Are Murderers And Other Criminals Entitled To Own Firearms?

[Punch The Clown]

Me and Tim have been kicking this one around for a while. Murders, rapists, and all sorts of criminals aren't allowed to possess firearms. Well, why aren't they? If a murderer serves his sentence and is released shouldn't they be guaranteed the same rights as you and I? Shouldn't they be allowed to protect their property, themselves, and their family's?
My brother-in-law was robbed and shot by two underprivileged inner city young men. He died about 2 hours later leaving behind my sister-in-law, my niece and my nephew. The two young men served about 3 years-give or take. Obviously the system feels that they are rehabilitated and paid their debt, so shouldn't they be afforded the same rights as everyone else?

Another thought on the subject.
My sister-in-law has been a total train wreck since the incident but it was partially my brother-in-laws fault. He only had about $80 on him which angered the noble inner city young men. Why don't we pass a law requiring all people to carry enough money on them to satiate muggers? If it saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

[dogboysdad]

Perhaps your governor could sponsor such a bill. Maybe the state could issue a coupon to be carried by taxpayers that could be turned in by non-taxpayers for money, cigarettes, and alcohol?

[Punch The Clown]

Eric, you're brilliant! But I am ever more brilliant still. How about we issue jostlers those card swiping devices to fit their free obamasmartphones? That way if we don't have enough cash on us to satisfy the proud inner city princes we can simply pay by credit or debit? If it saves one life...........

[buckshot85]

PTC, I assume your kidding about these thugs having rights??????

[timshufflin]

PTC, I assume your kidding about these thugs having rights??????


If someone has served their sentence, are they not entitled to the Bill or Rights? If they are not deemed to be fit to self protection, why are they released into society and allowed to be your next door neighbor?

[buckshot85]

why are they released into society and allowed to be your next door neighbor?

That is what you should be questioning.

[timshufflin]

That is what you should be questioning.

This is my premise. If someone should not be allowed to the Bill of Rights, they should not be allowed into society. This takes us to the next piece, why do we have background checks for firearms? Everyone in our society is protected under the Bill or Rights, are they not? The only way to deem someone unfit for firearm ownership is if they are incarcerated.

Why are we doing background checks then? Everyone in society is either rehabilitated or a free man right?

[buckshot85]

This is my premise. If someone should not be allowed to the Bill of Rights, they should not be allowed into society. This takes us to the next piece, why do we have background checks for firearms? Everyone in our society is protected under the Bill or Rights, are they not? The only way to deem someone unfit for firearm ownership is if they are incarcerated.

Why are we doing background checks then? Everyone in society is either rehabilitated or a free man right?

I do not disagree with the background check.
People are now being released early from prison, not beacuase they are deemed rehabilitated, because of overcrowding. They are still criminals, just to a lesser degree because of the crime against society that they committed. I am all for, if you commit a violent crime against our society, you are no longer a contributing member, you are a detriment. You should not have the same rights as others. A murderer, rapist, etc... gets out of prison, buys a few firearms, moves next door to you and has his fine, upstanding buddies making your neighborhood home, your completely comfortable with this?

[timshufflin]

I do not disagree with the background check.
People are now being released early from prison, not beacuase they are deemed rehabilitated, because of overcrowding. They are still criminals, just to a lesser degree because of the crime against society that they committed. I am all for, if you commit a violent crime against our society, you are no longer a contributing member, you are a detriment. You should not have the same rights as others. A murderer, rapist, etc... gets out of prison, buys a few firearms, moves next door to you and has his fine, upstanding buddies making your neighborhood home, your completely comfortable with this?

So, the background check is a "reasonable" infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

The argument on the released criminal is not being couched to my argument. I'm arguing that the criminal, who is not safe for society, should not have been released in the first place. That person does not need a gun to make me not want them as my neighbor.

The argument here is really that people shouldn't be being released in the first place if they are not fit to be your neighbor.

[Punch The Clown]

I do not disagree with the background check.
People are now being released early from prison, not beacuase they are deemed rehabilitated, because of overcrowding. They are still criminals, just to a lesser degree because of the crime against society that they committed. I am all for, if you commit a violent crime against our society, you are no longer a contributing member, you are a detriment. You should not have the same rights as others. A murderer, rapist, etc... gets out of prison, buys a few firearms, moves next door to you and has his fine, upstanding buddies making your neighborhood home, your completely comfortable with this?

