Posted on 07/28/2014 3:46:08 AM PDT by right-wing agnostic
The reasoning amounts to: we’ll let an otherwise rehabilitated felon out if he adheres to certain restrictions; if he won’t, then back in the slammer he goes. Otherwise we have to keep ‘em incarcerated until there is no question of social trustworthiness, which is nigh unto impossible and very costly. Yes, they’re denied basic right of self-defense - they may either accept that denial and otherwise be freed, or remain incarcerated.
Most of these posters live in rainbow and unicorn land when it comes to knowing and socializing and associating with felons, so in their fantasy, felons are mostly just railroaded gentle folk who don’t live the lifestyle.
I do not believe a felon who has never used a firearm in the commission of a crime should lose their 2A rights.
People get slapped with felonies left and right in this Country, often for doctor shopping or larceny.
Their right to defend themselves after their punishment has been served shouldn’t be on the table. IMHO
that’s so smart it’s dumb.
It’s established law. Cope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.