Restoration of Second Amendment Rights

[CowTowner]

It seems there are those in Washington paying attention to some of us here and others about some convicted felons getting their RKBA restored.

The story is here:http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...oration-rights

"America is a land of second chances. One mistake should not define your future. A law-abiding, 45-year-old dad who made one mistake at 18 should have the choice of how best to protect his family or to take his kids hunting. He should have the chance to make a petition to restore his constitutional right to bear arms. This solution is long overdue,"

Quote is attributed to Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.).

So, are we ready for this?
IMHO, the quote states it best. Someone that committed a crime as a teenager should be able to petition to get his/her rights back.
There's no guarantee they'll get them, but there should at least be a mechanism in place and funded to handle the requests.

[357 Python]

For me it would depend on what that "mistake" is. If the "mistake" was a non-violent crime then I could support this. My stepson is in a similar situation. Non-violent felony and now no guns for him. He learned his lesson early and hard. He has regretted it ever since. It is so sad that when I leave this world I can't pass my guns on to him.

[csmsss]

Isn't this what pardons are for?

[Tom Servo]

a proposal allowing people to petition the federal government to restore their right to obtain firearms.

That would be all well and good except for one thing. The restoration is done by the ATF, and they haven't done it since 1992.

Some states have a mechanism under which the petitioner can get relief on the state level, but they're still prohibited on the federal level.

[Aguila Blanca]

The mechanism is in place, but it has not been funded for many years. Which means that, even if the agency wanted to process requests to restore rights, they cannot do so. No funding means they can't even assign a single clerk to accept applications and put them in a transfile box for future reference. They are not allowed to spend any money on rights restoration.

[CowTowner]

From the article I linked in the OP;

The House is expected to vote on final passage of the Justice Department funding bill on Wednesday.

If this is part of that bill, and the BATFE is part of the DoJ, wouldn't that mean that the program would conceivably be funded finally?

[bandaid1]

If they (the felons) want their rights back then why not charge them for the administrative and processing cost. I also think that it depends on what they did or how long their record is, that caused them to become a felon, is a important issue.

[jlove1974]

NC has a procedure where a non-violent Felon can have their 2A rights restored after a period of 20 years of non-recidivism (reoffending).

And a minor can petition for rights back after 15 years.

You have to petition the district court of the county of residence and appear before a judge.

They're actually trying to reduce that waiting period some.

I still believe and feel that after your rights are restored (sentence served in full) as a citizen, you should be fully restored.

Just more picking and choosing of the bill of RIGHTS (rights are not privilege) we have suffered in this country for the last 80 or so years.

NC is also still a Jim Crow state after the attempt to throw off the pistol purchase permit instead of adopting NICS for handguns.

You can be a felon in NC for several things like Bingo games with pots of greater than $50, and for notarizing a document 1 day after your commission expires.

[kilimanjaro]

I'm in the camp that says if you want to live your life with the full range of civil rights, don't commit felonies. I don't want felons carrying guns, holding public office, joining the military, voting, or employed in positions of authority or public trust.

They should have thought about all that beforehand.

[raimius]

Kilimanjaro, if felonies only included things like violent crimes, I might agree. People have been convicted of some pretty mundane sounding things, with felony sentences.

Here's a link with some interesting examples: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...72714184601654

[hartcreek]

This effects the second amendment rights not only of the convicted felon but everyone living in his or her household, spouse, children, grandchildren. Si what you are saying is that the spouse, child or grandchild has no right to be able to protect themselves or their family because of some stupid thing that their family member did often before they were even born.

That aint right.

[NJgunowner]

kilimanjaro, in NJ you can be charged with a felony for having a slingshot... some laws are just silly and losing your rights over them is sillier still.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In addition, it isn't as if felons suddenly become legal if this is funded. They still have to apply for restoration of rights and they can still be denied. All this means is that an avenue to restore rights that was once closed off is now open again.

[DavidWR]

No matter what you believe or what you think the law "should" state, Americans have the legal right to restore their firearm rights as long as they are eligible per the state and federal laws. It's important to uphold the law. Each state has different rules about who is eligible to restore their rights. In some instances, felons are allowed to restore their rights. It depends on the type of crime that was committed. The best thing one can do is talk to an attorney that focuses on gun rights in the state you're in.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by DavidWR

No matter what you believe or what you think the law "should" state, Americans have the legal right to restore their firearm rights as long as they are eligible per the state and federal laws. It's important to uphold the law. Each state has different rules about who is eligible to restore their rights. In some instances, felons are allowed to restore their rights. It depends on the type of crime that was committed. The best thing one can do is talk to an attorney that focuses on gun rights in the state you're in.