Well then, have a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution so that criminals are no longer afforded rights. Until then, either keep them in prison, execute them, or re-instate them as citizens with full rights. Obviously economics play a big part in how long we choose to incarcerate criminals so how about this for an idea? Sub-contract out prisons to low bid. If a private contractor can house a criminal for 1/4 of the current cost for the same money we can incarcerate 4x's the amount of perps or keep them in jail 4x's as long. A win-win as I see it.

[buckshot85]

So, the background check is a "reasonable" infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

The argument on the released criminal is not being couched to my argument. I'm arguing that the criminal, who is not safe for society, should not have been released in the first place. That person does not need a gun to make me not want them as my neighbor.

The argument here is really that people shouldn't be being released in the first place if they are not fit to be your neighbor.

You are twisting my statement Tim about the background check. I gree with you on background checks. I also agree with them not being released if they are not safe for releasing. That was my statement in the beginning. Read post #6. But, they are being released and that is why I believe that, if they are a felon, they should not have the right to firearm. The rehabilitation that everyone likes to talk about, does not exist. Do the research. The only things that are learned by convicted felons in prison is how to create more havoc when they are released. There is NO REHABILITATION. THERE IS ONLY TIME SERVED. Some states, I believe, reinstate individual rights after a given time depending on certain criteria. I believe now and will continue to believe that a felon is always a felon. Time served is NOT rehabilitation.

[Punch The Clown]

I was in error when I said that the two noble inner city descendants of royalty served 3 years for killing my brother-in-law. My wife just informed me it was 18 months. Sorry.

[Eli]

I was in error when I said that the two noble inner city descendants of royalty served 3 years for killing my brother-in-law. My wife just informed me it was 18 months. Sorry.

I am so glad I live in a state that is unfraid to lock thugs the fuck up and execute those that murder. NY is screwed up beyond salvation!

Eli

[timshufflin]

You are twisting my statement Tim about the background check. I gree with you on background checks. I also agree with them not being released if they are not safe for releasing. That was my statement in the beginning. Read post #6. But, they are being released and that is why I believe that, if they are a felon, they should not have the right to firearm. The rehabilitation that everyone likes to talk about, does not exist. Do the research. The only things that are learned by convicted felons in prison is how to create more havoc when they are released. There is NO REHABILITATION. THERE IS ONLY TIME SERVED. Some states, I believe, reinstate individual rights after a given time depending on certain criteria. I believe now and will continue to believe that a felon is always a felon. Time served is NOT rehabilitation.

We can legally do you what you'd like, and I'd agree with you, if we amend the 2nd amendment. Without amending the Constitution, there is no "reasonable" way to infringe upon it.

[buckshot85]

I believe and I think you do to that there should be no ammending of the constitution. It is not a living document. What the correct answer is to this topic at hand, I do not know and from what I have seen in my 45 years, our elected officials do not either.

[KnickKnack]

I am so glad I live in a state that is unfraid to lock thugs the fuck up and execute those that murder. NY is screwed up beyond salvation!

Eli

New York is known as the "Empire State", and we now have an Emporer running it. Come to think of it, we've had several Emporers in the last few years, the only difference being that some of them were not so bold as the current one.

[timshufflin]

I believe and I think you do to that there should be no ammending of the constitution. It is not a living document. What the correct answer is to this topic at hand, I do not know and from what I have seen in my 45 years, our elected officials do not either.

The Constitution was made with an Amendment process in place. I have no problem with amending the Constitution when the required votes are there. To get those votes is a burden and it was meant to be that way.

[Punch The Clown]

Listen, this isn't rocket science. If a criminal does his penance he is obviously no longer a threat to society-if he was he wouldn't have been released now would he have? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they stay in jail or we restore their rights. A really good safeguard would be that the judge that sentenced the parolee and the members of the parole board that paroled the parolee have the ex-convict stay at their houses for a specified period of time-just to prove they have the courage of their convictions. Interesting to see how many judges would allow a serial rapist to share a bedroom with their teenage daughter. But, being better than you and I, these people would rather have these ex-convicts re-integrate into society as MY next door neighbor and not theirs.

