Should felons' gun rights be restored...ever?

[Dave Workman]

Should felons' gun rights be restored...ever?

I'd really like to hear from the Gun-Politics.org folks on this one. It is going to raise some eyebrows after what happened Friday before the North Carolina Supreme Court. Be sure to read the court ruling in the link I provided.

If you read through the whole piece, please be sure to leave a comment in the "Comments" section!

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d31-Gun-Rights-101-Should-felons-gun-rights-be-restoredever


If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/l43jqz

[Rick McC.]

I think it should depend on the specifics of the "crime" committed.

A friend of mine's son was convicted of a minor drug crime several years ago (while in college).

Subsequent to that, Florida's laws were changed to allow for "automatic" reinstatement of many civil rights when all legal requirements were met for non-violent offences (but not "gun rights).

So, even though the kid never hurt anyone else, used a weapon in the commission of, etc. he can't go hunting, shooting with members of his hunting family, or, (obviously) possess a gun.

Take care,

Rick

[Dial 1911 for Help]

This problem becomes a lot easier to if you were to address the problem of the ever expanding list of offenses to which this applies.

The government is apparently intent on criminalizing everything between cradle and grave (and you better check for slat clearance and lead-based paint or we may just add the cradle), and this, coupled with overly broad language about "any offense punishable by more than a year in prison", get this law applied in cases where it's clearly pointless, and in fact harmful.

Here's an example of totalitarian overreach: In response to last year's toxic toy problem from China, legislation was passed that if one is selling goods intended for use by children under 12, those goods must be tested for lead and some other specific toxic chemicals. But the agency in charge of enforcement states that it even applies to thrift stores, rummage sales, and private yard sales!

When you have a government that recognizes no sphere of activity as beyond their mandate, how can you logically support restrictions that do seem to make sense when contemplated by people used to using common sense? They're not administered in that mode, so a conclusion reached while reflecting in that mode isn't valid.

[Aguila Blanca]

The Lautenberg Amendment of a few years back is the poster child for this kind of nonsense. As draconian as the law itself is, arguably the worst aspect is that it is retroactive. And it makes conviction of misdemeanor domestic violance one of the things that disqualifies you for life from possessing a firearm. Countless numbers of people, BEFORE THIS LAW WAS ENACTED, took a plea bargain and pled guilty to what was at that time a fairly innocuous charge as a way of putting to bed the consequences of an argument with their significant other.

Then they woke up one day to find they are prohibited from firearms possession because the Feds passed a law.

I'm old-fashioned. My view is, if a person is out among society, he/she should have a right to defend him/herself. If we can't trust them with a gun, we probably can't trust them with a knife, axe, baseball bat, or 18-inch length of pipe ... so why are they out on the street?

[Old Fashioned]

I think that if a person commits a violent crime and uses a firearm in the commission of that crime, they should probably lose the right to own a firearm forever. On the other hand, if it is a non violent crime, I think that after the sentence is served, there could be a period of good behavior, after which their rights could be fully restored. And then you have domestic violence. I certainly do not want to belittle that problem, but, we have probably all heard of cases of a woman starting an argument, keeping it going, getting in a man's face and finally the man pushes her away. The woman immediately calls police, and the guy is convicted of domestic violence. I think there could be all kinds of twists and turns to the issue.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I think that if a person commits a violent crime and uses a firearm in the commission of that crime, they should probably lose the right to own a firearm forever. On the other hand, if it is a non violent crime, I think that after the sentence is served, there could be a period of good behavior, after which their rights could be fully restored. And then you have domestic violence. I certainly do not want to belittle that problem, but, we have probably all heard of cases of a woman starting an argument, keeping it going, getting in a man's face and finally the man pushes her away. The woman immediately calls police, and the guy is convicted of domestic violence. I think there could be all kinds of twists and turns to the issue.
You can even be guilty of domestic "violence" for yelling! Fix all these other stupid laws that bring people under the umbrella of this rule and it begins to sound a lot more reasonable. Then maybe add a restoration policy for violent offenders who can reasonably demonstrate rehabilitation, and you might be good to go.

Q: What do you get when you cross a sleazy politician with a crooked lawyer?

