Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 12/31/2003 5:26:22 AM EDT
When one is convicted of a felony there is a loss of certain rights, such as the rights to vote and to own a firearm.

If a person is considered to have "paid his debt to society" upon his release, is denial of these rights a continuation of his punishment beyond the end of his sentence?

One person who comes to mind as an example is G. Gordon Liddy. He is banned for life from owning firearms (although I hear Mrs. Liddy has a nice collection ).

So, what do you think? After a person has served the term imposed as the price for his crime, should he be restored to the full rights of a citizen in good standing, or is it "once a con, always a con"?

This thought popped into my head and I was wondering what opinions there might be out there.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:34:13 AM EDT
Of course we should. If we can't trust them, they shouldn't be released. Add a Poll.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:38:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Of course we should. If we can't trust them, they shouldn't be released. Add a Poll.
View Quote
I concur.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:40:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:43:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: No way. They have merely served the sentence handed to them probably as a matter of a plea bargain. There are many continuing penalties for being a convicted felon. Do you really want them on grand juries? As trustees? Bonded for work handling other people's money? Attorneys? [:D] Eric The(ThatLastOneReallyHurts)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Then [b]FIX[/b] the system.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:45:23 AM EDT
Granted, the recidivism rates aren't encouraging, but let's say a guy has seen the error of his ways and got straightened out. Should he be penalized the rest of his life for his one major mistake?
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:51:21 AM EDT
I believe any felon who can stay clean for 10 years should have all their rights restored. Consider this a probationary period. I think it is unfair that an 18 y/o kid is still considered a felon when he is 60, no matter if he has lived within the law for all that time. Note: We still should execute child molesters.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:51:25 AM EDT
Many years ago. When I was younger. A friend of mine was convicted of felony charges. After doing his time. He went through a process to have his right to vote and own firearms restored. And it was granted. Is this not allowed anymore?
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:53:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pcgod: I believe any felon who can stay clean for 10 years should have all their rights restored. Consider this a probationary period. I think it is unfair that an 18 y/o kid is still considered a felon when he is 60, no matter if he has lived within the law for all that time. Note: We still should execute child molesters.
View Quote
I think that is a good idea. Let him prove his rehabilitation.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:54:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Diss_ipator: Many years ago. When I was younger. A friend of mine was convicted of felony charges. After doing his time. He went through a process to have his right to vote and own firearms restored. And it was granted. Is this not allowed anymore?
View Quote
No, it's not. Sort of. There is still the process, but Congress won't provide ANY funds for the BAFTE to do the process. Consequently, nothing occurs. I wonder why you can't pay for the process yourself?
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:55:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Diss_ipator: Many years ago. When I was younger. A friend of mine was convicted of felony charges. After doing his time. He went through a process to have his right to vote and own firearms restored. And it was granted. Is this not allowed anymore?
View Quote
I didn't know that there was a process for this. (Hey, when it comes to criminal stuff there's a lot I don't know).
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:55:05 AM EDT
Violent or sexual offender felons should never, no way in hell ever be “restored”. Maybe some non-violent offenders should be “restored” only after they have spent several years (5+) out of prison proving themselves.
Of course we should. If we can't trust them, they shouldn't be released.
View Quote
By what twisted logic does a release from prison prove someone has reformed himself or herself and earned restoration. Proof could only come once outside of the controlled prison environment and in the real world.
Then FIX the system.
View Quote
No fix the criminal and prove they are fixed.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 5:57:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2003 5:59:29 AM EDT by Diss_ipator]
Well in my friends case. I thought he did pay for it. I know he had to hire a lawyer and go to quite a few court procedings to make it happen. By the way. It was a non-violent crime.(Thief)
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:04:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2003 6:05:37 AM EDT by 9supercomp]
I know in Maryland someone can have their record expunged. The record doesn't go away, but allows them to purchase firearms. Cost a lot of money and takes some time, but do-able.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:05:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Then [b]FIX[/b] the system.
