Quote of the Day: Second Chance Edition

130808_ken_buck_ap_328

“America is a land of second chances. One mistake should not define your future. A law-abiding, 45-year-old dad who made one mistake at 18 should have the choice of how best to protect his family or to take his kids hunting. He should have the chance to make a petition to restore his constitutional right to bear arms. This solution is long overdue.” – Colorado Rep. Ken Buck in House would give people banned from buying guns chance to get a waiver [at nola.com]

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Good.
    That appeal process is already available here at the state level for most crimes.
    It’s about time funding was restored for this.

    1. avatar Ray says:

      The flaw is spinal fortitude among lawmakers. WHAT linguine spined mugwump is going to stand up the the 84 point bright red screaming headlines: “NRA Tool Wants To Arm Felons”?

      Ray

    2. avatar Greg says:

      Only one problem. Congressm Buck voted against the bill he attached his amendment too. A purely political move.

    3. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      I’m amazed there has not been a lawsuit over this. How has somebody who would qualify for restoration not sued to have those rights restored ?

  2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Perfect, time for all those bleeding heart libs to put their money where their mouth is. Lord knows they love to go on about how all these poor little gangbangers and serial rapists have “changed” or were “victims” of the justice system. Well, time to put up or shut up, if you believe all that crap you spout about second chances, prove it, let them buy a gun.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Yes, there is evil in the world. Well represented by various examples, in prison and out. But denying these people the right to defend their lives with an effective weapon, once they are out of prison is, to me, is a greater evil.

      First, because the law will be ignored by the truly unrepentant, the truly evil, and for those that do change their ways, which does happen, they will be a permanent sub-class, a lifetime sentence, treated as sub-humans, legally denied the right to effectively defend their lives. If this person has a family and children, he would be denied the ability to effectively defend his children and their mother from potential rape, torture and an agonizing death.

      Now that is truly evil.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Well, time to put up or shut up, if you believe all that crap you spout about second chances, prove it, let them buy a gun.

      Good logic as far as I am concerned, but it won’t fly with those who believe there shouldn’t have been a first chance to buy a gun, either.

      1. avatar Red In Texas says:

        So true

  3. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    Almost all of us made some poor moves as youngsters. They shouldn’t always follow you for life.
    Most but not all deserve a second chance.

  4. avatar Brian says:

    It took me a loooooong time to come around on this, but I have. Rights are rights. If time has been served and debts have been paid, rights should be restored.

    1. avatar Dale Smith says:

      Same here. Once that realization clicked, it was like a floodgate on a lot of other issues for me as well.

    2. avatar Omer Baker says:

      Same here. Once I started to face the inconsistencies in my world view, I came up with the following: If one who is in control of their faculties cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should be incarcerated or executed.

      1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

        I’m with you on this. However, reality steps in sometimes. The world we live in includes people that with proper medication can live among us. Otherwise, they would be a danger to themselves and us. The simple decision to stop taking a medicine could have violent results. In general we don’t have the desire or money to incarcerate everyone in this situation. So we make compromises, we evaluate risks and we live with the results. The basic conflict comes when the anti’s see the solution to mitigating the risk as more gun control and we see the solution as a different kind of gun control (i.e. being able to hit your target). With our solution more of the risk is put upon those that choose to not take their meds. With the Anti’s solution more of the risk is put upon us.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Not only are there practical problems; there are also political arguments.

          The Progressives are dead set against incarceration. They want the mentally ill to be at liberty; it doesn’t matter if they are a danger to themselves or a danger to others. They also want dangerous criminals to be at liberty; high maximum sentences are fine so long as the dangerous criminals are given probation or short sentences.

          As much as we PotG might want to construct new insane asylums and prisons, the Progressives and the tax base simply aren’t going to allow us to commit or incarcerate everyone who is too dangerous to be allowed liberty without a chaperone. What will we do about this political fact?

          One solution is to insist that dangerous people be locked-up for life. We can see how far that noble principled idea gets us.

          Another is to turn the unfortunate situation to our own advantage. As long as the Progressives and a simple majority of voters insist on keeping dangerous people at liberty, what means of self defense remains for the innocent? That means has always been the RKBA.

          Some individuals who were once committed to mental treatment or convicted of a crime have rehabilitated. What of them? Are we to avail them no practice means of recovering their natural right guaranteed by the Constitution?

