Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[anthonycampbel7033@s]

Just reading some stories here in the forums and ran across a thread where a person was in the process of dropping their felony to a lesser charge. The end result is a convicted felon being able to purchase a gun again.

Do you think this is ok?

I think if they do their time they are paid up and should be forgiven.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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

I accept this without reservation in the case of incarceration. Otherwise not. Creation of a de facto second-class citizenship is not acceptable. If they are too dangerous to be armed, they are too dangerous to roam free.

 

[mrjarrell]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Understanding Unalienable Rights

 

[IndyDave1776]

Understanding Unalienable Rights

Wouldn't you like to have a dollar for every time you have had to explain that rights ≠ revocable privileges?

 

[MTC]

Understanding Unalienable Rights

Wouldn't you like to have a dollar for every time you have had to explain that rights ≠ revocable privileges?

Hey guys,

Since we're in agreement on the main point of rights vs privileges, just wanted to make a few comments on that article, peripheral to the thread topic. I understand the point he's trying to make, but don't agree with the method from a linguistic standpoint. Having only a basic understanding of Latin prefixes and several other terms - mostly understood from context if not from a dictionary - it might seem picky or inappropriate to say anything. Anyway ...

I do recall from a very young age reading that line from The Declaration and being a little aggravated that it read "inalienable" instead of "unalienable", if for no other reason than one of uniformity. That is, in most all the other texts on any topics, the prefix "un" was used more often than not. At the time, I shrugged it off as a difference in writing style of the time (sometimes seen in other documents of the colonial era), and it didn't matter since - for me anyhow - both prefixes have the same contextual meaning. That being "not".

 

[cobber]

Don't know.

What about hypocritical ex-astronaut Navy veterans?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Don't know.

What about hypocritical ex-astronaut Navy veterans?

Put them on rockets aimed down rather than up. Problem solved.

 

[AtTheMurph]

My Answer is definately. Now here is the reasons why I say that. If, and that is the largest two letter word in the english language, this person has served his time, and is released without restriction, he/she has been restored to society. They should be allowed to be Citizens, not a part of some subculture that it OK to discriminate against.

Now, to the IF again. IF this person is not deemed good enough to be a full citizen, THEY SHOULD NOT BE OUT OF PRISON.

This, I know, is not a popular view. It causes many people, even 'Freedom Loving Gun Owners' here on INGO to get uptight. But thats the way I view it.

The justice system of today does not work. Its about warm and fuzzies to make the sheep feel safe and the keep the prisoners pacified. It needs to go back to being a form of punishment. There are some criminals that I personally think should never see the light of day again.

So, thats my story and I'm stickin to it.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

 

[Lex Concord]

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?

Are you really so naive to believe that an ex-con who wants to get a gun to blow your brains out or ease the raping of your wife won't get one anyway? REALLY?

Remember, laws only prevent the "law-abiding" from performing the proscribed action. Meaning that the ex-con who is a good guy who only wants to protect himself or his family will be the guy prevented from buying a firearm because he will toe the line to avoid going back in the pen.

Are you working for the Brady Bunch or did you just forget your purple?

 

[88GT]

I don't see it as being stupid. I will agree that it sounds stupid.

It sounds stupid because it IS stupid.

Let me recap:

Scenario 1: violent offender, convicted, sentenced, serves times, released, restoration of rights.

Scenario 2: same violent offender, same crime, convicted, sentenced, released prior to the end of sentence, rights not restored.

What, exactly makes it acceptable for restoration of rights in the first scenario but not in the second? The only variable is the time served. Which means that the logical conclusion is that we presume his risk to be related to the time served. NOT his proclivity for violence, not his history of committing crimes. So we just disregard what we know about HIM, and let some tangential factor such as the time he served determine whether his rights should be restored.

That, my friend, is the epitome of stupid.

The stupid part is being released early.

Agreed, but I'd go one step farther and say ANY release for those that have shown they have no regard for the law or the rights of others.

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.

Agreed, but relevant how?

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that I am proffering an opinion that runs contradictory to the Constitution?

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

History says otherwise.

