Supreme Court Decision - Guns & Domestic Violence

[Retired Chief]

Funny thing, the Libs want to restore voting rights to convicted felons, give businesses a tax break for hiring convicted felons, and the State of Illinois gives a preference in hiring to convicted felons, all because they have "served their time and paid their debt to society", but a person with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction NEVER "pays his debt to society" or is "rehabilitated" even after 40 years of good citizenship. Hard on some 57 year olds who went off half-cocked at 17.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Funny thing, the Libs want to restore voting rights to convicted felons, give businesses a tax break for hiring convicted felons, and the State of Illinois gives a preference in hiring to convicted felons, all because they have "served their time and paid their debt to society", but a person with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction NEVER "pays his debt to society" or is "rehabilitated" even after 40 years of good citizenship. Hard on some 57 year olds who went off half-cocked at 17.

I'm always a little amazed that people don't want previously convicted felons to have jobs. Personally, I'd rather they pay their own way, and multiple peer reviewed studies show that a person recently released from prison is logarithmically less likely to re-offend than an unemployed felon. As for restoring rights, if you're not doing time or on probation/parole/supervised release, you should get your rights back. All of them.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Sorry. I have zero sympathy.

If someone has a domestic violence conviction they no longer deserve to carry a firearm and they should be regarded as a prohibited person. Why should anyone with that kind of anger management issue be trusted carrying a firearm?


Similarly, I don't have any sympathy for someone who stole a credit card or was convicted of a similar non violent felony. It speaks to a lack of moral character.

Besides, most states have procedures in place to set aside a conviction for a first offender and expunge their record if they can keep their nose clean. If they can't manage that, they still don't deserve to be carrying a firearm.

The last time we tried to have a test to exercise a constitutional right, it was struck down . . .

 

[Buford57]

Long ago and far away a firefighter came to me with a sad story. Seems that as an 18-year old on his first leave after boot camp he and a buddy were befriended in a bar by an older man with a shiny convertible whose intentions were less than honorable. Long story short, the two Seaman Apprentices ended up in the front seat of the convertible and the older gent rode in the trunk until they were stopped for some minor traffic infraction. They both ended up with felony convictions.

20-odd years later "Bill" the firefighter - now a dedicated public servant, church deacon and pillar of the community - expressed a desire to hunt and asked if I knew whether he could ever own a gun again. I walked him through the process, sent a letter of reference to BATF and lo and behold his rights were restored.

10 years further down the road and clear across the country I picked up a USA today in a diner and read the "news from every state" article for my home state. Bill's teenaged step-daughter had gone berserk, stabbed her mother to death with a butcher knife and was coming after Bill when he shot her.

I don't know if there's a moral to that story, but every time this conversation starts, that's where my mind goes.

 

[G.T. Smith]

true

The fact that we have moved so much non-violent crime into the felony category is another problem with the whole "prohibited person" concept.

And another reason why the prisons are overflowing. I have some friends and relatives that have lost their gun rights for non violent crimes. One was for child support on a child that he did not know existed, and wasn't married to the woman. My nephew was convicted of receiving stolen property unintentionally. Like Minnie Pearl would say, "sure gets tedious, don't it".
Peace,
Gordon