Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/23/2002 6:38:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2002 6:24:02 PM EDT by Texason]
Sorry if this was already posted. It's regarding a court case that may affect whether felons can have their rights restored or not. I bet a lot of us think, "I'm not a felon, this doesn't effect me". Remember that every day more and more minor offenses are made into felonies. [URL]http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/nation/1222487[/URL]
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 6:53:07 AM EDT
I heard they want to make a general medical(on grounds of frad. entry) and a dishonorable discharge felonies.I guess every guy that quits basic or gets cut for lying about his hearing woul'nt own guns.This might be BS since it is second hand info,can anyone clarify?
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 7:01:51 AM EDT
Not as easy a question as it used to be. For a violent felon who has no voting privilege, hell no. However, it's easy to become a felon for a slew of non-violent offenses (hell, I think jaywalking may be a felony in someplaces now), and Virginia is petitioning to allow some of these felons to regain their voting privileges. If that's the case, let'em have the privilege of firearm ownership back. shooter.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 7:34:09 AM EDT
Maybe oversimplified, If you are non-violent, non-repeating, ALL of your civil rights should be restored upon successful completion of the sentence, including any and all probation. All the States & Feds have made a HUGE power grab in this area of prosecuting felonies, and making many less serious crimes felonies in the last 30 or so years. As it stands now in Oregon, just the mere suspicion or investigation into many types of wrongdoing, denies you of ownership of firearms and suspension or revocation of your CCW. Until the case is closed. Usually the law enforcement roundup & confiscate all firearms on premises. Then when the case is concluded you have to sue to get your property back, even if no charges are filed. If you are found guilty, your family has to sue to get your/their private property back. Needless to say the confiscators treat your property with all due respect & care, HAHAHA!!!! This subject even though it isn't aimed at me, really bothers me. I believe that once you have "paid your debt to society" your rights should be restored in full.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 7:37:43 AM EDT
Yes. If they have "paid" their debt to society, they should have their rights restored. If we can't trust them with guns, we shouldn't release them. Hey - how about adding a POLL to this thread?
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 7:44:26 AM EDT
I believe that the repeal of rights should be a part of the sentence. If you are convicted of forced rape, for instance, you might only be in jail for a few years, but part of the sentence would be life probation, life no voting and life no guns. If, for instance, you are convicted of felony imbezzlement, you would serve your sentence and then have ALL your rights restored upon serving your sentence. Every citizen should have the same rights as every other citizen. The only citizens that should not have all their rights are those who are incarcerated; either behind bars, paroled or on probation.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 7:44:38 AM EDT
On one hand, no one wants convicted felons, especially violent ones, having guns. On the other hand, going to prison should not, for the rest of your life, take away your right to defend yourself. If someone has gone to jail, for whatever reason, and has been released, the debt to the state should be considered paid, and full rights restored. Consider, for example, a person convicted of, say, bank robbery. He goes to jail for 20 years. He eventually is released. His residence is broken into, and the intruder tries to kill him to eliminate him as a witness. Should the bank robber, in the course of living his life and NOT breaking any laws, be allowed to have the means to defend himself from someone trying to commit murder? Foobarbaz
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 8:03:58 AM EDT
Just because someone is a felon doesn't mean they will never be in a position where they need to protect their own life. They probably need to do so more than non-felons. Here's how I look at. I have no problem with a felon owning a firearm, as long as everyone who commits a crime with a gun is charged for the gun crime and sent to jail for a long time. Ever here the phrase "With Freedom Comes Responsibility"? Let the felons own a gun, if they use it in crime, then bam 10 years added on top of the time for committing the crime. It's a law that only affects the criminals and will take them off the streets, make the US much safer. It also keeps the infringements off the Second Amendments and allows everyone the chance to legally defend their lives.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 8:12:21 AM EDT
it's easy to think of this in the abstract, while maintaining purity of equality under the law. though i tend to agree with the violent/non-violent division in restoring rights, is such a distinction already made in the law books? if there isn't one, how would that distinction be made universal?
