Felons that lawfully carry

this whole thing is silly

If a person is convicted of a crime, serves his time, and is released...they are FREE. PERIOD. They have "paid their debt to society". Now, if individuals do not want to trust that person, that's their choice...but society had it's chance.

The "right" to self defense is a NATURAL right, and is not one that can be taken away or forfeit without yielding to tyranny. PERIOD. Our society does not guarantee that it will protect everyone from evil doers...so you have to allow people to protect themselves.

Should felons who are no longer incarcerated be allowed to purchase, keep and carry weapons for self defense? Absolutely.

The argument that they are a "danger to society" and should not be allowed access to firearms is absolutely silly at best, and EVIL at worst.

If the person is a "danger to society" ... why are they free on the streets in the first place? This is SOCIETY failing the other members by allowing a "dangerous" person to roam the streets freely (armed or not).

Was the sentence for the crime to short?
Did we allow our "criminal justice system" to fail by pleading them to a lesser crime so things "look good?"
Did we allow the person to leave prison early on parole?

This is a FAILURE of society to protect itself...but that failure should not translate into SOCIETY removing a NATURAL right to make itself feel better!

Taking the natural rights (any natural right) from one group makes it easier to take it from any group.

carolina guy said:

If a person is convicted of a crime, serves his time, and is released...they are FREE. PERIOD. They have "paid their debt to society". Now, if individuals do not want to trust that person, that's their choice...but society had it's chance.

The "right" to self defense is a NATURAL right, and is not one that can be taken away or forfeit without yielding to tyranny. PERIOD. Our society does not guarantee that it will protect everyone from evil doers...so you have to allow people to protect themselves.

Should felons who are no longer incarcerated be allowed to purchase, keep and carry weapons for self defense? Absolutely.

The argument that they are a "danger to society" and should not be allowed access to firearms is absolutely silly at best, and EVIL at worst.

If the person is a "danger to society" ... why are they free on the streets in the first place? This is SOCIETY failing the other members by allowing a "dangerous" person to roam the streets freely (armed or not).

Was the sentence for the crime to short?
Did we allow our "criminal justice system" to fail by pleading them to a lesser crime so things "look good?"
Did we allow the person to leave prison early on parole?

This is a FAILURE of society to protect itself...but that failure should not translate into SOCIETY removing a NATURAL right to make itself feel better!

Taking the natural rights (any natural right) from one group makes it easier to take it from any group.

Click to expand...

+1

But for some it "feels good" to brand them forever.

WalkingWolf said:

+1

But for some it "feels good" to brand them forever.

Click to expand...

Doesn't leave much room for "forgiveness", does it?

Assault in the third degree. - 565.070. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

(1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

(2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon; or

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or

(4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

(5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or

(6) The person knowingly causes physical contact with an incapacitated person, as defined in section 475.010, which a reasonable person, who is not incapacitated, would consider offensive or provocative.

2. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4 of this section, assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

3. A person who violates the provisions of subdivision (3) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

4. A person who has pled guilty to or been found guilty of the crime of assault in the third degree more than two times against any family or household member as defined in section 455.010 is guilty of a class D felony for the third or any subsequent commission of the crime of assault in the third degree when a class A misdemeanor. The offenses described in this subsection may be against the same family or household member or against different family or household members.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5650000070.HTM

Click to expand...

Read this statute carefully. Right or wrong it is the law. I agree in part and disagree in part.

The premise that anyone has is that a felony is "worse" than a misdemeanor. Where as this statute indicates that assault in one circumstance is worse than assault in a different circumstance.

But, if you are the victim of a assault, which assault were you the victim of? A felonious assault or a not so felonious assault?

Society (the state by proxy) has no duty to protect me & mine from him, I am charged with that duty. Once you are out, after time served completely if out on parole. Give him his guns back. If he breaks the law again toss him back in the Big House.

Not returning his guns is anti-liberty and anti-citizen and so is anyone who agrees with that principal. A gun owner is just one step (misstep) away from being a violent felon. So, we need to remove your RKBA to keep society safe. Just as we do to violent felons.

States should be allowed to make their own choices

If a person has committed a felony and paid their debt to society (which includes their parole/probation period), they should be allowed to regain their rights as citizens of this nation. If an individual's crime(s) were so bad that it is deemed by a judge that the individual has forfeited their right to bear arms, then so be it. Each state should determine what they wish to allow. The 2nd amendment is a right that can be forfeited by an individual that violates the law(s) of this nation. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis and quite frankly, a lot of folks that were felons should have to apply to regain their right to bear arms.

Some people should never be allowed to see the light of day, but some are freed back into society because they "paid their debt to society" which I do believe that for some, it is bogus.:banghead:

Let say an individual violates a law and arrested (they exercise their 5th amendment right, they talk or chooses not to talk), they are offered bail or the seriousness of their crime determines they receive no bail (their 8th amendment right), also, at no time were they treated cruelly. They are given a trial (their 6th amendment right) and is found guilty by a jury or if they choose, a judge. They are incarcerated for a period of time and eventually released.

They should have to apply to have certain rights reinstated and the 2nd amendment right is one of them. Some say it is our natural right to defend ourselves, okay, defend yourself and your family with another instrument other than a firearm. Because, you did something in your past that caused you to lose your right to possess a firearm.:shocker:

I agree that the removal of the RKBA should be on a case-by-case basis. However, I recognize that, as long as due process is followed, the People of any State have the authority to remove any and all rights for any length of time from any criminal, even to the point of legislating the penalty, and taking it out of the hands of the judge.

Most States go too far in this regard, but that is not a rights issue. It is a policy issue. Rights have always been subject to forfeit after due process for periods of time set by legislators. The RKBA is no different from any other right to life, Liberty, or property.

eye95 said:

I agree that the removal of the RKBA should be on a case-by-case basis. However, I recognize that, as long as due process is followed, the People of any State have the authority to remove any and all rights for any length of time from any criminal, even to the point of legislating the penalty, and taking it out of the hands of the judge.

Most States go too far in this regard, but that is not a rights issue. It is a policy issue. Rights have always been subject to forfeit after due process for periods of time set by legislators. The RKBA is no different from any other right to life, Liberty, or property.

Click to expand...

You hold this view because you ignore the 8th amendment. That's the price you pay for keeping your head in the sand. I hope you're enjoying the bliss.

georg jetson said:

You hold this view because you ignore the 8th amendment. That's the price you pay for keeping your head in the sand. I hope you're enjoying the bliss.

Click to expand...

But it makes him feel warm and fuzzy...:lol:

ADobbs1989 said:

There is when you stop letting repeat offenders be released. They can serve their full term, be released, then if found guilty of another violent felony I say **** em. Throw em in there for life or dispose of them promptly.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Meanwhile, in between repeat offenses, they have the full RKBA.

Not wise.

Click to expand...

It is not wise to pretend that a legislature has some magical ability to prevent felons, once released freely into society, from obtaining firearms – or anything else, for that matter.

Nor is it not wise to engage in the fantasy of legal prevention or proaction. The law is, and always has been, an inherently reactive instrument. Attempts to use it "proactively" almost never succeed, especially with small stuff like individual actions.

It's one thing to say, "no guns for ex-felons!". How exactly do you propose to enforce that upon a society endowed with an appropriately strong 4th amendment? Magic? Force of will? The Force?

The sooner people realize this, the sooner we'll stop having to repeatedly rebuff their imbecilic suggestions about how best to micromanage and otherwise play The Sims with a free people.

marshaul said:

It is not wise to pretend that a legislature has some magical ability to prevent felons, once released freely into society, from obtaining firearms – or anything else, for that matter.

Nor is it not wise to engage in the fantasy of legal prevention or proaction. The law is, and always has been, an inherently reactive instrument. Attempts to use it "proactively" almost never succeed, especially with small stuff like individual actions.

It's one thing to say, "no guns for ex-felons!". How exactly do you propose to enforce that upon a society endowed with an appropriately strong 4th amendment? Magic? Force of will? The Force?

The sooner people realize this, the sooner we'll stop having to repeatedly rebuff their imbecilic suggestions about how best to micromanage and otherwise play The Sims with a free people.

Click to expand...

+1

marshaul said:

It is not wise to pretend that a legislature has some magical ability to prevent felons, once released freely into society, from obtaining firearms – or anything else, for that matter.

Nor is it not wise to engage in the fantasy of legal prevention or proaction. The law is, and always has been, an inherently reactive instrument. Attempts to use it "proactively" almost never succeed, especially with small stuff like individual actions.

It's one thing to say, "no guns for ex-felons!". How exactly do you propose to enforce that upon a society endowed with an appropriately strong 4th amendment? Magic? Force of will? The Force?

The sooner people realize this, the sooner we'll stop having to repeatedly rebuff their imbecilic suggestions about how best to micromanage and otherwise play The Sims with a free people.

Click to expand...

+1

BaconMan said:

If a person has committed a felony and paid their debt to society (which includes their parole/probation period), they should be allowed to regain their rights as citizens of this nation. If an individual's crime(s) were so bad that it is deemed by a judge that the individual has forfeited their right to bear arms, then so be it. Each state should determine what they wish to allow. The 2nd amendment is a right that can be forfeited by an individual that violates the law(s) of this nation. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis and quite frankly, a lot of folks that were felons should have to apply to regain their right to bear arms.

Some people should never be allowed to see the light of day, but some are freed back into society because they "paid their debt to society" which I do believe that for some, it is bogus.:banghead:

Let say an individual violates a law and arrested (they exercise their 5th amendment right, they talk or chooses not to talk), they are offered bail or the seriousness of their crime determines they receive no bail (their 8th amendment right), also, at no time were they treated cruelly. They are given a trial (their 6th amendment right) and is found guilty by a jury or if they choose, a judge. They are incarcerated for a period of time and eventually released.

They should have to apply to have certain rights reinstated and the 2nd amendment right is one of them. Some say it is our natural right to defend ourselves, okay, defend yourself and your family with another instrument other than a firearm. Because, you did something in your past that caused you to lose your right to possess a firearm.:shocker:

Click to expand...

So...you view it as "acceptable" that we punish someone and then SELECTIVELY and arbitrarily deprive them of their rights once they are FREE ? Why not take away their 1st Amendment rights to free speech? They are "bad" people who may say "bad thing" to other people. We should also take away some others too?

We could save money and house troops at their place (and then we can keep an eye on them)...no more 3rd Amendment.

How about we make sure it is EASY to search them in the future to make sure they do not have a gun...no more 4th Amendment.

Since they broke the law before, they should be forced to testify against themselves, and while the troops are at their house, they can take their stuff for free...no more 5th Amendment.

And why spend a lot of money and time if they are a repeat offender? Dispense with trials...no more 6th Amendment.

And if they bump your car in the parking lot, no need to sue them, just give the felon's car to the other person immediately to pay the damages...no more 7th Amendment.

And why bother looking to anything else not specified in the Constitution, let's just make it up...no more 9th Amendment.

Finally, let's just take the power of the states to define the crimes and punishments...just to make it fair for everyone else. No More 10th Amendment.

They did commit a crime in the past...put them to work on the roads for free a couple days a week even WELL after they are released... no more 13th Amendment

That whole "due process" thing is inconvenient...and they are felons...no more 14th Amendment.

---------

To say that I reject your suggestions out of hand is an understatement...they PAID for their crimes...and if they are NO LONGER a danger, how many rights should they surrender based on the WHIM of the Legislature?? :banghead:

I did not see him say that it should happen "selectively" or "arbitrarily." Those are your words, not his. I saw him say that a judge would make that call...you know...after, what do they call it?...oh yeah, due process, you know that constitutional standard for allowing the deprivation of a right.

If you commit a crime, society, under our Constitution (more importantly, under State constitutions, since these are almost exclusively State actions), you may be deprived of life, Liberty (including the RKBA), or property after due process.

Again, this is not a constitutional issue. It is a policy issue. If you don't like your State law regarding felons carrying, lobby to change it. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea for all felons to lose the right to carry. That just ain't a hill I am going to die on. There are a helluva lot of non-felons having bits of their RKBA being infringed. Those are battles worth my time and effort, not a battle that will paint me and movements that I am a part of as wacko or fringe to most members of the public.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<O>

eye95 said:

I did not see him say that it should happen "selectively" or "arbitrarily." Those are your words, not his. I saw him say that a judge would make that call...you know...after, what do they call it?...oh yeah, due process, you know that constitutional standard for allowing the deprivation of a right.

If you commit a crime, society, under our Constitution (more importantly, under State constitutions, since these are almost exclusively State actions), you may be deprived of life, Liberty (including the RKBA), or property after due process.

Again, this is not a constitutional issue. It is a policy issue. If you don't like your State law regarding felons carrying, lobby to change it. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea for all felons to lose the right to carry. That just ain't a hill I am going to die on. There are a helluva lot of non-felons having bits of their RKBA being infringed. Those are battles worth my time and effort, not a battle that will paint me and movements that I am a part of as wacko or fringe to most members of the public.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<O>

Click to expand...

You are correct... arbitrary and selectively were my words, as wacko and fringe are yours. Clearly, you do not understand (or just don't want to understand) what was being said on this and other threads, particularly about the slippery slope of selectively depriving people of rights guaranteed to all free citizens (and apparently non-citizens).

I do not read anywhere in the Constitution where someone can be deprived of portions of the protections under the Constitution by "policy". So, the characterization of this as a "policy" issue is not quite correct, especially when recent 2A SCOTUS and various FedCt rulings refer to these very issues.

Also, nobody asked you to die on this hill...feel free to walk around and be on your way.

It's funny that the very same person who has a tendency to cry to mommy is the same person calling others "Wacko" and "Fringe".

Now how wacko is that?

carolina guy said:

You are correct... arbitrary and selectively were my words, as wacko and fringe are yours. Clearly, you do not understand (or just don't want to understand) what was being said on this and other threads, particularly about the slippery slope of selectively depriving people of rights guaranteed to all free citizens (and apparently non-citizens).

I do not read anywhere in the Constitution where someone can be deprived of portions of the protections under the Constitution by "policy". So, the characterization of this as a "policy" issue is not quite correct, especially when recent 2A SCOTUS and various FedCt rulings refer to these very issues.

Also, nobody asked you to die on this hill...feel free to walk around and be on your way.

Click to expand...

I am working to convince others not to join you in such wacko and fringe efforts, so I will not be on my way. In fact, your dismissal has guaranteed that I will stay.

And YOU fail to understand that there is nothing selective nor arbitrary about people forfeiting a right after due process finds that they have committed a crime (or should we stop sending people to prison or fining them because that infringes on their rights??). Since the Constitution only prohibits the removal of rights without due process, it is perfectly constitutional to do so with due process.

Oh, and I did not try to make it seem as though someone else had used words I chose. I fully accept them and apply them cheerfully to the movement to abolish all rules against felons carrying. You, on the other hand, did imply that "selective" and "arbitrary" were what the poster to whom you were replying was saying. You may not like my words, but I was honest in their use.

On edit: Please note that I am calling an idea "wacko" and "fringe," not any persons. My words should clearly convey this to those who will read them honestly.

Hitler has been dead and gone for over 60 years but fascism still lives on in some people's hearts. And taking rights away from one group because the other group is OK with it IS a result of fascism. If we guarantee all people's rights, even when we find them reprehensible, we guarantee our own rights.

To break it down, when the day comes you lose yours, don't cry to mommy...

eye95 said:

I am working to convince others not to join you in such wacko and fringe efforts, so I will not be on my way. In fact, your dismissal has guaranteed that I will stay.

And YOU fail to understand that there is nothing selective nor arbitrary about people forfeiting a right after due process finds that they have committed a crime (or should we stop sending people to prison or fining them because that infringes on their rights??). Since the Constitution only prohibits the removal of rights without due process, it is perfectly constitutional to do so with due process.

Oh, and I did not try to make it seem as though someone else had used words I chose. I fully accept them and apply them cheerfully to the movement to abolish all rules against felons carrying. You, on the other hand, did imply that "selective" and "arbitrary" were what the poster to whom you were replying was saying. You may not like my words, but I was honest in their use.

On edit: Please note that I am calling an idea "wacko" and "fringe," not any persons. My words should clearly convey this to those who will read them honestly.

Click to expand...

I am not worried at all about someone calling me a name...got over that in the 2nd grade and didn't think you were calling me those personally.

First, I never said a single thing about depriving someone of their rights after conviction and during incarceration...that is YOUR statement/implication not mine. Personally, I would deprive them of quite a few MORE during their stay on taxpayer time and money.

However, the decision to deprive someone of their RTKBA AFTER they have completed their sentence and are returned to live their lives in society IS selective and arbitrary. We do not deprive them of much else, just the ability to defend themselves in a society where society has VOCALLY waived that responsibility to protect it's members. What other SIGNIFICANT portions of the Bill of Rights do they lose after completion of their sentence? Therefore, that decision IS selective and arbitrary. (I really do not include the loss of voting and jury duty as a significant loss).

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how is society safer by depriving RTKBA to a person who was convicted of a non-violent felony (let's say securities fraud) and then released from prison a few years later? It isn't. But, perhaps they should have their 4A rights removed or limited so we can search their computer records later to make sure they are not doing the same thing they were convicted of before? Obviously not...but it would make more sense than RTKBA.

If you want to oppose my choice of words, then feel free to demonstrate how my choice of words is incorrect.

WalkingWolf said:

Hitler has been dead and gone for over 60 years but fascism still lives on in some people's hearts. And taking rights away from one group because the other group is OK with it IS a result of fascism. If we guarantee all people's rights, even when we find them reprehensible, we guarantee our own rights.

To break it down, when the day comes you lose yours, don't cry to mommy...

Click to expand...

I think the Founders would get a giant case of indigestion at the idea that we would act and think like the British when it comes to depriving selective groups of their rights...but I guess it is "OK" because almost all felons are just shifty, untrustworthy types who given the chance to buy a gun legally would start a murder and bank robbery spree. Glad we have that loophole firmly plugged!

carolina guy said:

So...you view it as "acceptable" that we punish someone and then SELECTIVELY and arbitrarily deprive them of their rights once they are FREE ? Why not take away their 1st Amendment rights to free speech? They are "bad" people who may say "bad thing" to other people. We should also take away some others too?
Snip....
---------

To say that I reject your suggestions out of hand is an understatement...they PAID for their crimes...and if they are NO LONGER a danger, how many rights should they surrender based on the WHIM of the Legislature?? :banghead:

Click to expand...

We already do restrict(unjustly) the 1st for felons. They are not allowed to associate with other felons or sometimes non-felon gang members. There are undoubtedly some who will say this is good and helps to prevent crime, but I cannot get behind it. I can not support stripping someone of their inalienable rights on the off chance it might prevent some crime sometime in the future. There is no way of knowing with certainty whether a felon will offend again or not. If they do punish them for that offense, not for one they may one day possibly commit. Leave the Pre-Crimes to the movies, were it belongs.