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

[Turtle]

Non violent offenders after a period of time (YES) give them there rights back they have paid there dues. People Change! Some desperate people do desperate things. This dosent make them bad or undeserving of the right to protect them self. Sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do. (this is called survival)

What laws will you break when SHTF?..... And what are you willing to do to feed your family and survive? Will you steal? pillage? threaten? rob? break and enter? trespassing? maybe even some arson just to stay warm.

And remember the (its not breaking the law unless you get caught) rule doesn't apply to this

 

[r3126]

I feel compeled to repost. We are losing sight of the fact that with the loss of the ability to possess a firearm comes other sanctions.

Felons often face additional consequences, such as the loss of voting rights in many states; exclusion from certain lines of work and difficulty in finding a job in others; prohibition from obtaining certain licenses; exclusion from purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition and body armour; and ineligibility to run for or be elected to public office. In addition, some states consider a felony conviction to be grounds for an uncontested divorce. These, among other losses of privileges not included explicitly in sentencing, are known as collateral consequences of criminal charges. Finally if a felon is not a U.S. citizen, that person may be subject to deportation after sentencing is complete.

Civil sanctions imposed on United States citizens convicted of a felony in many states include the loss of competence to serve on a grand or petit jury or to vote in elections even after release from prison. (Thanks Wikipedia)

These "collateral consequences" of doing the crime are part and parcel to the sentence imposed.

Maybe, the issues that needs to be discussed, elsewhere, is decriminalization and the redefinition of certain crimes (although, I am not in favor of that).

 

[indytechnerd]

Non violent offenders after a period of time (YES) give them there rights back they have paid there dues. People Change! Some desperate people do desperate things. This dosent make them bad or undeserving of the right to protect them self. Sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do. (this is called survival)

What laws will you break when SHTF?..... And what are you willing to do to feed your family and survive? Will you steal? pillage? threaten? rob? break and enter? trespassing? maybe even some arson just to stay warm.

And remember the (its not breaking the law unless you get caught) rule doesn't apply to this

Are we discussing this from a SHTF point of view? In my mind, if SHTF, laws, for the most part, will no longer apply. Having said that, my personal beliefs will keep me from breaking most of those laws. Will I steal, as in take directly from someone else? No. Will I procure items through unorthodox methods? yep. Will I take advantage of an abandoned dwelling or building for shelter, you bet. Will I force some other folks to let me and my family stay in their house, no.

We talk on here frequently about the personal responsibility required to carry a deadly weapon on our person day in and day out. I believe that personal responsibility would carry through to a SHTF situation. Or I would hope that none of us here turn into marauding pirates.

If we're talking about here and now, situation (relatively) normal, I stand by my previous post. Again, it's about personal responsibility. I maintain a high level of it. I don't do illegal things, minus the occasional foray into breaking the speed limit. I don't put myself into situations that would get me in trouble just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think that, whether they've 'paid their debt to society' or not, a convicted felon has shown a severe lack of that personal responsibility. Are all convicted felons continuing to be criminals, no. I'm not, however, willing to take that chance by allowing them to wander into Don's and buy just like I would.

As I posted earlier and someone else mentioned in their post, anti's would go nuts. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if some parolee shot up a school with a bunch of legally bought guns? If you allow some felons to own guns, lawyers are going to sue to allow all felons the right.

I'll ask the question again. Where is the line drawn? Burglary? Possession? Possession with Intent to distribute? Grand Theft? What about Criminal Confinement?

 

[paddling_man]

I feel compeled to repost. We are losing sight of the fact that with the loss of the ability to possess a firearm comes other sanctions.

Felons often face additional consequences, such as the loss of voting rights in many states; exclusion from certain lines of work and difficulty in finding a job in others; prohibition from obtaining certain licenses; exclusion from purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition and body armour; and ineligibility to run for or be elected to public office. In addition, some states consider a felony conviction to be grounds for an uncontested divorce. These, among other losses of privileges not included explicitly in sentencing, are known as collateral consequences of criminal charges.

