Skip to comments.Up in arms: a felonís right to gun ownership
Posted on 12/01/2011 7:03:19 AM PST by marktwain
True or false: Federal law dictates felons lose their right to bear arms. True. True or false: Felons can get those rights back, even those convicted of murder. Also true.
In fact, in some states a judge can reinstate those rights without review; in other states, gun rights are automatically restored after felons complete their sentence. In Washington state alone, The New York Times reports that since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights," 13 percent of whom committed new crimes.
The breakdown occurs at the intersection of state and federal laws. Under federal law, a presidential pardon is the only way to restore ownership rights to felons. But in the 1980s, after a series of reforms by the National Rifle Association, Congress granted state laws jurisdiction to oversee reinstatement.
Just yesterday, the House passed a law that would require states to honor concealed weapon permits issued by other states.
Should convicted felons be granted the right to bear arms? Should a felons mental health be taken into consideration? Is this an issue over the Second Amendment or safety?
Michael Luo, reporter, the New York Times
Jim Irvine, chairman, Buckeye Firearms Association
Adam Winkler, constitutional law professor at UCLA; author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America; he writes for The Huffington Post & Daily Beast
(Excerpt) Read more at scpr.org ...
no, you can’t take their “mantal state” into consideration. Sorry, but I believe gun ownership is an absolute right. Felon or not, he has a right to defend himself. Period. Goofy or not, same.
The second you use “mental issues” to deny the right to defend oneself, you walk right into what the Russkies did with placing in the insane asylum all their political challengers on the basis that they must be insane not to understand the “legitimacy” of the then power structure.
No no no no no.
People have the right to defend themselves. Period. With a gun. Period.
It’s GOD given and no man or Government State or Federal has the Right to take this from me. “Shall not be INFRINGED”
"Period. With a gun. Period.
The 2nd amendment makes no mention of guns. It clearly says arms.
ok, arms, grenades, swords, guns anything you arm yourself with.
if they can be trusted to be re-integrated into society, then they should be trusted with the right to own and bear arms.
besides, i’d rather know that a felon has a legal weapon, rather than an illegal one- they’d be less likely to commit a crime with a legal one.
Honor the constitution and let a well-armed citizenry keep the number of felons down. The Founders weren't dummies.
After someone convicted of a felony has served their complete sentence (incarceration + parole), all their rights should be restored. Voting, guns, movement, ALL of them. No three strikes sham. No review by the court. Either an appropriate sentence was handed out during the trial or not. But once you have served your time, you are now a full citizen again, automatically. Recidivist usually will keep themselves in court and under a sentence.
Should a felons mental health be taken into consideration?
As long as mental health is allowed as a defense, unfortunately yes. First determine if the accused committed the felony. Then determine if they are insane.
Is this an issue over the Second Amendment or safety?
Those who would surrender essential liberties for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Franklin) Felons can get firearms no matter what the law says.
Interesting that there is less controversy about giving felons the right to vote than there is the right to defend themselves. Which one is more dangerous?
The Bill of Rights was about inalienable rights, not government granted rights that the government can take away.
The policy that should be applied is: if he's too dangerous to have a gun, then why is he loose on the street?
I have a friend who got convicted on a drug charge many years ago. He plea bargained accepting a felony conviction in exchange for probation and no jail time (which in hindsight was a mistake, but he was younger then). He'd like to get his gun rights re-instated, but the legal costs would be several thousands of dollars, and it's not in his budget right now.
You bet. The minute you deny felons, the power elite will finger us all as felons.
Plus, you deny the felon the right to defend himself.
People need to know this too, if you get charged with something or in any way get tangled up in the legal system, get a lawyer, if you don’t think he/she is doing a good job, fire them and get another.
Do not let your kids negotiate the legal system by themselves, it is far too dangerous and the effects are long lasting.
When they get out, they WILL be able to acquire such items - and in all likelihood will.
So why are they getting out? if they don’t warrant sufficient trust with the arms they can and will acquire (be it Glock or rock), why are they let out?
“why are they let out?”
A concept I could never really fully understand.
How do you allow some, sentenced for a crime, with a determinate sentence, out of prison for ‘good behavior’?
It’s his ‘behavior’ BEFORE he went to prison that determined his sentence to begin with.
It shouldn’t matter what his ‘behavior’ was behind bars.
I might add though, if a person ‘completes’ his sentence then ALL rights should be restored..
What you said.
13 percent of whom committed new crimes...
If they had, I think we’d hear of it.
I’m guessing they were primarily traffic “crimes”, drug “crimes”, and property crimes.
If someone served their sentence, they should be able to lawfully exercise their RKBA just as they exercise their other rights. People shouldn’t be punished for what they did in the past.
How do you allow some, sentenced for a crime, with a determinate sentence, out of prison for good behavior?