Dick Heller on Restoring Ex-Cons’ Right to Keep and Bear Arms

1. Part of the reason the recidivism rates are so high is that we strip these people of so many of their rights when they get out. If we think these people are still a threat to society, then they need to stay in jail. If they’ve served the time and paid the price, we shouldn’t treat them like second class citizens afterwards.

   The way the laws currently read, not only are felons stripped of their right to defend themselves, anyone they live with is also stripped of that right. That is simply unacceptable.

   • If we think these people are still a threat to society, then they need to stay in jail…

     That path leads to fascism, if you mean what I think you mean.

     • I mean that either our jail terms are too short, or we do not treat our citizens properly once they have served their time.

       • Clarified, thanks. I am in fear of any indefinite detention trends, but I can see that is not what you meant.

   • This.

     Part of the problem with recidivism is rooted in the fact that we make it so difficult for those convicted of felonies to rejoin society as a whole once they’ve finished their court-mandated time away from society.

     To be honest, I can’t blame them; we strip them of their rights, and their ability to get many jobs, and we expect them NOT to fall back on crime to pay the bills. It defies logic.

     So, on the whole, there are really three classes of ex-cons:

     1: Those who stay on the straight and narrow;
     2: Those who want to stay on the straight and narrow, but are discouraged by their disenfranchisement and discrimination; and
     3: Those who have yet to challenge their criminal tendencies.

     Really, the question is how big group 2 is and how much we can cause it to be absorbed by group 1 by limits on disenfranchisement.

2. Convicted violent felons should be denied. Non-violent felons also, but not so much (e.g., an easier path to reinstatement). Hey, you violate someone else’s rights you lose some of yours.

   But in no case should denial be absolute and forever. The practical means to defend one’s self is a basic human right. I just can’t come up with a process or standard that is not arbitrary. It has to be based on existing Constitutional law. Not, like one of the standards we have in New York, “must be of good moral character”. WTF is that?

   • how about non violent felons that haven’t violated anyone else’s rights like drug users and drug dealers? or is possesing a plant inherently offensive to you?

     • I am not sure how “drug dealers” are considered nonviolent felons. Just take a look at Mexico. People in this country including a whole host of celebrities are responsible for funneling money into the hands of organized Mexican drug lords that commit murder on a massive scale.

       Personally I am a felon that has had their firearm rights restored. Many anti felon folks do not understand that a felon that has been stripped of rights and has had those rights restored has a much greater awareness of just how precious those simple rights are when restored and is not going to re-offend.

       Recidivism is a product of this country’s penal system. I never set foot inside of a penitentiary but I can say with utmost certainty our justice system is not about restoration or rehabilitation and only a fool would think otherwise. Maybe Mr. Heller should visit these fine institutions and see what a bang up job they do ensuring that most of those released will one day return.

       This country, for all its godlessness, got what it wanted and now has the arrogance to bitch about what they got. Sounds like a 2 year old mentality to me.

3. I personally believe all convicted felons should have a form of parole, no matter when they are released. The parole would last around two years and during that time they would not be able to legally purchase a firearm. If, after that time, they have kept their noses clean, they should have all their rights restored. This should help weed out a decent number of people who are prone to becoming repeat offenders and can be seen as an extension of their prison term so it minimizes the limiting of the 2nd amendment rights. I have been thinking on this subject for quite some time and just recently came to believe this is the right way to go.

4. “As an ex-cop, I can tell you that gun charges are extremely useful,” Tim pointed out pointedly. “We can use gun charges to get the bad guys on something else.”

   I can’t say I’m a fan of the idea of having a whole truckload of mala prohibita laws floating around for the purpose of giving cops the power to imprison people for mala in se crimes they can’t prove.

   • I’m not a fan of that idea either, but it’s one of the few ways that at least some crimes can be prevented without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. I favor the parole after release, with gun rights restored after successful completion.

