Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dallas,TX
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Why is it against the law for a felon to bare arms. The law applies to every criminal that served more than a year in prison(the statute forbids not only "felons" but any person convicted of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to possess a firearm or ammunition, whether the crime in question is classified as a felony or not. ). In my opinion this law should be reverse because most criminal offenders are non-violent ones and they do not have the right to defend themselves. What if a violent burglar breaks into their house and attempts to shoot them, they have no way of defending themselves( I mean they could struggle for the gun but there is always that tiny risk of getting shot and they also could attempt to stab the burglar, but who brings a knife to a gun fight?) and if they were to have an unregistered gun and were to shoot the burglar then they would go to jail for gun possession. I think that this law is just wrong and should be reevaluated, to see if thee is some other way to allow these past offenders to bare arms. What are your views on this?

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    I agree with you.

    I think it is reasonable to preclude a felon that has a history of violence from possessing arms. That is a right that they have proven they don't have the social responsibility for.

    More than anything I simply don't think all criminals should be treated equally. Clearly there are marked differences in the motivations for crimes and the level of danger they pose to society.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I agree with you.

    I think it is reasonable to preclude a felon that has a history of violence from possessing arms. That is a right that they have proven they don't have the social responsibility for.

    More than anything I simply don't think all criminals should be treated equally. Clearly there are marked differences in the motivations for crimes and the level of danger they pose to society.
    Exactly. There are lesser crimes--"misdemeanors," you might say--and more serious crimes--like, oh, say, "felonies."
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Exactly. There are lesser crimes--"misdemeanors," you might say--and more serious crimes--like, oh, say, "felonies."
    Indeed, and I do believe there are official classifications among those general categories as well. I still think a bit too often we make over broad generalizations in law though in the interest of being tough on crime.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    I'm wary of indecency laws, but it seems reasonable enough to me that there be some general prohibition against public displays of nudity.
    I even see merit in laws barring women from baring their breasts in public (disregarding breast feeding and free speech issues).
    A law against bare midriff would be going too far in my opinion, even though anyone who's ever spent much time at the beach or public pool has probably seen someone for whom he wished such a law existed.
    But a law prohibiting bare arms (even if only for felons) is just ridiculous.

    And on an entirely different matter, the stripping of a felon's right to bear arms does seem to me to lend itself to too broad an application. But for most cases I think it is justified.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    This is but just one example of the myriad collateral consequences faced by those who are convicted of a felony. Another right which felons lose is that of voting.

    I believe that in discussing both of these prohibitions, I agree with some other posters: that the particular crime for which someone was convicted is more important than whether that crime was a misdemeanor or a felony. For example, in my State, if a person steals something whose value is $499, they can lawfully possess firearms and vote. However, if another person steals something whose value is $500, they cannot lawfully possess firearms or vote.

    So, it is more or less an arbitrary demarkation. It exists because, at common law, there were significantly fewer crimes classified as felonies - they were very serious and all punishable by death. However, more crimes became felonies around the time blacks were given the right to vote and many state legislatures made crimes seen as black crimes felonies in order to disenfranchise as many black voters as possible.

    Anyway, I would say only violent felonies, such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, arson, mayhem, etc. ought to result in someone losing the right to possess firearms.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by dclx88 View Post
    This is but just one example of the myriad collateral consequences faced by those who are convicted of a felony. Another right which felons lose is that of voting.

    I believe that in discussing both of these prohibitions, I agree with some other posters: that the particular crime for which someone was convicted is more important than whether that crime was a misdemeanor or a felony. For example, in my State, if a person steals something whose value is $499, they can lawfully possess firearms and vote. However, if another person steals something whose value is $500, they cannot lawfully possess firearms or vote.

    So, it is more or less an arbitrary demarkation. It exists because, at common law, there were significantly fewer crimes classified as felonies - they were very serious and all punishable by death. However, more crimes became felonies around the time blacks were given the right to vote and many state legislatures made crimes seen as black crimes felonies in order to disenfranchise as many black voters as possible.

    Anyway, I would say only violent felonies, such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, arson, mayhem, etc. ought to result in someone losing the right to possess firearms.
    Your point about the racist origins of many of our laws, not the least of which include gun control laws, is well taken. But you have to draw the line somewhere. In your example of felony theft, you could set the bar at a million dollars, but $999,999.99 would still have the same pitfall. It may seem arbitrary, and to some extent it certainly is but you have to do something to delineate serious and less serious crimes.

