National Lifetime gun bans for non-violent felons

[The Resister]

Unfortunately, who is mentally ill is a loaded question (unintentional pun), and that could potentially be unfair too. Does depression count? ADD? Brief periods of mania? Don't some people completely recover?

This is a difficult issue. Under Red Flag Laws someone just has to report you. So, a process has to be put into place. Certain things have to be done; the accused should have adequate representation, and a review of any action taken place prior putting a person into a mental facility that needs help.

 

[Mecanik]

Red flag has further separated the two political parties. I've totally isolated my social activities to Republican Trump supporters only. And even then I'm very picky about who I allow into my social circle. Mostly family members and a small handful of trusted outsiders.

 

[MichaelH]

Rights can not be taken. Someone may be able to convince others to join against you and restrict you from any number of things, but you can't take a right away. Rights are god given whether one believes in god or not.

I believe that men can come to try and take my rights away. But I have to choose to let them. It may seem an impossible choice, but it's still a choice.

Basically all we are talking about is who is in control of the threat of violence....and who will submit to it.

That's not the philosophy of America or how American law works. Even if you were born here with no choice, you've become part of an ongoing mutual agreement that for safety and predictability and MORE freedom than elsewhere, you're going to give up SOME freedom in certain contexts to make society work and provide safety and predictability. The Bill of Rights spells out the most important rights, but the Supreme Court has said that even those important rights can be infringed, in the least restrictive narrowly tailored way possible, if the infringment is necessary to further important government purposes. Your view of what rights you have that are God given, may not be consistent with the rights you're entitled to if you want the relative safety and predictability that comes with being an American.

 

[The Resister]

Red flag has further separated the two political parties. I've totally isolated my social activities to Republican Trump supporters only. And even then I'm very picky about who I allow into my social circle. Mostly family members and a small handful of trusted outsiders.

I'm cynical of ALL politicians. Trump is for waiting periods and background checks. He kept promising the media he'd get the NRA to "come around" on the Universal Background Check. His bump stock ban made me even more weary of having to vote for the lesser of two evils.

At the end of the day, I don't want to do business or socialize with anyone that does not believe in the Right to keep and bear Arms. When someone compromises with gun control, they become untrustworthy and something is amiss in their character. They are comfortable with a government - God. When they become active in suggesting legislation to reduce firearm violence (like I do) without gun control, then they have my attention.

 

[The Resister]

That's not the philosophy of America or how American law works. Even if you were born here with no choice, you've become part of an ongoing mutual agreement that for safety and predictability and MORE freedom than elsewhere, you're going to give up SOME freedom in certain contexts to make society work and provide safety and predictability. The Bill of Rights spells out the most important rights, but the Supreme Court has said that even those important rights can be infringed, in the least restrictive narrowly tailored way possible, if the infringment is necessary to further important government purposes. Your view of what rights you have that are God given, may not be consistent with the rights you're entitled to if you want the relative safety and predictability that comes with being an American.

Government has the power to take unalienable Rights, but most assuredly not the authority. A man converges on a restaurant and demands everyone's wallets, purses, valuables and money. He has a gun, but he does not have the authority. It's the same with the government. They were bound by the social contract known as the Constitution. But, they took a little here and a little there; created an agency over here; signed and Executive Order over there until we had 40,000 + federal state, county, and city ordinances, statutes, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, mandates, court case holdings, etc,. etc. until the Right barely exists.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says one must give up Freedoms in order to make you safe. It is the antithesis of what Benjamin Franklin stated when he said that anyone that gave up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety. Infringements are never necessary except to create a more tyrannical government.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

 

[MichaelH]

Government has the power to take unalienable Rights, but most assuredly not the authority. A man converges on a restaurant and demands everyone's wallets, purses, valuables and money. He has a gun, but he does not have the authority. It's the same with the government. They were bound by the social contract known as the Constitution. But, they took a little here and a little there; created an agency over here; signed and Executive Order over there until we had 40,000 + federal state, county, and city ordinances, statutes, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, mandates, court case holdings, etc,. etc. until the Right barely exists.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says one must give up Freedoms in order to make you safe. It is the antithesis of what Benjamin Franklin stated when he said that anyone that gave up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety. Infringements are never necessary except to create a more tyrannical government.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

