Poll: Redemption of Prohibited persons.

[Liberty97045]

On this Easter Sunday I would like to bring up the topic of redemption in what is sure to be a controversial form.

The conventional "wisdom" is that felons (aka criminals) should be prohibited from owning guns:

• Why do we think that?
• What purpose does it serve if the crime was non violent?
• Is it just another step down the slippery slope?

If we apply the stick (punishment) doesn't it make sense to apply the carrot of redemption? If a felon or other prohibited person stays out of trouble for 10 or 15 years, they are a different person leading a different life. As it is now, it is terribly hard for a felon to rejoin society, hard to get a good job, hard to get your rights back.

Read More

 

[slimmer13]

There shouldn't be prohibited persons. If they've done their time, their debt should be paid. If they are too dangerous to be trusted with firearms, they should be incarcerated indefinitely or executed.

The stigma of felon keeps people from getting decent employment and keeps them in the system.

 

[parallax]

My 2 cents worth,depends on the crime, violent v.s. non-violent. and if the criminal has made amends, per Law. I like Liberty97045 comment, maybe after 10-15 years the criminal has stayed out of trouble and has been a productive member of society. Then maybe get the conviction removed from there record. As criminal records go,there are some career choices , that will never allow an ex- felon to participate in due to background checks and security clearances.

 

[IronMonster]

There is a lot to this question, a lot more than "bad guys should be prohibited" First and foremost what constitutes a bad guy? A criminal conviction in and of itself does not make a person bad. There are plenty of good people who have been convicted of a felony and there are plenty of really bad guys who have never been convicted of a crime.

As a yard stick, it makes sense to prohibit felons from possession firearms. What other metric could we use that would be better? They have done something criminal and it is a simple pass/fail. That works on the surface but as you mentioned the goal is to rehabilitate and restore not only the "criminal" but society.

Personally I think it should be difficult to get your rights restored. It should be a challenge and only those who put in a considerable amount of effort should be considered.

By the very nature of a "restoration of rights" the individual is stating they want to follow the law, If they are content to be a criminal then they have no regard for the law in the first place.

I dont have a lot of experience knowing what it takes in various states. I know in Washington you can have your rights restored simply by staying out of trouble for a specified number of years and then asking the superior court. It is not at the courts discretion, if you ask and meet the criteria they are required to restore your rights. I also know in Idaho that most non violent crimes your rights are automatically restored once you complete your sentence. There is a long list of crimes though that make you ineligible to own a firearm for life, on that list is any drug crime as well as anything violent. If you have a drug crime conviction in Idaho the only way to get your rights restored is via a Governors pardon. Pardons are granted, but only a few a year and the process takes years to go through. The last thing they want to do is give someone a pardon and then have them commit a new crime. It would make them all look bad, so they make the process time consuming and difficult.


I think there should be the chance of redemption. I think it should be difficult and time consuming and be given only to those who put the effort in. If you dont care enough to fight to get your rights back then you probably dont deserve to have them.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

OSP gives way too many BS delays and denials based on non felony matters such as "you were named in a lawsuit" or "you plead guilty to a misdemeanor traffic infraction 20 years ago. Even though you have a current valid CHL and only paid a traffic fine, you could have been sentenced to a year in jail so no gun for you".

 

[Heywood]

If you can't trust a person with a gun, they should not be free. I say, more executions and indentured servitude to the victim until all debts paid.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

In a very basic way, violent = No, non-violent = Maybe. But it's so very complicated!

 

[CoastRange57]

If you can't trust a person with a gun, they should not be free.

Been out in society much lately ???

There are huge numbers of people that are free who have no business having a gun.

 

[boogerhook]

Been out in society much lately ???

There are huge numbers of people that are free who have no business having a gun.

And probably they should not be free, because they may just use something else or break the law and get a gun anyway.

 

[The B]

If you're free and you want a gun, you'll have a gun.

You can't keep a bad felon from acquiring a gun, so why pretend? Keep "bad" people in prison. Everyone else is a free man to do what he will with his life.

 

[Mikej]

Been out in society much lately ???

There are huge numbers of people that are free who have no business having a gun.

There are huge numbers of people that are free that have no business driving cars! We also insist on making vehicles easier for the least capable to drive!

I know, that has nothing to do with this thread. I voted maybe because I believe once a person pays their debt to society, for non violent felonies, they should be allowed their 2nd amendment rights back.

 

[Classic]

Old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me."

Nope, they had their chance and chose the wrong path. Now they have a criminal record so finding employment is even more difficult. Why would you want to put a gun in the hand of this person again?
Prison doesn't fix stupid, it teaches the stupid how to make it more difficult to get caught next time.
A gun is a tool best kept out of their hands so good people don't have to protect themselves from them.

