I am torn on this issue.

A friend of mine stole a car when he was 19, got caught, convicted, did his time, learned his lesson, and is now 29 years old and very responsible.

So now he can't buy a rifle to hunt??? WTF?
It seems that when the punishment dosen't fit the crime, it needs to be looked at.

Sure, some of you are so god-damn soft (Judging from some of the answers of my last post) that you are terrified of anyone who hasn't lead a perfect straight'n'narrow life. You don't need to reply because people like you are gray, and aren't worth much to this world, neverless this board where your innane and cliche opinions take up valuable bandwidth.

But to those of you who have something valuable to interject, please speak up. I have yet to make up my mind on this matter, and would like to hear from some of y'all.

McU

If you are deemed 'safe' enough to return to society, full rights should be restored.  If you can't be considered safe, why the hell did they let you out of jail?

Damn fine point Shazbat. I never thought of that.
This will be a good thread. I can tell already.

If it is a non-violent felony, they shouldn't be in jail in the first place.  Let them do community service or something.  By putting them in with violent criminals, I believe you create a bigger problem.  If this was done at 19, shouldn't that be under juvenile and thus sealed?  Has he had a dealer do a background check?  He might be eligible.  I also believe that in some states you can apply for rights to be restored if you have been a good boy.

 McUZI, when you said gray, were you referring to hair?  Don't be so hard on us gray hairs.

To be honest, most of us have led lives without doing anything and getting caught, but I believe in second chances.  Of course, my old man was a corrections officer and he scared the beejesus out of me about what would happen if I screwed up, so I didn't dare.

In a Democracy (or what we have which is fairly close) people are not perpetually kept locked away for most crimes except extremely heinous ones.

Felonious crimes are crimes that separate the common man from the criminal man.  The fact that a person is willing to shun societies norms to such a degree as to commit these crimes shows that they cannot be entrusted with the fruits of that society, such as the RKBA.  I have no doubt that some convicted felons return to societies norms and could be entrusted with firearm ownership but most cannot.  And how do you find out which can and which cannot?  This would be just one more unwanted intrusion on our lives by Government.

Personally I am all for convicted felons NEVER being allowed to own firearms.  Most felons would just commit more crimes if given easier firearm access and we would be on the express train to total firearms ban in this country then.  Instead of whining for felons to be armed why dont we try to get the guns AWAY from those that want to do harm to society?

And before someone starts bitching about the felony federal charges for having pre ban stuff on a post ban "AW" not being a real crime, I would agree with you.  Unconstitutional laws aren't laws in my book.  I dont even think ATF considers them much either if you look at their complete lackluster in enforcing them.  

18 USC Ch 44 a
(20)The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceding one year" does not include-

(B)....... "Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such a pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."


So if you have a conviction, and your state allows expungement to clear your record, then petition the court, this is the legal route to restore your rights.

Ed

I believe there is an appeals process to restore the rights one loses when convicted of a felony, i.e. voting, firearms ownership, etc.

Obviously, violent offenders would not get very far. But a nonviolent offender MAY  have his rights restored. The process is done on a case by case basis.

I have never looked into the process so I really don't know anything about it. I just THINK (and sometimes it hurts [BD]) that I heard something like this years ago.

This type of system makes sense to me. I think that if the person has a history of nonviolence and responsibility his rights should be restored. A personal appeal and case by case review would be better than a "blanket" ruling.

I would guess talking to an attorney or judge would be the place to start asking about this. I would ask about "voting rights" rather than "gun rights". Liberal's would be more likly to respond positivly to that question. [:D]

Gun Toter, and others who feel this way.

You are not correct just because someone has committed a felony does not mean that they should lose their rights forever. You seem to think that felonies separate the common man from the criminal man, well that is not the case since all felonies are not created equal. Take for example the person who gets into a simple fist fight, like most men even the men who post here, maybe even you, have been involved in at some time in their life. So what happens if you hit the person and the person happens to fall and hit his head. If this person dies, even though his death was not intended and was an accident and the “victim” might even have started the fight you will be charged with manslaughter which is a felony and if you are convicted you will never be able to own a gun again. So is this justice and should this person lose his rights to Bear Arms forever. The answer to this is no. And one last thing, what about the Right to Bear Arms is it a right or a privilege if it is a right then it can not be taken from you. Plus when a person does his time for a crime and is eventually released he should get all his rights returned not just some of them. He should be permitted to return to society as a truly free man with all his rights returned since he paid his price for the crime that he committed. If this person commits another crime then punish him, and if this person is not fit to own another firearm then keep him in prison until he is fit, but if he does his time then he should get all his rights returned. The “Right to Bear Arms” was not bestowed by the Founding Fathers or any other person on us, but is a right given to us by our Creator and can only be taken from us by Him.          Sniper for Justice

Well, I may be on the opposite side of this arguement from everyone else, but I think that when released from prison you should have all rights restored. Be it voting, owning a gun or whatever.