That Benjamin Franklin quote is bandied about alot but it was really just revolutionary rhetoric at the time. The reality is that he had already given up some liberty for safety as he ran his businesses and relied on the legal systems and social norms present in Philadelphia when he made that statement. When we choose to live in society and enjoy the benefits that government provides we agree to follow a shared set of rules. If one has no choice because he is born into that society under a particular government, he's stuck with the rules in place. If the individual doesn't like those rules he has three choices: 1) advocate for change in the manner provided under the rules (that ability indicates some freedom); 2) advocate for change in ways that violate the rules and bear the potential consequences of being an outlaw, or; 3) go somewhere that the rules are not offensive.

IMO America offers a great trade-off of liberty for security. As much as we might complain about government interference America offers more freedom from government interference, as a whole, than anywhere else in the world. I think the approach the Supremes have articulated to balance individual rights against government (remember that in the abstract government is US) restrictions is pretty fair given that we now potentially have 300,000,000 competing views and interests. The fact that maybe 60% of those 300M people might want to outlaw most guns for most people, but we're talking on this forum suggests that rights get protected despite politics or the desire of law enforcement to make their jobs easier.

Please realize I don't think non-violent felons should have their second amendment rights taken away indefinitely. I'm trying to explain my understanding of what the reality of America is as far as how our government/society functions when balancing rights vs burdens on those rights. I'm not arguing with your ideals, and perhaps that's where we're missing each other.

 

[The Resister]

That Benjamin Franklin quote is bandied about alot but it was really just revolutionary rhetoric at the time. The reality is that he had already given up some liberty for safety as he ran his businesses and relied on the legal systems and social norms present in Philadelphia when he made that statement. When we choose to live in society and enjoy the benefits that government provides we agree to follow a shared set of rules. If one has no choice because he is born into that society under a particular government, he's stuck with the rules in place. If the individual doesn't like those rules he has three choices: 1) advocate for change in the manner provided under the rules (that ability indicates some freedom); 2) advocate for change in ways that violate the rules and bear the potential consequences of being an outlaw, or; 3) go somewhere that the rules are not offensive.

IMO America offers a great trade-off of liberty for security. As much as we might complain about government interference America offers more freedom from government interference, as a whole, than anywhere else in the world. I think the approach the Supremes have articulated to balance individual rights against government (remember that in the abstract government is US) restrictions is pretty fair given that we now potentially have 300,000,000 competing views and interests. The fact that maybe 60% of those 300M people might want to outlaw most guns for most people, but we're talking on this forum suggests that rights get protected despite politics or the desire of law enforcement to make their jobs easier.

Please realize I don't think non-violent felons should have their second amendment rights taken away indefinitely. I'm trying to explain my understanding of what the reality of America is as far as how our government/society functions when balancing rights vs burdens on those rights. I'm not arguing with your ideals, and perhaps that's where we're missing each other.

I'm not trying to come off the wrong way, but unalienable Rights are a journey, not a destination. The founders and framers were trying to go in one direction while today's average American is trying to another. Since the liberals have given us that restriction or the other, then unalienable Rights don't exist if you accept liberal dogma. It goes beyond the scope of this board. Here is a better look at the topic:

Rights, rights, and regulations | LibertyLobbyForum

AFTER we completed The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man, we began getting posters that wanted to debate a document that is pretty much a done deal. Many times people underest

libertarians.freeforums.net

It is well worth the read along with the accompanying links therein.

If we accept the premise with what the government has done with respect to gun control, then there never will be an end to the number of laws that they can foist on us. And if we do not challenge the government for not upholding the social contract called the Constitution, we should march down to Biden's office tomorrow and surrender our firearms.