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 8:19:25 AM EDT
[b]
Originally Posted By shooterX308: If that's the case, let'em have the privilege of firearm ownership back. shooter.
View Quote
[/b] Driving an automobile is a PRIVILEGE, owning a firearm is a RIGHT! That ditinction should always remain perfectly clear, lest we fall into that trap employed by the anitgun crowd.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 8:36:37 AM EDT
I am sure that we all can agree that: Owning and Bearing a Firearm (like Voting) is a RIGHT. Whereas Driving is a Privilege. Yes ? In order to protect people, society needs to have laws which are to be obeyed. People who commit serious violations of the law and who are deemed to be dangerous to society need to be safely removed from society and locked up in Prison. Yes ? Everyone agrees that people who commit violent crimes need to be locked up and punished. However WHEN the convict has been released from prison. If his Rights are NOT to be restored for the remainder of his life, then there is little incentive for him to remain law abiding. For example: when he applies for even a crummy job, routine background checks are performed and if it is determined that he has been convicted of a felony he is denied employment. So from the Former Convict's point of view, he has "nothing to lose" since society has rejected him. And because society has rejected him he in turn will reject society by breaking its laws again. This is human nature. (For example: if your child broke one of your rules no matter how serious it is: will he turn out to be a good child if you keep punishing him for the rest of his childhood ? No, instead he will repeatedly rebel against you.)
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 8:38:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2002 8:39:11 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
Funny I thought that losing your right to vote and other privileges afforded lawful citizens in this country was intended to provide incentive to [b]NOT[/b] break the law. Crime should have consequences in IMHO. We are all born with same rights, they [b]CHOSE[/b] to forfeit theirs’. Felons should not have the same rights as the lawful. In case you missed it I vote [b][red]NO![/red][/b] Mike
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 8:52:22 AM EDT
So how should we treat someone who has broken society's rules: its laws. Has paid their debt to society. And still safeguard society from this individual at the same time encourage the convict to become law abiding ? I propose that the only sane course would be to place the convict on a probation for a specified amount of time, after which if he/she has remained law abiding then having their rights fully restored and their criminal records sealed. (Only to be opened if they committ another violation of the law). This would encourage good behavior at the same time it would protect society as well as the former convicted felon. Say a probationary period of: 10 years for Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery + plus payment in monetary damages to the victim or victims family. The amount to be determined by the court. 25 years for Child Molestors. 3 Years for non-violent felonies which involve a loss of less than $5,000 + plus full restitution - payment to the victim + plus interest. 5 years for non-violent felonies in which theft exceeds $5000 plus full payment of loss + interest to the victim. If the above years seem to short. consider, that after the convict has served their term which would be long anyway, frequently they are released when they are middle aged. At best for serious offenses: a convicts probationary period would end when they hit middle age. At worst when they hit old age. Percentage Wise: Very few people commit crimes when they are middle age or older. Because by that time they usually have changed and realize that crime doesn't pay.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:00:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: Funny I thought that losing your right to vote and other privileges afforded lawful citizens in this country was intended to provide incentive to [b]NOT[/b] break the law. Crime should have consequences in IMHO. We are all born with same rights, they [b]CHOSE[/b] to forfeit theirs’. Felons should not have the same rights as the lawful. In case you missed it I vote [b][red]NO![/red][/b] Mike
View Quote
Clearly you really haven't thought this through and are reacting to your emotions. Consider: New Felonies are created every year by your state legislature, many of them for NON-VIOLENT offenses. If your state legislature were to make driving without a seat belt to be a felony and you got arrested and convicted of such an offense... Or perhaps, you forgot to file your Income Tax Returns, and an overzelous Tax Agency and Prosecuter decided to prosecute you for Felony Tax Evasion. Or perhaps the ATF decided to make a bureacratic change in one of their rules on interpreting a particular law, and suddenly and unwittingly you were found to be in violation of that rule. Which by the way has the same force as the law.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:09:00 AM EDT
