'There will be grave consequences for public safety if a reinstated guns for felons program becomes law,' states VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand. 'Before it was prohibited by Congress, this NRA-supported program allowed thousands of convicted felons to purchase guns, including violent criminals. Our research found that many of these felons were subsequently rearrested for crimes including attempted murder, child molestation, and first-degree sexual assault.' " http://vpc.org/press/1506relief.htm How is this justifiable? Is the NRA only interested in increasing gun industry profits? More customers for gun dealers?
Any violent felons able to receive relief from disability under this proposed law? The only reason for this law is because of liberal misuse of felony-level charges to non-violent criminals. If you lock someone up for smoking a joint under a felony charge, then you are inclined to pass bs laws like this to try to rectify the injustice of the overly harsh penalties. If, on the other hand, you say "Anyone convicted of a felony can not be safely reintegrated into society with gun rights intact", then you should make sure that felony-level offenses match that criteria. There are many, many felony charges that do not involve violence. Speeding in excess of 80mph is a felony in my state. Should I, because I have a lead foot and a Lamborghini, not have some recourse to restore my 2A rights, simply because the law says what I did was a felony? (I say, that law should not be a felony in the first place.) Besides, released felons who are inclined to use a gun for further felonious activities, are not likely going to be deterred by a law saying they can't. Perhaps we should not release felons who are so inclined. My overall point is, there would be no need for this law if non-violent people were not being convicted of felonies. It's just a band-aid patch to attempt fix an injustice. I say, better to fix the injustice directly. Make sure that, if we are to deny someone's 2A rights, that they have received due process, and that removal of those rights is justified. Also, if a felon is too dangerous to society to have their 2A rights intact, then maybe they should not be released upon society in the first place. Because, really, that is the ONLY way to be sure they don't get a gun.
I was gonna say something about actually reading the 2nd amendment, noticing it doesn't have a "but felons" exception to the shall not be infringed bit and then you could push for an amendment if you don't like how it works... But then I saw your sig is the Stevens on Heller ruling which is just... sad. So I'm just going to back away slowly
lol It is a move to allow non-violent felons to regain their gun rights. Do you really think people should have their rights stripped forever for smoking a joint? Before bleeding from the eyes, think of all the stupid, silly, and non-violent ways someone can land themselves a felony.
Most Americans Commit Three Felonies a Day and Here's What Happens If They Get Caught http://mic.com/articles/51551/most-...ay-and-here-s-what-happens-if-they-get-caught
Bear in mind that it is you, and those who maintain similar political position to you, that wish to see firearm owners convicted of felonies for possessing unregistered firearms, or a magazine that hold eleven rounds of ammunition.
The 5th (and 14th) amendment clearly says that rights (liberty) can be taken away by due process. A felony conviction is due process. If that were not possible, we could not imprison people or punish them in any way.
Kristen Rand is a well known liar when it comes to these issues but then again the VPC is one of the most dishonest anti gun groups going. The VPC is the collection of gun haters that pushed the media to deliberately mislead the Sheeple that semi auto "assault weapons" and machine guns were the same thing. They also threw a fit when -after the Clinton 10 round magazine limit was in place-gun makers made smaller pistols built around the 10 round magazines which the VPC whined about being "too concealable" I would note that Pamela Karlan-stanford Law school and one of the most brilliant far left lawyers in America (she's the Jewish Lesbian Obama should have put on the Court-not Kagan) has worked trying to re-enfranchise felons noting that most felons would vote for Democrats if they could
if they are violent-true. same with voting but then again, your posts suggest you don't think non-violent people should have firearms rights either
you're once again just reading into peoples' posts what you want to see. - - - Updated - - - and comparing the right to vote to the right to own a gun, is absurd.
true, voting is far more dangerous. and banning guns doesn't stop bad people from getting them banning felons from voting is far more effective-hell, half the people who are allowed to vote do not
rather than spewing silliness, tell us why. bad politicians have cost us far more lives and money than bad people with guns and chicago proves that your desired gun bans doesn't really do squat in keeping guns out of criminals' hands what gun laws you favor do is to disarm victims which is what I suspect you really want all along
But if you are smoking a joint, you aren't allowed to purchase or possess a firearm, it's a federal thing. You can't regain your Second Amendment rights until you stop smoking the weed for ten years. People who went out an got a marijuana medical card really got a being stupid ID card. My Second Amendment rights are more important than smoking a joint and getting the munchies and eating a pizza. Cheap thrills.
what is really stupid is a government that thinks smoking grass should be illegal when booze is legal. I don't do either but as a former prosecutor, boozers cause far more problems than Tokers
If they are truly violent, there is zero legitimate reason to allow them back into society where they can do the most harm. If someone is too dangerous to legally be able to own a firearm, they are too dangerous to not be locked up in prison. Do you disagree?
Seems there is another amendment which bars cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot for instance decitizen a deserter from the army, its considered worse than physical torture to do so. (you want the case?) Why then can we permenantly remove the suffrage of an individual? DURING incarceration? Sure rights can be abrogated. Death Penalty? Sure if the crime is heinous enough. But make someone a 2nd class citizen for life? That's not what is meant by due process of law.
Some of these "violent criminals" include men who simply just pushed their wife during an argument. Woman admits lying about domestic violence sending innocent husband to jail Happens all the time. The men are often just coerced into signing a plea bargain rather than taking their chances in long drawn out trial.
Of course it is. If we can imprison somebody for life (which we clearly can), we can take away their voting (and gun) rights for life. Due process just means that a court process has to be used to take away those rights. We cannot have a law that takes away people's rights.