     • I’m not a fan of that idea either, but it’s one of the few ways that at least some crimes can be prevented without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

       Except the idea is to take a “law-abiding citizen” a make him a technical criminal in the hope it will help police prove some other crime against him. What about cases where the suspect had, in fact, committed no other crime? It seems there would be little difference between “violating the rights of law-abiding citizens” and “making criminals out of law-abiding citizens for the purpose of violating their rights.”

       • I’m thinking more in terms of preventing crimes by jailing parolees for firearms possession, rather than waiting until they actually commit another crime. I should have made that clear.

         • so we should make up crimes to lock people up before they commit a real crime, sounds very “Minority Report” to me, “we’re with the dept of pre-crime your under arrest for a murder you have not yet committed.”

         • So you are saying you believe parolees should be retuned to prison before they commit another crime.
           Why not simply deny parole and save all the expense and hassle.
           As for the 1/3 that are never repeat offenders, well who ever said life was fair.

           I seem to remember something about it being better to free ten guilty than convict one innocent.
           I guess that is outdated today.
           Like most of my values.

         • By carrying a firearm they *would* be committing a crime; this is already a standard prohibition for parolees and probationers. Those who are going straight won’t be carrying around loaded weapons on their persons or in their cars, so they have nothing to worry about.

           The 2/3 who return to their former lives risk getting picked up on weapons charges before they can actually hurt anyone. The 1/3 are not affected and, after serving their parole, should have their firearm rights restored.

           It’s an imperfect solution, but would help to restore gun rights to felons who go straight, while probably saving a few lives from those who return to crime.

           • ” Those who are going straight won’t be carring around loaded weapons on their persons or in their cars, so they have nothing to worry about.”

             What about the things the rest of us worry about girlswithGUNS?
             Things like being robbed, raped and murdered and the safety of their families.

             ” By carring a firearm they *would* be commiting a crime, this is already a standard prohibition for parolees and probationers.”

             But should they be? Should it be?
             Does telling the 2/3 who are bound to return to prison they will be violating the law if they carry a gun stop them from doing so? Does depriving the 1/3 the ability to defend themselves and their families really make the rest of us safer?

             One thing has been proven over and over again. Depriving the right to defend with firearms never has prevented the use of firearms in crime.

             Personally I have no interest in the topic of felons and guns.
             But I do have a problem with anyone being denied personal and family protection by laws which do nothing to prevent or reduce crime.

             • I specifically mentioned only carrying on the person and in the vehicle as I have reservations about disallowing weapons in the home. If anyone can come up with a better solution to the problem of violence by ex-felons I’m all ears.

             • Not all violence is in the home.
               No one can come up with any solution to the problem because non exist. At least not at this time.
               Boys will be boys and bad boys will be bad boys ( girls too).
               And they have no fear of returning to prison.

               What I can tell you is preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families, no matter who they are or what they were, is not the answere.

   • “As ex-security, I can tell you that gun charges are extremely useful,” Tim pointed out pointedly. “We can use gun charges to get the bad guys on something else.”

     …and what if the cops are making normal citizens into bad guys and convicts? That really is what NYC, DC, and Chicago are trying to do.

5. As a former LEO I will give my two cents on this. Violent offenders in no way should get a firearm. 75% of the time they are going right back to the same enviroment that spawned their behavior to begin with. They will go back to the same old neighborhood. Same old friends, and to the very way of life that they new prior to jail. If you want changes in a person, then you must change them. This is not going to happen in jail.

   They belong to a gang while locked up. This is for mutual protection. Jail does little to reform, rather it produces a far more violent way of life, than the one that was left behind. Drugs, gangs, violence, is nothing unusual in the jail system. We can take Joe Homeniceguy. Place him in this enviroment, and get back a two legged monster.

   If changes are to be made, then changes need to be made in the prison system, as well as the judicial system. However this will never happen so long as we keep to the old adage of, out of sight, out of mind. But in order to make these changes, the tax payer must be willing to support monetary considerations to make this possible. Now we come to a real problem. Who wants higher taxes in order to (maybe) change the person that went to jail? The answer, NO ONE! Maybe, isn’t what they want. We want definitive answers to the problem. We are not willing to explore new methods, that might net a 10% result.Hence we are stuck with an outmoded way of dealing with those that have sinned against society.

   Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the death penalty. I just don’t believe that our current way of doing things is the right way. In order to eradicate crime, we must first change the face of politics. God forbid we should ever have an honest politician.

   • I for one would not mind paying higher taxes if i had any sort of control over where it went. I don’t want to money going to research studies to determine why more people don’t ride a bike to work, but i would fully support more money to help reform criminals. The Navy doesn’t need their 18th aircraft carrier that cost 5 billion dollars, but I’d give up money to help improve our education system. If only it worked that way.
     So, in you experience as a Leo, do you have an idea for a time range from release from prison to return to crime, if they are going to return?

   • i would totally support higher taxes for a penal system like finland’s with a tiny recidivism rate.

     • I think if all you were incarcerating were Finlanders, your recidivism rate would be tiny too.

   • Well golly gee… if we quit putting people in prison for BS charges and victimless crime laws, we might have fewer criminals where we could focus the money and resources on restitution, rehabiltation, or just plain flat out punishment and detention, or execution.

6. …Violent offenders in no way should get a firearm. 75% of the time they are going right back to the same enviroment that spawned their behavior to begin with…

   The violent are violent because it is within their nature. That nature is formed in the cauldron of DNA and early childhood experience, but after that, environment has little to do with it.

   I’d say “no” to arming violent felons.

7. Posted this in the Homer Wright story, I’ll cross post it here as well…

   For those who don’t know. Any man who’s made a mistake and has spent a length of time in a institution to be punished, will not come out the same. That is not to say they don’t desire to and cannot change. There is so much stacked against them in the outside world, being a ex-con, never mind that to survive in a place like that, you have to become something less than civilized. It really takes a herculean effort of friends and family to help get some of these guys back on there feet and a productive member of society.

   Now, after pointing out the above for those who will never know, the old adage, “time heals” is very true in many respects. The young man (20s) who made the stupid mistake is not the same guy he was now that he’s in his forties, with wife, children, home, and church, on and on..

   Hate to us the U.K. as an example, considering their gun laws in general, I think they got it right as far as rehabilitation. As I’m aware, in the U.K., depending on the crime, after a amount of time has passed, they consider you rehabilitated, able to go on with your life without HAVING TO bring up your criminal past. Mind you it’s still there if needed to be looked up, i.e. child crimes, violent crimes, sexual crimes etc.

   I think there should be a time, beyond probation, as that seems that is a tool used in lieu to longer incarceration, that a ex-con should have to take, to gain their inalienable right(s) back. Give them time to decompress, get in the groove of life ( no, we don’t shank people for cutting in line at the Walmart like we did in the chow line).
   Given a length of time, lack of recidivism, and general showing good behavior, regaining your right to have firearms would be one of many reasons to keep ones nose on the straight and narrow (besides just desiring being a honest good natured person), on the march to being a good citizen. And no longer a subject, which is the reason I believe this rule even exist in the first place, considering the number of non-violent criminals behind bars.

   • Absolutely agreed. Gun rights aside, as a society, we basically say to a felon- “This will ALWAYS be the basis of our judgement of you. You will NEVER be hired for a decent job. We will NEVER trust you again.”
     Is it really much of a surprise when that individual falls back into the same bad behavior that got them there?
     Don’t get me wrong- I’m no babe in the woods, believe me. I know that there are some people that would never take the opportunity to try to change…..but don’t we owe it to the one guy that might, to give him his shot?
     Hell, how do we expect to be able to stop feeding and clothing the guy in prison if he cant provide for himself? How does that benefit society?

     • This, precisely.

       I believe that a large part of our recidivism problem is rooted in how difficult we make it for ex-cons to support themselves post-prison.