This case appears to be coming from the highest levels of GOP. The case is against someone who has not been in trouble with the authorities beside this one offense. The offense was possession of box .22 rimfire ammo crossing into Mexico. This has been downgraded to misdemeanor status in Mexico. It was never an offense here. Authorities want to avert a flood of reinstated violent felons. One way to accomplish this is to preemptively have the Supremes clarify rules that lower judges must follow. It also may give some indication of the thinking of this Supreme Court and the Second Amendment and the Emerson case. For sure this case is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:15:08 AM EDT
BT says: So how should we treat someone who has broken society's rules: its laws. Has paid their debt to society. And still safeguard society from this individual at the same time encourage the convict to become law abiding ? [b]Felonies have consequences, the DETERRENT to committing a felony is you lose certain rights and privileges FOREVER. Take this away and make it so I can commit a felony and in the end not lose any rights/privileges, where is the DETERRENT in that?[/b] [b]Certainly by not blurring the line between right and wrong.[/b] Which to my mind is part of the problem, not the solution. Mike
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:22:22 AM EDT
In this new job I am in I have met 3 felons. All three became felons due to drug related convictions. Of those 3 one chose a Boot Camp type of program and served his 22 months and did fine. The second guy did 3 years in Federal and appears to have rehabilitated as well. The third, a Mexican fellow, did his time but carries a lot of aggression and anger inside him. He has frequent conflicts with co-workers and supervisors and is always of the opinion that someone is trying to screw him over. He is an angry guy. Of these 3 guys I would think it appropriate to restore the right to own a firearm to the first two. They are productive, reliable men and appear to have done everything within their power to re-integrate with normal society. One has a wife and child and deserves the right to protect them. Both, due to company policy, are subject to random drug testing like everyone else and both appear to be just as normal as I appear to be. Circumstances can vary but I do beleive these 2 guys deserve to have their rights reinstated. The third guy, Hector, is too volatile and has even been in trouble since being let out. Something to do with killing turkeys out of season and getting very very caught.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:29:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: BT says: So how should we treat someone who has broken society's rules: its laws. Has paid their debt to society. And still safeguard society from this individual at the same time encourage the convict to become law abiding ? [b]Felonies have consequences, the DETERRENT to committing a felony is you lose certain rights and privileges FOREVER. Take this away and make it so I can commit a felony and in the end not lose any rights/privileges, where is the DETERRENT in that?[/b] [b]Certainly by not blurring the line between right and wrong.[/b] Which to my mind is part of the problem, not the solution. Mike
View Quote
If you have a child, and have a standing rule that he make his bed and he violates that rule, do you expect him to keep obeying you if your punishment never ends ? All I am advocating is a Carrot and Stick Approach towards encouraging good behavior. Whereas your approach is nothing but all Stick. If you commit a "Felony" even a Non-Violent Felony. And you get out of prison after X number of years. And you find out that not only can you not vote, or own a gun. But you are systematically denied employment because of your criminal record. Then surely you will feel that since you are already "screwed" you have "nothing to lose" by commiting another crime (for example: Armed Robbery). After all if you are caught, the only thing will happen to you is that you will have Free Room and Board for another X number of years. Which is probably better than not being able to pay rent or buy food because you can't get a job because of your criminal past. On the other hand: if you were to be offered an INCENTIVE (ie. a reward) to remain law-abiding for X number of years and upon doing so having your rights fully restored. Then surely you being the hardened criminal type would see that it would be to your advantage to do everything in your power to remain law abiding. It is a simple fact of life. That you are a different person than you were when you were an 18 year old. Many people who are 18 or older don't always display good judgement when it comes to obeying the law. They ignore or are unaware of the consequences of violating the law. My point is that most people change over time. You want to have a society which not only punishes bad behavior but discourages repeated acts of bad behavior by offering a reward for good behavior.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:35:47 AM EDT
Let me make sure I get this straight... This person's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gun rights were taken away because of a felony conviction in MEXICO? (caps added for emphasis) I didn't realize that an American's civil rights could be governed by Mexican law. Why is there even a debate here? I can't wait for this legal precedent to be established so some two-bit, third world dictatorship will hold a kangaroo court trial and convict all Americans of some specious felony, thus depriving all of us of our gun rights.[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:36:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2002 9:37:02 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
