Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry firearm - Page 8
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 155

Thread: Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry firearm

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    "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).
    In context I agree. This is a different situation. I don't see why they need their rights back. If the life of a felon is so miserable because they have lost their rights... they can always go the route of their victim. The other option is to live with what they did. If you can't handle the consequence, don't do the crime. No do overs on some things remember?

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Would you give a firearm to the child molester that killed our little guy? He served time for our nine-year-old and upon release tried to do it again. He then served 10 years for attempting to kill two six-year-old boys. He's now free again. I've since caught him trying to setup an overnight camping trip for elementary school-age boys. An friend who is a retired FBI profiler beleives he'll kill again.

    In cases where the felony was for DUI or some other low level crime I would agree to restore their rights. Anyone who committed a violent felony or misdemeanor level person-on-person crime should not get their rights back. Make an announcement... anyone convicted of a violent crime loses their rights. Now they commit crimes with full knowledge of the consequences.
    I am sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine your grief. I just wrote a letter opposing parole for a school shooter here in central NC. Killed a 17 year old girl that would not go out with him, though she was 1 of the few people that was decent to him. My issue with some of these people is why are they getting out to start with? They should either be executed or break rocks the rest of their lives. You know better than I, but it seems child molesters/child killers are among the most hard core criminals out there.

    I am waivering some on the issue in general. "Served your time" makes sense to me, but "show me you can handle this" also comes to mind. I am bothered too, that I see thugs in our papers all the time that have long violent records, get caught for something including "firearm by felon" and they are granted bail, some while still on parole. Parole violations should land one back in prison, no pass GO, no collect $200, no nothing. Then we are mortified when that person finally kills someone; well duh, connect the dots.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Personally, I was speaking from a moral position rather than a legal/Constitutionality position.
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  5. Personally, I think the whole situation is hilarious. The government says a person is not enough of a danger to the public to keep them incarcerated.... and then just trusts them to not touch a firearm for the rest of their lives, because it is "illegal",.... why? because the person is too dangerous.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by ncpatriot View Post
    I am sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine your grief. I just wrote a letter opposing parole for a school shooter here in central NC. Killed a 17 year old girl that would not go out with him, though she was 1 of the few people that was decent to him. My issue with some of these people is why are they getting out to start with? They should either be executed or break rocks the rest of their lives. You know better than I, but it seems child molesters/child killers are among the most hard core criminals out there.

    I am waivering some on the issue in general. "Served your time" makes sense to me, but "show me you can handle this" also comes to mind. I am bothered too, that I see thugs in our papers all the time that have long violent records, get caught for something including "firearm by felon" and they are granted bail, some while still on parole. Parole violations should land one back in prison, no pass GO, no collect $200, no nothing. Then we are mortified when that person finally kills someone; well duh, connect the dots.
    IMO, this is where the problem lies.

    I have no problem at all with firearms prohibition as a condition of parole. An individual on parole is still technically serving a sentence...it is only when released from parole that the prohibition becomes problematic.

    Unfortunately the idea of parole has become a joke...and, as a result sentences are a joke.

    Rather than focusing on lessons learned in a career in law enforcement, let me talk about an acquaintance of my wife's family. This individual was convicted in California of a homicide committed because the victim did not pay for meth they had bought from the killer. He was sentenced to life in prison. After just under 9 years, he was paroled. About 18 months after he was paroled, he was arrested with a friend when a quantity of meth was found in the car he was driving...the friend took the possession charge and was given probation because he had never before been arrested. The paroled killer was not violated. After another 12-18 months, he was released from parole and is no longer supervised.

    So, to sum it up, this individual killed a person as a result of a debt springing from a drug deal. As a result, he spent a total of 9 years in prison (almost 3 of that in minimum security)and 3 years on parole (during which period he showed that, at the least, he was once again "hanging out" with meth users) and was released from a life sentence (at the age of about 35).

    The issue here should not be whether or not this individual should have a gun...it is that the person should not be walking the streets period. IMO, a person who kills another...especially in a premeditated fashion due to his involvement in illegal acts...and is sentenced to life, should be behind walls at least 20-25 years and only be considered for parole for clearly exemplary conduct during that time. That parole should last for the rest of the term to which he was sentenced...in this case, the rest of his life. Should there be any incidents during the term of the parole that would tend to show that the individual was still prone to be engaged in criminal activity, there should be zero tolerance and they should be returned to the walls. We should only be allowing them conditional feedom if they continue to show that they have changed their criminal ways...and we should never release them from supervision throughout the term of their sentence.

