Home / Crime / Should Released Felons Have the Right to Own Guns?
Print Friendly and PDF

Should Released Felons Have the Right to Own Guns?

Written by John Odermatt on December 6, 2013

A hunting trip into the woods is always enjoyable, even when returning home without a deer in the back of the vehicle.  Hunting provides an escape from the hectic pace of everyday life and abundance of time to think.

This past Monday was the opening day of rifle deer hunting season in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, I did not get a deer. What I did get was plenty of time to reflect and appreciate how lucky I am to be able to hunt without fear of repercussions.

Not everyone is so lucky.

As I sat in the woods, my mind settled on a subject that I had neglected to devote consideration to in the past. Should felons be returned their Second Amendment rights upon release from prison? Currently federal law prohibits any person convicted of a felony from possessing or purchasing a firearm. Some states laws allow hunting with a muzzle loading firearm and an exception to the federal law that is very technical makes it legal in these states.

A muzzle loader is an almost worthless self-defense weapon and hunting with the firearm is a skill that takes both talent and patience. By no means does the right to carry a muzzle loader restore a person’s Second Amendment rights.

(For the rest of the article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on lionsofliberty.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

85 thoughts on “Should Released Felons Have the Right to Own Guns?

  1. sean murry says:

    No felon should have a gun because they would use it to commit crimes again.

  2. Winghunter says:

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." – Thomas Jefferson

    No law has ever stopped any bad guy from obtaining a gun – ever.

  3. Rodger Peterson says:

    Why not? Progressives want felons to have the right to vote while incarcerated. So why not give the felons guns while incarcerated? At the same time the progressives are introducing legislation at all levels of government in attempts to take firearms out of the hands of the law abiding citizens. Seems like perfect logic.

  4. not all felons are dangerous or would ever use a weapon to commit a crime, many will never commit another offense. in the early days of our country a gun was mandatory to be given to inmates at the time of release. i believe at least 5 years after release all rights should be returned automatically if no other crimes are charged. it's hard for someone to feel like they are a part of society when they are restricted and not allowed to participate. it's a good incentive to straighten up if one has some hope of being accepted and forgiven. some people are just evil, but many just are decent people who made some mistakes in life and deserve a second chance. how can they become good citizens if they aren't allowed to be citizens. with political and police corruption along with activist leftist judges do we really believe that all charges against people are legitimate.

  5. Phillip the Bruce says:

    First of all, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment. It is a human right (granted by the Creator – see Declaration of Independence) that has been acknowledged in the 2nd Amendment.
    Second, the Amendment makes no allowance for exceptions, including felons. It simply states that the right "shall not be infringed."
    Finally, locking criminals in cages, violent or not, is barbaric. Biblical justice calls for restitution to the victim (or his representatives). See "Victims' Rights" by Dr. North.

  6. Phillip the Bruce says:

    Many of the 'civilian felons' in prisons should have some way to protect themselves against the 'uniformed felons' that are "guarding" them.

  7. Given the out of control government regulation of everything, it has been noted that the average american commits 3 felonies a day without even knowing it. We are trained to think of felons as violent people, and some are, but should someone convicted of an EPA violation be stripped of their rights?

  8. bulldurham48 says:

    You evidently have no experience with black powder weapons. If you knew anything about black powder weapons you would understand that a black powder pistol or rifle can blow a hole through someone big enough to actually put your hand through, pistols can be carried like any other pistol, only 6 shots, usually. Felons committed a crime for which there were several penalties, one of which is no owning/keeping/ storing, touching firearms. Felons have broken the basic human trust bond and can nolonger be trusted period. You want one watching your kids or in you cash register? Felons broke the law, now they pay the price period,no firearms of any sort.

  9. If they "can no longer be trusted period.", then felons should not be on the streets. If they are free from prison, then they should be allowed to carry weapons, PERIOD.

  10. There are so many different types of felonies. Violent offenders probably shouldn't have guns, but they probably shouldn't be on the streets anyway unless they've proven themselves reformed and desperately seeking a 2nd chance. That's what judges are for…to decide if they've met the requirements of society. If they're too dangerous to be armed, they're too dangerous to be free. Serve your time and your probation without incident and be restored to full citizenship. Learn your lesson the 1st time. I have no sympathy for repeat offenders.

  11. I was fishing off the Texas coast and my line got stuck, and when I pulled it up it had snagged on a little colony if mussels. Did you know fishing for mussels without a license is a felony in Texas? I guess I should turn in al my guns.