       We have so many BS laws that serve only to be obstacles that keep them separated from society as a whole, that it’s unsurprising that they turn back to a life of crime to support themselves.

8. To be clear, I am an ex-security officer (rent-a-cop) not an actual ex-commissioned police officer.

   • Text amended. Where the hell are you?

9. Thanks for a wonderful post and comment thread.

   I think white collar criminals should not be treated the same as violent offenders, first of all. It doesn’t make sense to me to prohibit a crooked accountant who’s done his time, but it certainly does make sense to prohibit the armed robber after he gets out.

   I’ve often mentioned my one-strike-you’re-out rule, which basically says for any wrongdoing with a gun you lose your rights for life. Although that would unfairly restrict those who are truly rehabilitated, which by the way I don’t believe for a second is as high as one-third, it would do much more good than harm.

10. Should felons be allowed to regain gun rights? No.

    Regrettably, I don’t have any hard research to substantiate my assertions, but I’d be willing to bet that if I did it would tend to support my rationale of the next paragraph. Please note that I am only arguing about the right to legally purchase and own firearms, and nothing else. Here goes.

    Someone who gets convicted of a felony has made a poor choice. In fact, I’d argue that they have probably made many poor choices on the way to a felony conviction. I’d bet that most felons have committed prior bad acts, either felonies or misdemeanors, before being caught and convicted (without, by the way, having the felony crime dealt down to a misdemeanor—which many are—suggesting to this layman that the evidence of a serious crime is well-substantiated ). In short, convicted felons are people that tend to make many poor choices. And, for me, there’s the rub. This very own TTAG blog is full of hundreds of “Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day” postings showing NON-FELONS making poor choices. And, those hundreds are very likely only the tip of the iceberg.

    Recall your own range experience. Ask yourselves: how many poor choices have you seen being made? Do we actually need more, especially from people who have already proven they make very poor choices? Please remember that we as responsible gun owners pay a price (whether in adverse public opinion or by being painted with the same brush) every time someone uses a firearm in an illegal or ill-advised manner. The U.S. Constitution is a declaration of rights promulgated by our society. To me, whether you call the societal rights “natural” or not, once a person has committed a felony, he or she selects themselves out of the society—and should live with the consequences. (That’s why I don’t carry concealed in forbidden places, for example. The consequences are too adverse for me.)

    Last, if you feel some felons are basically good people caught in an unfair situation the government calls a felony, e.g., non-violent drug offenses, work to change the laws themselves. That way, we could stop making “good felons,” so we as society don’t have to try to figure out whom we might trust, or not.

11. As we all know, laws that restrict the legal purchase and use of guns only pertain to those that obey the law.

    Why is it that so many of you seem to believe this fact does not apply to paroled felons?

    Just as laws that seek to prevent the legal ownership of guns only succeed in disarming the law abiding citizen, laws that seek to prevent the legal ownership of guns by felons only succeed in disarming the reformed felon.

    Anyone who wants a gun to commit a crime can and will find one.
    No law, no number of laws can prevent this.

    These facts are a big part of our argument against gun control laws.
    They are the cornerstones of any discussion I have with antis and fence sitters.

    And I believe them.

    • Second sentence, please insert the word “not” after the word “does”.

      • Text Amended

        • Thank you.

    • “Anyone who wants a gun to commit a crime can and will find one. No law, no number of laws can prevent this.”

      As things stand now, this is true. But that doesn’t mean we should make it easy. In fact, with minor changes in the gun control policy we could change that. We could force the criminals to resort to knives and baseball bats. The worst of the worst and the most vicious would continue to hurt people, but many less dedicated would not. Multiple shootings would go way down. We’d all be better off.

      But you don’t want any of that, do you?

      • Here’s the problem with that. A lot of the fixes put forward (and currently in place) do nothing to stop the criminals and put extra burden on the law-abiding. I know you recently berated someone for calling it an “inconvenience,” but when a person has to wait 8 days to legally procure a firearm when a stalker can pick one up on the street at any time, it’s no longer an inconvenience—it’s a legitimate failure of legislation to do its job. For the record, I seriously doubt an additional 2 months and 22 days would make a difference.

