[Priest]

State Law? I thought the prohibition for felon's possession was a federal issue...

The feds have a law, and the state has a law. They can both prosecute seperately.

OMG! anic:

The Feds need to sue the States for having an overlapping law NOW ala Arizona

 

[gunsmoker]

There are plenty of FELONY crimes that are both non-violent and do not involve sex offenses against another human being (or animal, for that matter) !!

How about copying a CD or DVD and selling it to your friend just for the cost of the blank disk?

How about dumping a cut-up dead tree in the woods, if the woods don't belong to you? Littering over a couple hundred pounds is a felony. Even all-natural, biodegradable stuff like a dead tree.

How about having a hidden compartment in your motor vehicle, with intent to make use of it at some point in the future to carry contraband?

How about making a false statement to any government officer, agent, agency, etc?

How about simple possession of counterfeit money-- Let's say a single $20 bill-- even if the bill looked good and you said you didn't know they were forgeries, but the State said you did know and the jury convicted you anyway?

 

[phantoms]

The way I see it, if they are unwilling to restore your rights upon release, then they haven't held you long enough. Your punishment was determined at sentencing. Why should you continue to be punished for life after you have served the time they set forth for you? Being on probation or parole is no different than still being in prison and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about once your entire sentence is served, you have paid your debt to society and your rights should be restored. If they feel that restoring your rights at that time is not good, then they should have sentenced you to a longer prison term.

 

[rankhornjp]

too many things are felonies! Felonies should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes.......

but when a person is released He/She should have ALL of their rights restored.

 

[ookoshi]

The way I see it, if they are unwilling to restore your rights upon release, then they haven't held you long enough. Your punishment was determined at sentencing. Why should you continue to be punished for life after you have served the time they set forth for you? Being on probation or parole is no different than still being in prison and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about once your entire sentence is served, you have paid your debt to society and your rights should be restored. If they feel that restoring your rights at that time is not good, then they should have sentenced you to a longer prison term.

Your punishment was determined at sentencing. The judge who sentenced you knows full well that when you get released from prison certain rights would not be restored. If he wanted you to get your rights restored when you are released, there are plenty of first offender, pre-trial diversion, and other ways that restore your rights when your punishment is complete. I really don't understand why punishment has to be all or nothing. I would prefer the punishment fit the crime.

 

[EJR914]

If he is not in jail/prison he should have all the rights granted to other persons.

I disagree. I think once you commit a crime that is heinous enough to be a felony, the judicidial system should have the right to restore those rights in whatever manner they see fit. It's ridiculous to for us to be forced to keep someone in jail if we don't want it to be legal for someone who has been convicted of kidnapping from owning a gun.

Do you really think that a violent criminal cares about the law? If they want to commit a violent crime and use a gun to do it, a law is not going to stop them from carrying a gun.

On the other hand, a non-violent person isn't likely to use a gun in a violent crime, so why ban them for life for protecting themselves against a violent criminal?

Should their life now be worth less than that of a person who has never commited a non-violent felony?

If you steal music off the internet (which is a felony) you believe that they should be banned the right to protect themselves from a violent criminal? Really?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

possession of too-short lobster tails

 

[Mike from Philly]

There are some relatively common tropical fish that are on the UN's endangered list which possession of is a felony.

Of course, we have dangerous felons like this lady. Good thing she is unarmed:

 

[ookoshi]

If he is not in jail/prison he should have all the rights granted to other persons.

I disagree. I think once you commit a crime that is heinous enough to be a felony, the judicidial system should have the right to restore those rights in whatever manner they see fit. It's ridiculous to for us to be forced to keep someone in jail if we don't want it to be legal for someone who has been convicted of kidnapping from owning a gun.

Do you really think that a violent criminal cares about the law? If they want to commit a violent crime and use a gun to do it, a law is not going to stop them from carrying a gun.

On the other hand, a non-violent person isn't likely to use a gun in a violent crime, so why ban them for life for protecting themselves against a violent criminal?

Should their life now be worth less than that of a person who has never commited a non-violent felony?

If you steal music off the internet (which is a felony) you believe that they should be banned the right to protect themselves from a violent criminal? Really?

No, I believe that those things shouldn't be felonies.

 

[MrMorden]

If they can simply declare that a class of person does not have a constitutional right, they can declare that for *anyone*. Just food for thought...

 

[ookoshi]

If they can simply declare that a class of person does not have a constitutional right, they can declare that for *anyone*. Just food for thought...

Then we should get rid of prisons, because no one in a prison has many of our god-given/constitutional/whatever-semantics-you-want-to-use rights. We can't just kill them either, because killing them denies them their rights too.

