Retired California Correctional Peace Officer aka prison guard. I would sometimes tell the inmates my personal beliefs such as, if you pay your debt to society than you should have your rights restored. On a note of the world is not fair, I had an inmate in my pod doing 20+ for gun possession. All the other charges had been dismissed and the possession charge was just that. He had not even used it in the commission of the original crime (I verified this). This guy was still in prison on a gun possession charge long after murderers and rapist would have been released. He told me his story while waiting for his parole hearing. I told him that he had been screwed over as he left for the hearing. He returned after the hearing and said that parole board told him the same thing that I had. He got denied.
Ninth Circuit: Felon Has ‘Right to Possess Firearm for Self-Defense’
- Thread starter RugersGR8
- Start Date
The entire criminal system seems rigged. I considered retiring from ODOT and becoming a correctional officer just for the experience, but after further research, I'm not that guy at all
Felons arent criminals, theyre former criminals who served the time that was issued by a judge, then they survived the lovely environments of prison life and probably, like you, dont want to just be victimized. Yeah yeah Im aware of recidivism, but if we hate people that much, then end prison, execute everyone for everything, then nobody can be in this circumstance again. Just dont complain when its you or someone you love!What a joke! Those *******s want to disarm law abiding citizens but let a damn criminal carry a gun.
At this point, I have absolutely no respect for the legal system in this country.**insert middle finger emoji here**
Back in the day, and particularly in the West, they took your gun(s) away when you got jailed or imprisoned. And gave them back when you got out. They hoped you learned your lesson, and knew that you needed your gun(s) to survive. I really cannot see how things got to the point that it became "reasonable" to deprive people of their absolute right to defend themselves.
If they reoffend, back to the slammer. And if they cannot learn from that, maybe we need to kill them so it cannot happen again.
I'll use my stepson as a case study. I won't sugar coat it, the boy is dumb as a box of rocks in many ways. He is also completely led by the wrong head. When he was in high school he got caught breaking into houses to support his equally dumb girlfriend in the style she felt she deserved. He did his time and has largely stayed out of trouble since, more than 15 years. Now, he is recently divorced and caring for his two daughters. He builds wind farms, and makes significantly more money than I do. He travels, and lives in in some shady areas. My opinion is that he paid his debt, he should be able to legally own a firearm to use to protect his family.
I worked in a prison in a different state for several years. It changed my opinion on a lot of things, including this. There are probably old posts from me on this forum saying in thought that a felon who has completed his sentence should be able to own a gun. After spending a few years with the inmates, I no longer have a problem with a lifetime ban on gun ownership for convicted felons.
I listened to too many people discuss the crime they were going to commit when they were released. I saw too many men leave and then return with new charges. I saw too many violent criminals cut deals that turned their violent crimes into short stays with a property crime conviction.
They all received due process before losing their rights. I am absolutely opposed to anyone losing the right to bear arms without a conviction. I would be OK with changing the rules to allow a judge to waive the ban at sentencing. Maybe even a provision where a felon could petition to restore the right. But a blanket restoration of gun rights on release isn't something I could support.
I listened to too many people discuss the crime they were going to commit when they were released. I saw too many men leave and then return with new charges. I saw too many violent criminals cut deals that turned their violent crimes into short stays with a property crime conviction.
They all received due process before losing their rights. I am absolutely opposed to anyone losing the right to bear arms without a conviction. I would be OK with changing the rules to allow a judge to waive the ban at sentencing. Maybe even a provision where a felon could petition to restore the right. But a blanket restoration of gun rights on release isn't something I could support.
I've long felt that there should be a two-tiered incarceration system. We should have jail and stupid jail. Those who are dangers to society would be sentenced to the jail system, with all sentences being natural life. Those who are just stupid or made stupid decisions on the basis of youth or hormones could go into stupid jail. They could be required to wear pink outfits with purple polka dots, and then allowed to have interaction with the community, work, and otherwise be minimal drains on society. Hopefully a combination of public ridicule and maturity would solve the problem. A stupid jail sentence should not stay on one's permanent record, and should lead to no permanent loss of civil rights.
Interesting on a variety of levels.
Wonder if they will be revising the 4473?
If I understand this case, the poster boy for this case (Duarte) is a five time felon and a member of a LA street gang. Makes me wonder who was funding this through appeals and why? The 9th Circuit going pro-gun rights or pro-felon?
I am kind of leaning to saying non-violent criminals who did time/restitution can have their rights restored. I agree with the above post from James Bell that there should not be a “blanket” rule but a “conditional” rule that if certain conditions are met, they can be restored.
Not sure about non-violent habitual offenders like in this case.
Wonder if they will be revising the 4473?
If I understand this case, the poster boy for this case (Duarte) is a five time felon and a member of a LA street gang. Makes me wonder who was funding this through appeals and why? The 9th Circuit going pro-gun rights or pro-felon?
I am kind of leaning to saying non-violent criminals who did time/restitution can have their rights restored. I agree with the above post from James Bell that there should not be a “blanket” rule but a “conditional” rule that if certain conditions are met, they can be restored.
Not sure about non-violent habitual offenders like in this case.
Fortunately that ruling only applies in the 9th district and I'm sure will be suspended pending appeal to the full panel and possibly the Supremes.
Similar threads
