If they get sent to jail again and lose their second amendment rights does that mean they won't have a gun again?

Do gun laws keep criminals from having guns?

I guess its hard to imagine a world where they would get their second amendment rights back without special circumstances. Who would vote them their rights back? Not conservatives. Not Liberals.

 

Actually, if one has been convicted in a state court, it's possible to have full restoration of one's rights. In some states it's automatic--one day you receive a letter stating your right to vote has been restored. While you want to consult an attorney before buying any weapons, in some states upon receipt of this letter, your rights are fully restored. In other states, after a period of time (ten years in my state), and IF you have had no additional arrests or convictions, you can petition the governor for full restoration of your rights. I don't recall the lawyer's name, but she wrote a book about this procedure around 2003, outlining the basic steps--but cautions that you DO want the services of a lawyer to sure you've dotted every T and crossed every I. This DOESN'T apply to convictions in any federal courts. If your convicted there, you're screwed forever.

 

I take the option of 'you had your chance, but blew it.'

On the other hand it totally depends on the crime, just like how it stands now. Is it just to take away a persons Constitutional rights for a white collar crime, ie: illegal music downloads or illegal copying of a movie. (Something alot of people are guilty of)

Or how about someone who breaks a minor firearm regulation that he/she was unaware of. Yes, ignorance is no excuse, but with the pages and pages of ambiguous regulations, it's almost impossible to know them all. Even if the person gets no time and simply 6 months probation, he/she can never own a firearm again.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you; it depends on the crime committed. But there are plenty of felons out there who commit crimes not bad enough to warrant a life sentence or execution, but bad enough that they currently can't have their 2A rights back. For example, multiple cases of sexual assault, armed robbery, grand theft auto, etc.

I like the "one chance" option for most cases, but that will still leave repeat offenders on the street with no 2A rights. That doesn't fly with a certain crowd on these boards.

I take the option of 'you had your chance, but blew it.'

On the other hand it totally depends on the crime, just like how it stands now. Is it just to take away a persons Constitutional rights for a white collar crime, ie: illegal music downloads or illegal copying of a movie. (Something alot of people are guilty of)

 

No, laws don't prevent criminals from acquiring handguns through criminal means. This is meant as a mental exercise in addressing our legal options for addressing the issue of felons and firearms.

Criminals who want guns through illegal means will continue to get them, but the fact remains that we as a society need a legal stance on the topic.

 

...but the fact remains that we as a society need a legal stance on the topic.

We have one already...don't we? Until we can get society to agree that we have a right to arm ourselves without fear of becoming a public scourge...you'll never get the anti-gun crowd to even consider an ex-con should be armed...they have no ability to use real logic...

 

I posted these questions in the larger "felons should own guns" thread, but after several pages of replies they still have not been addressed. I believe they need to be considered, and I'm genuinely curious how others think.

So. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it has become law in the land that those convicted of a crime see their rights restored in their entirety, Second Amendment rights included, upon their release.

Now, unless we suddenly miraculously achieve a 0% re-incarceration rate, we will be faced with the following scenario:

A convicted felon is released from prison, 2A rights intact. One year later, he has been convicted of armed robbery. Back to the Gray Bar Hotel he goes. Herein lies the dilemma:

Do they have the opportunity to earn their rights back again upon their release? If so, how many chances do they get? Giving them unlimited chances hardly seems reasonable, but the alternative means they could eventually be an ex-con with no 2A rights.

Do we imprison them for life or execute them, in violation of the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, because they can't be trusted in society, even though they've committed no capital crime?

Or, do we issue a just punishment, allow them to serve their time, but then tell them "you've had chances to earn your rights back and you blew them, so you're out of luck now" and then they're back on the street, a felon and no legal ability to purchase, own, or possess a firearm?

It would be grossly naive to think that we would achieve a 0% re-incarceration rate overnight. Given that reality, we will inevitably be faced with this situation sooner or later.

Thoughts?

To begin with, the situation in which we find ourselves is a mongrel bastard child of two incompatible, yet equally wrong, sets of thinking. The first is that warehousing criminals is a solution to crime. The second is that releasing them back into society unrepentant and unreformed is as solution to the first failed idea.

As such, the premise of your question starts with baggage all its own.

Historically, we don't see prisons as a punishment. What we see is capital punishment, corporal punishment, and restitution, all of which are either reformatory, or deterrent. Your question can not be answered unless and until the baggage attendant to our current legal system is exchanged for a righteous justice system. And in that day, all who are incapable of respecting the rights of others will be removed from the equation, and those who remain will be those who have demonstrated the capacity for remorse and a history of restitution.