No, the point at which you commit a crime that infringes on the rights of others, society absolutely has a right to deny you your rights. To hold everyone's right as absolute is to promote anarchy.

 

[MrMorden]

If they can simply declare that a class of person does not have a constitutional right, they can declare that for *anyone*. Just food for thought...

Then we should get rid of prisons, because no one in a prison has many of our god-given/constitutional/whatever-semantics-you-want-to-use rights. We can't just kill them either, because killing them denies them their rights too.

No, the point at which you commit a crime that infringes on the rights of others, society absolutely has a right to deny you your rights. To hold everyone's right as absolute is to promote anarchy.

We're not talking about punishment for a crime here. We're talking about loss of a constitutional right permanently AFTER the punishment (incarceration, etc) is over. If that's okay, then why do we only do that for the 2nd Amendment? Why don't they lose their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?

You can play this "but their criminals!" game all you want, but look in the Constitution and tell me where it says these rights apply to all but convicted felons. You can't, because it's not there and the founders never intended such a thing. Once you have served your time your rights should be restored. ALL of them.

To hold all people's rights as relative is to promote a complete lack of the rule of law.

 

[MrMorden]

If they can simply declare that a class of person does not have a constitutional right, they can declare that for *anyone*. Just food for thought...

Then we should get rid of prisons, because no one in a prison has many of our god-given/constitutional/whatever-semantics-you-want-to-use rights. We can't just kill them either, because killing them denies them their rights too.

No, the point at which you commit a crime that infringes on the rights of others, society absolutely has a right to deny you your rights. To hold everyone's right as absolute is to promote anarchy.

We're not talking about punishment for a crime here. We're talking about loss of a constitutional right permanently AFTER the punishment (incarceration, etc) is over. If that's okay, then why do we only do that for the 2nd Amendment? Why don't they lose their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?

You can play this "but they're criminals!" game all you want, but look in the Constitution and tell me where it says these rights apply to all but convicted felons. You can't, because it's not there and the founders never intended such a thing. Once you have served your time your rights should be restored. ALL of them.

To hold all people's rights as relative is to promote a complete lack of the rule of law.

 

[ookoshi]

We're not talking about punishment for a crime here. We're talking about loss of a constitutional right permanently AFTER the punishment (incarceration, etc) is over. If that's okay, then why do we only do that for the 2nd Amendment? Why don't they lose their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?

They also lose the right to vote, which is fundamental to keeping all those other rights you mentioned, so the actual effect runs much deeper. But why is jail the only acceptable punishment for a crime? The loss of that right after JAIL is PART of the punishment when you were sentenced. Jail and Punishment cannot be used interchangeably. There are other punishments outside of jail.

If we can deny a person ALL of their rights by throwing them in jail, or even killing them, why can we not instead choose to deny them part of their rights as punishment for a crime? Why does it have to be all or nothing? No one has put forth any reason why jail or the death penalty are the only acceptable punishments, that other punishments, like loss of only your 2A rights, cannot be prescribed in addition to or instead of jail.

I'm not asking whether it's an effective punishment, only rather whether a society has a right to institute that punishment. In my view, if we're allowed to take away all of a criminal's rights, we have the right to take away less than all of them.

 

[MrMorden]

We're not talking about punishment for a crime here. We're talking about loss of a constitutional right permanently AFTER the punishment (incarceration, etc) is over. If that's okay, then why do we only do that for the 2nd Amendment? Why don't they lose their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?

They also lose the right to vote, which is fundamental to keeping all those other rights you mentioned, so the actual effect runs much deeper. But why is jail the only acceptable punishment for a crime? The loss of that right after JAIL is PART of the punishment when you were sentenced. Jail and Punishment cannot be used interchangeably. There are other punishments outside of jail.

If we can deny a person ALL of their rights by throwing them in jail, or even killing them, why can we not instead choose to deny them part of their rights as punishment for a crime? Why does it have to be all or nothing? No one has put forth any reason why jail or the death penalty are the only acceptable punishments, that other punishments, like loss of only your 2A rights, cannot be prescribed in addition to or instead of jail.

I'm not asking whether it's an effective punishment, only rather whether a society has a right to institute that punishment. In my view, if we're allowed to take away all of a criminal's rights, we have the right to take away less than all of them.

You're talking about taking away rights during punishment for a crime and permanently as the same thing. Would it be reasonable to throw every felon in jail for life? If not, then why is any other permanent loss of rights, after serving their sentence, reasonable? You are setting up a permanent underclass of people who, no matte how they turn their lives around, can NEVER have the same rights as other citizens.

