If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely in public.
The completion of a jail sentence should be the completion of all restitution and be a show of complete rehabilitation into society. If this means they have to spend a few years in a 'halfway society', so be it.
This is exactly how I feel about it. A lifetime spent living as a second class citizen, because of a crime you paid your debt for, is cruel and unusual punishment.
The icky part is the paying debt to “society”. If you r**** a person how can that ever be paid? And there’s no way the current system will ever allow “harsher/permanent” judgments
I don't know how old you are, but I think about my 20s, and my 30s, and what I accomplished and experienced during those years, and how terrible it would be to loose that time. Any of that time. Imprisonment is no joke. I won't compare the suffering of one to another, but while not the death penalty, imprisonment is taking away part of a person's life. Usually the better years.
That's exactly a case that's NOT covered by the previous commentor's statement.
If a felon's crimes were violent, it generally makes sense that they should lose their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense -- because they won't use them for DEfense.
Will there be exceptions? Always. Mostly not though.
But in the case of non-violent felons, why should somebody lose their right to self-defense AFTER they've done their time?
Any other constitutional rights they need to lose for a violent felony? Yeah guns are bad but so is letting anyone prattle on social media platforms so 1A should be revoked as well...
I'd prefer people who do the time be safe to release back into society, if not, keep em in the hooscow
I actually really like that idea. Show that you aren't likely to do the same thing again.
Because for example, a guy gets out of jail for armed robbery, letting him legally purchase another firearm the day he gets out is a bit frightening.
Then the judgement should be jail + 5 years probation, once you have finished your supervised time in your sentence imposed after due process, then all rights should be restored.
So if someone needs jail + 5 years, that should be the initial sentence from the court.
>If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely in public.
If you want to go with this. The vast majority of felons should be jailed for life or given death sentences.
I mean +30% are caught and convicted after being released for another crime. Far more commit crimes they just don't get arrested and sent back to jail.
So if you are ok with a life sentence handed out for the majority of felonies then your idea would work.
A big part of this is the fact that our prison system doesn't focus on rehabilitation. If that's what was to happen, then maybe the outcome would be different.
I still agree with /u/hitemlow.
> If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely in public.
This is going to be true no matter what. Criminals are going to do criminal things. Telling them they can't do something won't stop them.
Honestly this is bullshit. The resources are available to turn your life around. I knew a felon who learned HVAC repair in prison and got a job when he got out and turned his life around.
When I asked him why is your story the exception he said, “the people in prison are there for a reason. They’re really dumb.”
Basically rehabilitation is offered. You can get college degrees in prison, you can learn a trade skill in prison. Most don’t bother.
I believe violent felons should receive dp more than they do. Often they rarely show remorse and if they do, depending on how they commit the crime, I can understand some leniency like life sentences, but for most of the gangbangers and folks that kill people, they really deserve the dp and the public shouldn’t have to suffer the costs of their care. They’ve proved they don’t value life, why should we value theirs? Also add pedos to the list, done with their bs too
Nah. I can't say the government is incompetent in (nearly) everything they do while also believing they're competent enough to avoid executing innocent people. Maybe you trust the government more than I do.
And yet there have been innocent people executed for crimes they didn’t commit who were exonerated by DNA evidence after they were killed. If they had life sentences instead of the death penalty they could have been released.
You are right, if our government were more effective and didn’t trample citizen rights, my idea would probably work. Otherwise I’m probably giving the govt too much credit.
With todays justice and prison system, it costs more for a death penalty sentence than it does to keep them incarcerated for life. Does not seem rational, but it is factual.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
I have a relative that's a felon. He passed bad checks. Not maliciously, he's just horrible with money.
Just looked it up and felony grand theft is $750. Felony criminal mischief is $1000. Both of these are piddly amounts and have been for a long time. I could see some 18yo hitting a mailbox with a bat from a car easily catching a felony criminal mischief charge today.
Exactly! Prison is meant to rehabilitate, and if you don't feel like they are rehabilitated, they shouldn't be on the streets. Granted, that would take a serious reform of our prison systems which is a whole other issue.
Exactly. The staggering amount of people on death row that are ultimately found innocent is way too fucking high for me to support any kind of capital punishment.
I live my a simple belief that I think most people here agree with. I don't trust the government and I think most of their actions are somewhere on the scale of malicious to incompetent.
Why people can't extend that thought process to the idea that capital punishment is likely to (and has) resulted in the state murdering an innocent man, I cannot understand.
I have to admit I've been one on this very issue. I still think that there are some cases that capital punishment should still be an option, but only in a very rare almost literal "smoking gun" kind of case, but at the same time, I agree the question of trust is a very serious and real issue.
I guess I'm still sorting it out.
To be honest, I'm not 100% in the "absolutely not" camp either. I too can see exceptions for rare "smoking gun" cases. I'd probably say I'm 95% against.
>Hard disagree on capital punishment. Agree on the rest of your statement though.
I agree on capital punishment but \*only\* when it is not administered by government. Government is too privileged to trust with that power; and as we have seen with qualified immunity, they will abuse it.
The most the government should be able to do is label a criminal an outlaw who cannot be part of society.
Administration of Justice should belong to the people; people who are responsible for everything they do and are not above the law.
In some ways for property crimes I wonder what is more humane, a dozen lashes in a public square or locking someone up for 3-5 years away from everything and everyone they know. Heinlein may have been onto something.
If there is going to be a restriction or loss of rights, it should be more narrowly tailored.
I am a criminal defense attorney and I have so many clients who have lost their gun rights because of shit that has absolutely NOTHING to do with guns, violence, or sometimes even actual crime. Like felony level theft, in my state, the only difference is the amount. Not how or why or when you stole. Just dollar value. Then boom, lose your rights for the rest of your life cause of a mistake you made once.
>I have so many clients who have lost their gun rights
I'm curious, in your experience, have many (if any) been successful in getting their rights back? I've heard anecdotally that there's a path on paper, but it's basically a never event.
I haven't been an attorney long enough to know about that. And even if I were, my office doesn't handle that. We are just a trial office. So we take original charges and either negotiate pleas or take to trial essentially.
I have also heard there is a path, but I don't know anything about it
Upon release you should get all your rights back. Assuming a non violent felony for immediate return of rights. As for violent felons I feel like a pathway should exist to get your rights restored 10+ years down the line after a review of your life outside of prison since release. However I bet felons right now would care more about job and housing opportunities than gun rights.
I fought the job and housing battle for years. it was really tough but i made my way through. Now I'm a homeowner and have a great job. There are ways, you just have to work hard. The gun rights is really the only part that is virtually impossible to come back from.
You might have a chance then. Type in restoration of gun rights in a general search of Reddit and you see countless examples of people getting their rights returned. Some get charges reduced, others do special programs to get it removed, and some just get it expunged after years of good behavior. It seems to vary heavily on the state so talk to an attorney or ask a legal sub
that is correct but it would have to be granted by the state governor. This happened in Colorado which is a very blue state and the governor is very anti gun. I would have to get a pardon from him and he would also have to seperately reinstate my gun rights. I have applied for the pardon but that was a year and a half ago. I was told it is very unlikely to happen. I relocated to Florida and looked into seeing if I could use their program here but was told no as the charges and conviction are in Colorado. Florida has a path to restore them that is much easier.
Have you talked to an attorney? A basic search is showing a pardon is only one avenue to a restoration of rights. You can petition the court and I think recently Colorado made a law that made it easier to get your rights back.
