Should felons be allowed to own/possess firearms?

[LAGC]

I posted this question as a reply to one of the other threads but got no response, so I figured I'd post a new thread...

This topic has always been a struggle with me, as I believe the Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But, with other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, there are limits (e.g., First Amendment's free-speech doesn't extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.) -- so it begs the question, shouldn't some restrictions on gun-ownership be permissible under law?

Case in point, should certain individuals be prohibited by law from owning/possessing firearms? While I tend to agree that those with a history of mental-health issues shouldn't be around guns, when it comes to felons (e.g., ex-cons who have already served their time) I tend to think that they should be able to get their gun-rights back once they have fully completed their sentence (e.g., done with probation/parole). After all, felons in most states get their other rights back (like the right to vote) so why not one of the most fundamental right of all, the right to keep and bear? I mean, if someone is safe enough to be back out on the streets, shouldn't they be treated as a full-fledged citizen, inclusively? If they AREN'T safe enough to be back on the streets, then shouldn't they remain in prison?

And keep in mind, even with those with mental-health issues whom I'd rather not see possess guns, how can you really stop them from doing so short of making universal background checks (e.g., "closing the gun-show loophole" which is really more about ending all paperless private-party sales) which is in effect de facto gun registration, as you can't tell me the government doesn't retain records of who is being background-checked for "administrative purposes"... and really, in the end, you can't stop those who are prohibited from obtaining guns from getting them, as they often don't care what the law says on the matter, they will simply just do it anyway, such as steal them or get someone with a clean record to buy them (straw-purchase).

So the question may not be "Do we have enough gun control, yet?" but rather: "Do we perhaps, have too much gun control already?"

Your thoughts on this topic would be appreciated...

[imdjh]

1. I think that once you finish your sentence (including parole) then your punishment should end.

That includes being free of registering as an offender or any kind of mandatory disclosure about your incarceration. You can't punish people in perpetuity and then blame them when they can't make it on the outside.

[robinlynne]

7. But not having a gun is not punishment. I disagree.

[imdjh]

10. Then what would go call losing that right?

[robinlynne]

12. not having a gun.

[imdjh]

14. We're talking about the civil right own a gun. Taking that away is punishment.

Assuming you can afford one, of course.

[robinlynne]

15. not to me. As a citizen I think only very sane, very calm people have that "right".

[aquart]

17. Hey, give that bankrobber a gun.

Be sure you hand them out to each and every rapist, too.

Boy, this IS impressive thinking.

[SteveM]

40. Yeee-HAH! You from Texas or the Savage Nation? (nt)

[HALO141]

35. So.... What other civil rights can be usurped without

that being a punishment?

[robinlynne]

43. Felons lost the right to vote. a bit more important than the right to own a gun, no?

[Occam Bandage]

48. The right to enterpreneurship , for one.

This is not an explicitly declared right, but is clearly a right people possess under the 9th and 10th amendments; the government does not have the power to arbitrarily declare that I cannot decide to start a business fixing bicycles, so long as I obey all reasonable regulations and laws that go along with that.

However, if I am a child rapist, I am not allowed to start up a daycare center. This is a right that will be stripped from me for the rest of my life. And it will be stripped from me not as a way of punishing me, but as a way of protecting society from me, as child rapists have a high rate of recidivism.

I will also lose my right to privacy if I rape a child. Wherever I live, I will have to inform my neighbors that I am a child rapist. The government could not make me announce that I am a Jew, or that I am a Mormon, or that I am an atheist, or that I am homosexual, or that I am a Democrat, or that I cheered for the Red Sox in the 2004 postseason, or that I thought No Country For Old Men was not a very good movie (assuming any of those things are true). They could make me announce that I am a child rapist. I have lost the right to privacy in that regard. That is not a punishment. That is a means of protecting society from my potential future recidivism.

[Angleae]

2. Depends what crime they committed.

Murder/Attempted Murder/Rape/Armed Robbery/etc: Not just NO but HELL NO.
Multiple convictions: No
Other violent crimes: Maybe, depends on circumstances.
Other non-violent crimes: Yes

[usregimechange]

4. You said it for me.

[robinlynne]

8. I'm with you.

[RomanHoliday]

9. Of course. There are varying degrees of felony charges.

Violent crimes should be weighed heavier than non-violent. I still think if they payed their dues, they shouldn't be punished further but I think they should instate a much longer waiting period for more serious offenses.

