I think all of us here at 2aHawaii agree that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental in nature, granted by the Creator (or at least by the laws of nature), and inalienable.  Yet most of us take for granted that the RKBA should be revoked for convicted felons.  One of our key points in arguments with anti-gunners is that "it's already illegal for criminals to have guns, so we don't need any more legislation."  (And I certainly agree that we don't need more gun control.)  Today it occurred to me that perhaps it makes sense to back that logic up even farther.  It's already illegal to rape/rob/murder people, so why do we need a lifetime ban on gun ownership for convicted felons?  If we say that after a decade or so in prison, a guy has repaid his debt to society, why doesn't society restore his rights?  I say that the law should be re-written.  If you've repaid your debt to society, your rights should be restored.  If we're never going to trust a person with a firearm again for the rest of his life, why are we even letting him out of prison? 

This is a tough one....   Good post Cougar  .... I guess it's kinda like getting a DUI.... You get to have your drivers license back.... Felons drive automobiles legally everyday, and an automobile can be just as deadly as a firearm.... 

This is not as cut and dried as it would seem.

There are different types of felonies.

I think if someone commits a felony by stealing $301 dollars of cigarettes that should not affect his ability to own a firearm.

Only felonies that are related to violence should be allowed to disallow firearm ownership.

The system as it stands is downright stupid.

If a man drives his girlfriends car to the store and she feels so inclined she can report it stolen, thereby making said unsuspecting boyfriend an instant felon for auto theft.
So he gets arrested and convicted of auto theft and will never be able to own a firearm ever again.

So the man leaves this vindictive wench and the next boyfriend she has decides to leave her.
To get even, she then calls the police and reports domestic violence. Because boyfriend number two can't "prove" that he didn't push this wench he gets convicted of domestic violence, a misdemeanor, and can never own a firearm.

What a Fu€&!$ joke.   

This is not as cut and dried as it would seem.

There are different types of felonies.

I think if someone commits a felony by stealing $301 dollars of cigarettes that should not affect his ability to own a firearm.

Only felonies that are related to violence should be allowed to disallow firearm ownership.

Good point Kingkeoni

This is a tough one....   Good post Cougar  .... I guess it's kinda like getting a DUI.... You get to have your drivers license back.... Felons drive automobiles legally everyday, and an automobile can be just as deadly as a firearm.... 

So this drunk driver smashes into a car and kills a kid.

He gets convicted of felony drunk driving and does five years in prison.

When he gets out he can't own a firearm but he can get a new license and drive again.

Hmmmmm? That's real smart.

Violent felons no... non-violent certainly, after their debt to society is paid behind bars.

This reminds me of another question that was posted elsewhere. A fellow's hunting buddy was convicted on drug charges but he was recently pardoned. Can he once again purchase firearms due to the full pardon or does his conviction still stand?

Good points, all.  I kind of expected this to turn into a flame war, so thanks!  Personally, I could see revoking the RKBA for violent felonies committed with a firearm, but not necessarily for all violent felonies.  A bar fight that gets out of hand, or consensual sex that turns into sexual assault when her bible-thumping, fire-breathing, judge of a daddy finds out are a couple of examples that spring to mind when I think of violent felons who shouldn't be deprived of the right to defend themselves.  Isn't it strange that the anti-gunners are almost always the same people who are telling us we shouldn't stigmatize child molesters and murderers?  I guess they only care about stigmas when we're talking about getting good jobs, having the taxpayers fund a college degree, or foot the bill for all-night, all-access HBO viewings in Cell Block 12...

This reminds me of another question that was posted elsewhere. A fellow's hunting buddy was convicted on drug charges but he was recently pardoned. Can he once again purchase firearms due to the full pardon or does his conviction still stand?

I think he'd be good to go.  However, and I cannot stress this enough, I am not a lawyer.  He should definitely talk to someone who IS a lawyer, because if the pardon didn't take care of it, I know it's possible to get your record expunged, which would restore his firearms ownership rights.  If he just assumes he's good to go, though, and it turns out he's not, they'll put the screws to him for possession of an illegal firearm, lying on the background check, etc, etc, etc.  Best of luck to him, I hope he's able to get his rights back, and keep his nose clean.

I've heard an answer to this questions that I think I like but am not 100% sure. The reason that felons go to prison is to be taught a lesson and when they get out they are supposed to have paid their debt to society and be trustable citizens again. In that case, when they are released (and not on probation) they should have all of their rights restored. And if they aren't trustable citizens, they shouldn't be released.

That view is probably on the extreme, but what do you think about it?

