Gun rights after you complete your sentence.

[KFhunter]

dude - loosing your rights is built right into the constitution by the founding fathers themselves


whats your beef?  you pissed you lost your guns or something?

[jay.sharkbait]

No

The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.

I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.

Bowbuild

Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.

To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.

Bottom line then....there is no rights, funny watching how people are so willing to let them go.

bowbuild

You asked for opinions and you got them.

 Sorry the answers didn't agree with your sense of entitlement.

[bowbuild]

No, my felony status is nonexistent.....I will explain more later that may make you think, but it is a bit drawn out, and I am late for work.

Bowbuild

[Fl0und3rz]

Bottom line then....there is no rights, funny watching how people are so willing to let them go.

This is especially poignant in the face of an ever expanding federal government, both in money and laws regulating private behavior, of the willingness of those in power to punish its enemies with the federal bureaucracy (IRS/EPA versus Tea Party), and of the revelations regarding the NSA snooping on all of America.

The difference between a right and a privilege easily lost is merely the willingness of those in the majority to define your preferred behavior as a crime.

[pianoman9701]

No

The only privilege is getting to return to society after serving out the sentence.

I personally can't see if you believe in the constitution how anyone can say no??? I understand there are crimes that are ridiculously gross..... On the other hand, a "right" in my mind is something that can't be taken away??? We all have things we hate, or "feel" should justify the ability for The state to invoke certain standards that meet societies values, but are values ENOUGH to take a right....that is a slippery slope in my opinion.

Bowbuild

Well, rights can be taken away. That is the very nature of punishment in our criminal justice system. Don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Rights are taken away if you are committed to a Psychiatric facilty.

To the question though I do think there should be an avenue to have them restored after a person has paid for their mistake.

There is an avenue. The governor of the state in which the crime was committed can pardon the felon, or he can be pardoned by the President. The founding fathers knew that there would always be "bad" people. That's why they made our rights conditional on being a law-abiding citizen/non-felon. I would imagine the 2nd Amendment was foremost in their minds when they wrote that in.

[KFhunter]

No, my felony status is nonexistent.....I will explain more later that may make you think, but it is a bit drawn out, and I am late for work.

Bowbuild

ah - you got a DV

[bobcat]

Taking away gun rights from people only accomplishes one thing- it prevents them from ever participating in legal activities that involve firearms, such as hunting. If they are going to get back into crime once back on the streets, then they will do that, and they will obtain guns illegally if they choose to do so.

So I see no reason to take away a person's gun rights. I feel that if they are deemed dangerous enough that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn't be set free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Blacktail Sniper]

I can see where CAMPMEAT'S opinion and comment is very germane to the original topic.  But I disagree that pianoman's opinion is out of line, like CAMPMEAT, that is pianoman's take on the subject and the posted comment.

I think CAMPMEAT has hit the nail on the head, because whatever we as a society decide, the under laying issue is still, criminals don't care what we think or want, they will continue to do as they please.  Yes, some can and do turn things around and learn from their experiences/mistakes, but some don't.

Just about every single one will look you in the eye an say that they have "Learned their lesson" and never again will they be a problem...please let me go and leave me alone....I'll be good, I PROMISE.

There is no cut & dry answer, because you have people dealing with people.  This is and always will be the weak link...interpretation, emotions, personal bias, etc., can all be a determining factor and a potential weak spot open for exploitation or manipulation. 

If I remember right, there is a process where, after a 7 year wait, where if they meet all the requirements, they can apply to the courts to get firearms back legally.  I think that is more than adequate.  If someone is able to stay straight and law abiding for that length of time, it has shown to me anyway, a true effort and proof that they really want to turn their life around.

I also feel that someone convicted of an offense that makes firearm possession for them a crime has not had anything "taken" from them.  They chose to commit the offense, they can live with the consequences, the victims certainly have to.

[bowbuild]

You are way off base dude, I have NO RECORD at all. Your presumptions are WAY off base.

[buckfvr]

I dont even think there should be a venue for restoration.............you loose, you loose.   

[Fl0und3rz]

The founding fathers knew that there would always be "bad" people. That's why they made our rights conditional on being a law-abiding citizen/non-felon. I would imagine the 2nd Amendment was foremost in their minds when they wrote that in.

Yes, but, it is arguable whether they conceived that mere allegations of DV might be used as a bludgeon against otherwise law-abiding citizens or that such people would be included in the class of "bad" people.  They certainly could have in the sense of a developing tyranny, but that gets exactly at the point.  In a tyranny, you have to ask the tyrant for your "rights." 

Bobcat nails it above, much more succinctly.   

And cannot people just participate without assuming anything about the OP's situation.  Does it matter?

[magnanimous_j]

Just about every single one will look you in the eye an say that they have "Learned their lesson" and never again will they be a problem...please let me go and leave me alone....I'll be good, I PROMISE.

Going to prison and serving your sentence is supposed to be a slate-wiping act. Whatever they did is paid for in that time served. Obviously that’s idealism, I wouldn’t hire a convicted embezzler to manage my financials, but we should at least think about corrections in those terms and strive for forgiveness.

Treating felons like wild animals just let out of a cage does nothing to help them get their lives back on track and does society zero good.

[Knocker of rocks]

Treating felons like wild animals just let out of a cage does nothing to help them get their lives back on track and does society zero good.

I unfortunately have known a felon or two, and the reason they are often treated like escaped animals, is that too often they act that way. 

[pianoman9701]

The founding fathers knew that there would always be "bad" people. That's why they made our rights conditional on being a law-abiding citizen/non-felon. I would imagine the 2nd Amendment was foremost in their minds when they wrote that in.

Yes, but, it is arguable whether they conceived that mere allegations of DV might be used as a bludgeon against otherwise law-abiding citizens or that such people would be included in the class of "bad" people.  They certainly could have in the sense of a developing tyranny, but that gets exactly at the point.  In a tyranny, you have to ask the tyrant for your "rights." 

Bobcat nails it above, much more succinctly.   

And cannot people just participate without assuming anything about the OP's situation.  Does it matter?

I'm not concerned with the OP's situation.

Not only did the Forefathers not conceive of a DV complaint eliminating 2nd Amendment rights, many were guilty of it themselves and thought that was OK. Let's fast forward to today. As I understand, if someone is acquitted of a DV complaint, their 2nd Amendment rights are restored. I understand that this is contrary to "innocent until proven guilty", AND a great many women have been killed by abusive husbands while waiting for their day in court. There's a reason that this rule was adopted. Is it Constitutional? Probably not. Do the courts care? Probably not.

However, the OP originally posted about gun rights being restored "after you complete your sentence. So, for this thread only, DV accusations don't seem to be the focus of the OP, only convicted felons and convicted DV offenders.

[h20hunter]

Rules are in place for a reason....typically because the average person reoffends....

Felon with a weapons charge.....no different than keeping a pedo away from kids.....

Sure there are exceptions to every rule but the exception doesn't exclude the majority from the rule.