          Now, the Progressive and the fair-minded voter face a dilemma. If they take pity on the insane and criminal and want them at liberty are they also to treat harshly those who have rehabilitated?

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Some individuals who were once committed to mental treatment or convicted of a crime have rehabilitated. What of them? Are we to avail them no practice means of recovering their natural right guaranteed by the Constitution?

          Now, the Progressive and the fair-minded voter face a dilemma. If they take pity on the insane and criminal and want them at liberty are they also to treat harshly those who have rehabilitated?

          To the progressive, there is no such right in the first place, and therefore no dilemma. They have no difficulty denying what they think of as a “so-called “right” ” to some of the people on the way to denying it to everyone.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      time has been served and debts have been paid

      WHAT time? 100% of the sentence?
      Paid WHAT debt? Made 100% cash restoration? Plus penalty? So 200% 300%? An eye for an eye etc?
      Prison is not “pay a dept” It is punishment and there is too damn little and too damn comfortable. Restore chain gang with hard labor them lets talk.

      It’s the demtards who are all over restoring the VOTING rights of criminals/felons as these are another libtard voting block.

      Violent felons NEVER get their voting/gun/constitutional rights back. They have same (properly administered) rights as a alien legally residing in the US. Nothing more.

      Others should never loose there voting/gun rights – tax “cheats” etc.

    4. avatar tfunk says:

      To me it is not at all about time served and debts paid. For some things it is impossible to “pay your debt to society”. However, if you are not incarcerated by a jury of your peers you should be able to buy a firearm. If the govt can ban one class of people from owning they will eventually attempt to ban all classes, or classify as many people as they can get away with in the banned class. Which tends to lead to mass murder at govt hands if history is any kind of example.

  5. avatar ThomasR says:

    Finally! Someone that actually thinks that making an official life time class of sub-humans, denied the most basic and fundamental of rights like the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, is unjust.

    Hopefully, someday, we will come to see the current life time denial of this most basic right to felons as an abomination and completely unacceptable in a civilized society. Because when a right is denied to a whole sub-class of humans in a culture, the entire society is stained with the shame of it’s cruelty towards their fellow citizens.

    Yes, I said in a civilized society. Because currently. the entire world is mostly a wasteland of tyranny; the most savage, vicious and cruel treatment of it’s citizens is perpetrated by their governments in denying them their rights to carry weapons for self-defense.

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I wold say this is especially true if the crime was not violent or serious. Part of the modern mindset seems to be “make everything a crime” to the extent that there are vastly more felonies on the books now than even twenty or thirty years ago. However guilty, gross, and nasty what Hastert is guilty of, what he is actually charged with is being sneaky about taking his own money out of the bank. Taking his own money out of the bank in a way that the Imperial Federal government does not approve of is now a felony!. Because drugs.

    1. avatar Illinios_Minion says:

      By making it increasingly easy to become part of the ‘felon’ status, you are easier to deny rights to. After all, you are no longer as good the ‘them’.

  7. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    So where did this whole convicted felon ban on owning firearms come from?
    It certainly did not exist in 1791. Thomas Jefferson wrote “no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms” as a first draft of what became the Second Amendment. Free meant not a slave or in prison.
    I am not a “bleeding heart” but I do follow the Constitution.

    1. avatar DavidT says:

      I’m pretty sure it was inserted into the Gun Control Act of 1968, written by one Thomas Dodd (D, CT, big surprise) and very closely based off of the German gun control laws from prior to WWII, which he had translated for his use. He discovered those when he worked at the Nuremburg trials of NAZI war criminals. Some details are here http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm

      1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

        Thanks, I had gotten that far too. But I am finding trouble finding the origins of this disability beyond 1968. that may be it. Here is an abbreviated timeline of gun control. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html discussed at The Crime and Justice Blog http://crimeandjusticeblog.com/2013/03/05/should-non-violent-felons-lose-the-right-to-bear-arms/

        I would allow the restoration of rights for anyone who avoids conviction for 10 years. This is what we do with persistent DWI offenders here in Missouri. You go before a STATE judge and present evidence sobriety as well as show a clean criminal record. Frankly, my experience in law practice has shown me anyone who can avoid criminal activity for ten years has reformed. By the way, In Missouri you can vote once you are released from confinement and supervision.

