Should convicted felons be allowed to buy and own firearms?

Question

I'm looking for the opinions of gun rights activists. The second amendment doesn't restrict gun ownership to anyone, but do you really want convicted murders and rapists and mentally unstable people to be able to have guns?

Answer 1

I am pro-gun as it gets. My stance is this: The right to bare arms is every American's, but when you infringe upon those rights criminally then you lose some of them, usually for very good reasons. I wouldn't even be opposed to random checks for them in the homes and other property of violent offenders, because after all, criminals don't have to go through the same legal process as I. No background checks and no counters, criminals don't have to settle for the semi-auto versions of assault rifles, because there is no restrictions for one who is willing to break the law. Us law abiding "gun cranks" are the only people laws have any effect over.



Like a lot of other "gun nuts" you will find, I believe no felon should have the same rights as us. We don't want rapist, convicted murderers, or mentally ill people being able to purchase firearms (even though they will, and NOT legally). I just want to be able to defend myself and family against the very types of criminals listed....not give them the rights I am afforded for being law abiding.

Answer 2

There are some great arguments here. Great question Curious. As a retired Cop it may surprise some that tend to go the way of Mountain Man on this issue. There is a problem with a person paying their debt to society, but living the rest of their lives as a second class citizen, because we forget that they can't vote either. I can see where they would have a lack of loyalty to the community and this could lead to a new violation. I also see some credence with keeping firearms out of the hands of those of convicted violent crimes, which by the way we already do with those convicted of Domestic Violence. However, considering how easy it is for a person to get set up on a Domestic Violence rap, I have some doubts about this law. I could maybe see a 1 year waiting period, or something similar. What I fear the most is that the government is figuring out a way to disarm the public one segment at a time. Just look at their successful campaign to ostracize tobacco users. When they destroy the rights of one segment, when will they be after yours. A person charged with killing someone while drunk driving can eventually get their license back and buy a new car. Isn't there something hypocritical about this. I don't see any big changes in the near future, but this makes for healthy debate. I think our legal system, like any good church, needs a good reformation on occasion. I would strongly advise everyone to stop joining the government in stripping the rights from other groups, regardless if you like them or not. Otherwise you are just a tool of the propaganda.

Answer 3

Ok first, to legally own a firearm in the U.S. you cannot have ANY felony convictions. Even misdemeanor convictions for assault is strictly turned down in many states until a certain number of years pass without any more convictions. But the fact of the matter is they DO own guns. That is why they are criminals. They break the law.



You are right, the Second Amendment does not restrict ownership, the U.S. Government does...Usually the legal gun owners.

Answer 4

the felons that are convicted of harming or threaten others. no they should. but what about the felons that are say 40 or 50 they have a felony back from when they were 20 for say playing with a fire extinger. i mean that's minor but yet a felony. or the guy who had just a Little to much marry Jane. some of these folks got in trouble at an early age.grew up and live as law a bi den folks. is it fair that they can't vote or hunt with a gun. so here's what i think if the last 2 presidents can get of off pot at an early age then give these guys another crack. it's not hard to be come a felon these days. the nick picking government. needs to adjust them self before they do any more judge.double standards don't any more.

Answer 5

Not as far as the current Laws that exist today as written.* They don't need any special rights or permission to do that, if they decide that they want to own or buy a Gun they will do so regardless whether it is allowed or not.* Legal or not Legal.* It is impossible to predict or control an individuals behavior or conduct regarding these matters, and many more.* Just like the Ten Commandments doesn't stop or Prevent Anyone, Anywhere, at Anytime from Sinning.* It is unrealistic and meaningless to think otherwise.* It is a mute point.* Even the Lawful at one time or another will become Unlawful.* Buying or owning, and using a gun does not come with a lifetime guarantee that Anyone, Anywhere, at Anytime will not harm others, or themselves with it at some point in time.*!! That is the reality of Gun Ownership which anyone must realize, whether they want to acknowledge it, or not.*!!

Answer 6

If someone has served their time and paid their debt to society they should have all of their rights restored including their second amendment rights and their right to vote. I don't really want known murders, rapists and mentally unstable people to be walking the streets freely, period. If they are so dangerous that they will snap and kill people randomly they are a serious threat to society and should be locked up. Banning them from buying guns isn't going to solve anything.



The second amendment does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Banning any person from owning a gun is most certainly an unconstitutional infringement.