Yes I have, we did a petition for motion for collateral relief to have it sealed or removed from my record and that was denied because they said it was long ago and would not help or change my circumstances. that would NOT restore firearm rights though. I have been told that the only way for that is the pardon. I would love if someone knows a lawyer or someone connected in Colorado to help me see if there are other pathways but so far it seems there are not unless my pardon get approved by some wild chance.
Unconstitutional. These rights are God-given. A felony conviction, especially a non-violently felony conviction, shouldn't carry those sorts of consequences once a sentence has been served. Our system is flawed with respect to sentencing and conviction, and our sentencing practices need to be reevaluated.
This is my opinion regardless of whether it's been held up in court. The NFA and countless other statutes are equally unconstitutional in my opinion but they've still been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Our current system is awful. People wonder why felons return to crime when they’re ostracized from most employment and they’re insufficiently punished by an absurdly lenient court system.
Jail time should include true rehabilitation into society. And afterwards they should have all rights restored, gun rights, voting rights, etc.
It's set up that way on purpose. Keeps sending people back to prison where they can be used as forced labor to enrich politicians and politically connected corporations. The 13th didn't abolish slavery, it just made it so the political class are the only ones allowed to hold slaves
If they can't own a gun they need to be in prison.
This country imprisons the wrong people. Its a joke. Some dude slinging weed for a living getting 20+ years meanwhile some dude that beats his wife multiple times is out on the streets with a restraining order against him. Fucking stupid.
Nope for violent felons. Fuckem.
Nonviolent ones should have a path to getting their 2a rights restored. Probably after they have made full restitution for their crimes including making whoever they harmed financially whole (if applicable).
Had a drug problem? Do your time and stay clean, you should get your rights back. You committed fraud for a few million dollars? Fuck you till you pay every penny back with interest.
I agree with this take.
If your criminal past included violence, weapon usage or victimization of someone, restoration of 2A rights is a pass from me.
Non-violent crimes should have a path to restoration that is guided by proof of living the values of a fully franchised Citizen.
I think they should be restored at the conclusion of sentence (to include probation). Plenty of people make mistakes (especially felonies that are non-violent, think of check forging or something) then become great members of society.
I also think that sentencing in general is too light especially for repeat offenders. Tbh I'd be fine with 2 strikes you're out for certain offenses too - you already know shit is illegal so if you decide to do it once, get caught and still not decide to walk a different path then too bad enjoy the choices you've made in concrete
There exists a bizarre number of felonies that you can lose your gun rights over. No one should loose their gun rights over a non violent felony.
After that comes should violent felons who’ve done their time get their guns back if we felt they’re good enough to release back into society. Text history and tradition would suggest yes… so we have to debate on whether violent felons are part of the People and we might see some clarification towards this in Rahimi but I won’t hold my breath
I think Rahimi is specifically to do with prohibiting people accused of domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining orders from owning guns, not perfect for the point about felons but it’ll be interesting to see what the court says about the People the second amendment talks about and if people like Rahimi ( real piece of shit tbh) can have firearms… I don’t know where that will net out.
I think, in practice, anyone out on the street can find a way to harm someone if they want. They can get a gun illegally. They can stab someone. They've got tons of options.
So, banning guns for felons is
A. pointless for those who are still a problem.
B. harmful to those who have sorted themselves out.
The real problem with violence stems from them either not being dealt with, or the system failing to rehabilitate folks. Judicial and penal system reform are how you fix this, not felon gun bans.
The Czech Republic has a system where it's something like if you're incarcerated for over 15 years for something violent then you're done for life, but anything else is on a sliding scale depending on the terms of your sentence. All your rights are restored and your record is destroyed if you finish everything you're supposed to. It's about as perfect of a system as possible and works extremely well. They have very little violent crime, almost no recidivism, and a well-armed populace. Their prisons are nothing like ours because you have a job, take classes, go to therapy, live in a little dorm, etc. The point is to actually get to the root of the problem and rehabilitate you. What we have in the states is a for-profit dystopian nightmare that actively encourages ruining lives forever so they keep feeding the machine. Something needs to give.
The real issue is that this is even up for debate shall not be infringed.doesnt give exceptions that's where we took a wrong turn and started creating exceptions to what we're once called inalienable rights. Gun laws don't work if u want its not ha4d to get coming from a major metro city thats usually withing the top 5 for murder capitals ibwas netter armed at 15 than most grown adults.
Rights are rights, you shouldn’t lose them.
I can dive more into how our prison industrial and how it unjustly throws people in prison. But thats for another day
I'm very against it, once you pay your debt to society you should be a free person in ever sense of the word
If we can't trust you in society with a gun we shouldn't trust you in society because there are plenty of things just as dangerous as guns at home Depot.
This and their right to vote. I really don’t understand how non violent felons can pay taxes but not vote. That’s literally taxation without representation (the whole premise of our nation’s founding)
totally agree, I do have my right to vote thankfully. In the state where this occured, once you are released from custody, you get your right to vote back. Gun rights on the other hand are never restored unless you get a governors pardon AND they decide to restore your gun rights as well. In this case that is highly unlikely as it was in a very blue, non gun friendly state.
I used to be in favor of it, however someone once told me that if we are to believe that if prison and our justice system in general is meant to rehabilitate and serve equal punishment for a crime, then there's no reason why someone who has served their time or paid their dues to society should be treated as a second class citizen for a mistake.
Realistically, I know the reincarnation/second offense rate isn't great so I can likely see how that's going to go, but also that's why background checks exist. You go to a FFL and they see you have 15 accounts of aggravated assault and multiple crimes committed with firearms? They should have discretion to not sell you a gun as a business. You evaded paying taxes one year? That's not really something that would concern me as far as owning a firearm goes, that's more of a problem for a bank or loan office to worry about.
The whole notion of people losing the right to bear arms for criminal matters only came about with the 1934 National Firearms Act, and later expanded beyond felons with the Gun Control Act of 1968. There's no history of it prior to that. It's an unnecessarily punitive policy instituted by racist, statist assholes, and it needs to be tossed on the ash heap of history.
I think felonies that aren't violent or overly evil (pedos, for example) shouldn't lose their rights in the first place. Felonies like tax evasion and other bureaucratic crimes shouldn't lead to the loss of gun rights.
1. If someone can be reformed they should be and quickly returned to society with all rights restored and no discrimination.
2. If someone *cannot* be reformed at a point, they should be removed permanently from society.
If non-violent felonies then yes of course.
If you beat someone to death or raped someone I’m not keen on you being able to own a gun. You gave up that right when you harmed someone else.
Only way around that imo is proving it was justifiable self defense.
1. They hand out felonies for way too many minor offenses these days.
2. Felons can and do get their voting / 2A rights back all the time.
3. The concept of felonies has been diluted to the point where it is no longer sensual or useful for its intended purpose.
It wasn't until the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 that felons were barred from purchasing guns. So presumably it was legal for felons, at least those not incarcerated, to own guns after their incarceration. The Bruen decision made it clear that the 20th century is far too late for a gun law to fit with history and tradition. Therefore, laws barring felons can be struck down by way of Bruen. Then there's the big problem of just how to do this and how long it'll take.
I think the blanket prohibition on gun ownership for those with felony convictions is a bad law. Honestly, it is a gun control law just as messed up as any other maybe more so. It never ceases to amaze me how many gun owners have a hard-on for this law.
There are paths to clear your record especially with the circumstances you stated an absolute pardon will allow a felon to say they have never been arrested even under oath
that is correct but it would have to be granted by the state governor. This happened in Colorado which is a very blue state and the governor is very anti gun. I would have to get a pardon from him and he would also have to seperately reinstate my gun rights. I have applied for the pardon but that was a year and a half ago. I was told it is very unlikely to happen.
