GUN RIGHTS FOR FELONS?

NY Post ^ | July 22, 2008 | DON B. KATES

[neverdem]

THE Supreme Court last month voided Washington, DC's extreme gun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now, across America, public defenders and other lawyers for rapists, robbers and murderers are filing motions contending that their vicious clients have a Second Amendment right to have guns.

If this were correct, the Second Amendment would be a very bad thing. Happily, it's not so.

The high-court opinion vindicated the constitutional right of ordinary, responsible law-abiding adults to have a handgun to protect their families, homes and themselves. It also flatly stated that this right does not apply to criminals.

Federal and state laws against convicted felons having guns are still valid: The Second Amendment protects a right of self-defense for "good" people only.

The fact is, virtually all violent criminals have long criminal records - which disqualify them from owning guns under our laws against felons having guns.

For instance, 90 percent of US adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime career of six or more years, including four major felonies...

--snip--

In sum, the constitutional right to arms simply does not extend to people convicted of serious criminal offenses. By "serious," I refer to the early common law - under which felonies were real wrongs like rape, robbery and murder.

Unfortunately, modern legislatures have added a host of trivial felonies.

--snip--

The courts should rule that conviction of such a trivial felony can't deprive such a "felon" of her right to arms.

But the fact remains that people who have been convicted of serious criminal offenses have thereby lost their rights under the Second Amendment. They are subject to our laws against felons possessing firearms.

[neverdem]

Don Kates, a criminologist and a retired professor of constitutional and criminal law, is a fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

[GunsareOK]

I think felony (and domestic violence misdemeanor) disabilities should be removed IF the person subject to them has avoided further convictions for a number of years.

[Spok]

The felons who are so inclined will carry guns regardless, hence the necessity for the rest of us to do likewise.

[absolootezer0]

if they can’t be trusted with a gun and the right to vote, why aren’t they still in jail?

[Savage Texan]

“trivial felony”

Hmm, that seems like an oxymoron to me...

[The KG9 Kid]

Before the hysterical anti-gun people start screaming about the Heller decision allowing felons to have guns, remind them:

1. The majority decision covered this very issue right out of the starting gate.

2. The liberals who argued for the losing side on behalf of DC did say they believed that felons should have the right to claim protection under the 2nd Amendment.

3. So did the ACLU in their amicus brief, although they later came out with a public letter that said they disagreed with the US Supreme Court that held that the 2nd was an individual right. That means that although good people like you and I have no right to a gun, as the ACLU sees it, they believe that criminals can claim protected status under the 2nd when facing prosecution.

Any liberals trying to make the case of "SEE?! SEE?! The Supreme Court is putting guns in the hands of dangerous felons!" needs to reconcile these three points in their silly little heads before they launch into their hypocritical left wing outburst.

[HawaiianGecko]

I agree that it's a good thing to keep guns away from criminals, but it's still their constitutional right to own them.  Unless we strip citizenship away from felons and deport them, the 2nd amendment covers them too.  Especially since this latest USSC decision that specifically claimed it was an individual right, not the right of a militia. 

Until we amend the constitution to say we can have special classes of citizens, some with gun rights and some without, we are basically ignoring the 2nd amendment.  Oh, and good luck with that special class of citizen thingy.

[JRandomFreeper]

why aren’t they still in jail?

Or taking a dirt nap?

/johnny

[Graybeard58]

Arm incarcerated felons too, only put the guards on the outside of the prison.

Survival of the fittest.

[weegee]

Federal and state laws against convicted felons having guns are still valid: The Second Amendment protects a right of self-defense for "good" people only.

And I fail to see how this works.

There are plenty of non-violent felonies that do not involve any risk of subsequent gun crime.

Once a felon has served his term and is no under any probationary controls (as violent criminals could be sentenced) what does it do to prohibit him from owning a gun?

If felons are going to be permitted the right to vote and become parents, why are their gun rights limited?

[weegee]

Felons can vote in an increasing number of states. Democrats need every vote.

[kingu]

I think felony (and domestic violence misdemeanor) disabilities should be removed IF the person subject to them has avoided further convictions for a number of years.

Putting time on such things always worries me - after all, if someone spent 42 years in prison for murder, he'd probably meet your requirements for not having had any further convictions for a set number of years.

We have methods of expunging someone's record of serious crimes, it requires petitioning a court, or in some cases, the governor's office. The victims of these crimes had no such protections, so I'm more than willing to let it be.

[Gay State Conservative]

Nope...sorry.As much as I support the 2nd Amendment's provision for self defense there are certain people who,IMO,should ***not*** be allowed to possess firearms.

People with certain psychiatric diagnoses

People convicted of certain types/levels/categories of crime (e.g.,felonies).....

