Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

So far, federal judges uniformly have agreed these restrictions are unchanged by the Supreme Court's landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"The line I'm proposing, at the home, is entirely consistent" with the Supreme Court ruling, said Chontos, a lawyer in Turtle Creek, Pa. A court hearing on the issue is scheduled for late July.

The legal attacks by Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers are separate from civil lawsuits by the National Rifle Association and others challenging handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs as well as a total ban on guns in public housing units in San Francisco.

People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Denis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.

"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.

"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."

At the Justice Department, spokesman Erik Ablin said the agency's lawyers "will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all federal firearms laws and will respond to particular challenges in court."

Cities' outright bans on handguns probably are the most vulnerable laws following the Supreme Court ruling. Many lawyers and Second Amendment experts believe that restrictions on gun ownership in public housing also will be difficult to defend.

The question for courts will be whether the government has more power when it acts as a landlord, as it does in public housing, than in general.

"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will defend the policy as good for public safety. "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.

In the District of Columbia, the city housing authority is considering whether its prohibition on firearms in public housing can survive the court ruling, spokeswoman Dena Michaelson said.

But Volokh and some gun rights proponents said people convicted of crimes are less likely to succeed in their challenges.

"Many felons may need self defense more than you and I, but the government has extra justification for limiting that right because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy," Volokh said.

Judges may find it harder to resolve cases in which nonviolent criminals, particularly those whose only offense happened long ago, are charged with gun possession.

"Do you think Scooter Libby should have a gun?" asked Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who says the ruling will complicate the work of the courts, prosecutors and police. He was referring to former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the CIA leak investigation.

A more plausible case for being allowed a gun might be made by someone now in his 50s or 60s who was convicted as a teenager of taking a car for a joyride, said Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights supporter and lawyer. "You might have a court look at that differently," Halbrook said.

The Supreme Court has a case on its calendar for the fall that could indicate whether the justices are inclined to expand their ruling.

In United States v. Hayes, the government is asking the court to reinstate a conviction for possession of a gun for someone previously convicted of a domestic violence crime. In 1994, Randy Hayes received a year of probation after pleading guilty to beating his wife.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because the West Virginia law Hayes violated does not specifically deal with domestic violence crimes. The question for the high court, then, is a technical one: whether the law has to include domestic violence to be used in the future to prevent someone from owning guns?

Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate will be watching closely to see whether the court's D.C. decision is relevant to the Hayes case and, if so, how.

Link

Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there.

1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law.
Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison.

Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison.

We'll see what you say when the "felony" will simply be you owning a firearm in the first place, with a clean record. It won't be long.

Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison.

Every man has a right to the tools necessary to defend himself.  If he's done his time, he's done his time.  And with new felonies being created all the time, it's just a matter of time until we're ALL felons.  YOU INCLUDED.

Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. We'll see what you say when the "felony" will simply be you owning a firearm in the first place, with a clean record. It won't be long.

+1

There are more felonies being added to the books all the time, especially for white collar crime.  I'm of the mindset that once you've done the time, you should get your rights restored, or at least have a process in place for restoring them.  I realize there are a lot of violent people who will always be dangerous, but there are many others who do change their ways, and should not be deprived of their natural rights for the rest of their lives.

Just because you are a felon does that mean you don't have the right to "free speach," "freedom of religion" etc? What the SCotUS did was define the 2nd Amend as basic right regardless of whether you are a felon or not. If the someone was convicted of income tax evasion that is enough to deny someone their basic freedoms?

Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Evidently both the left and the right likes to "reinterpret" the Constitution to make it say what they want.

My opinion: after they serve their sentence let them out of prison a free man. Theat means the right to vote, worship/not worship, say want they want to say, have a lawyer if he needs one, be secure in his home and affects, and yes, carry a gun. They all go together. It is called "freedom".