 

[baker3gun]

I'm happy to have a discussion with you, thanks.

... The child of a felon is, unless and until they themselves commit a crime and are convicted, a law abiding citizen.

The felon does not have the right to defend their child, possibly leaving the child defenseless ... even if they have proven themselves rehabilitated for decades?

I'll start on a point of specificity, and then we can go from there.

A felon, in most places, does not have the right to keep and bear arms. Society sentenced the felon to loss of constitutional protection of that right and also prohibited that person from keeping and bearing firearms.

Society did not deprive that person from keeping and bearing knives, spears, bats, golf clubs, pepper spray, mace, crossbows, etc, etc.
Society did not deprive that person of the ability to install locks, or move to low crime areas, or pay attention to surroundings, etc, etc.

Therefore, society did not deprive that person of their right to defend their child.
We only deprived the person of the right to carry a gun for use in defending the child.

As described by Devneck above, it seems possible that a felon might defend his child in his home with a gun, if home invaders knocked the felon's gun-toting wife to the floor and she threw the gun to him and he shot an invader.
In pursuit of specificity, it is helpful to avoid hypotheticals except as necessary to refute inaccurate statements.

The critical point in our discussion at this point, is this:
You said, "The felon does not have the right to defend their child,"
then I pointed out the error of that statement, on a claim of specificity.

Let's be more specific.
Then we can find a list of things to agree on.
Then we get closer to common ground.

Thx.

 

[baker3gun]

...This can put the family at risk, and it denies the family of their right to self protection.

Yes, putting the gun in a safe that only the non-felons have access to might be a defense, but in today's courts, with today's DAs and juries? I would not want to risk it. ...

It may deny the family of their right to self-protection with a gun, but it doesn't deny them any other means of self protection, so your statement is inaccurate.

I wrote a hypothetical "home invader" situation above.

At least sometimes, when the dust settles on situations like the hypothetical, the felon would not be charged with felon in possession.
At least sometimes, the lawyers and the judges get it right.

You would not want to risk it, but other people might, and neither the willingness nor the unwillingness to "risk it" proves anything.

Thx.

 

[The Heretic]

It may deny the family of their right to self-protection with a gun, but it doesn't deny them any other means of self protection, so your statement is inaccurate.

I wrote a hypothetical "home invader" situation above.

At least sometimes, when the dust settles on situations like the hypothetical, the felon would not be charged with felon in possession.
At least sometimes, the lawyers and the judges get it right.

You would not want to risk it, but other people might, and neither the willingness nor the unwillingness to "risk it" proves anything.

Thx.

Valid points. But for most people, knives, bats, spears/etc. are much less effective than a gun, and for some people, virtually unusuable due to physical issues. This is especially true against invaders who themselves are armed with guns.

As for moving from a high crime area - possible for some, not feasible for many - especially those who are low income.

Your scenario assumes that there is more than one adult in the household and that the household can afford a safe container for the gun that prevents the felon from accessing the gun while allowing the other adult access to the gun. Low income households might not have the finances for that.

There are a lot of single parents out there and some of them are felons, who are reformed and trying to make a go at being straight while protecting their families. The fact that felons have a really hard time of finding jobs, much less good paying jobs usually means that their income is severely constrained.

So in effect, yes, they are being denied the means to protect their families.

 

[baker3gun]

Yep, I certainly do NOT agree with the law making it so someone who screws up one time is banned for life but, majority of gun owners do not agree with me and have long told law makers they are fine with more laws. ...

I am pro-2A and a gun owner, so at least in that one respect, i am one of your American brothers.

I would like to see a better classification scheme for crimes. This could be a good solution for avoiding the sweeping denial of RKBA for all felons.

