TexasCHLforum.com

montgomery wrote:

bayou wrote:What does 30.06 have to do with the discussion about felonies? If you differ in opinion with the felons not having access to guns that's ok but don't hijack the thread with a trolling comment.

Point is the same guys that want to beat the law by not doing the time are no different than those that beat the 30.06. Same mentality. . .

I'm sick of your insults and your arrogance. Wanting to provide a way for a felon to restore constitutional rights is not trying to "beat the law" as you falsely claim. It's a call to change the law. If an administrative hearing with the possibility of a state court review were to be implemented, it would not guarantee restoration of rights. If the facts did not warrant restoration, then the administrative officer and the state court would likely refuse restoration. If you truly cannot separate the concept of a sentence imposed by a court and the impact of an extra-judical legislative act, then you should consider not insulting others by making false claims about their motives.

Chas.

theHunter wrote:Several people advocating for someone who commits a crime to not serve their punishment, to me, that means that you are ok with that crime if you don't want them to be punished.

Now that's a stretch and that's putting it most politely. Loss of constitutional rights is not part of a felon's sentencing. It's the result of being classified a felon. If it was part of sentencing, then the judge or jury would have the ability to impact whether or not a convicted felon loses his/her constitutional rights.

What if any constitutional rights are lost as a result of a felony conviction is a legitimate topic of discussion and one concerning which reasonable minds can differ. Violent v. non-violent offenses, mitigating circumstances, how old is the conviction and what has the defendant done since the conviction, etc. are all factors that I feel an administrative panel and ultimately a state jury should be able to weigh in terms of restoration of civil rights.

Chas.

Pariah3j wrote:First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller

It's easy to say that it's part and parcel for the punishment because we aren't the ones being affected by it, but just like the story linked, it could just as easily be someone following the law. If you have to petition the court and pay money to restore a right, then it isn't a right, its a privilege at that point IMO. But we've already started to slide down this slippery slope I guess, and too many are willing to potentially give up freedoms for safety. And we all know what our founding fathers said about that(or at least one of them did).

Rights can be lost by one's own actions. There is no right that is greater than the right to live, but one's life can be taken by the state if they commit a capital offense. My suggestion is for an administrative procedure to have civil rights restored after the commission of a violent felony. If the request for restoration of civil rights were rejected by the administrative board, the applicant would have the opportunity to seek relief in state court with the option to request a jury trial.

I presume from your comments that you think violent felons should retain all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, the moment they walk out of prison.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

All it takes to make us all felons is a pen stroke.

Do you really think that's going to happen?

Chas.

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.