[imdjh]

13. If the sentences for those crimes aren't long enough, then make them longer.

But don't let someone out (and off parole) and say, "You're a free man, except for this, this, and this...."

[Crunchy Frog]

25. So you'd rather have someone in prison in perpetuity

than have him free but not allowed to own a gun. Because his rights would be better served that way. :shrug:

I don't see it as punishment, but about protecting the public. Just like taking the drivers licence away from a drunk driver.

[imdjh]

30. A drivers license is not a constitutionally protected right.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. No it's not. But being out of prison without a gun is still better than

being in a prison without a gun. I don't see where the dispute is on that count. :shrug:

[sodom]

37. reguardless its still a right

it amazes me how either brainwashed or ignorant people are when it comes to their own rights. the constitution doesnt place limits on our rights, they couldnt write down every single conceivable thing we as a people have a right to. they just listed the most important ones they could think of, even then many people were worried that in time the constitution would be used to place limits on our rights and liberty, and it seems like we have well passed that point.

we all as free men have a right to drive a car.

as for whether a felon has the right to own a gun, unless they are on parole, if they have served their time and paid their debt to society...they are free to own as many guns as they wish as is their right.

[robinlynne]

44. no we do not all ahve the right to drive a car. Only those who are responsible have that right.

[Occam Bandage]

49. "we all as free men have a right to drive a car." This is false.

A repeat drunk driver does not have the right to drive a car. They lose that right through demonstrated habitual neglect of the responsibilities that come along with that right. All rights are subject to limitation to the extent that behavior covered by those rights must not infringe upon the rights of others. Failure to respect the rights of others within a society will result in restriction of your own rights, and that is nothing new. That is the very foundation of a system of justice; America in 1787 did have hangmen and jails, which represent a loss of the right to life and the right to liberty respectively.

[sodom]

56. i dont agree

while i do agree that ...'your rights end where someone else's begin.' i dont belive you can ever permanently lose your rights, you are born with them and they stay with you. if drunk driving is against the law and you are caught, you go to jail or pay a fine...maybe do community service or are released on parole. what is commonly understood is that while a prisoner forfeits certain rights, while incarcerated, once released from prison or parole, once their debt to society has been paid. the government no longer has the authority to place any limits on their liberty...while they may have the power to do so they no longer have the just authority.

there is a difference between what is law and what is right, there is a difference between your rights and what the government allows. you have the right to drive, you have the right to ride a bicycle, you have the right to eat and walk, read a book, and think for yourself.

it seems like most people have bought into the notion that the government is there to protect you at any cost, that your safety and the safety of others precedes all our rights.

[aquart]

18. "depends on circumstances" well all wifebeaters should have guns.

I hear a favorite trick is to put it in the wife's mouth and threaten to fire.

Who would want to prevent such simple joy?

[TheWraith]

20. Yes, because that's EXACTLY what's being proposed.

If you can't participate in a conversation like an adult, please go elsewhere.

[Thothmes]

22. Agree with you

big difference in a murder or armed robbery conviction and a bad check wrap.

[HarveyBrooks]

24. Why not?

Murder/Attempted Murder/Rape/Armed Robbery/etc: Not just NO but HELL NO

Might as well just let em buy their guns legally - if not they'll just get em on the street, right?
That IS the gun freaks argument against any regulation, isn't it?

[TheWraith]

52. No, it isn't.

And seriously, if you can't address facts, and prefer to make up strawmen to demonize anyone who disagrees with you, you may be more comfortable over in the Republican camp.

[SteveM]

41. Sounds like a good one (nt)

[Occam Bandage]

3. It's very disturbing that you find

the right to own guns more "fundamental" than the right to representation in government.

[imdjh]

11. I don't. I think that once you have served your time (and parole) then your civil rights...

... should be restored.

[Occam Bandage]

32. I disagree. I think extended depravation of a certain right can be part of "your time."

Jail isn't the only punishment we have.

