Up in arms: a felon’s right to gun ownership

scpr.org ^ | 17 November, 2011 | Patt Morrison

[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.

WEIGH IN:

Should convicted felons be granted the right to bear arms? Should a felon’s mental health be taken into consideration? Is this an issue over the Second Amendment or safety?

Guests:

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

[arthurus]

Felons, if they want guns will have guns. They just won’t be legal. Laws against possession by felons are useless. The 2amd is unconditional. Laws against possession of arms of any sort by anyone are illegitimate. Laws legitimately forbid and punish criminal use of guns, and knives and bricks and hands and such. Laws do not prevent criminals from either possessing or using guns. The primary- perhaps the only real- deterrence to wrongful use of guns by felons or by anyone is the knowledge that other folks, often not obvious, have guns and can and will use them in defense.

[teeman8r]

huh????

second amendment makes all arms legal...

i don’t know what you mean by more likely to with a legal one...

shall not be infringed means just that. if rights are god given then we all have the right to self defense and cannot be denied.

glad to see so many right thinkers

[Turbopilot]

Your post intrigued me enough to do a little reading on the subject. From what I read, civil death carried over from England to the colonies, but during the time of the Founding Fathers, was applied exclusively to incarcerated felons serving their sentences. Around the time the Constitution was ratified, prisoners who were serving terms of imprisonment were civilly dead, but became “civilly alive” again upon completion of their sentences. In addition, governors routinely (to the point that it was expected) issued explicit pardons to convicts upon their release. Civil death, or any type of restriction on natural rights, was never applied in the United States to those who had served their sentences and been released, until at least 1820 (in New York) and didn’t spread to most of the country until the 1850’s.

So the argument that the Founders accepted the imposition of civil death is true, but the historical evidence indicates that they would not consider it to apply to those who had served their sentences and been released. I don’t think it’s a matter of having “pity” for felons (at least those who have committed violent crimes against other people, not “paper felons” like Martha Steward), but more a matter of the practical reality of preventing non-incarcerated persons from exercising their natural rights, and the idea that if a person has been adjudicated as too dangerous to exercise their natural rights, that person should not be amongst free men regardless of the conditions imposed.

[absolootezer0]

i was just saying, IMO, if an ex-con has already committed a “crime” to obtain a weapon, it sems they’d be more likely to use that weapon in commission of another crime.

[teeman8r]

the problem is letting those offenders out before they are rehabilitated or at all. a rethinking of time for crime must be addressed.

but the penalizing of an individual from protecting oneself to the best of their abilities violates their constitutional rights that shall not be infringed.

lots of people fall into the trap of good intentions...

teeman

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Interesting. Civil Death originated with entering the clergy then extended to those convicted of felony. My point was it was known-and not abolished-by our founders as were whipping, hanging, the stocks etc. There probably were instances of restoration of “rights.â€

As to pity for felons I'll stick with what I said. There is a regular cult of felon pity people, just look at what happens when the rare execution takes place, or the movement to restore the convicted felons right to vote, or the "free mumma" movement; etc. etc. A great historian once said:" there comes a time in the history of every people when they become so pathologically soft and tender that they actually side with those elements of their society that harms them i.e. criminals." Our society is in that place.

[5th MEB]

Upon service of sentence and release, all rights should be restored; if judged insane they are still a threat to society and should never be released. Upon conviction of a second crime the sentence should be doubled, no reductions for good behavior or any other reasons. If convicted of killing another human being for any reason other than self defense, an immediate sentence of death by hanging in the public square. Sentence to be carried out within 5 calendar days of conviction.