  12. Felon is now a very broad term, there the non-gun law needs to be tied to the type of crime. Was a gun a part of the crime? Was anyone injured? Where did the crime occur, on your private property, or public property? Why are guns singled out, it is impossible to list everything that can be used as a weapon. How many times is a gun not involved in DUIs, embezzlement,, drug possession, or just breaking some federal or state regulation? Plea bargains are part of the problem in defining felons with only a judge and prosecutor deciding the case.

  13. Admiral America says:

    The Second Amendment mentions no restrictions on criminals who will get guns no matter what anyway. The Second Amendment is rather self-explanatory for anyone with a brain but clearly all the gun control laws indicate our government is run by the brainless.

  14. Buckeye Libertarian says:

    Knives and cars kill people, too. Should they be barred from owning those things as well? And this is a separate matter from whether I'd want them watching my children or my cash register.

  15. Charles E. Hughes says:

    Not all felonies are of a violent nature, so your saying that they would use it to do a crime again does not hold water.
    Many people have felonies on their record for DUI's or to many traffic violation accidents, some like my old employer was charged with tax evaision, for trying to keep the company afloat and pay the employees, but the IRS wants their cut first and screw the workers, so I ask you, should he be denied the right to bear arms to hunt to feed his family and protect his property and personage?
    Hell yes he should!!!!!

  16. the term "felony" originally mneant an heinous crime, typically of violence, against persons. Today, if I shoot a feral nuisance cat in my own backyard (a zone where shooting is otherwise legal) I have committed a felony. The family operating a store and making deposits of less than ten thousand dollars multiple times per month without "reporting" them (their insurance will not cover cash losses over this amount in the event of a robbery) are deemed to have committed felony financial crimes. Operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in excess of twenty miles per hour above the arbitrarily determined posted speed llimit is also a felony in my state. Never mind it is broad daylight, nontraffic, dry smooth road, wide open, and the vehicle I am operating is carefully designed to safely operate at speeds double the posted limit of 55 mph…… it remains a felony. Or consider the gent travelling via commercial airliner from Colorado to Pennsylvania for a conference. He has the Mother May I permit from his home state government to lawfully carry a concealed handgun upon his person, followed all federal regulations in oroperly packing, transporting, and declaring his legal handgun in checked luggage in Denver, which bag was checked through to his final destination in Pittsburgh. En route, weather forced his plane to land in Newar, NJ, rather than New York, and there was no connecting flight onward to his destination. He was forced to take possession of his checked luggage, per TSA rules, as it can not lay in the airport overnight even within the chercked baggage system no travellers can access. In the morning as he went to board his onward flight, his checked bag containing his heretofore lawfully checied handgun under his control, Newark police arrested him for unlawful possession of a handgun without the New Jersey Firearms Owners Permit… avaliable ONLY to residents of New Jersey, and typicaly takes six weeks or more to obtain. This is a felony in that insane state. His presence in that state was not of his choice.. he was unwillingly deposited within their borders on no notice, then forced by federal baggage regulations to take possession of his checked bag. At that point, through NO action of his own chosing, he became a felon.

    Now, I ask you.. should these charges truly be considered felonies? Certainly not, And CERTAINLY not of the sort that should debar these persons from the use of arms forever. That is NOT the intent, though it increasinly seems to be the effect, of such laws. Seems to me these practices are simply means to disarm more and more innocent civilians. they are wokring hard to get guns out of the hands of as many individuals as possible…… meaning fewer remaining to be disarmed in the future.

    Would I want this Coloradan on his way to Pennsylvania for a conference to mind my cashbox and/or children? Certainly. Despite his being regarded by the sick government of the kingdom of New Jersey as a"felon". He is no such under the laws of the land I call home. And New Jersay's king Christie wants MY vote when he runs for president? Hah!! I shall cast my vote as a write in for Mickey Mouse before I will give him MY vote. Clean up your own state, restore the riughts stolen by your corrupt government ,then perhaps youd' make a plausible candidate to rightly run the rest of us.

  17. I would be against felons not having the right to own a gun, but the problem is the justice system is an industry. Judges who own stock in Unicor are incentivized to railroad more and more people to prison for victimless crimes or spitting on the sidewalk.

    One in 32 Americans are in prison or on parole/probation. No other industrial nation has so many people incarcerated as America. In 1996 Oregon had 2 prisons 80-85% full; today it has 18 prisons, one waiting to open and all are FULL.

    America incarcerates more people for drug offenses alone than Europe does for ALL offenses (murder, rape, robbery, you name it).

  18. You beat me to my point. If they can't be trusted with the same rights as everyone else, they should STAY behind bars.

  19. I'm a Free Man who hunts here in Maryland with a single shot 20ga. slug gun for deer… no problem dropping a deer with a .44cal black powder handgun(non-gun)…or with a crossbow… felons have lost their rights to possess modern firearms… it's one of the deterrents to breaking laws in our free society… felons who want to hunt can still hunt within the law… or maybe we should just follow the President… Attorney General…assorted Politicians… Police… illegal aliens… & have a Lawless America… like to think laws still count for something…

  20. Before the ultra liberal FDR all felons rights were restored as soon as they were off of parole and in most places you didn't need a permit to carry and crime rates were a lot lower

  21. No!!!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

  22. Why not. Look who have as a President. Obama wouldn't be able to get a job with a defense contractor because of his affiliation with the likes of Bill Ayers he'd never pass a security background check yet he's our imperial leader………Go figure.

  23. Very well said Tionico!

  24. DennisKeith says:

    You have hit this nail square on the head. If we cannot trust them with a firearm, of any design, then what the hell are they doing walking the streets? A recent study of "Gun Violence" in Chicago reveals that 49% of the violence is committed by 4% of the population, and that your PERSONAL ASSOCIATIONS have everything to do with you being involved in "GUN VIOLENCE" or not. So you are sure where I stand, I place no blame upon the Victims, but PARTICIPANTS are an entirely different matter.

  25. GySgt William Sabin says:

    States have started using felony convictions as a gun control device. California is a good example. They will push for a felony conviction on most everything they can ie; DUI or charge more then one charge so the crime or misake is seen as a felony. By doing this, there is one more person who can not own a gun even for hunting or just target shooting. It is a way for states to do an end run around the Second amendment. No, the Felony should have to be of a violent nature to preclude a person from their Second Amendment Rights.

  26. They would have convicted felons carry, but not our veterans? However, I agree that some felons were not for firearms and many have been incarcerated unfairly and are innocent, so "let the punishment fit the crime.

  27. Unless the crime was a violent crime with a gun, yes they should be allowed to own a gun. It is true that most felons are not guilty of gun crimes. Obama does not want any of us to have guns, especially those who oppose him . This tells me that we all really need to cling to our guns and our God because of what is coming.

  28. Preston W. Elliott says:

    Depending upon the nature of the crime resulting in felony charges…..in other words, if physical violence or use of a weapon was involved, excepting self defense, then, no, the individual should not be allowed possession of a weapon. This determination should be decided at any parole or other release action.

  29. Once upon a time when a felony was a truly serious and usually violent crime it may have made sense to restrict possession of firearms to those persons after being returned to society, but today the felony classification includes thousands of non-violent and less serious offenses including those which are not criminal but are administrative offenses.

    The prohibition on firearms ownership only makes sense if the crime was premeditated and involved the use of a firearm in the commission of the crime – particularly in cases where there are repeat offenses involving inappropriate use of a firearm against other people.

  30. my first thoughts exactly. And don't forget the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens that are being given a pass.

  31. I am more concerned about people losing their rights for misdemeanor domestic violence complaints….for life. This can be as innocuous as shouting match. I wonder how many people plead no contest just to get out of jail?

  32. Why not? Felon does not necessarily equate to violent behavior. Just as violent behavior does not always result in a felony conviction.

    We need to concern ourselves with public safety only inasmuch as we need to prevent mentally disturbed and violent people from acting out.

  33. awkingsley says:

    We could look at things this way: Obama, the other Democrats, and the RINOs are interested in giving everything away, until our nation is destroyed. They want a Police State where no one has any freedom but the criminals who pay off the police. Keeping guns out of the hands of all of the Liberal nuts should be a prime consideration, if we are going to deprive those with felony convictions of guns. Those with felony convictions are no more likely to commit crimes than Obama, the rest of the Democrats, and the RINOs.

  34. This is only one example but a very good one. There certainly could be many more stated and proven. No central (federal) government can ever make and adjudicate laws that even the states have a problem with. However, the states who do such things as this in NJ must be avoided if at all possible. In this case it was not possible therefore, it is up, it seems, to the judges. But why should it ever get to that? The problems this presents are not insurmountable if approached with common sense. The real problem is however, who has ever seen a gun control advocate who had such common sense? I have not. My experience has been they are impossible to reason with. However, on the other hand it has always been impossible to reason with an unreasonable person.
    I have traveled, by airplane, to many other states (from Arizona) to hunt including Pennsylvania. Therefore, I can see this happening to me. Perhaps if each felony case were judged on its merits this could partially be solved. The real question is however, what was the purpose of a law such as this and does this law really work? If not and that fact can be proven why is it not removed from the books? I think I can answer that myself. Those in power don’t repeal non-working or unneeded laws just make more. Once again the ignorance of politicians is evident. Who would have guessed that?

