Should people with Convicted Felonies be able to buy and carry firearms again?

[cox7215]

YOU CAN PICK MORE THAN ONE ANWSER!!!

Ok, well let’s open this can of worms….. I am former LEO so I will keep my opinion till the end….

Do you think people convicted of “certin” felonies should be able over time to have a process to apply for eligibility to own and carry fire arms again?

Please list what felonies you believe a person could be convicted of and then be able over time to own fire areas again.


Also, how long should a person wait until they would be able to buy and carry fire arms again?

 

[quicksdraw]

Ok, well let’s open this can of worms….. I am former LEO so I will keep my opinion till the end….

Do you think people convicted of “cretin” felonies should be able over time to have a process to apply for eligibility to own and carry fire arms again?

Please list what felonies you believe a person could be convicted of and then be able over time to own fire areas again.


Also, how long should a person wait until they would be able to buy and carry fire arms again?

If the conviction was for a crime of violence, HELL NO!!
For nonviolent crime I would be willing to consider it if they could stay out of trouble for 5 years or so.

 

[Paul]

Yes, they did their time. If they are let out of jail, they should have the same rights as any other American.

 

[DodgebyDave]

I figure that if the crime committed was all that terrible, the individual will be quite elderly before time is served. So that is moot. Not many violent 75 year olds and they are slower than zombies.

Right now it doesn't take much to get jacked up on a felony. Even certain misdemeanors can screw your gun rights.

Another avenue of disarming the patriots?

 

[Jack Ryan]

Yes after a period time.

The period of time to be their entire sentence, no time off for good behaviour, no plea bargain, no "good" time off. Every single minute of the maximum sentence spent at hard time busting rocks and hot bunking with two inmates on the other two 8 hour shifts in the rock busting yard.

 

[Dogman]

If it's a violent crime against a person --- no never.
If it's a non violent crime --- yes
5 years as long as they stay out of trouble.

 

[Truckerman79]

You do the crime, you understand the ramifications of being convicted for said crime. Whether it's a violent felony or not doesn't matter.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, they did their time. If they are let out of jail, they should have the same rights as any other American.

That.

Too many things are called "felonies" and just because someone committed a crime should not preclude them from defending themselves lawfully. It's not the gun, it's the use to which it's put by the person holding it. (hint: Committing violent crimes (again) is already unlawful.

Unless you think that having a gun (lawfully) will make someone more likely to commit a crime (again), yes, they should have their full rights restored when released, or they should not be released.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Ashkelon]

Non violent offenses I believe should be eligible. Hell, lets face it there may be some of us that are felons if Greg Ballard institutes NYC gun registration here in Indy Just saying you lost them in the river on that last camping trip is not going to work.

 

[huawilso]

If this was to ever pass you would see the liberals come un-glued and non-law breaking gun owners would suffer the most, because the outcome would more than likely be a revised 2 admendment. There is to many liberal politians for anyone to visit or re-visit the felony covicts carrying rights. I feel it is fine the way it is presently.

 

[dice dealer]

I would agree to letting them have that right after a set amount of time on certain convictions ....
But only if they agree to what TED NUGENT believes .....
"I don't like repeat offenders ....I like dead offenders "

 

[dburkhead]

The Fifth Amendment states, in part (from memory), "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Eighth forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." And I have always considered that restriction to be relative to the crime. 20 years at hard labor for jaywalking would be cruel and unusual. 20 years for armed robbery, not so much.

And so, that said, the prohibiting of a person from exercising their right to keep and bear arms is legitimate as part of a criminal sentence (which takes care of the due process provision in which a person may be deprived of liberty) and is appropriate for the crime in question (Eighth).

I don't see any need to require that the prohibition part of such a sentence be limited to the period of incarceration. So long as it's spelled out something like "five years in prison, with an additional five years prohibition from owning firearms" is also, IMO, valid.

Thus, I chose the "for certain crimes" and "for a limited time" options on the poll.

Another issue is that the same authorities that can reduce other parts of a sentence (parole boards and the like) should have the exact same authority to reduce this part of the sentence, neither more nor less.

All that said, however, one problem with the whole mess has been the "crime inflation" and many things are felonies that should not be felonies. Historically, "felony" was generally limited to truly infamous crimes, not the many things that are considered felonies today. Regardless on how you feel about Prohibition II (and my wording here should give you an idea of my view), most "drug felonies" should be, at most misdemeanors. Likewise, the simple possession of a firearm (locked in a car) should not be more than an infraction anywhere. Felony? Ridiculous. Save the felonies for things like Robbery, Aggravated assault, Rape, Murder, and the like. I might also add "career criminal" to that (provided "career criminal" is adequately defined and no "I know it when I see it").

