They gave up their right to own guns the day they committed the felony. Gun violence is killing our young that obtain guns so easily. They take them to school.
It is a very complex issue. However, Felons toting guns is not the answer to anything. With the recidivism rate over 65% there is a great chance that felon owned gun will be used in a crime.
The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. [McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)] I still do not know how the government can disenfranchise a felon of his right to bear arms. The inalienable right ratified in the second amendment, nor any part of the Constitution does not say a felon can't own a weapon. My question is, why can we disenfranchise a felon of his/her 2nd amendment rights for life, even if the crime was unrelated to violence? Such as bank fraud, or embezzlement. It is a right, not a privilege. Secondly, and more importantly, if we can disenfranchise a person of their inalienable rights, well then why not their other inalienable rights such as their first amendment rights? Why can't we tell a convicted felon to shut up? Why can't we take away their right to peacefully assemble, or practice religion, or even basic free speech? Why can't we strip convicted felons of their 4th amendment rights, and give police the power to pat any convicted felon down, warrant or not? If you have a logical answer as to why their 2nd amendment and inalienable rights can be disenfranchised away, I hope you have a logical answer as to why their other rights CANNOT be stripped away.
How is this not discrimination of a free man who has served his time for a crime and then forced to live with a life sentence of having some inalienable rights infringed upon him? How is this not double jeopardy? Where in the Constitution does it say that government can disenfranchise a citizen of their inalienable rights after they have paid for their crime? Where in the Constitution does it grant authority to government to wield the power of granting clemency over a free citizen [who must submit an application asking for their rights] in order to restore his/her inalienable rights after having served their time and released a free individual?
Use violence on someone by assaulting them and you'll be charged with a petty misdemeanor, but still retain your constitutional rights. Write a bad check or fail to pay your child support and you'll be charged with a felony and you will lose your constitutional rights for the rest of your life, long after you have paid your debt to society. Please explain how this is constitutional.
If any felon could stay out of trouble for say 5 to 10 years after conviction then yes it should be taken off the record. No one deserves to be punished for a lifetime people can change. I grew up and have a wife and 4 kids, I have the right to protect them.
I was arrested for possession of something the BATF claims I needed a permit to own. I was not charged with a violent crime or crime against another person or property and only received 5 years probation. So since I don't have the right to defend or protect my person/property/family like anyone else subject to be a victim of a crime, I feel the state/fed gov, should be responsible for all losses incurred as a result of being victimized. Especially since I have no choice as to how to defend/protect myself or family or my property. I can’t rely on the LE as it may take them up to 2 hours to show up depending on where they may be in the county or weather conditions. Prior to 1994 we could apply to the BAFT for restoration of firearms rights but that option went out the window upon the passing of the Brady Bill. If we serve our time and are supposed to be rehabilitated enough to be safely returned back out into society (if you served jail/prison time),and are not on probation/parole then all rights should be restored in full. If there is any doubt as to the character of the ex-felon then it should be the local sheriff that decides whether or not to issue a permit to own/possess firearms. Not some bureaucrat hundreds or thousands of miles away.
The US Constitution does not say “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless you have been convicted of a felony”. It ends with “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and even denying a rehabilitated ex-felon, no longer under the supervision of the courts is an infringement of the 2nd amendment.
Article 2 section 12 of the Montana Constitution says, “The right of ANY person to keep and bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, SHALL NOT be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons”.
Now notice there is an exception for concealed weapons but still nothing limiting the possession of arms by a felon or ex-felon. It should also be noted that a background check of any kind is a violation of “shall not be called in question”.
Article 2 section 4 of the Montana Constitution states, “The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.”
Being a felon or ex-felon falls under the, “Social Origin or Condition” clause, which seems to be constantly discriminated against. Not only with gun prohibition but with also being able to acquire decent jobs.
And then we come to Article 2 section 3 of the Montana Constitution, “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and beautiful environment and the right of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.”
Now again, how am I supposed to defend my life or protect my property if the best possible means for doing so (possessing a firearm), has been deemed an unlawful act in direct conflict with the US and State Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Which brings me back to the topic of my post. If we as ex-felons do not have the right to defend or protect our lives or property under state or federal prohibition then they (state or federal Gov.) should be liable for property theft or loss of life that results from a person not being permitted the choice to own or possess a firearm for personal defense or protection. I should hope that you wouldn’t expect me to fend off a gun wielding burglar and protect my children with a knife or baseball bat while waiting 20-90 minutes for the police to show up.
Especially when the State laws even suggest that the police have no duty to defend or even rush to show up. SO where exactly does that leave me? Am I expected to be a good little victim and keep my mouth shut just because have a blemish on my record for not knowing the laws at the time when I was 22 years old? Should I be expected to sit and watch while someone rapes my wife and 6yo daughter and hope the intruder(s) allows my family to live when they are finished with us?
I THINK NOT!
I believe that the topic of discussion needs to revolve around the way we as a society render punishment and enforce law and order. In short, if we put individuals IN JAIL then they are unable to utilize firearms while incarcerated and they should be undergoing rehabilitation. If upon release they are not safe to society then we have a separate problem with our penal system, BUT this cannot be the excuse to forbid released felons from owning firearms. The greatest purpose of the second amendment is to serve as a check and balance against tyrannical government. Tyrannical government is something the left regards as an archaic and outdated fear, but for any student of history and anyone who believes in the cyclical nature of the world understands the very real possibilty of government getting to comfortable with power. The process of course that governments typically take to usurp power is a gradual one. This way, in times of peace we accept greater presumed "security" by not allowing "felons" to own firearms. The problem would only become realized when individuals who once may have only been commiting minor misdemeanors all of sudden become felons in the governments eyes in order to "preserve security." This very real (but also very gradual) tool of government control should be fought on every level each and every day.
