Here’s a thorny question about rights, responsibilities, and rehabilitation.
We recently learned that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has joined in an amicus brief on a very interesting case making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. At its heart, one of the thorniest questions in gun rights: Should non-violent felons lose their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms forever? As it stands, Federal law states that all felons are forbidden from possessing firearms unless they can prove to a judge that they deserve to have their rights restored. The problem with that is that the system we have in place for that judicial review is unfunded. That means that although on paper America has a review system, in practice it is essentially impossible for a felon to have his gun rights returned.
The facts of this case
This case revolves around an Arizona man named Israel Torres, who was convicted of two separate aggravated DUI charges, one in 2004, and another in 2010. These crimes are punishable by more than one year in prison, which disqualifies Torres from owning guns. Torres and the SAF, together with the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, and the Madison society, are arguing that Torres’ offenses were non-violent.
In their amicus argument, SAF and its partners note, “There is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Nor is there any tradition of limiting the Second Amendment to ‘virtuous’ citizens. Historically, nonviolent criminals who demonstrated no violent propensity were not prohibited from keeping arms. Indeed, some laws expressly allowed them to keep arms.”
We also hanged horse thieves
Here’s where things get thorny for many gun-rights supporters. There’s non-violent, and there’s “non-violent.” Driving under the influence isn’t a specifically violent act. However, any reasonable person knows that doing so could result in death and grievous bodily injury. It’s also rather concerning that Torres didn’t seem to have learned his lesson after the first conviction, and chose to drink and drive again.
Let’s move on to an “easier” question: Felonies that consist of crimes against property. The modern thought is that crimes against property are not as serious as crimes against persons. But that wasn’t always the case; all the way through the end of the 19th century, we regularly hanged people for theft. And that’s because stealing a man’s horse was basically stealing his ability to feed his family…tantamount to starving him to death. When the margins of existence are thin, a crime against property can ruin the victim’s life.
Remember the bell tolls also for you
But there’s one more very important factor to remember, and that is that you probably committed a felony or three today. Not to get too libertarian on our Guns & Gadgets Daily readers here, but America does have a confusing and often contradictory system of criminal laws that change from state to state. Then we have questions like medical and recreational marijuana, possession of which is fine in some states and a felony in others, but according to BATFE’s Form 4473 would disqualify the user from purchasing a gun.
Of course, most reasonable Americans would prefer that violent felons never be allowed to own a gun again, even after they have served their sentences. However, it’s important to leave an avenue of judicial recourse.
“For many years,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “it was common for non-violent felons to enjoy Second Amendment rights after they had finished their sentences. And more recently there was a rights-restoration program involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that remains the law, but has been deliberately unfunded in order to prevent people convicted of non-violent crimes to ever be allowed to possess firearms again. We believe that is wrong, and this is why we’ve joined in the is amicus brief.”
What do you think, readers? Sound off in the comments!
Trace, a proud Special Farces who goes commando, is dedicated to pubic service. Although he’s a legend among YouTube commenters, he actually began life as a humble dingleberry farmer. Now, no subject is too moist or sensitive for his incisive odor and scintillating lymph nodes.
greg the patriot says
The second amendment states “Shall not be infringed” sounds like Constitutional carry should be legal according to the Constitution. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but Our Government has become what the founding fathers were talking about. A Tyranical Government. They want to do like Hitler and every other Tyranical Government has done in History first they control the media , then they come for the peoples guns. Then well I’ll let you use your imagination for the rest .
Billie M says
After retiring with 30 years in the Illinois Dept. of Corrections, I have my opinion on “convicted felons”. Most of us who worked there could look at the guy as he was leaving to go home and knew whether we could expect to see him again or not, even the “non-violent” ones.
I am actually more concerned with the NICS system and the lack of prosecutions for illegal possession of a firearm and lying on the 4473 to attempt to purchase a firearm as a convicted felon. There are too many violations now, so I vote NO to allowing these “non-violent” their 2nd Amendment right back. Maybe once this system is more secure another look into it can happen, but right now every democrat in Congress lumps every law-abiding citizen in with the felons when something happens, let’s not give them even more ammunition to use against us as we try to maintain our rights.
Dan Klingaman says
I’m 48yrs old now. I was waved into adult Court when I was 17 for burglary. No weapons of any kind involved. I finished my probation at the age of 24-25. So I haven’t been able to own or carry a gun for around half my life! I M certainly not that stupid kid I was back then! I don’t feel it’s right to still be in that category!!!!!!!
ScottSmith says
I look at the case of Dinesh D’Souza and think that the law should be applied with common sense. His “crime” should not prohibit him from owning a firearm and defending his family.
Michael says
What does the second amendment say? The answer is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Felons are people. So felons have the right to keep and bear arms and anything less is an infringement on the second amendment. All these laws, carry permits, and background checks are infringements on the rights of the people. If someone commits murder or rape then that person should be executed in a swift manner, not put on death row with appeals for 20 years.. A life for a life. The same goes for brutal rape. No one will have to worry about the executed criminals using guns to commit more crimes. No prisoner should be allowed to bear arms.
