bad that it warrants the permanent stripping of a man's rights, why is that man released back into society?

Two reasons:

Tree huggers actually believe dangerous/violent felons can be rehabilitated.

No one wants to foot the bill to incarcerate the dangerous/violent felon for life.

While I don't believe all felons should be barred from gun ownership, I have no problem with dangerous/violent felons from being excluded. I simply look at it as an extension of their sentence such as parole. (Personally I'd prefer to see them incarcerated for life, but they don't ask my opinion before making those decisions)

My personal opinion is that such a decision should be on an individual basis rather than a blanket policy.

I also would like to see a 3 strike rule. Although that may be one strike too many.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The right to bear arms is not a privilege it is a right. Just like you right to vote. If to commit a felony you lose those rights

If one is a convicted felony, one does not lose his right to vote. In Indiana, if you are out of IDoC, there is no prohibition on voting.

I think public servant making a rational argument that after a term of years, there should be a restoration of civil rights as in other states.

 

[88GT]

Two reasons:

It was really more of a rhetorical questions meant to exercise someone's assumption about what it means to be a felon. Being a felon doesn't make one violent or have a proclivity towards violence. On the flip side, those with a history of violence and conviction for criminal violence probably don't give **** about the laws anyway. So there's no real purpose in denying it to the general group of felons...except for nefarious purposes.

Tree huggers actually believe dangerous/violent felons can be rehabilitated.

Well, that's what we get when we lets the inmates run the asylum. Perhaps the adults should step in again.

No one wants to foot the bill to incarcerate the dangerous/violent felon for life.

There's a solution to that.

My personal opinion is that such a decision should be on an individual basis rather than a blanket policy.

It be a lot easier to change the plethora of crimes currently labeled as felonies to misdemeanors. We think being tough on crime means making the labels have more sting. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

I also would like to see a 3 strike rule. Although that may be one strike too many.

In a perfect world, yeah. But it a sight better than unlimited chances and revolving door prisons that have been known to exist, so I'll take it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The right to bear arms is not a privilege it is a right. Just like you right to vote. If to commit a felony you lose those rights

The first problem with this is that a right, by definition, is not subject to conditions, modifications, or revocation. A privilege, by definition, is subject to the aforementioned attributes.

The larger problem is that the time is long gone in which you could follow the Ten Commandments, pay your taxes, and not worry about running afoul of the law. Today, it takes a deliberate effort to live a legal life, and it gets worse every day. The net result is that when enough behavior is criminalized, and enforcement is stepped up (which I am satisfied that this is used as a bargaining tool to get more laws we don't need) we then have a large portion of the population demoted to second-class citizenship and de facto serfdom. You will notice that some of the biggest criminals in the nation have government-supplied armed security. The point is that, as Dianne Feinstein has made very clear through both her words and example, those people consider themselves exclusively worthy of having the rights that belong to all of us.

Given the immutable nature of rights, no one walking free is to be denied his or her rights. The correct answer is that anyone too dangerous to be armed should not be walking free either through incarceration or execution, but this doesn't help much with the real goal of creating a neo-feudal society in which a select few people possess the level of freedom associated with citizenship while everyone else (and if you are complaining here rather than to the lobbyist on your payroll, you are part of everyone else) becomes part of the new class of serfs.

The same thing goes for roadblocks/checkpoints regardless of whether they are ostensibly for sobriety, seatbelts, or making sure that the paint isn't flaking off your car. Justice Louis Brandeis correctly observed that the Fourth Amendment amounts to the right to be left alone (in the absence of justifiable cause to the contrary). The fact that I happen to be driving down a certain street isn't probable cause to believe anything other than that I am travelling which is not illegal and does not justify my being pestered by the police.

As Scutter01 is so fond of reminding us, when we give something up (especially something to which we are unconditionally entitled) and receive nothing in return (and a smaller unreasonable demand that the other side's starting position is NOT something in return) it is not a compromise but rather a reduction in the other side's larceny of our rights and is not tolerable. Socializing punishment by depriving the entire population of its rights until we reach the point at which we can no longer be said to live in a free republic doesn't solve anything other than by extension create a ruling class out of what should be a serving class that will dictate to us rather than represent us.

I can understand why a person would want to rid the streets of dangerous people including those purposefully engaged in criminal behavior and those incidentally endangering the rest of us (drunk drivers for example), but destroying the rights of the people isn't the way to do it. To his credit, Hitler's regime was very successful at eradicating crime, but I don't think I would like the cost of that essentially crime-free society. Unfortunately, that is the logical and necessary result of the path so many among us are screaming that we must take.

I also have to ask why a person who got convicted of, say, tax evasion, should even be considered a candidate for being demoted to second-class citizenship. Many of our ranks of felons are 'guilty' of 'victimless' or otherwise nonviolent crimes.

As for three strikes, I have a problem there too. Why is it that if I cheat on my taxes, illegally download research from a university, and get caught soliciting a prostitute, I am considered more dangerous to society than someone with two murder convictions?

 

[88GT]

The first problem with this is that a right, by definition, is not subject to conditions, modifications, or revocation. .

But they can be forfeited. Curtailment of their exercise during incarceration or other punitive actions resulting from due process is perfectly acceptable.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

This right here is a perfect representation of why we are truly screwed. Even on a gun forum, we have a majority of the members that allow a group of people to be demonized to the point where we remove their right to self defense. How do we expect to convince the left to leave assault weapons alone when we ourselves attack someone who has been deemed fit to renter society.

Most of you will claim gun control doesn't work, yet you support making it illegal for someone to take ownership of a firearm because you believe that the law will keep you safe. That's either hypocrisy or inability to form any kind of consistent, logical stand on the issue.

Are there problems with funding for prisons? Sure, but when they are filled up with nonviolent offenders and cops waste tax payer resources going after men soliciting prostitutes, I have no sympathy for the justice system in this state being low on funds. At the end of the day, even with this in mind, it is wrong to say that some percentage of this group might commit a crime therefore none of them are entitled to self defense.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." Those who would trade another pereson's freedom for their own security deserve even less.

 

[Pitmaster]

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?

I don't see it as being stupid. I will agree that it sounds stupid. The stupid part is being released early. I believe the Constitution was meant to apply to everyone. When exceptions are carved out the Constitution becomes weaker. Where do we draw the line. The 4th Amendment is being gutted with less and less protection against unreasonable search and seizure via the Homeland Security Act. Think about state's rights issues, etc.

I do understand your point of view. We both want the same outcomes regarding criminal behavior and crimes. Neither of us are right or wrong. I just lean a little further towards what I believe the Constitution means and intends.

Besides, if self-defense becomes more palatable to people, we won't have to worry about criminals as much.