I've heard an answer to this questions that I think I like but am not 100% sure. The reason that felons go to prison is to be taught a lesson and when they get out they are supposed to have paid their debt to society and be trustable citizens again. In that case, when they are released (and not on probation) they should have all of their rights restored. And if they aren't trustable citizens, they shouldn't be released.

That view is probably on the extreme, but what do you think about it?

Thats my take on it as well, unfortunately all prisons are currently black holes for tax dollars as it is and the amount of overcrowding plays a big part in people getting released with the only rehabilitation being that they now know better ways to commit crimes without getting caught.  My personal views on capital punishment are too extreme for most, but I feel that we dont execute 1% of the people a year that we should be.  As far as management goes I think the nation could learn from Maricopia County Sheriff Joe Arpiao's model; spending the least amount of money on inmates while using them to put the most revenue back into the system.  Lessen the tax burden inmates place on the country and give them some work ethic in the process, that would be better rehabilitation than what we have today.

I know a fella who had made a stupid teenage mistake, and is now a convicted felon.  He has never since and probably never will commit another.  He is one of the most honest, stand-up person that I know.  He has paid his debt to society.

He will never be able to own a firearm to protect him self or his family...  Sad.

I wonder if a law might be enacted that could expunge felonies after review and history of persons convicted?


Doubt it.

I know a fella who had made a stupid teenage mistake, and is now a convicted felon.  He has never since and probably never will commit another.  He is one of the most honest, stand-up person that I know.  He has paid his debt to society.

He will never be able to own a firearm to protect him self or his family...  Sad.

I wonder if a law might be enacted that could expunge felonies after review and history of persons convicted?


Doubt it.

I know what mean, sometimes the reckless actions during our younger years catches up with us later. Sometimes the age-old mentality of "once a criminal, always a criminal" makes it difficult if not impossible to change people's viewpoints.

If we actually believe that our rights, 2A included, are "inalienable" and "god-granted," then I question whether government has any business, at any time, taking any action to restrict those rights. 

If we are talking about establishing guidelines for restricting rights, then I question just how seriously we take our claim that said rights are "inalienable" and "god-granted." 

While I understand that most people would find it desirable to restrict the actions of others in the interests of something called the "greater good," I maintain that that those actions are not actually "rights" if they are, in fact, able to be restricted. 

Semantics aside, if we are to endorse the belief that the penal system serves as an instrument of reform, then having been a guest of said system should carry no lasting consequences or stigma.

Either way, I say no restrictions.

I don't believe a felony charge should equal revocation of rights. Period. Not even for murder.
However,
I do believe that repeat (twice or more) violent felons should get their membership with humanity revoked. No one gets punished for running over a stray dog. Act like an animal, and be treated like an animal.


Oooh yes. In my kingdom, I would significantly reduce criminal tendencies over a handful of generations. The first two or so generations would be the most.......active.

If we actually believe that our rights, 2A included, are "inalienable" and "god-granted," then I question whether government has any business, at any time, taking any action to restrict those rights. 

If we are talking about establishing guidelines for restricting rights, then I question just how seriously we take our claim that said rights are "inalienable" and "god-granted." 

While I understand that most people would find it desirable to restrict the actions of others in the interests of something called the "greater good," I maintain that that those actions are not actually "rights" if they are, in fact, able to be restricted. 

Semantics aside, if we are to endorse the belief that the penal system serves as an instrument of reform, then having been a guest of said system should carry no lasting consequences or stigma.

Either way, I say no restrictions.

I'm on the exact same page.  I do think that rights can be revoked for the right reasons; obviously prison is a good idea, and in prison you don't have the right to assemble, speech, RKBA, etc.  But when you leave prison, they should be restored.  It's rather telling that the only right that's subject to a lifetime ban in the right to keep and bear arms.  Some people claim that felons not being able to vote is a restriction of their free speech, and use that claim to support lifetime gun bans, but I disagree.  Voting is not speech, it's participation in government.  It's a privilege and a duty of good citizens, and therefore, I see no real problem with revoking a convict's privilege of participating in government.  People should get their rights back the minute they walk out the front gate, and if the warden/parole board isn't comfortable with putting a gun in someone's hand, that should be a red flag; indicating it's time to ask if this person should really be thrust upon society. 

I really do see the 2A battles going on in legislatures and courtrooms around the country as a civil rights issue, and I think we're heading in the right direction.  Who knows, maybe someday Alan Gura will be our Martin Luther King, Jr?  (Then again, the anti-gun lobbyists would have a hard time assassinating him, I reckon.  He seems like the kind of guy who carries a gun.  Then AGAIN, again, the anti-gun lobby knows no hypocrisy.  Let us not forget that Chucky Schumer reportedly possesses one of New York's coveted CCW's)