Gun rights for a Felon?

[anygunanywhere]

As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

All it takes to make us all felons is a pen stroke.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

All it takes to make us all felons is a pen stroke.

Do you really think that's going to happen?

Chas.

[anygunanywhere]

As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

All it takes to make us all felons is a pen stroke.

Do you really think that's going to happen?

Chas.

There are over 20,000 gun laws alone in the USA. From 2000 through 2007 the feds passed laws creating 452 new crimes bringing the then total federal offenses to over 4,450.

Yes, the government could most certainly make any and all of us felons at the stroke of a pen. Will it happen? Who knows? At the rate the fed and many states are going, it likely will happen to many currently law abiding citizens. Several of the progs screaming about bump stocks wanted to make them illegal retroactively. That would be felony by the stroke of a pen.

I personally think it can and will happen.

[1911 10MM]

I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

It is one of the questions on the 4473 form to buy a gun.

You are correct just never thought much about it. Thinking about now I guess it makes sense just never put two and two together.

[TreyHouston]

Ok, this is going to be an odd comment by me but, I dont agree with having to revisit a cort to reestablish civil rights. This takes lawyers and a lot of money on BOTH SIDES. Not everyone can afford that and especially America!
It has to be one way or the other unfortunately

[mrvmax]

I have not verified the story here but it applies to the topic. I’m on my phone so I can’t figure out how to post the article so you will have to follow the link.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mv5j ... hing-wrong

[bblhd672]

I have not verified the story here but it applies to the topic. I’m on my phone so I can’t figure out how to post the article so you will have to follow the link.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mv5j ... hing-wrong

Basically a warning for anyone who believes in the right to self defense to stay far away from New Jersey (and New York).

[TVGuy]

Ok, this is going to be an odd comment by me but, I dont agree with having to revisit a cort to reestablish civil rights. This takes lawyers and a lot of money on BOTH SIDES. Not everyone can afford that and especially America!
It has to be one way or the other unfortunately

Frankly, I don't think it's that much in most cases. My friend spent less than $300 to do so.

As some have mentioned, time in prison is not the only punishment for being a felon. Perpetual loss of rights is another punishment.

If you want to get part of that punishment dismissed, I don't see a problem putting some effort and money into it.

[Pariah3j]

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. -Martin Niemöller

It's easy to say that it's part and parcel for the punishment because we aren't the ones being affected by it, but just like the story linked, it could just as easily be someone following the law. If you have to petition the court and pay money to restore a right, then it isn't a right, its a privilege at that point IMO. But we've already started to slide down this slippery slope I guess, and too many are willing to potentially give up freedoms for safety. And we all know what our founding fathers said about that(or at least one of them did).

[Charles L. Cotton]

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. -Martin Niemöller

It's easy to say that it's part and parcel for the punishment because we aren't the ones being affected by it, but just like the story linked, it could just as easily be someone following the law. If you have to petition the court and pay money to restore a right, then it isn't a right, its a privilege at that point IMO. But we've already started to slide down this slippery slope I guess, and too many are willing to potentially give up freedoms for safety. And we all know what our founding fathers said about that(or at least one of them did).

Rights can be lost by one's own actions. There is no right that is greater than the right to live, but one's life can be taken by the state if they commit a capital offense. My suggestion is for an administrative procedure to have civil rights restored after the commission of a violent felony. If the request for restoration of civil rights were rejected by the administrative board, the applicant would have the opportunity to seek relief in state court with the option to request a jury trial.

I presume from your comments that you think violent felons should retain all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, the moment they walk out of prison.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

It is one of the questions on the 4473 form to buy a gun.

You are correct just never thought much about it. Thinking about now I guess it makes sense just never put two and two together.

In order to receive a Dishonorable discharge you must be convicted of a felony grade offense by a court martial. It can not happen administratively so it technically requires being a convicted felon anyway.

[Pariah3j]

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. -Martin Niemöller

It's easy to say that it's part and parcel for the punishment because we aren't the ones being affected by it, but just like the story linked, it could just as easily be someone following the law. If you have to petition the court and pay money to restore a right, then it isn't a right, its a privilege at that point IMO. But we've already started to slide down this slippery slope I guess, and too many are willing to potentially give up freedoms for safety. And we all know what our founding fathers said about that(or at least one of them did).

Rights can be lost by one's own actions. There is no right that is greater than the right to live, but one's life can be taken by the state if they commit a capital offense. My suggestion is for an administrative procedure to have civil rights restored after the commission of a violent felony. If the request for restoration of civil rights were rejected by the administrative board, the applicant would have the opportunity to seek relief in state court with the option to request a jury trial.

I presume from your comments that you think violent felons should retain all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, the moment they walk out of prison.

Chas.

Mr Cotton - no, I do not believe their rights should be restored the moment they walk out of jail. My argument isn't about the ability to temporarily remove rights due to action, my argument is against that allowing the State to remove them permanently. As I stated previously, I believe the length of 'cooling period' of their rights should not be indefinite and length should be equal to the crime. But I don't believe that they should be 'cooled' or removed permanently. The ability to reinstate them sooner via a trial or administrative hearing at that point would be fair, because then the State cannot deny them permanently but can restore them in case of injustice.

Our court system is one of the best in the world, but it is still far from perfect. Given that fact, innocent people are sometimes convicted wrongly. And with states like NJ that have "may issue" gun permits, can we trust them to fairly restore rights?

