Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[Degtyaryov]

Someone who got caught with drugs, cheated on their taxes, or deposited more than $10k cash at one time? Sure. Someone who carjacked someone at gunpoint? nah.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Someone who got caught with drugs, cheated on their taxes, or deposited more than $10k cash at one time? Sure. Someone who carjacked someone at gunpoint? nah.

They should be executed like horse thieves.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will stand by the position that no one should live 'free' with truncated rights. If they are too dangerous to be loose with all their rights, then they should either be in prison or in the ground.

 

[HavokCycle]

felons - you lose a LOT of rights, including the right to vote. this is the grey area of the matter. truly, the right to vote should be counted right up there with the right to bear arms. equally powerful weapons. if thats the case, you are to forfeit ALL rights. the constitution no longer applies to you.

as a law-abiding citizens i can make a lot of choices for myself. some poor,some good. all of them amount to what is my current and future life. i have little sympathy for those whose who refuse to learn from their mistakes. one shot, k you screwed up. you get a second chance. thats it. period.

 

[88GT]

I agree with the past few posts. It depends. However, lines have to be drawn somewhere. I personally feel that a person should be allowed to make a mistake in their life and be given the opportunity to redeem themselves. If a person commits a felony, does the time, proves to society that they are now responsible, I have no problem with them owning a firearm. If they make a mistake twice, fool me once. But I also feel that penalties for crimes aren't as severe as they should be.

Depends on what?

I've asked this every time this topic rears its ugly head (expect for this thread since I apparently missed it the first time around; so every time I catch this topic rearing its ugly head): what makes a felon a risk to society should he be released? Is it the possession of the firearm or the fact that the individual is violent of his own accord? Does the label "felon" suddenly imbue someone with an innate inability to control his behavior? If such is the case, why are we releasing them into society in the first place?

If you can't trust a man with a firearm, you can't trust him period. There are no mitigating circumstances.

 

[IndyDave1776]

felons - you lose a LOT of rights, including the right to vote. this is the grey area of the matter. truly, the right to vote should be counted right up there with the right to bear arms. equally powerful weapons. if thats the case, you are to forfeit ALL rights. the constitution no longer applies to you.

as a law-abiding citizens i can make a lot of choices for myself. some poor,some good. all of them amount to what is my current and future life. i have little sympathy for those whose who refuse to learn from their mistakes. one shot, k you screwed up. you get a second chance. thats it. period.

You do realize that allowing the creation of a second-class citizenship opens the door for criminalizing more behaviors until the only people who are not 'criminals' are like those at the top of the Chicago machine who are not better but rather granted de facto immunity from the law, and the second-class citizenship gives rise to a new feudalism creating a society in which I guarantee you that you will hate to live.

 

[JollyMon]

If they are not in prison shouldn't that qualify for redeemed? Sentence served? What needs to change is the definition of a felony. How about everyone take a minute and see what a felony was say 125 years ago.

Depends on what?

If a felon is not in prison should that automatically allow that individual the right to a firearm? No, we see this many of times in states with over crowding.... felons are released after serving fractions of there sentences and this is why they are repeat offenders. Should that person be allowed to have a firearm, just because the state cant control crime and over crowding? Perhaps, all situations are different, all felons are different. I think if a person serves a full sentence and did their time, they should have the right to own a firearm.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You do realize that allowing the creation of a second-class citizenship opens the door for criminalizing more behaviors until the only people who are not 'criminals' are like those at the top of the Chicago machine who are not better but rather granted de facto immunity from the law, and the second-class citizenship gives rise to a new feudalism creating a society in which I guarantee you that you will hate to live.

We are all 2nd class citizens, whether we choose to believe it or not.

1) Do not have a right to bear arms
2) Do not have a right to travel by whatever means we wish
3) Do not have the right to say whatever we want.

etc....

 

[SaintsNSinners]

If that person is free of all legal restrictions, Prison time, halfway house, probation, parole. Then by defacto in the eyes of the law they are innocent and should be accorded all the rights and priveledges due citizen.

It is a horrible slippery slope to leave a person with fractionalized rights. You are either entitled to the rights or not.

I dont care if Joe Schmoe shot and killed 2 people. He was sentenced to a term of 15-25 by a jury of his peers and served 15-25 or was adjudged to have paid his penance for his crime and released by another jury of his peers.

That person is now no more a criminal than I.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If a felon is not in prison should that automatically allow that individual the right to a firearm? No, we see this many of times in states with over crowding.... felons are released after serving fractions of there sentences and this is why they are repeat offenders. Should that person be allowed to have a firearm, just because the state cant control crime and over crowding? Perhaps, all situations are different, all felons are different. I think if a person serves a full sentence and did their time, they should have the right to own a firearm.

What felony were they in prison for? How dangerous was the person replacing them in the prison? If they are that dangerous execute them. The State does not want to control overcrowding or crime or we wouldn't be throwing people in jail for what should be misdemeanors. Like I said up thread, what was considered a felony 125 years ago. If you are to dangerous to be free you should be locked up or dead and All Free Men should have their rights

 

[Bunnykid68]

If that person is free of all legal restrictions, Prison time, halfway house, probation, parole. Then by defacto in the eyes of the law they are innocent and should be accorded all the rights and priveledges due citizen.

It is a horrible slippery slope to leave a person with fractionalized rights. You are either entitled to the rights or not.

