Full Version: Firearms and Felons
Let's get straight to the topic of debate.
Is it constitutional to deny Felons the right to bear arms after incarceration?? Why or Why not?
Is it constitutional to deny Felons the right to bear arms after incarceration?? Why or Why not?
It would seem clear, from various legal precedents, that the government has the power to restrict the Constitutional rights of convicted felons, for at least the time that they are under parole.
A random example:
Link
Having the power to do this doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. The point I am trying to make is that, if the courts agree that felons under parole can be denied the right to vote (which, I would argue, is at least as fundamental a right as the right to bear arms), it can certainly restrict their ownership of firearms. A felon with a gun presents a danger, obviously; a felon who can vote does not. The disenfranchisement of felons is strictly for the purpose of punishment; the disarming of felons has the desired practical effect of reducing future crimes.
An interesting question arises once the felon has gone through the entire period of parole. Some states remove the right to vote forever.
Link
I don't agree with such a policy, but the point is that some states have been doing this without, apparently, successful Constitutional challenge. If they can do this, it would seem logical that they could also prevent a felon from ever legally owning a firearm.
We can argue whether this is a good idea or not, depending on the crime involved.
A random example:
Link
QUOTE
Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parolees—felons released from jail and serving their mandatory period of parole—cannot vote until their parole is complete. The unanimous ruling stated that parole constitutes a portion of the “full term of imprisonment,” the constitutional phrase in question, and is therefore not a violation of state law.
Having the power to do this doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. The point I am trying to make is that, if the courts agree that felons under parole can be denied the right to vote (which, I would argue, is at least as fundamental a right as the right to bear arms), it can certainly restrict their ownership of firearms. A felon with a gun presents a danger, obviously; a felon who can vote does not. The disenfranchisement of felons is strictly for the purpose of punishment; the disarming of felons has the desired practical effect of reducing future crimes.
An interesting question arises once the felon has gone through the entire period of parole. Some states remove the right to vote forever.
Link
QUOTE
In 13 states a felony offense can result in the loss of voting rights even after the sentence has been completed, and often for life.
I don't agree with such a policy, but the point is that some states have been doing this without, apparently, successful Constitutional challenge. If they can do this, it would seem logical that they could also prevent a felon from ever legally owning a firearm.
We can argue whether this is a good idea or not, depending on the crime involved.
Is it constitutional to deny Felons the right to bear arms after incarceration?? Why or Why not?
Constitutional as defined by the courts? yes, see Dred Scott and Slaughterhouse for clarity regarding the concept of "infallible judiciary". Constitutional as I read the Constitution? No.
per my reading, I agree with Victoria's assessment regarding during parole. I do not, however, agree that the State has any authority to restrict a felon's civil rights after their sentence has ended. Sentence done = right to vote, keep and bear arms, free speech, assemble, worship (or not), etc. I find the argument regarding restricting felons from gun ownership to be specious (from a rights standpoint) for two reasons.
First, the restriction is generally a blanket one. A white collar embezzler is under the same restriction as a mass murderer, even though the former didn't even use a weapon in her crime, much less a gun.
Second, we do not apply similar theoretically "causal" restrictions on other rights vis a vis felons. An individual convicted of bribing parties within the justice system (judges, DA's, etc) still retains full rights within the justice system, even though he has a demonstrated history of abusing it. Likewise, a man convicted of "inciting a riot" isn't deprived of his First Amendment rights subsequently. After his sentence is up, he's free to address whatever crowd he pleases. The convicted dealer of morphine derivatives isn't forbidden the use of morphine (if medically necessary) for the rest of his life...
Remember, in many states, a convicted felon who uses a firearm to defend himself or others from criminal attack will be charged with a felony. I just can't recall the part of the Constitution that says the petty felon's right to life is voided even though the State may have explicitly rendered capital punishment unconstitutional...
Constitutional as defined by the courts? yes, see Dred Scott and Slaughterhouse for clarity regarding the concept of "infallible judiciary". Constitutional as I read the Constitution? No.
per my reading, I agree with Victoria's assessment regarding during parole. I do not, however, agree that the State has any authority to restrict a felon's civil rights after their sentence has ended. Sentence done = right to vote, keep and bear arms, free speech, assemble, worship (or not), etc. I find the argument regarding restricting felons from gun ownership to be specious (from a rights standpoint) for two reasons.
First, the restriction is generally a blanket one. A white collar embezzler is under the same restriction as a mass murderer, even though the former didn't even use a weapon in her crime, much less a gun.
Second, we do not apply similar theoretically "causal" restrictions on other rights vis a vis felons. An individual convicted of bribing parties within the justice system (judges, DA's, etc) still retains full rights within the justice system, even though he has a demonstrated history of abusing it. Likewise, a man convicted of "inciting a riot" isn't deprived of his First Amendment rights subsequently. After his sentence is up, he's free to address whatever crowd he pleases. The convicted dealer of morphine derivatives isn't forbidden the use of morphine (if medically necessary) for the rest of his life...
Remember, in many states, a convicted felon who uses a firearm to defend himself or others from criminal attack will be charged with a felony. I just can't recall the part of the Constitution that says the petty felon's right to life is voided even though the State may have explicitly rendered capital punishment unconstitutional...
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 18 2007, 01:41 AM) 
Let's get straight to the topic of debate.
Is it constitutional to deny Felons the right to bear arms after incarceration?? Why or Why not?
Sure it is. They have demonstrated by their behavior and their subsequent convictions that they lack the kind of self-discipline and respect for the law to be responsible as gun owners. Since "rehab" has notoriously poor results, there is no reason to subject the general public to a loaded gun in the hands of someone who has demonstrated he hasn't the ability to restrain himself within the law.
The Second Amendment has no language in it to expressly prohibit reasonable gun ownership restrictions on those clearly not qualified to own one.
QUOTE
Is it constitutional to deny Felons the right to bear arms after incarceration?? Why or Why not?
Perhaps for those felons who have been convicted of a felony involving a firearm, absolutely, if not for the same reason it is constitutional to deny people the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, barring any reasonable perception of a fire, circumventing one's right to free speech.
I believe when Thomas Jefferson placed the word "life" before the word "liberty", it was no coincidence. The right to life comes first, then comes freedom. Once you've proven yourself irresponsible in regards to the bearing of arms, that particular liberty of yours can be taken away, to preserve my life.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.