Felons Right to Purchase Guns

[bigfutz]

I saw another thread was getting off topic, so I thought I would open up this can of worms anew. On the other thread, we heard mention of convicted felons, mentally insane, and jury of peers. Are these exceptions mentioned in the 2A? Why can't a convicted felon who has served his time -- for instance -- still retain the right to bear arms, i.e. purchase or own a firearm? If the gubmint feels he is safe to release back into society, why not return all of his rights? Can he not still vote, pay taxes, drive a car, buy beer, etc? Why is he denied the right to defend himself?

 

[fordnut]

You raised a question that I have... Can a convicted Felon still vote...used to be you lost the right to vote and also own a handgun....guess times have changed...

Steve

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Why can't a convicted felon who has served his time -- for instance -- still retain the right to bear arms, i.e. purchase or own a firearm? If the gubmint feels he is safe to release back into society, why not return all of his rights? Can he not still vote, pay taxes, drive a car, buy beer, etc? Why is he denied the right to defend himself?

"In all but two states, citizens with felony convictions are prohibited from voting either permanently or temporarily. The United States is the only country that permits permanent disenfranchisement of felons even after completion of their sentences. "

http://projectvote.org/felon-voting.html

A felon can petition a court to have his/her gun ownership rights restored:

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) provides:

"Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly [or implicitly as a matter of state law] provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

Whether this actually occurs in the real world? I doubt it happens very much. Not much political gain to be had pushing to restore a felon's rights regardless of the circumstances.

 

[armaborealis]

I saw another thread was getting off topic, so I thought I would open up this can of worms anew. On the other thread, we heard mention of convicted felons, mentally insane, and jury of peers. Are these exceptions mentioned in the 2A? Why can't a convicted felon who has served his time -- for instance -- still retain the right to bear arms, i.e. purchase or own a firearm? If the gubmint feels he is safe to release back into society, why not return all of his rights? Can he not still vote, pay taxes, drive a car, buy beer, etc? Why is he denied the right to defend himself?

Actually, the full list of prohibited persons is substantially longer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Contro ... ed_persons

Thanks to Sen Lautenberg it includes folks convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. While I'm not supporting wife-beaters, I do think it is worth nothing that (1) the penalty was imposed retroactively to folks who had sentences before the law was passed and (2) misdemeanors in many states afford a lower standard for due process than felony cases because the penalties are theoretically lower (of course -- most folks don't even think about the LIFE LONG prohibition relating to firearms). If a public defender is available at all, they likely have only a few minutes to spend on the person's case. The list of prohibited persons also includes anyone convicted of ANY state misdemeanor where the POTENTIAL penalty exceeds two years. For example, if you CCW into a restaurant in SC, are busted, and then convicted of the misdemeanor, pay a $200 fine and serve NO jail time, you are a prohibited person as the crime carries a POTENTIAL sentence of up to three years. And let us not forget that the list of things which are felonies has rapidly expanded; it isn't just rape and murder, any more. Felonies include things like packing lobsters in the wrong kind of bag, mailing orchids across state lines, and all sorts of other silly things.

The prohibition is also substantially broader. The GCA 68 doesn't just prohibit these prohibited persons from PURCHASING guns -- it prohibits them from possession. That is a prohibited person cannot touch a weapon or piece of ammo, nor can they own one.

While I am sympathetic to the idea of revising the prohibited persons list as well as reducing the number of non-violent victimless crimes which are considered felonies, I don't think it would garner much political support for legislative changes. Likewise, I don't think many governors are interested in setting aside convictions. It is all risk/downside and no upside for them. Who wants to be seen as "soft on crime?"

 

[Enjay]

On the other thread, we heard mention of convicted felons, mentally insane, and jury of peers. Are these exceptions mentioned in the 2A? Why can't a convicted felon who has served his time -- for instance -- still retain the right to bear arms, i.e. purchase or own a firearm? If the gubmint feels he is safe to release back into society, why not return all of his rights? Can he not still vote, pay taxes, drive a car, buy beer, etc? Why is he denied the right to defend himself?

No, they aren't mentioned in the 2A. Nor is there any mention of age requirements for gun ownership.
I agree, there are many convicted "criminals" whose "crimes" I do not feel should prevent them from being a gun owner. I do believe that even some violent felons who have seen the error of their ways and are living their lives among society in a neutral/positive way could also be responsible gun owners. Conversely, I think that there are many criminals who aren't rehabilitated, who are incapable of becoming, or don't care to be, responsible members of society and who return to their bad ways as soon as they're out of prison, that is if they even bothered to put their bad ways on hold while they were serving their time.
Just as I do not want to be punished for the actions of a few, I do not want to reward real criminals (mailing orchids? Seriously?) by automatically reinstating their rights without proof that they no longer act upon criminal impulses. They have completed their punishment, now they need to earn back the rights they threw away when they chose to commit a crime.

I do not advocate psychological evaluations before a gun purchase or obtaining a ccw, but I do think it's prudent to prevent the known mentally ill patients from having access to them. Again, there's degrees. I'm not worried about people with depression owning guns, I'm not even worried about a patient who was suicidal having their guns returned to them (I used to be but upon further reflection if they decide they really want to kill themselves they will find a way regardless) but the patients who cannot discern the difference between real and not, who are incapable of clarity of thought and judgement? I cannot say that they should have access to guns.

I realize that some 2A supporters advocate that no line should be drawn at all, constitutional carry across the board for every citizen. I can only get behind constitutional carry for law abiding, responsible citizens.

 

[bigfutz]

One aspect of my point which seems to have been missed is that when everyone seems to be in agreement that these dangerous and violent felons and the mentally insane should be stripped if their right to touch a gun, they still are OK to be released back into society. If these folks are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, why are they not kept locked up? What ever happened to the concept of banishment along the lines of Australia way back when? Or the George Carlin plan: fence in some of those square states and put them in there to fend for themselves?

 

[Midnight Raver]

One aspect of my point which seems to have been missed is that when everyone seems to be in agreement that these dangerous and violent felons and the mentally insane should be stripped if their right to touch a gun, they still are OK to be released back into society. If these folks are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, why are they not kept locked up? What ever happened to the concept of banishment along the lines of Australia way back when? Or the George Carlin plan: fence in some of those square states and put them in there to fend for themselves?

That IS the question... where to put them. In respect to this part of the discussion, I have this to add. Up here a few years back there were a pair of non US citizen criminals caught. They had been arrested and deported 3 prior times from post 9/11 USA. Haven't heard if they have been back since but who knows? If even deported criminals can find their way back, what's to stop ones that live here? Then again, do ex-cons want the hassle of someone always over their shoulder if they were allowed to have firearms again? A good portion probably wouldn't want that either.

I'll chime in about the other debates later.

 

[fiundagner]

I think that there is still a law on the books in Montana (?) that says when you release a man from prison (after a certain period of time) you are required to give him a rifle, ammo, and a horse. I don?t think its actually still enforced, but at one point in time it was.

The laws restricting felons (and others) are fairly new. While admittedly we don?t have wild injuns and redcoats knocking on the doors anymore does someone who has served their time and been deemed fit for release and or mentally stable have any less right to defend themselves than you or I? I know of no magic shield that makes them free from assault.

I understand that it is dangerous to allow certain people to have firearms, but any blanket ban gets the good with the bad. For instance a blanket ban preventing mentally ill persons from owning firearms would include ADD, ADHD, OCD, hyperactivity, restless leg syndrome, and (depending on how rigorously existent laws are enforced) ?hysterical? women from owning firearms. Since Ritalin is the new fluoride for school aged children how many of you think this is correct?

Now I don?t think we should be handing out machine guns to wife beaters and serial killers (with the possible exception of the guy who has to go after tony the tiger after that rabid raccoon incident) I don?t think we should blanket ban them either. I have heard of several instances, especially in bitter divorces or child custody cases, where one spouse would swear out warrants and protective orders against the other simply for more favorable court results. Do those people, who have committed no crime and in many instance have no intention of committing a crime, deserve lifelong bans against them? Do those protective orders turn into their magic shields?

Any blanket ban, by design, casts a wide net and catches the good with the bad. By the same token it would take much more time and money (in the form of taxes) to process these cases on an individual basis. Right or wrong, do you think it is worth the cost of giving up these blanket bans?

Criminal laws are multiplying faster than bed bugs these days. There is even felony speeding laws on the books in some places these days, where felony is defined as either the amount of the fine, the amount over the speed limit, or the location. Now because you or I got nailed in a 70-25 speed trap around a blind corner (been there, done that. School zone even) do we deserve to lose our rights to a weapon for the rest of our lifes? Does your spouse or parent deserve to lose their rights to a weapon for as long as you live with them (some state require housemates to give up their rights if they let a felon move in)?

These should be decided on case by case basis, but as I said that take time and money. No one wants to spend either when it is cheaper and easier to just throw out a blanket ban. I know I?ll scream if they up my taxes to pay for it (I already lose about 35% of my paycheck to programs I am never going to see a return on before state and federal taxes. Don?t even get me started on property taxes and licensing fees) and I support a case by case approach. If anyone really expects a government agency to make spending cuts to offset the cost, let me know. I?ve got a bridge for sale, and some ocean front property in New Mexico I want to sell

 

[John Canuck]

You know, what I can never figure out is how we get around the following.

1. Violent felons are suitably re-rehabilitated and/or punished to let back out into public, so they serve a fraction of their sentence.
2. Violent felons have shown a propensity to ignore the law.
3. Violent felons cannot be trusted to own firearms, so we must disallow them from owning firearms by law (see number 2).
4. We must get tough on crime and create additional laws forcing us to put more people in prison.
5. There are only so many rooms at the inn, so we need to let some out in order to accommodate the additional bodies from number 4.
6. Some of those let out are violent felons who haven't yet been punished and/or rehabilitated to allow into public.
7. Since these newly released felons are not sufficiently re-rehabilitated and/or punished, we must disallow them from owning guns by law. It's a good thing we already have number 3 in place.
8. Violent felons have shown a propensity to ignore the law....

I fear at some point, we will end up with a population of people who nobody with hire, who's only skill set is breaking the law, and who can get a gun quite easily despite number 3. At that time, it will be extremely difficult for law enforcement community to control the situation, regardless of how para-military they go. I think we are already there in places like Chicago, where virtually nobody can legally carry a gun, yet many do. Number 3 fails again. :cry:

 

[bigfutz]

Add all these numbers up and the only solution is to eliminate the laws that are targeted at lawbreakers but end up clogging up the penal system with otherwise law abiding citizens. You can't prevent a criminal mind from committing murder, for instance, by making hi-cap mags illegal; you only turn another otherwise law abiding citizen into a criminal. Thus, forcing legal system yo waste resources and forcing the penal system to release the murderer early to make room for the otherwise law abiding system. How does the saying go, "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns."

I am aware of this law against posession of a firearm during commission of a violent crime. What is that? Is not the crime enough?

 

[Dave29461]

As someone who has had several relatives and friends murdered and the perpetrators given less than life sentences, I believe the answer to violent felons is capital punishment. No recidivism! No need for parole! No expense for up keep! If you can't play by the rules you can't play. (I can't find the appropriate emoticon.) And please spare me the innocent inmate BS. Just a thought.

 

[Midnight Raver]

As someone who has had several relatives and friends murdered and the perpetrators given less than life sentences, I believe the answer to violent felons is capital punishment. No recidivism! No need for parole! No expense for up keep! If you can't play by the rules you can't play. (I can't find the appropriate emoticon.) And please spare me the innocent inmate BS. Just a thought.

No complaints from me. Far too many criminals are still alive and well in prison that should not be. When someone is actually caught in the act of commiting a capitol offense like homicide with witnesses and incontrovertable evidence/proof, it should be clear cut- death penalty. Screw all of these endless appeals for them, they may actually die of natural causes first! It is a waste of time and resources that everyone pays while they live on in prison. I think the families of victims would rather see them gone for good than having a life of "suffering" locked up somewhere. Hell, senior citizens suffer infinitely more in a nursing home(albeit not in ALL cases) than most prisoners do- and the seniors have to pay for it! Cut and dry cases should be exactly that- death penalty, as soon as possible. I think it would make murderers think a little bit more than just smiling and surrendering after committing the worst. Whatever happened to mandatory death penalty for drug lords and LEO killers? The appeal system needs to radically change in my book.

 

[armaborealis]

I am aware of this law against posession of a firearm during commission of a violent crime. What is that? Is not the crime enough?

I think the laws that tack on additional penalties for using a firearm in the commission of the crime are actually kind of insulting to victims and their families...
"Oh, I'm sorry -- your loved one was murdered by a criminal who beat them to death with a hammer. Because the perp chose to set the difficulty to 'hard' for their crime by not using a firearm, they get a 10-year discount on their sentence!"
Why does it matter if the perp used a gun, or a knife, or a gang of thugs, or a big heavy stick? The problem is the crime, not the tool.

I also tend to agree with John Canuck. The "inn" (prisons) are full of non-violent offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences. If you cut back on the mandatory sentences for what are essentially victimless crimes (possession of small amounts of marijuana would probably have the largest immediate impact) then the true violent offenders could be warehoused for longer periods of time instead of "catch and release."

 

[Midnight Raver]

Absolutely right, doesn't matter what is used to commit murder. Unfortunately, guns make better news stories unless the crime is excessively horrific in nature. :|

 

[C_Carson]

I also tend to agree with John Canuck. The "inn" (prisons) are full of non-violent offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences. If you cut back on the mandatory sentences for what are essentially victimless crimes (possession of small amounts of marijuana would probably have the largest immediate impact) then the true violent offenders could be warehoused for longer periods of time instead of "catch and release."

But, but...then how would the prisons make their money?! /sarcasm

 

[bigfutz]

Hit the nail on the head. More laws means more criminals means more arrests means more cops means more money. Further proof that money is the root of all evil. If you need more money, create more "evil."

 

[Dave29461]

Hit the nail on the head. More laws means more criminals means more arrests means more cops means more money. Further proof that money is the root of all evil. If you need more money, create more "evil."

The LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Second only to power over your fellow man.

 

[urbancommandox]

A good question is I thought the constitutional rights are inalienable and cant be talent away what happened to that.

 

[Dave29461]

Free Will. You can honor and observe the rights of others or you can infringe on their rights and thereby forfeit your own rights. Rights are what ever you can fight for and hold on to...as long as it doesn't violate my rights to life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

 

[lafayette gregory]

Why would anyone give a damn about a felon :roll: We have so many issues that need fighting for without trying to fight a fight for the sake of the fight.
To hell with the criminals, folks who make bad decisions, those who cannot afford decent lawyers and those who do not have a buddy in the legal system.
Lets just focus on returning rights, that have been banned/misaligned/denied or obscured, to law abiding citizens.

And don't give me the slippery slope argument - its tired and old. Bad people do bad things, THINK ABOUT IT - do we really want to arm bad people :shock: And don't give me semantics :roll: Bad people do bad things- I do not want to arm BAD people.
Don't give me the argument about corruption in our legal system- So what, work on fixing the system- DON'T GIVE GUNS TO BAD PEOPLE.
Want to keep all your rights- DO not DO BAD THINGS- DON"T ASSOCIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO DO BAD THINGS>

I for one, as a person who tries daily to do the right thing, take merit in knowing that bad people must wallow with the dregs of society to get firearms.
And the more we can sequester these bad people the better.
So your argument is that bad people need to defend themselves also - BS, Letem the go down in a pool of blood like the other dregs of society, defenseless, whining and filled with violent criminal intent.
And don't give me the -But I am different- BS, Felons are criminals and people do not change- Even if they do, they should have to always remember and be haunted by the bad things they did. Different , BAA! My big Ole ugly Ares!
Forgiveness is a religious issue , Not a legal term.

NO GUNS FOR FELONS!! PERIOD!