(But the OP did say (paraphrasing) "we get our voting rights back, so why not one of the most fundamental rights?" That only really makes sense if gun ownership is more fundamental than representation in government, which is a somewhat scary perspective.)

[SteveM]

38. How did you come up with this "disturbance?"

[Occam Bandage]

47. Because of what that says about his belief with regard to

how wrongs are redressed in a civil society. I believe voting is the most fundamental right in the Constitution, as the right to vote is what ensures the government responds to the will of the people. The government is held in check by the powers of the court system and the ire of the electorate; that is the very concept of a democratic republic. Without the right to vote, we do not live in a republic; we live in a tyranny.

If you believe the right to own guns is the most fundamental right in the Constitution--more fundamental even than voting--then you are claiming that the interactions between citizen and government turn not on rule of law held in place through legal frameworks voluntarily adopted by society and alterable by the will of society, but rather on a mutual threat of violence: that is to say, you only have rights because you can threaten to kill people with whom you have grievances. That is a dark and frightening view of society, more akin to the darkest days of the French Revolution or with modern Somalia than with the ideals of America.

Americans do have a right to gun ownership. It is in the Constitution. But to say that gun ownership is fundamental in implied contrast to voting rights is either a statement from ignorance or a very dark statement about the speaker's view of society, law, and government.

[SteveM]

39. Duplicate due to computer slowness (nt)

[robinlynne]

45. Thank-you. agreed.

[SecularNATION]

5. Yes

If you've served your time, your rights should be restored. That includes the right to possess a firearm.

[bluestateguy]

6. I would say after parole, probation and restitution has been served and paid

and then I would say that they should have to register with the government if they own guns, just as sex offenders have to register.

[robinlynne]

46. but not if the crime involved physical harm to anyone. An example was given of a wife-beater.

Those people escalate to killers quite easily. it is against society's interests to allow them to own guns.

[Adsos Letter]

16. Not if the felony for which they were convicted involved the use of a gun...

[TheWraith]

19. I think that it depends on the crime.

Someone who's completed their sentence deserves back as many of their rights as is practical. That includes the right to vote, and--in the case of non-violent offenders--the right to own a firearm.

Violent offenders are another story; not only is their crime of a different type, but violent felons disproportionately represent the perpetrators of gun violence. Having a clear, unambiguous law that such people are not allowed firearms makes it easier for the police to nail down when a felon is carrying illegally, without having to bring the question of permits into the picture.

That said, there should be a legal process for someone with a violent felony conviction, or a violent misdemeanor, to go before a court and argue that they are no longer a threat to the community and should have their right to ownership restored. Every law needs oversight and balances.

[Caliman73]

21. I think that your solution is about the most practical that can be offered.

We cannot keep people as second class citizens in a country under the rule of law. If we establish that once a citizen has served out the consequence of their crime as agreed on within the society then we are obligated to accept them back into society with their rights intact. I do agree that there would be a need for people who were convicted for violent crimes to petition to have their right to carry firearms restored. There should be objective and impartial standards that would have to be met by violent ex-convicts in order to have that right restored. I would imagine that a history of non-violence in prison, and a period of time outside of prison without re-offending would be a pre-requisite to having the right to carry a firearm restored.

[Dogtown]

23. I can support some restrictions

Certainly weapon-related offenses, possibly any violent crimes.

Domestic violence with injury or weapon-display.

I think those are just common-sense restrictions.

[Tim01]

26. After 15 years of a clean record.

A foolish kid can do stupid things. But if a person stays out of trouble for 15 years they have shown that they have changed.
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth.

[jeepnstein]

27. Tough one...

As a society, we like to demonize convicted felons. That's pretty easy because some of them truly are monsters.

Can a convicted felon vote? How about engaging in Free Speech? Are they given religious liberty?

The issue of arms is a bit different. Your typical two or three time loser isn't really very useful in any kind of common defense of society. It would be safe to assume that militia service is out for such a person. I say that a convicted felon, upon completion of sentencing and full payment of fines and costs, should be allowed to go before a judge and have the record expunged. I see no reason why some of them shouldn't be restored to full citizenship rights.