I do think a person convicted of a felony should be able to own a gun for home protection as long as the offense was not for robery , drugs , or any type of physical violence , threats etc.
There felons that commited non violent crimes that have nothing to do with causing injury to others maybe something like tax fraud etc .. . If they commited any sort crime that had nothing to do with injuring someone or threats or any sort of violence they should be able to own a firearm for protection or hunting etc.
It would not bother me in the least if a person convicted of a felony like that had to do with taxes , business type felonies , anything crime that involved threats , stalking, robery, physical violence, should never be able to own firearms even if it is a misdemeanor . If it involves violence with a firearm they should never have a firearm.
Maybe I am wrong but that is just ny thoughts .

Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

if they are NOT safe to live in society, why the hell are they out of prison?

if they are safe to live in society, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a gun?

Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. Every man has a right to the tools necessary to defend himself.  If he's done his time, he's done his time.  And with new felonies being created all the time, it's just a matter of time until we're ALL felons.  YOU INCLUDED.

This could at leas merit a discussion. Violent felony? Did he ACTUALLY do his time? Or out on parol? Parolee's in my book have not done their time. My take is if your sentence was say for 10 years, you lose your rights for 10 years regardless if you get paroled or not. Permanent loss of rights if a crime of violence is the case...Hog

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? if they are NOT safe to live in society, why the hell are they out of prison? if they are safe to live in society, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a gun?

Not to mention some of the things that are"FELONIES" are a joke......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? if they are NOT safe to live in society, why the hell are they out of prison? if they are safe to live in society, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a gun? Not to mention some of the things that are"FELONIES" are a joke......

No shit.  A friend of mine is a "convicted felon".  He ended up plea bargaining to recieving stolen property and while the details aren't clear it had something to do with a sting operation involving used computer parts.  Which is what he deals in.  The thing is he just brokers the stuff and was kind of caught in the middle and facing a trial and all, he just took the plea.  Screwed for life after being set up.

Quoted: They will loose, the ruling said restrictions on felons was fine.

I wonder if they'll LOSE though

All rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights including life, liberty, property, privacy, and RKBA can be removed through due process by a jury trial.

Are you people arguing that the death penalty should be abolished, that prison guards can't search prisoners' cells without a search warrant, convicts should be allowed to keep an AR-15 in San Quentin, and a contraband shiv can't be confiscated immediately ?

If a person's life can be lawfully and permanently removed through due process then it only makes sense that all lesser rights (including RKBA) can also be permanently removed.

Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison.

US citizen correct?  Please tell me about the part in our Constitution that allows for second class citizens, I must have missed that somewhere.

If these people are safe enough to walk the streets with all of us, they deserve ALL of the rights of a citizen.  If not WTF are they doing out?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. Every man has a right to the tools necessary to defend himself.  If he's done his time, he's done his time.  And with new felonies being created all the time, it's just a matter of time until we're ALL felons.  YOU INCLUDED. This could at leas merit a discussion. Violent felony? Did he ACTUALLY do his time? Or out on parol? Parolee's in my book have not done their time. My take is if your sentence was say for 10 years, you lose your rights for 10 years regardless if you get paroled or not. Permanent loss of rights if a crime of violence is the case...Hog

Yep, a person on parole is just an inmate that lives on the outside of the bars. If a person can not be trusted in society, leave there asses in jail, if violent, put them to death.

A local guy from here, a convicted felon, just got all his charges dropped after getting busted with 150+ guns.

Story here.

All that is going on is the natural re drawing of precedent as the 2nd Ammendment is examined.  Felon's can file suits free and will do so just to tie up the system.  The sooner suits are filed the sooner new boundaries can be drawn.  

tag

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? if they are NOT safe to live in society, why the hell are they out of prison? if they are safe to live in society, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a gun?

Hammer, meet nail!

Either give them back their rights or keep them in prison.

Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Fine. Then inmates in prisons should be able to own guns and keep them in their cells, right?

Quoted: A local guy from here, a convicted felon, just got all his charges dropped after getting busted with 150+ guns. Story here.

