https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/appeals-court-asserts-non-dangerous-felons-should-not-lose-gun-rights-forever

I get this and think I like it, but wonder if the rationale will be extended to felons getting restored voting rights. And are drug felonies "non-violent"?

BigRobSA said:

---

"....shall not be infringed."

Plain English

No caveats or "...except for...."

---

This

What did George Carlin say, "they're not 'rights' if they can be taken away."

BigRobSA said:

---

"....shall not be infringed."

Plain English

No caveats or "...except for...."

---

So illegal aliens have the right to bear arms. And prisoners on death row. And 7 year olds. And transvestites on psychotropic drugs. And patients on suicide watch in the county hospital. And people at a presidential campaign rally. No caveats, no exceptions.

Bulldog73 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

"....shall not be infringed."

Plain English

No caveats or "...except for...."

---

So illegal aliens have the right to bear arms. Yes And prisoners on death row. No, their rights are temporarily stripped while incarcerated. And 7 year olds. No, they're not granted many rights at all. And transvestites on psychotropic drugs. Yes And patients on suicide watch in the county hospital. Not while in the hospital, but outside, yep. And people at a presidential campaign rally. Yes. No caveats, no exceptions.

---

Bulldog73 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

"....shall not be infringed."

Plain English

No caveats or "...except for...."

---

So illegal aliens have the right to bear arms. And prisoners on death row. And 7 year olds. And transvestites on psychotropic drugs. And patients on suicide watch in the county hospital. And people at a presidential campaign rally. No caveats, no exceptions.

---

No right is absolute. But the placement of reasonable restrictions (e.g. one incarcerated has already lost his or her freedom; loss of 2nd amendment rights isn't exactly a death blow) does not make usurpation of the rights for others justified. That's a little like saying "because we executed someone for capital murder, we should do the same thing for jaywalking..."

That's ludicrous. However, while the definition of reasonable may not be universally agreed to, it shouldn't include the opinions of those that are against ALL 2nd amendment rights to begin with. That's like allowing the victims of a crime to serve on the jury of the accused, especially after being told by the police and prosecutor he did it.

No one in the t.u. athletic department in their right mind (to the extent that there is anyone that fits that description) should EVER listen to my opinions about what they should do. By definition, I can't be reasonable in forming those opinions.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second"

- said by most pro 2A guy of all time

Gun rights are human rights.

The right to defend yourself is granted by God.

If you believe someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then they should not be allowed in society.

We need to classify crimes as felonies or misdemeanors. There are different rules and procedures for each. If it's a felony then it's a felony. Once we start trying to decide which felonies count then it'll turn into a mess. And it is clearly a way to pave the road for felons to vote.
Drug felonies are violent. More violence comes from drugs in some way than any other reason.

So even you, presumably a relative absolutist on the 2nd Amendment, acknowledge some limitations on the right to bear arms. That puts you in good standing. The founding fathers also acknowledged limitations on the right. Slaves, loyalists to the crown, prisoners, even pacifists did not have the right in their eyes. I can imagine they did not think that hostile Indians or Whiskey Rebellion members had that right, either.

You and I might disagree, for instance, on whether illegal aliens should have the right to carry aboard commercial airliners. Does history, reason and the underlying purpose of the 2nd Amendment mandate it? We might disagree, without disagreeing about whether the 2nd A is a crucial, even fundamental, extension of the natural right to protect and defend oneself.

The Fifth Circuit opinion is an interesting entry into that discussion.

Quote:

---

but wonder if the rationale will be extended to felons getting restored voting rights.

---

Libs will try, but there is NO reason it should! They are different things!

The right to bear arms is set forth in the Constitution. What that right meant at common law is what right is protected. For example, there has never been a right for murderers in jail to bear arms.

Conversely, any right to vote has never been absolute or even a right at all!. It is not even in the original Constitution. It is undisputed the "right to vote" can be infringed. The Constitutional Amendments then set forth reasons that it cannot be like on the basis of sex or race or being above 18!

Aggie Infantry said:

---

Gun rights are human rights.

The right to defend yourself is granted by God.

If you believe someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then they should not be allowed in society.

---

Dont know if it can be boiled down this simply.

I love my 4 year old, and they belong in society, but I dont trust them with a gun. Same with my grandma. Obviously extreme examples, but you get my point.

ts5641 said:

---

We need to classify crimes as felonies or misdemeanors. There are different rules and procedures for each. If it's a felony then it's a felony. Once we start trying to decide which felonies count then it'll turn into a mess. And it is clearly a way to pave the road for felons to vote.
Drug felonies are violent. More violence comes from drugs in some way than any other reason.