 

I agree. The topic of reforming our justice system in its entirety is a conversation all its own, and one that could carry on indefinitely. However, it's a situation that, barring drastic changes in this country, will not be addressed in any significant manner in the near future.

Felons and their Second Amendment rights, however, is a much smaller issue relatively speaking, but one that needs to be addressed nonetheless. And it's a hotly contested topic on these boards, so it's one I think warrants further attention.

The "pro" side of the argument rarely, if ever, addresses the points that you have. However, I'm looking to operate on the assumption that the legal system will remain largely unchanged, because, right or wrong, it's the hand we've been dealt.

The question can be answered, because it must be. With our current legal system, those are the only options we have. And because totally reforming it is currently all but impossible, we have to address the problems that we CAN address. This is one.

I'm not looking for "if things were this way, then we could do this" answers, I'm looking for "because things are this way, we can do this" answers.

 

Asked and answered a million times. If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, you are too dangerous to be on the street.

If you have served your time, and are off paper, all rights should be restored. Telling someone they can't own a firearm doesn't prevent, nor will it ever prevent, someone who is going to re-offend from acquiring one.

Again, if they are too dangerous to ever own a firearm, then they are too dangerous to ever be in society. Execution or life imprisonment would be the correct option.

If they are released, it should be with all rights restored, or don't release them.

 

So you're willing to issue capital punishment for non-capital crimes then? Or willing to imprison them for life for crimes that don't warrant life imprisonment, and spend your tax dollars to support them while they're in there? I'm sure as hell not. You are aware of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, right?

Again, this question is not meant to address criminals who will acquire firearms in a criminal manner. It is intended only to address what our position as a society should be.

If you're going to ignore the questions at hand, please refrain from posting.

 

I'll answer whatever I feel is appropriate. If YOU don't like my answer, don't respond. Pretty simple.

Let's try reading what I said once more...If they are that DANGEROUS they shouldn't be on the street.

Yes, I am perfectly willing to lock up for life, or execute those who are too dangerous to be in society.

The system needs to be reworked. While many states have a path to restoration, not all of them do. Some states, such as Texas, allow a felon to have a firearm in the home for protection 5 years after completion of sentence. This is a state law, and is still against federal law.

 

a crime is a crime, all of the b******* about guns, knives, hate crimes... Is just that. b*******. Do a crime, do the time.

criminals don't follow laws that they aren't to own guns. That is why they are called criminals.

 

You are correct. People who want guns will get them, whether or not their means are legal. This is not meant to discuss those people. This is meant to discuss what position we as a society should take, and why.

Nomad, you seem to be a particularly intelligent and articulate person. I value your insight and thoughts on many topics. Please respond to the questions at hand. If you are not interested in replying to the original post, please refrain from posting at all.

 

I believe that there should be ways for a felon who has done their time to get their second amendment rights back by applying for them. They should pay a fee which would fund an investigation which would involve interviews which establish that they have turned their lives around.

If I started a Thread about getting my second amendment rights I have no doubt most on this forum would simply say move out of Maryland. I inherited a very large old house here we love and thats not an option. I have honorable discharges from the Army and Marines yet don't have a good chance of getting my concealed carry permit.

My point is, even with the few who understand the question, there will be very few who understand that all felons are not evil. I know a good man who made a mistake, did his time, got over a hundred letters written on his behalf from over a hundred people, yet will be deported to a country he never lived in since he was an infant.

Most people can tolerate their own mistakes but care little with helping others who are imperfect.

 

I agree. There are plenty of special cases which warrant further attention, and often a complete restoration of rights, 2A included, is well within reason. That's why the "one chance to restore your rights" option appeals to me, personally.

However, in order for that to work, and at the same time appease the "pro guns for felons" side, we would have to see a zero percent "repeat" rate. Otherwise, you're faced with a person who you've given opportunities in the past, only to watch them squander their chance a second time.

Given that scenario, do you give them yet another chance to redeem themselves? Or do you say "no, you broke into a convenience store again, we're going to have to kill you because you're not trustworthy with a firearm"? Neither one seems like a valid option, to me.

However, if neither road is taken, you're left with repeat offenders in society that are barred from owning a firearm. Back where we started. That's what many fail to see.

 

A guy gets busted for having a pound of pot, he is a felon.

Or a guy gets busted as a 'domestic terrorist' because he posts on SurvivalBoards forums, he is a felon. https://www.ted.com/talks/will_potter_the_secret_us_prisons_you_ve_never_heard_of_before?language=en

These guys serve their time, for their victimless 'crime', and they get out.

Now what?


Remember these are DANGEROUS men!!!!!