NRA Life Member
The media portrays felons in a box. Not ALL felons are equal just like not all men have the same morals. Today, most felons are felons because they didn't pay taxes, drug charges, traffic infractions,etc. These are our non-violent offenders. They SHOULD be afforded a re-entry into society instead of holding them hostage for the rest of their lives! I know men who have families, businesses, religious backgrounds, upstanding people who cannot vote, cannot find a decent job & CANNOT protect those they love because of some non-violent mistake they made decades ago. Shall we keep on punishing them with our self-righteous attitudes? I know good men who ended in the wrong side of the law because of ALL of these over regulated, felony laws that have nothing to do with violence, sexual perversions, theft, etc. Victimless crimes that hurt only themselves & tax payers thanks to the "system." It's big business & at 2.5 million strong & with the privatization of prisons, it's NOT going to stop. When will we as a civilized nation wake-up? In 2101? When our prison population reaches 20 million? 30 million with the surge of countless laws? I believe in being tough on violent crime, sexual crime, property crime but I also believe that these men and women deserve a chance on a case-by-case basis to have ALL their rights restored after they've spent years in society being productive. My 2 cents.
I believe some felons should own guns. It should depend on what the felony was. If it's a simple possession charge then yes you should be able to own a gun but if the felony was for a rape, murder or any crime that was committed with a gun then no you should not be able to own a gun. It should just depend on the felony.
By logical deduction one can assume that by serving a sentence - probation, or jail, that said person has paid his or her debt to society. Of course, it should depend on the crime, and the state of the person after serving, but to paint all felons with the same brush is intellectually dishonest.
And to those who claim "guns are prolly the reason why the are in jail or is a felon neways" [SIC], not all felonies are the same.
Im not saying that its not a bad idea but a lot of convicted felons were in gangs once and probable have many enemies so we are just going to let someone who is just like you and me get killed just because you are scared of them carrying a gun to protect themselves?
felons shouldnt have guns because they can and will retaliate and the results can be fatal if we let them have guns it will lead to dissisions that end up courrupting the goverment and ending the united states turning us into the courrupted states of america its a absolute no and i would never pass a law allwoing america to get in trouble i gaurntee if you let a felon have a gun he will be back in jail before bedtime so lets be smart about the dissision and not give killers and robbers or worse people a right to carry a gun
For what? So they could kill again? No, that's crazy. It's like handing meat to a lion. Of course the lion's going to want to eat it. They probably don't care about being locked up again. Why give them rights if they don't deserve them? They didn't feel sorry to do something bad and cause damage.
I'd rather keep guns out of the hands of individuals who repeatedly make poor choices. If you want your rights... don't steal, do drugs, harm others, etc... I'm not against an appeal process after a period of time (say 10 or 20 years), but ONLY for non-violent offenses.
I'm reading all these prior felons stating they can't own a gun because of mistakes from the past. I actually feel for them. Some have even asked for help of how to fix it. Well, here it is: Expungement. Expunge your felony record and voila, you can own a weapon. Too easy. Let the courts decide if you're okay to own a weapon again. If they decide you're not, there obviously is a reason. If they see that you've changed from years ago, they'll obviously let you.
sure, what is the worst that could happen? A felon with a gun? A person with a felonious past with a firearm? A person that obviously has made bad decisions in the past and been convicted of a felony and gone to prison (which is what the difference between a felony conviction and a misdemeanor conviction is people). To those of you that say, well not if it's a drug felony.... What? Seriously? LOL Because drugs and guns don't go well together? People make me laugh! So, we take away their rights to vote, but let them carry firearms? What sense does that make? Just the fact 74 percent of people here think convicted felons should be able to possess firearms is reason enough to want to overhaul our school systems!
Convicted felons should be restrained from carrying guns. This Americans have lost their rights to freely posses a firearm. Once a convicted felon has violated the law, he has waived his constitutional right stated in the second amendment.
The fact that someone might obtain a gun somewhere else does not mean that we should give them permission to own guns after they have committed a crime. I believe they should be able to purchase bullet-proof vests, but the right to own guns should be given to normal citizens to defend against felons in defense. In case of a felony that was unrelated to violence or armed theft and didn't include a weapon, such as gambling or street racing, I believe that they should be reviewed and possibly given exception for self defense.
Convicted felons have already shown enough anti-social behavior that landed them on the wrong side of the law to begin with. Just because they've served their time doesn't mean they've changed for the better. With the way today's prison rehabilitation high recidivism rates are churning out felons who are worse coming out of prison than when they went in, it's totally asinine to consider ever giving these guys another chance to gain access to firearms. Think about why most felons go out of their way to get illegal firearms that they KNOW will land them back in the click; it's because they know they will use them to commit more crimes. If a convicted felon claims that it's for their personal protection, that's a prime indicator that they are still hanging around the same bad crowd that they learned their bad behavior from in the first place. Also, the fact that they will go out of their way to procure a gun illegally is another indicator that they don't respect any laws even when they're free from jail. So, no, convicted felons should not be allowed to own guns. That's just setting them up for failure.
If they have committed a felony in the past, it is likely that they will do so in the future.
Even if the crime is something without a deadly weapon, I do not believe a felon should own a gun. They have committed crime before, and could do it again. I think giving committed felons guns is a terrible idea.