If someone is convicted of possession of a weapon without a permit and that is a felony in that state, then that person is essentially punished for exercising the second amendment.
Kenneth Phillips says
I agree 💯. Why am I am not afraid? Simple. I carry; and if you pull a gun on me, and I don’t see a police uniform, you had better use it; or you will be shot.
orion says
I’m one of those strange people, having lived 70 years without ever sitting in the back seat of a police car. Have I broken the law? Of course, minor offenses, which have netted speeding tickets, and no serious results. But I have a son who has not been so fortunate. He has commited blatant crimes, and been caught … serious enough crimes that he has spent time in jail and a four year stretch in prison. The offenses and arrests occurred while he was under the influence of drugs. I am proud to say that after his four years in prison, he has since been (7 years) free of drugs (including alcohol) … and on the clean and narrow. Little did he know, that a 4 year prison sentence was equivalent to life imprisonment. Employers see prison on an application, and he is disqualified. (My son was fortunate enough to find a job opportunity with an ex police officer / felon who served his time, got an inheritance, and began a business.) But he has no rights as an American citizen (or even illegal immigrant) having lost the right to vote. He can’t legally protect the lives of his family and himself. What is the purpose of a prison sentence specified by a judge, if the actual sentence is life? There needs to be another metric for the reason for not being able to own a gun, or the right to vote, than being convicted of a felony.
Scott says
Ok, this is going to sound a bit to much to all of you, but read it and play around with it in your heads for a little while before you settle on a judgement about it. There are countries that have required their people to carry certain kinds of weapons. Look at their results, and compare.
If everyone was required by law to be armed, this country would be a much safer place. Most of the worst, would never make it to jail. Everybody, which includes anybody, would have arms to comply with law. Do you know how much the finest gun costs? Do you know what we pay for lawyers, judges, clerks, wardens, guards, jails, and the difficulty of having a parent/spouse/child in and then out of prison.
Crime in general is a symptom of the widening separation of the economic classes. But, if the goal is to live in a safer society, then make bad people not want or need to do crimes. All guns, no poor, your on your way to a better life for everyone.
Kenneth Phillips says
What people call common sense is one of the least common commodities. That is an opinion that I have expressed many times. There is nothing like everybody in an area being about equally tough, and able to dish out a punishment. If you know that you are just as likely to get your butt whipped, you are going to think twice about throwing the first punch. It’s when you think people can’t hit back, that punks seem to get the idea that they are masters, and no one else has any rights. A armed society is a polite society. You look at orientals, Japanese, Chinese, and others of that sort, and you see the most gracious and polite people in the world. But don’t get the opinion that they are afraid of you. They are not. Pushing a black belt budokai into a fight is suicide.
Paul says
Again death penalty of life in prison (until you die life) other than that does it matter? If they want a gun they will get it, it’s us law abiding that are getting screwed here not the criminals!!!
Paul says
I don’t see anything wrong with a felon who has served their sentence and has remained honest and out of trouble from having their rights restored. Especially when you consider how many of them may been wrongly convicted, which does happen, due to overzealous DA’s/judges. One example I was involved in, was a US Army Reserve friend of mine who was deployed to the middle east, his 19 y/o son was accused of assault by his girlfriend. The 2 witnesses to the event gave police statements that it never happened, the girlfriend was lying and even testified in court, where the “victim” never showed up nor answered repeated phone calls from the court. I went to court with his son, and over the ensuing days after his arrest, he had a call from his girlfriend, who in the initial formal complaint done on video, told the judge how he beat her, now left a message on his phone she lied to the judge. Her specific words: “Rick, honey I love you! Please come back! I’m so sorry I lied to the judge that you hit me when you didn’t and it was me who hit you.” In spite of ALL that, the 2 witnesses and her own admission, the DA and judge would not let the case drop. I could only advise the young man along with his lame court appointed attorney who obviously didn’t care about the evidence either, but he finally pleaded guilty to “disturbing the peace” and had to do community service and go to Anger Management. Nothing was done about her lying in court to the judge or the false police report! To add insult to injury Rick had lost his job and had to move to another city 150 miles from home. And of course this will always follow him around. Sorry but that’s wrong, he should have recourse to have any lost rights re-instated.
William Moody says
One way to clear the question is to address the different classifications of felonies and remove the non-violent ones as a felony.
usmcm14 battley says
Absolutly not anyone convicted of any felony should not be allowed to vote !!
Dave Podesta says
ALL felons should lose some of their rights. There has to be a negative reward for being a felon. No right to vote, no guns aver, and limited 4th amendment rights, Just as a Dishonorable Discharge follows someone forever, so should a felony conviction.
Randolph Murphy says
So if you get a traffic ticket you should lose your right to drive?