A: Malia and Sasha!

[Godzilla]

I reckon Old Fashioned has got a fair handle on this.+1 for the nonce.

[Patriotic]

I tend to agree with Old Fashioned regarding violent crime with a firearm but would also include any weapon and include domestic violence as well. I disagree with him that rights could be restored after a waiting period. If anything I think at least a hearing would be required to restore a right to maybe a long gun but not a handgun. Some states take away a convicted felon’s right to vote or hold public office which I have no problem with. After all this is a punishment for a crime and should be a deterrent.

I also feel a second offence using a firearm should result in the maximum sentence for the crime without any possibility of parole.

[Old Fashioned]

Patriotic, I read my post again and I believe I could have been more clear. I think if a person commits a violent crime, firearm rights are gone, forever. If a person commits a crime, violent or not, and uses a firearm in the comission of the crime not only are firearm rights gone forever, but there should be a mandatory sentence for using a firearm in addition to the sentence for the actual crime. Of course, you could argue that the use of the firearm in and of itself makes the crime a violent crime. For non violent crime and no firearms involved, after the sentence is served, a period of good behavior could result in all rights restored. That could involve some type of review board to evaluate and make the decision. As for domestic violence, that is a serious problem but has many twists and turns in it as I indicated in the previous post.

[Aguila Blanca]

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

[Old Fashioned]

Simply my opinion regarding the original question.

[Chilo45]

Where does it say that in the Constitution?
The Constitution is not just the words listed on the paper. You will not find 90% of the laws enacted since its inception within the verbiage of the Constitution. So a "black and white" approach will not bring answers but just (some) condemnation for having a way too narrow view of reality.
Non-violent felons should have the right to petition for their right to own a firearm / violent felons should never have that right restored.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

The Constitution is not just the words listed on the paper. You will not find 90% of the laws enacted since its inception within the verbiage of the Constitution. So a "black and white" approach will not bring answers but just (some) condemnation for having a way too narrow view of reality.
I'm a little unclear on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that 90% of today's laws aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution? Or that 90% of today's laws exceed the powers granted to the government under the Constitution, but that's OK and we need to broaden our viewpoint?

If you mean the first thing, I don't believe you and Aguila Blanca disagree. I think he was asking where in the Constitution the grant of powers could be found which would be necessary to enact the policy he questioned.

If you mean the second thing, you might feel more at home at DemocraticUnderground.com or DailyKos.

[Chilo45]

I'm a little unclear on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that 90% of today's laws aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution? Or that 90% of today's laws exceed the powers granted to the government under the Constitution, but that's OK and we need to broaden our viewpoint?

If you mean the first thing, I don't believe you and Aguila Blanca disagree. I think he was asking where in the Constitution the grant of powers could be found which would be necessary to enact the policy he questioned.

If you mean the second thing, you might feel more at home at DemocraticUnderground.com or DailyKos.
I believe that you misunderstood my comment. 90% of the laws on the books do not directly correlate to the verbiage of the Constitution - as they are interpretations to allow for diverse applications of theoretical ideas of the prevailing majority at the time of inception. Examples: the tax code and the ability of most major corporations in America to not pay any income taxes; not what the originators of the Constitution had in mind (IMHO).
So when Aguila Blanca stated his comment (Where does it say that in the Constitution?), my reply was meant that a strict Constitutionalists should be applaud at what we have done to the Constitution over the years by developing such a diverse and (also my opinion) a politically hampered idea of what constitutes legal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, etc.
I do not believe that the last line of your comment was appropriate; better left to those other 1911 related boards where "you are or you're not" type of comments are made.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

No, my post was exactly correct. If you read it you'll see that I allowed for the possibility you explained, and if that was the case I explained with kindness where I thought the misunderstanding (but not disagreement) was between you and Aguila Blanca.

My response to the second possibility was correct as well. I only posted that you might be more at home over there IF you held the second viewpoint. If you don't, what's the problem? Are you saying you believe people willing to accept laws they admit violate the Constitution SHOULD be here?

[d90king]

Actually a case in NC just gave back the rights to a citizen.

Story...

