TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

Very close to my own beliefs on this.

Was it the NFA of 1934 or the GCA of 1968 which removed the 2nd amendment rights of convicted felons.

... bigger crime here is why a Texan would watch [abbreviated profanity deleted] Yankee Marshall, especially after his recent derogatory and inflammatory remarks toward another Texan, Ms. Dana Loesch.

I don’t agree with most of what the yankee marshal says but some of his videos are entertaining.

I agree with Charles as it runs pretty close to my belief as well.

I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

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.
...
Chas.

When I was young and green, before I worked on NIBRS and UCR reporting to the FBI, I thought a Felony was a federal crime, and mostly violent offenders. Then I learned that a felony was any crime with a punishment that can exceed 1 year in jail. Baton Rouge made smoking on the levy a felony. Which is ridiculous. Especially when you consider smoking on the casino boats is legal, but walking off the boat with a cigarette and standing on the levy to look at the river is a felony. Felony status now is ridiculous. I'm a firm believer that violent offenders and addicts should lose their 2nd amendment rights. But like you said, a case by case appeal should be granted.

I worked as a MIS Manager for Wackenhutt Corrections many years ago. One of my trustees was in for double manslaughter. When I heard his story, I thought that I'd have been there too. He was beaten senseless and forced to watch as 4 men took their turns on his little sister. He managed to get two of the men before they caught him. He was unrepentant and was going to "flat-line", meaning he wouldn't get any time off his sentence. He said he'd be back in shortly after being released, because he'd get the other two as soon as he was released.

I'm not sure I'd grant his 2nd amendment rights back if I were on the appeal board, but I really think I'd be in the same position as he was if I were put through the same ordeal.

Gunner4640 wrote:

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

You paint with too broad of a brush. I know someone offered a general discharge due to having some financial problems as a lower ranking enlisted guy. His superior did not like him and was trying to force him out. He was told to accept the general or he could fight it and if he lost he would get a dishonorable discharge. Pretty harsh for having too much debt and it doesn’t fit what you stated.

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 said and I agree completely.

I think it really depends. If the felony conviction was for either a crime of physical violence, particularly one where someone was gravely injured or killed, or a crime committed using a firearm to unlawfully threaten use of deadly force, then I would say no to restoring firearm rights. Incidentally, I wouldn’t want that person to have their voting rights restored either. In either case, I would grant an exception if the felon were willing to commit to a post-incarceration period of public service, which could take any number of forms that might meet the voting public’s approval..... for instance, military enlistment, or something like the old WPA, where they could work for a “better than prison” wage rebuilding the nation’s infrastructures like interstate highways and bridges, etc. But that would have to be something offered only to those who had been (A) model prisoners while incarcerated, and (B) who were not recidivist criminals.

Other kinds of felonies ought to be treated much differently than they currently are, in my opinion. A felony weed conviction, on it’s own, without any associated things like cartel membership or gang membership, and including things like how they interacted with police at the time of their arrest, the existence of any prior criminal history, etc, shouldn’t be a permanent disqualifier for firearms or voting rights.

One of the problems of course is the difference between how states handle felonies versus the feds. The federal gov’t has a hard enough time swalllowing the idea of perfectly innocent law-abiding citizens owning guns, and there are always efforts underway to curtail that right. So it seems to me unlikely that the federal gov’t would cooperate by allowing restoration of gun rights for those convicted of federal felonies - no matter how relatively harmless they might be.

That wouldn’t be such a bitter pill to swallow if the feds showed a little more interest and alacrity in throwing their own behind bars for obvious felonies........

Edited to add.... I’ve just gone back through the thread and read Charles’ and Clarionite’s posts, and I’d have to say that I’d agree with them both, and modify what I’ve written above accordingly.

1911 10MM wrote:I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

A dishonorable discharge is equivalent to a felony conviction in the civilian world. The removal of gun rights was made law with the passage of the GCA of 1968. That information can be found in 18 USC 922.

CoffeeNut wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

A dishonorable discharge is equivalent to a felony conviction in the civilian world. The removal of gun rights was made law with the passage of the GCA of 1968. That information can be found in 18 USC 922.

A Honorable discharge is one in which the Veteran has served his dutys.
A General discharge is considered Neutral. discharged for unsuitability medical .. or any number of reasons. This is done adminstratively.
The one I think that gets forgotten is the Undesirable. Got tossed out , but probably not for commiting out right felonies. Needs a court marshall for this one

Dishonorable is the one that shuts doors and is the equivilent of a felony. Need a court marshal to earn this one.

1911 10MM wrote:I was unaware a dishonorable discharge removed gun rights. Can someone cite a source for this information?

It is one of the questions on the 4473 form to buy a gun.

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.

puma guy wrote:

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.

I know of felons that have regained their right to vote. None were violent felons though, mostly drug use.
I also know of a man that as a young man in the 70's, was convicted of felony drug possession for a marijuana cigarette. If I am not mistaken, this is a misdemeanor today yet he still cannot purchase a gun.

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'?