Answer 7

look, all our rights are tied to being law abiding citizens.



Even with free speech, you do NOT have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Of course, we tend to beleive if someone does yell fire, THEN you lock them up, you don't gag every person going into the theater just in case they maybe feel like yelling FIRE!



The constitution is silent on punishment, as long as it is not cruel and unusual. There is nothing unconstitutional about throwing a murder or even a shoplifter in jail for life.



If we choose to relax some restrictions and allow them out on parol, we can still retrict other rights (such as freedom of association, you can't hang out with gang members any more) just like if they were still in jail.



If we eventually dial that back even further, where they keep the moniker "Felon" but otherwise are free, then we are still within the constitution to withhold rights, such as firearms or voting. After all, we'd be within our rights to have them in jail still.



In the same vein, if someone is a convicted child molestor, just because they serve their time doesn't wash away the crime. They will never be allowed to be a teacher, daycare provide, pediatricain, or other jobs that work with kids.

Answer 8

Some state laws regarding rehabilitated felons allow non concealable hunting and defense firearms . sometimes need judges permission, others have statute defining usage of released prisoners no longer on probation or parole. New York known to give pistol permit to organized crime family criminals. Current federal laws specifiacly defines pre 1898 and non fixed ammunition- muzzle loaders- as not a firearm under federal law and some states laws coincide enough that like Texas a felon can hunt with a muzzle loader. This was discussed before.

Answer 9

If they are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun then they are too dangerous to be trusted in public



Once a criminal does all his time including the readjustment period known as probation they should have all their civil rights restored



As long as ex cons are condemned to second class citizen status the recidivism rate will reflect that attitude towards them



Many if not most of the felonies on the books should not even be misdemeanors anyway

And how many of y'all feel safer now that Martha Stewart can't own guns but the drunk down the street with two or three DUIs can

Answer 10

Gun control is hitting what I aim at.



Thats what matters and will be the only thing that matters. But being a x law enforcement officer I would never approve of Felons being allowed to have or carry firearms legally.

Answer 11

Convicted felons currently can posses firearms, if they have their rights restored. This generally does not happen if they were convicted of a violent crime. They can also vote, etc. Having one's rights restored can be a difficult expensive task, on purpose. This ensures that only the truly reformed, with a long history of abiding the law, will qualify.

Answer 12

I believe they should have the right to at least own long guns. I can certainly understand not wanting them to have hand guns that can be easily concealed, but they should be allowed a shotgun in the closet for home protection. Everyone should be allowed the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property.



I know felons that live back in the sticks, and they still own guns. No one is going to tell them that they cannot protect themselves when it takes the law an hour to respond to a call. granted, these guns dont have their names on them.. I would rather they DID!!

Answer 13

Convicted people do not have the right to own firearms now. Many still do of course. But they don't acquire them through legal channels. This all began when this right, and others were taken away from convicted felons quite a long time ago. The thought was, Why should people who have committed a crime retain the same rights as law abiding citizens? I read about this before in a firearms monthly magazine.

Answer 14

Thats a good question. In my opinion I don't think it would be a very good idea for convicted fellons to have the rights and usage of a firearm. Especially mental and unstable people. They should have restrictions on these type of things depending on how bad their crime was and how mentally unstable he/she is. It would be a stupid idea to give a known criminal the rights to have a gun.

Answer 15

A convicted felon forfeits his right to keep and bear arms. Only one more reason to not be a felon.



Consider also that a felon cares little about the law, so when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. You see, the anti-2nd. Amendment movement is not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It is about criminalizing gun ownership and when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.



And the 2nd. Amendment is not only about protecting us from dictator wannabes; it is also about the inherent, God-given right to defend oneself from those with murderous intent. So when guns are outlawed however shall we protect ourselves from those with murderous intent and dictator wannabes?



Be careful how you vote. Anyone who erodes your 2nd. Amendment Rights is NOT a friend of the People.



H

Answer 16

You know Kevin, that is a mighty tough question and it has lead to some pretty intense debates over the years.



As a friend once pointed out to me, in the late 1800's, when a man was released from Yuma Territorial Prison, he was given a new suit of clothes, a train ticket, and a revolver. The reasoning being that the man had paid his debt to society, and the fact that he had once been convicted of a felony did not abrogate his right to self-defense.



