Felon's ability to purchase firearms

I see that many of us agree that the felony class of crime is over used ... thank the perception that legislatures are enacted to produce new laws. They see it as their primary job.

What if there were a limit on how many new laws could be passed each year ... make them figure out what is important vs what they feel like doing today or this week.

Wow im shocked that many said yes

fred333 said:

I agree there's little to be gained from keeping harmless people locked up beyond the time they present a threat to others. But, as I queried previously, what's the logic in releasing violent people back onto the streets just because the timer ran down?

Click to expand...

On the other hand, where's the logic in believing that the criminal justice system never makes mistakes, is fully balanced toward equal justice for all, and keeping someone in a cage for his entire life is a fate that society is willing to face, and pay for, based on an adversarial justice system that pits lawyer against lawyer, with someone's life as the football?

It's only a matter of months before the next administration will be in a position to deem all of us here to be felons.

Bob A said:

On the other hand, where's the logic in believing that the criminal justice system never makes mistakes, is fully balanced toward equal justice for all, and keeping someone in a cage for his entire life is a fate that society is willing to face, and pay for, based on an adversarial justice system that pits lawyer against lawyer, with someone's life as the football?

Click to expand...

I believe one of the reasons crime is at an all time low is that we have an all time record number of convicts IN PRISON.

Bob A said:

I see the logic in your argument, and I can't really refute it, which is somewhat annoying.

The question comes down to the choice between protecting personal freedom which necessarily includes the freedom to commit homicide by firearm, or protect the otherwise defenseless from predation by those who have been released from the custody of the various states.

Not all individuals are capable of adequate self-defense; the very young, the elderly and those otherwise physically or mentally unfit for an active self-defense.

Click to expand...

Most people who are incapable of defending themselves are cared for by others. Those others are responsible for the defense of those they are providing care for. That leaves people who have nobody caring for them but who are still incapable of mounting an effective defense even with the availability of firearms. That seems like it would be a rather small population, certainly not sufficiently large to justify the conversion of a right into a privilege.

ETA: Regardless, the people who are released from prison and who would subject the weak and the helpless to their predations will not be hindered in the slightest by a law prohibiting them from legally possessing firearms, so the law here would utterly fail in its mission to protect those very people. As such, that cannot be the justification for that law, as an effect which a law cannot achieve is an effect that cannot be used for its justification.

In the end, we have to come to terms with the fact that freedom isn't free. Most think that means that it takes money to secure liberty, but what it really means is that liberty demands some sacrifice of comfort and safety. Such is what happens when people can do things that we don't like, but that's exactly what liberty is in the end.

If Society is willing to remove transgressors and imprison them for a period, the question begins to modulate into the purpose of imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Many misunderstand the logical purpose of prison terms. The primary one is to make it possible to remove from our midst, in a fair and just manner, those who have demonstrated their willingness to harm others. The secondary purpose is to give such people the opportunity to reconsider their ways. Terms are limited for two reasons. The first is that it is not possible to determine if someone really has reconsidered unless they're released back into society with their liberty fully restored. The second is to account for the possibility of errors on the part of the justice system that were not detected, as someone who really was imprisoned wrongly is unlikely to intentionally harm others once released.

Against that backdrop, and in light of the prior argument I brought forth, it logically follows that laws which forbid felons from legally possessing firearms have no real place in a society that truly values liberty. The desire for vengeance, which is the primary reason most believe prison sentences exist, should not be the primary driver of the justice system, as vengeance is often diametrically opposed to Liberty and often yields unjust results when applied blindly. It may have some place in determining sentence lengths, of course, but I doubt it to be wise to set sentence lengths solely on that basis.

Punishment for crime is one end of the continuum, and rehabilitation into society is the other. somehow a balance must be established, and it seems to me that such a balance cannot be a fixed point; we are a much different society than existed at the time of the founders.

Click to expand...

I see this claim made all the time. Oddly, it is often made by those who insist on extinguishing the right to arms.

The principles we're talking about are independent of that. They are dependent upon human nature, and THAT hasn't changed in the slightest. The claim above has been used countless times to justify restrictions upon liberty. I don't buy it for a second.


ETA: If we are really intent on punishing felons, then prohibiting them from driving will be a far greater punishment than would prohibiting them from possessing firearms. The former is more likely to really hit them where it hurts. Not that it is likely to do much to prevent them from driving anyway, mind you...



You do bring up some good points, but I don't see how they overcome the logical consequences of the reasoning behind the principles behind the founding of the country and, especially, the value and nature of liberty.

Mark75H said:

I believe one of the reasons crime is at an all time low is that we have an all time record number of convicts IN PRISON.

Click to expand...