---

Not only that, we should not forget that charges are often pleaded down to more minor charges. Just because someone did not plead guilty to a violent crime doesn't mean that they didn't do it.

powerbelly said:

---

If they have completed their punishment they should have their rights restored.

---

I struggle with this.

Because for most, there is no reform. Yes, they served their punishment, but go right back to the only lifestyle they knew.

This is a report from 2012 (the latest info I could find):

Quote:

---

Seventy percent of prisoners released in 2012 were arrested again within five years, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The recidivism rate is over 80% for prisoners with juvenile records.

---

So knowing this, do we want to hand the guns back to violent offenders?

I am very pro-2A, but I'm also anti-offenders. I think it's fair to both vehemently protect gun rights for our law abiding citizens, but avoid arming the mentally unstable among us in society.

Quote:

---

I'm fine with non violent offenders having both voting rights and gun rights restored

---

Disagree on voting rights.

Whether one robs a bank with a gun or with a computer does not matter regarding their mindset. They are someone that should not be allowed to make decisions for the rest of us!

Why do people think felons cant vote? There is only a few states where that is the case. Even in Texas once they complete their sentence, including parole/probation they can vote again.

don't they have to go through a reinstatement process?

Not in Texas, once they have been released, finished parole/probation and paid any fines their sentence is completed and they are automatically eligible. If I recall there are less than 10 states that hold it against you forever and quite a few allow it as soon as they walk out the gate.
See Texas Election code 11.002 (4)(A)
Edit: not sure on the fines part, I was making an assumption it is included on "fully discharged from sentence"

Why would we release a felon back upon the public if we don't trust them to be reasonably non-violent?

The gun is the tool. The issue is the proclivity to improperly employ dangerous tools. And if they're still a sufficiently high risk that we want to restrict their access to particular tools, then I want them nowhere near normal families.

Part of what this is getting at is that prison is a poor choice for punishing nonviolent crimes. The main goals should be to prevent recidivism and to extract restitution.

For financial crimes, financially wiping the person out and preventing future access to the financial markets they abused should be sufficient, for example.

That said, I would say that most physical thefts are a kind of violence and the only way to prevent more theft is to lock the person up.

But as someone else said, if the person is safe to be among us in society, they are probably safe to own a gun.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Why would we release a felon back upon the public if we don't trust them to be reasonably non-violent?

The gun is the tool. The issue is the proclivity to improperly employ dangerous tools. And if they're still a sufficiently high risk that we want to restrict their access to particular tools, then I want them nowhere near normal families.

---

Because they served their sentence?

Quote:

---

But as someone else said, if the person is safe to be among us in society, they are probably safe to own a gun.

---

Just because someone served their punishment, doesnt mean they are safe to own a gun.

I'd suggest, that's rarely the case, for the simple fact that you pointed out. Prison is not a means of change/reform.

My issue is that many violent criminals plea down to a non-violent crime.

Martin Cash said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Why would we release a felon back upon the public if we don't trust them to be reasonably non-violent?

The gun is the tool. The issue is the proclivity to improperly employ dangerous tools. And if they're still a sufficiently high risk that we want to restrict their access to particular tools, then I want them nowhere near normal families.

---

Because they served their sentence?

---

Ok wiseass.

Part of the arithmetic that is supposed to go into sentencing is a consideration of the risk their release will pose to others. "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." Lots of trouble is mitigated by appropriate sentencing.

The right to short sleeves?

I'm not a fan of continuing punishment after time or sentence is served. If you feel like the individual can't be trusted with a fire arm or voting rights, then they should probably still be in prison. However, after the sentence is completed, ongoing punishment is bull*****

lb3 said:

---

My issue is that many violent criminals plea down to a non-violent crime.

---

No society that considers itself just should have plea bargaining. Inevitably you are giving guilty people unjustly low sentences and locking up innocent people who don't want to risk fighting a serious charge.

It also completely ignores the real point of it all - protecting society at large.

And like you say, it leads to confusion about what the guilty were actually guilty of.

We need to expand and streamline the court system, curb overcharging people with crimes more serious than was actually committed, and then actually get convictions on those appropriate charges.

If we really want to give an incentive for people to plead guilty, then we can offer a modest commissary allowance for guilty pleas.