    As some of you know and my avatar should make fairly obvious I am a staunch supporter of gun control rights and a libertarian. So this is one area that gives me a lot of trouble.

    On the one hand the point made by the OP is certainly valid. Why should laundering, say $10,000 from the multibillion-dollar a quarter corporation exempt me from my right to self defense? Especially since if caught I will surely do prison time and face some other forms of restitution including paying back the money and parole or probation time. And nobody was physically hurt so why the physical restraint?

    On the other hand, the fact that I stole money from my corporation shows a serious lack of judgment. Can I be trusted to make a proper judgment call when it comes to the life or death of another human being? Maybe yes, maybe no. This is not to imply that everyone who owns or carries a gun is going to make a better judgment call given the same circumstances, but a convicted felon has already demonstrated a degraded ability.

    Add to the two above arguments the nearly endless list of crimes - federal, state, county, city - with which one can find themselves convicted and you have an even bigger problem: how do you identify which ones are violent and which aren't? For example, is kidnapping a violent crime? If you steal a baby from a hospital with the intent not to harm but rather to raise as your own, is that violent? Or robbery. If you break into an unattended house and are later caught, should that exclude you? What if you were armed when you did it? Nobody was there and nobody got hurt, so what about that?

    The problem is there are just too many if's, and's, and but's to be dealt with. You have a million different laws each with a million different circumstances for a million different criminals. In the end there are just too many "what if's" in every single law. And in the end, who would get to decide whether your robbery is violent or not? A government bureaucrat.

    While to some there is certainly an unjust outcome, it is much simpler and I believe overall more fair to just draw the line in the sand and say, "If you cross this line, it's a felony and here are the rights you are going to lose." In the end it's up to the criminal whether or not they decide to cross it and they should bear the responsibility of their actions.

    Not only that, but my handgun carry permit is one thing that immediately identifies me as a law-abiding citizen to law enforcement officers during a traffic stop. Though you are not required to in Tennessee, when I am stopped and asked for identification I offer both my drivers license and handgun carry permit and inform the officer that I am carrying. That way he knows and we avoid any trouble if the officer sees it because he knows I am not going to use it. If there was nothing to differentiate me from a common thug, every traffic stop would end up with me spread eagle on the ground and a Glock or AR15 in my face. Why should I have to suffer negative consequences in order to give someone who can't play nice with society special privileges? I don't think I should.

    So while I believe there is some unfairness to the convicted felon in the law I think overall it's better of society. Many non-violent crimes are gateways to more violent ones. And besides, it's not like criminals can't get guns. It's only too easy.
    Last edited by LagerHead; November 11th, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Corrected a few grammatical errors. Any others found were left there intentionally.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    So while I believe there is some unfairness to the convicted felon in the law I think overall it's better of society. Many non-violent crimes are gateways to more violent ones. And besides, it's not like criminals can't get guns. It's only too easy.
    In a number of Second Amendment cases the USSC has determined and affirmed that the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the US Bill Of Rights are law-abiding adults.

    Barring people with felony records from legally possessing firearms is in fact how we as a nation "regulate" our "militia".
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  9. #9
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Seems to me the real issue here isn't whether or not felons should retain the right to bear arms, but whether or not felonies are sufficiently "criminal" to merit having felons stripped of that right. Since that's a state by state issue, why worry about resolving it here? If you don't like the way your state defines a felony, move to a state that defines it as you like it, or go to work within your state to fix it. That's the real beauty of our republic.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Seems to me the real issue here isn't whether or not felons should retain the right to bear arms, but whether or not felonies are sufficiently "criminal" to merit having felons stripped of that right. Since that's a state by state issue, why worry about resolving it here? If you don't like the way your state defines a felony, move to a state that defines it as you like it, or go to work within your state to fix it. That's the real beauty of our republic.


    As I understand it, certain states have statutes and procedures in place so people convicted of a felony can regain their rights. I have never had to look into it myself and have only heard third hand stories about how someone convicted of a felony as a young adult, changes their ways, and after some times had some recourse available to regain that right.

    I live in a state where a great many people suffer from "Hoplophelia" -- the unreasonable fear of weapons. I have to deal with some of, if not THE, most restrictive laws in the country...so keeping up with our laws and staying on top state agencies here for my own personal firearms ownership needs is enough for me.
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    To address the OP's question: I don't have a problem with the loss of rights as a result of felonious behavior so long as there is a clear process for restoring them.