[buckshot85]

Why would I even have a cake if I were not going to eat it?????? Of course I can.

[precision32]

Up to 1968 a felon did not lose their 2A rights. That came in with the 68 GCA. How did America survive up to that point?

They started the entire gun control thing at that point. "Screw em, they're just felons." No one objected and people got used to having God given inalienable Rights being taken away from people. Now they deny people with domestic violence misdemeanors there inalienable Right. Returning vets with PTSD are being denied their inalienable Rights. Where is any of this addressed in the Constitution? The only way I read in the Constitution that happens is for treason.

BTW, a prison term does not end when the person is "rehabilitated." It ends when the time ordered by the judge is over. The person can be just as fucked up as they were when imprisoned when they are released.

[Eli]

TX has 'concrete' sentences, with parole eligibilty after a majority of time is served. None of this "5 to 25 years" bullshit. If you're sentenced, it'll be, "20 years at a facility to be determined by the Texas Department of criminal Justice."
TX law also states you get your firearms rights back several years after your conviction date.

Eli

[timshufflin]

BTW, a prison term does not end when the person is "rehabilitated." It ends when the time ordered by the judge is over. The person can be just as fucked up as they were when imprisoned when they are released.

Interesting concept and or fact. So you are saying that a prison term is not over when parole is granted but when the actual/first sentence was given? If that is the definition of the law, I'm game. I guess it would go like this?

Person sentenced to 12 years for robbery
Person gets out on parole in 7 years
Person can't get a gun for 5 more years when the original sentence would be over?
I guess if that's the law, and when on parole you are still under "sentence" that would make sense.

[KnickKnack]

BTW, a prison term does not end when the person is "rehabilitated." It ends when the time ordered by the judge is over. The person can be just as fucked up as they were when imprisoned when they are released.

Rehabilitated? Do you know anyone in prison, or anyone that has come out of prison? There is no "rehabilitation" in prison. Watch the show "Scared Straight". The Inmates run those asylums. "Corrections" is an oxymoron term. No one comes out of prison any better than when they went in, and certainly not "rehabilitated". Rehabilitation is something the Liberals would like you to think is happening behind the walls.

[precision32]

I may not have been clear. If sentenced to 20 years and the parole board says that you can leave at 15, then it ends there as far as I know. Never been there or done that! This may or may not depend on if your being rehabilitated, just that you have been a good boy. The psychologists that determine if someone is "rehabilitated" are only correct 8% of the time according to my psychology professor. Look at the number of repeat offenders.

However, if your not a good boy in the play pen, you still get out at the 20 year mark, good boy or not. You can be just as screwed up as when they sentenced you. They can't hold you forever.

In Florida we have the 10, 20, LIFE law. The 10-20-Life law was created to deter violent repeat felons. There is now mandatory sentencing for:

Producing a gun while committing certain felonies — 10 years
Firing a gun while committing certain felonies — 20 years
Shooting someone while committing certain felonies — 25 years to life

This still leaves the question as to where the Constitution says you loose your Rights. Florida has the same provision that the '68 GCA has, if you are under indictment for a felony crime you can not have a firearm. No court hearings, no conviction, just a charge. This has been determined by the Florida Supreme Court to be UN-Constitutional in Florida's law. It is still in the Statutes, just unenforceable. Any time this provision is challenged under the '68 GCA they drop the charges rather then have the law thrown out.

That's what "infringement" is all about. Take it from the bad guys first, they don't matter. After it's accepted for THEM, then they come after YOU. Look at the crap we face today, just for being a Citizen. According to FatAss Napolytono if you believe in the Constitution, individual freedom and self determination, you're a potential terrorist and should have no Right to have a gun.

KnickKnack is correct, rehabilitation is only in the minds of the bleeding heart liberals.

