How do you enforce provisions of things like "don't leave the state" as part of parole? You enforce them the same way you enforce any criminal laws--by doing police work. If the person has a "no guns for X years" and he's found with a gun within that time frame, lock him up and throw the warden away. Possessing firearms during that time frame would be a probation violation just like, say, leaving the state. Also, right along with that "no guns" could go a "you can be searched at any time" provision. Again, "no be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law" (Fifth Amenement), so with "due process" (i.e. conviction by a court) everything is up for grabs (so long as it doesn't run afoul of the 8ths prohibition of "cruel and unusual" or limitations on what the government is allowed to do such as "congress shall pass no law....").
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Should people with Convicted Felonies be able to buy and carry firearms again?
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
How do you enforce provisions of things like "don't leave the state" as part of parole? You enforce them the same way you enforce any criminal laws--by doing police work. If the person has a "no guns for X years" and he's found with a gun within that time frame, lock him up and throw the warden away. Possessing firearms during that time frame would be a probation violation just like, say, leaving the state. Also, right along with that "no guns" could go a "you can be searched at any time" provision. Again, "no be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law" (Fifth Amenement), so with "due process" (i.e. conviction by a court) everything is up for grabs (so long as it doesn't run afoul of the 8ths prohibition of "cruel and unusual" or limitations on what the government is allowed to do such as "congress shall pass no law....").
I know....its worse.
I understand what you are saying, but then you are back at my original premise of have they served their time or not? With conditional release, you also bring into play the 4th amendment (what is the probable cause for the search?) or the 15th (voting rights based on previous condition of servitude-may be stretching here but you get the point).
Also, I think you mean parole, not probation? Probation is usually used in lieu of sentence.
Remember, there was no "parole" system in this country until the mid 19th century. Either you served your full sentence or you were pardoned.
For my original statement (limits on travel) both probation and parole apply.
The 4th, in that case would also be one of the rights suspended as part of the sentence. It's part of the "liberty" that can be lost via due process.
The idea is that the sentence can consist of several parts, not all of which have to have exactly the same start and end times. It can have incarceration end in 3 years, loss of gun privileges end in 5, and subject to search at any time ending in 6 (for example). The limits being those on the government (for example, the 1st: "Congress shall pass no law") or the 8th (a "sentence" forbidding one to possess firearms for life because of doing 36 in a 35 would qualify as "cruel and unusual" IMO).
I guess I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around the sentence extending past the incarceration. It also hits at the question of why aren't other rights taken away simply for being a felon? Why would someone convicted of a felony not also lose their right to a speedy trial, freedom of religion, etc.? Why is it a general "no firearms" for ANY convicted felon? It's not part of the sentence, it's an additional blanket restriction of that right.
Not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, I think this is a good discussion we are having.
Not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, I think this is a good discussion we are having.
+1 on the good discussion this is one of the more intresting discussions we have had i think
i agree. i just dont get that you lose one right but not others.
As it currently is practiced it's a blanket restriction. IMO That. Is. Wrong. First off, there are entirely too many things that are felonies that shouldn't be. Second, the idea of someone automatically, with little to no recourse, losing rights for life is (again, IMO) completely unconstitutional. Part of the whole idea of "due process" is that one has the ability to argue ones case--that applies not only to the conviction, but to sentencing as well. Sentencing is when things like extenuating or aggravating circumstances are (or should be) considered.
I've seen sentences where it was specified that the person would spend X time in prison and then Y time on probation/parole, with regular reports to a parole officer and so forth. So the idea that being released from prison is not necessarily the end of the sentence (even excluding early release parole) is not a strange idea to me.
As for things like losing Freedom of Religion, the issue there would be the eight "cruel and unusual." For instance, if a person commits a violent crime (pick whatever you think is appropriate for some period of incarceration with eventual release), it could be considered appropriate to the crime to restrict a persons liberty to own some classes of weapons for a period after release to show "good faith" in that they can behave themselves as a part of society. It's a lot harder to come up with a viable justification for denying them freedom of religion. The only real justification I can come up with is if the "religion" was a group that was involved in a criminal conspiracy and calling it "religion" would not be seen as getting around the "no associating with known criminals" provisions of many a parole/probation.
Free speech? What do you think is part of any criminal libel/slander case? Would you not be forbidden by the court, with penalties attached, from continuing to repeat the libel/slander?
The various rights that together compose the concept of "liberty" can legitimately be restricted via criminal sentences (i.e. "due process"). However, my reading of the eighth is that they have to be appropriate to the crime. And that, I think, is where the "no felons may possess guns" laws fail. They are not, in many cases, appropriate to the crime. Part of that is that there are too many things that are now felonies that shouldn't be. Another part, however, is that there are felonies and felonies. Somebody sets a couple hundred dollars on a countertop in a store and someone else grabs it and runs. That's a felony (depending on exactly how much money it is), but it's a whole different ballgame from someone who breaks into, oh, say student housing. Ties up a half dozen coeds, rapes them, and tortures them to death. Entirely different sanctions are called for between them, and the first case might have more in the way of "extenuating circumstances" than could ever hope to "explain" the latter. (If you're wondering, in the latter case, I don't see any. At a certain point, it stops being an issue of "punishment" and becomes a matter of sanitation--you don't execute people for committing crimes, but for being the kind of people who commit those kinds of crimes, like shooting sick cattle; things like "fault" and "responsible" just don't matter any more for that kind of crime.)
i dont think you can get goverment jobs (or many jobs for that matter) i think you can still vote but i could be wrong
A person I know personally could not vote for some years after release but that right was eventually restored.