But they kept his 150 guns and he won't be getting them back. The dumb-ass invited a cop to his house to look at his gun collection. Just another example of what happens when you invite "the man" into your life.

Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. US citizen correct?  Please tell me about the part in our Constitution that allows for second class citizens, I must have missed that somewhere. If these people are safe enough to walk the streets with all of us, they deserve ALL of the rights of a citizen.  If not WTF are they doing out?

You do realize we don't live in some kind of perfect world, fantasy land don't you?

Quoted: They will loose, the ruling said restrictions on felons was fine.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Fine. Then inmates in prisons should be able to own guns and keep them in their cells, right?

No, but that is the only time that a person should be denied the right to keep and bear arms. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they shouldn't be loose in society.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. US citizen correct?  Please tell me about the part in our Constitution that allows for second class citizens, I must have missed that somewhere. If these people are safe enough to walk the streets with all of us, they deserve ALL of the rights of a citizen.  If not WTF are they doing out? You do realize we don't live in some kind of perfect world, fantasy land don't you?

And you do realize that the "restrictions" on allowing felons to own guns are doing absolutely nothing to prevent felons from own guns and only allowing the government to interfere with the rights of the law abiding...don't you?

These are exactly the kind of shit cases we don't want brought before the courts.

Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. Every man has a right to the tools necessary to defend himself.  If he's done his time, he's done his time.  And with new felonies being created all the time, it's just a matter of time until we're ALL felons.  YOU INCLUDED.

Absolutely.

Quoted: These are exactly the kind of shit cases we don't want brought before the courts.

These cases will fail. Heller does nothing to protect the rights of convicted felons, in fact it does the exact opposite. Legally speaking, these defendants don't have a leg to stand on. The precedent is dead set against them.

At the end of the day, as far as I can see, all free men should have the right to protect their lives & the lives of thei families with firearms as that is all that can be counted on to level the playing field against an assailant so armed. Anyone that feels otherwise is no friend of freedom and equality in my book.

Sure we can argue if/when a convict should become a free man, but that doesn't change how I feel WRT to the above.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? if they are NOT safe to live in society, why the hell are they out of prison? if they are safe to live in society, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a gun?

Because society refuses to pay extra taxes to fund the prisons. So, they are released early, on parole, on work programs, etc.

A felony conviction IS NOT permenant. Cases can be sealed and rights restored. Most states average around 10 yrs. from date of conviction or release for records sealing.

They knew the penalties with their stupid games, so they reap what they sow. No pity party here for the ex-felon losers!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Fine. Then inmates in prisons should be able to own guns and keep them in their cells, right?

That's the typical argument that is brought up in these debates and it is a silly non-sensical argument. A person in prison is not a "free" man. He is incarcerated with due process; when he is out of prison he is no longer incarcerated, he is a free man. Except for the fact that if you get popped for one of the thousands of obscure felonies that are added to the books every year, and then you are a second class citizen who is unable to posess the tools necessary to defend themselves or their families and they also have no say in how they are governed.

So no, people in prison should not get to keep machine guns in their cells. But thanks for using a ridiculous argument, maybe we should ban guns too.

The rules are gonna need to be rewritten.  Every state has a different criteria for what condtitutes a felony and usually they are in direct conflict with the federal gov't.  Yet the federal govt says you can bilk millions in white collar crimes and own a gun while a state felony for theft for value over $1000 gets you barred for life

And according to many state constitutions and statutes the criteria for restriction is not as stringent as that of the federal gov't.  Add the provision in federal law that allows for those that are prohibited to app;y for RKBA to be reinstated has been suspended by witholding funds by congress and SCOTUS stating the second is as fundamental as the first and fourth we have to reevaluate what crimes and convictions are severe enough to strip a persons civil rights.  

I would at least guess the fed will be forced to fund the treasury to process applications of prohibited persons who qualify for restopration of firearms rights.  

Shall not be infringed means that a person fit for service in the militia (ie not crazy or criminal) shall be able to keep and bear arms, because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state.

Heller was pretty clear on that point and they'll lose.  Just because a petitioner cites a case doesn't really mean anything. The respondent, the state, will cite Heller as well for why these men should not be allowed to possess firearms.

This is just the ultra-communist AP trying to spread fear to the uninformed.

I agree,  somethings that are felonies are bullshit. I got cracked in the head with a bottle during a bar room brawl  cut my head open I got stitches but knocked the guy out who hit me with the bottle,  the police arrived and asked if I wanted to press charges against the guy, they said it would be a malicious wounding charge which is a felony(because hitting with a bottle is intent to maim and disfigure) , the kid was only 21 and I just couldn't see fucking up his life for something he did when he was stupid and 21. God knows if some people hadn't given me a break when I was 21 I wouldn't have ever been able to legally own a gun either.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Evidently both the left and the right likes to "reinterpret" the Constitution to make it say what they want. My opinion: after they serve their sentence let them out of prison a free man. Theat means the right to vote, worship/not worship, say want they want to say, have a lawyer if he needs one, be secure in his home and affects, and yes, carry a gun. They all go together. It is called "freedom".

There are lasting consequences for one's actions.

You don't believe their record should be expunged, do you?  Even though they're free, you believe their criminal record should remain accessible, don't you?  After all, they're "free" now.  If they are "free," why should they have to suffer discrimination in employment due to their convicted felon status?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? if they are NOT safe to live in society, why the hell are they out of prison? if they are safe to live in society, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a gun? Not to mention some of the things that are"FELONIES" are a joke...... No shit.  A friend of mine is a "convicted felon".  He ended up plea bargaining to recieving stolen property and while the details aren't clear it had something to do with a sting operation involving used computer parts.  Which is what he deals in.  The thing is he just brokers the stuff and was kind of caught in the middle and facing a trial and all, he just took the plea.  Screwed for life after being set up.

If he CHOSE to take a plea deal, he was not screwed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Fine. Then inmates in prisons should be able to own guns and keep them in their cells, right? That's the typical argument that is brought up in these debates and it is a silly non-sensical argument. A person in prison is not a "free" man. He is incarcerated with due process; when he is out of prison he is no longer incarcerated, he is a free man. Except for the fact that if you get popped for one of the thousands of obscure felonies that are added to the books every year, and then you are a second class citizen who is unable to posess the tools necessary to defend themselves or their families and they also have no say in how they are governed. So no, people in prison should not get to keep machine guns in their cells. But thanks for using a ridiculous argument, maybe we should ban guns too.

It's not a silly argument at all when it is used with those that try to argue that rights are absolute. If you think "shall not be infringed" gives an absolute right to owning firearms, then inmates should be able to own guns in their cells. If you agree that rights are not absolute and without restrictions, then you have to agree that there is some line that must be drawn as to the extent of those rights. Personally I think that disallowing convicted felons from legally owning guns is a perfectly reasonable restriction. The supreme court agrees with me as well.



From Heller vs DC - SCOTUS:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

There is a federal process that allows qualifying indiviuals to have their rights restored by the treasury but congress defunded the action so that the treasury cannot process the applications.  So the govt agrees that felons that have shown rehabilitation should have these rights restored but congress did an end run around the process.

I would be willing to bet my life that most of the persons on this board have, at some time in their life, commited an act that if caught and prosecuted would be a felony.  For instance, ever punch someone in the face, get in a fist fight?  Maybe you went on a reckless joyride when you were just turned 21?  And Im sure everyone here is honest as the day is long to the last cent on your tax returns  I love the "holier than thou" crowd.  

