Should a felon's right to bear arms be taken away?

Should a felon's right to bear arms be taken away? Is this law unconstitutional?

I believe you should still be able to buy a firearm as long as you weren't convicted of a violent crime, or commited a crime with a firearm.

(At least) In California, convicted felons are not allowed to purchase bullet proof vests. I see where the idea stems from, but is this law morally just?

EDIT: Can a mod move this to the social issues forum? Didnt see it on the home page when looking for a category to put this.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Jvillezbank]

I believe they should be allowed to purchase and own firearms so long as the crime they commit wasn't violent, Time served in prison should aside from his record, whip the slate clean as far as rights.

All felonies are not created equal.

And truely folks, it isn't that hard to become one in this country!

When a felon has done his time and is out of the legal system it would seem his original rights as an american citizen should be restored.

Where there is a history of violence concerned then there should be another set of rules or when the crime was a victim crime where firearms were used.

I think we can all agree that depends on the type of crime committed. I don't think someone should be banned from buying weapons because he/she was charged with fraud or some non violent crime.

posted by NuclearHead
I think we all agree that depends on the type of crime committed. I don't think someone should be banned from buying weapons because he/she was charged with fraud or some non violent crime. [Edited by Don W]

In Ky, and probably many other states, after a person has accumulated five years post-parole or post-serving out his sentnece, without further criminal charges or pending charges, then on application the felon's civil rights are routinely restored.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by donwhite]

If the crime committed was not violent, than they should not have it altered in any way.


If they committed a violent crime, than if they are deemed to have a psychological disorder
that makes them owning a weapon dangerous, than they should not be allowed to get one again,
however if they do not have a disorder, and have done there time, than it should be returned
six years after there parole is over.

If the felony was violent, no.

If the felony was non-violent, maybe. It should not simply be restored because the time was served. They should be given a psychological exam, Have spent several years crime free and be a very productive member of society.

If they are living in a trailer park and collecting aluminum cans for a living, I don't care how long they have been out, they don't get to own a gun.

Simply having a felony should not bar someone from owning a gun. That does not change the fact they lost that right when they got the felony. They should have to prove beyond any doubt that they deserve to have that right back. Make them jump thru hoops, lots of hoops.

Just my thoughts on it,

Law of the Land

"All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. madison (1803)

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
2nd ammendment

I understand how many want to say "only the violent felon's should lose the right," but who are we to choose when the ammendment clearly states, "....shall not be infringed."

I am surprised anyone would even seriously debate the question.

The British approach is that to bare arms is a privilege, not a right. In New Zealand one has to earn the "right" to own a firearms licence from the Police before one can ever purchase a gun. In NZ if one is ever convicted of a serious crime or is involved in domestic violence, one has practically forfeited any hope of ever owning a gun.

I think the US system could be tweaked to require all owners of firearms to hold a license first and for there to be certain qualifications to obtaining that license.

For example the Constitution really talks about the right to bare arms in respect to the right to form militias. Why then does the US Government NOT require all militias to become registered organisations and require all gun owners to become registered members of militias ?

This could be introduced by way of a constitutional ammendment. I don't see how or whay anybody would seriously argue that a felon has the same rights as a law abiding citizen ?

Can convicted felons vote in USA ?

The Government should have specific powers to wind up militias which have criminal associations.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

If you can be banned from driving if you rack up too many serious offenses, then why not remove the right to bear arms if you have seriously abused that right by committing gun-related crimes?

Mind you, in the States, it's a right to bear arms, but driving is a privilege. How peculiar.

We had guns before we had cars. lol

Having work in the firearms industry for several years I would agree that lots of folks who buy firearms need some serious schooling in their care and use luckily most of them end up locked in closet or sometheng and never get used.

I am firm believer in the Second Amemendment.I do favor background checks.

If your in favor of Felons getting their firearms rights back are you also in favor of misdemeanor domestic violence offenders getting their firearms rights back also.Under pressent law misdemeanor domestic violence offenses are a disqualification from purchase. Consider domestic violence under some statutes could be yelling at your brother sister wife or SO, with no physical contact involved.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
I think the US system could be tweaked to require all owners of firearms to hold a license first and for there to be certain qualifications to obtaining that license.