Junior says
Nonviolent and slightly violent by hand to hand combat to defend ourselves ABSOLUTELY ~ **SHOULD** BE ABLE TO HUNT FOR FOOD TO FEED OUR FAMILY. Especially when it’s: been 12 of no felonies or no trouble whatsoever. I have grand kids and grand babies who need to eat! I am very disabled and only get SSI instead of SSDI Disability like i qualified for! Sadly i have to over humble myself for food stamps that = 60$ a month each for the 3 of us for SSI income and we are always hungry, I don’t mind but, these kids deserve food by God. Jesus please have a long talk to rich Delete maggots who have never had to starve a day of their miserable lives.
Andrew N. says
I believe ANY Felony equals loss of Voting Rights. It should be forever, unless pardoned by the President. If you make that many piss-poor decisions, I don’t want you voting for my next President / Elected Officials. Period. We should also require a Civics test, ensuring that you have a basic knowledge of how our Gov’t works. It would weed out a lot of these idiots that should not be voting anyway, like those being told how to vote by others, being illegally paid, etc. A more educated individual understands the IMPORTANCE of his/her vote, and what it does for them AND our country.
Paul says
I could go along with the Civics Test and some other means to ensure to person is capable, But your “educated individual understands the importance of his/her vote” is misplaced! Look at all the “educated people” today who want to get rid of the constitution for socialism!
Andrew N. says
Hi Paul, they aren’t “educated” they are “indoctrinated”. Over 95% of our University Professors are Liberals at best and Marxists at the other end of the spectrum. My wife worked at a California University, and the students that worked for her (On campus job for the kids) told her they had to write papers they did not believe in / agree with, but if they didn’t, they got failing grades. Think about that. We used to send our kids to college to learn how to learn. Now they’re being told how and what to think. That’s indoctrination. The rest are just plain stupid. Anybody who can think looks at the history of Socialism and realizes IT DOES NOT WORK. It has failed every time, in every country that has tried it. Stupid people are stupid because they are too lazy to check facts for themselves. It’s not about educational opportunities, it’s a lack of motivation.
Rev. Joseph Marotta says
I agree that for non violent offenses as long as they are U.S. CITIZENS that they should be allowed to own a gun if it’s legal for self defense. ” Shall not be infringed. “
Pete D says
If a felon’s right to vote can be restored than so should their right to own a firearm. Since when does the right to vote trump the 2nd Amendment. Want to stop a gun control activist cold? Ask them if they support restoring voting rights to felons, then tell them you agree as long as they are willing to support the same felon’s 2nd Amendment rights!
Mo Mowry says
The fact that someone is sentenced to incarceration is to pay for their crimes. If a person serves their time and pays all debts to society should not have their rights infringed on. And or compromise with after paying the price to society they prove to a review system that they are worthy of their rights, should get them back. BUT the truth remains that the 2nd amendment says NO citizens should have the right to bear arms infringed on.
Ryan says
Nothing really surprises me anymore. Anyone who REALLY wants to know whats going on should definitely check this out, its a pretty scary warning from a history and economics professor. Pretty damn eye opening: https://thinkaheadsurvival.weebly.com/
Tony M says
I was convitced of felony property damage 26 years ago. I have not been in any trouble before that or since then and just received my first speeding ticket in 18 years. I live in Illinois . I applied for a Foid card 5 years ago and was denied. ( a Foid card is what you need to leaglly own a gun in Illinois) Illinois State issue these cards. They have a legal process that you can go through if you are denied. I hired a lawyer and after two years of inaction from the state police my lawyer contacted a Illinois State representive to restore my gun rights. After contact from to him to the State police. My gun rights were fully restored. I have been gainfully employed for 25 years, I own my own house and car. I am raising two children one is who is adult now working full time and going to school. My Dad was a Navy Vet .He was the one to encourage me to have my gun rights restored and we went shooting many times before he passed away. I have since then carried on the tradition with my son.
Garfy says
Good for you, Tony. I respect that you turned your life around (by making good choices since) and have been a responsible adult and family man. I agree that felons who have NOT committed acts directly against other people should have their 2A rights restored. Voting is another separate issue (how that got into this question is odd since the question was about owning firearms, not voting; but I agree that felons should lose their voting “privilege”. Yes, nowhere is it stated that voting is a “right”, but rather it’s a privilege you earn by living a respectable crime-free life. (Perhaps I should leave “respectable” out as so many of our elected politicians have been anything BUT respectable).
