Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[Kutnupe14]

What about the 17 y/o who gets caught breaking into a store with a few of his buddies. Completes probation, starts and goes to college. Should he/she be denied the right to protect their family forever? I sure don't think so.

As far as I'm concerned the idea of denying firearms to "criminals" is unconstitutional. Everyone should have the same rights. Besides this restriction was in response to the violent crime increase in the early and mid-sixties. Brought forth by Democrats, this restriction's intent was disarm the the people where the crime increase. That's right, the inner cities and the growing African-American population. Another racist tool and idea that the liberals brought forth.

There are several other good threads on this subject and well worth the read.

The words of the farmers would appear to disagree (see above).

 

[mrobnoxious1]

I think all those people commiting misdemeanors are just 1 step away from being felons, so we should take their rights also.

They say texting and driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving. 1st time caught should be a felony. Anybody ever text and drive?

 

[Ted]

Surely you remember that, at the time, they were all Bristish Citizens. So I'm kinda wondering what your point is. Is it more treasonous if it's against the US?

I thought that on and after July 4, 1776; they were American citizens.

 

[Ted]

Now seriously, Ted.

Is there any single person on the planet that can tell you every potential felonious act just in the jurisdictions which they might visit in a lifetime?

Have fun with that moving target.

The point is, there are people who 1) commit crimes without knowing it (what the hell happened to the concept of mens rea, anyway?) 2) may not know something is a felony (if you have mens rea, I really don't have much sympathy here).

Are you having a hard time conceiving of someone being wrongly identified? arrested? tried? convicted? waiting on death row? Not all of them make Dateline, Ted.

Well, Lex......

Is there a single, competant person on the planet that can't tell you that every murder, rape, robbery, etc act isn't a felony in the jurisdiction in which they might visit in a lifetime? How many times has an 11 year old been tried as an adult, just because they know better? Google is your friend.

That isn't such a hard target to hit.

Of course there are people who don't meet the requisite mens rea of a crime. Though what of those who do?

If you haven't already been informed, life isn't fair. Are you having a hard time with the concept due process? It isn't rocket science, Lex.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why is incarceration the standard used in many of these arguments? Is one to believe that once an incarceration ends, then the "debt" is paid? Before one ever commits their felony, the consequences are known. By going forward with their crime, they are accepting the consequences of possibly never owning a firearm again. If they hold up their end of the contract, why should the not state hold up theirs as well?
I believe option 3 is the one best suited. Non-violent felons should IMO should get a pass.

To further strengthen the argument, one only need look at the text of the 5th Amendment.

.

How can the consequences be known before one commits a certain crime? It has been proven that even cops do not know all of the laws, how can you expect someone who commits a crime to know all of the consequences for various crimes?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

How can the consequences be known before one commits a certain crime? It has been proven that even cops do not know all of the laws, how can you expect someone who commits a crime to know all of the consequences for various crimes?

Come on, that is ridiculous. If you are committing a violent crime you pretty much know you are going to get some jail time if caught.

Knowing every single law is irrelevant, its called common sense.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Come on, that is ridiculous. If you are committing a violent crime you pretty much know you are going to get some jail time if caught.

Knowing every single law is irrelevant, its called common sense.

I am not just talking about violent crimes, I am also talking about all the other stupid laws that can get you a felony without there being an injured party.

It is no more ridiculous than an officer enforcing a law that does not exists is it?

 

[Stschil]

I thought that on and after July 4, 1776; they were American citizens.

So, their crimes meant nothing, right? Wow, I didn't know that all I and to do was sign my own Declaration. Then I can ignore every law I wish.

Come on Ted. I know you are more intelligent than that. This country was bought with the blood of criminals, who legitimized themselves by being the victors. Had they not succeeded, all would have been hung as traitors.

 

[Ted]

So, their crimes meant nothing, right? Wow, I didn't know that all I and to do was sign my own Declaration. Then I can ignore every law I wish.

There are people that already have, and have yet to be incarcerated under their 'sovereign citizen' claim. There is at least one instance of a Sheriff refusing to encroach upon a man's land, fearing that there would be a bloodbath.

I'm not sayin' its right, but it has happened.