        A very real example of this principle would be the post-Tucson call to once again ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (I refuse to use the VPC’s nomenclature). The whole idea was to completely ban the sale (and likely manufacture) of said magazines. There would, of course, be an exception for military and law enforcement, which would likely mean manufacturing didn’t completely stop.

        The Violence Policy Center, in an effort to drum up support for the bill, published a list of the top ten U.S. massacres in recent history, stating that in all ten cases the killers had magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds. Do you want to know what the grand irony of that list was?

        Three of those massacres happened during the previous Assault Weapons Ban, which included those magazines on the banned list. The very same Assault Weapons Ban that the VPC said was highly effective in preventing these types of massacres.

        Now, say that a renewed ban had passed. Antis typically lament the fact that there are several unregistered, “loose” guns on the street. I’m willing to bet the number of currently available magazines that would fall under said ban is substantially higher (possibly even exponentially). It’d be safe to say those without scruples would refuse to register or turn in those magazines. Furthermore, since there’s an LE/Military exception, manufacture wouldn’t stop, which provides another avenue of underground traffic. During this time, the typical law-abiding citizen (being a law-abiding citizen) turns in/registers all banned magazines. Criminals, of course, won’t. Guess who has more firepower?

        (Scream apples and oranges if you must, but this is the best example grounded in real life that I can think of to illustrate our perspective.)

        I seriously doubt there’s a decent, law-abiding person alive who wouldn’t want guns out of criminal hands. I also seriously doubt those people would agree to policies that burden them with no actual effect on criminal behavior. That’s why the vast majority of control proposals get met with such hostility.

      • Don’t forget that the people defending themselves would also have to resort to knives and baseball bats. Which would give an ENORMOUS advantage to criminals robbing, assaulting, raping or just plain brutalizing someone less physically capable. Small people, old people, women (vs. men), children, people in wheelchairs, etc.

        But you don’t think about any of that, do you?

        • I remember reading a thought experiment on what would happen if all guns were banned. Started with banning guns, then gunpowder, then a whole host of other things to ensure firearms were impossible to produce. The logical conclusion was a return to Feudal Japan. It wasn’t pretty.

          • Did you ever notice the only people talking about banning guns are you guys. This is your way of exaggerating the sins of the gun control folks to make your arguments sound better.

            What I, and most reasonable people I know, want is to raise the bar a little bit on who can own guns. But you keep arguing against gun bans and confiscations.

            • Re-read the first paragraph of my first post, then we’ll talk. New laws, legislation, and standards aren’t gonna fix anything when old laws aren’t properly enforced.

              As for your claim of us being the only ones talking about gun bans, I would suggest you go have a chat with Dianne Feinstein and some of the company she keeps. Nobody would call an outright ban such. It’s all in the naming. While you’re at it, go talk to Carolyn McCarthy about that renewed magazine ban she wanted to put in place. Burden of proof would have been on the owner, not the state, to show that the magazines were grandfathered.

              You’re gonna have to refresh my memory on where you want to set that bar. And before you say it, no. I’m not going back to your blog to find out. On a completely related note, I sincerely hope you’re not referring to the likes of Laci the Dog and DemoCommie when you say “most reasonable people I know.”

        • But I do think about that. What I think is the incidents of people saving the day with a gun are far fewer than you like to say.

          I haven’t forgotten about rereading Kleck’s book and making my point from there.

          The truly legit DGU is a rare bird, and even in some of those cases nobody was gonna get killed or raped. On the other hand, the incidents of so-called lawful gun owners fucking up is more common. That’s why gun free zones are a good idea. That’s why stricter gun control is a good thing.

      • Hi Mike,

        I thought we agreed to ignore each other.