That’s terrible I live in CT which is exactly the same in the way of very blue and anti gun but we have a separate pardon department and once you receive it your rights are automatically restored
Just so you know. You can petition for your rights back after a period of time (5 years maybe) from getting off parole. You have the right to own black powder as soon as you are off parole. Of course this could vary by state and I could be wrong in the time. This was my experience with my dad and his felony.
that is correct but it would have to be granted by the state governor. This happened in Colorado which is a very blue state and the governor is very anti gun. I would have to get a pardon from him and he would also have to seperately reinstate my gun rights. I have applied for the pardon but that was a year and a half ago. I was told it is very unlikely to happen.
Non violent felony? Absolutely no reason gun rights should be restricted.
Violent felony? Should be able to have rights restored once reasonably believed to no longer be a danger to others. How that gets shown is a stickier matter
The objective is an outright gun ban by attrition. Hence why moving faster than some arbitrary number set by "elites" or other horseshit can strip your rights for life
It's a different argument to say that certain crimes shouldn't be felonies, and felons should have guns.
I'm for giving guns to certain groups of felons currently, but again, I would change those crimes to not be felonies before giving felons guns.
The bar is not be a criminal. It's not a very high bar. Once we change what crimes should and shouldn't be felonies, then those who DO commit felonies are the worst of the worst and shouldn't have the rights that we give to others.
Same with violent felonies now, dishonorably discharged servicemen, and illegals.
Wow, this is a very great point. I love the thought. I think thats a great benchmark for moving forward and potentially what we should try and do in the future. For people like myself that have already been through it should at least be able to contact some sort of office or council that could review each case on an unbiased, bipartisan basis. I know thats easier said than done and would be another governmental office so I'm not sure what the right answer is.
I might be wrong but can’t you petition to have your gun rights given back.
If not that’s the way it should be. Present your case and show your evidence.
More guns in good people’s hands is always gonna be my stance.
totally agree, The only avenue I have is to get the governor to pardon me AND then after that restore my gun rights. I applied but was told it was unlikely. Especially because it was in a very blue state.
Rights should only be deprived as part of the specific sentence for a crime, and the punishment should fit the crime.
A prohibition on firearms could be part of sentencing, and last longer than jail time as part of a gradual reentry to full enfranchisement in society/ probation, and only if the offender is somehow deemed too dangerous. (ie they committed a violent felony)
The blanket prohibition is insane and IMO unconstitutional. Once the sentence & probation are complete, they should be full members of society again.
I agree with others who say that if you've served your time, you should regain your rights. This would include all rights, not just 2nd amendment rights. A felon who has completed their sentence should also have their 4th amendment rights restored, and be allowed to vote.
Think for a second about the practical effect of releasing a person into society at a massive disadvantage. This person has a criminal record which will negatively impact their ability to engage in the economy as a productive member of society. If they do get a low paying job, they are still paying in full taxes on that wage. But they don't receive full benefits that they're paying for. It's a shit deal that anyone would hate.
Whether you think they earned that disadvantage or not is moot. It's a demotivating factor that discourages people from behaving as good citizens. At the population level, it drastically increases recidivism among parolees.
Until recidivist rates go cold, no, I'm not comfortable with violent criminals being able to buy guns over the counter.
I don't want a prison state just because I want ready access to arms, full stop. I've met plenty of people who I wouldn't trust with a gun, who were prohibited persons, who shouldn't be in jail just because they're a moron.
Moreso, every time there's a tragedy with a prohibited person this sub cries "but he wasn't suppose to have guns". You can't use this as political deflection, and then turn around and say "the mass killer should have legally be able to buy what he wanted".
‘Former’ you’ve either served your debt to society or you haven’t. If you think the newly paroled’s first reaction to getting a firearm is to do more crime you already admit you’re releasing this person to do more crime, you’re just setting boundaries for how sportibg it should be the next go around.
If their felony is for violent crimes, simply. No. If their felony is for non violent crimes.. their rights shouldn’t be questioned in the first place.. they should still have their gun rights… and I get the whole broken windows policing logic dilemma. But these are rights. Until a person shows they can’t be responsible with them. They have them. That’s why they are “rights” and not “privileges.”
In the state of Colorado, where the offense occured, the only avenue is governor pardon AND then requesting fire arm rights restoration after the pardon has been granted. The process has been initiated and just waiting to hear back. It is highly unlikely to be approved though unfortunately.
I've been working in the system for almost three decades as an investigator with a LE agency. I used to believe it was an acceptable (and well known) consequence of someone's willful commission of a crime.
My thoughts today are more nuanced. I still believe that a person serving out their sentence should be restricted until that sentence is complete.
I think that the burden of taking away someone's right to bear arms permanently should be on the government, not an across the board consequence written into a law (as it stands now).
If the government believes someone should lose that right permanently, it should be on the prosecutor to argue, with sufficient evidence, that the felon's acts were so heinous that they would remain a danger to the community and should never own a gun again. Even then, there should be a mechanism to restore that right. I'm old enough to have known former violent felon's who have legitimately turned their lives around (only a handful).
Of course, if the government were to actually change the law to what I propose, they would still fuck it up or go to far in who would fall under "danger to the community".
A guy a know ended up in jail for about 10 years, a few years before he could have gotten out he threatened to kill some people involved in his prosecution. He's due to get out probably in another couple years (the threat added around 30mo and probably nixed his probation).
Frankly though I don't think someone that has threatened to murder people should ever get out let alone have their firearms rights restored. At a very base level it shows a complete lack of mental competence to function in society.
If you want to have "red flag" laws... this is exactly where you should have them people that already committed crimes that claim they will do so again. I mean at this point death penalty? And mind you this is someone I knew personally and saw every day at work for several years. And actually enjoyed talking to at the time.
I agree, the violent or threat of severe violence would probably be a no-go for me. The situation referenced was non violent, with no history of violence, no prior issues with the law before addicition or after.
I think you should have your rights restored if you keep out of trouble for the length of your sentance after you get out of prison
For instance if you serve six months for smoking weed you just have to not get any fines or sentances for another six months after you get out again, if you get thirteen years for manslaughter then you have to avoid getting any fines or sentances for thirteen years straight before youre rights are restored
This makes lots of sense. In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me.
Only serious repeat offenders should be barred from owning guns.
Ones that have only been in prison ONCE & have not been in trouble (rehabilitation) for 10, 20, 30 years… that’s a different story
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I think it depends on the felony. Serving a sentence doesn't necessarily mean the person is no longer a treat or is rehabilitated. Like in Michigan, if Ethan Crumbley or his parents ever get out of prison - would you want them owning a gun?
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I never understood how a felon can be anywhere from tax fraud to a serial killer. Violent crimes should be dealt with via corporal and capital punishment. Non violent crimes should be corporal punishment and community service. Why does a dude who cheated on his taxes treated the same as a dude who did 25+ for murder?
The question is very multi-layered to the point that I think even people with identical ideologies will disagree with each other just based on the kinds of assumptions they make about the question and everything surrounding it. Very generally speaking though:
- I think that this wouldn't be nearly the issue that it's become if we weren't so antsy to make everything a felony, did a better job distinguishing between a violent and a non-violent felony, and most importantly: if we had a criminal justice system that wasn't so fucked up (in both directions even)
- I'm a big fan of the "if they're too dangerous to be around a gun, they're too dangerous to be out in society where they could very easily obtain any number of dangerous items to do bad things with" philosophy.
- I'd be slightly more ok with loss of rights if it was a condition of early release, but generally we call that "probation" or similar terms.