  8. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    They will never go for this. Despite the hashtag #blacklivesmatter, they do not for liberals

  9. avatar Danilushka says:

    We are going to need this since the Obama Administration is dead set on enlarging the misdemeanors that ban firearms ownership for a lifetime including misdemeanor DV which could be because you spanked your kid once when very young. Or a neighbor who doesn’t like you takes out a Gun Violence Restraining Order which will be granted without due process in California.

    The anti-gun groups are flanking the Second Amendment creatively: banning certain ammunition, restricting ammunition purchases and transaction sizes, trying to ban all lead ammunition (increasing costs), requiring smart technology which would dramatically increase firearm prices, and now enlarging the reason a person can be prohibited.

    If Obama had his way, being a private citizen would bar you from owning firearms.

  10. avatar PPGMD says:

    Ugh the comments are filled with drivel. The anti-gunners are really picking up with the insurance thing. Probably because they know that they have a greater chance to influencing private industry, and that the insurance industry is extremely liability adverse.

    Of course if that passes it would be a boon to the NRA. One thing the NRA has been good at has been to provide low cost insurance for gun owners, NRA gun clubs, and NRA instructors. So in the unlikely case it passes, it would probably provide the NRA with millions of new members. Imagine how much influence the NRA would have if they had 90% of estimated 80 million gun owners as members instead paltry 4-6 million they have now.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Alas, they’d never use that influence to get the insurance requirement repealed.

      1. avatar PPGMD says:

        I disagree. Though it seems like the NRA just ignores thing because people feel it is convenient.

        But the NRA clearly understands that the fight is a two pronged fight. You have the legislative fight, and the PR news cycle fight. The biggest thing they’ve ignored, the NFA, is due to the fact they believe (and IMO rightly) that the PR news fight would be so negative that it not only has zero chance of passing, but would hurt them on other efforts.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          You’re forgetting NICS. They don’t just ignore it (which would be, arguably, a tactical decision like their non-stance towards NFA), they actually crow about it, they’re proud of it.

        2. avatar PPGMD says:

          They crow about it because it is much better than anti-gunners wanted. The anti-gunners wanted the system used in Maryland and California to be nation wide. Where it takes 2 weeks to six months to clear a background check.

          And most people don’t realize that they can do a background check in five minutes. They are under the impression that it would take days, so when anti-gunners talk about walking in and out with a gun in 30 minutes they think no background check happened.

          Finally attempting to repeal NICSs would be a loosing proposition like the NFA. Like I said this is a two prong fight, the media would go ape shit over attempting to repeal the background check requirement.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          You need to pay attention to what they actually say and not fill in the blanks with what you wish they meant to say.

          It’s true that NICS is better than the two week alternative would have been, but that’s not the comparison they draw. They don’t say “Look we averted a really nasty bill with this much less nasty one.” They talk about this bill as if it were wonderful, full stop. The NRA approves of a required background check on principle. They want to minimize its inconvenience (and they deserve some thanks for that), but they wouldn’t advocate getting completely rid of it even if they could.

  11. avatar DKW says:

    I 100% concur that this needs to be allowed for non-violent felons and I think the laws ought to be changed to specify with felonies are considered non-violent and which ones are considered violent. I know there would be heated discussions on how to classify some crimes and I think the discussion needs to take place.

    Here is a question/thought. If a crime is considered non-violent, why is it even a felony? I don’t know the in’s and out’s of the legal system so I am just asking.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Sometimes, even though no actual violence was used, it’s still a huge harm to the victim, e.g., embezzlement or fraud. Think “Bernie Madoff.”

      You are asking the right kind of question though. What should never be a felony (but often is) is any victimless crime, e.g., carrying a gun. In fact, such acts shouldn’t be misdemeanors either.

      1. avatar DKW says:

        in those cases, I would argue they are a misdemeanor but the punishment (i.e. jail time, fine) should be treated like a felony.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I don’t want to make *some* misdemeanors punishable as if they were felonies, even if they’re ones that used to be felonies.

          You are making an argument for splitting felonies into two classes, violent and non violent, thus forming three categories of offense. (And, note, changing the way non violent felonies are treated, particularly once a sentence has been served.) But I won’t accept merging the new “non-violent” group with “misdemeanors” and then telling a sentencing judge to pretend that merger didn’t happen.

        2. avatar DKW says:

          SteveInCO,

          I guess what I am proposing is a three tiered system.

  12. avatar fuque says:

    I’ve always said they need to redefine what a felon is.

