Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry firearm - Page 7
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 155

Thread: Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry firearm

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    What we're missing here is that RKBA is the only constitutionally guaranteed right that is never restored, regardless of the tools used in the original felony. Even suffrage - a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed right - is restored in most states after a convict is released from prison.

    If we're truly penalizing the felon for using a particular tool to commit a felony, then ban them from further use of that tool, but not from use of any others. Failure to do so is short-sighted and presumptuous. It is entirely possible that a burglar might only hit homes where they know no one is home, so they never have to face a homeowner, and further that they have no interest at all in hurting someone. Should that person suffer the exact same denial of rights as Charles Manson or Jeff Dahmer? Of course not. That's why we have different penalties for different crimes. If we say that some crimes are more serious than others, then we can't we say that some criminals don't deserve to have their RKBA permanently disabled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Milligan23 View Post
    People, just because a person has completed their sentence doesn't mean they are fit for society or fit to possess a firearm. ... At the very least offenders should have to prove they have been a stable/productive member of society for a period of time and apply for restoration of gun rights. But it's much easier to just say no to felons.
    Easy doesn't mean fair or just. How exactly should someone prove they are "a stable/productive member of society," when there are so many blocks in their way, imposed by a society that's been conditioned to fear them? How can someone prove they are "fit for society," anyway? Define it, since you proposed it.

    And what recourse does someone have if the agency that's supposed to restore their gun rights refuses to provide any funds for that process? (I'll give you a hint - that's exactly what's going on right now in this country, courtesy of the same agency that brought us Operation Gunwalker.)

    Restoration of any constitutionally guaranteed right suspended during a prison sentence should be automatic, or the need for further suspension proven by the prosecution at the time of sentencing. Proven, not pencil-whipped boilerplate text.
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  2.   
  3. My comment about being easier to say no was not so much my opinion but how I figure it would play out, especially with government budgets as they are. I see your heart bleeds for poor criminals by your tone. People should show they can sustain employment, not cooking meth, for a substantial period of time. They should also remain out of legal trouble for an extended period of time. I'm not so much talking about petty thieves but violent criminals and those felons who carry/use firearms. I'm not talking about check bouncers.

  4. #63
    Prisoners need guns to protect themselves from rampant violence in prisons a lot more than a homeowner needs a gun.

    Denying a prisoner possession of a firearm is denying him the god-given inalienable right to defend himself.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    A criminal cannot infringe on anyone's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Those rights can only be infringed upon by The State. The Constitution place limits and controls on The State, not citizens.
    Say what?
    I have yet to see a corpse at the firing range or voting.. or getting a fair trial... or using any other right given to them by the Constitution. Yes the due process clause prohibits State and Local governments from depriving citizens without due process. But if that is the justification for your statement. Um NO.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    "The State," capitalized the way I use it there refers to any government authority, be it municipal, county, state or federal.

    My point was that since the Constitution imposes limits and controls on the Federal government, then those limits can only be violated by the Federal government (or state or municipal by extension).
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  7. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    OMG! A felon is no threat to you and me if they've been thrown back into jail for having a gun on them! OMG! Using your logic we should do away with ALL laws because as you said....criminals don't obey them in the first place! OMG! OMG!

    Geez. Calm down. I said that such laws provide a basis for punishment and, by incarcerating someone under that law, we can prevent them from victimizing me or you. As a matter of fact, most felons that get popped for possessing a gun get busted for doing something else, not while using said gun in the commission of a crime. I've discussed this with LEOs and in most cases the gun is found while the perp is being patted down - many times after committing some minor offense like buying weed, tresspassing, etc. On our local newspaper's website they publish the mugshots of recently arrested people. You can filter the database according to the charges. If you look at those charged with "Possession of firearm by convicted felon" you'll see that most don't include a charge committed with a gun (i.e. robbery w/firearm, assault w/ deadly weapon, etc.). In other words, because of the law that prohibits felons from legally possessing a gun, these clowns are going to jail for a much longer time than what they would have originally had no such law existed (if at all). Instead of facing a misdemeanor they're now facing a felony weapons charge with mandatory jail time. Here in Florida they don't mess around with gun-related crime. We may be the "Gunshine" state but the state is proportionately harsh on those who don't obey the law, especially convicted felons.