Fact of the matter is this.  The second ammendment is on it's way to incorporation and the SCOTUS held it in the same light as the 1st and 4th.  While nobody thinks prisoners should own guns and violent criminals should have them either, it is obvious that there is no good reason for a person to be disbarred for petty crimes.  Explain why white collar crime that could have monetary ramifications in the tens of millions are exempt yet a guy who steals a car stereo is barred for life?

I am all for the challenges of felons to get their rights restored.  Hopefully it will expose how flawed the gun laws in this country really are.  As it stands now, we are "felonizing" every petty crime to look like are tax dollars are doing some good while we systematically disarm entire sets of persons based on a very broad and poorly defined standard of law.  

You commited ANY crime punishable by more than 12 months in jail?  You're prohibited.  What kind of crime was it?  Dont matter, you're prohibited.  I was 21 years old and out being stupid with my friends and nobody was hurt?  Too bad you're prohibited.  But my state laws say Im eligible to own a gun?  Too bad, you're prohibited.  This crime happened 30 years ago and wasnt a violent felony, but a state level misdemeanor that carried a sentence max of 2 years?  Too bad, you're prohibited.  This crime is a misdemeanor according to my state definitions and doesnt prohibit me according to my states laws, but I still get rejected?  Too bad, you're prohibited.  I want to hunt or shoot recreationally and defend my home?  Too bad, you're prohibited.   Hey, I commited fraud at my firm as CEO and robbed the pension fund of 25 million dollars and did 10 years in federal prison?  Here's your CCW permit sir, have a nice day!

Get the picture?  The federal restriction is entirely too broad and undefined.  A petty crime in one state is a major infraction in another and this huge blanket of restriction confounds the issue further.

Your analysis of the system is good, but you failed to account for a major issue.

A federal crime is cleared by the method you listed.

A state crime is cleared by the state.

Federal cases are miniscual in number compared to state cases. If the state restores the rights, then the person is good to go.

Everyone loves to jump on the "feds no longer restore rights", but the states still do.

Here is a tip.... if you commit a federal felony crime, your rights won't be restored right now.

BTW, white collar crimes are not exempt..... a felony is a felony.

Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison.

Upon parole, the debt is paid.  I think sentences should be longer, but there should be an end to the punishment.

Quoted: Quoted: 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Read the 14th Amendment...

They have no rights to infringe, only what privledges we allow them...

Being a felon sucks...

Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. US citizen correct?  Please tell me about the part in our Constitution that allows for second class citizens, I must have missed that somewhere. If these people are safe enough to walk the streets with all of us, they deserve ALL of the rights of a citizen.  If not WTF are they doing out?

Deprivation of rights is part of their punishment, separate and severable from their prison term...

14th Ammendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That right there allows felons to be stripped of their rights, as they HAVE had due process of law...

Quoted: Quoted: Twice convicted felons have no right to guns. It's illegal here and apparently needs to be there. 1 felony conviction = no guns for life.  Tough shit, you broke the law. Find a felon with a gun? Back to Prison. Every man has a right to the tools necessary to defend himself.  If he's done his time, he's done his time.  And with new felonies being created all the time, it's just a matter of time until we're ALL felons.  YOU INCLUDED.

+1

Anyone too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to be mingling with society. They should either stay in prison or be executed. If they've served their time and are set free, then they should get their rights reinstated.

If a person can not be trusted with something so ingrained into the fabric of this great nation... Don't let them out until/unless you can.

Once they're released, that's just that- they are RELEASED.

It's really not that difficult.  

Is it a "correctional" system or is it a "Prejudicial" system?

Sly

Quoted: If a person can not be trusted with something so ingrained into the fabric of this great nation... Don't let them out until/unless you can. Once they're released, that's just that- they are RELEASED. It's really not that difficult.   Is it a "correctional" system or is it a "Prejudicial" system? Sly

Nope...

Once they are released they are still felons...

No voting... No guns... No offices of public trust...

Real simple, it's part of the punishment, just like the prison term...

The only way I can agree with your statement, is if we somehow found the jail space to lock up all felons for life