TexasCHLforum.com

This article is a bit lengthy but very interesting.

"Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a certain amount of time crime-free."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/fe ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TxD wrote:This article is a bit lengthy but very interesting.

"Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a certain amount of time crime-free."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/fe ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good. Frankly, I think there are way too many laws and way too many felonies anyway. This quote seems appropriate:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with." (Atlas Shrugged)

...in a perfect world, once a perp COMPLETED his sentence(not being sent home early because prison was crowded)...I think his debt to society should be considered paid...with exemptions for crimes of violence or sexual deviation...in this world we live in, it doesn't and can't work that way...even the states who reinstate gun rights can't overrule the feds...so it doesn't make a lot of impact...but I like the fact that at least some states are moving in the right direction...

WAIT! Hold up there. Did you read the whole article or at least the first couple of pages? Some people convicted of murder are getting their gun rights back. I' all for non-violent felons getting their gun rights back, but c'mon. A few of those guys described in the first couple of pages shouldn't ever be allowed to have a gun. Even some of them agree.

...that's what I said: "...with exception for crimes of violence..." (but it's great to see you up and moving around so quickly on a Monday)

[soapbox]
I’m not sure when we started equating paying one’s debt to society with serving time in prison, but I have to question that idea. Society gets little from the convict as he serves a sentence, except for his temporary absence and, we hope, some deterrence. The criminal is fed, clothed, watched, and cared for at no small expense. What useful work might be extracted from him does little to defray the costs. If anything, time served increases the debt to society.

What a miscreant owes society is to return what was taken – which is almost always beyond his capability. Making society whole again would be a very difficult task. He took or damaged property or life in some way, put people at risk, and put fear into the victims. A victim might get some small monetary compensation, but some things money can’t buy.
[/soapbox]

speedsix wrote:...that's what I said: "...with exception for crimes of violence..." (but it's great to see you up and moving around so quickly on a Monday)

Sorry. That wasn't directed at you. I was typing slow and stopped for a few minutes to help my daughter with something. That was directed at 74Novaman and anyone in general that would think some of those guys should have their gun rights restored.

threoh8 wrote:[soapbox]
I’m not sure when we started equating paying one’s debt to society with serving time in prison, but I have to question that idea. Society gets little from the convict as he serves a sentence, except for his temporary absence and, we hope, some deterrence. The criminal is fed, clothed, watched, and cared for at no small expense. What useful work might be extracted from him does little to defray the costs. If anything, time served increases the debt to society.

What a miscreant owes society is to return what was taken – which is almost always beyond his capability. Making society whole again would be a very difficult task. He took or damaged property or life in some way, put people at risk, and put fear into the victims. A victim might get some small monetary compensation, but some things money can’t buy.
[/soapbox]

...I agree with you in the highest ideal case, but in actual practice...when the judge says 10 years and he's done that 10 years, he's paid his debt that society imposed on him...and that's the commonly accepted way to say it...society didn't write the law to require him to return what was taken...in most cases, anyways...so if restitution or a fine's not part of his sentence, it doesn't apply...
...now, we all know the system doesn't work...and the expenses you list are valid...as are the high-minded ideals of what he should do towards restoration...but, as you say, he can't, especially he can't undo damage done to persons...so his responsibility is to become a useful, contributing member of society, not repeat his actions, and IF he can, make restoration...

...he ought to be able to set about this pursuit without further "punishment"...given a fair chance to make it...

...to cite an example for clarity...I sin...I repent...I am forgiven...and I can't often undo all the problems my sin caused...but I should try...the rest is mercy...which I've had a lot of and I want that poor miscreant to have a crack at...

...if he makes it...great...if he doesn't...it shouldn't be because we've put our foot in his back every step of the way...

It's interesting how people sometimes react to articles like this one, published in the NY Times, written by a fairly young Harvard liberal that's written pieces like this before. Takes 1 case and blows it up as if it's the norm, and happens every day.

This case in and of itself is ridiculous. It likely has nothing to do with the guy being a felon or what he's done in the past. They admit they were all beyond wasted and he left them passed out on his bed. He comes back in and finds that this guy on his bed apparently having "had his way" with his girlfriend, whether she knew it or not or it was consensual or not, and after telling the guy to leave, they end up in each others face ad he shot him.