BT - Clearly you really haven't thought this through and are reacting to your emotions. [b]What part of what I wrote seems emotional to you? Was it the fact that I know the difference between right and wrong or perhaps it was the fact that losing rights/privileges is a deterrant?[/b] I have been called a redneck, a hard-ass and an asshole, so what I am, I can live with that. Sorry but the rest of your questions relate to laws that haven't happened yet, so what does that have to do with the fact that to my mind [b]all choices in life have consequences[/b]. My advice: [b]Choose wisely[/b]! Mike
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:48:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: BT says: So how should we treat someone who has broken society's rules: its laws. Has paid their debt to society. And still safeguard society from this individual at the same time encourage the convict to become law abiding ? [b]Felonies have consequences, the DETERRENT to committing a felony is you lose certain rights and privileges FOREVER. Take this away and make it so I can commit a felony and in the end not lose any rights/privileges, where is the DETERRENT in that?[/b] [b]Certainly by not blurring the line between right and wrong.[/b] Which to my mind is part of the problem, not the solution. Mike
View Quote
If you have a child, and have a standing rule that he make his bed and he violates that rule, do you expect him to keep obeying you if your punishment never ends ? All I am advocating is a Carrot and Stick Approach towards encouraging good behavior. Whereas your approach is nothing but all Stick. If you commit a "Felony" even a Non-Violent Felony. And you get out of prison after X number of years. And you find out that not only can you not vote, or own a gun. But you are systematically denied employment because of your criminal record. Then surely you will feel that since you are already "screwed" you have "nothing to lose" by commiting another crime (for example: Armed Robbery). After all if you are caught, the only thing will happen to you is that you will have Free Room and Board for another X number of years. Which is probably better than not being able to pay rent or buy food because you can't get a job because of your criminal past. On the other hand: if you were to be offered an INCENTIVE (ie. a reward) to remain law-abiding for X number of years and upon doing so having your rights fully restored. Then surely you being the hardened criminal type would see that it would be to your advantage to do everything in your power to remain law abiding. It is a simple fact of life. That you are a different person than you were when you were an 18 year old. Many people who are 18 or older don't always display good judgement when it comes to obeying the law. They ignore or are unaware of the consequences of violating the law. My point is that most people change over time. You want to have a society which not only punishes bad behavior but discourages repeated acts of bad behavior by offering a reward for good behavior.
View Quote
Murderers' (in the true sense of the crime), rapists' (again, in the true sense of the crime), and child molestors' lives are worth less than the brown stains in my sons diaper. It amazes me that society thinks people who posess enough evil in their hearts to commit such heinous crimes should ever be allowed to rejoin society. I agree that any non-violent and even some violent crimes can be punished and, eventually, forgiven. However, I think you really need to think about what you're saying. Murderers? Murderers should be executed. Predatory rapists should be executed. Child molestors should be violated in every sick way the hearts of man can imagine. (and then executed) Sorry to be so extreme but, for every one of these pieces of sh*t, there are 10 more EXACTLY like him that DID NOT choose to destroy other lives. I would never restore their rights as citizens equal to you and me.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 10:04:42 AM EDT
My general take is that anyone who can, by law, vote, own a car, or raise a child, should also be able to own a gun, by law. I also think that we need national redefinition of the word "felony." A lot of very trivial offenses can be considered "felonious." A good rule of thumb: the offenses that police officers get waivers on so they can still own firearms, eveyrone else should too.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 10:15:16 AM EDT
Anyone deemed safe to be in society should be allowed to defend themselves. If they can't be trusted with a firearm then lock them up and turn them into dog food.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 10:41:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2002 10:42:56 AM EDT by X--Kill]
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: Anyone deemed safe to be in society should be allowed to defend themselves. If they can't be trusted with a firearm then lock them up and turn them into dog food.
