POLL: 2nd Amendment Gun Rights for Non-Violent Felons?

[bishop311]

So Lowry voted to allow WA felons to get Firearm rights back in WA? Help me understand your position and forgive me for being a total noob to WA politikin'....

[bigtex]

Personally, I'm a solid YES, 2nd Amendment rights should be returned for non-violent, non-gun related felonies.  I have a major problem with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment rights for life for something like writing a hot check for $200 bucks (felony theft by check) or something stupid like putting a fake registration/inspection tag on their vehicle or boat to save a few bucks (felony fraud).

Actually the two crimes you listed are not felonies in WA.

My point of reference is from Texas, as I'm a Texan recently moved to Washington, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.  Any felony where (A) no one was harmed and no violence was used, and (B) no firearm was used at all, should not result in (C) the permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights.  It is illogical.
 Are you going to assert an opinion or an argument for or against the subject of discussion here instead of arguing what is or isn't a felony offense in X versus Y State when those were largely hypothetical points to begin with?

Your statement didn't seem hypothetical to me, seemed more like a fact you were trying to pass.

My opinion is simple, want to keep your guns? Don't commit a felony.

[JimmyHoffa]

Personally, I'm a solid YES, 2nd Amendment rights should be returned for non-violent, non-gun related felonies.  I have a major problem with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment rights for life for something like writing a hot check for $200 bucks (felony theft by check) or something stupid like putting a fake registration/inspection tag on their vehicle or boat to save a few bucks (felony fraud).

Actually the two crimes you listed are not felonies in WA.

My point of reference is from Texas, as I'm a Texan recently moved to Washington, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.  Any felony where (A) no one was harmed and no violence was used, and (B) no firearm was used at all, should not result in (C) the permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights.  It is illogical.
 Are you going to assert an opinion or an argument for or against the subject of discussion here instead of arguing what is or isn't a felony offense in X versus Y State when those were largely hypothetical points to begin with?

Your statement didn't seem hypothetical to me, seemed more like a fact you were trying to pass.

My opinion is simple, want to keep your guns? Don't commit a felony.

The so called goal posts of where the line for felony is seems to be changing, which I think fits in to the topic.  What felonies out there do you think don't warrant loss of gun rights?  Tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, embezzlement?

[Mudman]

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/washington             Don't mess with Squatch!  Plenty of stupid garbage out there.  Hundreds of laws passed every year but how many are repealed???

[Fl0und3rz]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047  first passed in 1994, who was in office then? Liberal or Conservative.??
Carl

I truly don't know who was in office in WA then.  I hope you can help me to understand who was?  I mean this was a State law, right?  Not federal.  I'm still new to WA so help me out here...

Mike Lowry, a Democrat who happened to die earlier today.

In fact the bill was requested by Lowry and other Democrats as part of the Violence Reduction Program bill which had very little Republican support.

Funny you should mention liberals and lack of republican support.  Because the 1994 Law, ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2319, was signed into law by a Dem Governor, Mike Lowry, was passed by an overwhelming dem majority House and Senate, and was largely in the nature of a gun control bill (for the portions affecting firearms) during the Clinton years and the nationwide gun control push.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1993-94/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2319-S2.SL.pdf?cite=1994%20sp.s.%20c%207%20%C2%A7%20404.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Washington#Governors_of_the_State_of_Washington

http://leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/2016/HousePoliticalDivision.pdf

http://leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/2016/SenatePolDiv1979-2016.pdf


Notable in that gun control law, ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2319, of 1994, the felon restoration rights - to the extent that there are any relevant provisions - are tweaks to existing law, and they appear to be more, not less onerous, until tweaked again in 1996 by a more Republican House and Senate.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1995-96/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2420-S.SL.pdf?cite=1996%20c%20295%20%C2%A7%202.


Interestingly, noting that we have not had a Republican governor since Spellman, 1981-1985, it was then in 1983 that the first mention of felon voting rights restoration was mentioned that I could find (WRT the words, "pardon," "anullment," "rehabilitation," etc.). 

http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1983c232.pdf?cite=1983%20c%20232%20%C2%A7%202;


Most of the subsequent tweaks have been in the nature of specifying procedure and adding offenses to the "serious offense" list, from my quick reading, with one exception being in 1996 when the three/five year distinction was added.


For reference, here are the portions of the RCW we are discussing.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040

(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.

