Should every felony conviction be a life sentence?

[flybeech]

Every felony and one misdemeanor means a life sentence of lost rights to own a firearm. Regardless of what or when the citizen's crime was, society has decided that no felon or misdemeanor abuser can ever pay their debt to society, for as long as they live. It doesn't matter of a gun was involved in the crime, or not. It doesn't matter if it was a violent, or victimless crime, or not. It doesn't matter if it is a 19 year old that plea bargained charges for a bag of pot planted under his seat, because he was too poor to have the attorneys the rich kid would have, or the man who's vengeful ex-girlfriend got a conviction of domestic violence for the bruises she suffered on her knuckles. All people who have been convicted for any of those things we've all seen on the form 4473 are sentenced for life and forever prohibited from being able to defend themselves, their families and possibly their country.

I'm not sure, but when I was a kid, I thought felons could actually pay their debt to society, serve their sentence, rejoin society and regain their Second Amendment and other rights. In order for the Federal government to "keep us safe" and since safety is more important than liberty, many Americans agree that these people should be forever stripped of their liberty. Personally, I disagree and feel that many, if not most all of these barred people should at some point in time, have their liberty returned. Do you believe that all felons and misdemeanor domestic violence convicts should be forever bared from firearms? If so, why?

 

[gerhard1]

I don't have a problem with restoration of gun rights for those convicted of non-violent first-time felonies.

 

[10Seconds]

I agree a lifetime ban should not be applied to first time felons or non-violent offences.

In reality, such a ban is useless because a felon looking to committ crimes isnt going to care about it.

 

[Stackle2]

I agree a lifetime ban should not be applied to first time felons or non-violent offences.

In reality, such a ban is useless because a felon looking to committ crimes isnt going to care about it.

Agreed, with specific emphasis on non violent, non weapons charges, & not of a sexual or predatory nature.

 

[jdagreek]

Every felony committed which results in a death by a gun of any kind should be a death sentence, no questions asked. And, the appeals process should be streamlined to prevent the extreme delays before the execution takes place.

However, it is just much easier for the liberals to tie the process up in red tape for year after year.

 

[Dukester]

Every felony committed which results in a death by a gun of any kind should be a death sentence, no questions asked. And, the appeals process should be streamlined to prevent the extreme delays before the execution takes place.

However, it is just much easier for the liberals to tie the process up in red tape for year after year.

So if you defend yourself with a gun legitimately but a jury convicts you of being excessive or whatever, which has happened, you should be put to death? That's a bit extreme.

 

[mons meg]

I dunno, it's pretty much settled science that if you got strung up by the SEC over tenuous "insider trading" charges and ended up with a suspended-sentence that you are a menace to society forEVAAARRRS.

 

[Ijphater]

Just to stir the pot here a bit... Where in the second amendment does it specify that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they have committed a crime? Does someone who has committed a crime have any less right to effectively defend themselves from a attacker or tyrannical government?

Does that mean that I think murderers should all have free access to legal firearms? No, I think they should be dead after they are convicted of murder and they never would have the opportunity to hurt anyone again. I think a lot of the problem is in the justice system. A habitual so called "violent" offender should never see the light of day after being convicted.

If there are people walking free in society that we are so afraid of having a gun there are two questions I want to ask. 1. Why are they walking free in the first place? 2. If they are so dangerous to bar them from having a firearm what good is that really going to do? Do you really think they are going to abide by the law and not be able to carry out violence?

Criminals are by definition law breakers...

 

[jayhawkclint]

I think there should be a process for restoration of gun rights in place after some specified time period or following completion of a probation/treatment/etc. There are some crimes committed that just have nothing to do with firearms, and I don't believe that every convicted felon is a lifetime criminal. I personally know a convicted felon that defended himself in a knife fight when he was 16 and was convicted as an adult. He had a knife pulled on him, and he turned the knife on his attacker. He was charged with attempted murder and was plea bargained down, but still a felon.

 

[10Seconds]

Just to stir the pot here a bit... Where in the second amendment does it specify that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they have committed a crime? Does someone who has committed a crime have any less right to effectively defend themselves from a attacker or tyrannical government?
.

At the time of the second amendment, murderers, rapists, and violent criminals were swiftly executed to the question was moot.