Gun rights for a Felon?

[Charles L. Cotton]

What does 30.06 have to do with the discussion about felonies? If you differ in opinion with the felons not having access to guns that's ok but don't hijack the thread with a trolling comment.

Point is the same guys that want to beat the law by not doing the time are no different than those that beat the 30.06. Same mentality. . .

I'm sick of your insults and your arrogance. Wanting to provide a way for a felon to restore constitutional rights is not trying to "beat the law" as you falsely claim. It's a call to change the law. If an administrative hearing with the possibility of a state court review were to be implemented, it would not guarantee restoration of rights. If the facts did not warrant restoration, then the administrative officer and the state court would likely refuse restoration. If you truly cannot separate the concept of a sentence imposed by a court and the impact of an extra-judical legislative act, then you should consider not insulting others by making false claims about their motives.

Chas.

[twomillenium]

WOW! This thread has gotten all kinds of responses. Some say "NO WAY", some say felons should be OK because some people speed or some other nonsense, some say there should be a time limit, and everything in between. For what it is worth, if a person is convicted of a felony, then any restrictions or prohibitions that come with being a felon should be able to have a chance to be removed. At the expense of the felon. The felon was the one convicted and they should have known the ramifications of their actions. If they did not, then it was their own fault.
The judge, jury, board or whomever makes that decision should factor all the facts violent vs. nonviolent, how long ago, has full restitution been made and most of all what has the behavior and responsibility of the felons action been like since being out in the real world. It may take years to be eligible for a hearing or even tens of years. Some may get rights restored, some will not and some may get only partial rights restored. The expense should be on the felons own dime and no one else's unless some chooses to help them. We all have the ability to choose, whether we make good or bad choices the choices have consequence some good and some bad.
Just sayin

[montgomery]

What does 30.06 have to do with the discussion about felonies? If you differ in opinion with the felons not having access to guns that's ok but don't hijack the thread with a trolling comment.

Point is the same guys that want to beat the law by not doing the time are no different than those that beat the 30.06. Same mentality. . .

I'm sick of your insults and your arrogance.

Chas.

I never get sick of your thought provoking, articulate analysis.

[OldCurlyWolf]

What does 30.06 have to do with the discussion about felonies? If you differ in opinion with the felons not having access to guns that's ok but don't hijack the thread with a trolling comment.

Point is the same guys that want to beat the law by not doing the time are no different than those that beat the 30.06. Same mentality. . .

I'm sick of your insults and your arrogance. Wanting to provide a way for a felon to restore constitutional rights is not trying to "beat the law" as you falsely claim. It's a call to change the law. If an administrative hearing with the possibility of a state court review were to be implemented, it would not guarantee restoration of rights. If the facts did not warrant restoration, then the administrative officer and the state court would likely refuse restoration. If you truly cannot separate the concept of a sentence imposed by a court and the impact of an extra-judical legislative act, then you should consider not insulting others by making false claims about their motives.

Chas.

A few years back I met a fellow working as a cook in a cafe. He had got caught with just enough "Weed" to be a felony in Texas. He was still a Teenager but legally an adult.

15+ years later, no further trouble with the law, he was thinking about filing a petition of Expungement to regain his rights. After having talked to him for a while, my advise was save the money, get a lawyer and go for it.

[RogueUSMC]

First I need to say that there has been a gradual creep toward a judicial system that would make King George III proud. The trend has been to elevate far too many misdemeanors to felony status. This should not have happened. I base my comments largely on this fact.

I believe:
1. Non-violent felonies should not impact civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. In the alternative, all civil rights should be automatically restored after ____ years;
2. Violent felonies should result in loss of all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, but with an administrative procedure to have all civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The citizen should have the right to appeal the administrative finding to state court;

The reason I believe a violent felon should have an avenue to restore civil rights is because there can be circumstances where a person commits a violent crime under conditions that would prompt otherwise law-abiding persons to do so. For example, a father kills his son-in-law for beating his daughter. It's murder, but the man is not likely to be a threat to others and he should have the right to seek restoration of his civil rights. If it is shown during the hearing or trial that the father has be violent at other times, then the application for restoration could/should be denied.

Chas.

Normally, I would agree with you but who would be the judge of which way it goes? I don't like 'subjective'...lol

Personally, if a guy does something to say, get sent to the pen for 30 years...then completes another ten years of visits to his Parole Officer...keeping his nose clean the whole time, let them have a further waiting period (maybe ten years) before they are eligible to reapply after 'final disposition'...

In that example, the guy paid his price and kept his nose clean for 50 YEARS! Why not restore his rights?...regardless of the crime?

[Lynyrd]

I am aware of a young man who got caught with one marijuana cigarette on school property a few days after he turned 17. The result was a felony because it was on school property. He tried to join two different branches of the military, but I am told they wouldn't take him because of the felony. Many prospective employers refused to hire him once they did a criminal background check. Some 15 years later he has had no further trouble with the law and by all appearances is an honest trustworthy adult. There should be some way this young man could put that mistake behind him.

[RogueUSMC]

I am aware of a young man who got caught with one marijuana cigarette on school property a few days after he turned 17. The result was a felony because it was on school property. He tried to join two different branches of the military, but I am told they wouldn't take him because of the felony. Many prospective employers refused to hire him once they did a criminal background check. Some 15 years later he has had no further trouble with the law and by all appearances is an honest trustworthy adult. There should be some way this young man could put that mistake behind him.

There is but it is not cheap...