Posted on 01/18/2012 5:47:31 AM PST by marktwain
At last night's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., we heard the candidates talk about whether ex-cons should vote and we heard the candidates talk about the right to bear arms. At the next debate, I'd like to hear the candidates talk about whether ex-cons should bear arms.
Asked about Mitt Romney's attacks on his candidacy, Rick Santorum complained that Romney's Super PAC had an ad that said he favored allowing felons to vote from prison, when in fact what Santorum favored was allowing felons to vote after they've served their prison sentences. Santorum asked Romney: "Do you believe people who have—who were felons, who served their time, who have extended—exhausted their parole and probation, should they be given the right to vote?" After Romney dithered a bit, Santorum added: "This is a huge deal in the African-American community, because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes, in the African-American community." Finally Romney said: "I don’t think people who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote again. That’s my own view." This drew wild applause from the audience, an ugly one even by the standards of this GOP primary season.
Later, moderator Juan Williams asked Romney how, in light of his having signed, as Massachusetts governor, the first assault-weapon ban in the country, and raised fees on gun owners, Romney can "convince gun owners that you will be an advocate for them as president." Romney answered that the state gun lobby had supported his bill, then genuflected before the Second Amendment and concluded, "I do not believe in new laws restricting gun ownership and gun use." Williams then reminded Santorum that he'd voted in Congress in favor of trigger locks on handguns and background checks on purchasers of guns at gun shows. Santorum answered that the National Rifle Association supported these bills; asserted that he voted against the Clinton-era assault weapon ban; genuflected before the Second Amendment; said he played "a leadership role" in passing a bill shielding gun manufacturers from liability; and noted that Ron Paul had voted against this bill. Paul said he voted against it because he was opposed to "national tort law." He also said, "I’m the one that offers all—all the legislation to repeal the gun bans that have been going on.... So that’s a bi —a bit of an overstretch to—to say that I’ve done away with the Second Amendment."
Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from owning a gun. Seems like kind of a good idea, no? The worst an ex-con is likely to do if given the right to vote is vote for a Democrat. (Because ex-cons are disproportionately African American and/or low-income, they tend to vote Democratic.) But give an ex-con a gun and there's a decent chance he'll use it to commit a crime. (According to a 1999 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, not allowing felons to buy guns reduces the likelihood that they'll commit a violent or gun-related crime by up to 30 percent.)
One deeply unfortunate but hardly surprising consequence of District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court decision affirming a Second Amendment right to bear arms regardless of whether one belonged to a "well-regulated" (or even poorly-regulated) militia, was its acceleration of a movement by the NRA to restore gun rights to felons at the state level, federal prohibition be damned. Michael Luo of the New York Times reported last year that in at least 11 states "many" nonviolent felons, sometimes after a brief probationary period, are automatically permitted to own guns after they've served their sentences. In Ohio, Minnesota, and Virginia, violent felons can petition to have their gun-ownership rights restored, and in Georgia and Nebraska "scores" of pardons that specifically allow convicted felons to own guns are issued every year. Even the federal prohibition has included an appeals process for the past 47 years thanks to a "relief from disability" program initiated at the request of gun manufacturers back in 1965. One pardon attorney quoted by Luo estimated that felons have a decent chance of eventually being permitted to own guns in more than half the states. "By [Republicans'] logic," Marie Diamond wrote on the liberal ThinkProgress Web site, "millions of ex-convicts can be trusted with guns, but not with ballots."
I'd like to hear the candidates weigh in on whether they support the federal ban on felony ex-cons owning guns. Should it be repealed? If so, how do they justify giving ex-cons guns but not ballots? Maybe they'll cop out by saying it's something more properly decided at the state level. But gee, we tried here in D.C. to decide at the state (well, "district") level not to allow guns at all, only to have the Supreme Court tell us that (unlike something trivial like voting) it was none of our business; this was a federal matter. As a liberal and as an American I want to know: Are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry soft on crime when it comes to letting ex-felons own guns?
Ex cons gets guns anyway...
I’ve worked around quite a few ex-felons and trust me, they are armed to the teeth.
If they have served their time why not?
Which is a flat out lie! Santorum proves he is a gun grabber and lies to claim it is a pro gun position.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more print on what Santorum said in that debate.
If someone cannot be trusted with full citizenry upon release, they should not be released amongst full citizens.
The writer first alleges that the Republicans favor felons’ getting guns, then asks what the candidates think about this. Why is he asking, if he already thinks that he knows?
Actually, there are different sorts of felonies: violent and non-violent, for example. Some are technical, like accidentally falling afoul of gun regulations in a state like NJ, and (under “no tolerance” rules), getting convicted on a technicality. Such as case is different from that of a freed murderer.
For the record, I disagree with Santorum on this one. Violent felons should not be given gun rights, nor should they get the right to vote. It would be good for people to know that if you become a criminal, you may loose certain rights. There is nothing peculiar about that.
Giving felons the right to vote can be labelled whatever: in Congress, they frequently name bills in a way which could not pass the regs for “truth in labeling”! The “Martin Luther King Voting Rights Bill” is clearly such a misleading title. So is “Job Creation Act.”
Guns and ballots, or neither. Actually, if someone is too dangerous to own a gun, they’re too dangerous to let out of prison because there’s nothing that can reasonably be expected to keep them from getting guns as soon as they get out. So don’t let them out unless and until you’d be happy that they’re voting and owning guns both. Modify sentences to take these facts into account, if necessary.
Before I toss those laws, I’d like to examine carefully why they were set in place in the first place. Was it just a dumb mistake? I doubt it.
the past few decades, the law has gone from felon exclusion...to misdemeanor for domestic violence in the courts....
crimes of domestic violence which men are so easily and often accused of by menopausal or scorned women....has become a joke.
the constitution does not limit constitutional rights because of criminal history.
felons should not be able to vote or own guns. Period. I don’t think pedphiles, drug dealers, murderers, and rapists should have a voice in government. I would restore their RTKBA before I would let them have sway over our legislative bodies.
Why should they be out of prison, then?
Anybody who cannot be trusted with a gun should not be running around loose. End of discussion!
Tie the two together and the RAT states wont likely be looking to let felons vote to bump up their voter base. No way would they trust their felons to own guns. That would kill the issue dead in it's tracks in liberal states.
Conservative states may very well have the brains to give both rights back to those felons that pose no threat to society.
My father can’t own a gun or vote simply because of a DUI many years ago. We are far too quick to take people’s rights. Once out from under sentence, all rights should be restored.
We’ve also become quick to make everything a felony for the express purpose of taking their rights.
What happened to the concept of no taxation without representation? If a person isn’t allowed the fully rights of a citizen, why should they feel any responsibility to our society?
On another thread, someone posted an article with a parallel argument involving voter photo ID.
If someone’s right to vote is being infringed by having to show an official ID in order to vote,
isn’t someone’s Constitutional 2nd Amendment right being violated by the ATF requirement to show photo ID to purchase a firearm?
Self defense is a basic human right, like food or shelter. It should not be denied lightly. If you trust them to walk around and drive a car, why not? If they are not safe holding a gun then they should be still in jail, or in the ground.
“felons should not be able to vote or own guns.”
I have an associate who runs a public utility, a couple towns away. Been running it for 20 years. Three kids. Devoted family man. Got busted with a bag of pot 35 years ago. Felony. 2 years probation. Hasn’t even had a parking ticket since then. He should be able to vote, and be able to protect himself and his family.
Exactly!
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.