[cannonshooter]

The only way to stop criminals to plant them. Having been involved with Corrections for the last 16 years locking someone up does not work. They get out! Whether it is on Parole or the end of the sentence. Now if we armed the general population and the criminals than Darwinism would come into play. After all if someone is trying to rob you using a deadly weapon or deadly instrument you can use deadly physical force. I see any gun laws as an infringement on a citizens rights. Unfortunately criminals do not lose that citizenship when convicted, so yes they should be able to have guns also. Shit they have them anyway only the law abiding suckers are disarmed by gun laws. If we planted more criminals than the recidivism rates would decline and maybe someone who not a criminal would think twice about becoming one.
Mack

[timshufflin]

The last three posts are exactly why I see no reason for background checks.
1. The 2nd amendment says very clearly "shall not be infringed".
2. When someone gets out of prison there is no device in the Constitution that proclaims a former felon as a non citizen.
3. Since we cannot infringe on people currently obeying the law, former prisoners, there is no need for background checks even if it makes us feel good.
4. If we as a society feel strongly enough that former felons should not be able to have a firearm, the Constitution should be changed so that former felons are classified as "lesser citizens". Fat chance of that happening because the aclu will not even let a currently incarcerated felon be classified as such.

[Schriv]

What about voting??
Convicted felons are not allowed to vote either.
Since that very effectively disqualifies a huge number of otherwise completely useless individuals that would vote themselves a free ride at everyone else's expense.... OH wait..that happened anyway. I guess we can leave that law alone.

[musketjon]

They are not allowed to own firearms or to vote. It's kinda' like the old adage "once a machine gun, always a machine gun". They're felons for life like it or not even if they've served their time. Once a felon, always a felon. There's no such thing as an ex-felon.
Jon

[Jimbo Slice]

Help me to wrap my brain around this for a second...


Am I to understand that some of you believe convicted criminals should enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the American population?

And am I also to understand that some of the very same people with the aforementioned belief feel that it's ok to burn suspected criminals to death?


I'm just wondering, perhaps I'm way off base.




Naaaah.

[Punch The Clown]

Help me to wrap my brain around this for a second...


Am I to understand that some of you believe convicted criminals should enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the American population?

And am I also to understand that some of the very same people with the aforementioned belief feel that it's ok to burn suspected criminals to death?


I'm just wondering, perhaps I'm way off base.




Naaaah.

Yes, but in a sarcastic way. If a violent felon is returned to mainstream society then he obviously is no longer a threat (that's the sarcastic part) and therefore should be afforded the same rights to self defense, defense of his family, and defense of his property. How could a judge sentence such a person to a limited sentence, and how can a parole board release that person unless they are ABSOLUTELY sure that they pose no threat to society? Basically, if the experts say "rehabilitated" then I have to go along with it. The new proposed gun owner liability insurance mandate being proposed in several states does give me a good idea however. Why don' we mandate judges, juries, defense attorneys, and members of parole boards to each carry $100,000,000.00 in liability insurance-per instance- just in case they accidentally release a dangerous person back into society?

[timshufflin]

They are not allowed to own firearms or to vote. It's kinda' like the old adage "once a machine gun, always a machine gun". They're felons for life like it or not even if they've served their time. Once a felon, always a felon. There's no such thing as an ex-felon.
Jon

I beg to differ Sir, the ACLU has fought and won several cases confirming that incarcerated felons do indeed have access to the Bill of Rights. In some states, these criminals are even afforded sex change surgery while in prison, it is their right, or so we're told.

[KnickKnack]

Wasn't it just last year that some felon ran in a primary vote from prison and won?

[Brinks352]

Wasn't it just last year that some felon ran in a primary vote from prison and won?

It was on the east cost somewhere, I think he beat Obama in the primary, I think that is why it made the news. I do reserve the right to be complety wrong in this :)

[jak]

It was on the east cost somewhere, I think he beat Obama in the primary, I think that is why it made the news. I do reserve the right to be complety wrong in this :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-felon-keith-judd-did-so-well-against-obama-in-west-virginia/2012/05/09/gIQA7GwtCU_blog.html

[cannonshooter]