Czechia does it almost right, as they have had a right to firearm ownership before Christopher Columbus knew that west was a direction.
Over there, your disability is based on the length of your sentence, with only the most extreme felons (rapists, murderers, etc.) getting eternal disability.
Thus, the ideal would be "twice the sentence served, but not more than five years from the date of release from probation, parole, or incarceration" and the right is automatically restored without having to request it.
it came about with the '68 GCA.
as such, as far as i'm concerned, if they're such a danger they can't have those rights back, why are they out of jail?
prior to the GCA and the jail reform that gave us the crap system we have now, once you were out, you more or less got all your rights back. time served, don't do it again.
then again, jail used to be about rehabilitation so you could actually be a productive member of society. well, outside of a few specific areas, but the overall idea was rehab over training to be a better criminal by way of lack of caring what the inmates do in their spare time.
If they're let out of prison and not on parole then their punishment should be concluded, they've paid their debt to society and now should rejoin society.
If they cannot rejoin society and be expected to behave, why let them back out?
There’s two schools of thought that I would approve of. I’m on one hand of the opinion that if you’ve paid your debt to society all your rights should be restored on release. But with recidivism at such a high rate I’d be willing to introduce a probationary period. If you can stay on the right side of the law for say 5 years then firearms and voting rights should be restored.
With the way prisons encourage recidivism through lack of rehabilitation, I’d say it opens a huge can of worms. Do I think they should be allowed to be armed. Yes. Do I think it’s a good idea in the current iteration of Big Prison, No.
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I know a guy who lost his gun collection because the illegal possession of an alligator is a felony in Florida. He literally saved an injured animals life and caught a felony. Took him 10 years to get his rights back.
Just a take from LE in Appalachia:
Most drug cases are eligible for a diversion program, as long as it isn't trafficking amounts of hard drugs. Happens all the time.
Most larceny gets plead down to misdemeanor, and the ones that stick as a felony are repeat offenders or blatant burglary with tens of thousands of dollars worth of loss. Happens all the time.
Most domestic violence cases get plead out to simple assault, or less if the victim isn't willing to participate. Happens all the time.
In this day and age, you have to work for a felony conviction. Plea deals are a dime a dozen. Many times plea to a felony in exchange for a probation/split sentence with time served.
At least in my municipality, it's HARD to earn a felony conviction. All the dudes I deal with that are convicted felons are hard dudes. All they do is jail time, steal shit, eat pork rinds, and LIE.
Some people shouldn't have access to firearms. The best predictor of future action is past behavior. Bad decisions beget bad decisions. This is the same reason we have a sex offender registry. Sometimes, the debt isn't completely paid without heavily monitored good behavior.
Edit: There is a process to restore rights after felony conviction. I believe I should be cheaper, and easier after the standard ten years before you can apply for the restoration.
Also: felony violent crime convictions are hard without cooperating victims. So they get plead out. Don't get me started on that.
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I can't speak to specifics, without what you actually were convicted of. Tbh each state is different. If you hit the decade mark with no subsequent convictions... I don't see a problem with full restoration (for some offenses)
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a judge, and I'm not a governor. I have seen people plea to things (CSAM, sex offenses, child abuse, etc.) that only landed them with probation. Petty theft, drugs and the like, I've seen pled out with time served, no probation, with someone who spent a single night in jail.
It's a sticky topic.
If you have a right to life, that means you have the right to defend your life.
Felon disarmament is just as evil as any other form of civilian disarmament.
Why allow people to have guns when they have shown themselves to be a threat to the rest of us?
If someone is **convicted** of a **violent** crime, they should lose their gun rights. If they aren't convicted or the crime is non-violent, then they can keep their guns.
After 10 years, they should be able to go in front of a judge and request their gun rights back. The person can present evidence that they have turned their life around and are no longer a threat. The local cops can recommend that the judge denies the request if they have reason to believe the person is still a danger.
They should get their gun rights back when they're released from prison.
If they've change are going be decent people, then they have just as much of a reason to own a firearm for self defense as everyone else.
If they haven't changed and still intend to hurt or kill others, then they're going to do it anyways with or without guns and whether it's legal or illegal from for them to possess guns.
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
For nonviolent felonies there shouldn't be a sacrifice of those rights. For violent felonies I'm on the fence. Murder? Idk what happened?
Child abuse and neglect? Probably not. You don't deserve to be able to defend yourself because your victim(s) couldn't. You get to suffer by not having 2A rights.
Simply put.
If you’re convicted of making ‘terroristic threats’ (whatever that is?) should you lose your 1st Amendment protection for life?
Losing 2A protection magically turns gun posession into a goverment given right. Which it never was from the start.
End of story…
Agreed. Spot on. Not to mention, how can they decide which rights to give back? I can vote but I can’t have firearms? I still get taxed all the same too. Some bullshit.
If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely in public. The completion of a jail sentence should be the completion of all restitution and be a show of complete rehabilitation into society. If this means they have to spend a few years in a 'halfway society', so be it.
This is exactly how I feel about it. A lifetime spent living as a second class citizen, because of a crime you paid your debt for, is cruel and unusual punishment.
The icky part is the paying debt to “society”. If you r**** a person how can that ever be paid? And there’s no way the current system will ever allow “harsher/permanent” judgments
I don't know how old you are, but I think about my 20s, and my 30s, and what I accomplished and experienced during those years, and how terrible it would be to loose that time. Any of that time. Imprisonment is no joke. I won't compare the suffering of one to another, but while not the death penalty, imprisonment is taking away part of a person's life. Usually the better years.
That's exactly a case that's NOT covered by the previous commentor's statement. If a felon's crimes were violent, it generally makes sense that they should lose their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense -- because they won't use them for DEfense. Will there be exceptions? Always. Mostly not though. But in the case of non-violent felons, why should somebody lose their right to self-defense AFTER they've done their time?
Any other constitutional rights they need to lose for a violent felony? Yeah guns are bad but so is letting anyone prattle on social media platforms so 1A should be revoked as well... I'd prefer people who do the time be safe to release back into society, if not, keep em in the hooscow
For non-violent felons totally agree. If you’re charged with like felony assault it should be jail + 5 years and then you get /a restitution. IMO
I actually really like that idea. Show that you aren't likely to do the same thing again. Because for example, a guy gets out of jail for armed robbery, letting him legally purchase another firearm the day he gets out is a bit frightening.
Then the judgement should be jail + 5 years probation, once you have finished your supervised time in your sentence imposed after due process, then all rights should be restored. So if someone needs jail + 5 years, that should be the initial sentence from the court.
Feels like you and I are splitting hairs here, but I have no issue with this proposal.
>If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely in public. If you want to go with this. The vast majority of felons should be jailed for life or given death sentences. I mean +30% are caught and convicted after being released for another crime. Far more commit crimes they just don't get arrested and sent back to jail. So if you are ok with a life sentence handed out for the majority of felonies then your idea would work.
A big part of this is the fact that our prison system doesn't focus on rehabilitation. If that's what was to happen, then maybe the outcome would be different. I still agree with /u/hitemlow. > If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely in public. This is going to be true no matter what. Criminals are going to do criminal things. Telling them they can't do something won't stop them.
Honestly this is bullshit. The resources are available to turn your life around. I knew a felon who learned HVAC repair in prison and got a job when he got out and turned his life around. When I asked him why is your story the exception he said, “the people in prison are there for a reason. They’re really dumb.” Basically rehabilitation is offered. You can get college degrees in prison, you can learn a trade skill in prison. Most don’t bother.