Mike Norrell says
As with ALL other crimes, this issue MUST be on a CASE BY CASE basis. I worked in Corrections for 12 years and in Law Enforcement for 18 years and the reinstatement of 2nd amendment rights must be looked at as a TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. IF a person has been convicted of MULTIPLE non-violent crimes, the only thing you can look at is what the subject HAS BEEN CAUGHT AND CONVICTED OF… WHAT DID THEY GET AWAY WITH??? IF the number of convictions indicates a PROPENSITY TO COMMIT CRIME, maybe this should STRONGLY INFLUENCE the decision to reinstate gun rights. ALSO….HOW CLOSE TO CRIMES OF VIOLENCE ARE THE SUBJECT’S CRIMES…again, TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. DRUG CRIMES….in effect, NOT crimes of violence…SOME sex crimes may not have an element of violence, property crimes not necessarily crimes of violence. Financial/white collar crimes, mostly not crimes of violence. Fraud/crimes of deception…not violent. Computer crimes…. not violent. DUI, not a violent crime in and of itself, but a HIGH likelihood FOR a violent end. You may not agree with me, especially concerning the sex crimes, but having read the details of MANY of these (mainly covering the AGE of the offender and that of the victim and the issue of LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT)…violence WASN’T an element.
I, personally think, that there should be a waiting period and a thorough review of the subject’s behavior BEFORE reinstatement is instituted.
Michael says
I have to say that I think that it should be a case by case situation. I have been the victim of a over zealous DA that quashed evidence in order to win a case. When the Judge found out, lets just say he was not happy at being used to convict a innocent person. I had to wait 10 years and pay a lot of money to get it expunged. Problem is that in the 10 years I was not able to get a good job. It took me all that time to save up the money to get it done. My family suffered due to the actions of a dishonest DA. To put it mildly I had a 11 year punishment for a non-felony crime. You should all look at the facts before you make a call on a case. That is all I am saying.
Eric Ellersieck says
The lifetime denial of a basic human right protected by the Constitution is a very serious penalty and should be reserved for only the most serious crimes and for those who are shown to have no ability to exercise that right responsibly. If a person is that dangerous and irresponsible it can be argued that they should not even be free to endanger all their fellow citizens. To have a lifetime denial of your human rights, with no ability to appeal to regain them is a travesty. As many people have pointed out already we now have a huge patchwork of laws governing virtually everything. It might surprise most people to learn that given a close enough look they are probably guilty of one or more crimes considered a felony. Unless he is truly a super exceptional person the gentleman who only had a couple traffic tickets could be charged and convicted of some felony if government decided it was worth the effort. It would ruin his life and cost him his savings, and probably his ability to own firearms legally. All the laws that don’t seem to effect you because you are a “good person” , and that you do not object to because they only effect people you don’t like, can be twisted around and aimed at you. If the folks who gain power disapprove of you, your politics, or your lifestyle your rights are just as easy to forfeit. The Constitution must be adhered to for everyone, or it will wind up protecting no one.
Billy Yank says
If you don’t like the penalty for committing a crime don’t do the crime in the first place. The lack of personal responsibility is the cause of the state of affairs in this country in the first place.
AmericanIcon says
Perhaps an examination of what ‘non-violent’ implies may be in order.
How does driving a two-ton piece of machinery while drunk morally differ from randomly firing off a few shots while drunk? Which puts more innocent lives at risk?
There doesn’t exist a single, ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer to the question: Every case needs to be decided on its own merits (or lack thereof); and before any rights are automatically reinstated the individual should. after completion of sentence, be required to petition for the return of rights and prove to the satisfaction of an impartial judge that the individual no longer presents a danger to himself or others.
It took a conscious act to precipitate the loss of the rights we’re born with, it should take no less to have them restored – and in many cases, if that act was heinous enough the individual should never be allowed to be a menace to society again.
Andrew N. says
Bingo Batman!, or AmericanIcon in this case. The ONLY reason Drunk Driving is “Non-violent” is because the drunk got lucky and didn’t kill anyone. Considering 1st offense drunk driving is generally a misdemeanor UNLESS you cause personal injury or extreme property damage, a “felony” count means you did one of those, or, more likely, you are a repeat offender. My personal belief is that if you are a Felon, you should lose voting Rights FOREVER, do not pass go or collect $200. If you make a habit of making poor enough decisions to become a Felon, I don’t want you picking my next President/Governor/Congressman/etc. Of course, Presidential Pardons do clear you. I also believe we should have to take a Civics test to vote. If you don’t know the 3 branches of our Gov’t, and the two Houses of Congress, and the length of service of each House, you have no business voting. You have a test to drive, so why not one for voting. It would clear out a lot of the idiots voting, and/or make them LEARN how the Gov’t works.
Paul says
Thats an easy one………If it is a serious felony they should be put to death or life in prison, anything else as soon as they get out they are good to go. Would also clear up all those background check laws that are confusing the liberals (which they made and don’t understand)!!!
