[Mike1956]

Not only that, he has some of the identifying feature of a thug. I have long been an advocate of the restoration of gun rights on a case-by-case basis:

A 'visceral' reaction, with no time to spare: Arizona man gives emotional account of saving DPS trooper

 

[Petroleum 1]

No other info on the gun he used or the bg weapon he shot the Leo with. No motive for the attack either. It's one for the good guys though.

 

[PhaedrusIV]

I heard this report on the radio yesterday, along with some of the audio (ABC News.) There was no mention of the man's record.

As you said: restore gun rights on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Nakyak]

I'd like to see felons get their rights back, but I'm not sure I want the courts even more clogged with those cases.

 

[maxwell97]

Good for him. Shows you can't judge a book by its cover.

Actually, I would rather that a felony conviction, in and of itself, not involve a loss of gun rights. About 80% of felony convictions are for non-violent offenses, and I see no reason why someone convicted of fraud or marijuana possession should lose that basic human right.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf

Historically a felony meant a truly serious crime, one which was probably enough to consider the death penalty. At that time it made sense to restrict a felon's gun ownership by default, but it doesn't today. In Tennessee v Garner the Supreme Court gave this rationale as to why shooting a fleeing felon was not legal unless the felon posed a threat. For the same reason, the right to self-defense should not evaporate with a felony conviction.

 

[RedneckRuffian]

If they have paid their debt to society in full and their right to return to society has been restored, then for at least certain non-violent offenders it should include their right to bear arms. That said, I do think plenty of folks have done enough to permanently lose certain rights even if others are ultimately restored -- with due process.

This story in particular looks like a very good one, on multiple levels. Though notice that, technically, his charge was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor; reportedly during the petition to have it reduced he specifically raised the point of wanting his right to bear arms(!). Here's to hoping the officer makes a full recovery.

 

[Doogie]

I'd like to see felons get their rights back, but I'm not sure I want the courts even more clogged with those cases.

Yeah, but that is what the courts are for.

 

[Nakyak]

Yeah, but that is what the courts are for.

Only because it's a requirement. I'm saying take the requirement away.

 

[Doogie]

Only because it's a requirement. I'm saying take the requirement away.

I like the idea of a case by case basis......otherwise Obama will have to let them all out at once. I'd rather the President lose his power to pardon than take it out of the courts system.

 

[Nakyak]

I like the idea of a case by case basis......otherwise Obama will have to let them all out at once. I'd rather the President lose his power to pardon than take it out of the courts system.

I struggle to understand how a felon can be denied a firearm, but can use any of the 1000's of other deadly weapons unfettered. It makes me wonder if people really think felons are dangerous, or just have a hypersensitivity to the firearm.

 

[Bigsteve113]

In Louisiana, a convicted felon automatically has his gun rights restored ten years after the completion of the sentence. If someone stays clean that long, they're probably pretty committed to staying straight. Also, it should be noted that, at least in Louisiana, not all felonies prevent you from firearms ownership. Just violent ones. I'm good with this !!

 

[CWOUSCG]

I have long been an advocate of the restoration of gun rights on a case-by-case basis

Maybe we need to go at this from the other direction. Remove gun rights on a case by case basis.

 

[PhaedrusIV]

I struggle to understand how a felon can be denied a firearm, but can use any of the 1000's of other deadly weapons unfettered. It makes me wonder if people really think felons are dangerous, or just have a hypersensitivity to the firearm.

Without regard to the nature of said felony/felonies ? That's painting with a pretty broad brush. Armed robbery ? Aggravated assault ? Kidnapping ?

Rape ?

Securities/Bank fraud ? Income tax evasion ? Notsomuch.

 

[Nakyak]

Without regard to the nature of said felony/felonies ? That's painting with a pretty broad brush. Armed robbery ? Aggravated assault ? Kidnapping ?

Rape ?

Securities/Bank fraud ? Income tax evasion ? Notsomuch.

I hear you, but I'm speaking in the broad brush terms that the courts use to deny firearms based on "felony" in a lot of states.

Also, there are few laws that deny those same felons knives, cars, etc.

 

[SatCong]

One thing he did was save that mans life. That's a big plus.

 

[PhaedrusIV]

One thing he did was save that mans life. That's a big plus.

That IS a big plus - no doubt about it, and I won't take anything away from the hero who did it, not anything.

I will also say this: without having any actual data to back it up, I'm going to guess that a lot more cops have had their lives TAKEN by felons, vs the number of cops who have had their lives SAVED by felons. Taken by itself, this is a pretty meaningless data point.

But I believe it could largely explain the basis of biases AGAINST allowing ex-felons to own/carry firearms.

 

[Shootnlead]

Also, it should be noted that, at least in Louisiana, not all felonies prevent you from firearms ownership. Just violent ones. I'm good with this !!

WRONG...Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal for ANY felon to possess a firearm, not just violent offenders...it is not up to the states to make this decision.

 

[Sportymonk]

The article said it was reduced to a misdemeanor and his rights to have a gun were restored. Go to the end of the article.

 

[Phaedrus]

Good for him. Shows you can't judge a book by its cover.

Actually, I would rather that a felony conviction, in and of itself, not involve a loss of gun rights. About 80% of felony convictions are for non-violent offenses, and I see no reason why someone convicted of fraud or marijuana possession should lose that basic human right.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf

Historically a felony meant a truly serious crime, one which was probably enough to consider the death penalty. At that time it made sense to restrict a felon's gun ownership by default, but it doesn't today. In Tennessee v Garner the Supreme Court gave this rationale as to why shooting a fleeing felon was not legal unless the felon posed a threat. For the same reason, the right to self-defense should not evaporate with a felony conviction.

+1 to this! I have repeatedly made these points to people over the years, here and IRL. At the time of the founding of the nation a felony was a very serious crime. Now the expansion of the police-state/government-state/whatever you want to call it has made near-trivial things felonies. This has mostly been an unintended consequence of various attempts to be "tough on crime"; over the years prosecutors have been many tools to use against criminals/citizens and broad latitude with which to use them. As an example, note that at least twenty journalists merely covering the Women's March have been hit with felony "rioting" charges. The result is that prosecutors can use these trumped up charges to bludgeon a guilty person into accepting a plea, saving the cost and time of a trial. That is one of the good outcomes. On the other hand, people are threatened with felony charges for crossing into the US with illegal turtles or feathers from a protected bird. And of course the threat of felony charges has been used to quell dissent. And lastly, as was mentioned, politically these types of charges have been used to bolster the war on drugs and civil forfeitures as well.

The guy that saved the cop's life is a great example of why we shouldn't automatically strip all felons of their citizenship rights, there needs to be some wisdom and judgement involved.

 

[craze]

I don't think anyone wants murderers and rapists and child molesters to posses firearms, or even be free for it to be a question. Problem is there are probably very few of us who have not done something in our lives that could be construed as a felony in this day and age. I'm one that thinks once someone is free from prison and free from obligations under parole/probation, their right should be automatically restored. In my humble opinion the ever expanding "prohibited persons" list is a dangerous thing. We don't need the government to protect us against our own freedom.