How do you explain Baltimore?

Oh, yeah, Chicago . . . enjoy this link, I think it's hilarious, but then I don't live there: http://heyjackass.com/

There may be a record number of people in prison, but are they the right ones?

Bob A said:

How do you explain Baltimore?

Oh, yeah, Chicago . . . enjoy this link, I think it's hilarious, but then I don't live there: http://heyjackass.com/

There may be a record number of people in prison, but are they the right ones?

Click to expand...

Lack of prosecution, lack of full term sentences. Nolle prosse.

Same for all the liberal cities out of control. Lawyers working this angle are laughing all the way to the bank. Lots of money in drugs, ask Omar.

Afrikeber said:

What is the most effective way to deny access to firearms in a country with a 2nd amendment? Criminalize them on bogus charges and take their guns.

Once a person serves their time handed down by the criminal justice system bogus or not. They must be allowed to be citizens with all rights as the constitution provides.... Period....there is no debating the rights of American citizens because it is a slippery slope after that.

Click to expand...

I think this is the only one that made the comment about 2A. Why is it that we are willing to use it to serve our purpose, but dont use it to defend others? The constitution is clear, the right of the people...it doesnt say if you committed a crime, you lose your rights...Freedom is for all to enjoy once you pay your debt. You should, based on the constitution, have those rights back, including the right to bear arms, to vote, speech..ect

Stand for freedom, not limited freedom

Mark75H said:

I see that many of us agree that the felony class of crime is over used ... thank the perception that legislatures are enacted to produce new laws. They see it as their primary job.

What if there were a limit on how many new laws could be passed each year ... make them figure out what is important vs what they feel like doing today or this week.

Click to expand...

I have given this idea much thought and believe all laws should have a ten year sunset provision. Requires the legislatures to vote on them every ten years and individually just as any new law would be proposed. It would reduce the time spent waisted as they try to think up new laws and likely result on many coming off the books. It would slow the whole system down which would be a wonderful thing.

I really don't think that we are having the right discussion --- it's not "felony" conviction that is disqualifying, it's "conviction of a crime for which the punishment may be imprisonment for more than 1 year".

In Maryland, there are misdemeanors carrying a possible sentence of > 1 year in prison; e.g., unlawful transfer of a high capacity magazine. Possession of CDS not marijuana is punishable by up to 6 years! Miller, Busch, Frosh, & Vallerio have been chipping away at our rights for years.

Paying the debt...

I think there is a tradition in American justice that one has either paid their debt to society or they haven't.

I believe that if one is done with one's sentence/probation/other penalty, that one should be welcomed back into our society, all rights restored. That's what it means to have paid a debt.

If the debt has in fact not been paid, then one should still be incarcerated/punished/insitutionalized, shouldn't one?

Seems pretty clear.

Bet the founding fathers saw it that way...

Bede5man said:

I think there is a tradition in American justice that one has either paid their debt to society or they haven't.

I believe that if one is done with one's sentence/probation/other penalty, that one should be welcomed back into our society, all rights restored. That's what it means to have paid a debt.

If the debt has in fact not been paid, then one should still be incarcerated/punished/insitutionalized, shouldn't one?

Seems pretty clear.

Bet the founding fathers saw it that way...

Click to expand...

No the American tradition is the felony penalties in the US Constitution from day 1

Back in the day they gave them back their guns when they got out of jail, no?

Note the Laws restrict as what a Felony is classified an comes with many variables...though there should be some type of litmus test that is adjudicated with the Felony committed...

During our colonial period (and beyond), most jails were places where apprehended suspects went to await trial and sentencing. Just like today, release immediately followed an innocent verdict. However, sentences were imposed immediately following guilty verdicts. Punishments were severe by today's standards. Many left a mark, like a prominent brand, missing ear lobe, or a split tongue. Repeat offenders were obvious to the court. No matter where they roamed, they were sentenced even more severely for repeat offences. If our justice system worked more like this, I would vote "yes". If the criminal repeats his crime, a more severe penalty (possibly death) awaits. This is a deterrence level I could live with. Of course, in this utopia I've described, the punishment matches the crime and we law-abiding citizens would be encouraged to shoot criminals ... and receive huge bounties.

But seriously, big-@ss bounties!

Today, prison is a place to compare notes with other criminals, join gangs, rape each other, and leave early. Since our penal system works like this, I can't vote "yes".

Since I agree with many above (completely or in part) on the topics of the wrongly convicted, non-violent felonies, harsh sentences in some states for minor crimes, the fact that "enumerated freedom" is a crime in many states, and the high likelihood that a Marylanders can do serious time for defending their families with firearms ... I voted "yes, with restrictions".