It is one thing if you want to try to prevent former convicted criminals from buying a gun in the first place, but why should they be denied a concealed carry permit ?? Do you really think that's going to do anything to stop them from committing a gun crime? In fact, why bother requiring permits for concealed carry in the first place? A concealed permit only makes any sense if everyone who is entering into a controlled area is being screened, and the way things are now, wherever people are being screened and entering into a controlled area, they are not allowed to bring a weapon anyway, whether they have a permit or not.
If a former convicted criminal already has his hands on a gun, why shouldn't he be allowed to carry it too? I mean, just because you have a past criminal conviction, your rights are taken away from you the rest of your life? We already know that a carry permit cannot stop a person from committing a crime, so why shouldn't they be allowed to have it ready for defensive purposes in public? You think that just because they have a former criminal record means they cannot potentially save someone else? Imagine this: a deranged crazy walks into a crowd of people and starts shooting. Now if someone in the crowd just happens to be carrying a concealed gun ‒ whether they have a criminal record or not ‒ they can put a quick end to this. Otherwise we could just wait for the police to show up, and who knows how long that will be... Most of the time when a criminal is actually carrying a gun around with them all the time, it is for their own protection. It is not as if they are using their gun every day to commit a crime.
The Second Amendment should be the only permit one needs to carrt- open or concealed. If a convicted felon has paid his debt to society, with the exception of those convicted of violent crimes, he/she should be allowed to own and carry a weapon. If convicted of a violent crime, deep six his butt or put him away for life with absolutely no parole.
What exactly is a "violent crime" ? That could encompass a wide range of different things. Do you think someone who got into a bar fight should not be allowed to have a gun? Do you think a man who walked in on his wife sleeping with another man and suddenly snapped one time in his life, sending his wife's lover to the hospital, does not deserve to have a gun? What about alleged cases of domestic violence? During messy divorces, women make false allegations all the time against their husbands. Plenty of husbands have been sentenced to short 6 month stays in jail, based on their former wife's exaggerations of events of events that took place.
We can play what ifs and maybes all day long, A gotcha occasionally probably will work. My concept of a violent crime is far, obviously above your thresh hold, if I am reading you correctly. I am talking about crimes of, for lack of a better expression, hardcore severity, rape, murder, severe property damage purposely inflicted. in short, crimes that a person will do serious time for. Lock him up for life of give him a juice transfusion to put us out of his predations entirely. Exactly what would you call a serious violent crime, if I may ask? - - - Updated - - - In short, if a person is too violent to walk the streets, put him down or away for good.
(My bold) In the US, it's up to each state to regulate what rights a convicted criminal can recuperate. In some states, it's automatic; in some states, the former criminal has to specifically apply for reinstatement; in some states there is no provision for reinstatement - presumably the former criminal can never be reinstated. You have to look up the legislation & procedures in each state. (& presumably separately for WA DC, PR, American Samoa, etc.)
Convicted felons have proven them selves to not be able to live within the confines and laws of decent society. No way no how they should legally own guns.
It depends on what they were convicted of. If its a white collar crime like embezzelment and was nonviolent I don't see why not. If it was a violent offense then they lost that right when they infringed on the rights of someone else.
Being a convicted felon is evidence that you have little regard for the law and your fellow human beings (no felony is victimless). They don't need to be carrying guns.
Wow... Given the recidivism rate in the US, a person who has already been caught and convicted of a crime is likely to reoffend. You want to make it easier for them to do so? http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 Seems weird that so many people on here who are normally so pro-gun are now rationally saying that this form of gun control makes sense... Very surprising.
Ok, perhaps I should clarify... Of the responses disagreeing with the OP, the majority are folks with a pro-gun stance.
I'm not surprised, progressives just want more permits and licenses. As if we were not burdened enough with all the ones we have already. I think progressives just like the feeling of the government being in control, even when it's not actually very rational.
I agree. But for many progressives, a "violent crime" includes slapping your wife during a divorce, and can be used as just another excuse to deny you the right to legally own a gun the rest of your life.
(My bold) Sure, in some jurisdictions, if you're convicted of domestic violence, you can be barred from gun ownership. If you're actually put behind bars, then upon completion of sentence, you can petition the court for reinstatement of your civil rights. That varies from state to state.
And we don't need to make sure that they are not. But is it so bad if they do? Or more specifically, will making it a crime for them to carry a gun stop them from committing a crime with a gun? I can possibly understand if they have committed a crime before due to an uncontrollable temper, but most crimes are not like that. Making it illegal for a former convicted bank robber to carry a gun is almost certainly not going to do anything to stop him from robbing a bank again, for example.
If they have "proven that they are not able to live within the confines of the laws of decent society", should they not be locked up? What makes you think they can be trusted to be let loose in society but not trusted to have a gun? But that is really besides my point in this thread. Supposing they already have a gun, either legally or illegally, why should they not be allowed to carry their gun to? Just because you think it should be illegal for them to buy a gun, it does not follow that permits are needed to decide who can carry them. What is the problem if the former criminal wants to carry the gun? What is the point in specifically not wanting him to carry the gun? He already has the gun, either legally or illegally. So there is no point to requiring permits for people to carry guns. That is my whole point in this thread.
Given the number of occasions domestic violence has become lethal, and the overall worthlessness of any man who strikes his wife, I don't see a problem here.
I dont know what the fasination is with this topic. Its being discussed like its the next big gun law push. I tell you what. I will give non violent felons their gun rights back as soon as all the terms of punishment have been met. Just as soon as my rights are no longer attacked.
But Anders- His right to apply for a permit is automatically negated by the loss of his right to own. What's to discuss? Of course, it's a simple matter for him to acquire another gun, just as it's a simple matter for him to commit any other crime. What's to discuss? I am staunch in my defense of the 2nd. amendment, and preserving my gun rights has been one of the factors that have determined my conduct throughout my life. This is as it was intended, and as it should be. That I observe the bounds of my rights in governing my own conduct is the factor that sustains my status as "Right Minded". If my actions are in violation of this Right Mindedness, I forfeit my claim to those rights, and to Right Mindedness. This impresses me as one of very few laws that actually DO make sense, being in accord with what I perceive as the Will of God. By my reasoning, if a man decides that it's OK for him to take the life of another in any scenario other than defense of self, or another innocent party, or ones' Country, he has decided that it's OK for him to take his own life. IMO, that should be his first choice.
