Should Felons Have The Right To Carry ?

[chuck j]

Just for discussion , should certain felons be able to possess and carry a weapon ? Should a person that gave hot checks twenty two years ago or someone that cheated on their taxes be disqualified from owning and carrying a handgun ? There are many non violent crimes that keep these type people from carrying .

[bulinm]

I think the law's just fine the way it is, so, no.

[RX8er]

It has been discussed at length not long ago: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=63144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the outcome is that there are two sides on the matter. Those that think you broke the law you should never have the opportunity and those that think once you do your time, you should be allowed.

[K.Mooneyham]

I think that there should be a process where someone convicted of a NON-VIOLENT felony could be able to petition to have their rights restored after 10 years from the end of their sentence completion, if they have a clean record (ZERO criminal activity) in that decade. Those convicted of violent felonies, no, and those who have committed other criminal activity, no as well. This way, it would be on a case-by-case basis.

[WildBill]

People who have "paid their debt to society" should have their civil rights restored after they serve their sentence.

[suthdj]

People who have "paid their debt to society" should have their civil rights restored after they serve their sentence.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think that there should be a process where someone convicted of a NON-VIOLENT felony could be able to petition to have their rights restored after 10 years from the end of their sentence completion, if they have a clean record (ZERO criminal activity) in that decade. Those convicted of violent felonies, no, and those who have committed other criminal activity, no as well. This way, it would be on a case-by-case basis.

There already is such a process.

People who have "paid their debt to society" should have their civil rights restored after they serve their sentence.

Pretty much this ^^.

The problem is that a lot of people get released before they've paid their debt to society—the "debt" being defined as their original sentence. They get sentenced to 5 years and get out in 18 months due to overcrowding, or time off for good behavior (meaning that they didn't shank anyone for 18 months). I believe strongly in the automatic restoration of rights to those who have proven themselves to be good citizens. But with "sham sentences," the felon often has not paid his debt to society, and all too often there is a record of recidivism. What do we do with them?

So if there is to be an automatic restoration of rights, I would think it reasonable to time it so that a released felon must be free of further charges for some period of time after the end of their originally scheduled release date. So if that if that "violation free" period is (for example) 10 years after your scheduled release from a sentence of 5 years, then your rights will not be automatically restored until 15 years after your conviction, regardless of whether or not you won an early release for good behavior, or you were released due to overcrowding or something like that.

The trouble is that sentencing often is a joke, and people get sentenced to long terms for nonviolent offenses, while the truly dangerous have a turnstile in their cell. Convicts will often not serve the entirety of their sentence anyway. In my book, "good behavior" means that you get out when originally scheduled, and "bad behavior" means your get your sentence extended until you learn good behavior and put it into practice.

[WildBill]

I think that there should be a process where someone convicted of a NON-VIOLENT felony could be able to petition to have their rights restored after 10 years from the end of their sentence completion, if they have a clean record (ZERO criminal activity) in that decade. Those convicted of violent felonies, no, and those who have committed other criminal activity, no as well. This way, it would be on a case-by-case basis.

There already is such a process.

People who have "paid their debt to society" should have their civil rights restored after they serve their sentence.

Pretty much this ^^.

The problem is that a lot of people get released before they've paid their debt to society—the "debt" being defined as their original sentence. They get sentenced to 5 years and get out in 18 months due to overcrowding, or time off for good behavior (meaning that they didn't shank anyone for 18 months). I believe strongly in the automatic restoration of rights to those who have proven themselves to be good citizens. But with "sham sentences," the felon often has not paid his debt to society, and all too often there is a record of recidivism. What do we do with them?

So if there is to be an automatic restoration of rights, I would think it reasonable to time it so that a released felon must be free of further charges for some period of time after the end of their originally scheduled release date. So if that if that "violation free" period is (for example) 10 years after your scheduled release from a sentence of 5 years, then your rights will not be automatically restored until 15 years after your conviction, regardless of whether or not you won an early release for good behavior, or you were released due to overcrowding or something like that.

The trouble is that sentencing often is a joke, and people get sentenced to long terms for nonviolent offenses, while the truly dangerous have a turnstile in their cell. Convicts will often not serve the entirety of their sentence anyway. In my book, "good behavior" means that you get out when originally scheduled, and "bad behavior" means your get your sentence extended until you learn good behavior and put it into practice.