[marktwain]

Don Kates is the one of the people most responsible for the Heller decision. He started the project to write law reviews showing the truth about the 2nd amendment. He explicitly stated that the wanted to follow the same path that recognition of the First Amendment took with the Second Amendment.

Don Kates started the strategy that resulted in the Heller decision.

[CowboyJay]

"if they can’t be trusted with a gun and the right to vote, why aren’t they still in jail?"

So we can make room to imprison REAL criminals like potheads and DUI offenders.

[SeaHawkFan]

Legislatures can make almost anything a felony, and they do so to further the restrictions on the possession of firearms.

The recent Heller decision allows for “reasonable restrictions” on felons. The question now is what is reasonable. I would think that if a person does not use a firearm in a nonviolent crime, they should be able to possess firearms.

[SeaHawkFan]

Nope...sorry.As much as I support the 2nd Amendment's provision for self defense there are certain people who,IMO,should ***not*** be allowed to possess firearms. People with certain psychiatric diagnoses

If you had read the Heller decision, you would know there was a common law exception at the time the Constitution was adopted for mentally disturbed individuals, so the Heller decision does not change that exception.

[RightWingConspirator]

I think it depends also on the crime for which the felon was convicted. I don’t believe a a person convicted of a violent crime, such as armed robbery or murder, should ever have his gun rights restored.

[Bluestateredman]

What if a stupid kid gets busted for drunk driving one saturday night? Should he be banned from life from gun ownership? I find that ridiculous.

This kind of slippery slope is why the local police chiefs here in Mass. feel free to just deny gun permits to law abiding citizens for no reason whatsoever.

[sionnsar]

The felons who are so inclined will carry guns regardless, hence the necessity for the rest of us to do likewise.

Yup. We've seen how denying the right to carry legally does nothing to stop those so inclined, but how it sets in place legislation to impede purchases by those who've never been convicted -- background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on purchases per month and so on.

Might be better to let Teddy "the fish" and Bernhard Goetz own guns.

Might.

[TigersEye]

Once a felon has served his term and is no under any probationary controls (as violent criminals could be sentenced) what does it do to prohibit him from owning a gun?

To answer your rhetorical question; it puts him/her in a position of trying to act like a full citizen without the legal ability to defend him/herself and family like a full citizen. Denying basic civil and human rights should not be done by such a broad and vague categorization as "convicted felon."

[calex59]

The Heller decision also stated that convicted felons were not covered in their decision and that laws regarding felons would still be in place. This screaming by the left is just one more way to obfuscate and confuse issue for those who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground. Regardless of how we feel about felons having or not having rights, and most states strip rights from felons, the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms are two of them, the laws today are clear. I think non-violent felons should have their rights restored. Violent felons I say no.

At this point in time nothing has changed in regards to felons and their rights being stripped away, Heller specifically covered that.

[Shooter 2.5]

Amen to that. If felons can vote and have a gun, it might make parole boards think twice.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if parole board members had to keep the parolee in their homes for the first six months.

[supercat]

The right to keep and bear arms is a right of all free people. Prisoners, parolees and probationers are not free people; thus they may be lawfully deprived of arms as part of the sentence imposed by a jury.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to prohibit the possession of arms by people convicted of state crimes in the absence of state action to impose such a prohibition (if one state disarmed someone for having committed a crime, the federal government would under the Full Faith and Credit clause have the authority to make such prohibition effective nationwide).

One problem in general is that judges have often taken it upon themselves to decide what punishments are reasonable, while deliberately excluding juries from the process. If a fairly-chosen jury of twelve ordinary people would regard a particular punishment as being excessive for a particular crime, that's a very strong indication that it is. Many judges conceal juries the punishments associated with particular crimes because they expect juries would, given such knowledge, be unwilling to convict. If judges actually cared about the Constitution, they would recognize that the reason juries would be unwilling to convict is that the punishments are excessive and therefore illegitimate.

[ctdonath2]

“trivial felony” Hmm, that seems like an oxymoron to me...

Unfortunately, it's not. There's an awful lot of crimes which should not be crimes at all, much less "felonies". Examples:
- Simple possession of a standard >10-round AR15 or Glock magazine (a box with a spring, perfectly legal nearly everywhere else) is a felony in NY.
- Walking in an empty field scheduled for construction is a felony in GA.
There are plenty others. Yes, these are felonies - "trivial felonies". These are so trivial that the notion of depriving someone of rights for being a "felon" is no longer viable.

[William Tell]

RightWingConspirator said: "I don’t believe a a person convicted of a violent crime, such as armed robbery or murder, should ever have his gun rights restored."

Could you explain why? Does allowing the exercise of the right increase or decrease the tendency to commit crime? Do the mechanisms in place to enforce this prohibition work? Are these mechanisms, despite their ineffectiveness, being used to infringe the rights of the law-abiding?

I'd like to hear your cost-benefit analysis of the laws that you are supporting.