Texas Governor Vetos Gun Bill

[Bark'n]

Felons can petition the government to have their right to possess a firearm restored again.

It's a tedious process and certainly depends on the type of felony they were convicted of, but it has been successfully done before.

Obviously felons convicted of violent crimes and assaults or other gun crimes is a no-go, but I think it applies to "white collar" stuff or bad checks, child support stuff.

It is obviously not advertised much but I did read I think in an NRA publication where it is possible.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[miklcolt45]

Once you prove to be a bad guy, you can't just say "sorry" and get back every one's trust.

You gotta earn it and that won't be easy.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
When a violent offender has proved s/he has changed (not just done their time), then give them a second chance.

[rljohns]

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
When a violent offender has proved s/he has changed (not just done their time), then give them a second chance.

Sounds like Dr. Phil, but I agree that is usualy sad but true. I would hate to think one bad choice would leave you with a lifetime of regret. The problem is seperating the true "one-time" mistake from a good soiciopath that is playing the system.

[General Geoff]

If I can't trust a man with a gun, then he shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

[DirtDawg]

G. Gordon Liddy said it best, "The Dept of Corrections never corrected anybody..."

[aquanomics]

I'll stir up the pot.

Should ex-convicts lose their 1st amendment rights of free speech and religion?
Should ex-convicts lose their 4th amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure?
Should ex-convicts lose their 5th amendment rights for incriminating themselves, and double jeopardy?
Should ex-convicts lose their 6th & 7th amendment right to a trial by jury?
Should ex-convicts lose their 8th amendment right to reasonable bail?

Why would the 2nd amendment be something special that only applies to "non-criminals?"

I was once taught that civil rights are there to protect criminals as much as the innocent. And if we allow the government to take away the civil rights of criminals the government will simply make us all into criminals so that we all lose all of our rights.

Should pedophiles be allowed near children after serving their sentences? Hell no!

Nor should felons be allowed near weapons after serving time for a felony. They have demonstrated complete disdain for the very rights *some* folks want restored to them.

[500Mag]

Should pedophiles be allowed near children after serving their sentences? Hell no!

If that's the case, they shouldn't be out of prison. Personally, I think any crime against a child should carry draconian penalties with it instead of this garbage they give out now.

Nor should felons be allowed near weapons after serving time for a felony. They have demonstrated complete disdain for the very rights *some* folks want restored to them.

What if its a white collar felon such as tax evasion or fraud that has no violent nature to it? I don't see them necessarily being a threat.

[aquanomics]

What if its a white collar felon such as tax evasion or fraud that has no violent nature to it? I don't see them necessarily being a threat.

An armed citizenry presupposes people have discipline and a moral bearing. IMNSHO, felonious persons have already shown that they lack -- or reject -- the qualities that make gun ownership safety increasing.

Or, a dirtbag is a dirtbag is a dirtbag.

[Deacon51]

If our Justice system worked worth a damn and 90% of the criminals released from prison didn't wind up right back there, then I would be all for restoring there 2A rights the day they walked out.

But our system doesn't work, 90% do return, and well... I believe keeping them from possessing a firearm (at this point in time) is the right thing to do. I don't think it should be for life, like it is now. I mean, a 17 year old kid takes his 10/22 and sticks up a gas station. He winds up serving a couple of years, gets out, stayed clean, gets a good job, has kids, then grand kids, becomes a outstanding pillar of the community... still can't vote, still can't defend his home.

That doesn't seem right either.

[dwolsten]

If that's the case, they shouldn't be out of prison. Personally, I think any crime against a child should carry draconian penalties with it instead of this garbage they give out now.

What if its a white collar felon such as tax evasion or fraud that has no violent nature to it? I don't see them necessarily being a threat.

See, this shows the problem right here.

Why are the violent criminals or child predators let out of prison early? Simple: there's not enough space for them. America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the entire world, including China! That right there shows that something is seriously wrong here.