Come on Ted. I know you are more intelligent than that. This country was bought with the blood of criminals, who legitimized themselves by being the victors. Had they not succeeded, all would have been hung as traitors.

Ever hear the phrase, "To the winner goes the spoils" ?

Or this, "The Winner writes the history" ?

How about this one: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." ?

I don't know if they would have been hung, as the Roman's hung people via crucifixion. Though certainly those fellas would have been hanged. Yeah, wise ass response, I know.

 

[Trooper]

The words of the farmers would appear to disagree (see above).

Those who wrote the constitution distrusted the rabble as much as they hated the king. Thus the only people who could vote had to own land (male, white, 21 and a landowner). In fact the Federalist Papers discussed how the rabble (mob rule) would be worst than the king.

John Adams, the 2nd president and one of those who framed the constitution, even pushed a law (Alien and Sedition Act) that made it a crime to critize the president.

 

[minuteman32]

A person that cannot be trusted on the street with a gun, should not be trusted on the street.

 

[NYFelon]

Why is incarceration the standard used in many of these arguments? Is one to believe that once an incarceration ends, then the "debt" is paid? Before one ever commits their felony, the consequences are known. By going forward with their crime, they are accepting the consequences of possibly never owning a firearm again. If they hold up their end of the contract, why should the not state hold up theirs as well?
I believe option 3 is the one best suited. Non-violent felons should IMO should get a pass.

To further strengthen the argument, one only need look at the text of the 5th Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...without due process of law. IMO, I read this to believe that as long as you are given due process, any of a person's rights can be forfeited (apparently indefinitely). There is no such mention of these rights being restored after the termination of an incarceration.

But no due process of law, written and enforced by man, may divest a man of his UNALIENABLE RIGHTS as given by the laws of "Nature's God."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Those who wrote the constitution distrusted the rabble as much as they hated the king. Thus the only people who could vote had to own land (male, white, 21 and a landowner). In fact the Federalist Papers discussed how the rabble (mob rule) would be worst than the king.

John Adams, the 2nd president and one of those who framed the constitution, even pushed a law (Alien and Sedition Act) that made it a crime to critize the president.

This is very true

 

[Kutnupe14]

But no due process of law, written and enforced by man, may divest a man of his UNALIENABLE RIGHTS as given by the laws of "Nature's God."

freedom is an unalienable right, is it not? Are you implying that the laws of man man not suspend a person's freedom due to a crime they may have committed?

 

[Ted]

But no due process of law, written and enforced by man, may divest a man of his UNALIENABLE RIGHTS as given by the laws of "Nature's God."

What of capital punishment? The due process of law, written and enforced as such, divests a man of his inherent right to life. Even Jefferson and Madison understood and recognized such.

 

[Stschil]

There are people that already have, and have yet to be incarcerated under their 'sovereign citizen' claim. There is at least one instance of a Sheriff refusing to encroach upon a man's land, fearing that there would be a bloodbath.
I somehow doubt the reason for the Sherrif's inaction is because of recognition of "Sovereignty". It likely that they don't think the risk of violence outweighs the benefits if arresting them for whatever infraction the residents are suspected of commiting. Waco and Ruby Ridge haved caused some to pause and think things through a little before going in with guns blazing for fear of negative media attention. We've seen that with the Montana Freemen standoff. Montana Freemen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Do you have a link for the incident you are refering to?

I'm not sayin' its right, but it has happened.



Ever hear the phrase, "To the winner goes the spoils" ?

Or this, "The Winner writes the history" ?

How about this one: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." ?

I don't know if they would have been hung, as the Roman's hung people via crucifixion. Though certainly those fellas would have been hanged. Yeah, wise ass response, I know.

It seems the Sovereign Citizen movement isn't working much for anyone.

Sovereign citizen movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't get me wrong, I believe what the Colonists undertook was correct and I support the ideals you quoted from the Declaration. But the point made by others, and which I have taken up, is that these people committed acts that were considered criminal under the form of government that was in place, yet they, through victory, retained and enumerated the natural rights that this Thread was originated to discuss.