  13. avatar Ken G says:

    Liberty is scary, because it means that we have the responsibility to safeguard our rights against encroachment by others. But that’s difficult, and scary. Why can’t the gubmint do it? Let the gubmint deal with those icky bad people, so we can soothe our psyche.

    As we can see, even on here, among the PotG, there is a certain emotional and psychological comfort that derives from laws that purport to keep guns out of the hands of those we feel should not have them. All this while at the same time, we know intellectually that such laws are meaningless because a bad person is going to do their deed and will find the tools they need regardless.

    It’s that whole trading liberty for security thing some old person talked about long ago.

  14. avatar Anonymous says:

    Or they could not take them away in the first place. We already know gun control doesn’t work – for those who seek a gun will get one. Trying to “keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals” is what got us in this mess to begin with. Moreover we find it really doesn’t work anyways. Gun control only works on ex-criminals who wish to go straight. We, as law abiding citizens, already undergo a great deal of red tape and hassles when seeking a firearm purchase to own or try to carry one.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Trying to “keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals” is what got us in this mess to begin with.

      If only the NRA and most of the millions of its members actually understood this. Yet they continue to support many of our current/existing infringements as if they were the greatest thing since sliced bread (and NO, it’s not just that they aren’t choosing to fight them today, rather, they actively support and endorse these measures), and their rhetoric centers around that very phrase.

  15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    No longer incarcerated/on probation = all rights (guns, voting, etc.) should be restored.

  16. avatar TX Gungal says:

    “shall not be infringed’ No if’s or but’s were added. Don’t believe you should have to petition for restitution of a Constitutional Right.

  17. avatar Accur81 says:

    TTAG has helped me change my mind on this, but I still believe in probation and parole. Yep, those are still infringements on rights, but they occur (well, sometimes) after due process. I’m working a felony hit and run, incidentally, on a guy with multiple suspended license and negligent operator (crashing a lot) charges. There are other charges to add as well.

    After the end of probation and parole, it absolutely makes sense to restore rights. I could add many more real-world supporting points, but I’ve got a sick 2 year old to tend. Due process, right to appeal, less government, second chances, more 2nd Amendment – all good.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That works well once one realizes that parole and probation are actually “serving a sentence even though outside of the confines of a jail cell.” Many here don’t seem to be willing to deal with that concept.

      Beware, however, the temptation to make more and more crimes sentenceable by “life on probation”

  18. avatar Jack says:

    Whatever the process is, it should be EXACTLY the same as regaining voting rights.

    1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

      You can vote in Missouri once you are off supervision (incarceration, probation, parole). I guess that is why we have one Republican Senator and one Democrat Senator; a Republican Legislature and a Democrat Governor.

  19. avatar Bob says:

    Funny that he uses the situation that he does to describe the state of things.

    So riddle me this liberal fascists…
    Clearly this person has been barred firearm ownership from a prior transgression many years ago but allowed to freely procreate. What about all the “for the children” stuff you continuously spout? So he can be trusted to shape a human life and not abuse that child, but sweet Jesus, we can’t let him own a gun because he might do bad things with it?
    It’s almost like its NOT about the children, and you are just manipulating the argument? that couldn’t be it could it?

  20. avatar Jim R says:

    I am 100% on board with this. I firmly believe there should be a way for a citizen to have their rights restored.

  21. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    It depends on what you DID at 18-Jeff Dahmer or sold some pot. I have a son who is a convicted felon-he walked into a house in a psychotic haze. Totally non-violent. I see no reason (in Illinois) why he shouldn’t get his rights back. I still wouldn’t trust him with a gun…

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Misdemeanants and nonviolent felons should have their gun rights restored upon completion of sentence, including parole or probation, and payment of restitution where individuals have been harmed. No restitution = no gun rights.

    Violent felons should be incarcerated until their limbs fall off. No gun rights. No parole. No probation. You serve your thirty (or whatever) and go home old and disarmed.

  23. avatar Silver says:

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he’s a Republican.

    Democrats don’t care one whit about a person, his freedom, his children, or his safety, unless he belongs to a demographic that’s useful for their own profit or election.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Buck? Yeah, he is. He ran for senate (unsuccessfully) against Bennett in 2012 as well. At least we here finally got rid of ONE of our asshat senators last go-around.

  24. A motivating discussion is definitely worth comment.
    There’s no doubt that that you should publish more about this subject, it may not be
    a taboo matter but usually people do not talk about such subjects.

    To the next! Cheers!!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email