Ex-Felon wants to have gun rights back...

[c.sander]

sadly i dont think you have a fighting chance in hell of getting your firearms rights back... i wish it were differently. i think if someone has paid their debt and done their time they should be granted full rights, if they arent to be granted full rights they shouldnt have been let out period.

[bgeddes]

I see no reason to deny only the right to arms, other than irrational anti-gun sentiment

yep, that's me the anti-gunner, you got me!

I think the right to vote should be surrendered also. I hinted at that point.

Bottom line is, if you can do anything and be forgiven for it, at what point is there justice for the victims? If you want crime to be (more of) a business than it is, then draw a time line for punishment and forgiveness.

The ultimatum has to be something serious, or it's 8th grade algebra.

[emsjeep]

sadly i dont think you have a fighting chance in hell of getting your firearms rights back... i wish it were differently. i think if someone has paid their debt and done their time they should be granted full rights, if they arent to be granted full rights they shouldnt have been let out period.

In some ways it is a recognition of the inherent, systemic and acknowledged failures of our criminal justice system. "Good enough," has become a goal, and even that endeavor is lax. The institution of such policies by lawmakers would seem to suggest that the root issue is under some degree of review, however, it is a temporary, arbitrary and telling quick fix to a problem that has no fair and at the same time practical solution. Is it proper to deny certain people these rights given that they are handed down by God? We have executions in many states, and the same thoughts apply to that issue. Do we have the right to deprive those who have deprived others their rights of their rights, or even their lives?

I tend to think that if I was a victim I would be pissed about a felon owning a gun, or having other certain rights...

Good luck.

[imperialism2024]

yep, that's me the anti-gunner, you got me!

I think the right to vote should be surrendered also. I hinted at that point.

Bottom line is, if you can do anything and be forgiven for it, at what point is there justice for the victims? If you want crime to be (more of) a business than it is, then draw a time line for punishment and forgiveness.

The ultimatum has to be something serious, or it's 8th grade algebra.

Isn't it "justice" that a former criminal has been able to turn his life around and will no longer want to victimize others?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the release of violent criminals (ever), but proposing that our focus should be on "fixing" criminals so to speak, to reduce their likelihood of re-offending. I'm saying that it's better to help a criminal turn around his life than to bathe in the blood of his children.

[VariableFeedback]

If I used an shovel to kill someone's grandmother in the '80's on a drinking binge, but 'paid my price' and 'turned my life around', should I be able to own a firearm?

No, If you killed somebody, you should remain in prison for the rest of your life, natural or otherwise.

If somebody committed a crime of no violence, should he lose to right to protect themselves and his family for the rest of his life?

And to draw the line at felonies, have you even looked at what qualifies as a felony anymore? When felonies were only the most serious crimes (treason/murder/rape/et cetra), a prohibition on convicted felons may make sense, but I don't think that it should apply with today's laws.

[LastManOut]

If ANY criminal is tried and sentenced, and completes that sentence, his debt to society "has been paid in full". That is ,as I understand it, the purpose of sentencing, to make right or punish for a crime against society.

IANAL, but this seems to me to be a no-brainer. As someone mentioned earlier, society does not take away a formerly convicted (who's debt has been paid) felon's right to speech, privacy in their effects, travel, etc. (If one is on parole, some of these rights remain restricted. But on parole is still serving the sentence.)

If anyone here has a problem with the sentence being too lienient that is a matter to address to the courts. If a criminal's "debt has been paid" to society, it has been paid in full. To deny the right of self-defense is the most basic of rights, and yet some here believe this former criminal (now victim) should be denied that right. Shame on you!

[NY Refugee]

What debt to society? How about the broken trust to society. In a free society there needs to be a certain amount of trust between its citizens, when you commit a crime you brake that trust, saying your sorry only goes so far.
And the heck with society what about the actual victim(s), Most victims of crime, violent or not suffer long after the perp "has paid their debt". Sorry on this one you broke that trust big enough to be convicted of a felony than why should society trust you again?

[Pennywise]

The Bill of Rights does NOT say

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Except for people that commit a felony.

[jcabin]

I'm saying that it's better to help a criminal turn around his life than to bathe in the blood of his children.

Pour out your ale and bring me your pitchers!!!!!

[GunLawyer001]

If ANY criminal is tried and sentenced, and completes that sentence, his debt to society "has been paid in full". That is ,as I understand it, the purpose of sentencing, to make right or punish for a crime against society.

IANAL, but this seems to me to be a no-brainer. As someone mentioned earlier, society does not take away a formerly convicted (who's debt has been paid) felon's right to speech, privacy in their effects, travel, etc. (If one is on parole, some of these rights remain restricted. But on parole is still serving the sentence.)

If anyone here has a problem with the sentence being too lienient that is a matter to address to the courts. If a criminal's "debt has been paid" to society, it has been paid in full. To deny the right of self-defense is the most basic of rights, and yet some here believe this former criminal (now victim) should be denied that right. Shame on you!

I don't know any sense in which sitting in jail for a period of time will repay society for the damage done by most crimes. Murder, for sure, is never "paid for" in the sense that the dead person is restored to life. Mugging victims bear the emotional scars, and sometimes physical scars, for life. In fact. most criminals are judgment-proof and are totally unable to make financial restitution for any significant harm they cause. People who are killed, or victimized, will never be the same, so the harm done is never undone.

No, society has no obligation to pretend that nothing happened once the prison door opens and the convict walks out. He should be able to earn his rights back, but they shouldn't be an entitlement, because he's proven that he can't be trusted to obey the law on his own.

The Bill of Rights does NOT say

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Except for people that commit a felony.

Felons lose all sorts of rights, and so do serious misdemeanants. While in jail, you lose many of your civil rights: you can be searched without a warrant, you can't travel, you can't own almost anything. Your life can be taken from you for certain crimes.

After you're released, you're ineligible for public office. You might be ineligible to vote. Sex offenders lose many rights, and the reason is that they have put themselves into a category of "people who we can't trust as much" by their own voluntary actions.

Our deeds and misdeeds should be part of our permanent records, because what we did in the past is an excellent predictor of what we're likely to do in the future.