However, each state has its own procedures and its own thresholds for restoring rights. The federal government doesn't recognize all of them as meeting federal standards. That's problem number one.

Problem number two is that no state can restore rights lost due to a federal conviction. Only the federal government can do that. As was posted last year, the mechanism is in place to do that, through the BATFE, but that particular program has not been funded for decades. What good does it do to know that there's a mechanism to have your rights restored, but that there's no money to run the program?

[Branko]

I do not consider it reasonable to tar someone for life after they have served their punishment and stayed clean for a reasonably long (depending on crime) time afterwards. People do turn their life around, and not every felony is violent crime.

In my country, there's the institute of "rehabilitation" which is quite sound. After the sentence is served (or suspended sentence is served) plus a length of time during which you were "clean", the criminal record is considered clean for all purposes. Including firearms licenses (you need to get one here). The period is extended (possibly indefinitely) if someone is required monitoring after release (eg. if they're crazy, addicted, danger to the public, or whatnot).

It won't help a murderer much (sentence plus 15 years being "clean" after serving adds up to a lot), but some kid caught smoking pot at 18 (was a felony here) doesn't need to be branded for life or banned from doing anything at 30 if he turned out all right down the line and became a responsible citizen. Not every felony is the same thing, or a violent crime.

[K_Mac]

I am a conservative guy and a big advocate for enforcing existing laws, especially those involving violence. With that said, the good and bad of our legal system is that punishment can be adjusted to fit the crime. That's the reason I don't support mandatory minimums and a convicted felon losing his or her rights permanently if there is no recidivism. Many of us have done things in our youth that we're not proud of, and for some of us those things are not part of the official record for many reasons, including social, economic, political and racial factors.

[P5 Guy]

If one's voting privilege is re-instated then all rights and privileges of a citizen should be also.

[Dreaming100Straight]

How many armed robberies are committed with a vote?

[thallub]

Under the program about one third of the requests for restoration of gun rights were approved. The names of those whose gun rights were restored were printed in the Federal Register.

Problem was that some of those whose gun rights were restored went on to commit violent crimes, including murder.

BTW: Alan Gottlieb was found guilty of tax evasion in the mid 1980s. His gun rights were restored under the program.

[Clock]

A group of felons I'd not be comfortable giving their 2nd amendment rights to is white collar criminals who have committed crimes in the seven figure range, often hurting a lot of small investors. A lot of these people will serve relatively short sentences (3-5 years) in by prison standards safe & comfortable Federal prisons.

By contrast some felons wind up with longer sentences in fairly harsh state prisons, for attempting to steal much smaller amounts of money. If people in this group used violence, I'd say no restoration of 2nd amendment rights.

Many of people in the 1st group have actually done more harm to more people then their sentences reflect. As a matter of fairness, I don't feel the 1st group has been punished enough and I wouldn't want to cut them any breaks.

These are onions based solely on feelings and I'm not making any pretense to logic. Just my feelings.

[Hunter Customs]

I still believe and feel that after your rights are restored (sentence served in full) as a citizen, you should be fully restored.

I agree with the above statement.

Here's a thought to think about "Don't judge me by my past, I don't live there anymore".

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Dreaming100Straight

How many armed robberies are committed with a vote?

It depends on who is elected In all seriousness though, once someone serves his/her sentence, then they should have the same rights as anyone else. That comes with the caveat of a sufficient sentence to begin with and an even greater sentence with a repeat offense. I'm all for punishment fitting the crime but not in addition to permanently taking away someone's right(s) found in the Bill of Rights. Can you imagine, for example, if someone was released from prison and the courts upholding a lifetime ban of free speech on that person? Absurd.

[kilimanjaro]

Suppose Hillary Clinton is convicted of a felony this year, do you think she should be able to hold public office again after her sentence is up? Lobby Congress? Hold a professional license and practice law?

What's the point of the laws if you get to go right back where you started and pick up where you left off?

If you don't like what happens to you when you become a felon, don't commit felonies.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Kilimanjaro

What's the point of the laws if you get to go right back where you started and pick up where you left off?

You don't start off where you left off unless you discount stuff like the time you spent in prison, money spent defending yourself, bleak future employment prospects (non-legal bias), etc. And what we are talking about here is an additional legal penalty on top of that, which also happens to be a ban on a Constitutional Right (the 2nd Amendment). And if the government doesn't adequately fund a agency to restore the rights they took away from you, then it is effectively a lifetime ban. And as a side note, you don't have to even commit a felony to have your gun rights revoked, permanently.