View Quote
How? Life terms with no parole for all felony offenses? Do you have an idea, or just a gripe?
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:05:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2003 6:07:39 AM EDT by madman_kirk]
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:06:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2003 6:17:00 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
[b]NO[/b], felons are felons and there is a price to pay for commiting felonies, that includes a loss of rights granted to all who obey the law and reside in our great country. Reversal of this process IMO removes the "primary deterent" for NOT commiting the felony in the first place. While a somewhat wild-child as a youth, and in trouble at times, (generally for exercising my second ammendment right to carry - a class "B" misdemeanor) I never forgot the line dividing a misdemeanor from a felony, had loss of rights not been there, who's say how wild I might have grown. Mike
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:14:21 AM EDT
Yes, but not the way it is now. Most felons should not be released.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:17:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Then [b]FIX[/b] the system.
View Quote
How? Life terms with no parole for all felony offenses? Do you have an idea, or just a gripe?
View Quote
Sure, I have ideas. 1. I don't believe in Life in Prison. What's the point? If you are sure you got the right scumbag, KILL them. 2. Make them serve their sentences. 3. Stop filling up the prisons with non-violent drug offenses 4. A lot more death penalties. Multiple rapists, child molesters, etc... WTF do we want these sickos back in society?
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:21:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By madman_kirk: It's called expungement and to my knowage the batf hasn't a damn thing to do with it. here's a link for more info.mmk [url]http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/expungement.html[/url]
View Quote
You are talking apples and oranges, I believe. Expungement is getting your record cleared. I'm talking about leaving your record intact, but getting your rights restored.
Federal Courts Can't Reinstate Felons' Gun Rights 12/13/2002 Email Print Subscribe Most Emailed The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal courts do not have the authority to restore the right to own firearms to convicted felons, the Washington Post reported Dec. 11. "The court recognized that there is nothing in the law that would allow activist federal judges to deputize themselves as surrogate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents and spend time and resources restoring gun privileges to convicted felons," said Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director of the Violence Policy Center. The ruling was made in the case of Texas gun dealer Thomas Lamar Bean, who lost his gun privileges when he was convicted for illegally bringing bullets into Mexico. Although federal law prohibits felons from owing firearms, a provision allows felons to ask the secretary of the Treasury, through the ATF, to give them a second chance if they do not pose a threat to society. The ATF declined Bean's request to have his gun privileges restored because Congress did not allocate money to implement the provision. But a Texas District Court judge reinstated Bean's privileges using a part of the law that gives courts the power to review "denials" by the ATF. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the ruling. The Bush administration appealed both decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court. In writing the opinion for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said, "Mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction to act on an application."
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:21:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 9supercomp: I know in Maryland someone can have their record expunged. The record doesn't go away, but allows them to purchase firearms. Cost a lot of money and takes some time, but do-able.
View Quote
In MD, a record can only be expunged if the person was either found "Not Guilty" or the charges were dropped by the State. You cannot have your record expunged if you were found guilty and sentenced for a felony
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:30:28 AM EDT
Expungement isn't the only option. You can go to the BATF and convince them you aren't a danger to society and have your right to firearms restored. Unfortunately, Congress won't allow any money for it.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:32:59 AM EDT
Simple question.......Simple answer [b]NO![/b]
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 6:45:18 AM EDT
IIRC, something like 2/3 of all released felons are reincarcerated within 3 years of release - why in the world would we automatically restore their rights upon release? For the truly "reformed" there is already a process to restore some or all of those rights. FWIW, I fought very hard just this year against proposed legislation (from our Democrat reps, of course) to automatically restore felons' voting rights here in Alabama, and another proposed measure (again, Democrats) to allow them to vote in state & local elections WHILE SERVING TIME!!! Gosh, I wonder why the Dems wanted such a thing?... [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:01:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Diss_ipator: Many years ago. When I was younger. A friend of mine was convicted of felony charges. After doing his time. He went through a process to have his right to vote and own firearms restored. And it was granted. Is this not allowed anymore?