    Each state has some gun control laws, and the federal government has somewhere between 2 and 5 thousand laws on the books controlling the use of guns. And yet each time some nut either just goes berserk or steals guns and kills people the politicians insist on passing more laws without repealing the ones that didn’t work to preclude the murderer. Why is that? Laws that either are not enforced or do not do what they were passed for should be repealed, but nearly never are. What is the real reason for that? How may I ask can this once great nation remain a nation of law and not man if we are not enforcing the laws on the books and have one man in the highest office in the land who picks and chooses which ones he likes and dislikes and only enforces those he likes? Any answers?

    As one who once worked law enforcement I have heard the statement arrest them and let the judge decide. That approach may have worked at one time however, it seems it no longer does. At least since judges are being put in place who will enforce the desires of those in power and not the real laws. Commonly referred to as liberal progressives.

  35. There really needs to be a process for full restoration of civil rights, this "blanket restriction" unfairly deprives of the right to self defense and recreation. As a nation we need to consider the banning of "zero tolerance" and categorizing all persons based on a shared characteristic.

    Take the example of an individual that went out drinking one night, got a little too drunk and made some unwelcome advances towards a female fellow drinker. By putting his hands on her he has committed sexual assault. He has never been in trouble before in his life, is a family man and a Veteran. Is he guilty? Yes!

    Because it is an election year the Prosecutor (up for reelection) refuses to consider anything less than the minimum sentence of 4 years for a guilty plea. The individual relents and makes the deal under the threat of going to full Court with the Prosecutor trying for the Maximum sentence of 15 years. He serves 21 months and is released on parole; and is subsequently discharged from parole two years later.

    This person has since quit drinking, has launched a career spanning 21 years working with special needs populations and has achieved an advance degree to get to the top of his profession. He has successfully helped raise his children and has no other charges or crimes on his record. Yet here he sits, 30 years after his crime and there are still obstacles he must face. He can not own a firearm for any reason, cannot be bonded and when desiring to change employers must 1) overcome the potential employers reservations about hiring someone with a felony and 2) undergo the extensive background checks beyond what the typical employee faces because of his "background" (never mind the 28 years in which he had no criminal activity and served in the Military. believe it or not there are still many employers that simply will not consider the individual with a felony in their background, despite how much time is passed and any other mitigating circumstances.

    Full restoration of rights and elimination of the need to report previous convictions should be defined in a process that allows someone like this to fold back into society. the sentence was 4 years, not life~!

  36. If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm why would they be trusted to be at Liberty?

  37. If someone can be trusted to be at Liberty then they should be allowed to own a firearm. Own a firearm.

    The whole point of "gun control" is "crime prevention" one that presumes something magic about legally owned firearms. People who cause violent crimes have many ways to do the job.

    We need some sanity about firearms. What passes today for "reason" is simply a refinement of the delusions that gun control works and that it is good.

  38. Lets make up our own gun laws collectively after all Obama makes up what fits his…..

  39. This article caught my attention because I have been convicted of a felony. The crime was non-violent white collar, I have never had a record of any criminal activities and in my opinin should not have been convicted of the crime but, as the way the feds work I was. I served my time in a camp and for 11 1/2 months.
    I got my first shotgun when I was 9 years old and have always been an active hunter and fisherman begining in my younger years. I'm now 51 and extremely interested in getting my gun ownership rights back. From what I've been told so far I can't take any action until after my probation time is done and then its iffy whether I can get that back or not. A presidental pardon is the only way that I've been told I can get it and as bad as I would like to have that back I do not want a pardon from obama. Even if the state honors my gun ownership the feds may not and most likely will not. I will however seek to regain my second ammendment right to own firearms in whatever means available. Any input and advise would be much appreciated.

  40. I can tell you all from first hand knowledge that the amont of people in prison unjustly is shocking. There are many people convicted of felonies based on conspirosy and circumstantial evidence. The consirosy laws that seem to only require someone to say that someone else was envolved in an illiegal act that that person was caught doing. And by that person giving up someone else his/her sentence is reduced or dropped. The feds are very quick to charge and convict people and don't seem to care what kind of impact it has on his/her lives and the lives of their families, co-workers, employors or anyone else that may be directly connected to them. The way I see it my incarceration served no purpose other than my presence there allowed the BOP to obtain that amount of money to continue operation. When in the people business you have to have people to obtain funding.

  41. The amount of money spent annually just on inmates in camps is tremendous. At $30,000 per person, as advertised by BOP, multiplied by 30,000 inmates is almost 1 billion per year. Most of the people I met at the camp should have been out working, paying taxes and possibly fines and not costing tax payers money. The money spent on camps should be applied to the growing debt the US has instead.
    As far as getting my record expunged, I've been told by my lawyer it is an expensive and the chance of getting done is very very slim.