Paul says
As an attorney, a gun owner and a firm believer in every word of our Constitution, I think everyone should actually read the damn thing. I hear alot of people spouting off about things, but from what I hear it is clear most have never actually read our Constitution That includes anyone who seeks to narrow the rights afforded to us in the 2nd Amendment. READ IT! Nowhere will you read exceptions to the right to bear and keep arms. In fact, any impingements on the 2nd Amendment where allowed by judicial activism in interpreting what is written clearly and deliberately by the framers 200 plus years ago. The 2nd Amendment was included so that the citizens of our great republic would always have the ability to resist an oppressive government bent on tyranny. We forget this country was founded on a felony. A group of people under British rule rose up and committed treason to declare war on the British Government and fight for what we have now. Currently, I know of no nation where treason is not a crime punishable by death and had the colonials lost the fight many wouldve been put to death and many imprisoned. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say everyone but felons have the right to keep and bear arms? It doesnt! Everytime we as a republic allow even one small exception to our Constitutional rights, our freedom is diminished and the power of our constitution erodes ever so slightly. Let’s all try to remember that are Constitution is meant to be inclusive not exclusive and that its provisions apply to EVERY US CITIZEN!!! Until the government finds a way to strip o person of their citizenship for committing a felony, the 2nd Amendment applies equally or it applies to none.
Hoosier Cowboy says
These have tapped into the beginning of the issue. We have Constitutional guidance on most everything we need it on. We, in our modern “intellect” have decided to create “gray” areas. First, many things that are criminal today were not criminal in years past. Has good and evil changed or have we confused responsibility with accountability? Constitutionally, government has little responsibility for it’s own people beyond maintaining interpersonal accountability. These gray areas don’t typically arise until government attention shifts from accountability to responsibility. Second, it is quite easy for a reasonable person (I use that term in it’s modern, shifted sense) to believe that fringe elements of society (such as felons) should lose certain rights afforded all others. That is, until you are the felon. Once you’ve excluded the “outer ring” of society’s fringe, you will find a new outer ring on the fringe. The modern reasonable person might define this new fringe as the “mentally questionable”. Once again, it’s simple for the “inside majority” to exclude the fringes. However, we are left with a new outer ring on our ever shrinking “proper society”. If you would like to see historical evidence of this, feel free to do an independent study of every society in history. At the core of any argument such as this is the choice between the assumption that man is inherently good or inherently wicked. Examine the evidence.
Garfy says
So true about “gray areas”. All you have to do is look at the tens of millions who never got to contribute to our society since 1973. Where in the Constitution does it say that abortion is a right? Yet SCOTUS back then dictated that abortion is legal in all 50 states, yet we wonder why Social Security, etc. is going broke (those millions could’ve been contributing to the workforce and paying into SS). What happened to the guarantee of the right of LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Yes, our society may have changed but that should never change the foundation of this country and its founding documents and what they originally meant. Today’s fancy lawyers can make you believe that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean. The clearest example is how the 1st Amendment came to be “separation of church and state”. I’ve read it dozens of times and nowhere does it say that. It was an “opinion” formed based on a letter (which wasn’t part of the Constitution) written to the Baptists.
wayne Wetzel says
I read the constitution AND Bill of Rights 1-2 times a month.
WHACK!!! You are Right On Ttarget!!! Thanks!
Lee Drowlette says
Yes, I totally agree, America’s greatest threat to losing our Second Amendment Rights, is the left field Dummycrats that are hell bent on destroying all our rights, example being Harris saying that she would give Congress 100 days to come up with a bill on gun control, or she would be dictating to Bozo Biden, that she would legislate it thru exercutive action! As if she was President!, which might even happen! This woman is no damn good, and needs to be run out of town, and the horse she rode in with!
Scott says
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is solely for us to protect ourselves from our government, if so needed. Not just individually, but all together. When needed (if needed) we will need all and their skills and abilities, If a man continues to commit horrible acts against whoever, he will either go back to jail or somebody will shoot him (or her).
Lawrence Hoying says
Violent or non-violent felons good question however, a FELONY is a FELONY my answer is NO!!! on this one. I am just this side o0d a wheel chair because of a 2nd offense DUI. I was a police officer on duty and going to an emergency call (lights & siren going) when a guy registering ..17/.18 BrAc took me out in an intersection. What would your opinion be? It’s not like the drunk didn’t know better. I give a person 1 chance because we are all human and make mistakes. where do we draw a line? When the drunk kills someone in your family? or maims them for life like me. I( loved my job and the people I had contact with on the job both suspects, victims and the general public were upset with the idiot.
Daniel Taylor says
A used car dealer who rolled back vehicle mileage is convicted of a felony and banned from possession of firearms; a certain miscarriage of justice.
Thomas Demartino says
How about you abide by the LAW. If you wish to participate in this Republic, then abide by its rules. If you choose to violate the rules of the Social Contract, then you forfeit your right to participate. I don’t mean speeding or a parking ticket, but any offense that is serious enough to bring you a felony conviction.
vincent smith says
you cannot rehabilitate a person who commits a felony unless you give him back his rights after he or she has paid for there crime===every one has the right to defend there selves against violent acts from others and need a gun to do just that ,especially women who are not able to defend there selves against large stronger men===once you have paid for your crime all rights should be restored
Michael says
In regards to the drunk driver being stripped of his 2nd amendment rights…do you think he should be stripped of all of his Bill of Rights ? Please explain why just the second amendment right.
