Should convicted felons be allowed to bear arms?

[mikeyb]

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

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

It's not cruel. It's unusual. Lucky the BOR says cruel and unusual, not or.

 

[Batousaii]

Haven't we had this discussion before?

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

ECHO, Echo, echo .....

+1 .... 1 ..... and 1 more.

If they are to dangerous to be in society (armed or not)... then why do we let them among society? If they did their time, and are deemed safe enough to be among the innocent, then they should have all rights restored. One who is undeserving of rights, should be dispatched.

 

[Batousaii]

Bat's crazy ramble ...

This is a good thread, truly. I’ve noted much of the conversation revolves around defining how a felony can be almost anything, federal or state. I’ll note a personal opinion, that 1) we need to reduce laws in the US, as it should not be so easy to become a felon, or criminal of any sort for that matter. 2) There needs to be a CLEAR distinction between violent felons; people who physically hurt others, and non-violent felons; scam artist, organized retail crime, hackers etc. I think there also needs to be a clear distinction between hurting a corporation/institution, and hurting an individual, especially one who is innocent. As far as laws go, I believe they should be simple, readable and able to be understood by the common person of average intelligence. Lawyers should be for businesses, and people who have reduced mental capacity and can’t understand (read/write etc.). The common laws for the common folk should be comprehendible by them, and one should be able to defend (or bring suit) on their own volition, without lawyers or contrived overburdening processes. We have made things so complex and out of balance, that anyone can be brought before the king (though I’m sure that’s the actual intention of our former servants).

That being said, people who intentionally hurt the innocent out of malice or personal entertainment, psychosis etc. should be removed from society permanently. If the offense is minor enough, then yes, rehabilitate them, but if they are simply of wicked mind prone to hurting innocence, then they need to be dispatched of. In it all, there should be huge swathing divides between what makes someone a felon, what makes someone incur minor criminal charges, and receiving fines or non-criminal charges. The paths between them greatly reduced, and extremely well defined consequences. This also needs to be tempered with Constitutional rights of “innocent until proven guilty”, yet fairly swift and methodical processing for those that are guilty. Violent felons should not sit on death row for 20 years soaking our tax-payers money, while they lift weights and teach the lesser criminals how to improve their game.

So, to bring my ramble back to topic, I still stand firm, that yes, those that are not “locked up” should be allowed full restitution of rights, arms and all. Just because we have allowed our kings and courts to run amok, does not make it moral or right to curtail a free persons liberties, rights, or sanctity. If they are so bad that we must revoke their natural human state (rights), then we should be removing them from our very existence. I’ll note a distinction between a clearly defined temporary disciplinary condition (Can’t drive for a year from a DUI or similar), and simply saying you can’t have rights or liberty period.

To many laws, to many lawyers, to many kings and courts being supported by a dejected citizenry that enables them to rise above us, having once been our servants. They have learned to rule us by pushing us under them.

hehe, sorry bout the wall-o-text.

Bat :dude:

 

[hhofent]

This is a good thread, truly. I’ve noted much of the conversation revolves around defining how a felony can be almost anything, federal or state. I’ll note a personal opinion, that 1) we need to reduce laws in the US, as it should not be so easy to become a felon, or criminal of any sort for that matter. 2) There needs to be a CLEAR distinction between violent felons; people who physically hurt others, and non-violent felons; scam artist, organized retail crime, hackers etc. I think there also needs to be a clear distinction between hurting a corporation/institution, and hurting an individual, especially one who is innocent. As far as laws go, I believe they should be simple, readable and able to be understood by the common person of average intelligence. Lawyers should be for businesses, and people who have reduced mental capacity and can’t understand (read/write etc.). The common laws for the common folk should be comprehendible by them, and one should be able to defend (or bring suit) on their own volition, without lawyers or contrived overburdening processes. We have made things so complex and out of balance, that anyone can be brought before the king (though I’m sure that’s the actual intention of our former servants).

That being said, people who intentionally hurt the innocent out of malice or personal entertainment, psychosis etc. should be removed from society permanently. If the offense is minor enough, then yes, rehabilitate them, but if they are simply of wicked mind prone to hurting innocence, then they need to be dispatched of. In it all, there should be huge swathing divides between what makes someone a felon, what makes someone incur minor criminal charges, and receiving fines or non-criminal charges. The paths between them greatly reduced, and extremely well defined consequences. This also needs to be tempered with Constitutional rights of “innocent until proven guilty”, yet fairly swift and methodical processing for those that are guilty. Violent felons should not sit on death row for 20 years soaking our tax-payers money, while they lift weights and teach the lesser criminals how to improve their game.