        You state “We could force the criminals to resort to knives and baseball bats.”
        Gun control will not accomplish this. This is not gun control. This is gun elimination. You assume that laws restricting gun ownership will take guns off the streets. They will not.

        First read what C. Walther has to say.
        Second read what Robert has to say.

        Now I will add a few thoughts they did not.

        Gun elimination in this wonderful country of ours ( well mine anyway) will not put an end to foreign manufacture. What it will do is create a hugh black market for guns. Taurus handguns ( take a look at their extensive catalog) will be making their way across our (my) southern boarder in droves. As will other foreign makes. Through Canada. East and west coast shipping ports. How do I know this? Name one thing Mike, one illegal item that I can not buy. Domestic or foreign.
        As for guns in this country at present. Not one gun will be voluntarily turned in by a criminal. Not one gun will be confiscated from a criminal.

        When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
        It is still true.

        Now lets look at your ” perfect world”.
        Lets assume there are no guns. Never have been. Never exisited.
        Now we are back to survival of the strongest.
        Remember those weak people Robert spoke of ? How do they protect themselves from the younger and stronger?
        But let’s say you are the biggest, stongest, meanest, most skilled swordsman to ever live. What do you do when attacked by a dozen Bloods, Crypts, Hells Angels, Bandidos, on & on & on & on.
        You become a victim.
        What happens when these same people break into your home and you stand there sword or spear or mace or bow in hand.
        You and your family become victims.

        Think it can’t happen?
        It did happen. From the beginning of time until the invention of firearms.

        Mike I would love to continue but I have to go now.

        As I have said before, if you have a workable idea for defending myself and my family without the use of firearms, I’m listening.
        If not I’m ignoring.

        • I disagree with that tired old argument that since criminals will get guns anyway there’s no sense in enacting gun control laws. That’s self serving double talk on your part.

          In the UK, which you guys love to refer to, there are far fewer guns available. The criminals have resorted to knives as a result. And another result is the astonishing difference in intentional homicide rate between us and them.

          • ” In the UK, which you guys love to refer to ………”
            I have never referred to the UK.

            “The criminals have resorted to knives as a result.”
            You know this how?
            What have the law abiding citizens resorted to?

            ” And another result is the astonishing difference in international homicide rate between us and them.”
            And that astonishing difference would be?
            Are you even one of “us” ?

          • Mikeb, would you like to tell this little girlthat guns are banned in the UK and she wasn't paralysed for the rest of her life in the crossfire of a gang hit?
            Guns are here, and if a criminal wants one they can get one, no matter how 'hard' you make it.

            Apologies, my html powers are weak…

    • This is the truth of the matter. Laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals, by the very definition of the word, ignore laws meant to control their actions. This means that the 95% of the population with no intent to commit crimes against others must pay the price for the small minority.

      • First of all where are you getting that 95% figure? Don’t you know we’re not suppose to make stuff up and pretend it’s fact?

        Secondly, you’re repeating what you heard other say, that criminals don’t obey the laws. That has nothing to do with it. My idea is that proper gun control laws are aimed at lawful gun owners in the hope that they’ll stop contributing to the gun flow to criminals.

        • These are without a boubt the most foolish words I have ever uttered.
          BUT

          Ok Mike I’ll bite.
          What are these “proper gun control laws” of which you speak and how will enacting them “stop contributing to the gun flow to criminals”?

          Remember you’re not suppose to make stuff up and pretend it’s fact.

          • That’s been asked and answered numerous times. Are trying to turn this into such a tedious exercise that everyone gets bored.

            You’ve already told me in various ways you don’t like my ideas.

            • Then you should have no problem answereing the questions.
              Or the questions asked on 4/15 at 17:23.
              Or any questions I have asked you in the past.
              Why don’t you answere JuanCudz’s question?

              I’ll tell you why, you never answere any questions you are asked.
              I knew this is the response I would get.
              That is why I lead off the way I did and I was right.

              As for me making this boring, you did that long before you ever heard of me. Your standard answere is ” I’ve answered that before.” Ask anyone how bored they are with that answere.

