National Lifetime gun bans for non-violent felons

[baker3gun]

I think that if you are too dangerous to have the full rights of an America citizen, you are too dangerous to be out of prison or alive.

Your full sentence should be served behind bars, then you should be square. Creating second class citizens only encourages recidivism and makes no one safer.

My prior post described loss of RKBA as a pre-established and pre-advertised part of the sentence, and
described a sentence as not only a punishment but also a disincentive for crime:
"Don't do crime because if you do, here is the list of punishments that this society will enforce upon you."

So if a sentence for crime is "jail and loss of RKBA", then part of that sentence will be served after release from jail.

I agree that removing a citizen's constitutional protection of RKBA in effect creates a 2nd class citizen, but I don't agree that it will encourage recidivism.
I prefer to look at it as part of the punishment package, and therefore part of the disincentive package, and in the case of loss of RKBA, possibly conducive to making society safer by reducing the probability of future crime by restricting the previously violent person's access to weapons.

We may not agree, but I would point out that we both seem to respect the idea of a hard line:
You (paraphrased) - "if a person is too dangerous to live among society, they should be locked up for life or killed."
Me - If a person commits violent crimes, part of their punishment should be loss of RKBA for life.

Those are both hardlines, just different ones.

A remaining issue is whether the pre-established sentence for non-violent crime should include loss of RKBA.

Example: should the sentence for felony tax evasion (accompanied by no other crime) include lifetime loss of RKBA?

Everyone has different opinions.

I think America is too soft on crime, and we should have more prisons and more people doing hard time so that we can eventually achieve much lower crime rates. I think prison populations should be employed full time on road crews.

I don't care if a felon loses RKBA for life. To heck with 'em. they chose to break the law.

What I care about is the rights and security and freedom of law-abiding citizens.

But I'll admit that there are always a number of non-violent cases where it doesn't seem rational or justifiable to sentence a person to loss of RKBA for life.
But again, I just don't care much about people who chose to break the law, so i don't spend much time advocating for restoration of their rights.

Good discussion.
Thx.

 

[baker3gun]

All true for violent felons, but the OP, title and theme of this thread is NON-violent felons.

How is the public protected when an accountant serves time for embezzlement and is then denied their right to self-protection with a firearm??

Both very good points.

I should read the titles more closely.

 

[The Heretic]

More to the point.

Let's say one of us finds ourselves in prison for owning a bumpstock (or in the future, an AR pistol with an arm brace). There are a number of laws that are not just unconstitutional, but unfair and possible for someone to be law abiding one day, and a felon the next, thru no fault of our own.

How about all of those gun owners who say they won't comply with gun registration laws? Or confiscation laws?

 

[Barefootdog]

Gun registration and confiscation are clear violations of the 2nd amendment.
It's your moral and legal obligation to not comply.

Just sayin'.....

 

[CamoDeafie]

Indeed. If one's Right to Life is taken away by removing one's Right to Self Defense, then there is no point in keeping one's Right to Liberty, and thus, life in prison to death, or timely execution after serving sentences, or immediate execution, should thus be a far bigger deterrent for some.

Name a large (500+ employees) company that hires convicted felons no questions asked, with full wages and benefits other than the State Departments

 

[baker3gun]

More to the point.

Let's say one of us finds ourselves in prison for owning a bumpstock (or in the future, an AR pistol with an arm brace). There are a number of laws that are not just unconstitutional, but unfair and possible for someone to be law abiding one day, and a felon the next, thru no fault of our own.

How about all of those gun owners who say they won't comply with gun registration laws? Or confiscation laws?

If legitimate laws sentence murderers to prison and loss of rkba, the loss of rkba component is a sentencing question.

If illegitimate laws sentence citizens to prison and loss of rkba for owning a firearm, this is not a sentencing question, it is a constitutional question.

It is probably worthwhile to preserve that distinction, for discussion purposes.

 

[The Heretic]

If legitimate laws sentence murderers to prison and loss of rkba, the loss of rkba component is a sentencing question.

If illegitimate laws sentence citizens to prison and loss of rkba for owning a firearm, this is not a sentencing question, it is a constitutional question.

It is probably worthwhile to preserve that distinction, for discussion purposes.

In many locales, the distinction is academic - i.e., in practical terms, the result is the same and not an issue of sentencing but an issue of the locale law that convicted felons may not possess firearms - period. That is the point of the thread; should non-violent felons lose their right to posses firearms for crimes that have little to nothing to do with the use of firearms?

 

[The Resister]

Gun registration and confiscation are clear violations of the 2nd amendment.
It's your moral and legal obligation to not comply.

Just sayin'.....

The point is with all these guys who don't give a rip about "felons" will one day be caught up in either becoming criminals or slaves themselves. It will be their butt on the hotseat and I don't think that lying to the cops and claiming you lost your gun in a boating accident will be the cure all they think it is.