One smokes pot, the other has a brain. DANGER DANGER DANGER

 

This is why my system of giving them back their rights would work. So the pot head pays two hundred dollars to the State police to get his rights back. In the course of their investigation they walk to his wife's Bol to interview her, but on their way while in the middle of his pot crop he opens fire.

Oh well, at least he tried

 

Laws have no affect on what criminals do. So what is the point? How many felons in Chicago have firearms?

Are rights granted by men?

 

But what if they don't want to be criminals any more? What if they live in a bad part of...say .... Houston and have a family who they want to protect?

I know I know, they should not have committed the crime. What if they were framed?

 

@ Forest Bee Keeper: If you take the time to read the posts here, you'll see that I support a "one chance to restore your rights" approach. People like Mr. Pothead would probably fall under this category, unless he decides to become a repeat offender or escalate his crimes. Please respond to the questions in the original post.

@ BFH: For the third or fourth time, I understand that laws do not affect criminals. They are criminals, by definition, because they ignore laws. The point of the question is that we as a society need to have an agreed upon legal stance on the topic of felons and firearms. Please respond to the questions in the original post. If you are uninterested in responding to those questions, please refrain from posting at all.

 

I did answer in my last line. You never lose the right to preserve life. No matter what the laws of men say. You may be persecuted for it. But you are still on the right side of the natural order of things. So to answer your question. It doesn't matter what you as a society decides. It's not your place to decide such things. For these things are granted from creation.

I think the issue stems from victimizing the criminal and not just putting them down if they are a threat to life. Why do men's laws protect the fate of people who assault, murder, and rape, and steal? Death is a much bigger deterrent than free room and board, and 3 meals a day. This is what happens when men don't allow the natural order of things.

 

If you can't be trusted with a gun you belong either in prison or a mental institute.

White collar felons currently keep their gun rights after time served so why not the rest. In some states now a DUI attracts a 13mth sentence, which removes your gun rights even though it's a misdemeanor. The Lautenberg Amendment strips for life the gun right of individuals who get a domestic violence conviction another misdemeanor.

It's not just felons who get stripped of their rights by the judicial system

 

Okay. If we're going to parse words, "felon" is just a term used to describe a person convicted of a crime who subsequently lost their legal ability to own a firearm due to the aforementioned conviction. "Felon" is just much simpler to type.

I would argue that two armed robberies would be sufficient to describe a person as "unfit to be trusted with a firearm" but you cannot execute or imprison that person for life without trampling all over the Eighth Amendment.

Please respond to the scenario and attached questions in the original post. If you are uninterested in responding to them, please refrain from posting.

 

There ARE folks that WE all agree should NOT have 2A/RTKBA rights ( 3 & 4 Strike Violent offenders released far early due to Activist Judiciary or prison Overcrowding) ( Mentally Challenged/impaired but not under constant supervision) (Recently Arrived Fundy Islamic Terrorist on a mission to kill Americans)

 

a lot of the people I deal with are in for firearm related crimes, some did armed robbery, I talked to one guy and he said he had a gun for protection because he was scrawny and 18, got busted and had some dope on him wound up in the state college for criminals. It would have to depend on the degree of the crime, armed robbery, no gun rights back period, carry concealed with out a license/permit get a 2nd chance. murder should=death, not a long drawn out appeal after appeal, swift justice like it says in the constitution. child molesters=death. We would need a total overhaul of the criminal justice system to make it fair again.

 

That's how I see things, as well. Our whole justice system would need to be scrapped and redesigned in order to make things work like they should once again.

 

Violent felons should automatically lose their rights. No questions asked. Then, once all time (including probation/parole) is served, and all fines and restitution are paid, they should have one chance at redemption. But it shouldn't be a quick or easy process. It should take 5-10 years (after total completion of sentence) of being a contributing member of society, with no law violations in that time; even misdemeanors (other than traffic). Although rare, there are people who make a bad decision, pay for their crimes, and never offend again. Those are the ones who should be shown some forgiveness.

Non violent felons should not lose their rights. Particularly for 'victimless' crimes.

 

After 35 years as a LEO, I come from the school of thought, one strike and you are out.

That said, to follow your scenario, I think every situation is different. After the first conviction there could be an application process. Rights get restored on a case by case basis. Second time around, no dice, you blew your chance to get any rights restored. Right to vote, hold elected office, get a federal job, own a firearm.

 

I agree 100% with SgtBooker44.

BUT we should make them wait for 5 to 10 years to give their rights back.
Read this from the National Statistics on Recidivism and this may help you make up your mind.

National Statistics on Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:
• Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
• Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx

 

So. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it has become law in the land that those convicted of a crime see their rights restored in their entirety, Second Amendment rights included, upon their release.

Thoughts?

I'm okay with the above. I work in construction.

