Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 4/20/2017 6:15:23 PM EDT
Vote
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:16:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Yes
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:17:16 PM EDT
[#2]
If you're not in prison then why the hell not.

Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:17:20 PM EDT
[#3]
situationally dependent.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:19:10 PM EDT
[#4]
When you pay your debt and serve your punishment your rights should be restored.

You shouldn't be punished in advance for what you "might" do.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:20:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:20:20 PM EDT
[#6]
A lot of laws need to change first, but after that, sure.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:20:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Depends on the felony, there are crimes that are so minor but are a felony. Like a barrel to short, full auto, suppressor with a stamp/tax.

If a person is released from prison they should get at least the right to protect themselves back.  If not they shouldn't leave prison.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:21:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When you pay your debt and serve your punishment your rights should be restored.

You shouldn't be punished in advance for what you "might" do.
View Quote
Pretty much this.

Though they're free to retain the prohibition if you're out on parole, during your parole period, since "your debt" hasn't yet been "fully paid"
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:21:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Depends on the crime that was commited.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:21:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Any man deemed competent to roam freely throughout society ought to be afforded all rights that all free men enjoy.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:22:11 PM EDT
[#11]
If you're released from prison you've paid your debt to society.

That being said not enough people are in prison for life or hanging from a rope.


I know I wouldn't turn in a felon with a gun if I felt they weren't a threat to society.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:22:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When you pay your debt and serve your punishment your rights should be restored.

You shouldn't be punished in advance for what you "might" do.
View Quote
This. Same thing for voting rights.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:23:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Violent felon - no.


Non violent. Sure.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:23:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
situationally dependent.
View Quote
Violent vs non violent makes a difference.

Farmer clears a field with a bull dozer and gets convicted of a federal felony for damaging a "wet land". IE; non violent.

Do the crime, get the time. Do the time, get back your basic rights. Be stupid and pay the price of time. Pay the due and move on.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:23:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Personally feel that once you do your time your square with the state.

Maybe even a vote from the public on reinstating rights.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:24:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When you pay your debt and serve your punishment your rights should be restored.

You shouldn't be punished in advance for what you "might" do.
View Quote
Except many felons out of jail didn't pay their debt. Too many violent felons and murderers walk free who should be dead.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:24:41 PM EDT
[#17]
as long as the government decides the definition of a felony, yes

5 DUIsor 1 public urination near a church or gov building should not cause you to lose your rights

Same goes for mental illness.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:25:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Prison time up, an parole served, yep, and vote again.

If it is felt you are too dangerous to have a gun you should not have been let out of prison.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:25:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Assuming you mean once they are released from prison and off of parole, yes. If they aren't fit to own and carry a firearm then imo they shouldn't be walking free.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:25:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Yep.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:27:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Not while in jail, after debt is served, yes
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:28:09 PM EDT
[#22]
NO


But I'm ok with a process to restore rights to someone that made a non-violent mistake and has turned their life in a new direction.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:28:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Vote
View Quote
yes
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:28:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
Lee Wollard
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:28:58 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends on the felony, there are crimes that are so minor but are a felony. Like a barrel to short, full auto, suppressor with a stamp/tax.

If a person is released from prison they should get at least the right to protect themselves back.  If not they shouldn't leave prison.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:29:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
There are too many non violent violent felonies to make that the line. Why should a NYer lose his gun rights forever for committing the violent crimes of owning an 11 round magazine that was made after 1994 while a heroin dealer gets his rights back?

I'd be alright with felons getting their gun rights back 5 years after the completion of their full sentence including their time on parole and probation.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:29:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
Pretty much my thoughts.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:30:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
situationally dependent.
View Quote
I used to be staunch Hell No on this.

Now I'll go with the poster above .
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:31:23 PM EDT
[#29]
Have they paid their debt and not re-offended?

If yes, then I can't see why not.

Otherwise, we're living in a world of double jeopardy, which is wrong.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:32:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:33:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If you're not in prison then why the hell not.

View Quote
Some, yes. Others no.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:34:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Poll fail.

Depends on the felony. Embezzlement? IRS-fucking? Yes.

Violent criminals, home invasion, spousal or child abuse, gang members, etc--no. They may get them anyway, but shouldn't be allowed to get them as easily as buying at a local store. Make the fucker work for it.

The whole issue is moot; if it were up to me, the death penalty would be used more and used promptly to decrease the pool of violent felons. With that, I would lean more towards "yes," unless they're violent.

The US should have a foreign legion where violent criminals can redeem themselves by 20yrs of military service, then if they survive, they can be considered for full rights.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:34:25 PM EDT
[#33]
As long as the crime was non-violent by nature, and it wasn't anything sadistic or exhibiting severe mental defects, then sure. 
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:35:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:37:24 PM EDT
[#35]
I think if you are off your probation, and not in prison obviously, you should have all rights restored. If you can't be trusted with your rights, you shouldn't even be out
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:37:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
situationally dependent.
View Quote
I know some that should be allowed, and some that shouldn't.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:37:55 PM EDT
[#37]
If it wasn't a component of your sentence at time of punishment (such as for persons convicted before laws making them prohibited persons were enacted), you should not be prohibited from possessing firearms.  