This would go against the reasoning behind the amendment in the first place, the amendment was created so that in the event a tyrannical government takes power, the People would have the means to oust it by force, By giving the Government a list of who has the tools to oust it, and by giving them the power to decide who can and cannot own a weapon, as it is the laws regarding such things currently are arguably unconstitutional as it is but are tolerated, but doing so you are potentially endangering the People

For example the Constitution really talks about the right to bare arms in respect to the right to form militias. Why then does the US Government NOT require all militias to become registered organisations and require all gun owners to become registered members of militias ?

If your interested, Read the Federalist Papers regarding what our Second Amendment is for and what it means to the People.

Our founders make it very clear what the second amendment is for, and who it applies to, But for some reason people still argue about its meaning, even though our founders have explained it in full in the Federalist Papers.


[edit on 3-6-2007 by C0le]

The US Constitution, although one of the finest works of literature in the English speaking world, is not itself a “law of the land” so that anyone can say what it means in any circumstance or under all conditions. That lofty job is one for the courts. The laws of the United States are found in about 15 hardbound volumes covering everything of, about or related to the United States of America and called the United States Code.

But even the laws cannot always cover all the aspects of running a large and highly complex government, so we have administrative rules and regulations telling us how to do it. An administrative regulation has the force of law, that is, it will tell the Federal employees what and how to do his or her job carrying out the laws found in the United States Code. Administrative regulations are found in over 30 volumes of the Federal Registry. Finally, ever since the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, the US Supreme Court has asserted it is the SOLE and FINAL authority on what the Constitution “MEANS” by what it says. That means you have to look to what the Court says the Constitution means in any particular application.

As one judge put it, “The law means what we say it means.” Which in our way of life, is true, even if we don’t like to admit it. Americans have for the most part, accepted that as a necessity of life.

Read the first part of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” For convenience this is divided into the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause.” The Supreme Court said the “establishment” clause prohibited ex Judge Roy Moore from installing a 3 ton granite monument bearing the 10 Commandments from the KJV Bible, in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building. So out it goes. And Judge Moore was out too, for failure to obey the Supreme Court.

A few years ago a Native American decided he would revert to the religion of his ancestors which included a ritual in which he would smoke peyote which contains mescaline. Against the state law in which this event took place, he was arrested. He pled “First Amendment.” In the case that followed, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court held that laws prohibiting the use of peyote that do not specifically exempt religious use nevertheless do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, the First Amendment does not give license to violate a general law of the particular state.

Conclusion. The Supreme Court has never held the 2nd Amendment is to be taken literally and that anyone who can read has the right or authority to say what it means in any particular instance. There are 100s of laws restricting or regulating the ownership, use and possession of firearms all of which are Constitutional.

Historical Foot Note. The District of Columbia had been established as the seat of government for the United States. Congress empowered the president to designate a Commissioner to head the local government. John Adams lost the presidency to Thomas Jefferson in the bitterly fought 1800 election. After the November 1800 election but before the March 1801 inauguration of Jefferson, Adams appointed Marbury to be Commissioner of DC. Due to the confusion of changing administrations from Federalist to the new Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson, the warrant or document of appointment of Marbury was not signed by the Federalist Secretary of State.

After the dust settled, Marbury took up his new office and came to James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, to pick up his paperwork. When Madison discovered the document had not been signed, he refused to sign it. Jefferson and Madison took the position the appointment had not been completed, therefore, it was invalid and they could appoint their own choice for Commissioner. Marbury sued Madison for a court order to Madison to sign the document and deliver it to him.

In his opinion, the Chief Justice John Marshall, (the 3rd or 4th depending on how you count) ruled that signing a document was merely a perfunctory act and was not substantive as when the appointment was actually declared by the appointing authority. The Court thereby asserted it had the implied authority to review acts of both the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch for conformity with the Constitution. Although Jefferson hated Marshall - also a post election appointee but confirmed by the out-going Senate - he nevertheless accepted the decision, had Madison sign the warrant and Marbury served out his 4 year term as Commissioner of the District of Columbia. This is the fundamental case standing for the right of judicial review of laws and acts of the government. Although not in the Constitution, Americans have accepted this decision for more than 200 years, if you overlook Andrew Jackson, the Georgia Gold Rush, and the Cherokee Indians.

