Should Felons Have The Right To Carry ?

[jimlongley]

I think most felonies I can think of involved a deliberate act in violation of the law, serious enough to have been defined as a felony. There is no such thing as an "accidental" felony, although there are miscarriages of justice like, say, Scooter Libby type cases.

It isn't that hard to avoid being convicted of a felony. What's the problem? You deliberately broke the law seriously. Can you be trusted ever thereafter? Given the rate of recidivism, in a great many cases the answer is an abysmal no!

It used to be that felons were executed. No "3 strikes" or any of those sissy rules. Of course, given the lamentable prevalence of error, perhaps the death penalty is a bit harsh. But I see no reason to excuse felonies, restore civil rights, let them vote etc. If you want to vote, wait until you die, or don't commit felonies!

I don't want to end up in jail, at least while my mom is still alive. That is incentive enough for me! losing civil rights stands as a further incentive to take the law seriously, avoid gross misbehavior and such like conduct.

That's how I see it, anyway.

I have a friend "Diamond Lil" (for further identification, who ended up a felon quite "accidentally." A business associate of hers, hereinafter known as "The Rat" took a short term loan from Lil, kind of a "friend to friend" business to business loan kind of thing. Rat started paying back the loan almost immediately, bringing Lil a check every week, and then here's where my friend should have gotten suspicious. One day Rat called and asked if she could just deposit the money into Lil's bank account, since she was already at the bank. Lil gave her the account number, and after the first couple of payments were deposited for the right amount, she stopped checking on it, although the fact that Rat's payments were now always going to the bank bothered her, they were always on time and always the right amount.

And then came the day that Rat called and said that she had accidentally deposited too much money in Lil's account and could Lil give her the difference if she dropped by.

This happened several times over a period of time, and suddenly police and bank examiners and all of everything else descended on my friend's little private business which she ran with her daughter, with warrants and everything. Seems that Rat got caught with her hand deeply in her company's till, and in order to save herself, she turned state's evidence against Lil, and her daughter and a couple of other peripheral people, who she identified as a theft and money laundering ring.

Rat got probation, Lil's daughter plead guilty to reduced charges under extreme pressure and tactics (having small children and a newly disabled husband at home that she was sole support for), and Lil, believing that the system would see that she was blameless much less innocent put her faith in the system and was convicted of a felony, losing her licenses, her agency, her income, and now even her husband, in fairness, her husband was a rat too, started cheating on her the day she went to jail, before she was tried and convicted, and moved to Arkansas while she was imprisoned in upstate NY, and immediately developed a new nickname for her, something other than "honey" and he also knew what went on in those womens' prisons, he said, so she's well rid of him.

I have known this woman for close to 50 years. She used to hold a NY State CARRY Pistol Permit (and a nice little .357 that the State police confiscated and eventually destroyed) which is not something criminals get unless they have political pull. I don't believe, not for one second, that she had anything more than honest intentions in her deal with Rat, and wish there was a way to exonerate her after the fact.

I believe she is truly an accidental felon.

[android]

I think that there should be a process where someone convicted of a NON-VIOLENT felony could be able to petition to have their rights restored after 10 years from the end of their sentence completion, if they have a clean record (ZERO criminal activity) in that decade. Those convicted of violent felonies, no, and those who have committed other criminal activity, no as well. This way, it would be on a case-by-case basis.

I'm good with this.

[Jumping Frog]

If they are still violent enough they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, then they should still be in jail or executed.

Remember that felons that had served their sentence were allowed to possess firearms from 1789 through 1968. It wasn't until the GCA of 1968 that felons became banned. The Republic seemed to operate just fine for the first 179 years under the old rules.

[anygunanywhere]

Yes.

Anygunanywhere

[nightmare69]

I was arrested for felony theft when I was 13yrs old back in 1998 and I got my CHL. I don't think I should have been banned from owning firearms because of a stupid choice I made as a teen.

[mamabearCali]

Yes, if they have served thier sentence then they should be restored as full citizens.