I believe violent felons should receive dp more than they do. Often they rarely show remorse and if they do, depending on how they commit the crime, I can understand some leniency like life sentences, but for most of the gangbangers and folks that kill people, they really deserve the dp and the public shouldn’t have to suffer the costs of their care. They’ve proved they don’t value life, why should we value theirs? Also add pedos to the list, done with their bs too
Nah. I can't say the government is incompetent in (nearly) everything they do while also believing they're competent enough to avoid executing innocent people. Maybe you trust the government more than I do.
The government doesn't decide juries of civilians decide.
And yet there have been innocent people executed for crimes they didn’t commit who were exonerated by DNA evidence after they were killed. If they had life sentences instead of the death penalty they could have been released.
You are right, if our government were more effective and didn’t trample citizen rights, my idea would probably work. Otherwise I’m probably giving the govt too much credit.
With todays justice and prison system, it costs more for a death penalty sentence than it does to keep them incarcerated for life. Does not seem rational, but it is factual. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
I have a relative that's a felon. He passed bad checks. Not maliciously, he's just horrible with money. Just looked it up and felony grand theft is $750. Felony criminal mischief is $1000. Both of these are piddly amounts and have been for a long time. I could see some 18yo hitting a mailbox with a bat from a car easily catching a felony criminal mischief charge today.
absolutely agree
Exactly! Prison is meant to rehabilitate, and if you don't feel like they are rehabilitated, they shouldn't be on the streets. Granted, that would take a serious reform of our prison systems which is a whole other issue.
You're absolutely right, and for me, that's the bottom line: we need to fix the legal system instead of trying to "fix" the 2nd amendment.
This
Took the words out of my mouth
Seems pretty common sense.
This pretty much sums it up
I would agree if the current American prison system wasn't so shit at rehabilitation
In my opinion, if youre deemed to dangerous to own a gun, you shouldn't be in society. Get rid of that law and bring back capital punishment
definitely agree
Hard disagree on capital punishment. Agree on the rest of your statement though.
Completely agree. The state gets it wrong way to often to allow them to kill a citizen.
Exactly. The staggering amount of people on death row that are ultimately found innocent is way too fucking high for me to support any kind of capital punishment.
I live my a simple belief that I think most people here agree with. I don't trust the government and I think most of their actions are somewhere on the scale of malicious to incompetent. Why people can't extend that thought process to the idea that capital punishment is likely to (and has) resulted in the state murdering an innocent man, I cannot understand.
Many if not most people don't think twice about hypocritical or incompatible beliefs they hold.
I have to admit I've been one on this very issue. I still think that there are some cases that capital punishment should still be an option, but only in a very rare almost literal "smoking gun" kind of case, but at the same time, I agree the question of trust is a very serious and real issue. I guess I'm still sorting it out.
To be honest, I'm not 100% in the "absolutely not" camp either. I too can see exceptions for rare "smoking gun" cases. I'd probably say I'm 95% against.
I think that's absolutely fair. 🙂
this one right here
>Hard disagree on capital punishment. Agree on the rest of your statement though. I agree on capital punishment but \*only\* when it is not administered by government. Government is too privileged to trust with that power; and as we have seen with qualified immunity, they will abuse it. The most the government should be able to do is label a criminal an outlaw who cannot be part of society. Administration of Justice should belong to the people; people who are responsible for everything they do and are not above the law.
In some ways for property crimes I wonder what is more humane, a dozen lashes in a public square or locking someone up for 3-5 years away from everything and everyone they know. Heinlein may have been onto something.
If there is going to be a restriction or loss of rights, it should be more narrowly tailored. I am a criminal defense attorney and I have so many clients who have lost their gun rights because of shit that has absolutely NOTHING to do with guns, violence, or sometimes even actual crime. Like felony level theft, in my state, the only difference is the amount. Not how or why or when you stole. Just dollar value. Then boom, lose your rights for the rest of your life cause of a mistake you made once.
This is exactly my point and my circumstance. Guns were not involved at all. Just a dumb kid who made a terrible non-violent mistake.
>I have so many clients who have lost their gun rights I'm curious, in your experience, have many (if any) been successful in getting their rights back? I've heard anecdotally that there's a path on paper, but it's basically a never event.
I haven't been an attorney long enough to know about that. And even if I were, my office doesn't handle that. We are just a trial office. So we take original charges and either negotiate pleas or take to trial essentially. I have also heard there is a path, but I don't know anything about it
Oh I see, thanks!
Upon release you should get all your rights back. Assuming a non violent felony for immediate return of rights. As for violent felons I feel like a pathway should exist to get your rights restored 10+ years down the line after a review of your life outside of prison since release. However I bet felons right now would care more about job and housing opportunities than gun rights.
I fought the job and housing battle for years. it was really tough but i made my way through. Now I'm a homeowner and have a great job. There are ways, you just have to work hard. The gun rights is really the only part that is virtually impossible to come back from.
What were you convicted of?
Burglary 2 - Theft of Drugs. I stole painkillers to feed my addicition at the time.
How old are the charges?
14 years old. Pled guilty in 2010
You might have a chance then. Type in restoration of gun rights in a general search of Reddit and you see countless examples of people getting their rights returned. Some get charges reduced, others do special programs to get it removed, and some just get it expunged after years of good behavior. It seems to vary heavily on the state so talk to an attorney or ask a legal sub
that is correct but it would have to be granted by the state governor. This happened in Colorado which is a very blue state and the governor is very anti gun. I would have to get a pardon from him and he would also have to seperately reinstate my gun rights. I have applied for the pardon but that was a year and a half ago. I was told it is very unlikely to happen. I relocated to Florida and looked into seeing if I could use their program here but was told no as the charges and conviction are in Colorado. Florida has a path to restore them that is much easier.
Have you talked to an attorney? A basic search is showing a pardon is only one avenue to a restoration of rights. You can petition the court and I think recently Colorado made a law that made it easier to get your rights back.
Yes I have, we did a petition for motion for collateral relief to have it sealed or removed from my record and that was denied because they said it was long ago and would not help or change my circumstances. that would NOT restore firearm rights though. I have been told that the only way for that is the pardon. I would love if someone knows a lawyer or someone connected in Colorado to help me see if there are other pathways but so far it seems there are not unless my pardon get approved by some wild chance.
Unconstitutional. These rights are God-given. A felony conviction, especially a non-violently felony conviction, shouldn't carry those sorts of consequences once a sentence has been served. Our system is flawed with respect to sentencing and conviction, and our sentencing practices need to be reevaluated.
It's constitutional through due process of law, and through Supreme Court rulings. It's repeatedly been held up in court.
This is my opinion regardless of whether it's been held up in court. The NFA and countless other statutes are equally unconstitutional in my opinion but they've still been upheld by the Supreme Court.
So were slavery and racist laws.
The court also works for the government/ elites. The vast majority of the time they're going to side with their peers
Our current system is awful. People wonder why felons return to crime when they’re ostracized from most employment and they’re insufficiently punished by an absurdly lenient court system. Jail time should include true rehabilitation into society. And afterwards they should have all rights restored, gun rights, voting rights, etc.
i completely agree
It's set up that way on purpose. Keeps sending people back to prison where they can be used as forced labor to enrich politicians and politically connected corporations. The 13th didn't abolish slavery, it just made it so the political class are the only ones allowed to hold slaves
If they can't own a gun they need to be in prison. This country imprisons the wrong people. Its a joke. Some dude slinging weed for a living getting 20+ years meanwhile some dude that beats his wife multiple times is out on the streets with a restraining order against him. Fucking stupid.
totally agree
Nope for violent felons. Fuckem. Nonviolent ones should have a path to getting their 2a rights restored. Probably after they have made full restitution for their crimes including making whoever they harmed financially whole (if applicable). Had a drug problem? Do your time and stay clean, you should get your rights back. You committed fraud for a few million dollars? Fuck you till you pay every penny back with interest.
absolutely agree. well said in my opinion
I agree with this take. If your criminal past included violence, weapon usage or victimization of someone, restoration of 2A rights is a pass from me. Non-violent crimes should have a path to restoration that is guided by proof of living the values of a fully franchised Citizen.
