5
5
0
I am of the mind that the 2A is not so much about Firearms as it is about our Right to be able to defend our selves in the most efficent manner possible. That being said does a person who has been released not have the same need for defense as the next?
I don't want to start a pissin match here but I don't really care if they committed murder with a bazooka if they are deemed "safe" to let out they NEED to be allowed to defend them selves.
If they can't be trusted with that responsibility then we have no reason letting them out IMHO.
I don't want to start a pissin match here but I don't really care if they committed murder with a bazooka if they are deemed "safe" to let out they NEED to be allowed to defend them selves.
If they can't be trusted with that responsibility then we have no reason letting them out IMHO.
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Crime
2nd Amendment Crime
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 24
10
10
0
In my time of being in law enforcement, many studies were done in criminal behavior and the end result was that approximately 80-85% of convicted felons were back in jail within 2 years of release. Maybe a considerable wait time (say 5 to 10 yrs) for non-volient crimes may be somewhat justified, but on violent offenders I would say never let them have a firearm, just asking for trouble.
(10)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
SFC Collin McMillion 80-85% Recidivism indicates a systemic failure IMHO. I assume you will concede to the fact that the law is unable to stop the real criminals from obtaining Firearms post conviction? So if the blanket ban is not fulfilling the mission parameters why not adjust them? Especially if said parameters are damaging to those who have made a mistake and learned from it.
(0)
(0)
SFC Collin McMillion
That is a tough question to answer, and since I can only offer my opinion, I will try. There is no way to keep anyone who wishes to have a firearm from getting one, true, but that person will have been told and know the penalty for possession of a weapon, so this may serve as a detergent in some cases, which I would think would save a few people. Is that few not worth something as opposed to letting a violent felon legally carry a weapon considering the fact that the percentage of repeat offenders is so high? Example; If you have an obese child who eats too many sweets you know they can always get more, but would you put some on their nightstand in hopes that they would not eat them? Just asking, not arguing.
(2)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
Not really the same thing SFC McMillion We are not talking about kids and sweets and the analogy is not a very good one IMHO. But you didn't answer my questions? I specifically referred to the fact that a blanket ban seams to do more harm than good. Also it would appear that it is only a feel good measure in that it is clearly ineffectual.
(0)
(0)
SFC Collin McMillion
I will respond again to your reply, but first I need to do a little research on the why we should or should not allow this. My opinion is based on my experience in law enforcement, but I would like to try and find what some experts say and think. There is always room to doubt one's own opinion.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
SPC Griffitth, I think it critical to examine the way you've framed this question, specifically you say, "...deemed "safe" to let out they NEED to be allowed to defend them selves.
If they can't be trusted with that responsibility then we have no reason letting them out IMHO."
In other words, you seem to be addressing a parole situation where some person/persons assess the convict and, as appropriate, approve early release.
I think the assumption that "release = safe" is demonstrably flawed. For example, the over-crowding situation is such that, in many jurisdictions, it's not whether to let people out, it comes down to which criminals will be released simply because they must reduce numbers.
Also, there are a significant percentage of felons who simply complete their sentence and are released - there is no assessment of their relative "safe-ness," either actual or implied.
All in all, I favor an individual approach, though I'll acknowledge this is more difficult. I agree that a felon returning to society having completed their sentence merits consideration for having their full rights restored, but the fact they've been convicted and imprisoned is a clear indication that we, as a society, need to approach them with more deliberation than with citizens who play by the rules.
If they can't be trusted with that responsibility then we have no reason letting them out IMHO."
In other words, you seem to be addressing a parole situation where some person/persons assess the convict and, as appropriate, approve early release.
I think the assumption that "release = safe" is demonstrably flawed. For example, the over-crowding situation is such that, in many jurisdictions, it's not whether to let people out, it comes down to which criminals will be released simply because they must reduce numbers.
Also, there are a significant percentage of felons who simply complete their sentence and are released - there is no assessment of their relative "safe-ness," either actual or implied.
All in all, I favor an individual approach, though I'll acknowledge this is more difficult. I agree that a felon returning to society having completed their sentence merits consideration for having their full rights restored, but the fact they've been convicted and imprisoned is a clear indication that we, as a society, need to approach them with more deliberation than with citizens who play by the rules.
(5)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
I'm sorry but your logic is flawed IMHO. I guess I put to much in the post,The critical part in my opinion is Does the released American still have a need for self defense and if we limit his/her ability are we accepting responsibility AND culpability for that? Many will say they should have thought of that before they offended and that may well be true. But that may well have been 20 rs ago. what of their needs NOW?? and did they not serve the sentence for their crime? One of the issues I have is those sentences are being served in to relaxed a setting with NEITHER punishment OR reform as seemingly an end goal.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP
It's not clear to me where you perceive a flaw in logic, so I'll leave that alone and respond to the question as you've re-stated it.
I believe a released felon is endowed by the creator with inalienable rights, one of which is to the protection/defense of his own life. So yes, he has a right to self defense - what you're asking is does he have the right to use the same tools (firearms) as other citizens - or more specifically, does/should a convicted felon have the right to legally own firearms.