So, to bring my ramble back to topic, I still stand firm, that yes, those that are not “locked up” should be allowed full restitution of rights, arms and all. Just because we have allowed our kings and courts to run amok, does not make it moral or right to curtail a free persons liberties, rights, or sanctity. If they are so bad that we must revoke their natural human state (rights), then we should be removing them from our very existence. I’ll note a distinction between a clearly defined temporary disciplinary condition (Can’t drive for a year from a DUI or similar), and simply saying you can’t have rights or liberty period.

To many laws, to many lawyers, to many kings and courts being supported by a dejected citizenry that enables them to rise above us, having once been our servants. They have learned to rule us by pushing us under them.

hehe, sorry bout the wall-o-text.

Bat :dude:

Perfectly said

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

Thank you for the rational, well thought out and thought provoking responses. It's refreshing. +1

I doubt we will agree on this topic. (or maybe you do yet are still playing devils advocate which is totally cool!)

Even if the intent was to be broader than it was, which is supported by some federalist Like Hamilton who sold the constitution one way and then tried to sell it differently as president, I don't think it matters, here's why.

The people who they sold it too accepted it narrowly defined and restricted to only the enumerated powers also laws considering firearms is not in the federal purvey at all, so the broad interpretation would not apply.

Lysander Spooner has a thought provoking analysis in "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" that it doesn't matter what the intent was but if it isn't directly spelled out it is unconstitutional. This takes things like the rule of lenity a long long history to protect common folk from government in common law, the foundation of our legal system.

This is a good thread, truly. I’ve noted much of the conversation revolves around defining how a felony can be almost anything, federal or state. I’ll note a personal opinion, that 1) we need to reduce laws in the US, as it should not be so easy to become a felon, or criminal of any sort for that matter. 2) There needs to be a CLEAR distinction between violent felons; people who physically hurt others, and non-violent felons; scam artist, organized retail crime, hackers etc. I think there also needs to be a clear distinction between hurting a corporation/institution, and hurting an individual, especially one who is innocent. As far as laws go, I believe they should be simple, readable and able to be understood by the common person of average intelligence. Lawyers should be for businesses, and people who have reduced mental capacity and can’t understand (read/write etc.). The common laws for the common folk should be comprehendible by them, and one should be able to defend (or bring suit) on their own volition, without lawyers or contrived overburdening processes. We have made things so complex and out of balance, that anyone can be brought before the king (though I’m sure that’s the actual intention of our former servants).

That being said, people who intentionally hurt the innocent out of malice or personal entertainment, psychosis etc. should be removed from society permanently. If the offense is minor enough, then yes, rehabilitate them, but if they are simply of wicked mind prone to hurting innocence, then they need to be dispatched of. In it all, there should be huge swathing divides between what makes someone a felon, what makes someone incur minor criminal charges, and receiving fines or non-criminal charges. The paths between them greatly reduced, and extremely well defined consequences. This also needs to be tempered with Constitutional rights of “innocent until proven guilty”, yet fairly swift and methodical processing for those that are guilty. Violent felons should not sit on death row for 20 years soaking our tax-payers money, while they lift weights and teach the lesser criminals how to improve their game.

So, to bring my ramble back to topic, I still stand firm, that yes, those that are not “locked up” should be allowed full restitution of rights, arms and all. Just because we have allowed our kings and courts to run amok, does not make it moral or right to curtail a free persons liberties, rights, or sanctity. If they are so bad that we must revoke their natural human state (rights), then we should be removing them from our very existence. I’ll note a distinction between a clearly defined temporary disciplinary condition (Can’t drive for a year from a DUI or similar), and simply saying you can’t have rights or liberty period.

To many laws, to many lawyers, to many kings and courts being supported by a dejected citizenry that enables them to rise above us, having once been our servants. They have learned to rule us by pushing us under them.

hehe, sorry bout the wall-o-text.

Bat :dude:

+1
Didn't seem like a wall-o-text at all! Nicely done paragraphs and well thought out sentences. I am often jealous of those who can write like yourself.

 

[Jack House]

Inmates on death row don't mingle with gen pop, they barely mingle with each other.

It costs so much and takes so long because of appeals. Are you going to deny them their right to an appeal?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Inmates on death row don't mingle with gen pop, they barely mingle with each other.