 

[The Heretic]

The point is with all these guys who don't give a rip about "felons" will one day be caught up in either becoming criminals or slaves themselves. It will be their butt on the hotseat and I don't think that lying to the cops and claiming you lost your gun in a boating accident will be the cure all they think it is.

Especially not when the LEOs start ripping the drywall and siding off your home and find the guns hidden there. Or when they dig up your yard, or tear apart your car.

Or when they confiscate your home/land itself - and yes, they can do that too: https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-f...authority for a seizing,Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.

 

[baker3gun]

In many locales, the distinction is academic - i.e., in practical terms, the result is the same and not an issue of sentencing but an issue of the locale law that convicted felons may not possess firearms - period. That is the point of the thread; should non-violent felons lose their right to posses firearms for crimes that have little to nothing to do with the use of firearms?

I don't think that sentencing legitimate felons is the same as convicting contrived felons.
The former pertains to sentencing decisions made by legislative entities, the latter pertains to abuse of power and violation of constitutional law.

The white-collar felons you advocate for, likely knew in advance that they would lose RKBA if caught committing their crimes.
I feel no compulsion to alter their sentence.

Concerning preservation of a citizen RKBA, a primary goal is to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to KBA. It's a huge battle, against unethical, immoral, uninformed opponents. I have no wish to weaken my position by advocating for a right to arms for known criminals. My concern is the vast majority of non-criminal Americans.

I think it is reasonable to evaluate the list of known felonies with a goal of distinguishing between "lost-RKBA"crimes vs "kept-RKBA" crimes.

But it is perhaps wiser to consider what makes a felony a felony: any crime for which the sentence is more than 1 year in prison.
Instead of seeking ways to make punishment for crime more lenient, i would prefer to consider redefining categories of crime such that the classifications don't rely entirely on the adopted sentence for said crimes.

 

[The Heretic]

If you think gun control legislators care about the sentencing of gun owners...

Well, let's just say that I don't think they give a fig.

 

[The Resister]

I don't think that sentencing legitimate felons is the same as convicting contrived felons.
The former pertains to sentencing decisions made by legislative entities, the latter pertains to abuse of power and violation of constitutional law.

The white-collar felons you advocate for, likely knew in advance that they would lose RKBA if caught committing their crimes.
I feel no compulsion to alter their sentence.

Concerning preservation of a citizen RKBA, a primary goal is to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to KBA. It's a huge battle, against unethical, immoral, uninformed opponents. I have no wish to weaken my position by advocating for a right to arms for known criminals. My concern is the vast majority of non-criminal Americans.

I think it is reasonable to evaluate the list of known felonies with a goal of distinguishing between "lost-RKBA"crimes vs "kept-RKBA" crimes.

But it is perhaps wiser to consider what makes a felony a felony: any crime for which the sentence is more than 1 year in prison.
Instead of seeking ways to make punishment for crime more lenient, i would prefer to consider redefining categories of crime such that the classifications don't rely entirely on the adopted sentence for said crimes.

IF the Constitution were in force, you would not have the authority to create these multiple classes of citizens you are trying to create.

 

[MichaelH]

Why Are Lifetime Gun Bans Being Imposed on Tax Cheats? | National Review

Non-violent crimes unrelated to guns shouldn’t deprive people of their right to bear arms for the rest of their lives.

www.nationalreview.com

My theory, in response to the headline is:

1. Felons have been denied some constitutional rights, whether fairly or not throughtout most of our lives. In many states felons of any kind can't vote, can't go certain places, etc.

2. An individual's right to 2nd amendment protection was only confirmed in 2008, so something that was normal, felons being deprived of some constitutional rights, only became a possible 2nd amendment violation after the Heller decision.

Nothing about this is new.

 

[MichaelH]

My theory, in response to the headline is:

1. Felons have been denied some constitutional rights, whether fairly or not throughtout most of our lives. In many states felons of any kind can't vote, can't go certain places, etc.

2. An individual's right to 2nd amendment protection was only confirmed in 2008, so something that was normal, felons being deprived of some constitutional rights, only became a possible 2nd amendment violation after the Heller decision.

Nothing about this is new. Back when this started the NRA didn't even lobby for individual gun rights. No one thought it was a thing.

 

[The Heretic]

My theory, in response to the headline is:

1. Felons have been denied some constitutional rights, whether fairly or not throughtout most of our lives. In many states felons of any kind can't vote, can't go certain places, etc.

2. An individual's right to 2nd amendment protection was only confirmed in 2008, so something that was normal, felons being deprived of some constitutional rights, only became a possible 2nd amendment violation after the Heller decision.

Nothing about this is new.

The Second Amendment enumerates a right and prohibits the gov from infringing on it. The right exists outside of the US Constitution, not because of it.

