Should convicted felons be allowed to bear arms?

[sudden valley gunner]

Most often, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys, the rapists are corrections staff. The prisoners most at risk tend to be the weakest: women, gay men, juvenile offenders, the mentally disabled, the physically small and those new to life behind bars.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Stopping-prison-rape-Rape-is-a-crime-1708265.php

Allegations of rape and sexual assault involving inmates are increasing, and nearly half those assaults are committed against prisoners by correctional officers, according to a new report issued by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/26/guards-may-be-responsibleforhalfofprisonrapes.html

Thanks Grape.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And you have a long history of disrespecting the men and women who do the job you won't because you're afraid of the criticism guys like YOU throw at them.

I don't even like primus on a personal level but you're ** ***. You lay a broad blanket of hate across law enforcement. I can absolutely guarantee you that you have yet to experience a truly bad police officer, and I know exactly how bad they can get. Some of them don't just put on a police uniform, they also bang. I know men who do. Quit compaining. 90% of cops are honest down to earth people.

LOl...what a load of tripe, of course I won't do a job that would conflict with liberty, justice and the oath they take.

Yes I have no respect for the system of "law enforcement" that has little to do with peace keeping. And are little more than politicians street warriors.

Sure 90% may be down to earth, yet I am pointing out specific problems like the ones Primus has where he can't even answer a simple question of where he supports unconstitutional laws.

I know some good cops too, all that is beside the point.

I suppose those who didn't like the unconstitutional acts of the redcoats (yes the colonist as Brits had constitutional protections) were just laying "a broad blanket of hate".

Nothing will change if we don't speak out against it.

So again I ask, those of you who support this law, cite by Constitution where the authority comes from......I'll wait.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

For some reason I doubt 50% of prison rape is by guards. Just let me challenge you on that number, I want see evidence on that.

See Grapes post.

I strongly doubt you're employing current hard drug users, you inserted the word "former" into your argument. Which I find believable. You are twisting what I said. If a hard drug users robs you, would you accept restitution in the form of hiring the same person who used violence to obtain from you funds to purchase mind altering substances to work at your job site?

You are wrong quite a bit and you would be wrong about this. My goal as an employer is to have quality work help people who I work for and who work for me. Yet if you let outside influences ruin your work you are gone, I have let people go, who let their vices affect their work, no matter what the drug, alcohol or narcotics.

Also nowhere did I state they had to work directly for the person they did the crime against, I am going on about restitution to the victim. You and Primus for some reason want to ignore that traditional aspect of justice.

I'm sure you hire great dedicated employees, I'm not questioning your current hiring practices, I'm am challenging the idea that the types of civil restitution you suggest are practical. And you've gone to great lengths to avoid answering the actual question asked.

Nope I answered you just don't like the answer.

I have good experience dealing with a current methamphetamine user, and his tweaker brother. When i find him so my friend can serve him another lawsuit should I point him your way to apply for work? He's pretty good at workmans comp fraud too if you hire those people as well :dude:

LOL...yea because I hire every tweaker , You sure like to not get the point do you?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So back to topic and asked again.

Those in favor of the feds prohibition, please cite the constitutionality of it.

 

[OC for ME]

Bearing arms even means knives and swords.

Your state may have a cloud of mist surrounding the unlawful use/possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In MO there is very little ambiguity. Guns are treated different from "arms."

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000070.HTM

Cops are to be used only to catch law breakers after they break the law.

Anyway. To the unarmed robbery and getting punched in the face discussion, there are two separate crimes.....in my state anyway. Your state may be different.

Compensation to the victim, by the BG, is a civil action. The fine(s) collected for the criminal act is rarely paid to the victim.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Your state may have a cloud of mist surrounding the unlawful use/possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In MO there is very little ambiguity. Guns are treated different from "arms."

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000070.HTM

Cops are to be used only to catch law breakers after they break the law.

Anyway. To the unarmed robbery and getting punched in the face discussion, there are two separate crimes.....in my state anyway. Your state may be different.

Compensation to the victim, by the BG, is a civil action. The fine(s) collected for the criminal act is rarely paid to the victim.

A fact that seems to escape the apologist.

 

[Midwest]

I think Felons like G. Gordon Liddy and Martha Stewart should have their second amendment rights restored.