    "Petitions for removal of the federal firearms disability are directed to the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The authority to review such petitions has been delegated by the Attorney General to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. See 27 C.F.R. § 478.144. However, even though there is a federal statute and a regulatory procedure for restoration petitions, Congress continuously refuses to appropriate funds for ATF to review such petitions. By denying funding, Congress effectively suspends the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the federal district courts to review convicted felons' applications for restoration of their firearms privileges." ( http://www.h82lose.com/content/areas...storations.htm )

    Herein lies the real problem. Congress is continually blocking due process, which is a clear violation of a felon's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Barring people with felony records from legally possessing firearms is in fact how we as a nation "regulate" our "militia".
    Please cite what case you're referring to that defines "well-regulated" in this fashion. As far as I know, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled on the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment exactly three (3) times in the 20th and 21st centuries and has said no such thing. Further, SCOTUS has never addressed the issue of the revocation of the firearms rights of felons.

    Here are the only times that SCOTUS has had anything to say on the Second Amendement in the last century:

    1. U.S. v. Miller, 1939. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174)
    2. D.C. v. Heller, 2008. ( http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/ )
    3. Chicago v. McDonald, 2010. (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ty-of-chicago/ )

    Of these, Heller dealt most directly and completely with the specific meaning of the text of the Second Amendment. Of the other two cases, Miller defined the "militia" in these terms:


    "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

    There is no mention of "law-abiding" anywhere.

    In Heller, Justice Scalia addressed the term "well-regulated" thusly:


    "Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."

    If we go back to the very founding of our country, the only substantive addition to that list is Presser v. Illinois from 1886 ( http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/116us252.html ), which states fairly clearly:


    "It is contended that the Illinois act does not conflict with the act of Congress until the militia is actually mustered into the service of the United States. This is a mistaken view of the Constitution and of the object and intent of the law of 1792. The power of Congress to organize the militia is not limited to a period of war, or to such time as they may be employed in the service of the United States. It is only the power to govern them that is thus limited. The clause in the Constitution authorizing the President to call out the militia and put it into the service of the United States is separate and distinct from that which authorizes Congress to legislate for its organization, arming, and discipline. The manifest intent of the Constitution is to provide for an organized militia in time of peace, which may be called upon to execute the laws of the Union, and thus dispense with a standing army."

    About the closest thing I've seen recently that even comes close to the topic is the Democracy Restoration Act ( http://www.brennancenter.org/content...n_act_of_2008/ ), which attempts to restore the voting rights of felons. There have been a variety of cases at the state level about various rights of felons as well, but where SCOTUS is concerned, the pickings are much more slim.

    ---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    I live in a state where a great many people suffer from "Hoplophelia"
    I think you mean "hoplophobia". "-philia" is "the love of", where "-phobia" is "the (irrational) fear of".

  12. Likes Mr. Hyde liked this post
  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms
    I live in Wisconsin and do believe felon should have the right to bare arms. most convicted felons are not violent and should be able to protect them selves. all the killings that go on with firearms are done from none felons 99 percent so why is it that we take guns away from felons ? makes no sense. do you believe that a person labeled felon is so dangerous to your community ?....NO ! But if you are in danger there are plenty of ways to skin a cat.....I am very swift with knives/objects and practice kill point if needed and i do very well !
    Yes gun rights should be changed in many different ways But its usually the non-criminals that are the one abusing it Not Felons

  14. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    My question on the subject is: If a person is convicted of a crime, and serves their time, then legally haven't they "Paid their debt to society"? If they have, then wouldn't the continued loss of an explicitly stated personal right be a form of continued punishment? If it is, then shouldn't they still be in prison? If it isn't, then why is someone deemed able to reenter society, but not enjoy all of society's benefits?

    As a side note, supposing a violent criminal was convicted of shooting and killing someone, served his time, and was released. If the individual is sufficiently violent, then a lack of a LAWFUL ability to acquire a gun, the person could still acquire one ILLEGALLY, correct? So as a general observation, it would seem that even with violent offenders who WOULD return to society with an intent for violence wouldn't be stopped or hindered from getting a gun and returning to crime. In that respect, such a restriction, it would appear, is either unjust (and an unjust law is no law at all) or ineffective (and what use is a useless law?). In either case, the best option would seem to be removing the law.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  15. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    My question on the subject is: If a person is convicted of a crime, and serves their time, then legally haven't they "Paid their debt to society"? If they have, then wouldn't the continued loss of an explicitly stated personal right be a form of continued punishment? If it is, then shouldn't they still be in prison? If it isn't, then why is someone deemed able to reenter society, but not enjoy all of society's benefits?