View Quote
Although it rarely occurs; I must agree with you this time David. That would simplify things so much wouldn't it?
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 10:46:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sigman: I heard they want to make a general medical(on grounds of frad. entry) and a dishonorable discharge felonies.I guess every guy that quits basic or gets cut for lying about his hearing woul'nt own guns.This might be BS since it is second hand info,can anyone clarify?
View Quote
Ummmmm, when you enlist they tell you quite specifically that lying to enlist is a felony. So if after they say that you lie........ Dishonorable Discharges as far as I know are the result of Court Martials. To be Court Martialed you have to do something the UCMJ considers a felony.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 11:22:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2002 11:24:30 AM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
Originally Posted By FMJunkie: Sorry to be so extreme but, for every one of these pieces of sh*t, there are 10 more EXACTLY like him that DID NOT choose to destroy other lives. I would never restore their rights as citizens equal to you and me.
View Quote
Historical Examples of people who had a criminal past and went on to become good citizens: Wild Bill Hickock murdered several men at the age of 19 and then went on to become a law abiding citizen and had a career in Law Enforcement. Wyatt Earp was a convicted Horse Thief and went on to hold numerous positions in Law Enforcement. John Wesley Hardin who killed 40 men, was later pardoned by Texas Governor and went on to become a lawyer. I have no objection to harsh punishment, or even capital punishment. However I sincerely believe that society should not only encourage good (law abiding behavior) through swift and harsh punishment, but that society should also reward good law abiding behavior by the former felon and have a means of re-integrating them back into society. To do otherwise would only encourage repeat offenses by former convicts.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 11:23:27 AM EDT
I think I have to go with what was the guy or woman in jail for? If it was for a violent crime then no they should not get a firearm. If it was for a non violent crime yes they should be able to have a firearm. I can think that anyone out there would won't to let a raper, child molester or murder out of jail any let them get a firearm that would just be crazy. You may ask why not is there right. Well your right about that but are you willing to let that raper or child molter move next to your home knowing that he can get a firearm? I don't know about you but I think that I would not like that. As someone said before if we take all the felons rights away from them why should they not go out and commit more crimes? You have a point there. They should have some of there rights still taken away not all of them they did not revoke citizenship so they should still be able to vote and have other there other continual right's. A firearm is a right not a privilege and I'm sure the hell going to say this crap did not happen back when are for fathers wrote the constitution. Why because if you did a violent crime back then they killed you. Look at the 1800 you stole a mans cow's you where hung or shot. If you had a counterfeit $20 bill that you did/dident know that it was fake and got caught with it you just commented a felon. So after you get out you should not have a gun because of this? Why should he have no firearm? Because he was dumb/just unlucky did that fake $20 bill hurt anyone physically? Then he should be able to own a firearm. I think this problem lie in our court system. I think John Wayne side it best in True Grit( I know not one of his best movies.) "You can't serve papers to a rat you earthier have to kill them or let them be."
