Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

danarhea · 07-19-08, 03:15 PM

On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Second Amendment, an ex convict is challenging his arrest for possession of a firearm. He is going after the Federal law which bars felons from owning guns.

Read the article, and then answer the poll.

To me, this is a tough question to answer, but at the heart of my answer is the supposition that, once a convicted felon has paid his debt to society, he is free to start is life over, and be part of society once more. However, that supposition is a bit simplistic, since the situation itself is somewhat complicated. For instance, if someone went to prison for smoking marijuana, versus someone who just got out after 20 years for holding up a liquor store and shooting the owner. Since these are 2 different situations, don't you think that might require 2 different answers? And what if the guy who did 20 years for the shooting has really rehabilitated himself? Would he then be entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come from being a citizen? But what if he has not been rehabilitated? On the other hand, if we keep him from rights that all other citizens are entitled to, then as a non citizen, and an outcast, wouldn't he then be more inclined to commit more crime, if not given a chance?

As you can see, this whole question opens up a pretty big can of worms. The best solution that I can think of is that, if an ex felon wants a gun, that decision should be made by some kind of review board, which would review his case, and either grant him the right to own a gun or deny it, based on that review. I know, its not perfect, and if someone has a better answer, I would like to hear it. My support for my position is weak, and a good argument, one way or the other, could convince me to change my mind.

Discussion?

Kernel Sanders · 07-19-08, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Second Amendment, an ex convict is challenging his arrest for possession of a firearm. He is going after the Federal law which bars felons from owning guns.

Read the article, and then answer the poll.

To me, this is a tough question to answer, but at the heart of my answer is the supposition that, once a convicted felon has paid his debt to society, he is free to start is life over, and be part of society once more. However, that supposition is a bit simplistic, since the situation itself is somewhat complicated. For instance, if someone went to prison for smoking marijuana, versus someone who just got out after 20 years for holding up a liquor store and shooting the owner. Since these are 2 different situations, don't you think that might require 2 different answers? And what if the guy who did 20 years for the shooting has really rehabilitated himself? Would he then be entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come from being a citizen? But what if he has not been rehabilitated? On the other hand, if we keep him from rights that all other citizens are entitled to, then as a non citizen, and an outcast, wouldn't he then be more inclined to commit more crime, if not given a chance?

As you can see, this whole question opens up a pretty big can of worms. The best solution that I can think of is that, if an ex felon wants a gun, that decision should be made by some kind of review board, which would review his case, and either grant him the right to own a gun or deny it, based on that review. I know, its not perfect, and if someone has a better answer, I would like to hear it. My support for my position is weak, and a good argument, one way or the other, could convince me to change my mind.

Discussion?

If a line were to be drawn I believe it should be drawn in terms of violent felons. Any kind of subjective measure (eg a review board) would be fraught with discrimination and would end up serving justice worse than a firm decision in either direction. IMO the whole "debt to society" concept is purely theoretical and has little real world meaning.

From the article

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
ADVERTISEMENT

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

That's right - he had seven pistols, three shotguns, and five rifle...for self defense. We can reason and be moralistic all we want, but this guy is the reality of the situation. He just wants his guns.

Summerwind · 07-19-08, 07:22 PM

I would say the easiest place to draw the line would be. . . was the crime he has paid for one that involved a weapon? If so, then no gun rights; if not, then gun rights restored.

rudedog · 07-19-08, 09:10 PM

I think that non violent offenders should have all their rights restored after 5 years of non police involvement.
Violent offenders and sexual predators,no way.
But then again making more crimes felonies,is one more way to have gun control of the people.
I don't know about where you live, but in Liberalfornia,if you are caught driving over 100 miles an hour, they can make it a felony.

TurtleDude · 07-19-08, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudedog

I think that non violent offenders should have all their rights restored after 5 years of non police involvement.
Violent offenders and sexual predators,no way.
But then again making more crimes felonies,is one more way to have gun control of the people.
I don't know about where you live, but in Liberalfornia,if you are caught driving over 100 miles an hour, they can make it a felony.

good point

that felons lose their right to bear arms proves it is an individual right-if it were a collective right as the left claims than the federal government would violate the second amendment when it disarmed National guardsmen and state troopers over a retroactive application of the Lautenberg Amendment

Kandahar · 07-20-08, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudedog

I don't know about where you live, but in Liberalfornia,if you are caught driving over 100 miles an hour, they can make it a felony.

Good.

PeteEU · 07-20-08, 05:26 PM

But but is it not a near biblical right for every American to bear arms.. regardless if he or she is gay, black, red, white, or a criminal?

Jerry · 07-20-08, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Second Amendment, an ex convict is challenging his arrest for possession of a firearm. He is going after the Federal law which bars felons from owning guns.

Read the article, and then answer the poll.

To me, this is a tough question to answer, but at the heart of my answer is the supposition that, once a convicted felon has paid his debt to society, he is free to start is life over, and be part of society once more. However, that supposition is a bit simplistic, since the situation itself is somewhat complicated. For instance, if someone went to prison for smoking marijuana, versus someone who just got out after 20 years for holding up a liquor store and shooting the owner. Since these are 2 different situations, don't you think that might require 2 different answers? And what if the guy who did 20 years for the shooting has really rehabilitated himself? Would he then be entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come from being a citizen? But what if he has not been rehabilitated? On the other hand, if we keep him from rights that all other citizens are entitled to, then as a non citizen, and an outcast, wouldn't he then be more inclined to commit more crime, if not given a chance?

As you can see, this whole question opens up a pretty big can of worms. The best solution that I can think of is that, if an ex felon wants a gun, that decision should be made by some kind of review board, which would review his case, and either grant him the right to own a gun or deny it, based on that review. I know, its not perfect, and if someone has a better answer, I would like to hear it. My support for my position is weak, and a good argument, one way or the other, could convince me to change my mind.

Discussion?

I vote "other".

Felons who were not convicted of violent crimes should retain the right to keep and cary a gun.

chevydriver1123 · 07-20-08, 08:18 PM

It will be interesting to see how far this goes and how it will pan out because I have a feeling if a ruling is in favor of the felons whos to say they wont challenge their right to vote which is denied if your a felon.

Kandahar · 07-21-08, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevydriver1123

It will be interesting to see how far this goes and how it will pan out because I have a feeling if a ruling is in favor of the felons whos to say they wont challenge their right to vote which is denied if your a felon.

If they were violent offenders, letting them have a gun is a lot more worrisome than letting them vote IMO. I never really understood the prohibition against felons voting anyway. I mean, unless they were convicted of treason or espionage or something like that, I don't see why their opinion wouldn't be worth just as much as anyone else's.