[mrvmax]

I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

It is one of the questions on the 4473 form to buy a gun.

You are correct just never thought much about it. Thinking about now I guess it makes sense just never put two and two together.

In order to receive a Dishonorable discharge you must be convicted of a felony grade offense by a court martial. It can not happen administratively so it technically requires being a convicted felon anyway.

That sounds like anyone with a dishonorable discharge deserved it and I might think that if I didn’t know four people that were railroaded. I know of one Air Force guy (I don’t know his final discharge but he was forced out on a trumped up sexual harassment charge in the early 90’s), another AF guy given a dishonorable discharge for a first offense who did something stupid but nowhere near a felony and two Army guys who were charged with things they didn’t do, the fact is that when you are enlisted you can get superiors that can ruin your life if they don’t like you. One Army guy I know ended up in Leavenworth and from what I know of the circumstances he was used as an example. I’ve seen too much abuse of power and rank during my short time in the military to believe everyone with a dishonorable discharge committed “felonies”. I’ve seen many “lesser” instances of higher ranking guys with a personal agenda ruin a persons career. I saw one Army guy kicked out of tech school by an instructor who didn’t like him, I trained along this guy and he was probably the sharpest one in the class but he made an instructor mad and that instructor failed him enough times that he was forced out of tech school.
I know I’m taking some liberty with what you posted but I want people to understand an opposing opinion of a dishonorable discharge from my first hand experiences.

[The Annoyed Man]

As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

There’s a corollary problem........ Anything that happens in the courts - whether they are administrative courts or trial courts - has a political cast to it, no matter how honestly courts may seek to avoid that. Prosecutors are elected. Some judges are elected. Those that are appointed, are appointed by political figures. There’s never been a civilian court in the US that is not in some way or other tinged with politics. The reason this is a problem is that the political cast can and often will influence the court’s decision in a restoration of rights case. Assuming identical conviction profiles, racial profiles, and other social influences, is a Massachussetts administrative court which is charged with deciding such a case any more or less likely to rule for or against the petitioner’s favor than a similar court in Idaho?

I would submit that there would be a significant difference between the verdicts, and that the difference would be prompted by the political differences between Massachussetts and Idaho. The obvious conclusion is that assuming the felon deserves restoration of his/her rights, when it comes to gun rights specifically, the outcome is going to depend on whether or not the political climate in which the administrative procedure occurs handles gun rights as if they were uninfringable natural rights, or gov’t permissions.......or something in between.

Obviously, we don’t allow a convicted felon (or any other convict for that matter) to bring their gun into prison with them. So when society decides, through the court system to temporarily abridge a person’s civil rights, gun rights are part of that package. When we gradually restore civil rights as the convict processes through release, parole/probation, etc., I’d be curious to know how SCOTUS has ruled in the past on the permanent suspension of Constitutional rights, and what their reasoning was.

[ScottDLS]

I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

It is one of the questions on the 4473 form to buy a gun.

You are correct just never thought much about it. Thinking about now I guess it makes sense just never put two and two together.

In order to receive a Dishonorable discharge you must be convicted of a felony grade offense by a court martial. It can not happen administratively so it technically requires being a convicted felon anyway.

That sounds like anyone with a dishonorable discharge deserved it and I might think that if I didn’t know four people that were railroaded. I know of one Air Force guy (I don’t know his final discharge but he was forced out on a trumped up sexual harassment charge in the early 90’s), another AF guy given a dishonorable discharge for a first offense who did something stupid but nowhere near a felony and two Army guys who were charged with things they didn’t do, the fact is that when you are enlisted you can get superiors that can ruin your life if they don’t like you. One Army guy I know ended up in Leavenworth and from what I know of the circumstances he was used as an example. I’ve seen too much abuse of power and rank during my short time in the military to believe everyone with a dishonorable discharge committed “felonies”. I’ve seen many “lesser” instances of higher ranking guys with a personal agenda ruin a persons career. I saw one Army guy kicked out of tech school by an instructor who didn’t like him, I trained along this guy and he was probably the sharpest one in the class but he made an instructor mad and that instructor failed him enough times that he was forced out of tech school.
I know I’m taking some liberty with what you posted but I want people to understand an opposing opinion of a dishonorable discharge from my first hand experiences.

You may want to see what the actual characterization of these referenced discharges were, because a Dishonorable Discharge can only be issued by a General Court Martial upon CONVICTION beyond a reasonable doubt of a felony grade offense under the UCMJ. A General Court Martial Consists of 7 people overseen by a Military Judge and enlisted accused may require that at least 3 of them be enlisted. This is essentially a military jury of your peers. It is the equivalent of a Federal District Court trial in the civilian system. It is extremely unusual to not serve time in prison for a conviction that carries a Dishonorable Discharge. A Bad Conduct discharge is the equivalent of a federal misdemeanor, but still requires conviction at a Special Court martial (which I think is made up of 3 people). There are numerous administrative actions (Article 15) that can result in being dismissed from the military under "other than honorable" conditions, but punitive (Bad Conduct, Dishonorable) discharges can ONLY be given upon conviction by a Court Martial. It's highly unlikely to get to trial for sexual harassment related offense. It reflects really badly on military units to have their people court martialed and is very unlikely to happen on the word of some mid grade or junior officer. Its hard to believe that someone was convicted at a GCM for an offense that wasn't felony grade. And if they were they would receive a Bad Conduct, not dishonorable.