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 11:28:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: BT says: So how should we treat someone who has broken society's rules: its laws. Has paid their debt to society. And still safeguard society from this individual at the same time encourage the convict to become law abiding ? [b]Felonies have consequences, the DETERRENT to committing a felony is you lose certain rights and privileges FOREVER. Take this away and make it so I can commit a felony and in the end not lose any rights/privileges, where is the DETERRENT in that?[/b] [b]Certainly by not blurring the line between right and wrong.[/b] Which to my mind is part of the problem, not the solution. Mike
View Quote
The Deterrant is in Incarceration or in Capital Punishment or (if they ever bring it back) Hard Labor.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 1:16:12 PM EDT
Still am having trouble with the "restoring the RIGHT" Wonder what the founders would say to that expression. Anyway, is he/she in jail or on parole? Is he/she on probation? Has he/she demonstrated that they are no longer a threat to society and remorsful for their actions? Now the violent felon thing, execute the following; child molestors, rapists, murderers, gangbangers, attempted murderers(same intent, different outcome), etc. Eliminates any lingering feelings of anxiety when giving these folks a gun. The system does in accuallity create repeat offenders. I know it sounds like liberal BS but if you done your time or paid your fine, that record should be trashed! Remember, rights are inherent to life as a citizen of this great country. Don't let politics lead you to believe that someone can arbitrarilly strip you of them because you made a mistake. Rights can only be abused, not refused!!
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 3:22:53 PM EDT
What you Mr_Wilson fail to understand is that after a sentence has been served, as prescribed by law, and the debt repaid, as prescribed by law, why is is that other rights under the U.S. Bill of Rights are restored? The 1st,4th,5th etc. are all restored. Why not the 2nd? Are these other rights more important to the convicted felon? Is it a "let's do it for safeties sake" proposition? Can you ever be assured of being absolutely safe, through the passage of laws or the revocation of ones rights? Perhaps you do not have a clear understanding on what our rights mean. I don't want rapists,murders,child molesters free to strike again, but if the law has been satisfied, judgement passed and a sentence fulfilled then should not ones rights be restored. Maybe sentencing laws need to be changed, or death need be imposed quicker and more often. Or maybe you should get more involved to change these things.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 3:51:12 PM EDT
It is mho that the right to self defense can not be seperated from the individual. Even felons retain this right behind bars. They may not have easy access to weapons, but they will exercise their rights. If a person can not be trusted with a firearm in society based on observation of past activities then why would they be released from prison? If a person did something bad enough, (murder, rape, etc) that they can't be trusted with a firearm any longer then they shouldn't be relased from prison in the first place. Upon release, such a person WILL get their hands on a weapon, legal or not. To release a murderer, rapist, etc and then tell them they can't have a gun is a joke. I'm using the traditional definition of a felony here which is a crime punishable by death or banishment. Over the years more and more minor crimes have been called felonies. Now if you don't have enough American made parts on your imported assault rifle you are felon. Go figure. The term felon needs to be redefined in accordance with the actual crime, and real felons should not be released from prison IMHO. All the politically correct felons who put foreign parts on their assault rifles aren't really felons.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 4:19:27 PM EDT
I vote yes to a certain degree. 1) Violent Felons should remain in Prison. 2) Repeat Violent Felons should be put to Death. 3) Non-Violent Criminals should be punished by one or more of the following: restitution, public flogging, and/or incarceration. 4) Upon release any non-violent criminal should get ALL their rights back. Violent criminals should be allowed a hearing to determine whether to return their rights. Remember this, refering to your ex-wife as a whore is a felony in Arkansas (Felony Slander.) Simply having a porno tape or picture is a felony is several states. My computer in some states = 14,228+ Felony Counts of possession of Obscene Material. Each of those counts in AR carries 3 years. 3 x 14,228 = 42,684 Years. But, even though 3 years is not required it is still a felony. Now, you may say who will prosecute it ? It doesn't matter. If they ever decide to take our RKBA away, the first thing they will likely do is arrest a bunch of people on idiotic felony charges and give them probation, time served, or whatever. Then they loose their RKBA for life. In some states doing it in any position other than Missionary is a felony. In MS, it is a felony punishable by I believe 5 years in Prison to falsely tell a woman you will marry her in order to have sex with her.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 4:38:22 PM EDT
I'm sorry but, anyone who believes that incarceration is a deterrant to repeat offenders has never been anywhere near the reality of the law enforcement/corrections community. Its like a joke to them. They do some time, get their "checks" when they get out. Party until the money runs out, get pinched again, go back to county (which is better living conditions than they get on the outside) for a few months while their "checks" accrue, then get out and start the cycle all over. There were two scum... er, prisoners being transported the other day who were talking to each other and saying how they can't wait to get back to county and see the new wing they just built. The officer driving them just about cried at the futility of it all... I invite all our fellow LEO/COs to comment on this. (please)
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 4:48:02 PM EDT
That is why I believe that incarceration should be in addition to another punishment such as restitution or public flogging. Perhaps, if the incarceration was at hard labor, they would think twice. I say chain them together and make them work for the term of their incarceration. Maybe if the government made criminals work then we could actually break even and thereby lower taxes caused by long periods of incarceration.