It costs so much and takes so long because of appeals. Are you going to deny them their right to an appeal?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

+1

 

[Batousaii]

Inmates on death row don't mingle with gen pop, they barely mingle with each other. <snip>

Very well, and as it should be. I’m not a warden or a jailer so I’ll admit to not being completely privy to the construct of prison life. However it was more the point, that higher criminals are known to teach lower criminals how to escalate their success rates, not that all do, but enough that it’s an issue, in my book anyways. I think that measures should be in place to make being a criminal so unappealing that “kids/people on the fence” are more inclined to make efforts at curtailing their behaviors, and less inclined to simply be a criminal because it’s “Cool” and borderline acceptable, and dealt with in an almost blind eyed justice system. Being a criminal should be a serious situation, with hair-raising consequences attached. – Hang em High. (remember too in this formula, it should also be a lot harder to become a criminal, less laws, clearer laws, clear and wide distinction between what defines crime vs. infractions).

<snip> It costs so much and takes so long because of appeals. Are you going to deny them their right to an appeal?

Deny Them? Absolutely not, but I do believe the process has turned in to a big business, money making corporate sham that’s crawled under the blanket of humanitarian efforts. We seem so concerned about how we treat those who did not give concern to those whose lives they defiled, ruined, or treated with savagery. My thought on it are simple, it needs clear definition, with a distinct end time. Example: 3 years or 3 appeals, whatever comes first. In rare instances, if they can prove they are very close to actually proving innocence, then an extension may be granted. But 20+ years and thousands (millions?) of dollars on keeping evil alive seems ludicrous and counterproductive. I also believe that those who commit intentional crimes against common folks (especially to whom they have no acquaintance) should be dealt with in a heavy manner that sends a clear message to other criminals, and greatly reduces the offender desire to repeat. Make it so “not worth it” that the inclination to commit is greatly reduced. – On the other hand (to get back on topic), those that are released back in to society should have 100% of their rights restored and be treated as if they were any other “good citizen”. It is at THIS point that the “humanitarian efforts” should be applied; in helping them get a job, get back on their feet, and given positive reinforcement on what it means to be a “good citizen” and refrain from being a monster, a creature of mayhem, or a detriment to society and the citizenry. The more we coddle our criminals and accept them, the more criminals we shall have among us… and only ourselves to blame for not having the balls to simply wipe them from our existence and be done with them.

Yes, Bats a hard a$$ :dude:

 

[mikeyb]

Thank you for the rational, well thought out and thought provoking responses. It's refreshing. +1

I doubt we will agree on this topic. (or maybe you do yet are still playing devils advocate which is totally cool!)

As our system is now, I don't think we agree (and that's ok to agree to disagree). IF we have improved prisons, IF we overhaul the judicial system - redefining violent crimes/felonies/crimes against nature, eliminate "bargaining", we would probably agree.

It makes sense that once the "debt" is paid, you should have your rights back. I would agree to that. I think that our system forgives too much criminal debt as it currently is, and that's the problem.

Inmates on death row don't mingle with gen pop, they barely mingle with each other.

It costs so much and takes so long because of appeals. Are you going to deny them their right to an appeal?

I think appeals should be limited, either by number or timeframe, whichever ends first. Getting off because of an error of procedure or technicality instead of evidence is preposterous. Mitchell Rupe was deemed too fat to hang, so he got a few more years.

 

[Primus]

As our system is now, I don't think we agree (and that's ok to agree to disagree). IF we have improved prisons, IF we overhaul the judicial system - redefining violent crimes/felonies/crimes against nature, eliminate "bargaining", we would probably agree.

It makes sense that once the "debt" is paid, you should have your rights back. I would agree to that. I think that our system forgives too much criminal debt as it currently is, and that's the problem.



I think appeals should be limited, either by number or timeframe, whichever ends first. Getting off because of an error of procedure or technicality instead of evidence is preposterous. Mitchell Rupe was deemed too fat to hang, so he got a few more years.

Well said. +1 on both counts.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Most folks who get nabbed by the cops deserve the convictions they earn.

There is very little "justice" in out justice system.

 

[Batousaii]

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.

So, Use proper due process to prove guilt, as it should be. Modern technology makes this much more possible than in years past, especially when compared to Blackstone’s time. This philosophy is good where guilt is questionable, like a circumstantial situation where the crime may have actually been committed by someone else, offender was forced through coercion etc. but in many many instances, guilt is known and easily proven in court as the offender was caught red-handed. Intent linked with action can commonly be shown, where no excuse to have committed a crime exists, and no doubt to the parties lack of innocence exists, especially in repeat offenders.

Modern times, it seems, applies this philosophy to the guilty themselves, that no one should suffer (Save for the victims of the savages). I do not belive this was the original intent.