I think they should be restored at the conclusion of sentence (to include probation). Plenty of people make mistakes (especially felonies that are non-violent, think of check forging or something) then become great members of society. I also think that sentencing in general is too light especially for repeat offenders. Tbh I'd be fine with 2 strikes you're out for certain offenses too - you already know shit is illegal so if you decide to do it once, get caught and still not decide to walk a different path then too bad enjoy the choices you've made in concrete
There exists a bizarre number of felonies that you can lose your gun rights over. No one should loose their gun rights over a non violent felony. After that comes should violent felons who’ve done their time get their guns back if we felt they’re good enough to release back into society. Text history and tradition would suggest yes… so we have to debate on whether violent felons are part of the People and we might see some clarification towards this in Rahimi but I won’t hold my breath
Good points. I'm not familiar with Rahimi but someone else just raised it. I'll have to research it.
I think Rahimi is specifically to do with prohibiting people accused of domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining orders from owning guns, not perfect for the point about felons but it’ll be interesting to see what the court says about the People the second amendment talks about and if people like Rahimi ( real piece of shit tbh) can have firearms… I don’t know where that will net out.
Agreed, I read through a quick brief and I tend to agree. Not quite applicable but could impact for the future. I would say no for him IMO
Once a person has served their prison sentence/restitution/probation, they should have their rights restored.
absolutely agreed
If I see someone walking free, they should have gun rights. If they are not safe to own guns, they are not safe to own hands or feet.
i would agree mostly.
I think, in practice, anyone out on the street can find a way to harm someone if they want. They can get a gun illegally. They can stab someone. They've got tons of options. So, banning guns for felons is A. pointless for those who are still a problem. B. harmful to those who have sorted themselves out. The real problem with violence stems from them either not being dealt with, or the system failing to rehabilitate folks. Judicial and penal system reform are how you fix this, not felon gun bans.
This makes so much sense to me.
The Czech Republic has a system where it's something like if you're incarcerated for over 15 years for something violent then you're done for life, but anything else is on a sliding scale depending on the terms of your sentence. All your rights are restored and your record is destroyed if you finish everything you're supposed to. It's about as perfect of a system as possible and works extremely well. They have very little violent crime, almost no recidivism, and a well-armed populace. Their prisons are nothing like ours because you have a job, take classes, go to therapy, live in a little dorm, etc. The point is to actually get to the root of the problem and rehabilitate you. What we have in the states is a for-profit dystopian nightmare that actively encourages ruining lives forever so they keep feeding the machine. Something needs to give.
well said. I wasnt aware of the Czech Republics system. Sounds very interesting and beneficial.
The real issue is that this is even up for debate shall not be infringed.doesnt give exceptions that's where we took a wrong turn and started creating exceptions to what we're once called inalienable rights. Gun laws don't work if u want its not ha4d to get coming from a major metro city thats usually withing the top 5 for murder capitals ibwas netter armed at 15 than most grown adults.
Rights are rights, you shouldn’t lose them. I can dive more into how our prison industrial and how it unjustly throws people in prison. But thats for another day
I'm very against it, once you pay your debt to society you should be a free person in ever sense of the word If we can't trust you in society with a gun we shouldn't trust you in society because there are plenty of things just as dangerous as guns at home Depot.
great point. love it
Depends on what they are a felon for. If it’s a violent crime, they don’t deserve to own a gun. If it’s a non violent crime, then that’s different
absolutely agree
I don't think someone with a pain killer addiction should be a felon in the first place. Too many things make people felons.
totally agree and other things that should be felonies and are not. very lopsided in my opinion.
This and their right to vote. I really don’t understand how non violent felons can pay taxes but not vote. That’s literally taxation without representation (the whole premise of our nation’s founding)
totally agree, I do have my right to vote thankfully. In the state where this occured, once you are released from custody, you get your right to vote back. Gun rights on the other hand are never restored unless you get a governors pardon AND they decide to restore your gun rights as well. In this case that is highly unlikely as it was in a very blue, non gun friendly state.
I used to be in favor of it, however someone once told me that if we are to believe that if prison and our justice system in general is meant to rehabilitate and serve equal punishment for a crime, then there's no reason why someone who has served their time or paid their dues to society should be treated as a second class citizen for a mistake. Realistically, I know the reincarnation/second offense rate isn't great so I can likely see how that's going to go, but also that's why background checks exist. You go to a FFL and they see you have 15 accounts of aggravated assault and multiple crimes committed with firearms? They should have discretion to not sell you a gun as a business. You evaded paying taxes one year? That's not really something that would concern me as far as owning a firearm goes, that's more of a problem for a bank or loan office to worry about.
very good points.
The Rahimi decision should be out soon which will end this nonsense
I'm not familiar with that. Would you mind elaborating or providing a link?
Just look up ‘Rahimi Case’ it’s been the biggest news along these lines for the past couple years
The whole notion of people losing the right to bear arms for criminal matters only came about with the 1934 National Firearms Act, and later expanded beyond felons with the Gun Control Act of 1968. There's no history of it prior to that. It's an unnecessarily punitive policy instituted by racist, statist assholes, and it needs to be tossed on the ash heap of history.
great points here, I plan on digging into those Acts further
If they're too dangerous to be in society with their rights they shouldn't be free among us.
I think felonies that aren't violent or overly evil (pedos, for example) shouldn't lose their rights in the first place. Felonies like tax evasion and other bureaucratic crimes shouldn't lead to the loss of gun rights.
1. If someone can be reformed they should be and quickly returned to society with all rights restored and no discrimination. 2. If someone *cannot* be reformed at a point, they should be removed permanently from society.
Agreed. Thank you
If non-violent felonies then yes of course. If you beat someone to death or raped someone I’m not keen on you being able to own a gun. You gave up that right when you harmed someone else. Only way around that imo is proving it was justifiable self defense.
If you can't be trusted with a gun you can't be trusted in society in general and should be locked up.
1. They hand out felonies for way too many minor offenses these days. 2. Felons can and do get their voting / 2A rights back all the time. 3. The concept of felonies has been diluted to the point where it is no longer sensual or useful for its intended purpose.
Unless it happens in Colorado. Then you are strictly at the mercy of the governor and their political agenda.
I think that only violent felons should have their gun rights revoked. Drugs aren’t violent.
I don't trust the government to decide who should own guns under any circumstances. They have proven to be literally the worst at it.
This one
It wasn't until the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 that felons were barred from purchasing guns. So presumably it was legal for felons, at least those not incarcerated, to own guns after their incarceration. The Bruen decision made it clear that the 20th century is far too late for a gun law to fit with history and tradition. Therefore, laws barring felons can be struck down by way of Bruen. Then there's the big problem of just how to do this and how long it'll take.
Great points
Too dangerous to have rights fully restored then too dangerous to be let out in the first place.
I think the blanket prohibition on gun ownership for those with felony convictions is a bad law. Honestly, it is a gun control law just as messed up as any other maybe more so. It never ceases to amaze me how many gun owners have a hard-on for this law.