[TexasCajun]

If the felon has served time & not gotten into any more trouble, then yes, all of their rights should be restored. I would include violent as well as nonviolent offenders. I believe that it is possible for someone who has gone astray to seek out and find the right path. However if a person is convicted of a subsequent offense, then their clock would reset with regard to restoration of rights - maybe with successive lengths of trouble-free time required after sentence completion. I would also like to see a reconsideration of how offenses are considered felonies.

[Abraham]

Non - Violent: Maybe after careful review

Non - Violent Repeat Offenders: No

Violent: No

[MeMelYup]

Yes. It should not be automatic. After they have completed their full court sentence they be allowed to petition the court for reinstatement of their rights, all or partial. The court would need to take in the persons full record, not just pertaining to a particular case.

[Oldgringo]

No. The laws are quite clear on this subject.

Vacillation on the laws and righteousness are what moral liberalists do.

[Jumping Frog]

No. The laws are quite clear on this subject.

Vacillation on the laws and righteousness are what moral liberalists do.

But the flip side of that coin is the liberals are the ones who feel it is necessary to write a new law to control every aspect of the human condition. There are 30,000 gun laws in this country. Many are warped and unjust.

[The Annoyed Man]

No. The laws are quite clear on this subject.

Vacillation on the laws and righteousness are what moral liberalists do.

But the flip side of that coin is the liberals are the ones who feel it is necessary to write a new law to control every aspect of the human condition. There are 30,000 gun laws in this country. Many are warped and unjust.

Exactly. Plus, even though a law once passed should not be broken, nowhere is it written that once passed it can't be repealed if it turns out to be bad law. As pointed out previously, felons were not barred from possessing firearms until the GCA of 1968. From 1789 until then, it was legal. That's 179 years of legal, versus 45 years of illegal. Why was it OK for a period 4 times longer than it's been illegal? The bill was motivated by the Kennedy assassinations, and was given the push to passage by the killings of Malcolm X and MLK.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a broken toy, but he was not a convicted felon. The GCA of 1968 would not have prevented him from buying the rifle he used to kill JFK.

Sirhan Sirhan was a broken toy, but he was not a convicted felon and the GCA of 1968 would not have prevented him from buying the pistol he used to kill RFK.

Talmadge Hayer, one of the three Malcolm X assassins, was a broken toy, but he was not a convicted felon and the GCA of 1968 would not have prevented him from buying the pistol he used to shoot Malcolm X with. Neither would the GCA have prevented the other two assailants from owning a shotgun and a handgun, respectively.

James Earl Ray, MLK's assassin is the only one of these 6 men who we know for certain would have been prevented from buying a firearm by the GCA of 1968. But that is the way that we do things......a handful of men perform evil deeds, and the rest of us have to give up another increment of our liberty to satisfy the vultures on the left. And in the interim, a fairly large category of Americans have no longer been able to exercise a constitutional right for the past 45 years.

Is that not reason enough to reconsider this stuff instead of reflexively proclaiming the law to be perfect—particularly when each one of us can recite from memory dozens of instances throughout our history when the law was the law, but it was not just?

[RottenApple]

Exactly. Plus, even though a law once passed should not be broken, nowhere is it written that once passed it can't be repealed if it turns out to be bad law. As pointed out previously, felons were not barred from possessing firearms until the GCA of 1968. From 1789 until then, it was legal. That's 179 years of legal, versus 45 years of illegal. Why was it OK for a period 4 times longer than it's been illegal? The bill was motivated by the Kennedy assassinations, and was given the push to passage by the killings of Malcolm X and MLK.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a broken toy, but he was not a convicted felon. The GCA of 1968 would not have prevented him from buying the rifle he used to kill JFK.

Sirhan Sirhan was a broken toy, but he was not a convicted felon and the GCA of 1968 would not have prevented him from buying the pistol he used to kill RFK.