As someone stated upthread, the Felons and Firearms prohibition did not come about nationally until 1968 and was spurred in as a result of several high profile assassinations.
Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even the National Firearms Act of 1934, which many here, including myself, hold to be unconstitutional, did not restrict those who had served out their sentences from owning firearms.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both were enacted as every other Gun Control law has, through knee jerk response to radical acts by the minority and have had the result of restricting the majority. In fact, it could be argued that the NFA of 1934, which began our slide down the slippery slope, was a result of another failed attempt by Givernment to control human behavior, Prohibition.

 

[Stschil]

But no due process of law, written and enforced by man, may divest a man of his UNALIENABLE RIGHTS as given by the laws of "Nature's God."

What of capital punishment? The due process of law, written and enforced as such, divests a man of his inherent right to life. Even Jefferson and Madison understood and recognized such.

Capital crimes punishable by death come about because certain Judeo-Christian beliefs which influenced the drafting of these laws. Not to get into a religious discussion, but the Framers recognized this because of their belief in a singular God. The prohibition against the Government establishing a State Religion was set forth due to the Crowns' insistence that subjects belong to the Church of England. It was Never intended to seperated the State from religious beliefs.

 

[Ted]

It seems the Sovereign Citizen movement isn't working much for anyone.

Sovereign citizen movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't get me wrong, I believe what the Colonists undertook was correct and I support the ideals you quoted from the Declaration. But the point made by others, and which I have taken up, is that these people committed acts that were considered criminal under the form of government that was in place, yet they, through victory, retained and enumerated the natural rights that this Thread was originated to discuss.

As someone stated upthread, the Felons and Firearms prohibition did not come about nationally until 1968 and was spurred in as a result of several high profile assassinations.
Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even the National Firearms Act of 1934, which many here, including myself, hold to be unconstitutional, did not restrict those who had served out their sentences from owning firearms.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both were enacted as every other Gun Control law has, through knee jerk response to radical acts by the minority and have had the result of restricting the majority. In fact, it could be argued that the NFA of 1934, which began our slide down the slippery slope, was a result of another failed attempt by Givernment to control human behavior, Prohibition.

Yep. Here it is: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...reign_citizens_continue_12_year_standoff.html

I understand that the English colonists residing in America were considered criminal. Though then again, the English definition of criminal was rather loose.....much like being labeled a terrorist if one has a week's quantity of food in one's home, or a firearm, and more than a box of ammunition.....etc.

I too believe both the NFA and GCA to be unconstitutional, under 10A and 14A.

Furthermore, the 1968 GCA is a near mirror reflection of the the 1938 German (Nazi) Weapons Act. Given the atrocities that the German law was used to propagate, it sickens me that the 1968 law was even considered to become law.

 

[Ted]

Capital crimes punishable by death come about because certain Judeo-Christian beliefs which influenced the drafting of these laws. Not to get into a religious discussion, but the Framers recognized this because of their belief in a singular God. The prohibition against the Government establishing a State Religion was set forth due to the Crowns' insistence that subjects belong to the Church of England. It was Never intended to seperated the State from religious beliefs.

I agree. Though my point was that due process can and should rightfully relieve an individual of those intrinsic freedoms granted unto man by God or nature.

 

[Stschil]

Yep. Here it is: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...reign_citizens_continue_12_year_standoff.html

I understand that the English colonists residing in America were considered criminal. Though then again, the English definition of criminal was rather loose.....much like being labeled a terrorist if one has a week's quantity of food in one's home, or a firearm, and more than a box of ammunition.....etc.

I too believe both the NFA and GCA to be unconstitutional, under 10A and 14A.

Furthermore, the 1968 GCA is a near mirror reflection of the the 1938 German (Nazi) Weapons Act. Given the atrocities that the German law was used to propagate, it sickens me that the 1968 law was even considered to become law.

Thanks for link, Ted. Somehow, I missed that thread when it was originally posted. Some interesting discussion in it as well.



So, am I to conclude that since we (meaning you and I as I cannot include others without their specific aqquiesence) believe NFA '34 and GCA '68 to be without Constitutional Authority, that Felons who have served the sentences handed down and have been released without restriction regain their 2nd Amendment protections under said Constitution?



(Note: this has been my position from the onset of this discussion)