BY SARAH OVASKA, Staff Writer

RALEIGH - A state law barring felons from owning firearms unfairly prevented a Garner man from owning guns, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled Friday, thrusting the court into the national debate over gun ownership.
The opinion applied only to Barney Britt, who was convicted of a drug crime in 1979, and it didn't have an immediate effect on the thousands of other felons in the state. Criminal defense lawyers who practice in federal courts said they don't know what effect, if any, the opinion will have on federal rules, which prevent felons from buying and owning weapons except when a state has restored that right.

The ruling authored by Justice Edward Thomas Brady held that Britt should be able to own guns and that the state unfairly took away his right to own a firearm with a 2004 law that barred felons from owning firearms. Britt was convicted in 1979 of selling Quaalude pills, but he didn't have any further tangles with the law.

Though the opinion focused just on Britt's case, both sides of the gun control issue saw the ruling as significant because the state's highest court found that Britt had a right to bear arms that trumped the state's ability to restrict him from owning any weapons.

Advocates spent Monday poring over the 5-2 decision in Britt v. State of North Carolina. The decision was seen as a victory for those who view government restrictions as too strict, while those in favor of tighter gun control described it as an alarming blow.

"This has implications beyond just North Carolina," said Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, a Washington-based Libertarian think tank that opposes gun control. "North Carolina has now decided that some felonies are not so serious to result in deprivations of the right to defend oneself."
Roxane Kolar, director of North Carolinians against Gun Violence, said the decision was troubling.

"I've never heard of this before, of a felon having an inalienable right to own a weapon," she said. "It's putting a lot of our state gun laws at risk."
The decision could spark a rush to local courthouses as felons try to have their rights to own and store firearms in their homes restored. Those with the best chance would likely be those with cases similar to Britt's; people convicted of nonviolent crimes who had their right to own a gun restored and then taken away with a 2004 law, said Jeanette Doran, a senior staff attorney with the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.

Legal e-mail message boards lit up over the weekend, with lawyers swapping tales of clients convicted of felony littering charges then barred from hunting deer for the rest of their lives.

The state legislature may address the issue with a bill introduced for the 2009-2010 session by Rep. Phil Haire, a Democrat from Western North Carolina, that would give limited hunting privileges to nonviolent felons.
Ready to hunt again

Britt said he's excited about hunting this fall and relieved that his four-year legal battle is over.

"It's not a privilege; it's a right," Britt said about gun ownership. "It's a constitutional right."

The office of N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, who defended the state law in the case, declined to comment on the ruling.

A passionate hunter who never had any subsequent arrests, Britt had his right to own guns restored from 1987 until 2004, when the new law went into effect.

Brady wrote that the law was too broad in including nonviolent felons like Britt, who had otherwise been law-abiding and had owned guns for 17 years after he successfully petitioned in 1987 to have his civil rights restored, including owning a gun.

"He is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety," Brady wrote.

Troubled by the ruling

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson said she was alarmed that her fellow justices ignored state law by giving Britt an exemption. She said the ruling made North Carolina the first jurisdiction to uphold a convicted felon's right to own firearms over a state's power to regulate gun ownership.

"Today's decision opens the floodgates wide before an inevitable wave of individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but our statutory provisions prohibiting firearm possession by incompetents and the mentally insane," Timmons-Goodson wrote.

Her fears were shared by those seeking tighter gun-control laws.
Kolar of North Carolinians against Gun Violence expressed concern that judges would be the ones to decide whether felons could own guns, something she says gives too much discretion to the courts.

Jim Woodall, the district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, said he found the opinion worrisome and hoped it wouldn't be applied broadly to others.

"They're carving out a one-person exemption," he said.

LINK:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1670142.html

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I was aware of that ruling but am somewhat confused by it. I thought that there was a federal prohibition on possession by felons. If there is a federal law in addition to the state law, how does this ruling help Britt. I need to look into it more.

[d90king]

I was aware of that ruling but am somewhat confused by it. I thought that there was a federal prohibition on possession by felons. If there is a federal law in addition to the state law, how does this ruling help Britt. I need to look into it more.


This might help... Not sure if these are the grounds or not but here is the exception. You also have States rights...