[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]

Donwhite,
great reply and thanks for all the facts surrounding that. You response echos my issue with or current legal state though. You have a handful of laws that over the course of time now fills volumes with ammendments and clauses. So many that you have to have a special lawyers for civil matters, financial, violent and religious. With each new law, I feel we are stepping further away from the lifestyle sought by our founding fathers. New laws for new tech does not bother me, unless it conflicts with the consitution. (phone tapping)

This is a tough issue though. You mention Peyote early in a case in 90. In 1993 the religous freedom restoration act paved the way for religous use of peyote. So here we have a act supporting or clarifing are rights. Many will argue that this act is not much different than a felon not being able to bear arms.

Long story short, I fear I won't be able to wipe my arse without a permit if law makers coutinue this path.

I would say no, regardless of the type of infraction. Here's why.

We have a serious problem with prisons and the situation in the justice system where the vast majority of prisoners fail to be forced to serve the life of their sentence. That is something that should be remedied before considering anything else.

However, once served, said person has "paid" for the crime in which they have committed and should have no other adverse effects be placed upon them after release.

posted by who knew

Your response echos my issue with our current legal state though. You have a handful of laws that over the course of time now fills volumes with amendments and clauses. With each new law, I feel we are stepping further away from the lifestyle sought by our founding fathers. New laws for new tech does not bother me, unless it conflicts with the constitution. (phone tapping) . . Long story short, I fear I won't be able to wipe my arse without a permit if law makers continue this path. [Edited by Don W]

I think I know what you’re saying. I don’t think it is possible to stop change or progress or whatever you call it. Keep in mind we had 3 million people in the first (1790) census and over 300 million in the last census. Also it is worth recalling we had 13 new states and the Mississippi River was our western boundary. Recall the 1780 Northwest Ordinance covered the yet to be states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota. That was our “northwest.” Various Indian tribes were still in possession of what is now the states of Mississippi and Alabama and most of Geogia. Florida belonged to Spain. And etc. There is nothing we can do, IMO, but learn to like it.

You mentioned an interesting issue “ . . phone tapping . . “ which I understand you know is not mentioned in the Constitution, except obliquely in the 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon PROBABLE CAUSE supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers or things to be seized.” (My emphasis.)

The much talked about 1973 Roe v. Wade case based its decision on abortions on a Right of Privacy the court found is in the Constitution and its amendments. In short, it says a person has a right of privacy, which means the government cannot interfere with the person except for a compelling state interest. Obviously the next question is, what is a “compelling state interest?”

This is a tough issue though. You mention Peyote early in a case in 90. In 1993 the religious freedom restoration act paved the way for religious use of peyote. So here we have a act supporting or claiming are rights.

Well, the last enactment or decision rules the day. Congress can overrule the Supreme Court although that is very rare. Problem here is I don’t know what the 1993 Act includes. We can’t just go by the title of the law. There are many religious freedoms and maybe the law restores all of them except the right to smoke peyote or maybe the 1993 law says it is subject to state laws.

Without knowing if the 1993 law said something specific about smoking peyote, it would be hard to say if that law has any effect on the 1990 case and whether it is still the “law of the land.”

[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]

I don't agree that because our borders shifted and our population skyrocketed has any bearing on our freedoms. Yes times will change and new tech, ways of travel etc will arrise. Laws must be enacted to support these subjects. However they should not contradict or infringe upon or freedoms.

As for the religous freedom act states that congress can not pass a law that will burden one's religious believes. It really doesn't need to go much further than that.

posted by who knew
I don't agree that because our borders shifted and our population skyrocketed has any bearing on our freedoms. Yes times will change and new tech, ways of travel etc will arise. Laws must be enacted to support these subjects. However they should not contradict or infringe upon our freedoms.

Would that it were so, but that is not the way life progresses. Consider the stock market, the NYSE as measured by the DJIA. New York Stock Exchange and Dow Jones Industrial Avenge. The DJ Co. also owns the Wall Street Journal. Rupert Murdoch is trying to buy it. Ugh! A joey turned Joseph Goebbels 2. That’s not good. Stock markets are as old as the Phoenicians, the Greeks and Romans. Ship owners would sell shares in an upcoming voyage and on its return, divide the profits with the investors. OTOH, if the ship sank, not an uncommon occurrence, the investors lost their money but the shipowner had money for a new ship.