70% of the people interact with have felonious backgrounds. Half of that group are potentially violent.



I'm armed and I don't care who else is.

 

I've worked in construction my entire life as well. But never have I worked for a company that hired felons. Never have I had a violent co-worker. I'm armed as well, but I still care who else is because there are many who are incapable of defending themselves such as I am.

 

No. One felony and you're out. No guns, no vote.

If you're a good guy after "Rehabilitation" it's not an issue.

I have family members, friends, and acquaintances that are convicted felons. Theft, Assault, Drugs. Nice folks. All of them, annnnddd, no guns for them.

Creating a system to sort out the rehabbed good guy from the dirtbag is stupid. Why should I pay for that and why should I care?

How about this?
We have a review board to see if a convicted child molester can work as a janitor in a school?
Or a convicted bank robber get a teller job in a bank?
Or a Russian hacker can work at Oracle?
Or the wifebeater gets to move in with the fam?

Or, Or, Or, Or.....How about not. How about you are lucky you get to be a part of our lives again and you better appreciate it and try to do good. We could have left you to rot in assrape prison forever, or, as some folks here have suggested, just shot your ass behind the police station.

Every prisoner is innocent and has been framed, ask them they will tell you. It wasn't their fault.

As far as, "It was only an ounce of meth and I was 16" argument, hey dumbass, the only get rich scheme that kinda works outside of a lottery ticket is drugs. Everybody knows that and they all know it is illegal. Don't do it.

As far as, As far asssss, "Well hey man, what if posting on SB gets you a felony?" Ehhhh (Hands up with the WTF is wrong with you face)? That situation is (Big word here) indicative of a larger problem where firearm ownership ceases to be the primary issue.

To the OP. I didn't read any other thread, so I don't know where you are coming from, but it has been my interwebs experience that the dudes asking about and trying to find a way around the no firearms for felons thing are felons. Are you a Felon?

 

To the OP. I didn't read any other thread, so I don't know where you are coming from, but it has been my interwebs experience that the dudes asking about and trying to find a way around the no firearms for felons thing are felons. Are you a Felon?

Am I a felon? Ahh, no. I don't believe anything I said indicates that I'm "trying to find a way around" anything. Simply trying to hold a semi-intelligent discussion over a controversial topic.

 

Depends on the crime IMO. If you have a "violent" felon, used a gun in a crime, or a knife or other weapon to commit a "violent" crime...they've proved they have a propensity to violence and shouldn't have those rights reinstated. Not that it's going to stop them, just like the current or future laws won't.

I answered your question, now answer me these.

Many people have gone to prison and became "violent" felons for defending themselves in states with insanely strict gun laws. Self defense is a God given right, and guaranteed under The Bill of Rights. Should these types of felons have their rights reinstated? ABSOLUTELY. They shouldn't have gone to jail in the first place.

What about non-violent victim-less crimes? The "war on drugs" has turned countless hard working, otherwise productive and good tax paying Americans into felons, for committing crimes that had no victims at all. Should they get their rights reinstated? Again, IMO the vast majority of them shouldn't have gone to jail in the first place.

 

Here in GA there is already a system in place for felons to regain their rights through the board of paroles and pardons. Including gun rights. It's five years since completion of any and all sentencing and requires letters from three individuals of good standing to be considered.

Would be interesting to study the reoffender rates among these people. It may answer the OP original question

 

I am not sure your facts are correct, I do not believe the state can restore firearms privilege's that are in conflict with federal law and since 18 U.S.C. 3565 sec 922 (G) (1-9) was changed from convicted felon to any conviction that could get you a year or more a lot of people convicted of misdemeanors are being denied.

 

This is a really tough one. I think that the approach of taking away any hope of having full rights restored is a mistake but there has to be a bar that gets raised if someone is a repeat offender or for certain types of crimes. There have to be consequences and the public needs to be protected. Part of public protection is reform and taking away all hope only assures that someone will resort to crime. The threat of a life sentence or lifetime restrictions doesn't seem to be a deterrent either. A heck of a lot of criminals have turned themselves around when given the chance and they earned getting their rights back. I'm in favor of an approach of "Show Me" with a first time offender. No automatic time based restorations or anything like that. There need to be measurable improvements and if they mess up again then they'll have to show a heck of a lot more for there to be a next time.

 

The problem with the law as it stands now is that 'felon' includes people who got caught with a little pot 40 years ago. It is not restricted to violent crime. You can lose your 2A rights by simply doing your taxes wrong or writing a bad check.

My stance is that if you initiate serious violence your right to not have violence used against you is forfeit. Not dying, and ever being released is a gift of mercy. Doing it again should mean you don't get trusted in public ever again. Gun or not.