And your second paragraph shows a big part of the problem: why are people going to prison for things like tax evasion which is totally nonviolent? We have tons of nonviolent prisoners, which forces out all the violent offenders!

And it's getting worse. Currently, the copyright cartels are trying to get the laws changed to have people sent to prison for decades for copying music and movies. ***? Lots of people in prison are there for drug offenses. How the hell is it a threat to me if someone smokes pot or snorts coke? If they commit a violent crime to further their habit, that of course should earn them prison time, but not before.

Just last night, there was a news report here in Phoenix about an 18-year-old girl caught having sex with a 14-year-old boy. Do you think that boy felt bad about that? Of course not. But the prosecutors want her put in prison for 10 years! You can murder someone and get out in 3! If she was 17, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.

In the same news report, some Mexican, who had been deported 4 times already, was back in this country yet again, attempted to kill a policeman with his car, set his car on fire, and burned a woman to death.

We need to go back to the Hammurabi Code: "an eye for an eye". That was a great system for justice, better than most in history. The "justice" system we have now is completely unfair, with nonviolent offenders getting cruel (unconstitutional) punishments of long prison terms, and horribly violent criminals getting away with comparatively slight punishments, and then getting out so they can commit the same crimes again.

[Martini13]

See, this shows the problem right here.

Why are the violent criminals or child predators let out of prison early? Simple: there's not enough space for them. America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the entire world, including China! That right there shows that something is seriously wrong here.

And your second paragraph shows a big part of the problem: why are people going to prison for things like tax evasion which is totally nonviolent? We have tons of nonviolent prisoners, which forces out all the violent offenders!

And it's getting worse. Currently, the copyright cartels are trying to get the laws changed to have people sent to prison for decades for copying music and movies. ***? Lots of people in prison are there for drug offenses. How the hell is it a threat to me if someone smokes pot or snorts coke? If they commit a violent crime to further their habit, that of course should earn them prison time, but not before.

Just last night, there was a news report here in Phoenix about an 18-year-old girl caught having sex with a 14-year-old boy. Do you think that boy felt bad about that? Of course not. But the prosecutors want her put in prison for 10 years! You can murder someone and get out in 3! If she was 17, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.

In the same news report, some Mexican, who had been deported 4 times already, was back in this country yet again, attempted to kill a policeman with his car, set his car on fire, and burned a woman to death.

We need to go back to the Hammurabi Code: "an eye for an eye". That was a great system for justice, better than most in history. The "justice" system we have now is completely unfair, with nonviolent offenders getting cruel (unconstitutional) punishments of long prison terms, and horribly violent criminals getting away with comparatively slight punishments, and then getting out so they can commit the same crimes again.

+1 Makes good sense to me!

[bobernet]

With no intentions to turn an already hot subject (politics) into an even hotter one (religion), I actually think this is somewhat of a religious issue and illustrates the collision between the religious men who framed the Constitution and the sometimes atheistic people who live under and now interpret it.

It's clear that our founders recognized that true "rights" are not bestowed or revoked by governments, but by God. All the Constitution attempts to do is acknowledge what some of those God-given rights are.

If you really believe, as the founders did, that rights are God-given, then the state should have no authority to "revoke" a person's 2nd amendment rights or any other.

The problem is that we have a penal system that no longer seeks to foster a relationship where an offender is held accountable *by* society, but *to* the victims. Thefts are not punished by forcing the thief to "work off" his debt to the victim. Murderers are rarely executed. Etc, etc.

If murderers were, on the testimony of multiple witnesses and evidence, convicted and executed, we wouldn't have to deal with gun issues after their release.

If thieves (of both white and blue collar variety) spent 10 years working off their debt to make the victim whole again, I don't think we'd see as many repeat offenders.

Anyway, just another take on this, not trying to incite any kind of religious debate.

Best,
Bob

[rachilders]

See, this shows the problem right here.