    As a side note, supposing a violent criminal was convicted of shooting and killing someone, served his time, and was released. If the individual is sufficiently violent, then a lack of a LAWFUL ability to acquire a gun, the person could still acquire one ILLEGALLY, correct? So as a general observation, it would seem that even with violent offenders who WOULD return to society with an intent for violence wouldn't be stopped or hindered from getting a gun and returning to crime. In that respect, such a restriction, it would appear, is either unjust (and an unjust law is no law at all) or ineffective (and what use is a useless law?). In either case, the best option would seem to be removing the law.
    Is it uncommon for a convicted criminal to be released from prison to a set of conditions? For instance a person convicted of a sex crime may be eternally forbidden from living near schools or parks. Someone may have a no-contact order as a condition of their release from prison. Being released from prison is not synonymous with debt fully paid. It is simply a stage of punishment and/or correction which has been served. Other stages, some which last for the rest of the convicts life, may still need to be served. In our case, gun laws are an example of such as case.

    In principle we could probably distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies to determine future gun rights. In practice, this is not so straight forward. Consider that many convicts are serving crimes plea-bargained down from more serious crimes. Our gun laws take this reality into account. It also serves to take some of the human factor out of the decision and ensures all convicts essentially are dealt this punishment so we do not accidentally/mistakenly give someone back the right to own a firearm who really has no business owning one. I think, also, if we look at recidivism rate, the idea of rehabilitation sounds great on paper, but is really a bit of a pink elephant.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    My question on the subject is: If a person is convicted of a crime, and serves their time, then legally haven't they "Paid their debt to society"? If they have, then wouldn't the continued loss of an explicitly stated personal right be a form of continued punishment? If it is, then shouldn't they still be in prison? If it isn't, then why is someone deemed able to reenter society, but not enjoy all of society's benefits?
    Prison is one aspect of punishment/restriction but is not where it ends or begins. After prison there is parole, and after than you still have your criminal record. I do think depending on the crime there should be a sunset to all these things but release from prison is not where justice ends and you are fully free from all repercussions of your action.

    As a side note, supposing a violent criminal was convicted of shooting and killing someone, served his time, and was released. If the individual is sufficiently violent, then a lack of a LAWFUL ability to acquire a gun, the person could still acquire one ILLEGALLY, correct? So as a general observation, it would seem that even with violent offenders who WOULD return to society with an intent for violence wouldn't be stopped or hindered from getting a gun and returning to crime. In that respect, such a restriction, it would appear, is either unjust (and an unjust law is no law at all) or ineffective (and what use is a useless law?). In either case, the best option would seem to be removing the law.
    I think a law you have no desire to enforce is a problem, as is one you simply cannot practically enforce at all. But one where enforcement is simply limited by resources is I think still viable. So while they could get illegal weapons, they could also commit illegal murders (redundant I know). Such that just because you can't always stop an action doesn't mean you should abandon trying. There are good reasons to keep a man who did armed hold ups from getting a gun if you can help it or to punish him if he does obtain one.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Is it uncommon for a convicted criminal to be released from prison to a set of conditions? For instance a person convicted of a sex crime may be eternally forbidden from living near schools or parks. Someone may have a no-contact order as a condition of their release from prison. Being released from prison is not synonymous with debt fully paid. It is simply a stage of punishment and/or correction which has been served. Other stages, some which last for the rest of the convicts life, may still need to be served. In our case, gun laws are an example of such as case.
    You don't see a problem there, though? I'm not talking about sex offenders. The high recidivism rate of sex offenders means that limiting places they can live in effort to make it more difficult for them to repeat offenses actually makes sense. Restraining orders for spousal abusers getting out of jail or preventing a criminal from getting near the family of victim, again, makes sense (to a degree, I would probably leave that one up to the family/victim).