ROBERT F TULJUS says
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSPLegal_Update108_457974_7.pdf
Neon says
I do not understand how so many people think a drunk person is capable of making “good judgement” drunk people may tell the truth but they do not make very good decisions. The penalty has to fit the crime or felony but we also need to give criminals a chance to reform. If we do want to create repeat offenders.when there is no light at the end of the tunnel very few will change direction so I say yes some felons should have a chance to regain their rights as long as they have their ducks in a row
Raylan Charles Jennings says
the 2nd does not say who can or can’t have the right to bear arms….
even after the constitution was written folks that were released from prison for any crime were allowed to have and use firearms..
rite or not the constitution says you have the right ..
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/
Woody W Woodward says
Truth. I am a retired peace officer with 49 years service. I’ve dealt with hundreds if not thousands of people who’ve managed to end up in jails and prisons due to bad judgment calls. Most of those folks were good people who made bad decisions and under current law will be paying for their mistakes for the rest of their lives – – a life sentence for all practical purposes.
I believe that once a person serves the time of his sentence as provided in criminal law he/she should regain all his/her rights. If someone is too dangerous to possess a firearm that person is too dangerous to walk the streets.
[W3]
ROBERT F TULJUS says
You are correct. I had a felony due in Michigan in 2013. According to Michigan law, my rights were automatically restored. Federally, not too sure. Been sober since 2013 and hope to get reinstated, if not already.
Daryl says
Most people don’t know that a serious crime , like aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, assaults with a deadly weapon can all be reduced to non violent crimes when the Prosecutor wants a plea bargain. Happens in most cases. Just because someone is in prison for a nonviolent crime doesn’t mean they actually committed a non serious crime. So don’t be in such a hurry to give a felon back his gun rights. They knew the consequences of committing felonies and they still committed them. I carry a firearm to protect myself and my family to protect us from felons.
Ray says
A friend who is DA told me 90% of his cases are plea cases because he does not have resources to take all to court. Not enough judges, court rooms, juries and prosicutors. Sure method to reduce crime is to lock up felons but not enough cells. Most felons commit crimes after they are released. Do you really want them to have easy access to guns. Rioters released by DAs and permissive judges go back into streets to riot again.. .Need to end the recycling.
PB- dave says
I was raised that a felon lost all rights of public trust . No Voting, No public office, No gov’t jobs, No weapons.
The only way to have any rights “restored” was to have conviction overturned, or an executive pardon.
But today lets vote from prison, give gov’t jobs, allow one to get a law degree and be an officer of the court, and of course some need a 45 to be safe from their friends……
Randy Jones says
I’m old school. Yes, even non-violent felons should lose their rights. But, after they have served their time, after they have finished parole and after they have made a full restitution of their fines and such, they should be able to reapply for the restoration of rights. This probably means they have kept a clean record for three to five years. I would like to think this means or indicates they have become rehabilitated. Rights restoration should only be permitted one time. If it happens again (i.e. becoming a felon), the rights stay gone for life.
I see no reason a non-violent felon should got ou and drop $500 to $1,000 on a firearm if they still owe for damages in the past.
John Mark McNair says
I read most of the comments before writing this! For several of you understanding the phrase “shall not be infringed” is a issue! IMHO all gun laws are unconstitutional!
Ray says
Using your approach we could only protect the people from them by permanent incarceration or execution?
Fred Brown says
I am reading your comment approximately 12 hours after your posting. I, and most of my friends and family, feel the same as you! ANY gun (control) law IS unconstitutional and should be repealed as soon as possible after the Republicans gain control of the House as well as the Senate! Technically, BATFE Form 4473 is illegal, as it creates a registry of firearms and their owners, (otherwise why enter firearm serial numbers) in violation of Federal law!
Ken Woodson says
I think that non violent felons should be able to have guns for self defense, HUNTING and shooting!!!!!!!
Ken Woodson
JonsOn says
If the felon once released, done with parole and all fines and restitution paid can show that he has not committed a crime a judge should look at his/her record and determine if the crime was violent. Many as suggested are pleaded down to a lesser charge so the judge would be able to see the actual crime. If it is non-violent maybe the felon should have his/her rights restored but the original crime has to be taken in to account not what he was actually convicted of and his actions since being released from prison.
Martin Artale says
They may be non-violent, but they can still be a thief, a cheat, a no good piece of shit, etc….
SNAKEDOCTOR says
I think each case should be individually judicated on an case by case situation. Don’t need an overhaul of the system that has worked for so long. Do the crime, pay the consequences.
Carl C Tessmer says
It might be alright to give voting rights back to convicted felons, depending on the seriousness of the offense.
I used to pass a sign behind a store on my way to work. The sign said something like “Illegal dumping of trash here is a 3rd degree felony” A felony for dumping trash? That’s going too far!
Daryl says
Was that just a sign or was that actually the law. I don’t think you know.
Lawrence Hoying says
IF you roll the dice and lose, YOU LOSE!!!!
