Of felons and firearms. An open question on the stripping of rights.

[Callisto32]

I have been thinking about the topic of allowing felons to have guns. Normally, this topic is treated something as follows: "we all agree that convicted felons should not be allowed access to firearms." I know this is something of a gross simplification of the sentiment, but I am using it as a springboard for the rest of this post. I consider myself a libertarian, basing my moral/ethical decisions and principles primarily upon the "harm principle" and this issue has been one of my stumbling blocks. Certainly, I accept that there are actions that ought to be punished, those of violence against people and their property. I believe that punishment ought to be in proportion to the crime, such as having to pay back the value of what you stole from a person to the victim, NOT the state. However, I can see the reason why people who have committed violent acts against people, especially those that have a history of such acts, might be best handled by being locked away from society in general. The problem comes with the idea that they give up rights after they have been released from that custody. Why do we determine that someone is safe enough to be allowed back into society at large, but not that he is safe enough to be given his rights back? It seems to me that is someone is really so dangerous that he should not be allowed to own a firearm, live within a certain distance of a school/church/park, even vote (in some states) he ought to be kept in lockup, because he is not safe enough to live with those of us who have proven to be generally peaceful and honest in our dealings.

The second problems comes with the idea of a blanket ban on felons. Some felonies are not violent in the sense of hurting people, but rather violent against property. I am talking about things like high dollar amount white collar offenses. Others may look to be violent, but don't actually say anything about the tendency of the person to be violent against people, such as "felony murder" where say, a junkie is present a drug deal gone bad and someone is killed. That junkie can be convicted for murder, even though he had no intention of killing or harming anyone and, actually, would not have. I cannot get behind stripping someone of their rights for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially when you consider that some of these people really to turn their lives around and avoid such violent company in the future.

Thoughts?

[bluestateguy]

1. I think that once you serve your time you should get your rights back

That includes parole and probation, of course, and I would be OK with requiring ex-felons to register with the federal government if they own a handgun (kind of like what we do with sex offenders), but why should you lose your right to protect yourself once you have paid your debt to society?

[57_TomCat]

2. I agree with that sentiment...

you said it better than I could.

[MercutioATC]

3. The issue I have is that even non-violent felonies (IMO) exhibit a lack of judgement...

...or, at least, a disrespect of the law.

I'm o.k. with banning felons from owning guns.

[Callisto32]

6. But isn't the purpose of incarceration supposed to be, at least partially, rehabilitation?

If that is the case, why continue to punish people?

[jeepnstein]

11. I don't know anyone...

who actually believes that prison rehabilitates anyone. It is quite possible for someone to seek opportunities and programs to help get them back on the right road while they're down. That can and does happen for people who really want to change.

For the most part prisons are just a place to temporarily house criminals while they continue their graduate studies on their career. Visit any prison and you'll quickly learn that the inmates indeed run the asylum. There is a segment of our population that views getting sent to prison as a normal part of life.

[Callisto32]

13. I actually agree that prison is a poor method of rehab.

That is why I generally favor changing our system of punishment to forms of restitution, where possible and reserving incarceration for people that have proven themselves to be too dangerous to be among the rest of us. I suppose my point in the above response was obtuse, and for that I apologize.

[MercutioATC]

17. We restrict the rights of child molesters upon release from prison.

(and no, I'm not equating gun owners and child molesters...I'm pointing out that there are crimes that result in a restriction of rights even after the "rehabilitation" process)

[Callisto32]

9. Why should exhibiting a lack of judgment strip one of his rights?

Everyone can exhibit a lack of judgment, especially in a moment of stress. However, many that would exhibit a lack of judgment in one situation do not necessarily prove that they would in another. Maybe someone is willing to skim some money off of the top of bank transactions. That is wrong, certainly, and ought to be punished (preferably through restitution), but should that keep an otherwise non-violent man from being able to use the best tools available to defend himself from violent attack?

I am afraid your view on this is greasing the slope.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. One of the problems is the plea-bargin system.

Often the felon and the state will agree to a lesser charge. He gets a lighter sentence and the state avoids the expense and trouble of a court trial. AT the same time, a person should not be punished forever for lesser crimes.

How about, for non-violent felons, restoration after the full sentence plus five years for guns, after full sentence for right to vote.

Permenant for some felonies, such as child sex abuse, rape, etc.

[Callisto32]

8. I agree that people ought to be dealt with based upon the crime that they have committed.

But it seems our system would rather just figure out the most expedient way to get as many people into the prisons as possible. It is an affront to the victims of crime to plea someone down, and it is an affront to the accused to try to take them to trial if you are not reasonably sure you can convict.

[safeinOhio]

5. A permanent revoking ones drivers license comes to mind

as done with a 3rd or 4th conviction for DUI in a span of years. This is done even though the person might never touch a drink again. If a person shows disregard for laws(felony) I think it is proper to conclude they are a risk to gun ownership. It is pretty simple, if you don't commit felonies you can own firearms, if you do you can't. Don't commit felonies. It can be unfair to those with youthful indiscretions, however that is a price one pays. That price is not a death sentence, 99% plus of the population goes a lifetime without using a gun to survive. I would spend my time trying to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people. That is hard enough to do.
I have known people that have had their record expunged through the courts for one time crimes, like possession of drugs when a teenager. It cost some money, but can be done. I have no problem with that. However, for the white collar nonviolent I have no problem keeping guns away from them. For the most part they knew they were breaking a law and disregarded it to make a buck. That tells me a lot.

Just my thoughts.

[Callisto32]

7. Even if those crimes that are felonies have no victim, such as a nonviolent marijuana cultivator?

Mala lex, nulla lex.

