Convicted of a Felony & Right to Bear Arms...

[cyras21]

Just curious if any of you are of the same mindset as me...

Commit a crime...do the time...reinstate all Constitutional protections.

Why should someone no longer have the Right to bear arms simply for committing a crime? Now, I'm not talking about someone on Parole. I'm talking about someone that has completed their sentence, should all of their constitutional protections be reinstated? These are rights guaranteed...

[WRW]

Those rights are not guaranteed... and not no, but Hell No! Jail time does NOT pay the debt for the crime.

Now, as correctly pointed out by other members, the felony classification is a little too stringent, but that should be addressed separately.

[ProShooter]

I think that if we held criminals to more stringent punishments, maybe we'd turn the tide. I think that if you knowingly break the law, and especially commit a felony, you get what's coming to you.


We need more jails and prisons, period.

[CCFan]

We need more jails and prisons, period.

No.... what we need is a few more chain gangs to fix the roads. Adding public workers onto government payrolls ain't gonna make people suddenly drop their criminal lifestyle....

[SDChop]

Why should they be given that right back? If convicted of a felony one shows he cannot handle the freedom and the responsibilities that come with it. I also agree that what should constitute a felony is a serperate argument. Convicted felonys get their hands held enough through the american justice system and liberal society we live in now, god please dont arm them also....

[allingeneral]

My opinion is that if you're convicted of a felony offense, you have proven to society that you can't be trusted in one way or another. Should felons hold government security clearances? Should violent felons be allowed to own and use firearms? Would I want a felon running the cash register at my store? I don't think so.

That said, a felony is a felony, so some are lumped into the same category even though they aren't really in the same ballpark. Rape and felony assault are totally different than felony embezzlement or fraud. However, society's trust in a felon has been severely degraded regardless of the type of felony.

If you're ever up against a felony charge, GET A LAWYER AT ALL COSTS because it will change your life if you're found guilty and society loses trust in you.

[Jakeiscrazy]

If you're ever up against a felony charge, GET A LAWYER AT ALL COSTS because it will change your life if you're found guilty and society loses trust in you.

Even for a misdemeanor I would get a lawyer because some of them also infringe rights.

I agree with others that the felony system is not specific enough and additionally the sex offender system could use some reform. However, for the time being the felony class includes violent criminals and I believe that they have likely committed a crime that should result in them losing their rights. If someone feels they are the expectation they can challenge that in court.

[cyras21]

I agree there are many arguments within the discussion, but all things being equal, if a person has paid his debt to society then why should his punishment continue after the fact? Also, the Constitution does NOT grant rights rather guarantees those rights that are inherently ours.

So again, on the simple notation that a your debt to society has been paid...why not?

[cigarmanva]

if rights can be taken away from people then they aren't really rights are they? they're privileges that we enjoy at the good graces of government. If they are truly guaranteed rights then there should be no way to "lose" them, for what is stopping us all from having our rights "lost"?

[jim100]

if rights can be taken away from people then they aren't really rights are they? they're privileges that we enjoy at the good graces of government. If they are truly guaranteed rights then there should be no way to "lose" them, for what is stopping us all from having our rights "lost"?

I am not going to give a convicted sex felon a gun. Reason? He has proven that he can not abide by the laws set down, not only in the Constitution, but set down by God. Since he did not respect the life and wellbeing of another person he does not have the right to be viewed as a normal member of scociety, and as such has willfully cast aside his rights by his heinous actions.

[Yarddawg]

I do not view it as someone has "lost their rights". Instead I view it as someone has their rights restricted. What is the difference, you might ask. No one is telling the convicted felon that they no longer have the right to self defense. Instead, their available methods of self defense have been restricted to preclude the use of a firearm.

You say tomato, I say 'mater.

IMHO, the 2nd amendment is very clear "The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

As has been pointed out already, there are diverse "felonies". There are violent felonies, as well as non-violent felonies. Again, IMHO, I do not feel that the punishments for violent felonies are as severe as they should be. Personally, I believe that the punishment for violent felonies should be swift, severe, and VERY public! That is the only way to get the message across that this type of behavior WILL NOT be tolerated.

To answer the OP's question, If the felony conviction was for a non-violent crime, I would say yes, restore the right to self defense unrestricted. If the conviction was for a violent crime, chances are that a "real punishment" has been meted out are not likely, otherwise the question would be a moot point.

(Not quite as wordy as Garrett would have been, but I'm getting there!)

[nothalfbad]

I personally believe that most convictions are well deserved. Some convictions are just the tip of the ice berg-- like someone getting caught after committing dozens of felonies, charged with 3 or 4 and bargaining down to 1 or 2.

At the same time there are some convictions that were for political reasons or just plain wrong. Check out this case http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/0 ... g-hysteri/ . If this guy hadn't had a good lawyer he could easily have been convicted but actually did nothing wrong. I heard that the final legal tab for the defense was over $200,000 and that the county ended up paying.

There should be a way to get your rights back after a felony conviction, so people who were just unlucky or too poor to hire a lawyer can get at least part of their life back. I'm not saying I know exactly how it should be set up, but it should exist and not require a pardon from the governor or an act of congress.

[grumpyMSG]

if rights can be taken away from people then they aren't really rights are they? they're privileges that we enjoy at the good graces of government. If they are truly guaranteed rights then there should be no way to "lose" them, for what is stopping us all from having our rights "lost"?

Rights are absolute??
OK, let me give you some examples to think about...

You and I are at a party, we are both getting intoxicated (in my case, the odds of it happening are pretty low), we are having a discussion about UVA versus Virginia Tech, blah, blah, blah. You call me a no good bleepity bleep, I insult your mother, some of the infamous "fighting words". You and I get to beating on each other, both of us intent on denying the other their "freedom of speech", one of us smacks the other over the head with a beer bottle thereby denying the other of their "life". They are absolute rights that can't be taken away, right?

A disgruntled Soldier sits in a brig right now for releasing classified information that may have placed others in harms way at higher risk. Was his right to free speech absolute and he could release that information to Wikileaks?

In most if not all cases, Felonies are crimes that deny other people one or more of three things the founders held to be sacred: Life, Liberty and Property.

[cigarmanva]

if rights can be taken away from people then they aren't really rights are they? they're privileges that we enjoy at the good graces of government. If they are truly guaranteed rights then there should be no way to "lose" them, for what is stopping us all from having our rights "lost"?

Rights are absolute??
OK, let me give you some examples to think about...

You and I are at a party, we are both getting intoxicated (in my case, the odds of it happening are pretty low), we are having a discussion about UVA versus Virginia Tech, blah, blah, blah. You call me a no good bleepity bleep, I insult your mother, some of the infamous "fighting words". You and I get to beating on each other, both of us intent on denying the other their "freedom of speech", one of us smacks the other over the head with a beer bottle thereby denying the other of their "life". They are absolute rights that can't be taken away, right?

A disgruntled Soldier sits in a brig right now for releasing classified information that may have placed others in harms way at higher risk. Was his right to free speech absolute and he could release that information to Wikileaks?

In most if not all cases, Felonies are crimes that deny other people one or more of three things the founders held to be sacred: Life, Liberty and Property.

i've read this many many many times and can't figure out how this relates to anything i said

[Diomed]

Sorry, cyras21, you're not going to find many libertarians on this board.

Personally I see no reason why all rights should not be restored upon release. If they're not in prison, they should be treated like everyone else. If they're dangerous, what are they doing out of prison?

Of course, the modern prison-industrial complex makes sure that they have a steady supply of new and returning clients, by making trivial offenses into felonies and making serious offenses carry trivial punishments, and making sure that once the convict gets out he's got little in the way of options except more crime. The tax evader gets as much time as the armed robber, and the rapist and murderer get out instead of being sent to the gallows as in ye olden dayes.

I suggest that before getting all high-'n'-mighty and jail-'em-all, let-God-sort-'em-out, you spend some time reading the laws we have in place now. There are so many there's no way to know them all (but ignorance of the law is no excuse!). It's virtually impossible to live in our society and not be an unconvicted felon. Ruling is much easier, after all, when anyone and everyone can be imprisoned as the state desires.

[WRW]

I agree there are many arguments within the discussion, but all things being equal, if a person has paid his debt to society then why should his punishment continue after the fact? Also, the Constitution does NOT grant rights rather guarantees those rights that are inherently ours.

So again, on the simple notation that a your debt to society has been paid...why not?

Again, prison time does not "pay your debt to society". It merely serves as a "punishment" for acts contrary to society. The Constitution does, indeed, guarantee rights...by commiting a felony the individual forfeits those rights.

[GS78]

Just curious if any of you are of the same mindset as me...

Commit a crime...do the time...reinstate all Constitutional protections.

Why should someone no longer have the Right to bear arms simply for committing a crime? Now, I'm not talking about someone on Parole. I'm talking about someone that has completed their sentence, should all of their constitutional protections be reinstated? These are rights guaranteed...

As long as the effects of their crime are still intact, then I think they should not have anything re-instated. In other words if say the person they killed is still dead, the person they raped is still living with that nightmare..... but then again I think all pirates should be executed while still on their vessels.....

[GS78]

Sorry, cyras21, you're not going to find many libertarians on this board.

Personally I see no reason why all rights should not be restored upon release. If they're not in prison, they should be treated like everyone else. If they're dangerous, what are they doing out of prison?

Of course, the modern prison-industrial complex makes sure that they have a steady supply of new and returning clients, by making trivial offenses into felonies and making serious offenses carry trivial punishments, and making sure that once the convict gets out he's got little in the way of options except more crime. The tax evader gets as much time as the armed robber, and the rapist and murderer get out instead of being sent to the gallows as in ye olden dayes.

I suggest that before getting all high-'n'-mighty and jail-'em-all, let-God-sort-'em-out, you spend some time reading the laws we have in place now. There are so many there's no way to know them all (but ignorance of the law is no excuse!). It's virtually impossible to live in our society and not be an unconvicted felon. Ruling is much easier, after all, when anyone and everyone can be imprisoned as the state desires.

Virtually impossible? really? Then I and my kids must be exceptional Americans since we are not "unconvicted" felons. A libertarian would be someone who believes Charlie Sheen has every right to kill himself with drugs..AS LONG AS, he is not endangering anyone else in the process, it is NOT someone who thinks a three year manslaughter sentence is sufficient recompense for a human life. Just for the record, I am one of those Let-God-Sort'em out, right after the conviction..

[Reverenddel]

I can see both sides arguments...

I understand that perhaps many of the "Felony" laws need to be reviewed again for standing.

Perhaps go back to the "Top 3" of Stealing-Killing-Raping.

However, I know that a felon can petition the governor to have their rights restored. WIth a decent lawyer, and a good societal track record, they have in fact been given full rights.

It's not an easy process, nor should it be.

Once you break the trust of society, the God-given rights have to be modified because you broke the covenant.

[gunderwood]

Sorry, cyras21, you're not going to find many libertarians on this board.

+1


Our Rights exist simply by being human. No government or document gives them to us. The Constitution is just a contract whereby we gave certain powers to a third party entity as a matter of practicality to punish those who violate others Rights. The rights in the Constitution are not granted, they are merely further and explicitly defining to the Federal government that it has no such powers to restrict those Rights. The approximately two years between the ratification of the Constitution and the ratification of the 2nd Amendment did not mean that for two years the Federal government had such a power, nor did it mean the people didn't have a Right to keep and bear arms.

Stating it as off limits is not the same as granting it. If it were, then the colonists had no justification for their rebellion. In fact, there is no justification for ever doing anything which the government prohibits no matter how awful that government may be. I think those pushing for government defined rights really haven't thought through what that really means. Tyrannical governments always make their tyranny legal! From the USSR to Nazi Germany to North Korea to Iran, etc., etc. Those governments defined away their citizens rights, so it must be ok right? After all, if the government decides to not give a privilege the people must follow that restriction! If that is the position you take then there is never any reason EVER to resist a government. That's exactly the kind of philosophy and power the people have fought for centuries to take away from governments...ever hear of the divine right of kings? Ya, your its modern philosophical supporters and nothing could be further from the founders intentions.

Furthermore, how can something be unethical if there is no natural rights? Illegal is breaking the government standard, immoral is breaking God's standard, unethical is breaking that standard which we owe to all humans simply because they are human (all grossly over simplified). If there is nothing special or you only have the rights government bestows upon you, then you are no different than an animal. There may be something immoral about killing a deer (say you just kill it to kill it) and hunting out of season is illegal, but killing a deer has no ethical considerations does it? If you have no natural Rights, murder could only be immoral and illegal just like killing a deer could be. It's impossible to have an ethical violation against something which in of itself has no Right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

If God says don't do it and you do, it's immoral. If the government says don't do it and you do it is illegal. How do you get an ethical violation without invoking another standard (which I should note is not incompatible with say God's standard. E.g. the Bible teaches that what makes man different than all other creation and invokes an ethical standard is his being made in the Image and Likeness of God...it's possible to be both immoral and unethical in the same action). Proper "liberal" government does its best to align illegal with unethical, which is where the confusion over these arises. It makes logical sense to invoke government as a practical agent to enforce the preexisting ethical standard (Mala en sa). It's patently absurd to suggest that it is suppose to work the other way around!


The prison business is a relatively new development. Yes, there were always prisons, but not until the last century have they grown to be such a large percentage of the population. IMHO, this is due to corruption in the justice system and the desire of the people and state to enforce things well beyond ethical transgressions. The idea that you can spend the rest of your life in jail for possessing an unregistered piece of metal that makes your gun go bang more than once per trigger pull is insanity! Or how about attaching a plastic 2L bottle to your rifle to muffle the sound? That's not protecting society from anything, that's being petty and absurd.

The whole idea of a felony is very dangerous to the liberties of a free people. The idea that the government can take your rights after you have served your punishment (it's not even close to repaying a debt to society as prison is literally the antithesis of that concept) is exactly how they slowly define away rights and remove them from the people. Practically we all unknowingly commit felonies, but just aren't caught for them. How many people lawfully carrying a firearm in VA realize that a small section of the George Washington Parkway is actually in DC and they just committed a felony? Until VCDL sent out that email I bet very few did.

The supposed rationale for a felony is that the person can't be trusted anymore, but doesn't that tacitly admit that they are still considered a danger to society? If they aren't a danger, why can't they own a firearm? If they are still dangerous, why are we letting them out of jail? Forget the whole notion of paying your debt to society (that's long since dead and has been so since the rise of prison as a business), we primarily imprison people to prevent future violations which in theory protects society. Why let a dangerous person out? Isn't the reverse of that argument why we let people out on parole? Technically their sentence isn't up, but we make an evaluation that they are no longer a threat and it is safe to let them out.

Again, prison time does not "pay your debt to society". It merely serves as a "punishment" for acts contrary to society. The Constitution does, indeed, guarantee rights...by commiting a felony the individual forfeits those rights.

That's merely the definition of a felony. You have yet to provide any rationale to say why that is right.

In most if not all cases, Felonies are crimes that deny other people one or more of three things the founders held to be sacred: Life, Liberty and Property.

Perhaps the better question is why do we have laws which punish anything but such ethical violations as you have described. It is the very and only reason we invoke such an entity as government. It's exactly the difference between proper legalization of force (government) and tyranny.

I do not view it as someone has "lost their rights". Instead I view it as someone has their rights restricted. What is the difference, you might ask. No one is telling the convicted felon that they no longer have the right to self defense. Instead, their available methods of self defense have been restricted to preclude the use of a firearm.

Understand the distinction and so far it's probably the best yet presented in this thread. However, what is missing is some logic, some rationale as to why it is acceptable to dictate such a restriction. Don't get me wrong, it is a good distinction to make (even if the conclusion isn't what you prefer), but please carry it forward. How is this different than society saying to someone under 21 that they are restricted from CCing a firearm? How about less than 18 for the lawful carry of a firearm period? In short, why does and how is it rationalized for society to claim the right to restrict the mechanism used?