    Well sir, with all due respect you need to pull your head out of the sand and take a look at history. This so-called "threat" that you're trying to warn us about has been SOP for nearly 200 years. It seems that 200 years worth of presidents, senators, congressmen, and SC justices have seen fit to allow SCOTUS to make such judgement calls. And SCOTUS doesn't make the laws....no court does. They simply interpret them and, if necessary, rule on their legality.

    The laws regarding "civil death" have been upheld over and over again, for many generations, by people with far more knowledge on the subject than you or I. I happen to agree with them.

    And now.......it's 1:00 and time for football! See ya later.
    Very few hardened criminals get charged much less convicted on gun possession related offensesn, from what I read, most prosecuting attorneys consider it a waste of ressources to go for a mere gun possession charge when the guy will eventually show up in court for something "better".

    That's why I am saying this discussion is a fairly moot point.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Very few hardened criminals get charged much less convicted on gun possession related offensesn, from what I read, most prosecuting attorneys consider it a waste of ressources to go for a mere gun possession charge when the guy will eventually show up in court for something "better".

    That's why I am saying this discussion is a fairly moot point.
    Not here in Florida. Firearm possession by a felon is a mandatory 3 years for the first offense. Open and shut. 10 yrs if they actually used the gun during the commission of the crime, which most don't. Like I said....the possession charge is a nice add-on that allows prosecutors to give these creeps a real sentence and not just a slap on the wrist.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    The problem is that we restore people to society, but we do not reform them. In other words, the robber, rapist, or murder, is usually the same person coming out of prison as he was going in. Actually, prisons have been shown to work in the opposite effect and harden criminals and make them even worse. Prisons do not change the attitudes, beliefs, or psychology of a person. So letting them buy guns after they prove themselves as a danger to society is not a smart idea.
    You make good points throughout the thread.

    Studies show that prison does not rehabilitate certain types of criminals. Antisocial personality disorder is a psychiatric condition whereby the criminal has no regard for anyone but himself. He doesn't feel sympath or empathy. His actions are entirely for self-gratification. He can't be reasoned with. He can't be rehabilitated. He is wired differently than normal people. He shouldn't be released but he eventually is due to sympathetic liberal thinking and the cost of prison overcrowding. If given the choice to remain incarcerated or be released with a suspension of the right to vote or own a gun, I believe nearly every criminal will choose to be released.

    I would rahter pay a prison tax to ensure the most dangerous are never released. Convictions for homicide, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, henious assault, armed robbery, etc., should mandate a life sentence. To hell with their rights. Lock them up and forget them.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    Naive? You mean like letting the government specify who can defend themselves and who cannot and trusting that they will not abuse that privilege?

    After a career in law enforcement, it is sort of funny to be told I am naive about criminals.

    The right to keep and bear arms is not conditional on whether you (or I) believe a person is the "type" that should have a gun. If we truly feel that a person in society cannot be trusted among the populace, then we need to remove them from society...removing the right to one thing (of many) he or she might choose to use in an antisocial manner does nothing except give a power to the government that the founders risked everything to assure it didn't have.

    Remember the quote about folks who give up liberty for safety...
    In theory this is OK but in actuality it doesn't work that way.

    When the murderer of our little guy was released he went straight after two more little boys. Who do we see about that? Had one of them been your child you might have a different belief. If you want the answers look to the victims of violent crime and their families. WE can tell you best from experience.

    Regarding our founding father's belief on liberty and safety, one must understand that they didn't have this issue to deal with... they executed you for a violent crime. When a violent criminal enters your home to attack your family aren't you going to personally remove his right to life and liberty? Should you be charged with violating his civl rights?
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    It's a bit perplexing that those who claim that denying a freed, convicted felon of his 2A rights is "unconstitutional", yet they don't see that the very document they hold up as proof also gives states and the fed the right to do just that. It's called "due process".

    A lawmaker writes and proposes a bill that would deny convicted felons their 2A rights unless restored. That bill goes through the house and senate (state or fed) and becomes law. The overseeing courts declare said law to be legal. The law is now put into action. Due process. Pure and simple. The Constitution states very specifically and clearly that this is how to go about denying an individual their rights. 100% Constitutional. It's not just about who's in jail and who isn't. Due process isn't just about trying and convicting an individual.......it's a far-reaching term that applies to our legal system as a whole, and that includes items in The Constitution.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast