VA Supreme Court rules on felons and guns

[Adrenaline]

I don't like the way the question is phrased "deserving of having rights (and what rights) restored". You don't deserve rights; they're not privileges. Taking away a right should be done as carefully and as briefly as possible, and should not be taken away except for the best of reasons.

You can disagree all you like. If you read my entire post in context you will see that my point was that those committing the acts listed would not be releases so the question as to what their rights may or may not be does not matter.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[noway2]

Certain crimes are so violative of our space and psyche that once the line has been crossed the person can never be trusted again. (snip) In my mind the onces listed above are such an affront to society that they would not be released from prison and thus figuring out what rights they might have restored is moot.

Which makes a case for simply executing them, which I would argue is a far more humane and less costly solution.

I am also reminded of a particular episode of one of my favorite TV shows, Babylon 5, where the minds of those convicted of violent felonies would be erased and a new personality implanted. In the show controversy arose over whether or not the 'new' person was still guilty of the crime. It still begs the question of once someone has "served" should they then be considered a full citizen again?

[CanuckQue]

You can disagree all you like. If you read my entire post in context you will see that my point was that those committing the acts listed would not be releases so the question as to what their rights may or may not be does not matter.

We'd likely disagree on which rights inmates should lose, too. I mostly just didn't like the phrasing, mostly. I wanted to distinguish that "deserving of having rights returned" conflates "rights" with "privileges", because it's a type of phrasing that makes it harder to protect rights.

[DaveH]

Re: Virgina (or other State) v. National restoration.

We need to fight one battle at a time.

Winning at the State level (in a number of States) is a good step toward getting the congressional critters some backbone.

IMHO, felon convictions, like misdemeanor convictions, should be divided as violent v. non-violent. I have no problem with restoration for someone who pick-pockets $5.00 or more being restored, if it is OK to restore someone who pick-pockets $4.99 or less.

Ditto a misdemeanor for a bad check of $199 but a felony for $200 or more.

As always, YMMV.

However, the felony v. misdemeanor distinction is not as relevant as is the nature of the crime, IMHO.

[IAm_Not_Lost]

I agree with the above statement that distinguishing between different types of felony crimes may make it easier to allow a felon to have his/her right's restored, but I strongly disagree with the broad sentiment that 'once your time is served right's should restored'.

[mlr1m]

I agree with the above statement that distinguishing between different types of felony crimes may make it easier to allow a felon to have his/her right's restored, but I strongly disagree with the broad sentiment that 'once your time is served right's should restored'.

If your rights have not been restored you have not served your sentence. You are in effect out on supervised release.

Michael

[Stevew]

I was taught in school, at a young age that if you are convicted of a felony you loose rights. I decided not to commit a felony. There are consequences for our actions. We know what the consequences are and should behave accordingly.

[Adrenaline]

We'd likely disagree on which rights inmates should lose, too. I mostly just didn't like the phrasing, mostly. I wanted to distinguish that "deserving of having rights returned" conflates "rights" with "privileges", because it's a type of phrasing that makes it harder to protect rights.

While rights are generally absolutes, they come with responsibilities. Fail to meet those responsibilities and you may find yourself divested of some rights. I do not have a problem with that dichotomy. I do not conflate rights with privileges though you clearly have inferred as much.

[mlr1m]

I was taught in school, at a young age that if you are convicted of a felony you loose rights. I decided not to commit a felony. There are consequences for our actions. We know what the consequences are and should behave accordingly.

Yes but when I was in school felons were allowed to buy and own handguns.

Michael

[Bill340]

If you think convicted felons can not vote, wait till Nov, even the dead will be voting... Sorry just had to post that.

[varob]

One of the problems with this is, often convicts sometimes come out of jail bigger criminals than when they went in.

[DaveH]

One of the problems with this is, often convicts sometimes come out of jail bigger criminals than when they went in.

With all due respect, I'm not sure what "this" is in the "One of the problems with this is...."

The state Supreme Court ruled Friday the courts have the sole discretion in Virginia whether felons who have served their time can have their firearm rights restored.

It is not automatic. No elected office holder can do it by fiat / by an arbitrary order -- like a Governor pardoning a murder.

It takes a court to adjudicate that one should have his/her 2A rights restored. That happens based on evidence of reformation. I have never known it to happen as soon as the felon was released.

If one comes out of jail a bigger criminal than when they went in, it is highly unlikely that they will stay clean long enough to be adjudicated as worth of restoration, IMHO.

I believe the possibility of restoration will set a goal to work toward. A motivation to be more than just "not guilty" of yet another crime. A purpose toward which to direct an endeavor of becoming exemplary enough that the Commonwealth Attorney and local Sheriff's Office/PD will not object and that respected members of the community will support one's restoration.

I can't speak with confidence as to cities, but in rural areas the possibility of just being able to hunt again would be a major motivator. A major landmark in being reintegrated into lawful society.

[CanuckQue]

One of the problems with this is, often convicts sometimes come out of jail bigger criminals than when they went in.

That is probably THE major issue to be dealt with. I'd not care the least bit about gun ownership if recidivism rates were reasonable. I'd not care about booze, driving, voting, or anything else.

[pittypat21]

I agree with the idea a non-violent felon should be allowed the opportunity to have his 2A rights restored. One example that comes to mind is someone that is convicted for possession or consumption of marijuana. If the only thing that person has ever done wrong was smoke some weed, I'm not too concerned about them being able to own a weapon. If somebody is convicted of a felony for aggravated assault, well...they probably shouldn't be allowed to have weapons anymore.

[Richard58]

Felons never. They made their decision when they decided to commit the crime. Plain and simple...