EDIT: I disregarding the LAW what we really want to worry about, rather than actual harm done? Perhaps, the legislators are the ones in the wrong for disregarding human rights with their laws.

Thoughts were exactly what I asked for. I'm trying to get a real conversation going in here.

[zipplewrath]

10. More general

Quite apart from the issue of guns, this issue has come up generally with respect to things like voting rights for "felons". The problem is that felony ain't what it used to mean. I think it is generally wise to consider why someone would continue to have rights witheld after serving some time in jail. "Second class citizens" don't generally fare well in this country and we should be cautious about creating them.

With respect to gun specifically, if one has been convicted of a crime in which the gun was an instrumental part of that crime, it would seem fairly reasonable that the result is that access and use of guns moves from being a right, to being a priviledge.

[Callisto32]

14. I primarily have a problem with non violent felonies.

As far as the violent types go, I would rather see them stay locked away, if they are truly dangerous.

[aliendroid]

12. Gun control doesn't work

The gun control act of 1968 was the law that restricted people who served prison time from owning or buying firearms.
Given that many charges these days are just garbage, for example I own magazines for my pistol that hold 20 bullets and if I took that over to california I could end up being charged and losing my right to own firearms. That is a completely artificial law and one reason that the term felon or convict will be watered down. We are after all, all felons because each and every american commits at least 1 felony per day without knowing it. Here is an image of a graph showing the fact that denying a felon the right to legally own a gun failed to cause crime to go down. The fact is it does not deter even one felon from owning a gun when he wants to but has in fact lead felons to seek guns in the black market which makes it difficult for law enforcement to profile which felons may commit another crime. If felons were allowed to buy guns legally, that gun purchase record available to the Feds, would allow them to focus more on him to see if he plans to commit another crime. Gun control act of 1968 = epic failure.





I don't think we should grant the right of felons to own guns, but I think the government should override and remove the failed gun control act of 1968, it did not work.

[rrneck]

15. It depends on the felon.

If some guy crawls in my window in the middle of the night, he's likely going to get a load of buckshot in the chest. The real question to ask is why do I have to shoot him? It's not my fucking job to rid the world of some predatory animal. Where were his parents when he needed them? Where were the teachers and school counselors? Where was social services? Where were his elected representatives? And finally, where was the criminal justice system?

As Jeepenstein ably pointed out in another post, you have to train to be a felon. That effort has to be expended in the face of a society that should be able to help put that energy to better use than learning to brutalize people. If somebody does more than a year in jail, that sentence represents the failure of a whole lot of people who should have been good enough citizens to steer him in the right direction. Instead, too many people are brought into this world with the understanding that, "yer on yer own kid".

He was probably raised in a neighborhood where there were little or no recreational or job opportunities. The schools he attended were designed to teach him to sit quietly, don't ask questions and be a good employee/consumer instead of a good citizen. The church, if he saw the inside of one, probably treated him as just another revenue stream. By the time some kid is in his teens, he gets the message just fine; "Take what you can get, because nobody gives a fuck here in the crowning glory of free market Capitalism."

If you took just about any average gang banger at birth and gave him a privileged lifestyle, an ivy league education, access to the levers of power, loads of cash to play with and raised him with that sort of predatory attitude you'd have - Ken Lay. The only difference between that criminal on the street and those Wall Street tycoons that fucked up the global economy is that the rich guys dress better.

If we send someone to jail, we own them. They are our responsibility. If they come out worse than when they went in, it's our fault. It's a helluva lot more expensive to fix an adult than to raise a child. If we spent as much money on that felon when he was a kid as we do to lock him up, he wouldn't be a felon. He'd be a productive member of society and able to help others do the same.

The problem is that if I have to shoot some fucker do you think Corrections Corporation of America is going to show up and clean up the blood? Hell no. The privatization of the prison system, just like the privatization of too many other government services, is just another exercise in risk dispersal at the expense of the American public. The prison industry is living proof that crime pays if you're rich. If you're poor, not so much.

So after an extended rant, the best I have been able to come up with is that if we only lock up somebody up for a short stretch, like a year, he can't have a gun when he gets out for a long time because we haven't had time to work on him. If we lock somebody up for twenty years he should come out a model citizen because we have owned him for a generation. If we can't help people be good citizens in that length of time we should keep them locked up for life and pay for it, not allow some corporation to make money off it. If society failed him, then society should bear the cost of that failure.

[rusty_rebar]

16. Great Topic, thanks.

I tend to agree with you. I have a real hard time getting around the whole, if you have done your time, you have payed for your crime issue. It is a failure of our system when violent people get out of prison and commit crimes again. Maybe the answer is in-determinant sentences.

I have seen many documentaries, where there is some old 80 year old fart who killed someone when he was 25, but is still in prison, and is absolutely no danger to society. Why should he have to stay in prison? Conversely there are plenty of young "punks" getting out of prison for lesser crimes every day, who we all know are going to go back out into society and commit violent acts. This seems silly to me.

If we would legalize drugs in this country, we would not have overcrowded prisons. If the prisons are not overcrowded, there would be an opportunity to actually try and reform some of this behavior instead of warehousing future violent offenders.

Maybe there are some crimes that you need to be segregated from society forever, I am thinking rape and murder, there are undoubtedly others. There are surely people who should not be in society. But a lot of that has to do with economics. If you never give someone hope in life (think inner city youth), why are we surprised that many will take a bad route in life?

Still, the thought of allowing someone who committed a violent felony to own a firearm is a bit disturbing. All felons seems ridiculous to me. There are numerous felonies that you can commit without meaning to, or doing any harm to anyone.