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

[SavageEagle]

Exactly. Everybody has made mistakes and once you serve your time, your rights should be restored.

Don't go that far. Murderers, Bank Robbers, Rapists, all get out early on good behavior and a good percentage of them end up right back in jail. Especially gang members and Hate Group members. Not EVERYONE should get their rights back.

I still vote for the "after a certain period of time" and NO mess ups. Not even a big speeding ticket (with extenuating circumstances of course. i.e. pregnant woman going to hospital, etc)

 

[Jack Ryan]

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.

I believe I said jail SHOULD be for punishment. I couldn't agree more that it is NOT for punishment now. It's also not getting the job done that the people are convinced they are paying for when politicions are asking for more money to build more jails. They sure never say they want more rehab buildings when they are out stumping the working citizens for another dip in their paychecks to build more rehab building for the career criminals raping, robbing and stealing from the tax payers.

 

[Chefcook]

The average cost nation wide to house a violent criminal in 2005 was $23,876 I would venture to guess that it could be nearly twice that today. And to think a single 9mm bullet costs a measly .20 cents...

 

[Jack Ryan]

The average cost nation wide to house a violent criminal in 2005 was $23,876 I would venture to guess that it could be nearly twice that today. And to think a single 9mm bullet costs a measly .20 cents...

Put me in charge. Bet I could keep them caged a lot cheaper than that.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Exactly. Everybody has made mistakes and once you serve your time, your rights should be restored.

Problem is there are too many bullcrap laws. That leads to people who don't take the law seriously. Both criminals and law enforcement recognise bullcrap laws and start to INTERPRET instead of enforce. They pick and choose what they will take seriously. Pretty soon no one takes the law seriously and for good reason.

Pretty soon, no one SERVES THEIR TIME. They get religion, they see the light, they do good time, they get rehabbed, but they don't serve their time.

The victims sure serve their time though. Once dead, they stay dead. They never get the chance to get religion, see the light, do good time, or get rehabbed. They just stay dead regardless if it is murder, reckless homocide, drunk driver or hunting accident. A rape victim has been raped for the rest of their life, a person's life savings is still in the pocket of dope dealers or pawn shops.

No, hardly any criminal ever serves all the time they get, let alone all the time or punishment they deserve.

 

[paddling_man]

Pretty soon, no one SERVES THEIR TIME. They get religion, they see the light, they do good time, they get rehabbed, but they don't server their time.

The victims sure serve their time though. Once dead, they stay dead. They never get the chance to get religion, see the light, do good time, or rehabbed. They just stay dead regardless if it is murder, reckless homocide, drunk driver or hunting accident. A rape victim has been raped for the rest of their life, a person's life savings is still in the pocket of dope dealers or pawn shops.

No, hardly any criminal ever serves all the time they get, let alone all the time or punishment they deserve.

+1 = Sentencing reform. We don't usually need new laws - we just need to enforce the ones on the books and maintain a real sentence.

I've got a hard time calling prison "reform" and not "punishment" too. Maybe wrong here, but Crime = Punishment in my simple mind.

 

[42769vette]

Problem is there are too many bullcrap laws.


+1

 

[Robert Richardson]

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

+100%! What is not a felony today may be tomorrow.

 

[cce1302]

I have softened my stance on convicted felons buying firearms considerably. I formerly believed that a "lapse in judgement" severe enough to warrant a felony conviction was also enough to prevent that person from legally possessing a firearm ever again in his/her life. I have taken another look and now think that convicted felons can, on occasion, change. For certain, non-violent offenders who have shown no further criminal activity or criminal propensities, I think they should be able to apply for review and be able to possess a gun again. I don't think repeat offenders should fall into this category.

 

[Paul]

Don't go that far. Murderers, Bank Robbers, Rapists, all get out early on good behavior and a good percentage of them end up right back in jail. Especially gang members and Hate Group members. Not EVERYONE should get their rights back.

I still vote for the "after a certain period of time" and NO mess ups. Not even a big speeding ticket (with extenuating circumstances of course. i.e. pregnant woman going to hospital, etc)

And when they go to jail, they lose their rights. When they are released, the should have the same rights as us. They served their time. And if they are going to commit a crime again, they will break the law to get a gun anyways. Laws are not going to prevent a criminal from doing anything.

 

[42769vette]

And if they are going to commit a crime again, they will break the law to get a gun anyways. Laws are not going to prevent a criminal from doing anything.

thats a good point that i dont remember seeing yet i doubt any felon would say "well i was going to murder that guy but im not allowed to have a gun

 

[SavageEagle]

And when they go to jail, they lose their rights. When they are released, the should have the same rights as us. They served their time. And if they are going to commit a crime again, they will break the law to get a gun anyways. Laws are not going to prevent a criminal from doing anything.

I agree that they should have the same rights as us but if they are going to commit crime you can't really prevent that. BUT if you are going to sentence them for 20-25 years, don't let them out in FIVE!! Make they serve their ENTIRE sentence and no time off for good behaviour. They were put there for a reason, good behavior no longer matters. If after 5 years AFTER their parole and no more trouble with the law, THEN give them their rights back.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I've not read all of this so forgive me if I am repeating what's already been said.

Our felony degree of crime was born out of the necessity to separate an individual from the rest of the clan, for the good of the clan.

Often, this meant expulsion from the clan for a certain period of time. The person was just kicked out of the village, usually being "dead" to them, and after his punishment was up, he would be welcomed back into the village with full rights restored.

A children's tale, Little Red Riding Hood, depicts this. In much the same way as "Ring Around the Rosy" depicted plague, Little Red Riding Hood illustrates the common law practice of setting someone to wander in the wilderness as punishment for a heinous crime. The "wolf" in this story depicts a man who had broken the law.

Since we do not have the luxury of just kicking folks out into the woods any longer, we lock 'em away.

I believe that once the felon's time is up, his rights should be restored as he is no longer in exile from society.

I also feel that by keeping his rights from him even after his time is served, he has less to live for and is therefore at higher risk of becoming a repeat offender.

Josh <><

 

[finallyfree73]

Non-violent should get their rights back. So many things are now labeled "felonies" that were at one time simply misdemeanors -just another way to disarm without enacting gun control laws.

 

[ilfishin]

We all want tougher laws. So the natural progression is to increase some offenses to felonies. Then we complain about catch 22 situations. The judicial system needs to enforce the laws we already have with no reduction of sentence. Also as a deterent, allow LEO's to shoot fleeing criminals. If they flee after a car chase, then shoot them. They have already proven that they have no regard for public property or safety. They don't stop running because they know there is nothing the officer chasing them can do except run after them. After the first one or two are shot, most will think twice about running. Tack on a mandatory 15 years for fleeing and evading. I think we have a good system. We just need to use it as it was intended to be used.

As for the original question, I think it should be determined on a case by case basis. There are far to many variants from case to case to blanket this issue with a time frame. There should be some kind of application process to get their firearm rights restored to them.

Just my two cents.