I know one guy right now in such a pickle. He's a successful businessman who has kept his nose clean for ten years. His crime, writing a really big check with no funds to back it. The restitution has long been made, the time served, and he's always going to be a second-class citizen.

[Iktomiwicasa]

28. If the person

has a history of violent crime, no, I don't think so at all. Loss of certain rights are part of the consequences of criminal action, and if you don't want to suffer the consequences, don't do the crime.

[X_Digger]

29. If recidivism weren't an issue..

If our prison system actually did rehabilitate criminals and recidivism rates weren't so high, I'd agree with the idea of reestablishing gun ownership rights.

Pragmatically, though, prison rarely actually results in stopping criminal behavior.

[benEzra]

33. I'm OK with the restriction, but think there should be a process

by which the nonviolent can get their rights restored. I do not think you should lose your right to own a gun for the rest of your life because you wrote a single bad check to a restaurant 25 years ago, or because you copied a DVD or something.

[jody]

50. IMO existing law is correct that when a felon has her/his civil rights restored without exception,

that includes pre-existing rights protected by the the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.

Sadly, government has not funded DoJ so that a person convicted for a federal crime can have her/his complete civil rights restored.

That makes a travesty of federal law that provides a legal process for something to happen but congress refuses to fund that process. T%he net result is to deny that process to a citizen.

Would the pro-choice on abortion group be angry if laws permitted abortions with federal funds but congress failed to fund abortions?

[jmg257]

34. We would have to better determine, is it...

1) A punishment, or
2) A prevention.

If the former, then society must decide that the loss of the right 'for ever' is justified. As others mentioned, seems reasonable for numerous violent crimes, etc...hopefully the stronger the punishments the better the deterrent. At some point in other instances I think periodic reviews are also reasonable. It is an inalienable right, after all.

If the latter, then I think we should 1st question why someone who can not be trusted with a gun is out in society, with access to many other dangerous instruments, and able to do other dangerous things like drive cars and interact with kids. This should really be thought through more thoroughly, because way too often the subsequent illegal actions of such people are exactly what is used to try to justify that the rest of society suffer infringements.

The loss of this right is currently relied on as both, and the intentions or enactment of such deprivations don't always seem sensible.

It is important that in all cases, including mental illness, some sort of 'due process' should be involved, as that is specified in the constitution when rights are to be deprived.

[HALO141]

36. My thinking is that there should be

a REASONABLE process in place by which such a person can petition to have their right restored.

By "reasonable," I mean not up to the capricious whim of some so-called public servant.

[happyslug]

42. Good point, but lets look at the National Guard

When I was in the National Guard in the 1980s one of the duties of the full time personnel was to, just before we went on our two weeks training, go to the various Jails and Prisons in the area and get out the members of the unit who were serving time, even if they were felons. Once the Felons arrived at the units (Please note I use the term "Felon" for that is what they were, they had to go back to prison after they served their two weeks) every time we went to the field were issued a fully automatic M-16 with bolt. No ammunition was issued except if we were going to the range, but a fully functional M-16 (and some were issued an M60 Machine gun in addition to their M16). None of these felons even "lost" their weapon, nor did any of them every run off with one. Most were in prison for low end felonies (Burglary, robbery etc) NOT violent crimes (Violent Criminals went to Maximum Security Prisons, and those were NOT left out for National Guard duty).

My point is the term "Felon" is to broad an exclusion, the traditional definition of a Felon was someone sentenced to a term in jail for one year of longer (and Death in Capital Cases). When ever they get out the issue should be what is the possibility that they would use a gun in a criminal act in the future? Burglaries rarely use weapons in the US (This is NOT true of other countries but we are dealing with the US only) and as such giving them the right to own a weapon is NOT much of a threat to the rest of society, On the other hand someone convicted of an assault, even without a weapon, had a good chance of upgrading the next crime to one that includes a gun.