View Quote
I know a guy who did this also. But it was several years ago.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:07:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: 3. Stop filling up the prisons with non-violent drug offenses
View Quote
I agree with much of your post, but NOT this. Have you ever had a relative who will steal EVERYTHING and anything in the house just to score their next hit? I have. People who think that drug users are no danger to society and should be allowed to roam free have never been the 'victim' of one of these "harmless" criminals. Same goes for people who think that drugs should be legalized. Will that make them cost so much less that an addict won't steal from their own kin to get the next fix? I don't think so. They are beyond the point of helping themselves and need to be forcibly helped. And one possible way to at least try to clean them up is to incarcerate them. I have no doubt that the prison drug rehab programs could be much improved, but it's better than just turning them loose over and over again and telling them that there are NO consequences to their illegal actions.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:22:38 AM EDT
Absolutely! Have you guys forgotton what constitute felonies in this day and age? Having a piece of metal 1/4 inch too short? An adjustable stock? Washers and drain pipe in your tool box? If anyone here truly believes that the above "crimes" are worthy of any punishment, let alone the lifelong loss of rights, then I am truly disgusted. If you don't trust someone to own a gun, why let them out? If they want one, they can have one in 24 hours, legal or not. This is even [i]dumber[/i] than normal gun control. Gun control is based on the assumption that people will obey the law of their own free will. Most people are sheep, so they do. How many convicted felons who want a gun do you think are going to respect the "paper wall" preventing them from doing so? I would guess it's a number approaching zero. You want suggestions? More capital offenses. Longer sentences. Don't make prison hell, but make it hard. Don't make some guy afraid of getting ass-raped, but put him to work. Don't make him resent "the man" even more; get him used to hard work for 5-10 years, and maybe it will stick when he gets out. The ones you're afraid to release, kill. We're too pussified to do it, unfortunately.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:29:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2003 7:56:07 AM EDT by FiveO]
No. If you value your rights as an American, do not commit felonies. We all start off life without sin and with all of our rights. It is up to us how we maintain that. A citizen should have rights. Convicted felons are less of a citizen IMO and do not deserve the same rights and responsibilities afforded to law abiding members of our society. [b]The Democrats sure would love to have that huge chunk of their constituency back though. Y’all support it and help them out! I am sure the opressed would appreciate your support![/b] Remember, when you say you want to do away with the loss of rights you are not talking about thousands of guys who are really good guys and made a fucking mistake or WTF ever, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of FUCKING CRIMINAL PIECES OF SHIT. But hey root for them!
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:30:09 AM EDT
Has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Ex-convict should have to pay for any and all expenses incurred. Should be for non-violent offenders only. Yes, I think it's the right thing to do.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:37:09 AM EDT
Shooting a home invader who is attacking your family is a felony in some states, if you don't have permission to own a firearm. I don't completely agree that ALL violent offenders should be denied their right to bear arms. Sometimes it's the LAW that is illegal.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 7:56:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2003 7:56:44 AM EDT by 96Ag]
I think something we are forgetting is that "rights" are naturally occuring and not subject to the lawsof men. Something a lot of people on this board are adamant about. The right to the means of self defense therefore should not be abrogated regardless of the crime as well as free speech, right from self incrimination, illegal searches, etc.. Unless all rights guranteed in the Constitution would be suspended for felons why should we be happy with only a few. The point was made previously that a crimainal can obtain a gun easily upon their release, so the loss of the right to own a gun is moot. Having said that I believe the problem came about when well meaning people made prison about rehabilitation with parole, time off for good behavior and general cushiness of some prisons. My mother is a teacher and one of her students told her that he enjoyed jail because he got three hot meals a day and got to watch color TV all day long, not exactly a deterrent from future incarceration. I have an uncle who is a warden in Louisiana and I got a chance to visit a new prison before it was open. The prison was nicer than many Army barracks I have seen, that just doesn't seem right to me. Prison and the judicial system should be about punishment, hard punishment. Prisoners should be easy to hold because they should tired from grownig their own food, road work, etc. not from playing hoops and lifting weights. In that vein when you have completed your punishment you should be returned to the point where you began. If this was the case I think that punishment would be much harsher from juries. If all of your rights are taken and can not be returned what is the point of reform? When you punish your child do you continue to punish them for the rest of their lives? The object of punishment is to atone for an offense, if someone is imprisoned and released but is not granted their rights upon that relase there is less incentive to truly become a part of the society that will always consider him a second class citizen.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 9:07:04 AM EDT
So if someone doesn't smash the original pre-ban mag body when they ordered a replacement, (I just heard that you had to YESTERDAY) then they should never be allowed to vote?