I would also like to see a complete reform and redesign of the incarceration system. Once you go in, the only way out is a reversal of a conviction, or, completion of an education and work-training and points-accumulation system, plus a term of road-work labor. No TV. One movie per week. Three meals per day and no access to any other food. No beverage other than water. Any violation of any rule is a points deduction. Release is not possible with 1000 points. Any loss of 5 points in one week = a week in solitary.
Some people would never get out, and that's fine, because unwillingness to assimilate into law-abiding society by meeting our rehabilitation terms, is a good reason to keep intractable people behind bars.
etc. etc.
I could go on forever.
Our prison system is a joke, and actually getting softer by the year.

Under the current ineffective system where no felon is rehabilitated and all are released, the RKBA for felons is a low priority for me.

 

[CRBMoA]

I am in my mid fifties, did not serve (military OR prison) and have been working behind a desk for decades.

I require the equality that Colonel Colt provided us by truly making all men equal.

 

[baker3gun]

You are a legend in your own mind and nobody has ever refuted my analysis of unalienable versus inalienable. It hasn't been done on any board and NEVER in a court-room. Your points are a lot of semantics that cannot be responded to logically, so maybe Heretic didn't want to have a philosophical debate with you.

I did, and it was easy.
The thread is locked, but you can still go read it.

Almost no one has attempted to address your in vs. un gibberish because:
1 - it is gibberish,
2 - you are the only one saying it. It doesn't have any traction.

It's not doing you or us any good. Anywhere. But you cling.

 

[baker3gun]

If we move forward, here is a useful idea:

A large society cannot effectively govern itself according to the margins.

It is not possible for societal law to address ever conceivable rare event that may happen in society.

So instead, the law addresses what happens most of the time.
Then, when a rare thing occurs that is not specifically defined by the law, a supposedly just Justice system should be able to meter out Justice.

When considering societal law, it is often most productive to focus on common occurrences and events, rather than rare exceptions.

FWIW - when I think or talk about politics, my goal is to save a wayward society by helping to propagate basic truths and facts and evidence, to encourage a return to rational self-governance rather than the emotion-based system that we have devolved into.

I'm not in the "kill 'em all" camp.

I'm in the "let's fix this stupid mess" camp.

The system of government devised by out founders is resilient, and salvageable.

 

[baker3gun]

Valid points. But for most people, knives, bats, spears/etc. are much less effective than a gun, and for some people, virtually unusuable due to physical issues. This is especially true against invaders who themselves are armed with guns.

As for moving from a high crime area - possible for some, not feasible for many - especially those who are low income.

Your scenario assumes that there is more than one adult in the household and that the household can afford a safe container for the gun that prevents the felon from accessing the gun while allowing the other adult access to the gun. Low income households might not have the finances for that.

There are a lot of single parents out there and some of them are felons, who are reformed and trying to make a go at being straight while protecting their families. The fact that felons have a really hard time of finding jobs, much less good paying jobs usually means that their income is severely constrained.

So in effect, yes, they are being denied the means to protect their families.

These are not strong arguments. "Some can, some can't."

They are not common, everyday, ordinary scenarios. They are exceptions.

Under our current ineffective criminal justice system, shall you rely on your weak and uncommon examples as justification for granting all released felons immediate restoration of RKBA?

 

[The Heretic]

These are not strong arguments. "Some can, some can't."

They are not common, everyday, ordinary scenarios. They are exceptions.

Under our current ineffective criminal justice system, shall you rely on your weak and uncommon examples as justification for granting all released felons immediate restoration of RKBA?

You assert they are uncommon and weak. I assert they are not.

I did not and never said "all" felons should have restoration available to them. I asserted that some non-violent felons should have restoration available to them. Some immediately - yes.

 

[baker3gun]

There are 330 million people in America.

How many single-parent felons are incapable of using a non-gun weapon or moving for self-defense?
Divide that number by 330 million to get the percentage of the population plagued by this "defenseless" problem.
Common, or uncommon?
A rule, or an exception?

How many felons return to crime after release from prison?
Divide that number by 330m to get the percentage of the population that creates this "recidivism" problem.
FYI - this one is the norm. It is very common.
Available data indicates that the recidivism rate for violent criminals is greater than 50% for at least nine years after release.

