Ninth Circuit: Felon Has ‘Right to Possess Firearm for Self-Defense’

[retrieverman]

View attachment 477806

I’m not for “giving” a felon a damn thing, BUT if he is willing to go through the process to get a pardon, I feel like he’s earned his rights back. Serving time is just mandatory punishment for a crime, and to me, that doesn’t show me he’s rehabilitated in any way. If a person commits a crime he should have to “work” for his rights back.

I met a guy a couple months ago who was convicted 25 years of beating the guy his then fiancé was cheating on him with and charged with a felony. He was just given probation and never served any time, and he had to work for 16 years to get pardoned and actually didn’t think it would ever happen. He tried under Bush and Obama and never even got a response to his request, but he was one of the first people Trump pardoned when he got elected.

 

[RangerRick]

OK with restoring for non-violent, violent no way, also if violent was pleaded down to non, again no way

 

[BillM]

OK with restoring for non-violent, violent no way, also if violent was pleaded down to non, again no way

Violent people don't usually stop being violent. Non-violent people can be violent for a short time, and then stop being violent. They usually don't try violence until they're convinced violence is the only answer. For violent people it's their default option.

 

[PBramble]

the second doesn't recognize that. you can either one one or not. There is no but or if.

 

[RickN]

While Oklahoma has one of the lowest rates at less than 23% for criminals committing more crimes once released, other states it is over 60%. I think after a year or two of release they should allowed to apply to have their rights restored if they have not been charged with any other crimes. It should be a on a case by case basis because to many will commit another crime and many will be violent. Frankly they did the first crime and I have no problem with them having to earn their rights back. If a multi-offender, screw letting them own guns.

Although the national incarceration rate has been on a downtrend since 2010, and most states are downsizing their prisons, more than half of ex-inmates end up relapsing within three years of their release.

 

[TedKennedy]

OK with restoring for non-violent, violent no way, also if violent was pleaded down to non, again no way

View attachment 477806

I know a chick that was convicted of assault in 1988. She was guilty as hell, and even said she'd do it again in court. Did 6 months in the pen, then left the state. Her parole officer threatened to haul her back, but by that time she had been doing well for four years. He dropped it, and life went on. I convinced her to ask for a pardon back in 2015. She did and was successful.

Even with the pardon, she can't legally possess a firearm in Oklahoma. She has a DEA number, and handles all manner of narcotics on a daily basis. She received her doctorate in 2017.

To quote the Beadle : "The law is a ass - a idiot"

If you do your time and you're done with parole, should your freedom of speech, right to worship, right to assemble be denied as well?

 

[OneMoreEvan]

Too dangerous to be on the street, too dangerous to own a gun. Keep the dangerous people locked up and let the people that have been rehabilitated and paid their debt to society have ALL their rights back. I had a coworker back at the hospital who had done some time, and when I was fighting against tweakers, bums, and all other manner of scumbags, there was nobody I was happier to see busting through the doors to come help me.

 

[Decoligny]

I’m not for “giving” a felon a damn thing, BUT if he is willing to go through the process to get a pardon, I feel like he’s earned his rights back. Serving time is just mandatory punishment for a crime, and to me, that doesn’t show me he’s rehabilitated in any way. If a person commits a crime he should have to “work” for his rights back.

I met a guy a couple months ago who was convicted 25 years of beating the guy his then fiancé was cheating on him with and charged with a felony. He was just given probation and never served any time, and he had to work for 16 years to get pardoned and actually didn’t think it would ever happen. He tried under Bush and Obama and never even got a response to his request, but he was one of the first people Trump pardoned when he got elected.

I’m not for “giving” a felon a damn thing, BUT if he is willing to go through the process to get a pardon, I feel like he’s earned his rights back. Serving time is just mandatory punishment for a crime, and to me, that doesn’t show me he’s rehabilitated in any way. If a person commits a crime he should have to “work” for his rights back.

I met a guy a couple months ago who was convicted 25 years of beating the guy his then fiancé was cheating on him with and charged with a felony. He was just given probation and never served any time, and he had to work for 16 years to get pardoned and actually didn’t think it would ever happen. He tried under Bush and Obama and never even got a response to his request, but he was one of the first people Trump pardoned when he got elected.

If he applied for a presidential pardon, then he was convicted of a Federal crime, as the President can’t pardon state level crimes. So, he either committed the crime on Federal property, or Indian land. Had it been a State crime, the Governor would be the one granting the pardon, and I believe the hoops that require jumping through aren’t as many or as difficult to fit navigate. Usually faster process too.

 

[RugersGR8]

Stitt signed HB1629 on 5-13-24

https://oksenate.gov/press-releases...-approval-bill-clarifying-voting-rights-after

Sen. Young wins unanimous committee approval for bill clarifying voting rights after commutations/pardons​

&

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1629&Session=2400&Tab=0

HB 1629 clarifies that individuals convicted of a felony are eligible to register to vote if:

• They received a commutation that reduced the sentence of any active felony conviction to time served and have no other outstanding sentence under any other felony conviction.
• They received a commutation for a crime that has been reclassified from a felony to a misdemeanor with no remaining time to serve.
• They have been granted a pardon pursuant to federal or state law and have no other outstanding sentence under any other felony conviction.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

So let me get this straight, some of y’all are complaining that the 9th circuit actually ruled IN FAVOR of a citizens 2A rights?? I don’t care how many felonies this guy has had, if he is out of prison then he should have ALL his rights restored, period. Now I know some of y’all Fudds don’t like that. But shall not be infringed means what it says, whether you agree with it or not.