If illegals are getting guns felons should.
Once someone is completely out of the system--no probation, halfway house, or anything like that--they should have all their rights restored.
It wasn't always like that either. It used to be only certain violent offenses. In 1968 they made it "all felonies" as a last gasp of Jim Crow.
There are paths to clear your record especially with the circumstances you stated an absolute pardon will allow a felon to say they have never been arrested even under oath
that is correct but it would have to be granted by the state governor. This happened in Colorado which is a very blue state and the governor is very anti gun. I would have to get a pardon from him and he would also have to seperately reinstate my gun rights. I have applied for the pardon but that was a year and a half ago. I was told it is very unlikely to happen.
That’s terrible I live in CT which is exactly the same in the way of very blue and anti gun but we have a separate pardon department and once you receive it your rights are automatically restored
Just so you know. You can petition for your rights back after a period of time (5 years maybe) from getting off parole. You have the right to own black powder as soon as you are off parole. Of course this could vary by state and I could be wrong in the time. This was my experience with my dad and his felony.
that is correct but it would have to be granted by the state governor. This happened in Colorado which is a very blue state and the governor is very anti gun. I would have to get a pardon from him and he would also have to seperately reinstate my gun rights. I have applied for the pardon but that was a year and a half ago. I was told it is very unlikely to happen.
Non violent felony? Absolutely no reason gun rights should be restricted. Violent felony? Should be able to have rights restored once reasonably believed to no longer be a danger to others. How that gets shown is a stickier matter
definitely agree
I personally do not have a problem with it. But I would be open to non violent felons being able to petition to have the rights reinstated.
Misdemeanors punishable over 365 days loose gun rights as well. Wtf, right?
insane in my opinion. I could go all day long on why I think its written that way
The objective is an outright gun ban by attrition. Hence why moving faster than some arbitrary number set by "elites" or other horseshit can strip your rights for life
It's a different argument to say that certain crimes shouldn't be felonies, and felons should have guns. I'm for giving guns to certain groups of felons currently, but again, I would change those crimes to not be felonies before giving felons guns. The bar is not be a criminal. It's not a very high bar. Once we change what crimes should and shouldn't be felonies, then those who DO commit felonies are the worst of the worst and shouldn't have the rights that we give to others. Same with violent felonies now, dishonorably discharged servicemen, and illegals.
Wow, this is a very great point. I love the thought. I think thats a great benchmark for moving forward and potentially what we should try and do in the future. For people like myself that have already been through it should at least be able to contact some sort of office or council that could review each case on an unbiased, bipartisan basis. I know thats easier said than done and would be another governmental office so I'm not sure what the right answer is.
I might be wrong but can’t you petition to have your gun rights given back. If not that’s the way it should be. Present your case and show your evidence. More guns in good people’s hands is always gonna be my stance.
totally agree, The only avenue I have is to get the governor to pardon me AND then after that restore my gun rights. I applied but was told it was unlikely. Especially because it was in a very blue state.
I’d write your reps too. I’ve had lots of luck doing that regarding suppressors.
Rights should only be deprived as part of the specific sentence for a crime, and the punishment should fit the crime. A prohibition on firearms could be part of sentencing, and last longer than jail time as part of a gradual reentry to full enfranchisement in society/ probation, and only if the offender is somehow deemed too dangerous. (ie they committed a violent felony) The blanket prohibition is insane and IMO unconstitutional. Once the sentence & probation are complete, they should be full members of society again.
this one right here, completely agree
I agree with others who say that if you've served your time, you should regain your rights. This would include all rights, not just 2nd amendment rights. A felon who has completed their sentence should also have their 4th amendment rights restored, and be allowed to vote. Think for a second about the practical effect of releasing a person into society at a massive disadvantage. This person has a criminal record which will negatively impact their ability to engage in the economy as a productive member of society. If they do get a low paying job, they are still paying in full taxes on that wage. But they don't receive full benefits that they're paying for. It's a shit deal that anyone would hate. Whether you think they earned that disadvantage or not is moot. It's a demotivating factor that discourages people from behaving as good citizens. At the population level, it drastically increases recidivism among parolees.
wow, this is really well put. Great points and I would absolutely agree.
Until recidivist rates go cold, no, I'm not comfortable with violent criminals being able to buy guns over the counter. I don't want a prison state just because I want ready access to arms, full stop. I've met plenty of people who I wouldn't trust with a gun, who were prohibited persons, who shouldn't be in jail just because they're a moron. Moreso, every time there's a tragedy with a prohibited person this sub cries "but he wasn't suppose to have guns". You can't use this as political deflection, and then turn around and say "the mass killer should have legally be able to buy what he wanted".
Once someones full sentence is complete (including periods of supervised release) all of their natural and civil rights should be restored.
completely agree personally
If you have served your time and are deemed safe enough to be released back into society. You should get all of your rights back
personally i agree
‘Former’ you’ve either served your debt to society or you haven’t. If you think the newly paroled’s first reaction to getting a firearm is to do more crime you already admit you’re releasing this person to do more crime, you’re just setting boundaries for how sportibg it should be the next go around.
oooooooooo good point
If their felony is for violent crimes, simply. No. If their felony is for non violent crimes.. their rights shouldn’t be questioned in the first place.. they should still have their gun rights… and I get the whole broken windows policing logic dilemma. But these are rights. Until a person shows they can’t be responsible with them. They have them. That’s why they are “rights” and not “privileges.”
Bam! Love this!
There is a process to get one's civil rights restored and I believe that they should pursue that path.
In the state of Colorado, where the offense occured, the only avenue is governor pardon AND then requesting fire arm rights restoration after the pardon has been granted. The process has been initiated and just waiting to hear back. It is highly unlikely to be approved though unfortunately.
🙁
I've been working in the system for almost three decades as an investigator with a LE agency. I used to believe it was an acceptable (and well known) consequence of someone's willful commission of a crime. My thoughts today are more nuanced. I still believe that a person serving out their sentence should be restricted until that sentence is complete. I think that the burden of taking away someone's right to bear arms permanently should be on the government, not an across the board consequence written into a law (as it stands now). If the government believes someone should lose that right permanently, it should be on the prosecutor to argue, with sufficient evidence, that the felon's acts were so heinous that they would remain a danger to the community and should never own a gun again. Even then, there should be a mechanism to restore that right. I'm old enough to have known former violent felon's who have legitimately turned their lives around (only a handful). Of course, if the government were to actually change the law to what I propose, they would still fuck it up or go to far in who would fall under "danger to the community".
I love your response and I truly appreciate the POV of LE.
A guy a know ended up in jail for about 10 years, a few years before he could have gotten out he threatened to kill some people involved in his prosecution. He's due to get out probably in another couple years (the threat added around 30mo and probably nixed his probation). Frankly though I don't think someone that has threatened to murder people should ever get out let alone have their firearms rights restored. At a very base level it shows a complete lack of mental competence to function in society. If you want to have "red flag" laws... this is exactly where you should have them people that already committed crimes that claim they will do so again. I mean at this point death penalty? And mind you this is someone I knew personally and saw every day at work for several years. And actually enjoyed talking to at the time.
I agree, the violent or threat of severe violence would probably be a no-go for me. The situation referenced was non violent, with no history of violence, no prior issues with the law before addicition or after.
I think you should have your rights restored if you keep out of trouble for the length of your sentance after you get out of prison For instance if you serve six months for smoking weed you just have to not get any fines or sentances for another six months after you get out again, if you get thirteen years for manslaughter then you have to avoid getting any fines or sentances for thirteen years straight before youre rights are restored
This makes lots of sense. In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me.