Your voting example is BS, there is no right to vote in federal elections in the US Constitution. Sorry, this is simply not the way our system was originally designed, and it's a perversion of justice.

 

[MrMorden]

We're not talking about punishment for a crime here. We're talking about loss of a constitutional right permanently AFTER the punishment (incarceration, etc) is over. If that's okay, then why do we only do that for the 2nd Amendment? Why don't they lose their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?

They also lose the right to vote, which is fundamental to keeping all those other rights you mentioned, so the actual effect runs much deeper. But why is jail the only acceptable punishment for a crime? The loss of that right after JAIL is PART of the punishment when you were sentenced. Jail and Punishment cannot be used interchangeably. There are other punishments outside of jail.

If we can deny a person ALL of their rights by throwing them in jail, or even killing them, why can we not instead choose to deny them part of their rights as punishment for a crime? Why does it have to be all or nothing? No one has put forth any reason why jail or the death penalty are the only acceptable punishments, that other punishments, like loss of only your 2A rights, cannot be prescribed in addition to or instead of jail.

I'm not asking whether it's an effective punishment, only rather whether a society has a right to institute that punishment. In my view, if we're allowed to take away all of a criminal's rights, we have the right to take away less than all of them.

You're talking about taking away rights during punishment for a crime and permanently as the same thing. Would it be reasonable to throw every felon in jail for life? If not, then why is any other permanent loss of rights, after serving their sentence, reasonable? You are setting up a permanent underclass of people who, no matte how they turn their lives around, can NEVER have the same rights as other citizens.

Your voting example is BS, there is no right to vote in federal elections in the US Constitution. Sorry, this is simply not the way our system was originally designed, and it's a perversion of justice. How about we punish people for what they HAVE done, not what they MIGHT do?

 

[ookoshi]

You're talking about taking away rights during punishment for a crime and permanently as the same thing.

We put people in jail for life for some crimes, we've already established that society has a right to take away rights "permanently."

Would it be reasonable to throw every felon in jail for life? If not, then why is any other permanent loss of rights, after serving their sentence, reasonable?

Your logic is sort of backwards here. What does a harsher punishment (taking away all of someone's rights) have to do with whether a less harsh punishment (taking away some of someone's rights) is reasonable or not? They're not the same.

There are definitely offenses, that may not deserve life in prison, but I would be OK with suspending their 2nd amendment rights for life as part of their punishment. Not all things currently felonies, but certainly some of them.

You are setting up a permanent underclass of people who, no matte how they turn their lives around, can NEVER have the same rights as other citizens.

And no matter how a murderer or rapist turns their life around, those convicted of life sentences without parole can NEVER have the same rights as other citizens either, what's your point? If people who knowing commit felonies, especially violent ones, lose their 2nd amendment rights for life, they knew what the stakes were before they undertook their illegal behavior.

Your voting example is BS, there is no right to vote in federal elections in the US Constitution. Sorry, this is simply not the way our system was originally designed, and it's a perversion of justice. How about we punish people for what they HAVE done, not what they MIGHT do?

We are, those people HAVE committed crimes.

 

[GAGunOwner]

They also lose the right to vote, which is fundamental to keeping all those other rights you mentioned, so the actual effect runs much deeper.

There is not a blanket law saying that felons cannot vote. It varies greatly from state to state.

 

[GAGunOwner]

At the very least non-violent felons that have completed their sentence, probation/parole, and reimbursement to the victims should have their 2nd amendment rights fully restored.

 

[gunsmoker]

I agree that when a person has fully served their sentence and is no longer in custody, on parole, or on probation, they should have all their civil rights restored. I would add, this is what I'd like to see (not the law the way it exists today):

When you're done with the criminal justice system, you automatically get ALL your rights back, UNLESS there is a special court finding that they still present a danger to the public and therefore have to lose certain rights for the good of society. The right(s) that the Court finds you cannot have in the future must be specifically mentioned. And you can only lose those rights for a limited duration, say 10 years, after which the State must move to have another such hearing or you will automatically get your rights back.

Those special court findings would have to be based on compelling evidence, part of which must be particularized to the individual's history, attitude, aptitude, career, family status, etc. The Court's ruling must not be based only on generalities and statistics about other people convicted of "those kind" of crimes.
And there should be a hard cap on the number of people who are subject to post-sentence loss of rights. It should be a number, set at the beginning of each year, not to exceed 10% of the people sentenced to prison in that judicial circuit (one or more Georgia counties) in the prior year.