The Statutory Exception

The rule prohibiting felon gun ownership has some exceptions. There is specific statutory language providing that the federal criminal firearms possession does not apply to individuals who have had their civil rights restored by the state in which they where convicted of the felony.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) provides:

"Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly [or implicitly as a matter of state law] provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Ah, OK, that explains it. Thanks for providing that. I don't know how long it would have taken me to find it!

[daveohno]

Examples: the tax code and the ability of most major corporations in America to not pay any income taxes; not what the originators of the Constitution had in mind (IMHO).
So when Aguila Blanca stated his comment (Where does it say that in the Constitution?), my reply was meant that a strict Constitutionalists should be applaud at what we have done to the Constitution over the years by developing such a diverse and (also my opinion) a politically hampered idea of what constitutes legal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, etc.


How many times does a person or corporation have to pay taxes to governments? I'm not a tax attorney, but I'm sure the reason they pay less taxes than a statist wants is because they pay taxes in some foreign country and get credit for it here against taxes they might owe here. It's like dividend income, the company pays taxes on the income and then they give you some of it and now the another tax is paid by you. Double taxation is not good.

Constitutionalists probably don't agree that what we have done to the bill of rights. We trample peoples rights like a herd of buffaloes and then the poor slob that gets his teeth kicked out by the government has to sue the government to get made whole again. Well, the last time I looked, the government has many attorneys on staff, nearly unlimited resources and you get to sue them to get your rights restored. If a felon can't own a firearm, a minor (misdemeanor)domestic battery, a brush with a controlled substance, a felony dui, and income tax evasion could all qualify for being deprived of your right to own a firearm, they're all felonies, except the domestic. The only one that has any violence on the surface is the domestic battery. Spit on your significant other (you are mad because they cheated on you and this is what you think of them), have a minor altercation with your brother or sister, get into a shoving contest with your room mate and get a conviction and there you go, you lose the right to own a firearm. How about your significant other is mad at you and says you hit him/her? How about a messy divorce, no one has any of those! I'm afraid of him/her, he's violent, get an order of protection and the right to own a firearm could be in jeopardy. Oh yeah, we've done a bang up job on making everything one does illegal. The list of nonsense is never ending. That's just what the writers of the constitution had in mind.

At the rate we're going, it will be a felony to utter unpleasant words to the protected classes that they keep inventing. Their feeling were hurt, don't you know. I am very unhappy with the state of affairs when it comes to government abuse of the people. We are breaking our necks to make everything under the sun illegal. It'll be a felony pretty soon to smoke a cigarette in public, it offends someone and it's for your own good. You lit up in a restricted area, off to prison for a couple of years for you.

[Dave Workman]

According to me if a person commits a violent crime and uses a firearm in that crime he should lose the right to own a firearm. If it is a non violent crime I think that after the sentence is served, there could be a period of good behavior, after which their rights could be fully restored.

Well, there is a considerable amount of sentiment in that direction on several forums where a link to my column was posted.

A century ago, that was the way it worked, I believe, in many places.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

A century ago there was a group of ex-cons who'd committed violent felonies and were no longer allowed to have arms? I do think full rights were restored on completion of sentence in most cases, and it's also relevant to this issue that the death penalty was used with more offenses than it is now, so that would render the question moot in a lot of the more violent cases as well. More in line with historical Biblical standards. Rape and other violent crimes might result in death. But I was not aware that there was a class which was not allowed to be armed after completion of sentence in that era. I'll have to check that out.

[Rick McC.]

I believe that's available in Fla. is not reasonable in that (Ithink) it requires that the "reinstatement" of gun rights (even for non-violent offenders after meeting all conditions of their sentencing) be made by the Governor and Cabinet. This requires the services of an attorney who specializes in this legal arena in the Tallahassee area (state capitol). I've heard the amount of legal work necessary to "jump through all the hoops" (voluminous paperwork and a LOT of time) puts the application of the process beyond the financial reach of most citizens.

Take care,

Rick

[daveohno]

If you want to make something expensive and nearly impossible to accomplish, just involve the government in the process. Convoluted rules, indifferent people, people with an agenda all equal a nightmare for the person attempting to get something.

[R.D.Wylie]

That judgement is going to send a lot of felons in prison to the law library.