(4)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2) of this section, a person convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offense prohibiting the possession of a firearm under this section other than murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, indecent liberties, arson, assault, kidnapping, extortion, burglary, or violations with respect to controlled substances under RCW 69.50.401 and 69.50.410, who received a probationary sentence under RCW 9.95.200, and who received a dismissal of the charge under RCW 9.95.240, shall not be precluded from possession of a firearm as a result of the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, if a person is prohibited from possession of a firearm under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and has not previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sex offense prohibiting firearm ownership under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and/or any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or with a maximum sentence of at least twenty years, or both, the individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored:
(i) Under RCW 9.41.047; and/or
(ii)(A) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525; or
(B) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a nonfelony offense, after three or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525 and the individual has completed all conditions of the sentence.
(b) An individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored under (a) of this subsection (4) only at:
(i) The court of record that ordered the petitioner's prohibition on possession of a firearm; or
(ii) The superior court in the county in which the petitioner resides.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010

(21) "Serious offense" means any of the following felonies or a felony attempt to commit any of the following felonies, as now existing or hereafter amended:
(a) Any crime of violence;
(b) Any felony violation of the uniform controlled substances act, chapter 69.50 RCW, that is classified as a class B felony or that has a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years;
(c) Child molestation in the second degree;
(d) Incest when committed against a child under age fourteen;
(e) Indecent liberties;
(f) Leading organized crime;
(g) Promoting prostitution in the first degree;
(h) Rape in the third degree;
(i) Drive-by shooting;
(j) Sexual exploitation;
(k) Vehicular assault, when caused by the operation or driving of a vehicle by a person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or by the operation or driving of a vehicle in a reckless manner;
(l) Vehicular homicide, when proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug as defined by RCW 46.61.502, or by the operation of any vehicle in a reckless manner;
(m) Any other class B felony offense with a finding of sexual motivation, as "sexual motivation" is defined under RCW 9.94A.030;
(n) Any other felony with a deadly weapon verdict under RCW 9.94A.825;
(o) Any felony offense in effect at any time prior to June 6, 1996, that is comparable to a serious offense, or any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a felony classified as a serious offense; or
(p) Any felony conviction under RCW 9.41.115.

That last one is a two-time I-594 conviction.  Second look at that Texas bashing?

[bishop311]

The so called goal posts of where the line for felony is seems to be changing, which I think fits in to the topic.  What felonies out there do you think don't warrant loss of gun rights?  Tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, embezzlement?

Sounds to me like he's solid, across-the-board NO 2nd Amendment rights for convicted felons, regardless of the offense.

I've many problems with that concept, not least among them is that this is exactly how the gun control nutters get started.  By defining a single "lower class" group of people who lose their 2nd Amendment rights, the concept of stripping people of their Constitutional rights is normalized in the minds of the general public.  First it's ex-felons, then it's Veterans who are struggling with duty-related emotional issues, then it'll be people who owe back taxes, etc.  I don't put ANYTHING past the 2A haters anymore.

Second look at that Texas bashing?

Are you trying to use all of the stupid things that Democrats in WA have done to lessen or diminish the significance all of the stupid things that Republicans in Texas have done?  Stupid doesn't have a political affiliation -- there's plenty to go around.  I'll happily bash Texas all day long for the idiotic legislation that Republicans have pushed through.

[Fl0und3rz]

Take a breather.  It was a joke.

[blackdog]

HB 2319 is the bill that removed the requirement that you be 14 or older to hunt unsupervised.

[Bigshooter]

People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to committ crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.

[Fl0und3rz]

HB 2319 is the bill that removed the requirement that you be 14 or older to hunt unsupervised.

They recycle bill numbers. 

[blackdog]

I know but in that bill that year in their zeal to enact gun control they repealed the age 14 requirement.

[blackdog]

The original bill was actually rational but the multiple gun control bills that year could not pass they were hung like Christmas ornaments on this bill. In their excitement they  removed the age 14 requirement.

[Fl0und3rz]

Gotcha, blackdog, just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same bill.

[fish vacuum]

In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison

It doesn't work that way and never will.

[Oh Mah]

The entire Schumer bill should be looked at like this.IF A PERSON CANNOT BE REHABILITATED COMPLETELY FROM PRISON THEN WHY ARE WE PUTTING THEM IN THERE?WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM OUT?As it is today a person can kill another and still be able to get their gun rights back,Because they must be rehabilitated to get out of prison.


              solid yes.