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 9:34:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 9:39:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kpel308: So if someone doesn't smash the original pre-ban mag body when they ordered a replacement, (I just heard that you had to YESTERDAY) then they should never be allowed to vote?
View Quote
Yes, you are right! So change the law so that the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% of felons can vote too. Again, Al Sharpton and Howard Dean thank you for your support!
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 9:40:34 AM EDT
No.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 9:41:33 AM EDT
Good Post 96Ag. I agree. In short, YES once a felon is released they should have their full rights re-instated. What is the point of imprisonment? To separate the unfit menaces from society. The bottom line is that the punishment should fit the crime. If you cannot trust a released felon with every right, instrument, or object that can be found everyday in SOCIETY, then he is not fit for society and therefore society should be protected from the felon until he can blend back into society without posing a risk. Since when can society serve as punishment? Society is supposed to be that nirvana where all subjects are entrusted with certain rights and privileges that all individuals strive to protect. Once society has been victimized by a criminal act, the criminal is then removed from society in order to protect society. This is because the act was not a crime against an individual but more so a crime against society. There is nothing that chaps my ass more than a violent felon who commits a crime with a gun. Strike 1 for the rest of the law abiding gun owners because we ultimately get the black eye. THEN, Mr. Felon is released from custody back into society under the guise that he will not acquire weapons...Which he does since firearms, knives, and sledge hammers are a commonality in society. Mr. felon then uses a firearm in a felonious act again since he wasn't properly punished and rehabilitated to conform to society and should not have been released in the first place. For those counting, that's strike 2 for firearm's owners in general. And all because the feel good politicians KNEW that they could not trust this scumbag with firearms. But the system still pushed the felon back into society without the proper punishment for the crime and rehabilitation to society's standards. If you can't trust em' don't let them loose. Once you release them from the system they are, as well as society itself, "on their own". This asinine situation is only compounded by the number of pathetic "Crimes" which carry felony charges. What's that I hear, it sounds like a toilet flushing...[puke] Sly
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 9:44:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Brohawk: When one is convicted of a felony there is a loss of certain rights, such as the rights to vote and to own a firearm. If a person is considered to have "paid his debt to society" upon his release, is denial of these rights a continuation of his punishment beyond the end of his sentence? One person who comes to mind as an example is G. Gordon Liddy. He is banned for life from owning firearms (although I hear Mrs. Liddy has a nice collection [;)]). So, what do you think? After a person has served the term imposed as the price for his crime, should he be restored to the full rights of a citizen in good standing, or is it "once a con, always a con"? This thought popped into my head and I was wondering what opinions there might be out there.
View Quote
Prison time is only [b]part[/b] of the punishment. A felon knows exactly what is in store. In other words.... Cime doesn't pay... Don't be a felon and you won't have any problem.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 11:48:18 AM EDT
Perhaps Felon needs to be redefined. For instance in Nebraska if you steal something of value over $300, it's a Felony. Should a person writing $300 worth of bad checks have the same retrictions as an offender who sexually assaulted young child? /your daughter? Your mother? Don't get me wrong those convicted of violent crimes should not have their firearms rights restored. But what does writing $300-$400 in bad checks have to do with firearms restrictions? Just a littl food for thought.
Top Top