In my opinion (and this is what I was trying to get to above), the answer depends on the individual felon. There are a certain segment of felons - those who commit violent acts against others - who I put in the "hell no" bin. And let me be clear: this isn't me/society denying them anything - this is society holding them accountable for the decisions they made in committing the act(s) for which they were convicted. Part of that accountability is the society's ongoing lack of trust in that individual and the limitations imposed on them as a result of that behavior. That said, the question you raise about acts committed 20 years ago is at least worth considering - if a violent felon gets out and obeys the law for 20 years, I would be open to at least discussing removal of the restriction against owning firearms.
For non-violent offenders, I think it reasonable the restriction against firearms could be eased sooner - I would prefer a period (3-5 years?) or re-integration that demonstrates their intent to obey the law.
I believe a released felon is endowed by the creator with inalienable rights, one of which is to the protection/defense of his own life. So yes, he has a right to self defense - what you're asking is does he have the right to use the same tools (firearms) as other citizens - or more specifically, does/should a convicted felon have the right to legally own firearms.
In my opinion (and this is what I was trying to get to above), the answer depends on the individual felon. There are a certain segment of felons - those who commit violent acts against others - who I put in the "hell no" bin. And let me be clear: this isn't me/society denying them anything - this is society holding them accountable for the decisions they made in committing the act(s) for which they were convicted. Part of that accountability is the society's ongoing lack of trust in that individual and the limitations imposed on them as a result of that behavior. That said, the question you raise about acts committed 20 years ago is at least worth considering - if a violent felon gets out and obeys the law for 20 years, I would be open to at least discussing removal of the restriction against owning firearms.
For non-violent offenders, I think it reasonable the restriction against firearms could be eased sooner - I would prefer a period (3-5 years?) or re-integration that demonstrates their intent to obey the law.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Former gun dealer here.
Here's the "legalities" of possessions & ownership. Below is the ATF 4473
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
This is the standard form which is filled out whenever you transfer a firearm from a FFL Dealer to an Individual. A person to person transfer cannot bypass the "restrictions" as presented. I'll get into that in a second.
But the gist of it is this.
You cannot be a Felon, someone who has been convicted of a crime which can result in serving more than 1 year in jail, or a "Domestic Violence" crime. (Questions 11c and 11i).
We can go round and round about the Bill of Rights Protections being "Absolute" however, the Supreme Court has ruled there are exceptions to each of them whether it is 1a, 2a, 4a, 5a, etc.
In DC vs Heller it is explicity stated that the 2a is tied to the natural Right of Self Defense, however,
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
-------------------
Now, as for personal opinions (Mine).
I am a firm believer in the "Debt to Society" concept. Once you have paid it, you are back to a blank slate. As long as the crime committed was non-violent in nature, the prohibition on firearms does not make sense. Restricting a specific Right which is unrelated to the crime committed doesn't make sense to me. But that is just my opinion.
Here's the "legalities" of possessions & ownership. Below is the ATF 4473
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
This is the standard form which is filled out whenever you transfer a firearm from a FFL Dealer to an Individual. A person to person transfer cannot bypass the "restrictions" as presented. I'll get into that in a second.
But the gist of it is this.
You cannot be a Felon, someone who has been convicted of a crime which can result in serving more than 1 year in jail, or a "Domestic Violence" crime. (Questions 11c and 11i).
We can go round and round about the Bill of Rights Protections being "Absolute" however, the Supreme Court has ruled there are exceptions to each of them whether it is 1a, 2a, 4a, 5a, etc.
In DC vs Heller it is explicity stated that the 2a is tied to the natural Right of Self Defense, however,
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
-------------------
Now, as for personal opinions (Mine).
I am a firm believer in the "Debt to Society" concept. Once you have paid it, you are back to a blank slate. As long as the crime committed was non-violent in nature, the prohibition on firearms does not make sense. Restricting a specific Right which is unrelated to the crime committed doesn't make sense to me. But that is just my opinion.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Dale S. I don't disagree. But the topic as posed isn't about other laws. It's about the restriction of the 2nd Amendment for Felons.
As it stands, 2a Protections can be restricted/infringed with Due Process. There isn't any real debate about that.
Are those restrictions too tight? Possibly. Should non-violent felons be lumped in with violent felons for the restriction of civil Rights? I personally don't think so. However, that is not how the law is currently written, nor how it is interpreted by SCOTUS.
As it stands, 2a Protections can be restricted/infringed with Due Process. There isn't any real debate about that.
Are those restrictions too tight? Possibly. Should non-violent felons be lumped in with violent felons for the restriction of civil Rights? I personally don't think so. However, that is not how the law is currently written, nor how it is interpreted by SCOTUS.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
I agree almost completely with Sgt Kennedy. I'm not sure that disenfranchisement #2A of non-violent felons is a great idea. I do not however have the same opinion about any violent felons (with or without gun charges) or those with weapons charges that are more dangerous than simply improperly carrying in a restrictive area. E.g. Shouldn't lose the right to carry because your flight was re-routed thru LaGuardia with a layover.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
GySgt Joe Strong Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's "correct" to strip non-violent offenders should of their 2a protections. However, I do think it is Constitutional. Just because something is "Legal" doesn't make it "right." I don't agree with it, on a fundamental level, I just can't argue against it from a Constitutional standpoint. It doesn't actually violate the "rules."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google