Someone like a Charles Manson or Jeffey Dahlmer ...no.

.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I think Felons like G. Gordon Liddy and Martha Stewart should have their second amendment rights restored.

Someone like a Charles Manson or Jeffey Dahlmer ...no.

.

CM still in prison will likely never get out, JD dead!

 

[hhofent]

I think Felons like G. Gordon Liddy and Martha Stewart should have their second amendment rights restored.

Someone like a Charles Manson or Jeffey Dahlmer ...no.

.

That's basically what ive been saying.
Felonies involve such a wide range of crimes, a lot if not most of which are non violent.

violent criminals should not have guns.
Non violent ones should.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That's basically what ive been saying.
Felonies involve such a wide range of crimes, a lot if not most of which are non violent.

violent criminals should not have guns.
Non violent ones should.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

Violent criminals belong in prison, crazies belong in the nut house. Once sane or reformed full rights should be returned.

 

[hhofent]

Violent criminals belong in prison, crazies belong in the nut house. Once sane or reformed full rights should be returned.

A lot of truth to that. If they're allowed to be on the street, they should have full rights restored. After all, a gun is just a tool.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[mikeyb]

Violent criminals belong in prison, crazies belong in the nut house. Once sane or reformed full rights should be returned.

I get the whole "debt paid to society" side. I understand it. I'd like to be on-board with restoration of all rights after prison sentence and probationary period is complete with no incidents.

What prevents me from going all-in on this point, and probably what many people think, is what do you do with repeat offenders? Criminals with rap sheets longer than a roll of toilet paper. What do you do with them? We do know that there are repeat offenders. We know that the justice system isn't perfect, and criminals get out early because demand (criminals) is greater than supply (jail).

Are we prepared to incarcerate criminals for longer sentences? Rehabilitation is a term that is quite misunderstood, and prisons definitely do not cater to that. Can we create a system that helps people realize their mistakes and opts to not go down that road?

Is it a safe assumption that if you believe the debt is paid upon release, that you support more bars, more walls, and more guards?

If the data supported that repeat offenders end up utilizing firearms in some of their crimes, would anyone object to a 3-strikes rule regarding rights? How many chances do you get to prove your value/contribution to society?

I guess what it comes down to is the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you..." How can we trust a multiple offender?

For the record, I am for stricter sentences, less-comfy prisons, and plea bargains should be offered less frequently and be more restrictive.

 

[hhofent]

Violent misdemeanants, too? Violent misdemeants should not have guns?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - to misdemeanor and alleged misdemeanor in the case of abusers.

If they have been released back into public, they must not have been deemed too violent after all, whats to stop them from obtaining a good knife or sword, or even a sledgehammer, shovel, or a strong pair of hands?

Theres thousands of ways to assault someone, and all of them are readily accessible to anyone who isn't incarcerated.



Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[Jack House]

Violent misdemeanants, too? Violent misdemeants should not have guns?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - to misdemeanor and alleged misdemeanor in the case of abusers.

People seem to forget that this is exactly what happened. Now they want to add mental illness to the list of prohibited people. They think it's a great idea, when in reality it's just going to be used as a weapon against people like me with mild 'mental illness' like ADHD.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Still waiting for the supporters of this Federal law to state how they feel it doesn't violate their oath to the constitution.....I won't hold my breath.

 

[mikeyb]

Still waiting for the supporters of this Federal law to state how they feel it doesn't violate their oath to the constitution.....I won't hold my breath.

Devil's advocate here...

To make laws - COTUS: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

To deny rights via due process - BOR: 5A: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The additional amendments, most have "Congress has the authority to..." clause. As no one has objected to that phrase (or it's fallen on deaf ears) in the umpteen years it's been used, a reasonable person could assume the clause would also apply to the original clause.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Devil's advocate here...

To make laws - COTUS: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

To deny rights via due process - BOR: 5A: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The additional amendments, most have "Congress has the authority to..." clause. As no one has objected to that phrase (or it's fallen on deaf ears) in the umpteen years it's been used, a reasonable person could assume the clause would also apply to the original clause.

Thank you, I also like playing devils advocate at times.

