Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[Redhorse]

Speeding once is a simple ticket unless its an excessive limit through a school zone on the first day of school. You can have half a dozen tickets and only have your liscene revoked but you only get a felony if it's truely wreckless. For example, trying to outrun the cops and getting caught. Lets not let paranoia set in.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

You, too?

https://www.youtubeo.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo

I'd say it's pretty easy. We don't realize it. We shoot from the hip cause it's our daily routine, never realizing that we could be breaking these horrifyingly overreaching federal grey line 'white collar' crimes.

I also believe that driving over the speed-limit (by even a mile), changing lanes in an intersection, while not using your turn signal is in fact a felony.

So what you don't know may kill you (Or land you in prison) afterall... Why wouldn't people look this stuff up instead of asking someone that they're already doubting?

How are traffic infractions felonies?

 

[Bunnykid68]

How are traffic infractions felonies?

Shooting people while you are speeding perhaps?

 

[Redhorse]

This all seems rather silly

 

[Hank in Indiana]

I vote Not. The rate of recidivism in the US is 95%. That means that if 20 convicts are released for paying their debt to society, 19 will return to prison. I don't want the 19 convicts getting guns and permits.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I vote Not. The rate of recidivism in the US is 95%. That means that if 20 convicts are released for paying their debt to society, 19 will return to prison. I don't want the 19 convicts getting guns and permits.

You also have to ask why were they in prison in the first place and did they go back to prison because of a simple parole violation.

If we are going to ban firearms from them we should also ban cars, knives, bats and crowbars from them too

 

[richardraw316]

Speeding once is a simple ticket unless its an excessive limit through a school zone on the first day of school. You can have half a dozen tickets and only have your liscene revoked but you only get a felony if it's truely wreckless. For example, trying to outrun the cops and getting caught. Lets not let paranoia set in.

i one time did 130 mph on 465 in the middle of the day. i dont know if it was a felony, but if a cop would have seen me, i would have no doubt in my mind he would have pistol whipped some sense in me.
i have commited felonies. i have never been caught for a felony. copyright infringement. i bet quite a few of us are guilty for this one.
just sayin. its easier than one might think.
and in no way should remove my right to self defense.

 

[richardraw316]

to be perfectly honest it was most likely closer to 150.
it was an Acura NSX, and that thing was fast.

 

[Redhorse]

It is easy to commit a felony but we can't go through life terrified were gonna commit a felony by walking out the front door.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is easy to commit a felony but we can't go through life terrified were gonna commit a felony by walking out the front door.

Yes, too easy. The problem here is that far too much behavior has been criminalized. When my grandparents were young, if you followed the Ten Commandments (OK, before we get sidetracked on religion, most non-religious people would agree that not stealing, lying (especially under oath), and not killing people are good ideas) and paid your taxes, you generally didn't have any need to feel concern regarding the law. Unfortunately, those days are gone. As it is, living within the law requires deliberate effort, which should NOT be the case. We need a red pen used on the US Code immediately and copiously. Living as a non-criminal should not require scrupulous effort. It may also be noted that the only explanation which appears to make sense here is that lawful citizens cannot have control applied to them as can be done with those who are certainly doing something punishable wrong if one takes the time to find it. This, in turn, brings us to a motive of control through extortion.

If you were to substitute 'shouldn't be required to' for 'can't', your post would be perfect.

 

[Redhorse]

Well it'd help if there were constant laws such as national concealed carry, identical traffic laws, laws like these throughout the entire country instead of a patchwork of confusing laws. For example, in indiana a no ccw sign has no weight of law begind it. However, it's a felony in Ohio. That state is right next door and if someone doesn't know that ccw law, it'd ruin their lives to be caught. You tell me how that's logical or fair.

 

[Hajisc]

Everyone makes mistakes. If they served their sentence they deserve a second chance.

 

[Redhorse]

Everyone makes mistakes. If they served their sentence they deserve a second chance.

I don't think a rape victim or a murder victims family would agree with you. My

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think a rape victim or a murder victims family would agree with you. My

My guess is that they would likely not object to my position that released convicts should not be limited to a truncated set of right and conversely, those too dangerous to be trusted with the rights of citizens SHOULD NOT BE TURNED LOOSE one way or other (i.e., they should either never leave the cage or else be executed).

 

[level0]

I would have made the poll public. My vote was definitely. If they'd done their time and paid their debt to society, shouldn't they be a free man?

Agreed. If they are free men, they are free men. Period.

 

[level0]

I vote Not. The rate of recidivism in the US is 95%. That means that if 20 convicts are released for paying their debt to society, 19 will return to prison. I don't want the 19 convicts getting guns and permits.

Actually, your position is you don't want the full 20 getting guns and permits. You are punishing the non-repeat offender along with the repeat offenders. A felony that carries a 5 year prison term (for example), is really a lifetime ban on owning a firearm. I don't support your position.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The reason a high number of released prisoners recidivate is that they never should have been released in the first place. Aside from that is the argument that they are in prison for things that should not be illegal. In any event, the problem is with the system and not with the notion of allowing people who run afoul of the law to be treated as citizens. We recently saw an example of a convicted murderer kill again (with a gun he was prohibited from having) after being released after a laughably short time in prison, presumably to free up prison space for dope smokers. Not only do we have an unacceptable system of creating second-class citizenship, we also have a criminal justice system that is too preoccupied with trifles to deal with serious crime. Then again, when you take into account fines, court costs, programs that enrich friends of public officials, and other little bonuses, drugs are more profitable than incarcerating predators. Incidentally, Indiana now has a recidivism rate of only 31%. That means that for every criminal who goes back to his old ways, two are being punished who do not.

 

[AJBB87]

I voted No and then thought about it....

My answer: What's the difference?

If a previously convicted felon wants to commit a gun crime, they will get a gun and do it, whether it's [legal] for them to have a gun or not. This is a battle gun owners have been fighting politicians about for a long time.

Gun laws and permits are really just a placebo to make people [feel] safe. Since indiana requires no training or qualifications, and almost anyone can currently get a permit/gun it's rediculous to argue about letting them have their guns/gun rights back. If they want the gun, they will get one.

By voting "No" you are keeping the guns out of the hands of the [good convicted felons]

 

[Redhorse]

Well we could start by legalizing marijuna and taxing the outta it. Do I smoke it? Nope. Will I? Absolutely not. However, so many people want to do it, why try so hard to fight it when we should utilize our resources elsewhere? Simply put pot in with all the alchol laws. We'd save money on fighting this and make money on taxes. All I can see from this is $$$$. Once again I DO NOT smoke it. I simply don't see fighting it.

 

[sepe]

I'm not sure how to make what you quoted any more clear. If you've done your time and paid your debt to society and can be trusted to walk among the rest of society, they should have the opportunity to be a free man. If you can't be trusted, why are you being released?