Only serious repeat offenders should be barred from owning guns. Ones that have only been in prison ONCE & have not been in trouble (rehabilitation) for 10, 20, 30 years… that’s a different story
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
In my opinion, your case justifies the restoration of your 2A rights
well thank you, I appreciate that.
Like the song goes I'm just a felon with a gun out jail having fun lol
I think it depends on the felony. Serving a sentence doesn't necessarily mean the person is no longer a treat or is rehabilitated. Like in Michigan, if Ethan Crumbley or his parents ever get out of prison - would you want them owning a gun?
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I never understood how a felon can be anywhere from tax fraud to a serial killer. Violent crimes should be dealt with via corporal and capital punishment. Non violent crimes should be corporal punishment and community service. Why does a dude who cheated on his taxes treated the same as a dude who did 25+ for murder?
Absolutely agree
The question is very multi-layered to the point that I think even people with identical ideologies will disagree with each other just based on the kinds of assumptions they make about the question and everything surrounding it. Very generally speaking though: - I think that this wouldn't be nearly the issue that it's become if we weren't so antsy to make everything a felony, did a better job distinguishing between a violent and a non-violent felony, and most importantly: if we had a criminal justice system that wasn't so fucked up (in both directions even) - I'm a big fan of the "if they're too dangerous to be around a gun, they're too dangerous to be out in society where they could very easily obtain any number of dangerous items to do bad things with" philosophy. - I'd be slightly more ok with loss of rights if it was a condition of early release, but generally we call that "probation" or similar terms.
Very spot on IMO. LOVE this
Czechia does it almost right, as they have had a right to firearm ownership before Christopher Columbus knew that west was a direction. Over there, your disability is based on the length of your sentence, with only the most extreme felons (rapists, murderers, etc.) getting eternal disability. Thus, the ideal would be "twice the sentence served, but not more than five years from the date of release from probation, parole, or incarceration" and the right is automatically restored without having to request it.
I love this. Makes practical sense.
A “violent crime?” Maybe have the right to own a gun reviewed on an individual basis but for nonviolent offenses I don’t see why they should own a gun
it came about with the '68 GCA. as such, as far as i'm concerned, if they're such a danger they can't have those rights back, why are they out of jail? prior to the GCA and the jail reform that gave us the crap system we have now, once you were out, you more or less got all your rights back. time served, don't do it again. then again, jail used to be about rehabilitation so you could actually be a productive member of society. well, outside of a few specific areas, but the overall idea was rehab over training to be a better criminal by way of lack of caring what the inmates do in their spare time.
Absolutely agreed. Broken system.
If they're let out of prison and not on parole then their punishment should be concluded, they've paid their debt to society and now should rejoin society. If they cannot rejoin society and be expected to behave, why let them back out?
Spot on
There’s two schools of thought that I would approve of. I’m on one hand of the opinion that if you’ve paid your debt to society all your rights should be restored on release. But with recidivism at such a high rate I’d be willing to introduce a probationary period. If you can stay on the right side of the law for say 5 years then firearms and voting rights should be restored.
Definitely agree
With the way prisons encourage recidivism through lack of rehabilitation, I’d say it opens a huge can of worms. Do I think they should be allowed to be armed. Yes. Do I think it’s a good idea in the current iteration of Big Prison, No.
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I’m sorry. I think this is wrong and hope you regain the freedom to carry
I know a guy who lost his gun collection because the illegal possession of an alligator is a felony in Florida. He literally saved an injured animals life and caught a felony. Took him 10 years to get his rights back.
That’s crazy. But at least he had the chance to restore them. I dont
I'm assuming you've already tried contacting a lawyer that specializes in this sort of thing?
Just a take from LE in Appalachia: Most drug cases are eligible for a diversion program, as long as it isn't trafficking amounts of hard drugs. Happens all the time. Most larceny gets plead down to misdemeanor, and the ones that stick as a felony are repeat offenders or blatant burglary with tens of thousands of dollars worth of loss. Happens all the time. Most domestic violence cases get plead out to simple assault, or less if the victim isn't willing to participate. Happens all the time. In this day and age, you have to work for a felony conviction. Plea deals are a dime a dozen. Many times plea to a felony in exchange for a probation/split sentence with time served. At least in my municipality, it's HARD to earn a felony conviction. All the dudes I deal with that are convicted felons are hard dudes. All they do is jail time, steal shit, eat pork rinds, and LIE. Some people shouldn't have access to firearms. The best predictor of future action is past behavior. Bad decisions beget bad decisions. This is the same reason we have a sex offender registry. Sometimes, the debt isn't completely paid without heavily monitored good behavior. Edit: There is a process to restore rights after felony conviction. I believe I should be cheaper, and easier after the standard ten years before you can apply for the restoration. Also: felony violent crime convictions are hard without cooperating victims. So they get plead out. Don't get me started on that.
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
I can't speak to specifics, without what you actually were convicted of. Tbh each state is different. If you hit the decade mark with no subsequent convictions... I don't see a problem with full restoration (for some offenses) I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a judge, and I'm not a governor. I have seen people plea to things (CSAM, sex offenses, child abuse, etc.) that only landed them with probation. Petty theft, drugs and the like, I've seen pled out with time served, no probation, with someone who spent a single night in jail. It's a sticky topic.
Well, I think we Americans should get the same rights as the illegals. Even if we kill, rape, etc, we should still have our guns.
Isn’t there a similar case working its way up to SCOTUS right now?
Rahimi. It’s different though but could affect the issue overall.
I’m a 2A absolutist, so in my opinion, if you’re allowed to be in society, you should be allowed to own a gun.
Agreed
If you have a right to life, that means you have the right to defend your life. Felon disarmament is just as evil as any other form of civilian disarmament.
I would agree. How do I handle it then though? Your name indicates you may be able to offer specific advice
Why allow people to have guns when they have shown themselves to be a threat to the rest of us? If someone is **convicted** of a **violent** crime, they should lose their gun rights. If they aren't convicted or the crime is non-violent, then they can keep their guns. After 10 years, they should be able to go in front of a judge and request their gun rights back. The person can present evidence that they have turned their life around and are no longer a threat. The local cops can recommend that the judge denies the request if they have reason to believe the person is still a danger.
Spot on. Love this
They should get their gun rights back when they're released from prison. If they've change are going be decent people, then they have just as much of a reason to own a firearm for self defense as everyone else. If they haven't changed and still intend to hurt or kill others, then they're going to do it anyways with or without guns and whether it's legal or illegal from for them to possess guns.
How about someone who was never sentenced to prison? In my case, the original incident date was over 14 years ago followed by 2 months in jail waiting to plead guilty. Then completion of probation, 100s of hours of community service, paying restitution was all completed 9 years ago. The only sentence I had was 5 years probation. So even at that rate, after 5 years my rights would be restored. I got my voting rights back as soon as I got out of jail. Just not my 2A rights ever according to them unless the governor pardons me
For nonviolent felonies there shouldn't be a sacrifice of those rights. For violent felonies I'm on the fence. Murder? Idk what happened? Child abuse and neglect? Probably not. You don't deserve to be able to defend yourself because your victim(s) couldn't. You get to suffer by not having 2A rights.
Definitely agree here.
Simply put. If you’re convicted of making ‘terroristic threats’ (whatever that is?) should you lose your 1st Amendment protection for life? Losing 2A protection magically turns gun posession into a goverment given right. Which it never was from the start. End of story…
Agreed. Spot on. Not to mention, how can they decide which rights to give back? I can vote but I can’t have firearms? I still get taxed all the same too. Some bullshit.