Why should convicted felons be punished if they have a gun?

I was just trying to make a point here. Plenty of the same people calling for more gun control would scream at the top of their lungs if felon's voting rights were taken away after they left prison.

 

Anyway, the point is, what does criminalizing it actually accomplish?

What good does it do putting them back in prison and making them serve more time for violating the terms of their release?

Does a felon who beat somebody up and then had a gun afterwards deserve more prison time than another felon who just beat somebody up?

I'm just having difficulty understanding how the lines of logic are rational here.

 

There should be a distinction between violent and non-violent felons. Non-violent felons should not be barred from owning firearms. Violent felons have displayed a particular disregard for the well-being of others. While I agree that they may sometimes 'rehabilitate' and I don't think a law is going to stop anyone determined to get a gun, I don't have a problem with violent felons being prohibited from owning them. Though a process toward expungement should be available.

 

I have no problem with it as it is.

 

Non-violent felons also have displayed a particular disregard for the well-being of others. A property crime can ruin somebody's life.

 

A felon's voting rights ARE taken away after they leave prison. In some states they have the opportunity to get them back after a few years, but at least initially, a felon's voting right is removed.

 

And I have a difficulty understanding your feelings about the above when you are happy to take an 18 year old law-abiding person's right to own a gun away.

 

I think you were misunderstanding that other thread. I was really trying to make a suggestion to all those who were calling to take away an 18 year old's right to own anything, rather than a call to everyone else to take rights away from 18 year olds. So the proposal was really made to try to moderate their proposals and cut them back a bit.

 

Wow, you've managed to combined both verbosity and pedanticism. Bravo! Doc, I agree with your sentiment but if you want your point to be considered you may want to consider reducing the condescension in your delivery

 

Do not read Legal tomes then.

It was responsa to another post.

 

you can't kill anyone with a balot

 

The felon must prove he is worthy to own a gun.

Some states allow felons to pursue that option later on after release from prison.

If a dog is a biter, a muzzle is appropriate. If a person is a felon, a gun free life is appropriate.

 

criminals can and often do rehabilitate themselves and become law-abiding citizens.

thats why felons should be able to get their gun rights back if they can prove to a panel of judges that they have improved their lives and are no longer a danger to society.

same with voting rights.

 

But, with all respect, JakeStarkey, the law will likely not prevent them from getting a gun. Just making something illegal and actually preventing them from getting it are not exactly the same thing.
Now, setting that little detail aside for a moment, can you please explain why the law doesn't only just ban the sale to felons. That alone would prevent them from getting one, no?
No, instead the law goes a step beyond that and punishes the felon for having it. Could you explain how that is justified?
I propose a repeal of this part of the law. If you can't think of a good reason for throwing the felon back in prison for 2 or 3 more years (or longer), I don't think that law should exist, or at least it needs to be completely rewritten.
Why don't we punish people for their actual crimes and not start making other things crimes?

 

The issue is what exactly constitutes a "danger to society" ?
That they were convicted of breaking a law, a law that happened to fall in a certain category?

There are all sorts of problems with that reasoning.

For example, someone convicted of financial fraud might, in a certain way, pose a danger to society, but it's a certain type of danger. A danger that they're going to try defrauding someone else again to get money. Does that really put them at elevated risk of killing someone with a gun? That's a very weak connection.
Maybe if you had some study that showed that those who commit financial fraud have a much higher likelihood of later going on to commit bank robbery, but I haven't seen it.

Or someone who already has a gun. But instead of using that gun to commit a crime, he goes over without his gun to where someone else is to beat them up.
Might be a half-good reason for it. Maybe the man's daughter told him her boyfriend abused her, maybe the other man borrowed a lot of money from him and refused to repay it. So, this man chooses to use his fists instead of a gun.
Once he has served his time in prison, do you think he poses an elevated enough risk that he shouldn't have a gun?
He chose not to use his gun to commit a crime. He may have had a half-good reason to beat the other person up. This sort of thing isn't that uncommon.
Yet you don't think he can be trusted with the gun now?

Keep in mind the punishment for having a gun might be longer than the original prison sentence he received.

At the very least, don't you think we should let the jury decide whether the criminal should get permanently stripped of his rights at the same time they are deciding on the verdict?
Every case is different, and for example 90 percent of the federal felonies that are committed are non-violent.

 

With all due respect, the law is to regulate the individual not the gun. Focus on the individual not the gun.

 

Please explain how punishing the individual for being caught with a gun is likely to prevent a gun crime.
What do you think the actual likelihood is they'll be caught with the gun right before they were planning to commit a crime with the gun?

 

People shoot people if I remember right, therefore regulate people so they can't have the tools the need for mass slaughter.

 

I will point out one thing though. If you regulate people so they can't have a tool needed for mass slaughter, you'll have to give other people the tools needed for mass slaughter, for them to be able to regulate it. In the end, you can't end up avoiding it. Kind of ironic. You need a gun to take away a gun.

Your proposed solution seems to be (correct me if I'm mistaken here) to take away the legal right to have that tool from as many people as possible for any of the slightest excuses possible and then punish them if they don't comply.

 

Because they are convicted felons?
You know - public enemies.

 

But not without proper training and a thorough background check - right?

 

But I think you are drawing a false equivalence here.
Not all "convicted felons" would be considered "public enemies".

Maybe most people are simply unaware of all the things that can be considered felonies now. Countless new laws keep getting passed over the years, and sometimes these harsh laws apply to situations in which they weren't intended.
I don't believe this is just some extremely rare occurrence either.

Plenty of felonies now where people will spend less time in prison if they just plead guilty than wait for a trial so they can be found not guilty.
(it's very common to be waiting 14 months while all the preparations and legal maneuvers are being made before the trial is ready)

 

Yes, but how did the law expand from The Ten Commandments to the current massive US and state codes?

“The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.” Alan Dershowitz, http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

 

Ddyad, that makes no sense. We are not governed, nor have we ever been governed, by the Ten Commandments.

 

Yes, but all convicted felons have been tried as public enemies and found guilty.

Bing "The People Vs." and see how many hits you get.