              As for what I’m trying to do, you started this exchange on 4/15 at 02:57.
              Do yourself a favor, scroll up to 4/15 at 10:32, read the first line, then do it.

        • At least your admitting that gun-control laws are only for the law-abiding people,and not for criminals.

12. “Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”
    Senator Jesse Helms
    To me, you either believe the basis that this country was founded on as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution including the Bill of Rights or you don’t. The reason I am so absolutist about that is in studying our country’s history I’ve found that compromises of freedom have been made possible by the exact type of thinking I’ve seen posted in many of these comments. Without the compromises we would not have the over-reaching, nannyist, socialist state we live in today.
    To each and everyone of you willing to trade another’s freedom for an idea that it is going to make you a little more secure; I say quit your whining about your own loss of freedom. You are responsible for that loss. Can’t you get it through your heads that watching as the ‘other guy’ is dragged off just makes you next. It does not give you immunity to trade in the ‘other guy’.
    Government is inherently tyrannical and knows no limits on its desire for power and control. The only limit is a free and armed citizenry.

13. I do believe in second chances. I would say restore their rights but only after a time period, say 5 years. Of course I am coming up with that number out of the blue, but I am sure there is a time frame we can pull where ex felons commit another crime. Lets say the 2/3 ratio all those crimes take place within 3 years. Then it would be safe to say that if someone did the time and stayed on the straight and narrow for four years, chance are they will be law abiding citizens who own guns, just like the rest of us.
    There are a couple of situations I would not give one their rights back.
    1. It is a violent crime, i.e. rape with a gun, kidnapping, etc. these are generalizations but heinous crimes show the person acted in such a way that their view on human life is much different then most.
    2. The person has shown mental issues, which contributed to the crime or might contribute to the person acting in a violent manner at some point in the future.

    There are folks who were in a bad situation who are not bad people, and it caused the issue. The hard part if you did put something like this into affect is figure out exactly what the restrictions would be, and on what basis.

14. Gun for criminals? The ATF already tried that. How’d it work out?

    • The problem there: the Mexican government disarmed the good guys at the same time.

15. “Some two-thirds of prisoners go on to reoffend.”
    …
    GAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
    (Bangs head on keyboard.)
    *Deep breath*
    *sigh*

    You just countered your own argument in the. same. sentence. that. you. posed. it.
    2/3 convicts go on to reoffend, they commit crimes. They do not obey the law. If they want them, they will acquire guns. WTF do you think is being achieved by disarming the 1/3 that obeys the law?

16. Blah Blah Blah. Non violent low level felons should be allowed to posess firearms. I am an ex felon and so wont a lot of people when they dont get the insurance Barrack Obama is forcing them to buy. Sound rediculous ? I thought so . 20 yrs ago I was arrested for fleeing and eludig and had a judge give me the right to have my guns back but because my civil rights were not restored fully the federal government says I cannot posess firearms. So now my lawyer has petitioned the governer for clemency. I have spent thousands of dollars in my quest for clemency. This was 20 yrs ago since the original charge and in most states its a misdemeanor. So because the word FELON sounds so dirty and creepy most narrow minded people who have no comprehension of how easy it is to do something that is classified as a felony in one state and not another or also what would be considered a felony in one town or county and not a felony in another in the same state , these people shouldnt even post comments. How many people who posted has been arrested for any misdemeanor ? Well you can believe it is a felony some where. So yes low level non violent offenders should have their firearms privelages , and complete civil rights restored immediately upon satisfaction of their sentence. However Habitual, Career and violent Ex cons should never regain the right.

17. My point is they should stop calling so many small time crimes felonies !

18. the second amendment was made for me an ex-con, as well a good corp. U.S. citizen. That is how malcom x presented his right to bear arms, and he was also an ex-con. It’s just another way the U.S. is prejudice bunch people! The 2nd amend did not exclude me and” no ststute can abolish or nullify even in part” the constitution.

Comments are closed.