Lastly, I believe there were far less laws in Blackstone’s times, and that it was much harder to actually become a criminal, and that criminals once found provably guilty were dealt with swiftly and justice served, restoring some honor for the victims. Hangings and Gallows, if I recall, were a bit more prevalent then than they are now.... Nowadays, we let them lift weights and concern about the quality of their foods, if they are getting enough calories, protiens and vegetables, have smoke breaks etc. We seem to take better care of them than our own school children.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

As our system is now, I don't think we agree (and that's ok to agree to disagree). IF we have improved prisons, IF we overhaul the judicial system - redefining violent crimes/felonies/crimes against nature, eliminate "bargaining", we would probably agree.

It makes sense that once the "debt" is paid, you should have your rights back. I would agree to that. I think that our system forgives too much criminal debt as it currently is, and that's the problem.



I think appeals should be limited, either by number or timeframe, whichever ends first. Getting off because of an error of procedure or technicality instead of evidence is preposterous. Mitchell Rupe was deemed too fat to hang, so he got a few more years.

remember though, Mitchell Rupe's first death sentence was reversed because the thurston prosecutor showed pictures of Rupes gun collection and the WA supreme court ruled that previous exercise of a constitutional right could not be used to scare the jury into convicting, was that a procedural technicality? I see it as a good application of law.

 

[mikeyb]

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.

Bravo on quoting Wiki w/o credit.

That principle is exactly why we have a judicial process (however perverted today). The system is to hold innocence above all else, and there had better be convincing and damning evidence to the contrary. Today, not so much. Just being arrested- no, just being implicated- proves guilt in the world today, sadly.

 

[mikeyb]

remember though, Mitchell Rupe's first death sentence was reversed because the thurston prosecutor showed pictures of Rupes gun collection and the WA supreme court ruled that previous exercise of a constitutional right could not be used to scare the jury into convicting, was that a procedural technicality? I see it as a good application of law.

Well, I wasn't on the jury, so this is academic...

Sure, exercising a right doesn't mean it's wrong. However, Rupe's charge was murdering two people and armed robbery, which was upheld. The court just wanted to ensure that being a "gun nut" didn't sway the punishment to be more severe than necessary.

 

[Freedom1Man]

So, Use proper due process to prove guilt, as it should be. Modern technology makes this much more possible than in years past, especially when compared to Blackstone’s time. This philosophy is good where guilt is questionable, like a circumstantial situation where the crime may have actually been committed by someone else, offender was forced through coercion etc. but in many many instances, guilt is known and easily proven in court as the offender was caught red-handed. Intent linked with action can commonly be shown, where no excuse to have committed a crime exists, and no doubt to the parties lack of innocence exists, especially in repeat offenders.

Modern times, it seems, applies this philosophy to the guilty themselves, that no one should suffer (Save for the victims of the savages). I do not belive this was the original intent.

Lastly, I believe there were far less laws in Blackstone’s times, and that it was much harder to actually become a criminal, and that criminals once found provably guilty were dealt with swiftly and justice served, restoring some honor for the victims. Hangings and Gallows, if I recall, were a bit more prevalent then than they are now.... Nowadays, we let them lift weights and concern about the quality of their foods, if they are getting enough calories, protiens and vegetables, have smoke breaks etc. We seem to take better care of them than our own school children.

They can manufacture 'evidence' to show anything they want. They can also hide evidence that they've got, 'the wrong man,' so they will lock up any one and everyone.

Prosecutors get reward by the number of convictions/confessions they get. They care not about justice but about receiving the next bonus.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/b.../?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18
"You can just engineer a crime scene," Nucleix founder Dan Frumkin told The New York Times. "The current forensic procedure fails to distinguish between such samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces with artificial DNA, and corresponding samples with in vivo generated (natural) DNA," Frumkin and co-authors wrote in a recent Forensic Science International: Genetics study that announced the technological achievement.

 

[rushcreek2]

The convicted felons that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to bear arms are not asking anyone for permission to do so.

Nuff said.........on the subject...I think.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The convicted felons that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to bear arms are not asking anyone for permission to do so.

Nuff said.........on the subject...I think.

+1

I assume every person I meet is armed. Including those some would prejudge as "criminals".

 

[sudden valley gunner]

As our system is now, I don't think we agree (and that's ok to agree to disagree). IF we have improved prisons, IF we overhaul the judicial system - redefining violent crimes/felonies/crimes against nature, eliminate "bargaining", we would probably agree.

It makes sense that once the "debt" is paid, you should have your rights back. I would agree to that. I think that our system forgives too much criminal debt as it currently is, and that's the problem.
.

Is/ought/was often muddles conversations and is one of the hardest hurdles to restoring constitutional liberty. +1 to you sir!

Part of that forgiveness comes from the fact that the victims are not compensated. Why my comments earlier.