Barring criminals from the RKBA

This is a discussion on Barring criminals from the RKBA within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Let's consider the question of criminalizing the RKBA, in the case of people convicted for whatever. Check all boxes you feel apply, on the concept ...

View Poll Results: Should criminals be barred from the RKBA?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • All people convicted of any crime should be barred.

    1 0.88%
  • Only those convicted of felonies should be barred.

    25 22.12%
  • Only those convicted of violent felonies should be barred.

    57 50.44%
  • Once the debt is paid for the crime, the RKBA should stand.

    39 34.51%
  • Barring the convicted from the RKBA is not an infringement.

    30 26.55%
  • Barring the convicted from the RKBA IS an infringement.

    9 7.96%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82
Like Tree102Likes

Thread: Barring criminals from the RKBA

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,141

    Question Barring criminals from the RKBA

    Let's consider the question of criminalizing the RKBA, in the case of people convicted for whatever. Check all boxes you feel apply, on the concept of the RKBA as it applies to "criminals."

    The RKBA is, of course, the right to keep and bear arms. Some believe it is a civil right that cannot be taken from a person. Some believe it can and should be taken, via due process. Some feel it should be reinstated at some point (or for some), while others believe a lifetime ban is justifiable based on the Constitution.

    This is to explore how folks feel about the level of RKBA to be afforded to those who've gone through the justice system (aka, "criminals").

    Discuss.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    1,608
    For me you left out a good possibility.
    Once the debit is repaid and after some time has passed where the offender has not reoffended, there should be some process in place to restore their rights.

    This is obviously not for everyone, but for those that straighten up, there should be a reward for good behavior.

    This also should be in place for those that plead guilty to a "misdemeanor DV charge" years back and with a change in the law found them self's unable to hold a gun. DR
    gatorbait51 and Bigsteve113 like this.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Arborigine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calaveras County, California
    Posts
    1,602
    Perhaps you should explain what the "RKBA" is, and what it's current policies are.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array 19Kvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    536
    Once the debt is paid, rights should be returned. Some debts are harder to repay than others.

    However, if the sentence is too light for the crime committed then we might need to increase the debt owed for the crime but adding a lifetime punishment for fairly insignificant crimes corrupts the justice system.
    dangerranger and gatorbait51 like this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,141
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerranger View Post
    For me you left out a good possibility. Once the debit is repaid and after some time has passed where the offender has not reoffended, there should be some process in place to restore their rights.
    Good idea. Too late, though. Can't tweak poll questions once up.

    Something like:
    • RKBA reinstatement after application, in some cases.
    • RKBA reinstatement after release, in some cases.
    • RKBA reinstatement after release, in all cases.
    Hopyard and gatorbait51 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #6
    Member Array LeanHard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    238
    I don't think every felony should take away the right to own a firearm. My little brother had a drug charge. Had a small amount of coke on hime and was convicted of a DWI. Yes he's done some dumb things, but has never been violent. It just sucks that he will never have the right to hunt or protect himself with a firearm. There are endless stories of people doing dumb things that were not violent in nature and having the 2A taken.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    That you may retain your self-respect-it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong.
    -- William J.H. Boetcker

  8. #7
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,178
    I voted door #2, but with this disclaimer: "felony" status has been over-expanded in the past couple of decades, and now encompasses many lesser crimes which I feel do not deserve the surrender of many civil rights for the remainder of one's life.

    I also find the term "ex-felon" as popularized by prominent liberal news media to be as meaningful as "ex-mother." Commit a felony, you're a felon. Maybe not a career felon, maybe a "rehabilitated" felon, but a felon nonetheless. Ask a "recovered" addict or alcoholic who's done the program, "are you an addict/alcoholic?" The answer will be "yes - but sober for X years." A felon that has paid "dues to society" does not undo history; the scar remains, and part of the burden is getting along in life minus certain privileges enjoyed by those of us who are not felons.

    I rejected the "only violent felons" choice, because a piece of trash like Bernie Madoff has effectively injured or perhaps even killed people via financial ruin brought about by his white-collar crime. There is nothing "soft" about that kind of criminal, although in the strictest sense his crimes were not violent. 150 years ago, the theft of a man's horse was a hanging offense because you threatened his life by removing his mobility in a rough world - it wasn't just a "property" crime. So I firmly believe that a guy like Madoff should be denied the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

    Boiling my thoughts down - I do not believe in restoration of any civil rights to felons, but I firmly believe there are too many violations which do not deserve to be categorized as felonies.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    880
    Everybody needs to get out of everybody else's business. Why would I possibly care what somebody is allowed to purchase?
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  10. #9
    Member Array Wolf357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    307
    I selected once the debt is paid the RKBA should be restored. If someone has served their time for the crime, they should not continue being disenfranchised upon completion of their sentence. If the crime they were convicted for was heinous, they should never be released in the first place.
    And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

    I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array elmacgyver0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    672
    Let's see if they decide spitting on the sidewalk or pitching a cigarette butt is a felony, you should lose your gun rights?
    Sounds ridiculous no? But is it?
    Aceoky and gatorbait51 like this.

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member
    Array RickyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    1,601
    I voted for violent felonies because I agree with Smitty that the definition of 'felony' has been expanded too far in some instances. That being said, I do believe that some crimes should bar an individual from owning firearms for life.

    I do not see baring certain people as an infringement. I have made the point before that the BOR is universal to all citizens, however it is applied at an individual level. As an individual, you can lose your rights for certain reasons, criminal activity being one of them. Your rights are absolute, but only to the point that you are not infringing on others in society. This is also the logic behind the reasonable position that firearms should not be sold to minors or the fact that you do not have a 1st amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    With all of this said, I would NEVER support federal legislation dictating which crimes would be eligible for some type of infringement - the federal government has NO PLACE in this discussion.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array multistage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NW Iowa
    Posts
    2,370
    I dunno. Lots of amateurs got sent in and came out professionals. Not sure prison does much more than keep 'em away from the rest of us.

    Guys that just made a terrible mistake get dinged, but after serving their sentence and showing genuine remorse, they can start over, clean. That is my opinion on the matter.

    Convicted felons (nasty ones, multiple offenses, horrible crimes, you know the type) go to facilities where they are well fed and cared for. But if someone needs a kidney, heart, whatever, the felon gets a little something extra on his supper to knock him out. The desired part is removed from the felon and taken to where it is required for installation. No notice is given. Felon wakes up minus a kidney, maybe a lung. Or just doesn't wake up.

    Considering some of the evil things people do, I find this worth consideration. This way, they are incarcerated yet can still contribute to society. Then, upon completion of the sentence (should they still have enough vital parts to run the remainder of the body), they may go free with a clean slate.

    Maybe that's a little ghastly. But I like it. They say you can't fix stupid. I don't think kindness can fix evil. Neither do you, else you would carry money and flowers instead of a gun and spare mags. So if they play rough, so do we.

    Our way (same rules as the bad guys) is better.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,935
    I think once your debt to society is paid, you should be able to own firearms again... with a caveat... our justice system needs an overhaul. A lot of people's debts are "paid" in far too short of a time span. Murderers and rapists should never get out.
    gatorbait51 and msgt/ret like this.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,701
    I didnt vote on the poll. Nothing against the way it was set up or the subject. It simply the reality of the issue is it doesnt matter what I or anyone else thinks who should be banned or not banned. If a person, felon or not, wants a gun or several guns they WILL get em.

    Ban and make illegal whatever you want. It will in no way stop any person from getting a gun, if they are determined to not have their RTKAB ripped away, much less a criminal who will pay NO attention to any gun law passed and laugh at the idea such a law was passed with any expectation it would work as they easily arm themselves.

    None of this stuff has ever worked. None of it ever will. None of it has to do with preventing anything and the rulers that want to and have passed such laws know it. So there for me was no reason to vote in a poll about something that is not possible to do in any manner.
    Aceoky, gatorbait51 and maxwell97 like this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array NickBurkhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    658
    Unfortunately contrary to public perception the current law takes away RKBA for past offenses which you "may have" been jailed for a year or more, not just actual felony convictions. I have read about several cases, two are recent first hand accounts, where people have plead guilty to stupid stuff that happened 20+ years ago only to have that infringe their RKBA now. That is why I voted Only those convicted of violent felonies. I suppose you can add a years served (2, 5 or 10) for more serious non-violent felonies.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

if you are convicted felon with 2nd dwi texas law

Click on a term to search for related topics.