 

[etrain16]

Old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me."

Nope, they had their chance and chose the wrong path. Now they have a criminal record so finding employment is even more difficult. Why would you want to put a gun in the hand of this person again?
Prison doesn't fix stupid, it teaches the stupid how to make it more difficult to get caught next time.
A gun is a tool best kept out of their hands so good people don't have to protect themselves from them.

I've got mixed feelings on this. I too would classify violent/non-violent differently, and would classify each felony differently. My experience was one of my oldest friends, during a very rough time of his early adult life, things got desperate money wise (ex-wife and some other bad choices got him there). He stole money from his employer by skimming a till. Over time it added up to enough money that, when he was caught, it ended up being a felony. He spent a grand total of one night in jail, and, while convicted, was immediately on probation since he had no prior criminal record. His felony conviction meant he couldn't own a gun. In the years that followed, he got his life in order, started his own business and raised a nice family. His one mistake has cost him. Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. At least in his case, he was no repeat offender. He was never then, nor ever has been, violent. So in his case (and yes, I'll admit personal bias), he seems like a guy that should get a break.

When it comes to this topic, I think it's hard to be completely black and white. I am as much about keeping guns out of the hands of bad people as anyone else. I also think if someone is violent and/or a high risk of re-offending, they should simply be off the streets, period. Non-violent folks that have not proven a proclivity to re-offend, there may be room to do some deeper discussion on that.

 

[The B]

Old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me."

Nope, they had their chance and chose the wrong path. Now they have a criminal record so finding employment is even more difficult. Why would you want to put a gun in the hand of this person again?
Prison doesn't fix stupid, it teaches the stupid how to make it more difficult to get caught next time.
A gun is a tool best kept out of their hands so good people don't have to protect themselves from them.

Ok.. and how do you propose actually keeping guns out of their hands?

Only law-abiding people follow laws.

 

[rick]

 

[Liberty97045]

Great discussion!

My original questions were:

Why do we think that?

Have we just been programmed to accept this as normal? If we hold a particular opinion, shouldn't we be able to articulate why?​

What purpose does it serve if the crime was non violent?

I know people with felonies for marijuana in the 60s and 70s. What purpose does prohibition serve for these people? In today's climate if you divert storm water, wash your car the wrong way, say the wrong thing, congratulations you are now a second class citizen for life!​

Is it just another step down the slippery slope?

If we accept that some precondition exists for abrogating a person's rights, then an expansion of those conditions is inevitable. For example, Clinton expanded the conditions to include misdemeanor domestic violence. What do you think might be next? Seeking help for depression? criticizing the government? Flunking out of school?

I am reminded of this famous quote by Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Some States restore voting rights to Felons, why not firearms?

 

[Classic]

Ok.. and how do you propose actually keeping guns out of their hands?

Only law-abiding people follow laws.

I have a WA CPL, OR CHL & the Utah concealed license. I voted against 594 but not because of the back ground check. People who have Concealed licenses have already been through background check and I have only sold guns to people who have one and once to a King County police officer. 594 is a poorly written law which is why I voted against it.
That said, If bad people want guns they find a fool who doesn't care & will sell them too anyone or they steal them. I believe (and practice) that then the gun is not on my person it is locked in a safe. Between the safe being bolted into concrete, having a monitored alarm & living a mile from the local PD I'm doing my civic responsibility to keep my guns out of bad guys hands.
I've been through multiple background check and dont have a problem with them but 594 is about gun registration under the guise of backgound checks.......

 

[Heywood]

Been out in society much lately ???

There are huge numbers of people that are free who have no business having a gun.

No, not at all. In fact this is the only contact I have with the outside world. So would you Then please explain what criteria you would use to refuse a person a constitutional right?

 

[The B]

But the question remains...

You support gun control of a different variety, as though it could ever be as effective as the gun control that anti-gunners support.

It's a bit of irony I note when this topic comes up with gun owners. You take a group of guys who are pro-gun, pro-civil liberties, anti gun-control.... guys who would tell you gun control doesn't work anyway... but suddenly they're all about gun control when we're talking about "felons."

I've committed countless felonies in my life. Most I never even realized I was committing, never will know about. But they're all over the place. I've probably committed a felony or three today. So have you. Don't be so quick to jump sides on this topic.

The brand "felon" is absolute bullbubblegum. Can anyone cite any kind of constitutional basis for permanently stripping a free man of his Constitutionally protected natural rights? It's been a while since I've debated this one - I can't remember if there's any basis at all.