+1. Kinda where I was heading as I read this thread.

Let's tie these two together for a moment - the right to KBA & voting - under many (most) conditions of felony conviction, they are tied together.

So... why?

Do "we the people" remove these rights from convicted felons for the rest of their life because:

a) it is a form of continued punishment?

b) they have proven themselves unable to exercise the proper judgment to continue exercising these rights?

These seem like fundamental questions before presenting arguments.

Myself, I would be comfortable returning the RKBA to non-violent criminals after completion of the sentence AND probation.

I would be comfortable returning the right to vote to those criminals NOT involved in white collar crime. (Think Enron.)

I can see the logic that many espouse that once the time is served, the issue is moot - full forgiveness and freedom. I could agree with that after some aggressive reevaluation of the sentencing terms and death penalty application. God may forgive all sins but they're several crimes that you'll have to wait for Him... I feel we should just hasten the meeting.

 

[Annie Oakley]

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

I can agree with this. Although, you have to remember that there are an awful lot of prosecutors who will plea bargain down a really bad guy to something less serious. If we would do away with plea bargains and make people serve the sentences that they are given, not half the sentence, it would also be a step in the right direction. MHO

 

[DustinG]

I do believe that the Constitution still applies to people that have convicted felonies. The Bill of Rights only reiterates a man's God given rights, until the second amendment is amended, it does not say that a man who has a felony cannot possess a gun.

If a person is that bad that they should not have a gun, they should be still in prison. A felon can still get a hold of knives, a car (which is actually just as dangerous of a weapon as a gun), a chain saw, and many other dangerous utinsels. Our opinions do not matter, it is what the Constitution states!

 

[DustinG]

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.

Leaving these judgements up to politicians is why we our slowly losing our rights as citizens. If your overweight, should you not be able to adopt a child because in politicians minds you can't even control your own eating habits? If the Constitution was still fully applicable these people would be dead when they committed their violent crimes, somone would have shot them.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I base my answer to the strictly on Constitutional grounds.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "people who haven't committed crimes" or any other variant.

I tend to believe that once people have been released from prison they have served their debt to society and are allowed to begin afresh. That said, I know in the real world many folks who break the law wind up doing it over and over again, I don't live in fantasy land.

But I also don't like the idea of the government find more and more excuses upon which to build barriers to our freedoms.

I only hope that a person breaking the law meets a law abiding citizen who is armed and able to protect themselves, another person, and/or property.

We need reform of the entire criminal justice system. We also need reform of many other areas of society to help give people contemplating criminal action choices. And some folks we just need to lock up forever or throw the switch.

Respectfully,

Doug

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[Mrs. Hoppes]

For certain people after a period of time.

Check fraud, sure. Soon as they are out.
Armed robbery. Not so much unless they are crime free for 5 years. (Think of it as extended probation.)

Repeat violent offenders? Nope.

However, repeat offenders and violent criminals have never really cared about the law to begin with so this is all a moot point. The only people this would affect are first-timers and people who have made a conscious decision to turn their lives around and become law-abiding productive citizens.

 

[dice dealer]

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.

If the crime is the right crime yes they should loose their rights forever ..

If its the right crime IE.
child molestation rape murder they should not only loose their rights they should loose their life

 

[VN Vet]

Wow, this is a can of worms. However a very good question and deserves a serious discussion. I am not sure how to vote on this one, therefore my vote is not part of the tally at this time. After I read what my fellow INGO Members have to say, I'll think about what you have said and compare that with what I may think.

I think there are too many variables right now for me to think about. Every crime has a set of circumstances behind it. Given the hard times we are all in right now, who knows what people can do to survive. Sure, there are many legal ways of survive, most of us do it every day of our lives. But ignorant people, the uneducated and the very poor of spirit can do crazy things to get by everday.

Remember, There but for the Grace of God goes I. Mistakes can be made by all people. I am sure we could all forgive some and some would forgive all. We are a REPUBLIC, a Country of Laws with people we choose to represent us to make and inforce those Laws. The Laws we make is exactly what keeps us as free as we are.

