I really want input on this one

[lentz]

When a man goes to prison,feloney especially,after he is turned out he can't own a firearm again.I feel if he did his time,he should start with clean slate.
If not he never accually paid his debt to society.
How do you see it? Does he have rights after paying his due or not?

[Shopnut]

There are many kinds of crime. Was this a violent crime? As far as I am concerned, if a person chooses to commit a violent felony against a person and injures them, then they should pay for that crime for as long as they live. Unless they are pardoned, then they are an ex-convict for as long as they are out of prison. I am all for denying them the right to vote and own a gun.

[jack404]

depends on the crime ..
my only criminal charge came ( and was dropped) when i defended a lady against her boyfriend ( supposed), but if that court hearing did not go my way ( he counter claimed i assaulted him for no reason, and thought his GF would back him.. dunce)

i'd be in that book of criminal

i'd hope i got a fair look at in all those issues

but agree many should lose the right of gun's and a say in society , if not their right to breath.. , folks may not like eye for a eye justice , but it does work.

[wyoredot]

Agreed, the crime should determine the likelyhood of ever owning a firearm again. If there was violence involved against someone without provocation for instance....

[Jim K]

There are many people, mainly "liberals" who agree that once a person is out of prison, all his/her rights should be restored. But none ever mention the right to keep and bear arms, maybe because they don't think anyone should have that right, or maybe because they don't really believe, deep down, that ex-cons are "reformed."

Jim

[lentz]

Reason for ths post,is so I can answer my 11 yr. olds question.It's hard to say "Well they should of hung him",and let it go at that. But after talking with her,I am trending to the idea that if they served their sentence.Then they are citizens in the eyes of the Law.And should have the same rights.Or they shouldn't have been released.

[pickenup]

Originally Posted by lentz

if they served their sentence.Then they are citizens in the eyes of the Law.And should have the same rights.Or they shouldn't have been released

BINGO

[The_Rifleman]

How do you see it?

In the USA...
Bill of Rights

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says, "the right of the people." It does not say the right of (law abiding citizens,) (librarians,) or (Sunday school teachers.)

In order for "the people" to insure "the security of a free State," the "State" cannot dictate which "people" have or have not the "right" to "bear Arms."

ONLY by an additional amendment striking down the 2nd, can it be otherwise.

This reminds me of The Patriot when the son upon seeing the cutthroat Militia recruits exclaims, "This is not the sort we need." His father replies, "This is exactly the sort we need."

[carver]

Why do you carry a gun? You carry one because you don't want to be a victim, nor do you want a member of your family to become a victim, if you can stop it. Like The Rifleman said, "the right of the people." It does not say the right of (law abiding citizens,) (librarians,) or (Sunday school teachers.) And it doesn't say that convicted felons can not own a firearm. If a man/woman commits a crime, and have been sent to prision, have served their time, paid their debt to society, completed probation, then all rights should be restored to them. They have paid the price. If they then try to commit a crime against you, or your family ..............., Well, that's the reason you carry!

[grampawmike]

I may be looking at this from a point of view different than most. I was a LEO for a little over 35 years. I worked primarily in the area in which I grew up and lived. I knew many of the people I came into contact with, in many cases I had known them from the time I was 10 years old or so. One man in particular sticks in my mind. I had known the family for years, played, partied and worked with many members as we grew up together. Worked with one brother that was also a LEO. While at a party held for a family member (of theirs) this individual pulled me off to the side and explained that we knew each other, were long time friends, that he had been arrested many times for drugs and assaults, and BEGGED me to never come after him if he were under the influence. His reason? He knew that he was addicted, knew that he was violent when high, and explained that he never wanted the situation to arise that one of us would have to kill the other. He knew, and told me that he knew he that he would try to kill any officer that attempted to arrest him when he was high, including me, and didn't want his mother to go through pain of either of us getting hurt and one probably dead. Another officer shot him about four years later.
Another friend (that still lives just down the road from me) had frequently asked a 14 year old kid to stop harassing his dogs. His big dogs. Great Danes. The kid continued. My friend contacted the parents on numerous occasions regarding the problem, advising that their child could be severely injured if one of the big guys got loose during the harassment, all to no avail. The kid kept at it. Finally, my friend, in frustration, popped the kid in the butt with a BB gun during one of his 'games'. The cops were called and my friend went to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. He was convicted.

