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

[Gadsden]

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.

Depends on the crime.

 

[retrieverman]

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.

In my opinion, every felon isn’t equal. A guy that kills someone, commits a crime with a weapon, or domestic violence/violent assault SHOULD lose their 2A rights for life, but I don’t think a guy that embezzles or commits some other financial non violent crime that isn’t a “threat” to the public and serves their sentence should have to pay for it for the rest of his life.

 

[Snattlerake]

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.

G. Gordon Liddy was a convicted felon and his wife sure had a lot of firearms. He admitted this fact several hundred times on his program poking his middle finger into the FBI and ATF's eye.

 

[TedKennedy]

In my opinion, every felon isn’t equal. A guy that kills someone, commits a crime with a weapon, or domestic violence/violent assault SHOULD lose their 2A rights for life, but I don’t think a guy that embezzles or commits some other financial non violent crime that isn’t a “threat” to the public and serves their sentence should have to pay for it for the rest of his life.

I disagree. Regardless of the crime, once an offender has completed his sentence, it should be that he is once again a full and free citizen.

IF the offender has committed such an egregious act that he cannot be trusted as a citizen, then he should not be free at all, which is a different discussion.

 

[Snattlerake]

In my opinion, every felon isn’t equal. A guy that kills someone, commits a crime with a weapon, or domestic violence/violent assault SHOULD lose their 2A rights for life, but I don’t think a guy that embezzles or commits some other financial non violent crime that isn’t a “threat” to the public and serves their sentence should have to pay for it for the rest of his life.

Agreed.

 

[wawazat]

In my opinion, every felon isn’t equal. A guy that kills someone, commits a crime with a weapon, or domestic violence/violent assault SHOULD lose their 2A rights for life, but I don’t think a guy that embezzles or commits some other financial non violent crime that isn’t a “threat” to the public and serves their sentence should have to pay for it for the rest of his life.

Obviously this is an insanely complicated course of discussion to try and capture. One that I think would be incredibly interesting to discuss at length, but difficult to do online. I do think part of the discussion involves what we consider a felony and a misdemeanor. I absolutely understand tying it to a hierarchy of available punishments as it is now, but it certainly muddies other things.

It would be worth thinking through realigning a felony with acts that make you a threat to society for life (i.e. molestation, murder, rape (not to necessarily include statutory), cases of people exposing themselves to children, committing crimes on behalf of an organized criminal group, etc., etc., etc.) In my opinion there is little to no possibility of rehabilitation. For those crimes, Im not interested in punishment, I am interested in removing the threat from society (life in prison or death penalty). That would leave a misdemeanor for crimes we would expect to be a decent chance of a single time offense of a certain impact to society. Along those lines, there would be some point in repeat offenses where what was originally a misdemeanor will now be treated as a felony.

This decision was about someone accused though and not yet found guilty. I would say if someone has been charged with a crime that is a real threat to society and we no longer trust them to have a firearm while awaiting trial, they should be held in custody until they see a judge. Then it doesnt matter if they have the right to acquire firearms as a potentially convicted felon, they wont have access to do so. The issue there then turns into however many months to even begin the court process which is ridiculous to me.

But, I also no I have no depth of knowledge of our criminal justice system to know the pinch points, bottlenecks, or opportunities for improvement but every system has them. So take it all as smoke or pick it apart, I know I have no idea what Im talking about so no offense will be taken haha.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I disagree. Regardless of the crime, once an offender has completed his sentence, it should be that he is once again a full and free citizen.

IF the offender has committed such an egregious act that he cannot be trusted as a citizen, then he should not be free at all, which is a different discussion.

In a perfect world, that would make sense, but in our society, the convicted seldom serve the full term before being released, for many reasons.

But then again, in a perfect world, everyone would have excellent self control so there would be no need for any laws.

 

[Gypsy]

Obviously a blood-thirsty felon shouldn't be allowed in a gunshop. They also shouldn't be allowed on the street. This ruling is to protect the rights of the innocent.

A blood-thirsty felon can just buy a stolen gun or steal his own to use in the meantime. Meanwhile a peaceful innocent man is at the mercy of whoever while he waits months or years for trial.

 

[Aries]

Obviously this is an insanely complicated course of discussion to try and capture. One that I think would be incredibly interesting to discuss at length, but difficult to do online. I do think part of the discussion involves what we consider a felony and a misdemeanor. I absolutely understand tying it to a hierarchy of available punishments as it is now, but it certainly muddies other things.

It would be worth thinking through realigning a felony with acts that make you a threat to society for life (i.e. molestation, murder, rape (not to necessarily include statutory), cases of people exposing themselves to children, committing crimes on behalf of an organized criminal group, etc., etc., etc.) In my opinion there is little to no possibility of rehabilitation. For those crimes, Im not interested in punishment, I am interested in removing the threat from society (life in prison or death penalty). That would leave a misdemeanor for crimes we would expect to be a decent chance of a single time offense of a certain impact to society. Along those lines, there would be some point in repeat offenses where what was originally a misdemeanor will now be treated as a felony.

This decision was about someone accused though and not yet found guilty. I would say if someone has been charged with a crime that is a real threat to society and we no longer trust them to have a firearm while awaiting trial, they should be held in custody until they see a judge. Then it doesnt matter if they have the right to acquire firearms as a potentially convicted felon, they wont have access to do so. The issue there then turns into however many months to even begin the court process which is ridiculous to me.

But, I also no I have no depth of knowledge of our criminal justice system to know the pinch points, bottlenecks, or opportunities for improvement but every system has them. So take it all as smoke or pick it apart, I know I have no idea what Im talking about so no offense will be taken haha.

Well, the first thing to know is... innocent until proven guilty.

 

[wawazat]

Well, the first thing to know is... innocent until proven guilty.

I get that 100%. There are some offenses where someone is held prior to conviction though.