  42. America, Land Of The Free, is the ONLY country in the world to permanently disenfranchise felons. I feel that if a person commits a crime and they've paid the price demanded by the State (prison time, probation, restitution, whatever), then ALL their Constitutional rights should be FULLY restored, INCLUDING the right to own a firearm. The great majority of felons committed only ONE offense, and frequently it was a non-violent one. When they return to society, they, too, have families to protect, and are fully entitled to the SAME rights of self-defense as any other human being. There should be exceptions for VIOLENT, HEINOUS criminals, of course, but then again, no gun law ever stopped them from getting a gun in the first place. So yes, absolutely, felons should have ALL their rights restored. How else can we ever pretend that they have returned as full members of society if we permanently strip them of Constitutional RIGHTS? Remember, ALL the Founding Fathers were felons in the eyes of King George. Would you have stripped George Washington, officially a CRIMINAL TRAITOR to England, from all his rights, including the right to own a gun? Of course, if a felon uses a firearm to commit another crime, then lock him up. That's how a JUSTICE system works. But NOT if he only wants to defend himself and his family. Or, put food on the table!!!

  43. I say it depends on several things. Repeat offender? Violent crime? I do NOT agree with all felons being stripped of the right to own a gun. And as an afterthought, after doing the time, would you want to screw up and go back? I know I would NOT!

  44. Excelent points, Don. The thing that made me madder'n a hornet with a stick poked in his nest is the FACT that there IS a Federal law, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which ststes, in essence, that a person travelling, and in possession of a firearm he can lawfully possess at both the origin and destination of his travels, is lawfully able to possess it all along the route. He had checked, his possession of that particular firearm IS legal in Pensylvania. The problem is, as you alude toward the end of your response, is that the judges/courts fail to uphold this law. This sort of blatant abuse (and money grubbing) is what is behind the push to enact a federal level concealed carry/possession reciprocity.. ALL states must honour the permitted persons from other states.

    Howeve,r if the Constitution were to be restored to its rightful place as the law of this land, these sorts of infringements on our universal right to keel and bear arms would not be in place. I beleive it is the 14th Ammendment that secures all rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all people in all states.. "incorporation" I believe is the legal term. The root issue is we've slept whilst FedGov and man local state governments have infringed, limited, revoked, annulled, trampled upon what ARE our rights as humans. What is the main agenda at present is to push back against these infringements and do away with them. Thus, this man and hundreds of others would never have been charged with felonies in the first place, thus the question of restoring what was never taken away is moot. Restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land and much of this insanity will go away. Which was the original intent.

    Further, jury nullification needs to be restored to common use. A jury confronted with this innocent traveller's case would have to deliberate about five minutes before aan unanimous acquittal, and a good dress-down of the prosecuting attorney who was stupid enough to press this case into full court trial. Think of the billions of tax dollars up on smoke dealing with this petty "I've got the power and YOU will suffer at my hands" thinking.

  45. You are correct about the Federal pardon system. IWere it a State convictiion, you could simply appeal to a judge and get the conviction reversed and expunged. Not so at the Federal level, which has NO provisions for such reversals or pardons. Your ONLY chance under the present system is a Presidential Pardon, and I fully understand where you're coming from. The LAST person on planet Earth I would ask "pardon" from would be the fraudulent Obama! It may not happen in your lifetime, and it's an uphill battle, but you DO have supporters working to help you regain your FULL Civil Rights. I wish you only the very best in winning full restoration of ALL your rights!

  46. I think that it should depend on the crime committed and the felony charge. If there is any kind of violence or threat of violence I say absolutely no right to own a gun and that goes for felonies involving a motor vehicle such as felony drunk driving resulting in death or assault using a motor vehicle.

  47. Given that this government literally criminalizes EVERYTHING, how long will it be before we see people felonized for using the "wrong" light bulbs, or for running the thermostat in their homes too high? And I believe this aggressive drive to felonize everyone and everything has a gun-control purpose, too. Perhaps the government can't legislate away our guns, BUT it's very simple to find EXCUSES to disarm people. Merely call them "mentally unfit," as the Obama government is doing with returning Veterans, or classify trivial offenses as felonies does the same job. There should also be full recognition that there's a vast difference between a Mafia Hit Man, and, say, a nurse who diverted some narcotics for her own use, or for someone who wrote a NSF check, or for someone who failed to pay back a bank loan ("defrauding a bank", a felony). Society likes to blindly look at ALL felons as Mafia Hit Men, and that's a disconnection from REALITY! You might be surprised to discover that your next door neighbor is a felon. Mine is, and he's a great guy! And I suspect that the government's eagerness to create as many felons as possible (as they're doing now) is all driven by back-door gun control!