Skipper2 says
I believe that each case needs to be weighed on their own merits or lack of such. Not all felonies are violent and some felons are not felons intentionally. If a felon has a pattern that would be disqualifying that is on him and he lives with it. There are cases that cause a felony conviction even without intent ie wrong place at wrong time. After judicial review that person should have the same rights to defend himself as the rest of us. I’m not saying blanket coverage, but careful adjudication of each person’s case.
Mat says
Give’em an inch and they’ll take it a mile. Any loss of gun rights for any individual will eventually be a loss for all individuals. My opinion is that, regardless of the crime, once your time is served, ALL your rights are restored. No cherry picking, “no rules for thee, but not for me”, no “just in case”, no “we just feel”, NO, all rights are fully restored. I don’t even believe that criminal background checks are lawful. No American should have their rights waved in front of them like a carrot after they’ve served all their time. All rights fully restored, if they don’t want a felon to have a gun, then they should extend their sentence or stop cutting sentences in half.
Pearce Elliott says
If a felon has his record expunged, if I understand it correctly, he can regain his rights that were forfeited when he was convicted. While this can be a long and (relatively) expensive process, if a felon “reforms” himself, contributes the the community (if only by getting employment and staying out of trouble with the law), he has a way to get his rights restored. So there is a way to regain the forfeited rights, if I understand the law correctly.
William Sullivan says
Possession of a firearm is, at it’s root, the right to protect the lives of yourself and your family. Depriving somebody of that right, basically, is saying that those lives are worthless- no longer worth defending under the law. And what of the phrase, “Paid their debt to society”? If they can’t have the same rights as the rest of us, then they ought to be kept locked up until they can be trusted.
Steve says
I think that anyone that has a felony should not be able to have any type of a weapon. That person made a decision to break the law, they know what the repercussions are for not following the laws. This country has become to easy on the criminals. There was a time when if you took a person’s horse you where put to death if found guilty. There was no 20yrs of trials to see if what you did changed. A felon should never be able to have or use any type of a weapon that person made that decision there victim did not ask to be attacked.
Mat says
So you’re going to continue punishing someone after they’ve already served their time? That is not freedom. Also, the felons who remain criminals will ignore the laws and will retrieve a firearm regardless and go harm someone else. Should we not allow lawful individuals who have served their time the same opportunity to defend themselves and their family as we do? Punishing someone who is already served their time is not right and is not freedom.. Also, you realize the term “felon” encompasses a lot of non-violent offenders, probably more=so than the number of actual violent offenders who are serving today.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to deprive any law-abiding citizen their rights. Every person who paid for their crimes should have all their rights fully restored. No “ifs, ands, or buts”.
Bryan says
True, they generally hanged horse thieves, but usually not legally once a territory was admitted as a state. Also during that time period once the prison sentence was concluded, ALL rights were restored. A life sentence of loss of rights for all felonies was a mid 20th century invention with the goal that if a former felon can’t buy a gun legally that they won’t have guns and never be dangerous again. How’s that working out? Also, it costs a lot of money to get records expunged and generally the offense must be at least 20 years in the past and have been committed while a juvenile, hence that process is only good if you have a lot of money no matter how well you behave. So, nearly any felony conviction is actually a life sentence. Don’t think there are accidental felons? Here’s are 2 examples: a woman in SC found a feather which she used in a piece of Native American craft work which was then given as a gift to a president on a visit. The feather turned out to be an eagle feather and she was charged with a federal felony. She plea bargained out of prison time but lost her RKBA. A musician went on vacation to Columbia with his vintage Martin Guitar made in 1967. Upon arriving in Columbia the guitar was confiscated and he was charged with trafficking in endangered species because the guitar was made of rosewood from Brazil that is now endangered. His Columbian attorney and the US embassy negotiated his release to the United States where he was charged with a Federal smuggling violation. Through a plea deal his jail time was reduced to a year of probation but the loss of RKBA and voting was for life. This one could be reversed if there was a review process properly funded since this violation is now covered by an amendment to the CITES treaty.
James higgdon says
Their rights should never be suspended in the first place! I love how the high and mighty pass judgement on people because of their personal experiences. I read nowhere in the Constitution that says a felon can’t own firearms, but I clearly see, “shall not be infringed”. What will be your opinion the day you inadvertently commit a felony and, get caught for it? Bet you won’t carry the same snooty opinion that you do now. Our country’s laws need to be wiped clean, rewritten and be 100% clear. If a law is in anyway vague in any area, that law should be unenforceable. I don’t think that many “normal”, everyday Americans realize that on an average day you probably break 10-20 laws, some carrying major punishment, even jail time.
Just remember this, whenever you are screaming for a certain segment of the populace to have this right stripped or that right removed,. It could easily be you in that spot one day. Our nation, every year, gets further and further from the Constitution. One day, we will not even recognize it. For an example, this article speaks of the BATF&E overseeing this very subject. My question is this. Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the authority to regulate any of those things? The Constitution plainly says the only power the Federal Government has are those expressly granted to it in the Constitution, any other powers not expressly stated are that of the states.