Before laws asserted that felons lost the freedom to exercise their rights to vote and possess firearms, they still had that freedom. I am not willing to put in the effort to research when those laws were enacted, but I would assume that the laws were enacted sometime in the 20th century, most of them anyway. So, what was once normal - having the freedom to exercise their rights - became abnormal in the 20th century, and we might be slowly returning to "normal" now, or trying to anyway.

 

[Devneck]

@baker3gun - I have a couple questions for you.

I understand your points about not caring for somebody who committed a crime. I assume you are perfectly fine with law abiding citizens being able to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their family.

The family question scenario is what I'd like to know about. You don't care about a violent felon being able to protect themselves, if they have family should their family not be able to be protected as well?

For the sake of argument let's say this were somebody convicted AND released from prison (or never went to prison) 20-30-40+ years ago. They were 18 or 20 and have lived much more time since then, completely crime free.

Is there not something they could do that would convince you they are not a danger, they are rehabilitated and should be able to protect their family? Or are they and their family 2nd class citizens forever.

For the record, I don't think anybody should have rights restored immediately. There should be requirements to rebuild trust. I don't agree with "you bubblegumed up, so bubblegum off" mentality.

 

[Alexx1401]

Here's someone who was (prior to 2 days ago) a felon for a non-violent crime, possession of meth. He served his sentence, was released, and decided he should be allowed to possess firearms again. Then this happened.

Man accused of firing at passenger in another car who hit his Mercedes when opening door, prosecutors say

Police recovered five AR-15 rifles, three handguns and a so-called ghost gun from car after arresting Cole T. Miller, 32, on an attempted murder allegation, according to court records.

www.oregonlive.com

I'm leaning on the side of a blanket ban on felons owning guns. Just makes the rest of us look bad.

So it was already against the law for him to have a gun. I missed where this "worked" here???
Now I would be fine seeing a "blanket ban" on driving when some moron runs from Police and causes harm. Since telling scum they can't have a gun works so well we could tell those who kill with a car they can't drive, right?

 

[The Heretic]

@baker3gun - I have a couple questions for you.

I understand your points about not caring for somebody who committed a crime. I assume you are perfectly fine with law abiding citizens being able to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their family.

The family question scenario is what I'd like to know about. You don't care about a violent felon being able to protect themselves, if they have family should their family not be able to be protected as well?

For the sake of argument let's say this were somebody convicted AND released from prison (or never went to prison) 20-30-40+ years ago. They were 18 or 20 and have lived much more time since then, completely crime free.

Is there not something they could do that would convince you they are not a danger, they are rehabilitated and should be able to protect their family? Or are they and their family 2nd class citizens forever.

For the record, I don't think anybody should have rights restored immediately. There should be requirements to rebuild trust. I don't agree with "you bubblegumed up, so bubblegum off" mentality.

Good points.

IIRC (?) you can't have a gun in the house if a felon lives there because they could have access to the gun. So if a felon serves their time, and then comes home to his/her family, they are truly unprotected as nobody in that home can have a gun there?

 

[The Resister]

Good points.

IIRC (?) you can't have a gun in the house if a felon lives there because they could have access to the gun. So if a felon serves their time, and then comes home to his/her family, they are truly unprotected as nobody in that home can have a gun there?

My understanding is that if the felon does not have access to the weapon, it's okay. I never checked the law. When relatives with a felony record want to try and live with me, I tell them they have a felony record. I have a firearm.

But, really, I don't agree with those people who insist on denying people the Right to keep and bear Arms due to a felony record. In a perfect world, people would earn their release from prison by becoming rehabilitated. Rehabilitation could be taken into consideration for early release. Behind that, when a felon is first let out, they would be in a half way house and readjusted to a regular life while working a job and proving that they can adapt.

Making sure people that people in prison get a G.E.D., transferable job skills, drug rehabilitation (if applicable) and take courses in finding a job, interviewing for a job, balancing a checkbook, establishing credit, planning a family budget, keeping a house maintained, maintaining family relationships, etc. then their successful completion of such courses should be an indicator that they are rehabilitated. Even the Cliff's Notes are too long for this board. Glad to share them in PM

 

[The Resister]

Indeed. If one's Right to Life is taken away by removing one's Right to Self Defense, then there is no point in keeping one's Right to Liberty, and thus, life in prison to death, or timely execution after serving sentences, or immediate execution, should thus be a far bigger deterrent for some.

Name a large (500+ employees) company that hires convicted felons no questions asked, with full wages and benefits other than the State Departments

If you're going to permanent lock a person out of society for a criminal record, you should be humane and just shoot them. Landlords won't rent to people with a criminal record; corporations won't hire them; creditors won't extend credit to them. I try to help by taking on handyman gigs and employing ex - cons so they have an opportunity to learn skills and make a few dollars. A few are motivated, but prison doesn't do much to rehabilitate anyone.