Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights

[kingfish]

I guess the question needs to be asked is could part of the sentencing be that the convicted be prevented from owning firearms for the rest of their life? If that were the case then their debt to society would never be paid. I would think that could be enacted by state statute in sentencing guidelines. It would probably eventually end up in the SC to decide the constitutionality of it all. This could be used to separate violent from non-violent fellons as far as restoring rights are concerned.

 

[sklfco]

Keeping violent criminals locked up negates the need for further investigations related to recidivism

Those who’s perks and pensions ride on the continuous investigations and their bosses the politicians need the cycle to continue otherwise they would have no justification for the continual need for more and more budget increases.
Aint
Gona
Happen

 

[Bocephus123]

I also have mixed feelings and am inclined to agree. My only question is, DOES it keep guns out of their hands?

Some not all

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Keep in mind this ruling affects those accused/under indictment of a/for a felony...not convicted. I'd have to agree with the ruling.

I also have mixed feelings about completely restoring 2A rights to felons. On the one hand, if they've served their sentence and paid for their crimes they should regain rights. On the other, some gang-type thug that's just committed to that way of life isn't gonna care about having his rights restored.

Criminals, or anyone else for that matter, can get their hands on a gun easily enough, regardless of the law.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

What I'd like to see challenged is the Lautenberg rule...those that have been convicted/plead guilty to ANY domestic violence-related charge, regardless of how long ago it was.

That's an ex post facto punishment that's strictly prohibited in my opinion. Just like allowing someone to buy something that's legal just to turn around and say it's not legal later on (looking at you, AFT).

 

[retrieverman]

I can see the logic in the judge‘s ruling, and in my opinion, the guy was a dumb*ss for buying a gun while under indictment in the first place.

 

[BillM]

My experience says NO, it does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The vast majority of felons could not possibly care less about the fact that they aren't supposed to have a gun and real hard core criminals don't vote anyway so losing that right is not a deterrent either. The only way to prevent career criminals from putting innocent civilians in harms way is to keep them locked up or execute them if the crime warrants capital punishment.

As far as I'm concerned, if they can't be trusted to go back on the street after making restitution, they should be executed.

 

[TedKennedy]

Keep in mind this ruling affects those accused/under indictment of a/for a felony...not convicted. I'd have to agree with the ruling.

I also have mixed feelings about completely restoring 2A rights to felons. On the one hand, if they've served their sentence and paid for their crimes they should regain rights. On the other, some gang-type thug that's just committed to that way of life isn't gonna care about having his rights restored.

Criminals, or anyone else for that matter, can get their hands on a gun easily enough, regardless of the law.

Then once again, you're saying that criminals don't care about the law, and law-abiding citizens will be punished. (in this case "law abiding citizen" may have a prior conviction)

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Obviously they don't, or they wouldn't be "criminals". And the typical response of law-makers, especially with gun-related legislation, is to pass laws that only the law-abiding will follow. So, yes, the law-abiding is often punished when the criminal isn't.

 

[TedKennedy]

Obviously they don't, or they wouldn't be "criminals". And the typical response of law-makers, especially with gun-related legislation, is to pass laws that only the law-abiding will follow. So, yes, the law-abiding is often punished when the criminal isn't.

That's my point - a "convicted felon" may do their time, be on the straight and narrow, yet be denied their 2A rights. That's BS, IMHO.

In most instances, a "convicted felon" will keep doing felon stuff, and doesn't care at all about whether his 2A rights are restored.

So the ONLY one negatively affected is the felon who tries to stay within the law.