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

[bishop311]

Obviously you won't be dissuaded from your 2A dogma, nor will I have my mind changed as the statistics are well in my favor.

Didn't I say something along those same lines hours ago? Yet you still tried to push your opinion and sway me?

[KFhunter]

If you did it wasn't in this thread, I see no such admission of obtuseness. 

[yorketransport]

And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:

Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)

No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)

The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights.  It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

1. This poll asked specifically about 2nd Amendment Rights, not the right to live in close proximity to an elementary school.
2. This poll specifically addressed non-viole

Did they commit a violent crime?  Did they commit a gun crime?  Heck, did they actually harm another human being?  ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.

TAKE AWAY THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ANYWAYS!!!  FOR LIFE!!!  YEEEAAAARGH!!!

Wow, that statement is a little unsettling.

[Mudman]

YA know how I feel?  Its a bit crazy it seems...  Others will likely scream OMG!!  I know, I know, I am a bit of an independent Stossel type at times.  All felons, ex cons should regain all rights after full compliance.  If we don't like that then why are we letting some of them back out?  Lock em up longer then.  Do a better job at rehab and re-intro to society at release then.  We have set the rules so crazy its almost impossible for them to get out, get a decent job, live a productive life.  We are partly to blame.  Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash.  Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes.  Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts.  See my point.  Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back.  Thank you for time, YeeHaw!

[bigtex]

Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash.  Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes.  Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts.  See my point.  Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back.  Thank you for time, YeeHaw!

I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.

If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.

People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.

[jay.sharkbait]

Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics.  Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct. 

Just a friendly word of advice.

Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!

Sorry bud. I apologize.

I was kidding

[JimmyHoffa]

Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash.  Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes.  Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts.  See my point.  Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back.  Thank you for time, YeeHaw!

I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.

If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.

People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.

So, then the examples used aren't rehabilitated.  They just had a time out and are now free to continue preying on society.  Basically saying prison in its current form doesn't work.

[bigtex]

Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash.  Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes.  Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts.  See my point.  Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back.  Thank you for time, YeeHaw!

I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.

If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.

People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.

So, then the examples used aren't rehabilitated.  They just had a time out and are now free to continue preying on society.  Basically saying prison in its current form doesn't work.

I didn't say I would never hire them. But 6 months down the road in a related field (if I owned a car shop and the applicant was just released for auto theft) I wouldn't.

Obviously time helps, but you have to prove you've been rehabilitated! You cant just walk out of Walla Walla after a year sentence and say hallelujah I am now the best citizen in the US! You'll have to prove it to me!

And in some cases prison doesn't work. There's a reason there's the three strikes law. You have individuals who just cant not stay out of trouble no matter how much rehab and treatment we give them.

[bishop311]

Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics.  Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct. 

Just a friendly word of advice.

Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!

Sorry bud. I apologize.

I was kidding

Oh, don't I know it. Bud. Pal. Champ. Friend-o.

[Oh Mah]

And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:

Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)

No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)

The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights.  It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

this is how liberal law makers get what they want in a bill,ask for something that everyone is afraid to say no to.The answer would be yes if they did their time and waited there time after release with no new infractions for say 30 years  but never take rights away for ever for any reason.

Incarceration isn't a loss of a rights?   and "no new infractions for 30 years" is different than not allowing someone to purchase, own or possess firearms how?  Seems to be the same thing.

umm its different because 30 years is not for ever.  20 10 makes no diff to me but for life no.the mere fact that they are only discussing the 2nd. and not other rights like voting says it all.

[fish vacuum]

If we don't like that then why are we letting some of them back out?  Lock em up longer then.  Do a better job at rehab and re-intro to society at release then.

It's not a perfect world.

[Oh Mah]

I said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.

That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.

That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability.  So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for.  In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.

You should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.

obviously you need to reread the votes it is clearly not a vote for auto reinstate upon release.

[Oh Mah]

I said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.

That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.

That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability.  So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for.  In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.

You should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.

I didn't agree with what you said, I merely pointed out that Felons (or ex-felons, technically) are already supposed to be able to follow a legal procedure to regain their 2A right through petitioning the ATF.  I further pointed out that Chuck Schumer, an anti-gun Democrat, has blocked the ATF via wording in the Omnibus.  None of that is agreeing with what you said, namely:

The current method is fine

The current method is NOT fine, because the ATF is not being allowed to process relief applications.  I solidly stand behind my YES vote as surely as you stand behind your NO vote.

The current law is fine it was just being road blocked by the previous administration.

[Oh Mah]

Heck, did they actually harm another human being?  ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.

Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.

All I can say in regards to Bishop's statement is WOW. KF is correct. For some reason I have a feeling if you (Bishop) had a daughter who was then shown in some type of kiddy porn film you wouldn't say that your daughter wasn't harmed as a result of that video/photo.

Many people want child molesters dead, you (Bishop) want them to have guns 

  Actually after reading your post big tex i guess i would agree to a life time ban for all child crimes such as these.i meen they are scarred for life so the criminal should lose all rights for life as well.but i meen all rights voting guns proximity to children etc etc.

[Oh Mah]

Employers run backgrounds and immediately throw flagged apps in the trash.  Now its progressed to dui and misdemeanor crimes.  Next will be Facebook posts and Huntwa posts.  See my point.  Its crazy and someday we have to put foot down and demand our rights and privacy back.  Thank you for time, YeeHaw!

I see no problem with that at all, its a character thing. Employers can look up Facebook posts right now anyways, its up to the applicant to decide their privacy settings. Realistically, any good employer will do this.

If I owned a mechanic shop would I want to hire a guy who 6 months ago was convicted of auto theft? No. Heck, even a DUI.

People need to be responsible for their actions. For some reason decades ago when I was growing up we knew we had to be responsible for our actions. But for some reason these days people do illegal acts and don't want to live with the ramifications.

So, then the examples used aren't rehabilitated.  They just had a time out and are now free to continue preying on society.  Basically saying prison in its current form doesn't work.

the system would work great if not for the liberals that want all inmates to get free college and all the comforts of home