Ok guys here is my take on this. A Felon who is a citizen of this country and who is not on parole or probation (has completed his sentence) is Constitutionally protected under all the Amendments except the 2nd. That was done under the GCA of 68 and misdemeanor domestic violence under the Lautenberg act. Now since the lawmakers can choose to take away a person rights for a crime after they have paid their debt to society what would stop them from saying that Stu if he was found not to be totally faithful to Judaism could no longer practice his preferred religion because he broke a religious law. After all if the citizen was deemed to worthy to be let back into society and his debt was paid to society than he being a citizen is entitled to all the rights of a citizen. That is why they are rights they can not be taken away by lawmakers they are not privileges. If they can not be trusted with those rights than they should not live among free men. This goes for convicts and the mentally ill. I dont believe that most convicts should ever be released from prison but since so called better men than i do think so they should not have their rights infringed on. If we allow one or two categories of citizens to have their rights infringed on by lawmakers for any reason what can you say when they come after your rights? Stu you were only used as example and no disrespect was meant.
Mack

[Punch The Clown]

Mack, you said nothing offensive. When I started this thread I knew that nobody would want a criminal to live next door to them, let alone to own a firearm. However, under the Constitution, firearms are a right and not a privilege as you said. "To Keep" is in the process of being infringed, and "And Bear", which the Oxford Dictionary defines as "to carry" has been infringed almost to the point of non-existence in many cities and states.
So, how do we correct this? Somehow, the lawmakers feel that the way to justify infringing on the rights of a segment of society is to equally infringe on all members.
I'm open to suggestions.

[timshufflin]

If you are not on parole, in prison, or declared mentally unstable and institutionalized, the 2nd amendment applies to you. It's really quite simple. I don't frankly care what some gun control act says. The gun control act, all of them, are unconstitutional and not recognized by me as real law. I still follow these laws because I don't think I would like jail but I don't consider them just.

[cannonshooter]

Basically before the 1850's in this country we did not have state prisons. There were 2 types of crimes felonies and misdemeanors. if you were convicted of a felony there was one sentence death and it was carried out swiftly. If convicted of a misdemeanor you were given corporal punishment. Then came the quakers who thought people could be rehabilitated and such began the criminal system as we know it where it has become better to live in prison than out on the street. I say since they must keep wanting to go to prison since they get out and commit more crime to go back why dont we just keep their worthless asses inside or better yet since they are felons hand out the original punishment for a felony. Society would be alot safer then and we would not have to have a gun control debate because the communists would not be able to say it is to keep the guns out of the criminal hands since we wont have any criminals. Then they could be exposed for what they really are freaking communists. But as I said before I know nothing and much better men than I have determined criminals belong in society.
Mack

[Paltik]

Some people should not be allowed to have firearms--the kinds of people who have demonstrated they don't respect the safety and lives of others. That just makes sense. But here's what troubles me....

Should someone with a record of domestic disturbance be allowed to have a firearm? What if some woman claims her husband's firearm makes her feel "unsafe" and "in fear for her life," and he refuses to get rid of it just because she wants him to?

Should child abusers be allowed to have firearms? After all, they obviously have no regard for the well-being of others. Is it not child abuse to have a firearm in a home where children are present, given how many children gain access to such firearms and hurt themselves or others with those guns?

What about a person who is armed and has threatened to resist arrest? Now think of all the yahoos on Internet forums who bluster "my cold dead hand" and "molon labe."

I fear the authorities making criminal what I would not consider criminal, then depriving those new criminals of their rights, all by due process.

[cannonshooter]

Paltik,
By your logic then since you define who should be allowed to enjoy 2nd amendment rights, how about we take your favorite whatever(preacher,tv host, newspaper ) and ban them from exercising their 1st amendments rights because im sure in their life they have shown a disregard somewhere for someone else. You cant choose which citizens can exercise Constitutional rights, They are god given rights that every citizen enjoys. If those you think who should not be allowed to have firearms are so dangerous, why in the hell are they still a part of society? I wish people would understand that while I detest criminals who are citizens I will back their rights under the Constitution just as I would back a citizen who is not a criminal. That goes for the 1st,2nd and all the Amendments. If they can legislate a convicted felons rights away after he has fully paid his debt to society than the can legislate yours away for whatever reason they want. Oh BTW your point about the husband and wife if she doesnt like him having a gun in the house then she should leave the house and get a divorce. Marriage is not a Constitutional right owning a gun is.
Mack

[Paltik]

I think we're on the same side here, cannonshooter. We're both suspicious the laws will be used as rationalization for violating our constitutional rights. (Note that I prefaced my examples by saying those scenarios "trouble me.")