SNAKEDOCTOR says
I like the way you think sir.
James says
I’m with you on that too. ,the government oversteps everything they should not have.,and what they should be paying attention to like their real job. I don’t think they really know how to do anything right.
Wally says
I concur sir, they deserve a chance to prove they have reformed their ways and the government does not have the authority to take constitutional rights away.
Mike says
committing a felony is the result of poor judgement. 1 DUI probably does not warrant loss of gun rights or voting rights. repeat offenders have a judgement problem which might warrant loss of gun rights. felonies should be reviewed and classified as to weather they are the kind of problem that could lead to gun violence. the problem with going in this direction with gun ownership involved is we open up the slippery slope of gun control. we all should be adamantly opposed to gun control and we should be pro 2nd amendment. the argument inevitably turns political with the libs and dems jumping all over it with their gun control schemes and that is wrong and more dangerous than a felon with a gun. at this point I am very much against taking away gun or voting rights.
Tom Evans says
I am a strong 2A supporter, but, although I don’t think that smoking a joint is worthy of felony charges, and that should be changed, retroactively, growing, distributing / selling these socially altering substances should remain a felony with all its consequences.
Let’s not kid ourselves, do you are I is a violent crime against humanity and people who make that election, should suffer the consequences of what they vote for.
I also don’t believe that people should die as a consequence of stealing somebody’s horse or breaking into their home or property, but those crimes are and should remain Felonise with all of these serious consequences that comes with that election as well. If criminals commit sept and robbery once, The likelihood is that they will continue to commit these crimes and get more brazen and perhaps eventually armed in the process. That must be prevented. The recent riots prove this argument 100%. It literally takes deadly force to use a skateboard or a baseball bat to break the department store window and The conviction of those actions should prove to the public, that could well escalate into the use of firearms and explosives.
What we are not doing well as a society, is teaching our young people who are doing these things that every time they pick up a pistol, or a skateboard to break a window, they make decisions about the rest of their life. The country must have rule of law and it should be on each one of us citizens to decide what their consequences are.
Our countries addiction to alcohol and substance abuse, fueled by those who would gain from it financially and politically, keep our country in the chains and prisons of addiction for profit. Do you why is the most ignored social failure of our lifetime and history as a people. It causes more deaths, and more family destruction, and more violence, and because of the profitability in alcohol and substance marketing, our country and politicians are forced to ignore it.
Our laws and constitution were fairly, and thoughtfully created to protect The majority of our society from the bankruptcy of culture that substance abuse brings; violent or nonviolent.
I strongly disagree that our laws should be desensitized in one fashion or another to the scourge of lawlessness in our country. Elections have consequences! Choose wisely!
James Macklin says
Tax evasion is certainly not violent but it is a FELONY. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion but so have many who violated tax law.
College entrance fraud is also a federal FELONY.
Drunk and DUI (drugs) kill thousands yearly so DUI & drugs are certainly as violent as armed robbery with a toy gun PR even just a pointed finger in a pocket.
A judicial review should be offered.
Roy says
In this particular case, I would be against Torres regaining his 2A rights because he, as is pointed out in the article, has already shown that he doesn’t have good judgement. He chose to drink and drive on, at the very least two, widely separated occasions. And if he got caught in 2004 and 2010, does anyone really believe he wasn’t doing it on a regular basis between those two times when he was caught? Anyone who shows that kind of bad judgement shouldn’t be trusted with a firearm. Too many gun crimes and assaults occur when the person committing the assault is drunk.
That said, I do think that it should be taken on an individual basis. There may be some cases where a non-violent felon should be allowed to gain their gun rights. However, it should be the burden of the felon to convince the court that they can be trusted with a firearm. And the bar should be high in doing so.
Gotdon says
I agree with the CONCEPT of what is being considered here, however the invisible gorilla in the room is the charging ( or plea ) process that goes invisible once cemented and charges are filed. A case that has merit ( maybe a violent crime ) but will be a stretch to close on due to circumstance or personnel, may be dropped or nolle prossed and substituted by multiple non violent crimes
to “ balance” the scale.
All the investigated crimes need to become
the “ But what about these other CHARGES that were not prosecuted to conviction? “
Let’s look at the whole picture to see if this person can truly be said to be non violent in his/her history.
Craig Northacker says
I raised two families impacted by alcohol as was my nuclear family. Alcohol impairs judgment period. It is illegal to drink in a bar while carrying. DUI can seriously hurt, can permanently maim or kill. That hurts families in huge ways. And also breaks them up. The combination of the two is a bad risk from where I sit – the guy who has picked the pieces from alcohol fallout. That case is a poor case because of two DUI’s. If I were a judge I would toss it.
rogertc1 says
I am retired and have never had a felon. A speeding ticket or two. So NO. Why the hell do these people who have the felons get any special privilege’s. The broke the law.
Israel Marquez says
I think is ok for non violent felons to possess a weapon for self defense or defense of others