I’m as pro-gun as anybody, but if they give felons rights to guns, are we going to give felons all other rights as well? This seems like liberal activism masquerading as conservatism.
Actually, the law as written says the Feds get to confiscate your guns without recompense if you're convicted of a felony. This guy is trying to either transfer ownership to his wife or sell them to his friends.
Read post #3.
Undoubtedly, some conservatives will say that he should have his right restored, with some saying no. That will be followed by some conservatives saying that it depends upon the felony - they will argue that if it wasn’t a violent crime then his gun rights should be restored.
And that will probably be followed by others saying that if some felonies shouldn’t result in a loss of gun rights, then voting rights in those same cases shouldn’t be upended.
Regardless of where you stand on this, buckle up!
The flip side is that anti-gun ownership folks can dumb down what is called a felony so jay walking or a DUI and you can no longer own a gun -
In my opinion, a felon should lose their gun rights for the time period post conviction and prior to either exoneration, pardon or completion of the full term of the sentence (i.e. parole does not count as serving the full sentence). Once the felon has served their time, all rights should be restored.
Once you have done your time (paid your debt to society) and there is no further claim against you, your basic God-given rights are restored IN FULL. This isn’t leftist, this is LOGIC.
Better question: How can it be conscionable to continue punishing one after he has served his sentence?
By stripping one of their rights permanently you create a second class of citizens; moreover, the initial forbidding of firearms to felons is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on Ex Post Facto law, even by the USSC's narrow view of what Ex Post Facto means (they deny that any civil law can be Ex Post Facto, asserting only that retroactively increasing criminal punishment qualifies.).
This seems like liberal activism masquerading as conservatism.
I don't think so.
The idea that the government is the giver of rights sounds like liberal activism masquerading as liberal activism.
Why not? If you committed a crime and paid your debt to society what is the problem? If you are too dangerous to own a firearm then you are too dangerous to be walking around society at large. One can argue that we let people out of prison who should never see the light of day again. I personally think all murders should be the death penalty or at a minimum life without parole.
Nothing in the Constitution gives government the right to permanently remove the God given rights of a person because he is a convicted felon, except maybe for penalty of death for murder, treason, etc.
A plain reading of the 2nd does not allow the gov to strip any person’s right to keep and bare arms. Further, its an unalienable right, removing the Constitutional protection cannot extinguish the per-existing right.
Felons ALREADY have the right to VOTE, so they SHOULD have the right to own, carry, and shoot guns.
Maybe a more simple approach is to re-define exactly what a “felony” is.
Recently, a young lady crossed into the Demokratic People’s Socialist Utopia of Neu Jersey, carrying a PA-licensed handgun to protect herself and her child. She had PA carry license. She was pulled over for a traffic violation, and in good faith - trying to be the Good Citizen - volunteered to the badge that she had a firearm with her - thinking that her PA license would be honored - you know, “full faith and credit clause” and all that - and he promptly arrested her.
Jersey, being the model Progressive totalitarian state that it is, saw fit to charge her with felony possession of a handgun - you know, that “Constitutional right” that we are supposed to be able to exercise.
That’s a felony - fully on par (in the eyes of the “Justice” system) with this BP agent selling dope and whatever else.
To these socialist assh*les, exercising a Constitutional right without their permission is a felony.
So - maybe we need to redine what a felony really is and THEN go from there.
Murder, arson, rape, assault - absolutely.
But the word is being used to describe whatever the leftist pr*cks want it to mean.
If you’ve paid your debt to society you should be able to own a gun. I wonder how many convicted felons fought and died for this country?
After a felon has done their time, their debt to society should be considered ‘paid’, and all of their rights fully restored. If they are so dangerous that their rights can’t be restored, then they should remain incarcerated.
When a person commits a crime and serves their sentence, their lives shouldn’t be ruined afterwards.
The problem is that the government can make pretty much anything it wants a felony.
Traditionally felonies consisted of basically burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping.
Now there are so many it is insane.
I think for there to be a prohibition on a fundamental constitutional right the law should have to pass a Strict Scrutiny analysis.
At a minimum they need to say that “felony” is too broad, and the prohibition must be narrowly tailored such that- for instance a person convicted of Felony graffiti (criminal mischief over $1,500 in TX) doesn’t lose his 2nd Amendment rights.
I think the government must be able to prove a substantial nexus between the crime convicted of and how it relates to gun ownership.
If they are given the rubber stamp to prohibit gun ownership based on a felony conviction regardless of the crime, then anti gun states can basically make most people ineligible to own a firearm for life.
All they have to do is make speeding and other minor things a felony.
Then selectively enforce the law so as to rid the state of eligible lawful gun owners.
There has to be a harder look at what constitutes a felony, and how the crime even relates to gun ownership.
Personally I believe that if a person is too dangerous to own a gun then he’s too dangerous to be out of prison.
I’m fine with banning gun ownership in prison.
That much we can agree on.
For the first 193 years of this country, felons could legally own firearms. It wasn’t until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that it became illegal. BTW, the 1968 GCA was translated directly from a Nazi law.
Name one other “Bill of Rights” enumerated right which felons lose for life.
Speech? Religion? Press? No quartering? No warrantless searches? No self-incrimination? Speedy trial by impartial jury? Jury review of facts? No excessive/cruel/unusual punishments? Sure, lose ‘em while incarcerated or as other terms of punishment, but once time served get ‘em back.
I am on the fence about this. A felony should not remove a basic human right to defend yourself.