Re-offenders not only outnumber [ single-parent felons incapable of using a non-gun weapon or moving for self-defense ], but the former are also a much bigger problem for law-abiding citizens than the latter.

This may explain why many Americans are more concerned about the affect of crime and criminals on public safety and crime victims, than they are about whether a felon can get his RKBA restored.

BUT, I've never missed your point, and still don't.
Perhaps there should be societal consideration of post-release restoration of RKBA for some crimes.
I think the smartest path towards that goal would be a reclassification of crimes.
Presently, a felony is any crime for which the sentence is more than 1 year, and all persons thus sentenced lose RKBA, as you know.
There is no distinction made between violent and non-violent crimes, and no consideration of number of offenses, etc.
Maybe instead of misdemeanor/felony classification, we should have non-serious and serious and violent-serious classifications like some other countries do.

BUT,
there is also the problem that 95% of all criminal cases in America are closed by plea bargain, and the plea is almost always for a lesser offense, therefore we can't say how many violent criminals are evading felony convictions or receiving lesser sentences, and
there is also the problem that our prison system is more of a crime school than a rehabilitation institution, and our recidivism rates are a joke, and
many of our states are solving overcrowding problems simply by releasing criminals early,
etc, etc.

So before I spend a dime on restoring gun rights for criminals, i want to spend 2 trillion dollars to revamp the entire criminal justice system and make crime in America rare by punishing it unmercilessly.

People like to talk about how hard it is for released felons to get jobs and re-integrate. That's because our prison system is a joke and the vast majority of released felons are worthless entitled lazy arrogant jerks, so heck no, I have no interest in hiring any of them. The solution to that problem is not to convince me that worthless lazy thieves are a good hire and I need to hire more of them. Rather the solution is to change the prison system such that all released ex-cons are hardworking and well-trained and also absolutely scared to death of ever having to go back to prison.

After we accomplish all that, I'll join you guys and start advocating for restoring gun rights to criminals.

Thx.

 

[Devneck]

...

Let's be more specific.
Then we can find a list of things to agree on.
Then we get closer to common ground.

Thx.

You are correct, we probably need to be more specific.

Let me tell you a brief story.

When my wife was 2 and her older sister was 4, their mother went to prison for armed robbery. Their father was in prison for felony drug possession at the time. Their father was a very violent person. Extremely abusive. During that time they lived with their grandmother.

Their mother was in prison for 4 years and then released. Both girls went back to living with her. Shortly after she was released, their father was also released and he came back to them. For the next couple years, until my wife was about 10 years old, they watched their mother repeatedly beaten by their father. She finally decided she had had enough, took the girls and left.

He wasn't too happy about it and came looking for them, threatening to kill all 3 of them. He had the pattern of abuse, there was no reason to think he was only making empty threats and had every intention of following through. She reported it to the police, but they have to be able to find him to have a chance to do anything.. as we all here know.

She asked a friend for a firearm and he gave her one, making her a felon in possession. Their father found them, kicked in the door while, armed with a knife, and my wife and her sister watched their mother shoot and kill their father. He was bigger, stronger, faster had them cornered a weapon and as far as anybody knows, murder in his heart. It was also likely that he was high on any number of substances given his history of use.

When the police showed up, their mother was not charged for killing him. It was determined to be self defense. She was charged for being a felon in possession and went back to prison ... subsequently sending them back to live with their grandparents.

I agree, she screwed up at several points in time. She shouldn't have gotten addicted to meth. She shouldn't have ever married that guy. She shouldn't have robbed a store. She shouldn't have stayed with him as long as she did. She should have chosen to hide from him somewhere that a legal gun owner could have protected them .. but that does not mean that she does not have the right to defend herself or her children from somebody that means them harm.

Maybe a bat would have helped, we'll never know. You will never convince me of that though. We'll have to just agree to disagree if you want to try and sell the argument that she could have just done it with a knife or bat or whatever.