    If someone robs a bank, one released and free and clear, the guy can't buy a weapon to defend his home. But if I rob a thousand people of a million dollars (total) through a Ponzi scheme, there's no law that stops me from starting another one once I'm out. If the idea here is to make it harder for criminals to repeat crimes, then why stop at guns and where you can live? Would you say it's okay to limit what kind of work a guy like our investment fraud such as, say, not allowing him to work in finance anymore?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In principle we could probably distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies to determine future gun rights. In practice, this is not so straight forward. Consider that many convicts are serving crimes plea-bargained down from more serious crimes. Our gun laws take this reality into account. It also serves to take some of the human factor out of the decision and ensures all convicts essentially are dealt this punishment so we do not accidentally/mistakenly give someone back the right to own a firearm who really has no business owning one. I think, also, if we look at recidivism rate, the idea of rehabilitation sounds great on paper, but is really a bit of a pink elephant.
    I would argue recidivism rates reflect a failure of our ability to rehabilitate. Let's face reality here and call prison what it is: A timeout from hell. There's no real rehabilitation in shoving a guy in a cramped room for ten+ years where the only mandatory activities are physical (cleaning, eating, exercising). And this seems more like using one failure of the legal system to justify another.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Prison is one aspect of punishment/restriction but is not where it ends or begins. After prison there is parole, and after than you still have your criminal record. I do think depending on the crime there should be a sunset to all these things but release from prison is not where justice ends and you are fully free from all repercussions of your action.
    I think trying to focus on what we do about a convict AFTER they're released is a little odd. Can we agree that's just weird? Like worrying about how not to die from the fall after jumping out of the plane. It seems like the best time to think of a solution would be IN the plane. Just like the best time to think about the convict would be WHILE he's in prison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There are good reasons to keep a man who did armed hold ups from getting a gun if you can help it or to punish him if he does obtain one.
    Would you say it would be easier to track the weapon if he got it legally, or illegally? If we can agree it would be easier to track it if he got it legally, and we can agree that he would probably get one illegally if there were no legal avenue, then wouldn't it make sense to just let him get one legally?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  18. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    You don't see a problem there, though? I'm not talking about sex offenders. The high recidivism rate of sex offenders means that limiting places they can live in effort to make it more difficult for them to repeat offenses actually makes sense. Restraining orders for spousal abusers getting out of jail or preventing a criminal from getting near the family of victim, again, makes sense (to a degree, I would probably leave that one up to the family/victim).
    It is not just sex offenders that have high recidivism rates.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

    Most criminals tend to commit crimes after they are released from prison. So, assuming we don't want to make all crimes punishable by a life sentence, then excluding criminals from some basic rights (i.e. gun ownership), seems reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If someone robs a bank, one released and free and clear, the guy can't buy a weapon to defend his home. But if I rob a thousand people of a million dollars (total) through a Ponzi scheme, there's no law that stops me from starting another one once I'm out. If the idea here is to make it harder for criminals to repeat crimes, then why stop at guns and where you can live? Would you say it's okay to limit what kind of work a guy like our investment fraud such as, say, not allowing him to work in finance anymore?
    Can't someone be permanently disbarred? Permanently lose their license to trade stocks? You are just flat out wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I would argue recidivism rates reflect a failure of our ability to rehabilitate. Let's face reality here and call prison what it is: A timeout from hell. There's no real rehabilitation in shoving a guy in a cramped room for ten+ years where the only mandatory activities are physical (cleaning, eating, exercising). And this seems more like using one failure of the legal system to justify another.
    Fine. You can call prison a banana if you want. I don't disagree that prison usually fails to rehabilitate. Yet, how does any of this rebut my argument? We both agree criminals released from prison are not likely to have been rehabilitated. So, under that assumption, why would you want to arm them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I think trying to focus on what we do about a convict AFTER they're released is a little odd. Can we agree that's just weird? Like worrying about how not to die from the fall after jumping out of the plane. It seems like the best time to think of a solution would be IN the plane. Just like the best time to think about the convict would be WHILE he's in prison.
    In an ideal world we can have all sorts of ideal solutions. In the real world, we simply deal with reality and make decisions based upon it. I would love a world where people who are released from prison would never commit a crime again. Even better. I'd love a world where we can rehabilitate criminals before they even commit a crime. Wouldn't it be great? So... under your logic, should we just abolish prisons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Would you say it would be easier to track the weapon if he got it legally, or illegally? If we can agree it would be easier to track it if he got it legally, and we can agree that he would probably get one illegally if there were no legal avenue, then wouldn't it make sense to just let him get one legally?
    Even in your scenario, wouldn't someone who is planning to use a weapon for a crime likely get an illegal gun for this purpose? Your solution solves nothing and is really besides the point. If gun rights are so very important to an individual, then they should probably avoid committing felonies.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I would argue recidivism rates reflect a failure of our ability to rehabilitate. Let's face reality here and call prison what it is: A timeout from hell. There's no real rehabilitation in shoving a guy in a cramped room for ten+ years where the only mandatory activities are physical (cleaning, eating, exercising). And this seems more like using one failure of the legal system to justify another.
    Would not this reason that you state be a strong consideration in and of itself, at least for a while once a prisoner is released, for not allowing someone who has served time to bear arms? If your point is that there's no real rehabilitation in prison, do you think society will rehabilitate a person who has served time for a violent armed crime not to use a gun irresponsibly?