Why are the violent criminals or child predators let out of prison early? Simple: there's not enough space for them. America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the entire world, including China! That right there shows that something is seriously wrong here.

And your second paragraph shows a big part of the problem: why are people going to prison for things like tax evasion which is totally nonviolent? We have tons of nonviolent prisoners, which forces out all the violent offenders!

And it's getting worse. Currently, the copyright cartels are trying to get the laws changed to have people sent to prison for decades for copying music and movies. ***? Lots of people in prison are there for drug offenses. How the hell is it a threat to me if someone smokes pot or snorts coke? If they commit a violent crime to further their habit, that of course should earn them prison time, but not before.

Just last night, there was a news report here in Phoenix about an 18-year-old girl caught having sex with a 14-year-old boy. Do you think that boy felt bad about that? Of course not. But the prosecutors want her put in prison for 10 years! You can murder someone and get out in 3! If she was 17, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.

In the same news report, some Mexican, who had been deported 4 times already, was back in this country yet again, attempted to kill a policeman with his car, set his car on fire, and burned a woman to death...

I agree mostly. We have reached a point where our justice system has lost sight of the ideal that the punishment should fit the crime. You get murderers who are released after "time spent" (like the woman who killed her preacher husband with a shotgun in Texas last year), while an 18 y/o boy get's 10 years in prison for having sex with a 17 y/o girl because he's an "adult" and she's a minor at "only" 17 - even though she already has a child from a previous relationship and the sex was consentual.

Still, there are times when a non-violent criminal should spend time behind bars, if for nothing else than to send a message to like minded criminals. Remember ENRON a few years ago? How many tens of thousands of people lost their life savings and jobs because a few company big wigs commited a "non-violent" white collar crime! OTOH, there are many crimes that are non-violent in nature and I believe they should not be considered in the same class as violent crimes where guns and other weapons are used, or crimes where people are harmed (manslaughter due to drunk driving, for example).

If it were my decision, there would be several degrees of felony crime and the "rights" you'd have returned after you had completed your sentence would depend on your crime. Commit a white collar, non-violent crime (like Martha Stewart's stock fiasco) and you'd have all your rights returned after your sentence is complete. Further down the extreme, if you commit a "violent" crime such as robbery w/o a weapon and nobody was harmed or you only implied to a store clerk that you had a gun in your coat pocket, you could petition to have your 2A rights returned after your sentence is complete and maybe a 5 year probation period where you cannot be convicted of ANY crime. Finally, commit a crime where you actually used a gun and/or someone is injured or killed, and you'd loose your 2A rights forever, period, no second chance.

I think it's way overdue that we put the "justice" back into our criminal justice system!

[Echo_Four]

I'll stir up the pot.

Should ex-convicts lose their 1st amendment rights of free speech and religion?
Should ex-convicts lose their 4th amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure?
Should ex-convicts lose their 5th amendment rights for incriminating themselves, and double jeopardy?
Should ex-convicts lose their 6th & 7th amendment right to a trial by jury?
Should ex-convicts lose their 8th amendment right to reasonable bail?

No
Yes
No
No
Yes

Sorry, but when you violate our social norms, you lose the right to enjoy our society to its fullest. If you honestly believe it is a good idea to give guns to felons I'm afraid you're part of the problem, not the answer.

[bobernet]

Sorry, but when you violate our social norms, you lose the right to enjoy our society to its fullest. If you honestly believe it is a good idea to give guns to felons I'm afraid you're part of the problem, not the answer.

Yeah, totally. It's a good thing, cause without taking away their second amendment rights, those felons who choose to commit crimes again might be able to get guns...

The law is a complete waste of time. If a felon chooses to commit another felony with or without a gun, there are already laws in place to convict and punish them. So, just like gun control laws for those of us who haven't made the same bad choices... the only people the law applies to are the ones who choose to follow it. We generally call those people the "good guys."