I dont care if Joe Schmoe shot and killed 2 people. He was sentenced to a term of 15-25 by a jury of his peers and served 15-25 or was adjudged to have paid his penance for his crime and released by another jury of his peers.

That person is now no more a criminal than I.

I disagree with that. He should be dead.

 

[92LX]

They should be executed like horse thieves.

Bunnykid is right on the money here.


Violent criminals when the country was being created (up to about 1900 or so) didn't get a whole lot of second chances once caught.

If you are so dangerous that you cannot be let out into society, you should not be let out into society. Either by prison, or by death sentence. (like 150 years ago).

The other issue is that in our "kinder gentler" society, we won't execute a felon. But we'll take away their ability to get a job, live in a decent place, vote, or defend themselves. Then act all surprised that they stay criminals.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I disagree with that. He should be dead.

True but he isnt dead. He is released back into society. We either need more liberal uses of the death penalty or we need to accept that He is now innocent in the eyes of the law and treat him as such

 

[sonofd]

This may sound extreme, but I don't think anyone should be denied the right of owning a firearm. It seems to me, that if someone wants to hurt another person with a firearm, they aren't going to let a little thing like illegal possesion stop them.

 

[sonofd]

Bunnykid is right on the money here.


Violent criminals when the country was being created (up to about 1900 or so) didn't get a whole lot of second chances once caught.

If you are so dangerous that you cannot be let out into society, you should not be let out into society. Either by prison, or by death sentence. (like 150 years ago).

The other issue is that in our "kinder gentler" society, we won't execute a felon. But we'll take away their ability to get a job, live in a decent place, vote, or defend themselves. Then act all surprised that they stay criminals.

I couldn't agree more

 

[richardraw316]

how about non violent felons, get their rights restored after time served.
violent felons{ depending on the crime committed} get their rights back after time served and ten years no major laws broken. of course it would be worded differently. i just mean ten years clean. traffic stops dont count. this seems like a good way to treat everyone fair.

 

[Hohn]

How is it that one can permanently lose 2A rights, but no other Amendment-related rights?

Repeat offenders still have right to counsel, rights against improper search/seizure, etc. Right?

Seems like a rather glaring inconsistency.

 

[Bill of Rights]

felons - you lose a LOT of rights, including the right to vote. this is the grey area of the matter. truly, the right to vote should be counted right up there with the right to bear arms. equally powerful weapons. if thats the case, you are to forfeit ALL rights. the constitution no longer applies to you.

as a law-abiding citizens i can make a lot of choices for myself. some poor,some good. all of them amount to what is my current and future life. i have little sympathy for those whose who refuse to learn from their mistakes. one shot, k you screwed up. you get a second chance. thats it. period.

I do not believe that Indiana disenfranchises former "felons". That said, there is no "right" to vote. Rights come from our Creator. To call voting a right is to say that anyone and everyone has a say in our governance. Voting is a privilege of citizenship.

If a felon is not in prison should that automatically allow that individual the right to a firearm? No, we see this many of times in states with over crowding.... felons are released after serving fractions of there sentences and this is why they are repeat offenders. Should that person be allowed to have a firearm, just because the state cant control crime and over crowding? Perhaps, all situations are different, all felons are different. I think if a person serves a full sentence and did their time, they should have the right to own a firearm.

Full sentence? You do know that prisoners typically get "two for one", meaning two days credit for every day served, in essence meaning they serve only half of their sentences. I said a couple of years ago that that needed to change and was informed that that's one of the "bargaining chips" the state uses to obtain "good behavior" from those incarcerated. I'm of the opinion that if they had good behavior, they wouldn't be there in the first place, and it's on them to show it, not on us to "buy" it from them.

This may sound extreme, but I don't think anyone should be denied the right of owning a firearm. It seems to me, that if someone wants to hurt another person with a firearm, they aren't going to let a little thing like illegal possesion stop them.

I'd agree with you, excepting only those presently incarcerated, whether in jail or psychiatric hospital. If they're too dangerous to be out, then keep them locked up and away from weapons (of all types)... Don't restrict good people's access to necessary tools because of the misbehavior of society's miscreants.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Paul30]

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.

Well said. Viewing these people who have served their time as less than restored citizens, we as a society are telling them there is no way you will ever be equals again, and you will live as sub-citizens for the rest of your life. This destroys any hope they may have of trying to rejoin society, and pushes them to returning to a life of crime. Let's face it, if society abandons them and treats them this way after they have paid their debt, why would they respect such a society. This pushes the Us against Them mentality which benefits no one. They are labeled convicted Felons even after they have paid their debt. Many of us have been convicted of an infraction, or misdemeanor, but they don't refer to us a infractionists or misdemeanorists. A man does his time, gets out, starts a family, yet can't protect them because he is prohibited from owning a gun to protect his family. Then if he does get a gun, he is charged with possession even if is within his home. Did he do anything with it? No, just the fact that he possessed it. Some times it is only revealed if he has to defend his family from a current criminal and proceeds to call the police after he uses to gun in defense of his family. Yep, I'm in the restore all rights after time served, and go and sin no more. If he commits another crime, his old crimes will be used as evidence that he is a habitual criminal, and future sentences will be longer.

 

[MikeDVB]

The days when you could go about your normal life without worry of prosecution and incarceration for violating some obscure law that is a felony are gone.

It's a sad time we live in. One should not have to *try* not to become a felon.