I also believe that if you do commit a serious crime you should be locked away for a long, long time. I think if you murder someone in cold blood you should be hanged in the public square with any would be criminals watching. I believe that white collar criminals should be imprisoned at hard labor at minimum wage pay until the debt is repaid.

If criminals were actually punished instead of "rehabilitated" this country would be in much better shape than it is today. The purpose of imprisoning someone is not to rehabilitate them it is for punishment for the crime they comitted. They should be working in a field or building a highway or crushing rocks with sledgehammers, not sitting in a cell watching tv playing Nintendo or anything else. I think that prisons should be self supporting institutions that we shouldnt have to spend tax money on.

I also think all of this zero tolerance stuff is complete bullsh*t. The punishement should fit the crime and no more. An eye for any eye, or so the Bible says anyways.

My .02 cents

Michael

I agree, once released all rights are restored.  Your release is an indication of penalty = crime.  Today, some misdemeanors remove your rights, another socialist scheme to control the population.

I agree with
Shazbat

If you put yourself into a position where you are committing a crime and it goes too far, then oh well.  You put yourself there and must bear the consequences.

This same stupid subject comes up every month or two, along with "Lets all go smoke dope and shoot guns" or some other equally imbecilic post.  Instead of trying to commit criminal, wrongful and degrading acts why dont we just show society how much BETTER we are than them?

All you need is to be a Friend of Bill, and have donated BIG $$$ to the DNC, and you can get pardoned from most anything.

I say restore firearms ownership rights to those who have done their time. either they are gonna get a gun and try to kill me, or they aren't. A law prohibiting firearms ownership isn't gonna stop them either way.

But be warned, ex-felons -

...while you've been in the can,I've been practicing. And you know how they say "practice makes perfect..."

Like others have said.  Al rights restored if/when convicts get released.  If your not enough of a threat to be kept locked up, then you should be able to posess a firearm if you want it.

This thing about convicted felons not have RKBA as well as some convicted misdemeanors not having the right is just a bunch of bunk to lessen the number of individuals who have legal status to the right.  The reasons you are deemed inelligable to a gun will continue to grow.  Biggest trap we get into is discussing what is legal and what is not and(922R) who should and should not have what guns.  It's all political BS and everybody here knows it.

[b]"No free man shall Ever be debarred from the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson[/b]

Felony tax evasion?  Is this person a threat?  There are hundreds if not thousands of "felonies" where people never did harm to another.

Also gun toter, you think some law is stopping the people you write about above from getting guns?  Hell no they got better shit than us because if they are gonna get busted for a felony gun posession it might as well be a freakin' machine gun rather than a Raven .22  Penalty is the same, so why screw around?  A person is either good or bad, the gun makes no difference.  Wake up!!!

I agree that once time is served, all rights should be restored.

However, there are, and always will be, people who do not learn their lesson and will work the system.

I feel that if the same ex-felon commits another crime and a weapon is involved he should be dumped back in the slam and the keys tossed.
End of story.

Shazbat,

I also agree with you except that in the penal system today, there are a lot of violent criminals who have been set free because of prison over-crowding.

In this, they have actually not serve their time instead just out on "temporary" liberty until the commit another crime again.

Think about it!

One thing I would add is a felony is not what it used to be. Look at CA, you can be convicted of a felony for not washing you hands after taking a crap. And with all the misdemeanors being added to the list daily, pretty soon you'll lose RKBA if you have too many points on your driving record. This is the direction things are moving.

I would say, however, that if you're a violent dirtbag, and you have a record as always being a violent dirtbag, screw you. Go shop at Airsoft.

I say if you are convicted of a NON VIOLENT felony, serve your time AND pay FULL restitution to those you wronged, then yes you should gain back all of your rights.

I was just thinking about this issue last night.

I was thinking that someone like the young man here in colo. who was convicted of manslaughter a class 3 felony for causing the accidentil death of a man while he was snow boarding recklessly should not loose his rights for the rest of his life for this stupid error in judgment.

I was young once and I had did things that I'm not proud of and things that I now know better with a few years of experence under my belt so I guess what I'm trying to say is that a non violent crime of youth or a white collar crime should not be a reason for someone to loose their  rights for the rest of thair life.

So McUZI...
If Crack-Ho and McReplacement come over tonight for a visit and steal your McRide will you have a problem with them owning firearms in the future?