Originally Posted By FMJunkie: I'm sorry but, anyone who believes that incarceration is a deterrant to repeat offenders has never been anywhere near the reality of the law enforcement/corrections community. Its like a joke to them. They do some time, get their "checks" when they get out. Party until the money runs out, get pinched again, go back to county (which is better living conditions than they get on the outside) for a few months while their "checks" accrue, then get out and start the cycle all over. There were two scum... er, prisoners being transported the other day who were talking to each other and saying how they can't wait to get back to county and see the new wing they just built. The officer driving them just about cried at the futility of it all... I invite all our fellow LEO/COs to comment on this. (please)
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 4:50:36 PM EDT
one of the seven ethical principles is "man is only good in fear of social reprisal". i am scared shitless of losing my rights, so i don't do anything that will get me violated by the authorities. i remember reading somewhere in the ATF regs. where one could request firearms rights be restored, this applied to "white collar" felonies. (tax evasion, insider trading,...) violent hell no! non-violent by review or suit by jury.[:\]
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 5:03:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2002 5:04:16 PM EDT by FMJunkie]
Originally Posted By cc48510: That is why I believe that incarceration should be in addition to another punishment such as restitution or public flogging. Perhaps, if the incarceration was at hard labor, they would think twice. I say chain them together and make them work for the term of their incarceration. Maybe if the government made criminals work then we could actually break even and thereby lower taxes caused by long periods of incarceration.
View Quote
Amen to that! What state was it that brought back the chain gangs/labor camps?
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 9:56:55 PM EDT
Hey, that's the way it used to be. You served your time, you got your horse and your gun back. If you did something really bad, you got strung up. Simple and effective.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 10:00:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Yes. If they have "paid" their debt to society, they should have their rights restored. If we can't trust them with guns, we shouldn't release them. Hey - how about adding a POLL to this thread?
View Quote
I have been saying that for years. Well said! 1984 Apple Computers launch the Macintosh. Canadian writer invents the word "cyberspace". Dr William Clewall perform the first operation on an unborn foetus. Bruce McCandless becomes the first man to fly in space without a safety line.
Link Posted: 1/23/2002 10:35:36 PM EDT
I don't know about you guys but here in Fl it's get your full rights restored,it's not easy but it is done. You should have to fight to get your rights back to show they really mean something to you now and that you have your crap in line. The thing we need to keep an eye out for is not if felons can have there rights back but how easy it is getting for the Gov. to make you a felon. The "law" gets more and more funny every day. I know a guy that lost his truck and job(due to not being about to drive there)and all his weapons and the right to get any more....ever. This guy did not rape,or kill or even kick his dog,all he did was put a fish that was 6" to small in his truck and drive away. Fl. fish&game is as bad as the ATF.
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 4:07:07 AM EDT
If they are not in jail or prison, they must not be a threat to society. Jay
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 8:11:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AZCOP: If they are not in jail or prison, they must not be a threat to society. Jay
View Quote
Exactly..
