Best
69 Comments
Post
  • #6
    !
    So the argument is a non-violent felon is completely unchanged by years in prison? Well, maybe, I guess, but couldn't we start with restoring a right slightly less likely to go horribly wrong? Like voting?
  • #24
    !
    Exactly, restore the right to vote ad well as the right to own firearms, if a republican gets elected they can then avail themselves to their second amendment remidies... :)
  • #43
    !
    A non-violent felon does not mean a criminal was not guilty of a violent crime. As pointed out above it just means their conviction was for a non-violent offense. They could plea to lesser charges and have the worst charges dropped in favor of a lighter sentence and not fighting it in court. It happens every single day. This is a poorly thought out idea. It would need far more extensive checks into each and every person it would affect to make it even worth considering.
    What about a felon who was apprehended without issue because he broke into a house but was unarmed. His apprehension was made easier by the fact that he didn't have a weapon. Now he can legally purchase one when he's released. Did he learn to quit being a thief or did he learn to take a gun the next time so he has a better chance of getting away. This is stupid on so many levels.
  • #67
    !
    I could be wrong but I think some states already automatically restore rights like voting and the ability to get certain professional licenses. I believe Georgia and Colorado are two examples.
  • #60
    !
    well are they, or are they not still citizens, after they have served their time and probation periods? all citizens of the usa, have the right to bear arms according to the constitution. but only while incarcerated, you are not considered a full fleged citizen.
  • #61
    !
    "but only while incarcerated, you are not considered a full fleged citizen"

    Actually, it's not quite so simple. The laws vary widely from state-to-state, but most consider convicted felons as not eligible for any kind of re-enfranchisement until they not only complete their period of incarceration, but also any term of probation (or supervised release in the Federal system), and have completely satisfied all terms of their sentence. This includes, but is not limited to, any community service, fines, court costs and/or financial restitution. This causes many to remain completely disenfranchised for years - often decades - after their release from prison.
  • #62
    !
    @LazerFlash well either they have paid their alleged debt to society or they haven't. and should a non-violent felony, be treated the same as a person with a history of violent felony?
  • #63
    !
    @1adam2 Actually, I think it's even more complicated than that. For instance, should someone who committed a violent crime 10 years ago, but has been a responsible member of society since then, still be considered a danger to society? What about 15 years ago? How about 20? At some point, even a violent offender needs to be considered rehabilitated and deserves to have all of their rights and privileges restored to them.(Unless it's in Maryland, where any former bad act, no matter how long ago, precludes any thought in the mind of that state's governor and court system that a person could be rehabilitated.)

    We are a country of laws, and the law needs to be flexible enough to deal with most (if not, all) possibilities without painting everyone with the same, overly broad brush.
  • #64
    !
    @LazerFlash nah i think people make it more complicated, with their over-rationalizations. in the 1800's once you were released from prision or jail, you got your guns back. but you can never have enough laws, to compensate for the lack of G-D in your socialist antiG-D country.
  • #65
    !
    @1adam2 Ah, but the 1800's were a very different time than now. Taking a man's gun away was tantamount to a death sentence in many areas of our country back then. Today, there's a LOT more to the re-enfranchisement debate than simply whether a convicted felon should have his/her gun rights restored.
  • R Load more replies

  • #58
    !
    Like most people, I was under the assumption that a "felony" was reserved for crimes against society. Murderers, rapists, armed robbers, carjackers, kidnappers, home invaders...you know, those criminals who are a true danger to the rest of us. Those people that we want to keep track of because they have a history of violent behavior.

    I learned, with a loved one, that felonies are handed out like candy on Halloween and that millions of people who are branded for life with this classification are simple drug offenders. Not drug dealers. In some states you can receive a felony for simply possessing ONE prescription pill such as Xanax. Saw it happen.

    Now and forever, because of this single pill, this loved one will never own a gun (and this person is as harmless as a kitten), get to vote, and will always struggle to get a decent job.