Talmadge Hayer, one of the three Malcolm X assassins, was a broken toy, but he was not a convicted felon and the GCA of 1968 would not have prevented him from buying the pistol he used to shoot Malcolm X with. Neither would the GCA have prevented the other two assailants from owning a shotgun and a handgun, respectively.

James Earl Ray, MLK's assassin is the only one of these 6 men who we know for certain would have been prevented from buying a firearm by the GCA of 1968. But that is the way that we do things......a handful of men perform evil deeds, and the rest of us have to give up another increment of our liberty to satisfy the vultures on the left. And in the interim, a fairly large category of Americans have no longer been able to exercise a constitutional right for the past 45 years.

Is that not reason enough to reconsider this stuff instead of reflexively proclaiming the law to be perfect—particularly when each one of us can recite from memory dozens of instances throughout our history when the law was the law, but it was not just?

And on a side note, I just decided what I want to be when I grow up..... I wanna be TAM!

[MamaK]

It has been discussed at length not long ago: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=63144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the outcome is that there are two sides on the matter. Those that think you broke the law you should never have the opportunity and those that think once you do your time, you should be allowed.

That would be considered a necropost, had he responded to it and necroposters appear to be treated as spammers here, which results in them getting BAMMinated.


My answer to the op's questions is "depends". Laws are changing. marijuana used to be a felony offence, so there are potheads who were charged with felonies. Obviously cases involving violence, particularly D.V., Rape, Crimes against children, robbery - those folks should never be allowed to carry. I'm basing my answer on behavior,and behavior patterns.
I believe that certain criminal activities are oriented in the frontal lobes which is where impulse control is located. Some crimes occur from rage and a desire for power. The activity ceases when the consequences become unworthy of the reward - such as with those who are sexually attracted to children. However, the desires, the rage, the need for power, the poor impulse control are always there in some small part and it's an unknown variable as to what could cause a relapse. So for those cases, I say "no".

Now, with D.V. - in some way I can also say "depends". Remember laws are changing. The depends answer is solely in regard to the abuse of children committed prior to 2000. Many years ago, there weren't really as many protections for children or juveniles against abusive parents. In my hometown, I know of at one person, who after years of physical & psychological abuse, degradation, she hit back. All of the events prior involved law enforcement being called, social service visits at her school but nothing was done. However, when she struck back, after her mother allegedly during a rage, flipped a bed on top of her and began jumping on it - she was charged with D.V. as a juvenile and finally put into foster care. (Her mothers dockets are searchable online, and from what I read, show how dysfunctional she was. After the child was removed, the mother appears to have rampaged on the community. Lots of stalking/harassment charges, even some jail time.)
If it wasn't for her, my decision would have been a solid "hell no". but I've since learned that her situation wasn't unique. I've met her and her mom multiple times (back then, and now) Her mom would vary between trying to kill herself and then trying to harm my friend. Her mom wasn't the only psycho parent in the area. There was another family that would lock their kids out in the snow to punish them, beat them so severely that a daughters skull cracked and she suffered brain damage. (I believe the book "My Remembrance", written by one of the girls from that family, goes into detail about how horribly inefficient law enforcement and social services were during the 80's.)

I truly believe that if Felons or people with DV charges are allowed to carry, it should depend on the circumstances of the event, and there should be substantial evidence supporting their reasoning. In my friends case, I think her's was a moment of self preservation. After reading my other friends book, I truly believe that the situation wasn't unique, and that there are some people out there who have juvenile D.V. charges due to the legal perspective of the past, and failures of social services, which has significantly improved. The same past legal perspective that allowed pot heads to be charged with felonies.
we forget that many activities that would result in felony charges, are decriminalized. Those previously charged will maintain the felony stain and continue to be lumped into the same kettle as those who have committed crimes that have not been decriminalized, such as robbery, and rape.

[texanjoker]

Tough question. I have put a lot of felons in jail that were illegally carrying concealed weapons. They were all criminals and had no business carrying or possessing those guns. Who decides what and when is the acceptable?

I personally think this will be a tough battle since the trend right now is to take away 2nd amendment rights vs. granting more back to us.