    The number of repeat offenders from prison is not low.

    So, in that I agree our rehabilitation systems are week, just because they are week, should not give rise to something of an excuse or approach that says: "Well this is broken, so let's just let these guys that have come out of a broken system and served their time, let's let them own weapons even though "there's no real rehabilitation in prison."
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  20. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Can't someone be permanently disbarred? Permanently lose their license to trade stocks? You are just flat out wrong.
    I'll concede that point then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Fine. You can call prison a banana if you want. I don't disagree that prison usually fails to rehabilitate. Yet, how does any of this rebut my argument? We both agree criminals released from prison are not likely to have been rehabilitated. So, under that assumption, why would you want to arm them?
    Not wanting to prohibit someone from something isn't the same as wanting them to have it. Just because I oppose forbidding them from getting a gun, doesn't mean I support giving them one. My argument is that if there's a problem with the system that deals with criminals, then the solution is to work on that problem, not punish someone, and then continue punishing them because the initial punishment knowlingly doesn't work as it should. That's like whipping your kid for lying, and because you know a LOT of kids continue to lie after being disciplined, just deciding to make your kid copy the encyclopedia every single day until you die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In an ideal world we can have all sorts of ideal solutions. In the real world, we simply deal with reality and make decisions based upon it. I would love a world where people who are released from prison would never commit a crime again. Even better. I'd love a world where we can rehabilitate criminals before they even commit a crime. Wouldn't it be great? So... under your logic, should we just abolish prisons?
    We can, by and large, rehabilitate most criminals. Norway's done well at that (as an example). So has Iceland.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Even in your scenario, wouldn't someone who is planning to use a weapon for a crime likely get an illegal gun for this purpose? Your solution solves nothing and is really besides the point. If gun rights are so very important to an individual, then they should probably avoid committing felonies.
    Well let's consider the issue here and revisit the example and see where our conclusions are. The scenario is that a guy gets out of jail and goes to get another gun. Legally, he can own one. And his intent is to commit a crime with it.

    Now, in this scenario, I argue that him buying a gun legally would make it easier for the police to track and catch him. Now, you argue that since he's planning a crime, he would likely get an illegal gun intentionally (even if he could buy one legally). But here's the problem: If he's going to get one regardless of whether it's legal or not for him to get one, then why bother making it illegal and enforcing such a law? It may be to help prevent future crimes, but there's a few issues with that. The first is that there's no guarantee the person WILL commit another crime, and it also prevents a guy with zero intentions of going back to jail from getting something to defend his home or go hunting. It's a blanket restriction that at best doesn't do anything and at worst only causes more harm.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  21. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Felons' Right to Bare Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I'll concede that point then.
    Thank you. But this is an important point. Your premise is that exiting jail is equivalent to having finished owing society for a crime. In fact, as with the examples above, it is merely a single component of what the criminal may consequence. Losing gun ownership rights and voting rights are also consequences which (like a lawyer being disbarred) are lifetime consequences. I think you arguments past this point is based on two additional premises
    1) Restricting gun laws do not work.
    2) The larger issue is rehabilitation, in general, and focusing on removing gun laws may hide the larger issue.

    To you first point. I have no data which demonstrates gun laws work, but currently most criminals do not buy guns at gun stores.
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/wh...et-their-guns/

    Gun laws for felons, I think is also about giving law enforcement more leeway in reacting to known criminals before they actually commission a crime. After all, if a known criminal is found in possession of a firearm, then the police don't have to wait for the criminal to use it. The ex-convict has already committed a crime by just having the weapon. So, I think there is a more nuanced purpose of gun laws than merely suggesting they will or will not find a gun. Criminals, even when they may buy a gun legally, tend to get their guns from places other than the local gun shop.

    To your second point, regarding rehabilitation, I think we can both agree a better job can be done. Whether two tiny countries like Iceland and Norway are good examples is questionable. Still, I think we can effectively work to make the criminal system better while maintaining strict gun laws for those convicted of a felony. But, hey, if we can get the recidivism rate to something which approaches the normal population in terms of crime rates, then I would be in favor of allowing some felons to have their gun rights restored.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Convicted Felons
    By DevilPup John in forum General Debate
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 05:21 PM
  2. Schumer's Felons
    By CliveStaples in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 26th, 2005, 03:41 PM
  3. The Right to Bear Arms in America...
    By Telex in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: April 25th, 2005, 01:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •