Should convicted felons be allowed to bear arms?

[sudden valley gunner]

Felons are allowed to own guns in most of the country. They are not restricted by federal law from buying antique firearms.

Just to add my own spin, I would much rather a convicted felon who has become a law abiding citizen have a gun, than police that shoot innocent people. Keep in mind this is not all police, but it does seem to be accepted since 9/11.

I also would rather to see a felon armed than some OCD(Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) nut cases, that are wound to tight. There is no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because some criminals have not been caught and convicted.

Our POTUS has used cocaine which is a felony. Yet others who have been caught have lost their rights forever, I fail to see the sense in that especially since our POTUS is the one who has actually been responsible for the deaths of many innocent lives. Including women and children.

+1

It's ok to have guns as long as you were a funny badge and a state issued costume somehow your crimes are not felonies.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The article cited lists the following "real-life" dangers we all face every day:


► Violation of Foreign Law (The Lacey) Act
► Federal Wilderness Act
► Honest Services Fraud
► Espionage Act
► Obstruction of Justice
► Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
► Wire Fraud
► Providing Material Support for Terrorists
► False Statements to a Federal Official

If the hypotheticals and anecdotal charges were actually a pervasive problem, we would all be up in arms about them. Yet, how many of us have ever heard of, much less known of anyone who has ever been charged with these federal felonies?

There is sufficient reason to be aware of all of the state and local laws of which we might run afoul, but to feed the paranoia of those who suspect that government exists only to catch us breaking one of their laws is just, well, unreal.

The foregoing is not to say that all of us should not make certain that we know the laws with which we come into contact every day -- most importantly the state and local laws concerning the right to carry and be secure in our person, papers and property from unwarranted search and seizure. To load a pile of paranoid crap that we might be committing federal felonies every day is just tin-foil-hat material.

IMHO.

I know people who have been railroaded by obscure laws and had their rights violated. Yet that is besides the point.

The point that it happens to anyone at all , and that they have the ability to act upon it at anytime is very very very bad.

 

[JamesCanby]

I know people who have been railroaded by obscure laws and had their rights violated. Yet that is besides the point.

The point that it happens to anyone at all , and that they have the ability to act upon it at anytime is very very very bad.

I guess you missed the moderator's point that this whole "federal felony" thing that has the potential to make felons of us all, is off topic.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I guess you missed the moderator's point that this whole "federal felony" thing that has the potential to make felons of us all, is off topic.
View attachment 11640

Yea I did miss it, could you point to the post number for me? Thank you in advance...

 

[hhofent]

The second amendment grant no rights, the bill of rights grants no rights, instead it only affirms those rights that existed before the creation of government.

So, why should someone who has been deemed safe to release into society be stripped of their basic right of self defense and the defense of others?

This.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It is not off-topic to discuss the significance of a felony conviction. It's perfectly relevant. That people may be convicted of obscure and frivolous felonies means that a felony conviction is less meaningful. That ordinary people may end up in this classification of "convicted felons" indicates that by prohibiting convicted felons from possessing weapons you'd be prohibiting not just your stereotypical "bad guy" but regular, ordinary, honest and otherwise-law abiding citizens as well. You cannot rightfully prohibit "convicted bad guys," even if that prohibition would be legitimate, by the method of prohibiting convicted felons, as long as it is possible for people who should not be prohibited to end up in the convicted felon category.

 

[hhofent]

So, solid, joesparky, hhofent??, and Doug aka Nightmare...
Snip..
Its pathetic that you object to me bearing arms when I haven't been convicted for any crime which would bar me from owning and possessing firearms, but lobby for the "rights" of convicted felons. Do you really think you can have it both ways? Your opinions and emotions do not trump my civil rights. So, make a case.

I don't object to ANYONE possessing guns, much less you.

The only case where I start to object is a felon who is currently on probation for a violent crime. And even that depends on the definition of violent. And the only reason I would begin to object then, is that his/her debt to society isn't fully paid if they're on probation.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[Primus]

I don't object to ANYONE possessing guns, much less you.

The only case where I start to object is a felon who is currently on probation for a violent crime. And even that depends on the definition of violent. And the only reason I would begin to object then, is that his/her debt to society isn't fully paid if they're on probation.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

Shouldn't be about "paying" a debt (retribution) should also be about fixing the problem (rehabilitation).

You have a guy who beats someone severely. Has anger issues. Gets probation. The probation doesn't FIX the fact he's an angry d bag. The day he comes off probation sure his "debt" is paid, buts he just as violent as before and just as liable to hurt someone else.

Hence guys have a dozen a&b charges on their records because the person doesn't get fixed. And society certainly doesn't give a fig if your "debt" is paid. I didnt get anything from your probation as if say you did community service.

Above you is in general sense.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Shouldn't be about "paying" a debt (retribution) should also be about fixing the problem (rehabilitation).

You have a guy who beats someone severely. Has anger issues. Gets probation. The probation doesn't FIX the fact he's an angry d bag. The day he comes off probation sure his "debt" is paid, buts he just as violent as before and just as liable to hurt someone else.

Hence guys have a dozen a&b charges on their records because the person doesn't get fixed. And society certainly doesn't give a fig if your "debt" is paid. I didnt get anything from your probation as if say you did community service.

Above you is in general sense.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

How about they pay the debt to the person who was harmed? That used to be how it was until U.S. decided to go the way of the Kings court.

 

[Primus]

How about they pay the debt to the person who was harmed? That used to be how it was until U.S. decided to go the way of the Kings court.

1) still doesn't rehab anything or anyone. So after someone "pays" their debt to you they are the same person.

2) what do we just arbitrarily assign a fee for say a&b? What is it 20 bucks for a punch in the head? Do I mow your lawn for a week? Wash your car? Change your oil? "Ok we are even I mowed you'd grass"



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

How about they pay the debt to the person who was harmed? That used to be how it was until U.S. decided to go the way of the Kings court.

That would make sense though.

 

[Jack House]

They do if the victim files a lawsuit

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

1) still doesn't rehab anything or anyone. So after someone "pays" their debt to you they are the same person.

2) what do we just arbitrarily assign a fee for say a&b? What is it 20 bucks for a punch in the head? Do I mow your lawn for a week? Wash your car? Change your oil? "Ok we are even I mowed you'd grass"



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

And state prisons and jails do no rehabilitation. They seem to be schools on how minor offenders become hardcore.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

That would make sense though.

That's why the state and it's agents don't like it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

They do if the victim files a lawsuit

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Sometimes. Often what happens is prison sentence and a fine to be worked off for "society". Even if the victim wins a lawsuit rarely are they compensated.

Instead of prison what if a criminal had to work off a debt to the person it committed the actual crime against.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I like the idea of "compensation based" justice systems over "punishment based" justice systems. Doing some quick searches it would appear there is more correct terminology for what I am referring to.

Interesting similar concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
These look like they would make a good read, too bad they aren't available free of charge http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2379899?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104205520123 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724231?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104205520123


I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that "prior conviction" justifies "prior restraint" going forward, if for no other reason just because I don't believe that "prior restraint" laws have ever shown themselves an effective means of maintaining order or civility. I don't have any data on that, just my thoughts. Not to mention that in order for prior restraint following conviction to come into play, the law and law enforcement have had to have already failed at least once in order to get to that point. If someone does not want to be victimized, they should defend themselves. That is the only reliable option regardless of the justice system in place.

Prevent a FIRST offense? Defend yourself.

Prevent REPEAT offenses? DEFEND YOURSELVES.

 

[wimwag]

Sometimes. Often what happens is prison sentence and a fine to be worked off for "society". Even if the victim wins a lawsuit rarely are they compensated.

Instead of prison what if a criminal had to work off a debt to the person it committed the actual crime against.

and then what if they decided again to ignore the law and invade their home to harm them since a majority of any work an individual needs done is always at the home?

Besides, you could make an argument that forcing one to work for a man you wronged to "pay a debt" to be a form of involuntary servitude aka slavery.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

and then what if they decided again to ignore the law and invade their home to harm them since a majority of any work an individual needs done is always at the home?

Besides, you could make an argument that forcing one to work for a man you wronged to "pay a debt" to be a form of involuntary servitude aka slavery.

Yes, you could call it slavery if you wanted. So? I could call prison slavery, or compelled community service, just as easily. Slavery is a "nasty" word, but it isn't evil in every possible sense. It is possible for legitimate forms of "slavery" to exist.

 

[wimwag]

I don't object to ANYONE possessing guns, much less you.

The only case where I start to object is a felon who is currently on probation for a violent crime. And even that depends on the definition of violent. And the only reason I would begin to object then, is that his/her debt to society isn't fully paid if they're on probation.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

Well if that's the case then I misread your statement and we just disagree on things.

I believe that in cases of violent or serious crime (grave physical harm, massive monetary damage) a jury of one's peers, or a judge in the case of electing for a speedy trial (and not just missing out on a jury trial because you cannot afford it) should be able to strip a felon of certain rights upon a guilty verdict. After all are we not a nation?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Should YOU be allowed to own a firearm?

Are YOU willing to fight for the Rights of others?