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 8:29:04 AM EDT
For me this topic and my position on it is extremely weird. The reason why it is so weird for me is because 10 years ago my family (and myself) experienced violent crime. I got robbed at Gun point. My future Step Mother got murdered (stabbed to death) in my Father's house. Do I believe in harsh punishment ? Oh yes I do..in fact I believe in punishment that is so harsh, when I tell people (even ultra-conservatives) how I think criminals should be punished they look at me like I'm crazy and say that would be "cruel and unusual" punishment. (ie. Unconstitutional). However I am a realist as well as a rationalist. Criminals commit crimes both on impulse and through careful consideration and study. Naturally having served time, your REPEAT offenders tend to be older and are less likely to commit crimes based on impulse. Instead they make a crude cost-benefit analysis (or risk assessment) before they commit their next crime. In other words they will look for a target in which it will give them the biggest payoff with the least amount of risk of getting caught or killed. Then they carefully study their target and plan things out. OR...they will be cruising around and see a target of opportunity and make a very quick decision whether or not to commit a crime. (Risk Assessment). Young Criminals are virtually oblivious to the fact that they will lose their 2nd Amendment rights and that they will suddenly have few options left open to them when they get out of prison. In fact, the threat of long times of incarceration isn't really much of a deterrant to them. When they do get out, the ones who try to go straight learn through trial and error that they have a very hard time getting a good job because of their criminal record. So a lot of them just figure "What the hell, I've already screwed. At least in prison I didn't have to worry about starving or being homeless. Since society is rejecting me, I am going to reject society". Where is the incentive for a former convict to remain law abiding ? The threat of losing his Rights no longer fazes him. The former convict often has no House, no good Job, no 2nd Amendment Rights. In fact he has nothing to lose other than time. Why should their be a probationary period where the former convict has a limited set of rights ? Because this will be the INCENTIVE. IF he manages to remain law abiding, for a specified period of time AFTER having completely served his sentance, he can then get his life back to normal. This not only PROTECTS the Rights of a former convict but it also PROTECTS Society at large. Let's look at some numbers. IF you are convicted of First Degree Murder you will face either the Death Penalty or LIFE in Prison with NO Parole. If you are convicted to 2nd Degree Murder you face 20 Years to Life. With the POSSIBILITY of Parole ONLY after a MINIMUM of having served at least 20 years of your sentance. This means that if someone was 18 when they were convicted of having committed 2nd Degree Murder, the VERY earliest that they could be out of prison is at 38. If you then require a 10 - 20 year probabationary period before they have their rights fully restored then this will mean that they will be 48 - 58 years old before assuming a semblance of normalcy in their life. Too old to be committing another crime, and if they do. Odds are they will end up dying in Prison from old age. Sentances are shorter for Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter.
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 7:40:15 PM EDT
I dont beleve felons should get their rights restored automatically when they are released from prison. But they should be allowed to to have a judge hold a hearing on this, with witnesses for and against. And the opportunity to sue if he is rejected.
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 9:24:34 PM EDT
Slap a preban upper on a post ban lower to see how it looks and get caught, you're a felon. I'll vote with "May restore".
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 11:11:52 PM EDT
This is an interesting idea. Did the framers of the Constitution exempt felons from bearing arms ? The answer to that is yes, because you can't bear arms when you're dead. Our founding fathers would not have tolerated for one minute some of the human garbage that we coddle and provide a quality existance to in our sorry excuses for prisons. Prohibiting felons (and now some misdemeanor offenses) from bearing arms is just a back-door to total firearms prohibition. If people are too dangerous to be trusted with firearms, then how can they be trusted to roam freely in society ? A firearm is merely a tool, which like other tools, can be abused by idiots. I just pose one question to the firearms prohibition crowd; would you all sleep better at night if the Columbine shooters had used their vehicles or a chainsaw ? Both of these "tools" are capable of causing great carnage and there is little one could do to stop a rampage without the use of firearms. The only thing that would change is the venue, perhaps. (although I'm pretty convinced I could walk into a high school commons area with a chainsaw and slaughter 13 students before anyone could do anything about it.) Bottem line, if you're not incarcerated or dead, then firearm ownership should not even be a debatable issue.
Top Top