 

[semperfi211]

Violent crimes or drugs never.
White collar crimes like tax evasion, insider trading etc. Yes after five years after completing their sentence.

 

[indytechnerd]

Wow, I must be a hard ass. I voted NO.

Here's my reasoning. First, how many people go BACK to jail after getting out? The reason I ask is that this shows evidence that an individual isn't going to live the straight and narrow after getting out of jail. Do you give the opportunity to 2nd time offenders? At what point do you say "ok, you've been busted x number of times, no more guns for you.". Now, along with the 2+ trips to jail, what are the statistics on escalation of crime? 1st trip is grand theft, you boosted a car when you were 19. You go to jail, find some friends, get out, get popped for armed robbery because you were driving another boosted car in a liquor store holdup. Maybe your 3rd trip is assault, rape, or attempted murder. Where do you draw the line?

For those extra-minor felonies, like possessing a little-bitty amount of weed, sucks to be you. Do I think that it's extreme, yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere. You know that it's illegal, you know that the amount you've got is a felony, you know that if busted, your life changes forever. Sorry, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.

I believe that anyone should be allowed to own and carry a firearm up until the point where they prove themselves to be capable of being more harm than good in possession of that firearm. The pro-gun community has always had the stance of "Enforce the laws we have rather than making new laws", and that's the correct stance IMHO. If the law says you lose gun rights because you committed a felony, then you need to be able to live with the consequences of your actions. I do not feel sorry for you, I will not cater to you, and I do not feel that you should be afforded the same rights and luxuries that I have as a stand up, never been arrested, citizen.

Allowing KNOWN criminals to purchase guns, with potentially illegally gained money, will only lead to antis developing new statistics of "Lawful gun owners committing crimes." Your rights end where mine begin.

* all instances of you, your, etc. are not aimed at a specific person.

 

[Paul]

So because they committed a crime, they should lose their rights forever? Can they not also practice freedom of religion, how about freedom of speech? Should police be able to do search and seizures on these people without due process too?

I just cant believe people on here believe people should actually lose their rights forever. If they did their time, they should have the same rights as you and I. If it was a horrible crime, they wont be let out of jail or they shouldnt be let out.

 

[elaw555]

If they commited a felony that did not involve violence, why should they be barred from owning firearms?

 

[r3126]

NO!

 

[Bigum1969]

I believe that non violent felons should be able to own a firearm after a certain time period. If they've paid their debt to society, they should be able to go on with their life and deserve the right to protect themselves and their families.

We seem to be hell-bent in this country to make an example out of everybody. People make mistakes, and as long as they've fulfilled their obligations under the law, they should be given another chance.

 

[haldir]

I'm with you IndyTechNerd, i voted no. I figure if they have shown the bad judgement to get arrested and convicted of a felony, they don't have the judgement to walk around with a concealed weapon. Would there be an exception out there, sure. As for the possession of pot situation mentioned above, I see misdemeanor possession of Marijuana listed in the paper every week, so it does not appear to be an automatic felony (I was persuaded years ago by William F. Buckley Jr.'s arguments to decriminalize some drugs anyway).

Plus can you imagine any politician championing the cause of arming felons? I think you can forget that happening. Can you imagine the fall out that would affect all of us, when that first felon carrying a handgun legally, shot someone. It would immediately become the poster case for every anti gun group in America.

 

[Paul]

I'm with you IndyTechNerd, i voted no. I figure if they have shown the bad judgement to get arrested and convicted of a felony, they don't have the judgement to walk around with a concealed weapon. Would there be an exception out there, sure. As for the possession of pot situation mentioned above, I see misdemeanor possession of Marijuana listed in the paper every week, so it does not appear to be an automatic felony (I was persuaded years ago by William F. Buckley Jr.'s arguments to decriminalize some drugs anyway).

Plus can you imagine any politician championing the cause of arming felons? I think you can forget that happening. Can you imagine the fall out that would affect all of us, when that first felon carrying a handgun legally, shot someone. It would immediately become the poster case for every anti gun group in America.

Should they not be able to exercise their 1st amendment rights also? If they did their time, they should have their rights restored.