uh oh, another thread to debate constitutional rights...

General General Discussion
1

the recent machinegun thread sparked an urge to start this thread. i’m jumping on it while it’s still in me mind.

Felons and guns.

It’s my argument that once a person has done his time, he should have ALL of his rights restored to him upon release from incarceration. including 2nd ammendment rights.

the background check is bullshit- if a person can’t be trusted with guns, he cant be trusted amonst society in general. because, as we all know- there are manymanymany guns in our society, and any type/shape/size/caliber/action can be had. criminals have the advantage, in fact- they can get whatever their hearts desire and wad of money can achieve.

so does a background check do anything except put a condition upon our RIGHT? should “felons,” who have served their time or been deemed safe enough to return to society be denied this basic human right?

if a person is not fit to own a gun, he is not fit to live among us. if this person can’t be trusted with a gun, he should be kept locked up until he is. perhaps this is a core problem with crime and punishment in this country- we’ve established that criminals are repeat offenders, that after serving their “time” they often chose to return to their previous criminal ways. and this is why we have so MUCH crime, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans are generally law-abiding citizens.

WHY ARE WE RELEASING DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM PRISON?

i’ll probably have more to add, but this is what has spilled from my brain at this moment.

in the spirit of transparancy, my background as it pertains to this thread: No criminal record, 98% of a degree in criminal justice, non-LEO civilian, very strong slant toward personal freedoms vs. social control, quite right-of-center.

i’d be especially interested to hear from and debate with inner-city LEOs on this one.

So what you got to say?

2

I like pie!! :stuck_out_tongue:

3

I have a pretty strong opinion on this matter. My family grew up shooting been around guns camping and outdoor fun our whole life. My younger brother who is now 25 can’t legally own a firearm because of a crime he commited when he was 13 years old. He was convicted of residential burglary in the 2 and possesion of a stolen firearm. Him and a friend whose house it was that was supposedly robbed had taken his step dads .22 out plinking with out asking my brother had no idea of this fact they didn’t endager any one as they were out in the counrty shooting at cans. He plead guilty and took his punishment like our father always taught us too, but because of one stupid mistake he made when he was a kid he now can’t legal own the tools that we all grew up enjoying. Oh and here’s the kicker he hasn’t been in trouble since then not even a speeding ticket. It’s a sad thing guns are easy to get if you want background checks will never stop this fact.

4

I would have to respectfully disagree. If someone does their time, it does not change the fact they have committed a serious crime(in this case a felony). The punishment is not simply prison time, the punishment is also the associated consequences.

Do recidivism rates count? Not sure.

Would I let my future child spend the night with a convicted child molester because he has done his time? No.

Also, I would not consider owning a gun a basic human right to every single person no matter what. Someone that is profoundly mentally disabled does not have the right to bear arms. This person does not have the capacity to make rational decisions, just the same way other people have a demonstrated lack of ability to make rational decisions. The right to bear arms really means the right for certain people to bear arms, as in responsible citizens.

People convicted of a felony do not have a right to bear arms. I understand the point of the right to bear arms and the slippery slope when a society decides not everyone has that right. I do not think a two strike loser has any right at all to bear arms.

Does an Alzheimers patient have the right to bear arms? No.

I understand where you are coming from and where the decision to limit the right to bear arms can possibly lead to. However, I do not think someone has the right to bear arms simply b/c they have a pulse. There must be an ability to make good choices to accept the responsibility of the ownership. Do dumba**** get guns legally, yes, but allowing someone that has demonstrated a severe lack of judgment in the past has as part of the punishment lost the right to bear arms.

I guess, for me, it boils down to feeling that the prison sentence is only one part of the punishment. Loss of the right to bear arms and to vote are simply part of the punishment. The prison sentence is not the end of the punishment.

5

In reply to 6933:

I’m suggesting that a really big part of the issue is that people who aren’t fit to own guns are also not fit to be amonst society. I agree that just because you have a pulse doesn’t afford you the right to own guns- my point is that if you’ve demonstrated such a bad lack of judgement that you cannot be trusted with guns, how can you be trusted with cars? or knives? or things that can be stolen? or society where there’s children to molest?

child molesters ALWAYS re-offend, they’re the only people, in my mind, that should absolutely never be released from prison. execution is probably best for these, and i’m generally against the death penalty.

This would probably make a great standard for prison release… since we have such a bad tendency to release people who shouldn’t be released. if the person canot be trusted with weapons, they shouldn’t be released. Ever, if necessary. if punishment is to extend beyond a person’s sentence, it should exist in the form of an extended sentence… not to be unleashed upon the good people of society with imaginary limitations.

6

Maybe it’s just semantics, but isn’t part of the sentence the loss of the right to vote and bear arms? I don’t mean that in an as***** way, I really mean that as a question, be it rhetorical or not. I think we probably agree on 99.9% of this issue. And, you are right, child molesters are terrible people and should at least be given a mandatory life sentence.

Death penalty. Tough, tough issue. But I feel and can argue that it is appropriate in certain circumstances. I have often heard the argument that it really isn’t a deterrent. Being killed is the ultimate deterrent for the individual affected. I know this isn’t how many people mean the statement but I look at it in a different light. That person has been deterred from ever committing another crime.

What really gets me is the life prisoners have in prison. Free health care, free tv, free gym membership. Disgusting. They should all be doing hard labor that in one way or another benefits society as a whole. Ditch digging, road building(by hand), rock crushing, etc. No tv, no gym, extremely limited health care, food of a quality that barely meets the lowest requirements, no education, or trade programs.

Let’s make prison a place that people are truly terrified of. Not a place they really, really don’t want to go, but a place that strikes terror in the heart of anyone that may do something that would get them committed there.