    I should note here that I am a proponent of capital punishment...and would seriously expand it's use. 2nd offense rape of an adult, first offense rape of a child, 3rd offense armed robbery or burglary of a dwelling and a number of other patterns that show that a person is, and will continue to be, a danger to society should be punished by permanent removal from society. Not only is it stupid and wasteful to maintain a person in prison when it has been determined that they should never be released around law abiding citizens, executing them assures that they will never escape...or be released by some liberal judge who feels they have "learned their lesson".

  7. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    We're drifting far afield from the OP, but I've been pretty impressed with how civil the discussion has been.

    Given the number of innocent people who have been released by prison by The Innocence Project, and the number of those who were on Death Row, I can't support the death penalty any longer. If we haven't executed an innocent person in modern times, we will soon.

    As far as security levels in prison, I don't think the crime should have much effect on how a person is classified later in their sentence. Remember that part of the theory behind incarceration is rehabilitation - making someone see the errors in their behavior, then changing that behavior. If we keep them in supermax, or max, or whatever for the entire 10-12 years they're in there, then why should we expect any changes in behavior? They should be able to improve their circumstances through proper behavior, just like you can out in the real world, which is what we're trying to prepare inmates for, isn't it?

    PaxMentis, if someone is worthy of being released from pretty darn constant supervision, then let them out. If they're not worthy, then don't let them out. Lifetime parole doesn't make sense though. You're saying in effect that we don't really trust you. You're using a stick approach rather than carrot-stick. You're saying "If you don't get in trouble, we won't hit you with the stick," when you should be offering them the carrot of "One day, we'll put the stick away."

    How many of us here did really stupid sh!t when we were younger, stuff that would have landed us in jail or prison if we had got caught, but got lucky? And how many of those who were lucky enough to get away with it are now productive members of society, and "law-abiding gun owners," (other than the more-than-occasional trespassing offense)? Why are willing to accept that we were able to change, but anyone who got arrested and went to prison can't change?

    Why are we willing to punish all [strikethrough]gunowners[/strikethrough] felons for the bad actions of some?
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  8. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    PaxMentis, if someone is worthy of being released from pretty darn constant supervision, then let them out. If they're not worthy, then don't let them out. Lifetime parole doesn't make sense though. You're saying in effect that we don't really trust you. You're using a stick approach rather than carrot-stick. You're saying "If you don't get in trouble, we won't hit you with the stick," when you should be offering them the carrot of "One day, we'll put the stick away."
    Unfortunately, many sociopaths (a group that makes up a large percentage of the felon population) are very good at maintaining under close supervision. However, when that supervision is withdrawn, they fall right back into old patterns. How a person behaves in prison has very little to do with how they will do on the street...what has a greater relevance is the nature of the prior offense and whether there is a past pattern of wrongdoing.

    A person who has no criminal history but loses his temper when someone insults his wife (for example) and beats them to death is much less likely to reoffend than someone who kills a clerk in a robbery or, like the individual whose story I told, kills someone because they didn't pay a drug debt...though both may very well be convicted of the same crime. In neither case will their ability or inability to own a gun have a lot of bearing on the outcome.

    My experience tells me that "if you ever misbehave we will hit you with the stick" is far more effective than "if you behave for a while, we will throw the stick away and you will be free to go back to your old ways".

    That said, as I mentioned above, I am not really in favor of life sentences...if a person has shown he or she just really cannot be trusted to play well with others, it makes much more sense to me to just eliminate them and they are no longer either a danger or an expense. Some killers would really be best dealt with on probation...while some drunk drivers need to be executed before they kill someone.

  9. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    My experience tells me that "if you ever misbehave we will hit you with the stick" is far more effective than "if you behave for a while, we will throw the stick away and you will be free to go back to your old ways".
    Well, if all we do is lock them up without treating the underlying issues, then yeah, you're right.

    Many prisons are nothing more than warehouses with less than lip-service paid to "rehabilitation." Until we change that, the results aren't going to change, and that reminds of something Freud said.
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  10. #79
    If felons could legally own guns after they serve time in prison learning how to commit crimes better and developing a harder attitude, think of what it would be like.

    "Okay Bill, good job serving your 10 years in prison for aggravated assault and robbery. Hope you are all better now. Here is your gun back, the same one you used in the robbery. Have fun, and try to play nice this time you little rascal! I mean, boys will be boys after all!"

  11. #80
    BC1 I have just read a portion of this thread and have come to the conclusion that you must have the control of a saint. Given your situation I know I would be in prison now for murder. No doubt about it.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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