In all honesty, I'd not considered the situation from that point of view until my friend related that bit of information. I came to the conclusion that he is right. A person who has paid their debt to society should be allowed to start with a clean slate.



However, the payment of the debt should be IN FULL. Not some plea bargain, or time off for good behavior, or a wrist slap sentence.



In other words, if a person is violently insane, and refuses to take medication to control their violence, either lock them away for life or euthanize them. If a person is a pedophile, either lock them away forever or hang them. If a person is a serial rapist, either lock them away forever or hang them. If a man kills another man who was manifestly in need of killing, either let him go, or let him start with a clean slate after he has served his time.



For many hundreds of years, to be convicted of a felony was to loose your rights as a citizen. No voting, not holding office, no belonging to an honorable military organization, and often no land ownership permitted. To a large extent we've gotten away from that. There are two counties in this state that have had convicted felons elected sheriff.



I believe that if we behave a bit less prejudicially, we might have a lower recidivism rate. If a man is branded as a felon for life, he has no incentive to improve himself, he is virtually forced back into the ways and associations that lead to his incarceration in the first place. Perhaps if all non-violent criminals were automatically restored to their full rights as citizens, including restoration of their Second Amendment Rights, and perhaps if restoration of rights to other felons were made easier, perhaps we'd have fewer repeat offenders.



Just my thoughts on the subject and I don't claim to be an expert.



Doc

Answer 17

Every individual has a Constitionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. When someone breaks the laws of the land, they also forfeit some of those rights. Convicted felons give up their right to vote (most states anyway), the right to free speech while incarcerated, etc. The right to bear arms is longer legal for them, but many do anyway.

Answer 18

If a convicted felon is such a danger to society that he can't have a gun, why is he not still in prison? Conversely, if he's no longer a danger to society such that he can be released, what's the problem with him having a gun?



Sounds like the people who support that notion want to have it both ways.

Answer 19

As case law regarding the second amendment matures, I think it'll eventually be ruled that a blanket lifetime ban is unconstitutional. Non-violent felons who've served their time, especially those who have matured, are not a high risk, and having guns does not automatically equate to misusing them. As long as there is a mechanism for evaluation and appeal, there should be no major problems with the selective ownership by those who've paid their debt to society and shown they are rehabilitated good citizens.

Answer 20

Kevin,



I am for the private citizen's rights to own guns. I've owned rifles, shotguns, and pistols.



However, I am not for convicted felons owning firearms, nor should mentally unstable people be allowed to own firearms. Recent college and other high profile shootings bear that out.



"Ranger"

Answer 21

In my opinion a felon who has no history of mental illness or has commited a violent crime should be allowed to own a gun. I don't think your average white collar criminal owning a gun is in any way dangerous. I do think however if you are still on probation/parole you should not have that right, but once it's over I think it's fine.

Answer 22

The federal requirements for purchasing a firearm cover these things. Fellons and the mentally incompetent are not allowed to purchase a firearm. Felons are not allowed to even have a firearm. As you can see, there are already laws on the books that cover such things. We who support the Second Ammendment support these laws.

Answer 23

ok you said a felon, ,, it would depend on the crime, they did, an if, they got enought brain to, use one safe, honest, their more people out their with gun, , they dont know which end to hold,,,, but if they was a rapist, murders are one of mentally, god no,

Answer 24

It depends on the nature of the crime. For non-violent offenses there should be a way for the offender to petition for restoration of rights but granting that restoration should by no means be automatic. Some people actually do turn their lives around.

Answer 25

The current federal laws prohibit convicted felons fron having and using firearms.

Answer 26

Remember...the Constitution did Not grant any rights. It says....Certain God given rights shall not be taken by a Government

Answer 27

well, I think that they should have some rules on guns... for example, it depends in what their felony was for--- if it was holding someone at gunpoint then no but if it was for something like stealing a candy bar then yes

Answer 28

No, they have proven they have no regard for their fellow citizens.

Answer 29

well im pretty sure if you are a convicted felon that you cant buy firearms

Answer 30

No, anyone convicted of a felony, especially a violent one, should ever be able to own a firearm.

Answer 31

They can all they have to do is apply for a pardon.

Answer 32

Absolutely. Every American should have the right to bear arms and have a drivers license.

Answer 33

Of course and we should also pay for them to have target practice.

Answer 34

a violent felony..no ... a non-violent felony..yes

Answer 35

Only during times of war........ Blessings Yahoo