7

Oye.
I’m on both sides.
I think mostly that once a person has done their time they should be “forgiven”.
Prison time or whatever is supposed to be what it takes to make things right, so to speak; societies way of saying “do this, and we’ll call it even.”
As for background checks for jobs and whatnot, I agree they should be on new ground.
As for guns and voting, I don’t think so; I do think they still need to give up something.
Now, along with that I do think we need to actually start punishing folks.
As I see it, when you get released the warden should ask you if you remember why you were there and if you know how to avoid coming back.
And your time there should have been bad enough to have taught you to tow the line.

On sex offenders… it pisses me off when TV news has a story about an offender being released into a particular neighborhood and they say that officials estimate that the offender has a 75% chance (or higher) of reoffending.
Well, that’s just fucking stupid.
Maybe they shouldn’t be released until the chance of them reoffending is less than say, 1%.

8

11Bravo-What you meant to say was prison time and the associated penalties that apply once they get out.:stuck_out_tongue:

9

Because its not about justice, its about money, fine money, probation money and fees and those felons can’t earn any money while locked up.

Felonies bring in big monies, fines of a $1,000 or better in most states plus probation fees…

10

i believe that it depends on the felony. if its a violent offense, then they shouldn’t have their gun rights reinstated.

i do believe that they should not have their voting rights denied though, no matter the crime. but maybe it should hinge on them taking a basic civics class to reinstate their rights, something like that.

11

He can get his rights back. I know of a convict who not only applied for and got his ownership rights back, he is not an FFL. If your brother has not been in trouble since, he can petition to get his rights back.

12

Ding, Ding, Ding, Winner! Plus our tax monies being used to cover their health care, TV, Gym, and extended stay.:smiley:

13

if it’s so violent that they cant be trusted with guns, they shouldnt be released to begin with… this is my point!

14

I have an older half-brother who has served almost 24 years now in Missouri Prisons.
It has only been in the last few years that I have seen any real progress towards him reforming his life.
Part of his crime included the use of a Smith & Wesson handgun which he stole from my father. Mike and I were damn close as kids and did everything that boys often do to get into trouble together…In fact Mike’s going to prison is what set me on a straight and narrow path and out of a life that could have mirrored his own.
I am 44 years old now and am anxious to one day have my brother back in my families life…but the fact of the matter is that I will never trust Mike as I once did.
All my Firearms will remain inaccessable to him…whcih is as it should be. And I won’t trust him to be left alone with my family or my possesions.

Has he served his time? Yes.

Has he been rehabilitated? That remains to be seen.

Should he have all his rights restored? I don’t think that in good conscious I could or would ever support that.

There is always going to be that little seed of doubt in the back of my mind wondering if he is willing and capable of commiting a crime of the nature of the ones he did 24 years ago.
There are an awful lot of people who go into prison over relatively minor offenses and come out after only a short time seasoned and educated criminals.

My Criminology Professor at Drury University told the class on our first day…“If you want to learn how to break the law, you are in the right class.”

Where better to learn than the School of Hard knocks located behind the concertina wire of a State Prison?

15

Back in 1990, when I took Criminology 101…The instructor told the class that the cost of keeping someone in a Max Security Prison in the State of Missouri was in excess of $35.00 per day.

Today the cost are in excess of $44.80 per day per inmate.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/Oversight/OVER03/fishtm/0151-01N.ORG.htm

That can add up pretty quickly on the taxpayers.

16

“It’s my argument that once a person has done his time, he should have ALL of his rights restored to him upon release from incarceration. including 2nd amendment rights.”

One word; recidivism.

17

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

Oh yes, give them guns.

18

as stated in my first post- i’m fully aware that criminals reoffend. and once again- if they cant be trusted with guns, they cant be trusted with freedom.

people… gun control, as we all know and rant about over and over, doesn’t work. if bad guys want guns, they’ll get them.

how the hell is this any different? if an ex-con wants a gun, he’ll get one, if he’s a free man.

my points:

1 - Don’t release people that are a risk to society.
2, and depending on 1 - Once released, a free man is a free man. He’ll have guns if he wants them, whether he’s “allowed” to or not.

Here’s another question- is it even allowed by the Constitution? I would argue that Constitutional rights CANNOT be taken away from a man not incarcerated- afterall, what IS the point of incarceration? To strip a person of their rights. That’s the whole point… once released, once he’s paid his debt, that person is once again a Free Man, entitled to his rights. He can speak, he can have privacy (so long as he’s not on a post-release supervision program), he’s protected against the government quartering soldiers in his home, he has ALL of his rights except one- the most important one.

19

Definately adds up and I’m sure the top notch health care they recieve is not totally factored into this. Therefore they get released early because of the cost involved. Not because, “They’ve seen the error in their ways.”

As for my two cents on felons and their 2nd Ammend. rights, not exactly sure I’m 100% one way or the other. I could see restoring the rights for so called “white collar” crimes and non-violent felons. But never violent felonies. However, its been stated several times in this thread, if they want a gun they’ll find one. :frowning:

20

At face value I would agree.

The problem is with our current justice system most haven’t done their time, justice hasn’t been served and they’ve been released because their lawyer pleaded them down to a ridiculous sentence and/or they simply got kicked out to make room for other criminals.

As a result in most cases, they are still very much criminals and get right back to work. Violent offenders shouldn’t be let out until they are no longer a threat to the public, but it happens all the time.

And laws against them owning guns sure ain’t gonna stop them, but we don’t need to help them any either. So if you don’t want to lose your rights, don’t commit violent crimes. Seems so simple.