Had she not illegally acquired the gun, then it's entirely possibly my wife and her sister would not be here today.

As I've stated before, here and elsewhere, I don't think that we should immediately restore firearm rights to felons. They should have to go through some period of proving they are rehabilitated ... and I am fully aware that my belief they should prove themselves to the rest of us would not have made a difference with the case of my mother-in-law because it was only a couple years after release .. but I wanted to present a specific scenario as to why I think that felons can also be victims and should be able to protect their children.

Now, I did not read the rest of your responses to other people, I'm going to go back and hear what else you have to say. I do appreciate your point of view, and don't expect I will influence you much if at all. But the conversation is interesting for sure. I take a lot of interest in this particular subject because of my wife's experience.

 

[baker3gun]

Hi, thanks for sharing your story.

It paints a picture of people who are exceptions to the rule. Abnormal. Different. Uncommon.

When a society makes its laws, it must establish laws that address known and common situations.
It cannot establish laws for every possible situation.
In pursuit of some rational balance, eventually, the claims of the abnormal people lose weight compared to the claims of the normal people.

That's just life. If you are a tree-copulating parrot with a fish head, we are not going to make laws that accommodate your specific situation, because you are the only tree-copulating parrot with a fish head we have ever seen.

Rather, our interest is a body of law that protects most people most of the time, and then a system of government that is flexible enough to accommodate a tree-copulating parrot with a fish head without having to actually create specific laws tailored to protecting tree-copulating parrots with fish heads.

I'm 6' tall with brown eyes and size 11 feet and I was born on a Thursday in July in 1966. I do not require my society to make a set of laws that are specific to my distinguishing characteristics, and my society doesn't want to spend time making those laws, because there are only three of me on the planet.

So a line has to be drawn, where we govern ourselves on the basis of norms rather than exceptions.

I don't disagree that we can do better than banning all felons from possession of firearms, but I will also point out that your family situation is abnormal. It is not the norm, and the rest of us are not compelled to tailor our general laws to your specific needs. Furthermore, in an era when the right of law-abiding citizens to KBA is under constant attack, the right of criminals to KBA is not a significant concern. Rather, it is a very low priority.

You guys go do it. You attack that priority.
But as I pointed out in an earlier thread, what America needs right now is 40 million gun owners to unite under shared goals and make their voice heard.
That objective will not be accomplished by people advocating for gun rights for criminals. Because gun rights for criminals is not a politically viable pathway to uniting 40 million people.

That my opinion.

 

[The Resister]

I did, and it was easy.
The thread is locked, but you can still go read it.

Almost no one has attempted to address your in vs. un gibberish because:
1 - it is gibberish,
2 - you are the only one saying it. It doesn't have any traction.

It's not doing you or us any good. Anywhere. But you cling.

It is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a simple truth nobody every heard before. For someone that is not getting any traction, I have quite a few "likes." I'd say that what I know, because it hasn't been talked about in the MSM, doesn't draw traction because the MSM hasn't acknowledged it.

But, I would say if people took a few hours out of their week-end to study the issues, they would see that I'm bringing something to the table that has proven, historically, to be effective at changing the status quo. You might get more traction than me by playing with your keyboard, but I am IN the fight. I don't just talk about it, I volunteer my legal research services to the cause. I talk directly to my elected representatives (from the lowliest to the top dogs). BTW, the lowliest are sometimes headed toward the big dog spots. For example, I met with a county Republican Party Chairman back before I cast my first vote. We went to a gun show in his district and had lunch at a place call Blimpies (a sub sandwich shop). His name was Newt Gingrich.

The biggest difference between myself and those who criticize what I do, do NOT do the research themselves. They only seek validation through what the MSM and what the major players limit them to.

As far as I can tell, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. Now, that requires defining. You cannot do that within the confines of legal precedents and historical documentation. Worse, you lack a plan to implement your ideas so that we reclaim our Rights. What you've done, in my opinion, is to advocate for the incremental evisceration of the Right by arguing that it is a privilege.