How many guys that have never had so much as a parking ticket may have ended up in the same situation if they were tangled up in that?

Don't let the media and ambitious "reporters" convince you there's a problem that doesn't exist. If he had proof that there was a genuine problem with States reinstating gun rights, he would have made that case. He didn't, so he embellished and sensationalized 1 unique incident.

Until the passage of the 1968 Gun Control act, Felons did not loose their 2nd amendment rights.

The country survived.

I am just saying...

A quibble:

speedsix wrote:...even the states who reinstate gun rights can't overrule the feds...so it doesn't make a lot of impact......

I don't believe you are correct on this. It is not so much that the state overules the feds, it is that federal law does recognize restoration of rights. There are intermediate cases where some rights are restored and not others (such as 2A rights), and the US DAs are very aware of these. They often argue that if a state law does not explicitly grant restoration of 2A rights then it didn't happen, but they have lost in those instances where "full" restoration happens.

One case in particular is US vs Tait, where a man with a concealed handgun license was prosecuted for violating the felon-in-possession law (and the Gun Free School Zone Act). Both the trial judge and the federal appellate circuit court ruled against the US DA (on both charges). Tait had three (I think) felony convictions in Michigan, for which he served his time. Under Michigan law, once you complete your sentence, all rights are restored. The US DA tried to argue that since the Michigan law didn't explicitly restore firearms rights, he didn't get them back, but the judges didn't buy it. I think the term they used was by "by action of law" or "by operation of law" all his rights were restored.

In general, I don't buy the "debt paid to society" theory either. I think prison time mostly warehouses criminals -- which is OK, if they are not out on the street, they are not committing crimes on the street.

Specifically to felonies and gun rights, I don't think you can solve the issue with one or two changes in the law, like only automatically restoring all rights to all felons, or only trying to limit certain rights based on the type of felony. I think the whole mess needs to be re-thought, with the scope of felonies greatly narrowed, a whole bunch of "criminal" statutes thrown out entirely, entire regulatory structures tossed (ATF and its "Choreboy copper pad silencers/constructive possession" for example), and then maybe you can start talking about which felonies get full restoration, which sex offenders get locked up for life, etc.

...there are a list of reasons in Federal Law listed in the Brady section of ATF 5300.4...if you are currently under any of those categories, you cannot possess or receive a handgun by federal law...and nothing the states say can change that...there are also listed scenarios you might obtain relief from these prohibitions, depending on what the state laws/courts say and if the Feds agree...so my statement stands as stated...the feds MAY allow some relief...but do not have to by law...it's their decision to make...and state law doesn't trump it...

...I like some of your progressive ideas on the system being repaired/updated...but I don't hold much hope that we'll see it happen soon...it makes too much sense...

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=21219" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This pretty much sums it up.

The feds do in fact recognize "restoration of the firearms right" under Colorado law. Colorado's restoration of all rights of citizenship has been recognized by the 10th Circuit (Article VII, Section 10 CO Const) in US v Hall, US v Norman, and other cases since 1994. The reasoning is a bit convoluted - taking into consideration the "totality of Colorado law" - meaning the 10th Circuit recognizes a CO statutory 10 year disablement following completion of sentence.

Ironically, the State of Colorado does NOT in actual practice recognize its own constitutional restoration of ALL rights of citizenship. The status of the law in Colorado is still a work in progress, but State prosecutions for POWPO (possession of weapons by previous offenders under CO law) generally only proceed when some collateral offense is present to establish burden of proof of unlawful purpose for possession.

In the 2009 case People v DeWitt the CO appelate court recently reversed a POWPO conviction and remanded for retrial because the defendent's motion to tender his constitutional affirmative defense was blocked by the trial court judge. CO case law has consistently upheld the constitutional affirmative defense for lawful possession of a firearm in defense of one's home, person, and property regardless of PO's status( Articel II, Section 13-CO Const), but the PO better be on their best behavior when in possession, and not have a post conviction rap sheet.