[K.Mooneyham]

I think that there should be a process where someone convicted of a NON-VIOLENT felony could be able to petition to have their rights restored after 10 years from the end of their sentence completion, if they have a clean record (ZERO criminal activity) in that decade. Those convicted of violent felonies, no, and those who have committed other criminal activity, no as well. This way, it would be on a case-by-case basis.

There already is such a process.

People who have "paid their debt to society" should have their civil rights restored after they serve their sentence.

Pretty much this ^^.

The problem is that a lot of people get released before they've paid their debt to society—the "debt" being defined as their original sentence. They get sentenced to 5 years and get out in 18 months due to overcrowding, or time off for good behavior (meaning that they didn't shank anyone for 18 months). I believe strongly in the automatic restoration of rights to those who have proven themselves to be good citizens. But with "sham sentences," the felon often has not paid his debt to society, and all too often there is a record of recidivism. What do we do with them?

So if there is to be an automatic restoration of rights, I would think it reasonable to time it so that a released felon must be free of further charges for some period of time after the end of their originally scheduled release date. So if that if that "violation free" period is (for example) 10 years after your scheduled release from a sentence of 5 years, then your rights will not be automatically restored until 15 years after your conviction, regardless of whether or not you won an early release for good behavior, or you were released due to overcrowding or something like that.

The trouble is that sentencing often is a joke, and people get sentenced to long terms for nonviolent offenses, while the truly dangerous have a turnstile in their cell. Convicts will often not serve the entirety of their sentence anyway. In my book, "good behavior" means that you get out when originally scheduled, and "bad behavior" means your get your sentence extended until you learn good behavior and put it into practice.

Sorry, TAM, I didn't know that. Never really looked into it, to be honest.

[JALLEN]

I think most felonies I can think of involved a deliberate act in violation of the law, serious enough to have been defined as a felony. There is no such thing as an "accidental" felony, although there are miscarriages of justice like, say, Scooter Libby type cases.

It isn't that hard to avoid being convicted of a felony. What's the problem? You deliberately broke the law seriously. Can you be trusted ever thereafter? Given the rate of recidivism, in a great many cases the answer is an abysmal no!

It used to be that felons were executed. No "3 strikes" or any of those sissy rules. Of course, given the lamentable prevalence of error, perhaps the death penalty is a bit harsh. But I see no reason to excuse felonies, restore civil rights, let them vote etc. If you want to vote, wait until you die, or don't commit felonies!

I don't want to end up in jail, at least while my mom is still alive. That is incentive enough for me! losing civil rights stands as a further incentive to take the law seriously, avoid gross misbehavior and such like conduct.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[rotor]

Perhaps we should phrase it as "Should convicted cop killers be allowed to become professors at Columbia University after serving their term?" There are so many unfair issues. In my opinion I if you are able to vote you probably should be able to carry.

[Moby]

There are far too many crimes that are felonies that should not be.
A YEAR in jail and a steep fine is a pretty darn stiff penalty. Think about it, you'll loose your job, probably your house, maybe your wife, etc,etc.

Living in one city in Texas and having your kid claim to be living at your sisters house to go to a better school is a felony.
YES I agree it's wrong. A thousand dollar fine is a good restitution to the school district offended. Jail time for repeat offenders, OK, but NEVER having the right to defend yourself or vote? Legislators go too far with some penalties.

Violent people, bangers, drug dealers...obvious.

[cmwoodruff]

My answer is a simple no.

Don't get a felony.

[Pacifist]

No, not if they're in prison.

[DEB]

In Stupid Laws Canada, it was once required in Alberta that once you are released from prison, it was required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town. As to the question; I do believe that once you have done your time, you receive all of your rights back. That means full time, not including parole. I also believe that we should relook some of these Felonies and reassess them. I mean Orchids in California? Our own beloved President admitted to Pot and Cocaine use and now he is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces...Not to hijack the thread, but what about laws that forbid 8 rounds or greater magazines or the possession of unregistered firearms? Should the State of Texas force extradition, if a Texas Citizen did something against the law in one state but not against the law here? This as long as they were able to get away and back to a free state. I personally don't think so. Unless they can whup us that is...