I believe, We the People, Our Goverenment can only be measured by the degree of compassion we give to our fellow citizens. It is one of the traits that define who we really are to the rest of the World.

I'll give you my vote on this question later.

 

[jsgolfman]

So, it's ok to selectively choose which rights a man is allowed to have?
It's a slippery slope when civil rights activists such as we make the same determination about who may exercise what rights, yet are ready to go to war, literally, when the state does the same?
If you feel that a former felon has not earned the right to walk among his fellow citizens as an equal because he/she is a danger to others, why release him?
If you feel the sentence fits the crime and he has served his sentence, isn't his debt paid?

 

[rhino]

Once someone has served their sentence (and "on parole" does not count), they should have the same rights they had before. To deny them their rights in perpetuity after serving the sentence is unjust in my opinion.

If a convicted felon is too dangerous to lawfully possess a weapon once released, then they are too dangerous to be released at all and should still be in prison. Sentences should reflect that.

 

[paddling_man]

I'm liking this more and more... sentencing reform. The sentence for a crime being the nullification of your freedom. Time frame? Short term to indefinite - not to exclude execution as an alternative.

 

[42769vette]

I voted yes for certain crimes
and yes after a period of time

there are crimes in indiana that are felonies that in most states are not felonies for instance there arn't that many states that a dui is ever a felony unless there is a wreck so you already run into the instance that some guy gets his 2nd dui and its a felony only because he lives in indiana and in most other states it would be a misstomener

so here is a question for you folks who voted no never say someone gets pulled over at .08 (wich isn't as much as you think) should that man never be allowed to rabbit hunt again im saying put the carry issue asside so there is rarly or no "danger" to society should that man or woman not be allowed to hunt.

also here is a interesting side note indiana law says that any convicted VOILENT felon may not possess a gun so as far as indiana is conserned a convicted non-voilent felon can have a gun (have not carry) now as far as the feds are concerned hes screwed

im interested to see everyones responce to the hunting not carying question even though personally i feel both should be a option

and very interesting post rep+1 when i go see who started it

 

[turnandshoot4]

I think they should get their rights back. The whole point is to REHABILITATE them. If they aren't rehabilitated after they finish their prison term, maybe we need to change the prison system entirely.

 

[txgho1911]

Men released from prison or jail terms or with just the conviction and probation will in todays world carry a volume of civil injury. Professional license or occupation altogether must be abandoned.
Making one a ward of the state is demeaning and for those not inclined quite the embarrassment and shame. The continued disparity of rights and denied ability is defining a subcitizen or subhuman being.
No doubt this will easily fit for the bangers and thugs who spend time in jail. Even the wanabes and slick pathological liars that can seem to avoid this venue.
For the first time offender losing rights and ability is a loss of incentive. Built in discouragement. Maybe call this one of the unintended consequences.

Those who are bared legally have nothing to stop them from getting the handgun or shotgun through other means.
For the freedom we deserve that may take a new fight to restore there does seem a disconnect in logic. Diminishing returns means for a rollback on gov and what is a felony.

 

[Jack Ryan]

If a convicted felon is too dangerous to lawfully possess a weapon once released, then they are too dangerous to be released at all and should still be in prison. Sentences should reflect that.

Exactly.

I would add, if they are too dangerous to be released at all, then they should be dealt with like any other totally useless piece of garbage and recycled in to fertilizer.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Are we discussing this from a SHTF point of view? In my mind, if SHTF, laws, for the most part, will no longer apply. Having said that, my personal beliefs will keep me from breaking most of those laws. Will I steal, as in take directly from someone else? No. Will I procure items through unorthodox methods? yep. Will I take advantage of an abandoned dwelling or building for shelter, you bet. Will I force some other folks to let me and my family stay in their house, no.

SHTF a long time ago and it's still hitting the fan. They are just easing it in a little at a time. Stealing your rights and your country the same way flies eat an elephant. One little tiny bite at a time.