Part of the problem had been State Legislatures want to look tough, so they pass laws making various things "Felonies" when all they are are should have only had misdemeanors convictions (and when it comes to who you want to keep in prison when there is NOT enough room for everyone such minor felons tend to be released first). Now, being felons, these minor criminals are often sentenced to a term in prison of less then a year and the rest of what ever sentenced imposed on probation. No one is really worried about them from a violence point of view and a ban on ownership of weapons do NOT make sense as to this group (As shown by my fellow National Guardsmen who were serving time in Jail while in the National Guard). The real issue is to keep weapons away from people who will use them to commit crimes of violence. If the states were smart, only these crimes would be Felonies, but as stated above, State legislators want to look tough on crime so have expanded the definition of Felonies.

At the same time the Federal Government adopted the traditional cut off rule between Misdemeanors and Felonies as the cut off of gun ownership (Even if the Felony is a non-violent crime like Fraud). This has caused problems, for example someone convicted of a Felony involving defrauding someone else. Is such a person to be feared for owning a gun? The answer is NO (He should be feared for what he or she is, a Fraud, but that is NOT the issue here).

These two trends are the problem and the better result would be for the state to declare a Felony is any crime involving Violence, while all other crimes (Not summary Offenses) Misdemeanors, no matter what the sentence is (i.e. someone sentence to 20 years for Fraud is still only convicted of a Misdemeanors, while some who served only six months for an attack on a neighbor is a felon and can NOT own a weapon). The old common law rule made sense BEFORE the state legislatures started to modify the rule to fill they own agenda. These changes have been so severe that the old Felony-Misdemeanor split is no longer viable. The better way is to make Violent Crime Felonies, and non violent Crimes Misdemeanors and strip only felons of their right to bare arms.

[Endangered Specie]

51. As a general rule I would say no, but I think certain crimes that are felonies

should be misdemeanors, and visa versa.

Or perhaps we can draw a distinction between violent and non-violent felonies.

Anyone serving jail-time misdemeanor or otherwise, at a minimum should not get gun rights back until all fines are paid and parole is up.

[felon]

53. I am a convicted felon

I am a convicted felon. This law is a joke, if you read the other case files basically the court says that the law was enacted to protect the rest of society from dangerous people. First of all dangerous people should not be released. 13 years ago I did my time, was released & got on with my life. I now own the 5TH largest communications contracting company in the nation. The fact that they (the courts) say that because I am a felon I can't be trusted around the "rest of society" makes me sick. I carry a S&W tactical folding knife everywhere I go. I was at the mall today & did not feel I had to run around & stab a bunch of people. So just because you are a felon does NOT mean that you are an untrustworthy or violent person. It means you screwed up somewhere, sometime in your life, & if you put it behind you & got on with your life. F@#% what anybody thinks about you. Live your life & some day some how we will regain our rights as american citizens, not american felons.

[spin]

54. Welcome to DU.

Glad to see you were able to do so well.

[felon]

57. thanks

& let me clear the air here. I must apologize for the previous post, but the subject gets me a little heated. As for the original question. Yes they should. When you get a ticket, you pick up points & your premium goes up. A few years later you lose the points & you are just like every one else again. In this case it's not just guns, it's the fact that we are treated as less than everyone else.

[paulsby]

55. and all it takes is a misdemeanor

get convicted of any misdemeanor dv crime and it's the same effect as a felony.

that should be addressed too.

[felon]

58. I found this quote in an article. Thought it was relevant.

"If I can't have a home, can't feed my family and don't have a job, do I really feel like an American citizen? If an ex-felon can't earn a living, then why would he or she adopt the values of society upon being released? If you're not allowing them back into society fully, then why should they adopt our rules? They have no reason to uphold the laws, and there becomes a greater propensity to re-commit crimes."

[AlinPA]

59. If they served their time, yes.

[paulsby]

60. how about domestic violence misdemeanants

they are also prohibited from possessing firearms, even after sentences (if any) are served.

[AlinPA]

61. Probably should have some exceptions.

[paulsby]

62. i agree

DV is such a politically correct subject (the war on domestic violence has affected at least as many rights as the war on drugs or terror), i don't see it happening, though

[felon]

63. we have a program now

kind of, the state were i live has passed a new law allowing felons to get a special hunting permit that allows the use & possession of long guns for the purpose of hunting. This is perfect since at least around here the biggest issue is that people with felonies can't use a gun to hunt. I believe this law will make a lot people here (where i live)stop complaining about the ban on guns.