VA Supreme Court rules on felons and guns

[paramedic70002]

PilotOnline.com: Virginia and Local news for Hampton Roads, Va., from The Virginian-Pilot

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- 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.

The justices wrote that Kaine and McDonnell correctly exercised their constitutional authority in restoring political rights, and properly referred the question about the rights on firearms to circuit courts.

The justices said the lower courts erred in concluding that the governors' actions precluded them from acting on rights involving firearms.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[DaveJay]

It's stuff like this that keeps here in the Old Dominion...decisions like this kept at the lowest level...

[archer51]

Here is an interesting twist to this. Even if the state restores the individuals right, it does not over ride federal law. The person is still a convicted felon and prohibited federally.

[tangoseal]

Here is an interesting twist to this. Even if the state restores the individuals right, it does not over ride federal law. The person is still a convicted felon and prohibited federally.

Felon or no Felon you are prohibited by federal law to carry a firearm on federal property.

[blitzburgh]

The laws about felons not being able to vote or bear arms have always bothered me. Of course one cannot cast a vote or bear arms while in prison but once you've 'paid your debt to society' all rights should be restored.

20 years ago my uncle committed a felony, served his time and still can't own a weapon to protect himself or his family. I see something very wrong with that picture.
Sent from my palm device

[ntkb]

When you are done doing your time and released from the system you are expected to become a citizen, if you become a citizen then you should have the same rights as a citizen. On the other hand if you can’t be trusted out and about with a gun than you should stay in the lock up.

[Rotorblade]

Don't know what your uncle did, but with some violent crimes the victims life may be changed forever.Knowing the perpetrator served his time doesn't always make the victim whole again.
I guess it could be a little different if it was a nonviolent felony.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[noway2]

Knowing the perpetrator served his time doesn't always make the victim whole again.

No amount of sitting in a cage is going to achieve this. Putting someone in a cage isn't going to accomplish much at all.
That being said, generally speaking, once they've served, rights should be restored.

[blitzburgh]

Don't know what your uncle did, but with some violent crimes the victims life may be changed forever.Knowing the perpetrator served his time doesn't always make the victim whole again.
I guess it could be a little different if it was a nonviolent felony.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

It was nonviolent.

Sent from my palm device

[OldVet]

Perhaps some "2 strike" rule; permanent loss of rights following a second felony conviction?

[CanuckQue]

I'd prefer felons be allowed to vote, mainly because it helps them re-integrate into society. It gives them a political voice, and an incentive to be politically educated. If you're afraid of the consequences of the swing vote effect of felons (< 1% of society), then your political system is already in deep trouble. Plus, if a felon actually disagrees with a law (the one they were convicted of), then they should be allowed to at least express that opinion via a vote. A felon who feels their 2A was violated (and resulted in their arrest) should be able to support a friendly candidate.

I like going through the bill of rights and figuring out which other inalienable rights should be removed from ex-felons. I mean, there's a lot of people who agree with losing the right to vote or bear arms. How about losing the future right to council, or losing the future right to double jeopardy? How about losing the right to not having soldiers quartered in your house?

I betcha losing the right to refusing quartering soldiers would be way more of a (pre-criminal act) deterrent than losing your vote!

[gasmitty]

I'll buck the tide here. Since nearly forever, being convicted of a felony meant you lost many rights of citizenship, among the most important the right to vote, permanently. That's just one of the prices of committing serious criminal acts, and I feel strongly that it needs to remain that way. Serving time in prison is just part of the punishment, not the only punishment.

What I do disagree with is that so many statutory violations and "lesser" criminal acts have been bumped up to felony status. I don't think a guy who got busted for holding an ounce of weed needs to lose his civil rights forever, but I do believe a child molester and a Bernie Madoff thief DO.

[Ionracas]

If I may throw this out there, pedophiles seem to get released from prison all the time. Does anyone honestly think for a moment that they should have ANY rights restored?

I am not saying there are not crimes in which serving time is enough punishment. Aside from misdomeanor or felony until there is more to distinguish one criminal from another, its a bit arrogant to say, "rights should be restored."

Dont get me wrong, people do change and some diserve a second chance. Some dont diserve anything in my opinion. But if you allow some to have their rights restored, then you have to allow them all. Our crimminal justice system needs an overhaul but until then any differential treatment of one to another will just have the bleeding hearts screaming.

[Adrenaline]

Certain crimes are so violative of our space and psyche that once the line has been crossed the person can never be trusted again. I lump pedophiles, rapists, murderers, serial killers, and those who torture their victims in this group (I'm sure there are others but these immediately come to mind).

If you accept the above the question then becomes what felonies are deserving of having rights (and what rights) restored? 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.

[CanuckQue]

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.