Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

They should have rights restored as long as they serve the whole sentence without time cuts. A desire to be rehabilitated would be nice too. I work corrections, a lot of these types would never cut it.

 

[sepe]

OK, let me back up and slip into a Thought group you may get...

If they (the convicted) are NO longer serving the Sentence that a Jury of their Peers, and a Judge decreed that was to be served as Punishment for their Crimes. Then give them back their Rights.

What Part of RIGHTS don't you understand?!

So what you're saying is their rights should be restored upon completing their prison sentence? I'm not sure I'm following. Quite a few on this board don't care about the rights of people that haven't been convicted of a felony or determined to be something other than a proper person (as long as theirs aren't stripped). Why should felons have rights restored when we've got "supporters" of the 2nd Amendment that would be all for stripping non-felons of their rights simply because one group might be afraid of what the others might do?

 

[Mackey]

Once a person serves their time, they have "paid their debt to society" and should get a clean slate. If they are not able to fit into society, to contribute and behave themselves, they should have either been put down in the first place or still be locked up, depending upon what their crime was and their current state.

Chalk up another definitely.

No. Felons and other criminal do not get the privilege of a "clean slate." It's called a criminal record and that record serves a definite purpose in society. It sucks that it's hard to find work, and to get your "rights" back, but that's part of the deal.
Don't do the crime ....

Oh, and I voted that violent offenders don't get a second chance.

 

[Glock19]

Depending on a case by case basis..

 

[richardraw316]

You've got to question the intelligence and moral character of anyone that gets convicted of a felony in the first place. And if you have reason to question their intelligence and character, you have reason to question if they should be allowed have a firearm.

Thats a real nice holier than thou art attitude you got there.


My best friend got drunk when he was 16. broke into a closed gas station, and stole a pack of cigerettes.
almost two years later, one of his family members who where with him that night got arrested for something stupid. he told the cops everything to help lower his sentence. my friend was arrested and charged with 3 felonies, 1 plea bargained down. 30 days in jail and 5 years of probation. he has never hurt anybody, or commited any crime before or since. he is now 35 years old, and he still has no right to own or carry a firearm. that is just not right. he stole a pack of cigarettes. so did i at the age of 17.
i got 3 months of probation and no record. he got 3 felonies, how is that fair?
i have to agree, if a felon gets out of jail and decides to be violent again, no dumb a55 gun law is going to stop him.

 

[Stschil]

Its so refreshing to see how many Defenders of Freedom we have.



Whichever shoe fits.

 

[NYFelon]

Sure glad those old guys gave us that bill of revocable privileges subject to the whim of bureaucrats.

 

[JimmyR]

Once a person has completed their sentence, including any mandatory parole and probation, all of their rights should be restored, including the right to vote and bear arms.

I might support a long term banning of owning firearms to repeat offenders (similar to a 3 strike rule), except the convictions must be 3 separate occurrences, not simply conviction on 3 counts.

 

[billmyn]

I like the 3 strike rule but also fell that a set wait time should be set like 5yrs clean record and then it should be automatic you shouldnt have to pay more lawyers fee's and court cost to get your rights restored. you've done your time paid your fines and proven yourself to society . everybody does something stupid in there life, they shouldn't have to pay for it all there life.

 

[Ted]

Nobody outside of a prison should have his gun rights extinguished.

How about the insane?

 

[Ted]

Sure glad those old guys gave us that bill of revocable privileges subject to the whim of bureaucrats.

Many of those old guys also held the similar opinions of felons.

 

[Ted]

Now seriously everyone.......

Is there anyone in America that doesn't know on some level, what a felony is?

How many don't know, with some exceptions, that prisoners aren't permitted to vote?

How many don't know, again with some exceptions, that upon conviction of a felony results in the surrendering of one's rights to vote and gun ownership?

As far as I am aware and before one submits to plea bargaining, one's own legal council and the court advises the defendant of the consequences of pleading to a felony.

Of course, there is also a process of having rights restored.

Alcohol intoxication and other drug uses, with few exceptions, is not a defense to the commission of a crime.

Life isn't fair, but shouldn't a felon have to demonstrate that he or she can be trusted again?

 

[NYFelon]

Many of those old guys also held the similar opinions of felons.

Ha!

Every man who signed the Declaration of Independence committed a FELONY.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Ha!

Every man who signed the Declaration of Independence committed a FELONY.

And Treason

 

[3gunshooter]

I voted yes if a non violent felony.

Because thats me, Im trying to get my rights back right now.

I got a 2nd DUI in a span of 5 yrs in 1996. No accident no injury's
got pulled over for speeding and blew .10 when the law was .10.

Never did it again. never arrested for anything since.

If you think someone like me shouldnt own a gun, well u can
kiss my ass!!

Also 6 yrs active duty in the USAF 84 to 90, so Ive had some training.

Jimmy

Good luck, I work with a few guys that was where you are it worked out good for them. The best thing is you got a clean record since then. Wish you luck.

 

[wsenefeld]

I chose the absolutely not. I don't feel that all non-violent crime offenders are responsible enough to own a firearm. What about repeat DUI offenders? They obviously have no regard for public safety so why should they be viewed as responsible enough to be a gun owner?

Not giving out any sympathy. If we lessen the punishment for felony convictions, you're only asking for more felonies to occur.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I do not think anyone should own firearms except for me and those that I personally trust

 

[Stschil]

I'd sure be interested in knowing how many here advocating permanent revocation of rights have lived the perfect life that they insist everyone else must live.

Myself, not proud of it, but I did some things in my youth that, had I been caught, would put me in the 2nd class citizen zone many here so happily want maintained at all costs.

So how about it, where are the perfect people? I know one, in Spirit, but have yet to met any this plane of existence..

 

[thumperdogg]

I voted yes if a non violent felony.

Because thats me, Im trying to get my rights back right now.

I got a 2nd DUI in a span of 5 yrs in 1996. No accident no injury's
got pulled over for speeding and blew .10 when the law was .10.

Never did it again. never arrested for anything since.

If you think someone like me shouldnt own a gun, well u can
kiss my ass!!

Also 6 yrs active duty in the USAF 84 to 90, so Ive had some training.

Jimmy

I have a couple of questions to ask you before I base my opinion on your situation.

1. Are 1st time DUI's a non-felony conviction?
2. Were you aware that if you got another DUI it would be a felony?
3. Were you aware that if you were a convicted felon, you would lose your gun rights?

Here are just some facts about drinking and driving, not intended to point fingers, but maybe someone will read this post, and think twice before getting behind the wheel drunk.

Most recent statistics I can find...

In 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.

Of the 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes in 2009, 7,281 (67%) were drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher. The remaining fatalities consisted of 2,891 (27%) motor vehicle occupants and 667 (6%) nonoccupants.


In 2009, a total of 1,314 children age 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of those 1,314 fatalities, 181 (14%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Out of those 181 deaths, 92 (51%) were occupants of a vehicle with a driver who had a BAC level of .08 or higher, and another 27 children (15%) were pedestrians or pedalcyclists struck by drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher.

 

[thumperdogg]

I'd sure be interested in knowing how many here advocating permanent revocation of rights have lived the perfect life that they insist everyone else must live.

Myself, not proud of it, but I did some things in my youth that, had I been caught, would put me in the 2nd class citizen zone many here so happily want maintained at all costs.

So how about it, where are the perfect people? I know one, in Spirit, but have yet to met any this plane of existence..

I am not perfect and have done some things that I am not proud of. That being said, I have never committed an act that falls under a "felony" charge. Some of us make better decisions than others. Should this abillity to make better choices be the determining factor in being able to carry or not? That is up for opinion.