    The insanity of such punishment is just another destructive characteristic of the "war on drugs; as if ruining someone life for possessing one pill is going to make things all better.

    Felonies should be reserved for those people who have harmed or attempted to harm another person. That includes stealing, robbing, raping, assaulting, murdering, etc. It should not take the rights away from people whose crime has done no harm to anyone else.
  • #50
    !
    @PoliticalSpice - Whoa, whoa, whoa, not so fast. I don't mind them having the right to own a firearm to protect themselves or their family, but if they are a criminal I don't know that I want them having the right to affect public policy.
  • #25
    !
    Ao one the one hand we got stiffer gun control lawz for use legal gun owners, and on the other we are gonna arm felons.
    Ok I see...
    This country is more screwed up than a monkey with a football.
    Lmao
  • #45
    !
    Go figure. The criminals have been making and changing the laws for years. They are taking over as politicians. It's called working smart for them.
  • #17
    !
    I agree with the governor. Some one who writes a hot check to feed their family or who had a pot conviction year ago are not a threat to society with a gun. This is common sense legislation and I support it.
  • #69
    !
    Now why can't I have a gun? I'm a convicted felon! I was charged in 1998 for a class 6 felony protecting myself from a drunk, and a class 5 posession of drugs because my cousins idiot friend dropped his dope in my car and I was pulled over for a tail light out and the officer seen it and because it was my car I was charged! It's been over 14 years since and I never had any problems since.
  • #68
    !
    demo1027 15 years ago I was arrested with a quauter gram of cocaine,I chose to fight the arrest, other than to take a suspended conviction , as the drug was not on possesion. In the end I lost and was convicted, In Colorado you get the majority of rights back after you have paid your dues, including the rite to vote. Which I do At every chance. I have been in no trouble since. I have two sons which I would love to be go hunting with, as the love to hunt , and have to go with my Brother. I have no reason to own a handgun, but think I am very hopeful that this passes. I anyone has any suggestions I would love to hear from you

    Thanks
  • #59
    !
    I voted yes, because there are felonies that shouldn't be considered felonies in the first place. In a better world where "felony" means what it should mean and applies only to cases where it should apply I would say no.
  • #55
    !
    Most of those felons are aligned with the programs that the Democrats approved. I do not think it would be too good of an idea. Liberals with gun is bad business.
  • #51
    !
    Of course democrats are going to back this stupid republican, should those ''nonviolent'' felons end up becoming violent, they get to continue beating the gun control drums. Whatever, I voted not sure, it would really have to depend on the nature of the crime.
  • #49
    !
    This is apparently not a novel or solitary concept... Just today, I found out that at least five states, including Minnesota, Washington, Arizona, Texas and California, have mechanisms in place to restore gun rights to convicted felons under very specific conditions.
  • #41
    !
    one law throughout the southwest is that when any man is released from prison he must be given a horse and saddle, a hand gun (in arizona it's a shotgun) and a $20 gold piece. i'm not aware of any state in which the law has ever been stricken from the books.

    i'd be really curious to know how much a $20 gold piece is worth today?
  • #35
    !
    They can own a gun, but can't vote, get a job and return to society as a responsible person and pay taxes, belong to some social network, etc...
    I'm sure given the choice between killing themselves and others they will choose the former. Way to be trusting Colorado.
  • #34
    !
    "Nonviolent felons are no more likely to commit a violent act in the future than non-felons are," I'm not sure if that is true. If you demonstrate disregard for the law and the rights of others, then that makes you less trustworthy than someone who has not.
  • #33
    !
    The felons in my area carry guns all the time. That's why we non- felons must do the same. Peace through superior firepower. Works every time.
  • #27
    !
    i see no reason not to as long as they have done their time and finished parole of probation,unless of course their crime was using a gun to commit the crime.

    when a citizens has their full rights it should mean all rights otherwise how are the a free citizen.
  • R Load more comments...
Post