The single greatest and most significant accomplishment of American industry in the 19th century was the construction of the trans-continental railroad. Launched in Washington by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and finished in Utah under U.S. Grant in 1869. A mix of private and public enterprise not exceeded until the Panama Canal of the early 20th century.

The privately constructed historic railroad depended not only on Federal land grants for its large profits, but it needed large sums of cash more immediately to pay for labor and materials, the cash to be raised in stock markets around the country; San Francisco, Chicago, New York City and elsewhere. Trouble was, just two rules applied in 19th century stock markets - laissez faire - hands off - and caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. ISO’s, Initial Stock Offerings, were expected to exaggerate but many if not most outright lied. The phrase, “blue sky” came into existence to say the “blue sky” is the limit, that is to say, there is no limit on what the sellers will say or claim. Insider trading was the norm, not the illegal act it is today as Martha Stewart will tell you. In the 19th century stock markets, there were no laws - other than the standard laws against theft and fraud - regulating the selling of stocks and bonds. “You pays your money you takes your chances.”

In 1934, the Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC - was set up to bring regularity and trust to the market. Today there are 100s if not 1000s of rules to follow, forms to file and standards that must be carefully adhered to or the threat of jail can be real.

So what is freedom worth? To the seller. To the buyer.

As for the religious freedom act states that congress can not pass a law that will burden one's religious beliefs. It really doesn't need to go much further than that. [Edited by Don W]

Well W/K, I don’t know about that. Sounds OK but it has a couple soft spots. “Burden” is a very elusive and vague word. It covers many circumstances. What one man might regard as a burden another man might see it as an opportunity. If a law is so vague that ordinary people cannot know what is allowed and what is not, it can be held unconstitutional for vagueness because it cannot be fairly enforced.

“Religious beliefs” is also ambiguous as is evidenced by the issuance of more than 11,000 IRS 501(c)(3) registrations for charitable (including religious) organizations. This designation is necessary so donors can claim a deduction for their gift on their tax returns. My point is that there are at least 11,000 different ways to view “religious belief” in America. That makes it too vague, too ambiguous to be enforced.

Unless there is more detail in the 1993 law, it sounds like it should have been a Joint Resolution or expression of Congressional sentiment and not designated as a law.

[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Well W/K, I don’t know about that. Sounds OK but it has a couple soft spots. “Burden” is a very elusive and vague word. It covers many circumstances. What one man might regard as a burden another man might see it as an opportunity. If a law is so vague that ordinary people cannot know what is allowed and what is not, it can be held unconstitutional for vagueness because it cannot be fairly enforced.

“Religious beliefs” is also ambiguous as is evidenced by the issuance of more than 11,000 IRS 501(c)(3) registrations for charitable (including religious) organizations. This designation is necessary so donors can claim a deduction for their gift on their tax returns. My point is that there are at least 11,000 different ways to view “religious belief” in America. That makes it too vague, too ambiguous to be enforced.


[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]

The term burden was used 7 times in the religious freedom act. The point you are making to me is simply that this subject is to grey. It would be hard to enforce. With that in mind it shouldn't be. Vague equals reasonable doubt. So long as it is a non-violent, no victim event, leave them alone.

Congress can overrule the Supreme Court although that is very rare.

Please show me where Congress has ever overruled the Supreme Court...

Congress can and has before enacted laws that side step the rulings of the court, but congress has no authority what so ever over the Supreme Court..

As bad as the recent issues with Judges legislating from the bench, even more heinous are elected officials thinking they have power over the courts...

The separation of the three government entities is the principled foundation of this government. That we have had judges that legislate is a sad state of affairs in that they, like some posters, consider their OPINION to be the end all and absolute. As do many elected officials...

The recidivism rate is what argues that felons lose their rights to firearms. Sadly felons do not routinely "do their time" and then enter society. Routinely they find themselves outcasts and not able to completely integrate back and resort again to crime. Having experienced the "inside" they are most often determined to not return to the "lock up" and so add or continue violence in efforts to ensure they do not again get caught...

All this is moot however in many ways. Not the least of which is the simple and unavoidable fact that we are discussing criminals. Why would they pay any more attention to the law that prohibits possession of a firearm then they did to whatever laws they violated originally?

Semper