And this is part of my position: if right X can be restored, they the same authorities should also be able to restore right Y (in this case, the ability to possess firearms).
Don't you typically lose the right to vote after most felony convictions? Also consideration from most government jobs? At least security clearances?
Security clearances and Government Jobs are not rights, at least not yet.
And yes currently felons do lose the right to vote in most states. However some have called that racist. Here is the heart of the issue. Prison is not ment to rehabilitate criminals; it is ment to punish so there is a reason not to commit crimes, or it is ment to warehouse them until they are no longer a danger to society.
At the end of their sentance then one of 3 things should be true; either they are to dead or febile to pose a threat, they have learned the err of their ways, or they are just a criminal. In all of those instances I don't see a problem with returning all their rights to them.
However perhaps what we should examine is actual sentancing that is currently used. If you are uncomfortable with a former rapist having a gun, then perhaps the crime is bad enough that you should not be on the street.
Speaking of Rape there are many examples that can be pulled for Statitory Rape, and not only does one lose their right to own a gun and vote, that also lose their right to privacy for that one. Every thing from the Romeo and Juliet to 16 year olds in a bar.
There are laws that are horrendous and mis used, there are crimes that are ********, and there are cops and DA's that just want to convict someone. There are allot of vaiables to consider when it comes to people, I prefer to err on the side of freedom.
Final thought: If a midnight session of congress passed a law tonight making it a crime to carry a weapon throughout the country, would that change where you weapon spends its days or not? I know what my answer is to that, and it doesn't involve mobs, pitchforks or marching.
I totally agree. And if their crime was so awful, they should still be rotting in jail.
Denying them the right to self-defense is just wrong.
Of the people, by the people. The government belongs to us. Don't we have the right to consideration of a job with our government if the opportunity exists? Not a sticking point here, but it seems applicable.
Last edited:
DocGlock86
Expert
"Free speech? What do you think is part of any criminal libel/slander case? Would you not be forbidden by the court, with penalties attached, from continuing to repeat the libel/slander?"
This is the only part of your discussion I don't necessarily agree with(generally :P). Libel and slander are crimes, carrying a firearm is not. You are not denied the right to speak, but if you libel/slander someone you will be arrested again.
Do you see what I am getting at? Not sure if its just semantics we are bantering here, but I think we are pretty close.
Also, someone mentioned jail was for punishment. While I agree that's what it should be for, that's not the law in Indiana IIRC. I believe Indiana code states that it is for rehabilitation, not punishment.
This is the only part of your discussion I don't necessarily agree with(generally :P). Libel and slander are crimes, carrying a firearm is not. You are not denied the right to speak, but if you libel/slander someone you will be arrested again.
Do you see what I am getting at? Not sure if its just semantics we are bantering here, but I think we are pretty close.
Also, someone mentioned jail was for punishment. While I agree that's what it should be for, that's not the law in Indiana IIRC. I believe Indiana code states that it is for rehabilitation, not punishment.
All I know is...I messed up when I was younger. I paid the price. The judge could tell that I had changed and reduced the felony.
The Indy 1500 would not have been so crowded if everyone that has driven a vehicle after a few too many beers got caught like I did and were issued a felony charge.
I probably shared too much with you all on a public forum but I think most of us agree that my punishment should NOT have been a lifelong sentence of not being able to defend myself and home with a firearm.
The Indy 1500 would not have been so crowded if everyone that has driven a vehicle after a few too many beers got caught like I did and were issued a felony charge.
I probably shared too much with you all on a public forum but I think most of us agree that my punishment should NOT have been a lifelong sentence of not being able to defend myself and home with a firearm.
Exactly. Everybody has made mistakes and once you serve your time, your rights should be restored.
Site Supporter
Members online
- Bosshoss
- Romero Zombie
- brchixwing
- loudgroove
- starbreather
- Brandon
- solarpimp
- 10mm
- Demoderb1989
- Quiet Observer
- 45sRfun
- knutty
- El Conquistador
- Mr. Habib
- indydrummer
- jsn_mooney
- indyblue
- tjh88
- keger
- mainbreak
- ditcherman
- ktk120
- CCPLuvr
- Andyccw
- Limpy88
- KLB
- bwframe
- Packing Wood
- Jmtbug21
- Wolfhound
- BeDome
- Lucar186
- Chalky
- KG1
- Ark
- klausm
- fordfarmboy
- Ingomike
- samtoast
- Slow Hand
- rustybuckle23
- cosermann
- dseefeldt03
- Jdubbs
- cmann250
- joncon
- 9teen56f100
- Bugzilla
- Ltrain37
- blain