The Federal government has absolutely no business making it illegal for a person to possess firearms on the basis of a non-Federal conviction.  It is totally outside the realm of the legitimate and constitutional powers of the Federal government.  The Feds should only be making people prohibited persons because they were sentenced to the same subsequent to the passage of laws creating prohibited status for the commission of relevant Federal felony or treason.

IMO, it more broadly shouldn't be an automatic punishment like it is today, especially given that today there are a ton of things considered felonies that really aren't serious and sometimes shouldn't even be criminal in the first place.  The punishment ought to fit the crime.  The nature of the crime must be of relevance to the prohibition on keeping and bearing arms.  Felonies that are actually serious and which are violent or create the potential for violence, especially if they involve the use of arms or could be worsened if repeated with the person bearing arms, then they absolutely should be prohibiting offenses; the sentence ought to carry with it a revocation of the RKBA for at least a period of time after any incarceration and the like is completed.  Those who can show they are sufficiently reformed and productive for a sufficient period of time should be able to have that part of their punishment commuted outside of the most serious cases (such as treason, murder, terrorism, piracy, etc., although ideally such persons would be put to death or stay locked up permanently, making the issue moot).

No one should become prohibited on the basis of a misdemeanour or on the basis of anything other than a conviction.  This includes restraining orders.  Unless one can demonstrate a sufficiently clear threat of violence in the near-future, restraining orders should have no effect on keeping or bearing arms.  It also should not be an automatic component of probation or the granting of bail/release, only for parole granted in lieu of incarceration.  There should be some sort of reason for such a restriction to be imposed.

One thing that California gets right is that if one uses a firearm in lawful self-defence (or defence of others), and I think also to necessarily stop the commission of a felony (and perhaps other instances where such use of force may be lawful), one is not supposed to be charged simply for possession of the firearm (of course, it doesn't mean such charges are never filed; we're talking about CA, after all).  I think such is reasonable.  The firearm itself should only be treated as contraband in such cases if there is no lawful owner or if the firearm is proven to have been provided unlawfully to the prohibited person absent the conditions which necessitated or legally permitted the use of force with a firearm (so if, say, there was a home invasion and you gave a prohibited person a firearm to help repel boarders, so to speak, it shouldn't be confiscated).

Also, if a State punishes a person by prohibiting them from owning firearms, that should only apply within their State.  No State has the right to punish people for crimes committed outside of their jurisdiction.

And background checks should not be mandated for the purchase of arms or for someone to be able to bear them in public outside of some sensitive places (genuinely sensitive, i.e. not stuff like schools).
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:38:13 PM EDT
[#38]
No to violent felons and other felons deemed a threat to society (gangbanger, mentally unstable, etc.)
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:38:25 PM EDT
[#39]
depends
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:38:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:38:40 PM EDT
[#41]
While out on parole?  No.

After they have completed all parts of their sentence, including parole?  Would need to think about it.  



Simple answer is to say sure, after they have completed their full sentence, but some part of me thinks some folks are just shit and always will be.  The nature of their crime matters to me.  Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.

Think worst case - some guy who has been in and out of the system his entire life, perhaps brutally assaulting, raping, and/or murdering victims while a minor and therefore getting lighter sentences.  He then turns 18/21 and gets out, and continues a life of crime, some violent, never having an honest job.  After he completes his third prison sentence as an adult for a violent crime against a person, do you feel good about this guy being able to legally own a firearm?  Hell, I don't even think he should be able to vote at that point, but I'll acknowledge that's more of a gut thing than a position based on any constitutional law.

I suppose I would feel better and say sure, let him own one after he pays his debt, if sentences for violent predatory crime had real teeth.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:40:50 PM EDT
[#42]
And NFA violations are non-violent, unless you violated the law to kill people.

The NFA should be abolished, along with BATFE.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:41:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Depends. 
Violent felon? No. 
Non violent felon? Yes
View Quote
From another thread someone said violating the safe Act in NY was a violent felony.

If you're too dangerous to have full rights you shouldn't be walking the streets.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:43:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Prison time up, an parole served, yep, and vote again.

If it is felt you are too dangerous to have a gun you should not have been let out of prison.
View Quote
This.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:45:32 PM EDT
[#45]
No.

They obviously have something mentally wrong or a huge character flaw that got them to where they are. Impulse control problems, mental issues etc.

Society decides when someone has served their time. I assume a pedo heroine dealer should have the same rights as an average Joe that hasn't done anything wrong? Fuck no.

Can't to the time don't do the crime...
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:45:33 PM EDT
[#46]
As asked?    Of course not.   No fucking way.  There is no mention of having served their sentences, off parole, and having had an expungement process completed.

I would be open to expediting the process for some violent offenders.   Non-violent offenders?   I would probably be more selective.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:46:08 PM EDT
[#47]
No. If i have to abide by the rules and not get in trouble, then there shouldn't be an expemption for a felon. Don't want your rights taken away? Don't become a felon. Simple.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:46:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

This. Same thing for voting rights.
View Quote


Yes.  If you are safe enough to be released, why are your rights still revoked?
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:47:15 PM EDT
[#49]
Non-violent, sure.
Violent, hell no.
Link Posted: 4/20/2017 6:48:10 PM EDT
[#50]
For non violent crimes yes
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top