The bolded part is the clue, all laws would have to coincide and be under the foregoing powers. The Federalist wrote to extent many promises that they would never go outside those powers and that any wording in the COTUS that seemed to open the door to an expanse of power beyond the enumerated powers were not to be interpreted that way, but only as a tautology or reinforcement of the limited powers. I believe it was Madison who said a statement to the effect that what would be the use of enumerating them if they could just do what they want.

Life liberty and process are all linked together, death sentence rights ended, imprisoned your life, liberty and property are temporarily (or permanently) suspended while you serve your sentence. For those who say the right to bear arms can be forever surrendered by due process, to me it would imply that other rights like, free speech, could forever be suspended. And I find that an impossibility and and absurdity.

Also at the time of the writing of the COTUS, I believe there were less than 12 felonies. Can we even count the amount today? Many for reasons that are contrary to the the understanding of "law" at the time which was supposed to comport to natural law, not the positive law of the state.

 

[mikeyb]

Thank you, I also like playing devils advocate at times.

The bolded part is the clue, all laws would have to coincide and be under the foregoing powers. The Federalist wrote to extent many promises that they would never go outside those powers and that any wording in the COTUS that seemed to open the door to an expanse of power beyond the enumerated powers were not to be interpreted that way, but only as a tautology or reinforcement of the limited powers. I believe it was Madison who said a statement to the effect that what would be the use of enumerating them if they could just do what they want.

Life liberty and process are all linked together, death sentence rights ended, imprisoned your life, liberty and property are temporarily (or permanently) suspended while you serve your sentence. For those who say the right to bear arms can be forever surrendered by due process, to me it would imply that other rights like, free speech, could forever be suspended. And I find that an impossibility and and absurdity.

Also at the time of the writing of the COTUS, I believe there were less than 12 felonies. Can we even count the amount today? Many for reasons that are contrary to the the understanding of "law" at the time which was supposed to comport to natural law, not the positive law of the state.

I can't argue with any of that, but for the italicized. The text of 5A is intentionally broad, for this very reason. Much like "must not be infringed" is unambiguous, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" is on the opposite spectrum and wide-reaching. It's to future-proof, if you will, our government. And rights like free speech- at least the manner of- have been suspended by the courts. Computer criminals have been prohibited from owning a computer or using one (enforceable? not the point) because of their crimes. That definitely eliminates access to the Internet, a home for any opinion. Some states deny ex-felons the right to vote. I believe there have been similar prohibitions to other criminals, like denying them certain fields of employment.

We act based on historical perspective. If a given something happens that produces a given result, we know it will happen again. Shake a can of soda, it's going to explode when you open it unless you leave it sit for a few minutes. Touching a hot stove will burn you. A first-time offender may not offend again. But when one has multiple arrests/incarcerations, it's a good bet the cycle isn't going to be broken.

So I am ok with denying gun rights to multiple violent offenders- murderers, rapists, armed robbery, armed assault, or assaults that inflict great bodily harm. Stealing $25B from the stock market? Not so much. I think they should have to watch Michael Moore "movies" over and over and over.

 

[hhofent]

I can't argue with any of that, but for the italicized. The text of 5A is intentionally broad, for this very reason. Much like "must not be infringed" is unambiguous, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" is on the opposite spectrum and wide-reaching. It's to future-proof, if you will, our government. And rights like free speech- at least the manner of- have been suspended by the courts. Computer criminals have been prohibited from owning a computer or using one (enforceable? not the point) because of their crimes. That definitely eliminates access to the Internet, a home for any opinion. Some states deny ex-felons the right to vote. I believe there have been similar prohibitions to other criminals, like denying them certain fields of employment.

We act based on historical perspective. If a given something happens that produces a given result, we know it will happen again. Shake a can of soda, it's going to explode when you open it unless you leave it sit for a few minutes. Touching a hot stove will burn you. A first-time offender may not offend again. But when one has multiple arrests/incarcerations, it's a good bet the cycle isn't going to be broken.

So I am ok with denying gun rights to multiple violent offenders- murderers, rapists, armed robbery, armed assault, or assaults that inflict great bodily harm. Stealing $25B from the stock market? Not so much. I think they should have to watch Michael Moore "movies" over and over and over.

That's cruel and unusual punishment. Emphasis on cruel.

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Haven't we had this discussion before?

If they are too dangerous to carry arms, then they should not be walking amongst us - so say some.