TexasCHLforum.com

I heard this discussed the other day on a YouTube video by the yankee marshal. He believes that after someone has served their time for whatever crime they committed they should be allowed to have their gun rights back even if they were convicted of a felony.

What do you guys think? This seemed like an interesting discussion so I thought I’d bring it here.


If the is the wrong thread on the wrong page let me know and I’ll move it to off topic.

To me I think it depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime then I don’t think so, even if they have we get their time. What would you do about someone with a dishonorable discharge from the military? They are banned too. I’m sure there have been young men who accepted a dishonorable discharge not knowing the consequences.

Just out of curiosity, and because I've heard (pure hearsay) different things, it'd be nice to have one of our Legal Eagles chime in on this.

mrvmax wrote:To me I think it depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime then I don’t think so, even if they have we get their time. What would you do about someone with a dishonorable discharge from the military? They are banned too. I’m sure there have been young men who accepted a dishonorable discharge not knowing the consequences.

But a dishonorable discharge is a serious issue in my opinion.

I see both sides of this one... I would hope one could serve his time or punishment and be done with it. (get a job, vote, buy a gun, etc.) But with repeat offender rates so high, especially with violent crime, it's a leap to think it will end well most of the time.

mrvmax wrote:To me I think it depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime then I don’t think so, even if they have we get their time. What would you do about someone with a dishonorable discharge from the military? They are banned too. I’m sure there have been young men who accepted a dishonorable discharge not knowing the consequences.

If a man received a dishonorable discharge from the military he did something very serious he doesn't deserve any gun rights in my honest opinion

Losing one's right to own or use a firearm is part of the punishment. Just because the felon serves his/ her " time" doesn't mean he/ she has completed their punishment.

I'm not inclined to want to see gun rights restored to felons. They seem to have little problem getting guns illegally (see the number of felons arrested carrying a gun) that I don't want to make it easier on them.

I'm open to considering restoring gun rights depending on the actual crime. I can see both sides of the argument, but have not reached a conclusion. Should a person convicted of tax fraud (not paying his/her taxes) be classified the same as a person convicted of a violent crime (rape, murder, assault)? At first blush, I'm inclined to say these are very different situations. What do you think?

In the perfect world that I would imagine, a key difference between a felony and a misdemeanor should be (in addition to the length of time served) the supposition of a black mark on your record forever.

A felony, by definition, is more serious than a misdemeanor. Losing your right to vote, right to carry guns, etc. is the 'extra' that a felony gets you that a misdemeanor doesn't.

But then again, in my perfect world, we'd make sure that the only things listed as felonies are those that warrant the 'forever losing of some rights' kind of things.

OneGun wrote:I'm open to considering restoring gun rights depending on the actual crime. I can see both sides of the argument, but have not reached a conclusion. Should a person convicted of tax fraud (not paying his/her taxes) be classified the same as a person convicted of a violent crime (rape, murder, assault)? At first blush, I'm inclined to say these are very different situations. What do you think?

I agree... and you articulated it much better than I did.

First I need to say that there has been a gradual creep toward a judicial system that would make King George III proud. The trend has been to elevate far too many misdemeanors to felony status. This should not have happened. I base my comments largely on this fact.

I believe:
1. Non-violent felonies should not impact civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. In the alternative, all civil rights should be automatically restored after ____ years;
2. Violent felonies should result in loss of all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, but with an administrative procedure to have all civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The citizen should have the right to appeal the administrative finding to state court;

The reason I believe a violent felon should have an avenue to restore civil rights is because there can be circumstances where a person commits a violent crime under conditions that would prompt otherwise law-abiding persons to do so. For example, a father kills his son-in-law for beating his daughter. It's murder, but the man is not likely to be a threat to others and he should have the right to seek restoration of his civil rights. If it is shown during the hearing or trial that the father has be violent at other times, then the application for restoration could/should be denied.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:First I need to say that there has been a gradual creep toward a judicial system that would make King George III proud. The trend has been to elevate far too many misdemeanors to felony status. This should not have happened. I base my comments largely on this fact.

I believe:
1. Non-violent felonies should not impact civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. In the alternative, all civil rights should be automatically restored after ____ years;
2. Violent felonies should result in loss of all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, but with an administrative procedure to have all civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The citizen should have the right to appeal the administrative finding to state court;

The reason I believe a violent felon should have an avenue to restore civil rights is because there can be circumstances where a person commits a violent crime under conditions that would prompt otherwise law-abiding persons to do so. For example, a father kills his son-in-law for beating his daughter. It's murder, but the man is not likely to be a threat to others and he should have the right to seek restoration of his civil rights. If it is shown during the hearing or trial that the father has be violent at other times, then the application for restoration could/should be denied.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:First I need to say that there has been a gradual creep toward a judicial system that would make King George III proud. The trend has been to elevate far too many misdemeanors to felony status. This should not have happened. I base my comments largely on this fact.

I believe:
1. Non-violent felonies should not impact civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. In the alternative, all civil rights should be automatically restored after ____ years;
2. Violent felonies should result in loss of all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, but with an administrative procedure to have all civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The citizen should have the right to appeal the administrative finding to state court;

The reason I believe a violent felon should have an avenue to restore civil rights is because there can be circumstances where a person commits a violent crime under conditions that would prompt otherwise law-abiding persons to do so. For example, a father kills his son-in-law for beating his daughter. It's murder, but the man is not likely to be a threat to others and he should have the right to seek restoration of his civil rights. If it is shown during the hearing or trial that the father has be violent at other times, then the application for restoration could/should be denied.

Chas.

Well stated!

Vol Texan wrote:In the perfect world that I would imagine, a key difference between a felony and a misdemeanor should be (in addition to the length of time served) the supposition of a black mark on your record forever.

A felony, by definition, is more serious than a misdemeanor. Losing your right to vote, right to carry guns, etc. is the 'extra' that a felony gets you that a misdemeanor doesn't.

But then again, in my perfect world, we'd make sure that the only things listed as felonies are those that warrant the 'forever losing of some rights' kind of things.

I agree here. Maybe a different type of classification for a "white collar" felony that could restore rights at some point.

I'm not familiar with them, but there are some remedies in place for this. I know someone that had been convicted of a drug offense when he was quite young, he has had his rights restored through a legal process. Not exactly sure how that works. It was a charge out of NY state and he's now in Texas.