My point is that both of these guys had been charged with a similar offense. One should never have had a gun, the other can never legally have one now. One is gone, the other...I don't ask, but I have no problem with the idea that he may have one or two guns in his home. The law simply cannot be made to determine different levels of punishment for each individual convicted of the same charge. If a man earning $1000 a month is fined $100 for going thru a red light.......it hurts him one hell of a lot more that a man receiving the same fine for the same offense that earns $5000 a month. Same offense, same fine. I may not totally agree, but that's the way the law is, and it is not practical for the courts to take the time to delve into a person's mind set, attitude and personallity upon their conviction. At least not the common man that hasn't the big bucks to hire a powerful attorney. JMHO Mike

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by carver

Why do you carry a gun? You carry one because you don't want to be a victim, nor do you want a member of your family to become a victim, if you can stop it. Like The Rifleman said, "the right of the people." It does not say the right of (law abiding citizens,) (librarians,) or (Sunday school teachers.) And it doesn't say that convicted felons can not own a firearm. If a man/woman commits a crime, and have been sent to prision, have served their time, paid their debt to society, completed probation, then all rights should be restored to them. They have paid the price. If they then try to commit a crime against you, or your family ..............., Well, that's the reason you carry!

Right on.

The issue is the true punishment of violent criminals. If we'd just execute them, as they should be, there'd be a lot LESS crime.

[carver]

Three Cheers for Graehaven! If the folks sent to prison were put to hard labor, no TV's, no gym, no books, just labor, they would think twice before doing anything that would get them sent back.

[carver]

grampawmike, that is a sad tale. I know that stories like this have to hurt. But what if the friend had been sentenced to hard labor, for a long time for his crimes. He would have been released drug free. It would have been his choice to return to the drugs that got him put in prision in the first place. Would it have made a difference, maybe, maybe not. But this man knew where he was going, and accepted it. As a convicted felon, could he have gotten his hands on a gun? Sure he could, and probably had one at the time he was telling you not to come after him. It was his choice, and he paid for that choice. And that's the way it should be.

[PunjabiPillbox]

Thanks for wording it that way grampaw, I've been chewing on this one for a little while. I don't know if we can afford to be so staunch here. Let me throw another one into the mix. What do you guys think about getting into bar fights? Are folks here of the opinion such warrants an assault charge? Personally I don't believe it does unless it's really under extreme conditions. But here is the point, it doesn't have to be a felony to take your gun rights, because it's a violent offense. Now move us a little down the road towards socialism, and three people I know, two being vets who were arrested, one being a friend going through a divorce. Why the friend going through the divorce? On word of mouth of their spouse that they feared repercussion or retribution, etc.

I myself almost experienced the whole word of mouth thing, so I know how close we ALL are to our second amendment- and close to having it gone as well.

I say, if it be a hanging offense (or shoulda been)- we'll say rape, child molestation, attempted murder, etc, let those things be clearly defined -and yeah, if libs wanna try their experiment with making them human again, can't say I agree 100%, but we can disarm them. Don't ever broaden the terms, say -any violent crime, or -any mentally unstable person; ie, socialize the terms of justice! -Or someday we'll all get the socialized reward...

There are two justice systems trying to work side by side these days- the old and the new- only it doesn't work with one constantly trying to usurp the others prominence in our law.

The best answer to me is to bring back the honor our system used to have- and the integrity of being a man in it. Take this swill nowadays- pandering, degrading bs, it's no wonder people come back through the system.

[PunjabiPillbox]

It was his choice, and he paid for that choice. And that's the way it should be.

That's it Carver- that's what I mean!

[hogger129]

In my opinion, an ex-con or anybody else for that matter, should retain all of their Constitutional rights once they have served their sentence.

At the same time, a gun dealer is a private business owner and should not have to sell to anybody they don't want to, whether they are an ex-con or not.

[Trouble 45-70]

Pay your debt, get your rights back. A big part of the problem as I see it is that heinous crimes get totally mismatched penalty and then the punishment is little more than being sent to your room. So many crimes that at one time would have got you hung or 20 years on a chain gang now result in 6 mos. probation. Criminals will do what criminals will do. Our cops will catch them but our Congressmen, Legislators, many Prosecutor and Judges have totally corrupted the punishment process. I wonder if that is so that if they get cought in their own crimes they don't want to receive the punishment they so rightly deserve.

[grampawmike]

Gentlemen. I don't pretend to have any answers, but I do know that most courts sentence by an edict...'determinate sentencing'....max and min limits for each specific crime. Judges must issue sentences that fall between pre-set limits supplied by another body. Also, the area in which the criminal activity occurs makes a difference. An act in rural Montana may seem heinous to that community while the same crime in urban Chicago is so common that it is not considered a major offense. As to harsh sentencing, I wonder. Jails and prisons seem to only return more sophisticated criminals to society....think of them as 'graduate schools'. This is not a new phenomenon, just look at John Dillinger's background. Answers? I just ain't got 'em. Mike

[Double D]

It takes a coward to wave a loaded firearm in an inocent persons face for any reason at all. If you have committed this cowardly act then you dont ever deserve to have another firearm. I hope I never walk up on a robbery in progress where the victim has a loaded gun in their face. I will kill the perp deader than dead. It really pisses me off.

[lentz]

Thanks guys,still....I don't know what to tell her.
What you tell an 11 year old daughter?

[lawdawg]

There is, of course, no easy answer to this. However, after years of serving as a law enforcement officer, I can truthfully say that the overwhelming majority of the people I deal with are repeat offenders. People who have been sent to prison, "paid their debt", and returned to society only to commit criminal offenses over and over again. We could open up a whole other can of worms debating why they are repeat offenders, but the fact remains that criminals remain criminals and continue to commit crimes. They continually prove that gun control is a joke because they are almost always armed, albeit, illegally (usually with stolen guns). There are those who are convicted of a crime, do their time, and live a quiet law-abiding life from there on. But those people are of a very small percentage of the total amount of people released from incarceration.

[lentz]

She has read all of your post,She is now balancing between Lawdawg and Hogger129.Thanks a bunch guys. It does take a village.Thanks for giving your time to her.

[Dexter]

Most states have a procedure for restoring civil rights after a felony conviction and term served. Most of them include a time frame of good behavior, no new charges, gainful employment and a few other things. This is done to help weed out the hapitual offenders who just can't keep trouble from finding them....SO if you get convicted, serve your time and than behave like you should you can have your rights restored but if you just can not behave sorry no restoration for you.....There is no way to know how a person will react to being out of prison until it happens so why take a chance. Kind of like when you first get hired onto a job on a trial basis lets see if you can get the job done, if you can you will be made "whole"

[tim.sr]

no

[Terry_P]

I agree it depends upon the crime. If it is not a violent crime then they should begin to earn their rights back, right away.

Using the logic of some here, then a child molestor should be able to come out of jail after serving the slap on the wrist time that is given out these days and have no restrictions. If he wants to move next door to a school, sure go ahead. If he wants to adopt a couple of young kids, sure go ahead. It just makes no sense to me to completely give someone a pass when they have demonstrated they are not willing to follow the rules. The court system is woeful and time served is not time deserved. We had someone up here that was arrested over the border in Maine for the 137th time a couple of weeks ago. Why is this person still out among us?

If they commit a violent crime and serve their time, which is never enough these days, then let them earn their way back into society. If over time they prove they are citizens and not criminals then let them start to regain their rights slowly.