I accept this without reservation in the case of incarceration. Otherwise not. Creation of a de facto second-class citizenship is not acceptable. If they are too dangerous to be armed, they are too dangerous to roam free.

Agreed, on all counts. Incarceration is where the line is drawn. Or should be.

 

[Aaron Also]

Only non-violent felons

Hello everyone,

This is my first and potentially my only post on your community, but please hear me out. I have read
all 25 pages of this thread and I'm glad to see there are a majority of gun owners that understand the
difference between Rights and privileges.

I am a convicted felon. I'd like to use the prefix ex in there but society won't let me put it behind me like
an ex-girlfriend. It is clear from reading this that few, if any, of you have experience with IDOC from
my perspective. Please allow me to shine some light on the matter. Forget what you've seen on TV or
in movies; there are only 2 types of people in prison: those that admit they made a mistake and those
that swear to be innocent. Those that accept their folly are doing what they can to better themselves
and move on with their lives. Those that swear to be innocent insist they got screwed over by the system
and can't wait to get out and commit another crime. I made this observation over 10 years ago when I
was their serving my time. See it has little to do with guilt and more to do with introspective analysis.
Even though I know today that my case was a frivolous abuse of the law I have admitted that what I did
(or attempted to do) was wrong. (theft D Felony) I proudly proclaim it and to me I wear it as a badge of
honor. Had I not been railroaded into an unjust conviction I would not have learned my lesson and may
have moved onto more serious crimes. I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to be still and look inside
myself, past the fear and hate to the heart of who and what I am; a foul-able human being. See, much
like asserting ones Rights is a personal responsibility so to is rehabilitation; not unlike drug rehab, no
one can do it for you. The State's responsibility is only to identify a need for rehab and provide a location
conducive to such ends.

As for prisoners not serving their full sentence. I can only assure that they do, all of them. See the guy
who is innocent is likely to break rules and get "good time" taken away. Even then upon release all
offenders (proper nomenclature) are on parole until their maximum release date. If you are sentenced to
3 years you will do 18months inside and 18months on parole, and that is a minimum. One can always
catch another charge inside and get more time.

From my observations I believe that all SVF, especially those that have demonstrated misuse of firearms,
have knowingly and willing given up their right to possess them. Society would tend to agree with me.
However, those, like myself, convicted of non-violent victimless crimes have done NOTHING to incur
such a blatant violation of our Rights. I have been researching off and on for 5+ years to discover how
to get those Rights back. No lawyer will discuss the matter with me. Although there is a clear means of
reinstating those Rights; Post Conviction Relief. Of course that requires forcing the state to admit they
made a mistake and good luck with that, but I'm told it does work sometimes. I will soon be pursuing
this myself. Not because I think I'm innocent but because I have accepted my guilt in the matter. I firmly
believe a person cannot be forgiven until they have admitted guilt.

I would like to see the NRA or GOA sneak a clause into any future gun control act clarifying the 1968
meaning of felon. I believe that a non-violent victimless crime should warrant to reinstatement of ones
Rights immediately upon completion with a 3 strikes special condition. All SVF would still loose their
Rights as currently and would still have the recourse of PCR if they can ever prove their rehabilitation.

And those of you who think I should not able to protect my life, liberty, family and friends from
evil doers. I say as Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I will gladly make arrangements and sign
waivers to make this legal if you personally wish to step forth. You should know there are no less than four (4) ways
for me to purchase a firearm; at least two (2) of them are completely legal despite the possession still being a crime.
So, logic would conclude that the law doesn't work or certainly doesn't prevent convicted felons from acquiring firearms
in any way.

"Good men don't need your laws and bad men won't follow them; so what good are they?" - para. Plato

"The measure of a free society is the freedom it grants its dissenters, not the freedom it gives to the
conformists." - para. Abbie Hoffman

 

[Blackhawk2001]

AS I've said before, every individual has the right to self-defense. EVERY INDIVIDUAL. A felon should serve the appropriate sentence, then, when released, should take up again his human right to self-defense.

Now we all know there are animals in prison who should either never be released, or who should be executed at the hands of the state to prevent them from harming anyone else. Additionally, anyone who kills a criminal during the commission of a violent crime should not be prosecuted. There is no such thing as "deterrence" for the type of violent person who will murder others, so the death of such a person at the hands of other citizens should be seen as an extension of the "justice system."

 

[popsmoke]

I don't think felons should ever lose their gun rights to begin with.
Shall not be infringed.

If he can't be trusted with guns, he shouldn't be out on the street.

 

[ModernGunner]

IF the convict:

1) Perpetrated no violent crime

2) Received no plea deal or otherwise 'lesser' sentence.

3) Has served their full sentence with no reduction for 'good time', reduction for testimony, early release, or any other reason whatsoever.

Then he has served his full debt to society and might then be entitled to apply for full reinstatement of his rights.

 

[mrjarrell]

IF the convict:

1) Perpetrated no violent crime

2) Received no plea deal or otherwise 'lesser' sentence.

3) Has served their full sentence with no reduction for 'good time', reduction for testimony, early release, or any other reason whatsoever.

Then he has served his full debt to society and might then be entitled to apply for full reinstatement of his rights.

Under your rules then, virtually none of them would ever get their Rights back.

 

[BHOWPE]

Armed Felon Killed in Traffic Stop Shootout

Indianapolis metropolitan police said the man killed in a chaotic exchange of gunfire with police Tuesday night had a lengthy criminal record and was on parole.

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...-says-officer-good-condition?odyssey=obinsite

Morris has been convicted of several felonies, including battery, carrying a handgun without a license, criminal recklessness and resisting law enforcement.

 

[lucky3031]

My Answer is definately. Now here is the reasons why I say that. If, and that is the largest two letter word in the english language, this person has served his time, and is released without restriction, he/she has been restored to society. They should be allowed to be Citizens, not a part of some subculture that it OK to discriminate against.

Now, to the IF again. IF this person is not deemed good enough to be a full citizen, THEY SHOULD NOT BE OUT OF PRISON.

This, I know, is not a popular view. It causes many people, even 'Freedom Loving Gun Owners' here on INGO to get uptight. But thats the way I view it.

The justice system of today does not work. Its about warm and fuzzies to make the sheep feel safe and the keep the prisoners pacified. It needs to go back to being a form of punishment. There are some criminals that I personally think should never see the light of day again.

So, thats my story and I'm stickin to it.

^^^^ This right here

 

[Timjoebillybob]

All SVF would still loose their
Rights as currently and would still have the recourse of PCR if they can ever prove their rehabilitation.

And those of you who think I should not able to protect my life, liberty, family and friends from
evil doers. I say as Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

How do you reconcile those two statements? It's okay for you as a felon, but not okay for others you disagree with? From your statement your not without sin yourself, but you believe that others should not be able to protect their life, liberty, family and friends.

My belief is that if your a free man, your a free man and as such should be afforded all rights, liberties and privileges of a free man.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Indianapolis metropolitan police said the man killed in a chaotic exchange of gunfire with police Tuesday night had a lengthy criminal record and was on parole.

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...-says-officer-good-condition?odyssey=obinsite

Morris has been convicted of several felonies, including battery, carrying a handgun without a license, criminal recklessness and resisting law enforcement.

That one should be dropped anyway, just sayin

 

[thumperdogg]

We live in a society where someone can murder another human being and be out of jail in a matter of years. Why should that person deserve to have the right to protect themselves? They shouldn't! They can cry about losing their rights, what about the person who lost their life, what about their rights? That's right, they don't have any, because they are dead!

If you commit a crime, you are aware of the consequences of being caught. This is the reason we have these consequences, to help PREVENT the crimes from happening.

Simple as this, if you are going to steal a car and know the results of getting caught stealing that care are that you will never be able to own a firearm, never be able to vote, you will have a hard time finding a job, and so on, then WHY would you steal that car?

The laws are there for a reason, to deter you from doing it! If there were no result for your actions the world would be chaos! I am not here to classify what is or should/shouldn't be a felony, purely that if you know you are committing a felony, you are aware of the consequences, so don't cry about it when you lose your rights!