  48. bulldurham, I detect an accent on the "bull." There are no black powder pistols that will "blow a hole through someone … bit enough to put your hand through." That IS "BULL!" Obviously it is YOU who has no understanding of black powder weapons. The most powerful black powder revolvers have no more ballistic power than a medium-hot loaded .38 Special, and that's barely considered to be a self defense weapon. .50 caliber black powder rifles have ballistics about equal to a modet deer rifle. But more to the point, since felons can already own black powder weapons today, then WHERE are the stacks of victims with holes big enough to stick a hand through in the morgues? FACT is, felons are NOT committing murders as we're seeing in the news today. All these school shooters, mall shooters, etc., are MENTAL PATIENTS, with a few gang youth gang members tossed in the mix. NO FELONS are committing ANY of these crimes. So, by insisting on disarming felons might be a "feel-good" response to mass shootings, the FACT is that it has NO effect on the shootings we are seeing. Much better MENTAL HEALTH CONTROL is where we need to focus our energies, NOT in disarming felons, which has virtually zero effect on crime, except to guarantee that felons can't help STOP CRIMES they witness. Nice going there, Lib!

  49. Oh, absolutely, yes! No more guns for you, no right to vote, relinquish your professional licenses, turn in your passport, no right to hold political office, no working anywhere you need to be bonded, no job for you requiring a background check, no handling money…. did I miss anything? Oh, right. NO GUNS! We MUST stamp out illegal mussel fishing by making you a citizen with NO rights. That should work. Yeah. That fixes everything. Oh, wait – we forgot to outlaw your fishing pole. Well, we'll get right on that one.

  50. My next door neighbor is a felon, and my kids play with his kids all the time. My kids go in his house, have lunch in his kitchen, raid his refrigerator for soft drinks, watch his TV, etc. Am I bothered that my kids are in the home of a felon? Absolutely NOT. I judge him by how he acts TODAY, not how he acted one time in the past. Too bad so many people can't get past identifying a person by ignoring the BEST thing they ever did, focus on the WORST thing they ever did in their lives, and not their overall lives. All of us have a day in our pasts we would rather forget. Should we ALL have that one day held up as describing us in total? I certainly HOPE NOT!

  51. Bingo, rune! Many women have learned that all they need to do to gain absolute authority over husbands is to charge them with domestic violence, which could be as trivial as that they were in a yelling match and she "felt threatened." Courts are only too eager to charge these husbands with crimes, and grant wives restraining orders. The restraining order may become moot after the divorce and the couple go their separate ways. But that restraining order will follow the husband for LIFE, and cause him to lose his right to defend his future family, or to put food on the table. We NEED to fix these barbaric anti-husband laws! This government is much too eager to strip gun rights from its citizens. To what point, I wonder? PARTICULARLY when that government is controlled by some of the worst criminals in history, who go by the titles of "Mister President" or "Mister Attorney General," or "Congressman?"

  52. You have a distorted view of a felony as stated above not all felonies are violent. More and more laws are being written so the average person is breaking (especially gun owners) laws that are considered felonies. These laws are being written and voted in without public support. Personally if it is a violent crime I would agree but a gun owner who is caught up in some new left wing anti gun law is not some one who should loose his rights. There are plenty of other examples to support my view. Seems like some very narrow thinking and self rightous

  53. I know exactly where your coming from and NO you should not loose your rights. Its amazing you were even sited but I have experienced the left wing law enforcement my self. There is no thought process with these type of law enforcement any more. The game wardens act like everyone is guilty its no longer innocent till proven guilty. You are now guilty and spend all your financial resources proving other wise. Distort and break the law to enforce the law
    . The hypocrisy of our government

  54. Even a gun crime is not necessarily a violent one. ex + I'm a firearms instructor among other of my many quals. A very good friend of mine is former PD. He was having some family issues at home and asked me to hold ( lock up) his ar till things calm down and out or respect I said yes. Well long story short we were gong to meet (at a gun show) and return it to him. Law enforcement was there ( I wont mention which type) confiscated the firearm on false pretenses (bullet button which it had) and then 8 months later charging me with a felony possession of an assault weapon. The ar is a BM xm 15 which is only legaly owned by a PD officer in the state of CA. Not a violent act what so ever nor in my opinion a crime

  55. fast gramma says:

    So many soft crimes are now called felonies. Only a released felon who used a gun or other weapon to commit his/her crime should be forbidden from owning and using firearms after release.

  56. Sounds like negative logic to me. Why not have banks with revolving doors and vaults without locks? Am I missing something here? Why not let the insane carry guns as well. Heck, that's kinda discrimination isn't it? Think about it!!!

  57. not all felons are violent…
    the term felon has been molested just like the term racist… I say NO…. some felons would not use a gun to commit a crime…

  58. Shadowwolf78 says:

    I do not care what the crime is. If you have served your time, and completed the sentence mandated by law, then you should have all your rights and privileges restored.

  59. How about bring back the DEATH penalty for those that murder? Then you don't have to worry about release and allow fugitives to carry a firearm. Because those that KILL would not be back on the streets.

  60. Only after you shoot those mussels to death….

  61. Does that mean Americans are more aggressive and prone to use violence?

  62. "……shall not be infringed" means no restrictions and no limits. Gun ownership IS NOT a privilege, it IS a right. No government should be able to limit, restrict or negate a "right". It IS NOT within Constitutional authority, but most of what government does is not within Constitutional authority.

  63. I have no problem with the death penalty. My definition of justice is to restore the victim. For property crimes…Biblically(correct me if I'm wrong), that means repaying 7 times what was stolen. The non-violent should never go into a prison system. Their debt should be repaid in the community where the offense occurred. Hard labor or community service up to and including chain gangs, depending on the severity of the offense. If the victim can't be restored…murder, rape, child molestation, etc… the guilty should pay with their lives. Will juries get it wrong sometimes? Probably, but they'll get it right far more often. Especially if they are fully informed of their rights and responsibilities. https://fija.org/ Remember the quote, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Blackstone http://twistingtruth.wordpress.com/better-10-guil

  64. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Doesn't take a lot of smarts to understand plain English. "..shall not" means "absolutely no way"!

  65. It depends on who is the lame duck president on the last day of office.

  66. I totally agree and you are right it is the 14th.

  67. The thing is that it doesn't matter if you're a felon or not. If a person is planning on comitting a crime involving guns or any weapon for that matter he/she will get it most likely get it illegally anyway. Keeping felons from owning firearms does nothing to stop criminal activity period! That fact that tens of thousands of felons have been unjustly convicted or just simply made a wrong turn but, is not a criminal, has no past criminal behavior and will not commit another crime but, connot own firearms after they've paid the penalty is absurd and unconstitutional. The feds want these felons to vote though and pay taxes to support their way of life.

  68. There was also a Rehab Program that was administered by the BATF&E. The Democrats continue to refuse to fund it.

    This is the same gang who had a fit when SOME GOPers tried to defund Obamacare.

  69. Roger Long says:

    I think if the felony committed was non violent, the person should not lose the ability to own a firearm. However, if his crime was violent, armed robbery, murder, assault with a gun etc. the no more guns for them.

  70. Only violent felons should lose their right to possess firearms, and only for a specified length of time after release from prison; such as a parole situation where they can have the opportunity to prove that they are reformed from violent crime. Since the current justice system causes the debt to society to be paid by a term of incarceration, the perpetrator, having served their time, has paid their debt to society and therefore should return to society with full rights restored (with the exception noted above). This brings up a problem I have with the current justice system. True justice is absolutely not served by incarceration, which should be reserved for only those perpetrators who are judged to be too dangerous to be allowed in society. True justice is served to the victim(s), not society at large (which obviously lost nothing to the perpetrator). Incarceration should be the last choice of punishment, and only when absolutely necessary. A few centuries ago English law was known as Common Law. Under Common Law there was a monetary penalty for every crime, paid to the victim or, in the case of murder (or negligent manslaughter), the surviving family of the victim. If the perpetrator had no money, he/she was sentenced to servitude to the victim/family for a time period of labor equivalent to the value of the fine; no work, no eat. (As you can imagine, untrustworthy perpetrators might require shackles and/ or other security devices for the safety of victim/family). If the victim/family preferred, they could lease out their "indentured" servant for cash. Typically the accused would be held in confinement for a short time until Court proceedings were finished. If the guilty run, they gain "outlaw" status which means anyone can hunt them down and capture them for bounty from the victim/family. Under this system the victim/family gets just restitution in the form of useful labor or cash and the taxpayer isn't saddled with the huge cost of keeping inmates healthy and occupied with little or no significant production value, in high security housing. I believe that the basics of the Common Law system offer true justice that the current system absolutely does not. In the current system, instead of the criminal paying for the damage he/she did to the victims, the society pays for all living expenses of the criminal while he/she lives out unproductive, wasteful years in prison.

  71. TotallyFrustrated says:

    Your comment indicates how little you know about how many different types of "felonies" there are. I agree that people that committed violent crimes should not be allowed access to a weapon.

    But what about those (and there are millions of people like this) who were put in prison on a "felony" charge that had absolutely nothing to do with weapons or hurting someone? We live in a country that has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We put people in prison for things that other nations would never dream of doing that. We lock good people away rather than allow them to make restitution and apply their skills towards helping society.

    You are probably committing some type of felony at some point without ever even knowing it was a felony. Do you want others to see you that way? Our justice system is broken.

  72. edinflorida says:

    While the Demoncrats are in the White House and while even Military Heros can't purchase firearms, the thought of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms is out of the question. The Obama Administration will prevent as many Americans as possible from possessing firearms. This is incase he has to use force to seize power. I do not believe violent felons should possess firearms. However; non-violent felons should possess firearms if their crime is like say fraud. But, it the crime is shooting some one of using a firearm to commit a felony well, they should be bared fro owning guns.

  73. Phillip_in_Texas says:

    Yes, they should be able to defend themselves, go hunting, target shooting, etc. There were “bad guys” back when the U.S. Constitution was written. Our Forefathers did NOT exclude anyone from keeping and bearing arms.

  74. bless2live says:

    While you being concerned about felons rights, a corrupt regime remains in control of your rights!

  75. I shudder to think of all of the "felonies" I've committed over the years which were essentially political in nature. I was never even caught, but that was because of luck. I hate relying upon luck.

    Say "Thanks"to you friend on my behalf. It's nice that some folks are bold and that their boldness pays off handsomely.

  76. Then they can hunt with a camera or a bow and arrow. I know a couple of people that are felons and they hunt with crossbows and longbows. They always get their limits (at least as they tell the story and their freezers are full)

  77. Agreed. The sentence for the crime is usually some number of years, not some number of years and a lifetime as a pariah.

    And about them doing irresponsible or dangerous things with their gun? Simple. Just enforce the already existing laws against _anyone_ doing those things that the hoplophobes are so paranoid about.

    I have a right to keep and bear arms. I DON'T have a right to empty my magazine into a subway car full of commuters.

  78. Depends on individual's criminal history. and on recidivism. Many studies arrive at similar recidivism rates. Recidivism percentages indicate the likelihood of the incarcerated person repeating the same or similar crime when released. For example, a child molester is 95% likely to commit the crime. A murderer who killed "in the heat of passion" is less than 10% likely to kill again. A felon who uses a gun – or any weapon (to rob a store or person, etc) – is about 80% likely to do it again. A rapist is about 90% likely to repeat. Almost all incarcerated felons get out of prison on parole. Rare one gets out after serving full time. I propose that a person who serves parole successfully (meets all conditions set forth in parole hearing) for specified period be eligible to apply for restoration of 2nd Amendment rights. Same for a probated felon (person placed on probation instead of incarceration).

  79. Long read but good example – and GOOD comment about crispy critter. PLUS, he recently announced support for stronger state and national "gun control" laws. He sure as heck ain't my idea of a conservative politician.

  80. oldtimered says:

    Phillip the only exception to your logic is if the felon killed or tried to kill the victim. Then he can not pay restitution adequately.

  81. sean murry says:

    You all sound like anti- gunners must be a lot of libs on this site fuck you all.

  82. The federal government is certainly more prone to aggression, violence and abuse of power, which you seem to equate with the people who live under this dictatorship. Ask any of the Mideast civilian populations that our government is raining death on with drone attacks.

    For every suspected terrorist (because nobody's doing DNA testing on the bloody left-overs) taken out by one of the military's drone strikes, there are approximately 40-50 innocent bystanders killed as well. That's 40-50 other humans like you and me — going to the grocery store, taking their kids to the park, etc. — who one minute are alive and laughing, the next minute their remains getting collected in buckets by first responders. You'd be p*ssed off too.

  83. Actually it is more extreme than that. Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable for more than 1 year in jail or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence are also banned for life from owning a firearm or any ammunition (like if they fine one bullet in your glove compartment some else left there). I can see the felony ban but for life for a misdemeanor? Note that you don't have to serve more than a year or even to be sentenced to more than a year. It is just that the law allows a person to be sentenced to more than a year.

    I also find the domestic violence part too extreme. The applies even if the injured party is no longer in a relationship with the person in question. It is also for life. I could see it being part of a court order during a period of time after the divorce, etc. But for life for perhaps a very minor assault with no hospitalization or permanent harm.

    On felonies there is a big difference between crimes of violence like murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. and crimes like tax fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc. I can see banning a person convicted of armed robbery for life from having a gun but for perjury?

  84. Depends on the felony

    No violent felon should have a gun.

  85. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. Everyone should have a gun and know how to use it properly. If they're not competent to be on the streets, then they should have an attendant. The proper response to an armed felon who _uses_ his gun in an inappropriate fashion is to prosecute the actual crime committed. (or summary execution by the would-be victim.) If someone is not safe to be on the streets, then he should still be in the cage.

    You have an unalienable, God-given, natural, human, civil, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

    You do not, however, have a right to shoot people who aren't posing an imminent threat to life and limb.