The hypocracy knows no bounds.

The answer to the problem is education. This may take several generations.

parole and probation.

In other words, they get their guns before they have any chance of restoring the most fundamental right in a democracy--the right to vote. And mind you, they have to APPLY to get their vote restored. Have you ever applied for anything in LA? Felon disenfranchisement is the new Jim Crow.

...

Interstate commerce, to be in possession of a firearm, if ever convicted of a felon, without having your rights restored by a judge.

In light of the SC decision that a single pot plant in your basement is sufficient to involve interstate commerce, this can likely still be prosecuted in that state, in federal court.

Wonder if they are just trying to offload the cost of court cases to the federal government.

I'm asking because I don't know.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 02:19 PM - Edit history (2)

The problem is what is a Felony? As that word is used in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968? The Courts have been all over the place on this, but generally a Common Law Felony is included, but some of Felonies created by Statute are not. For example, it was NOT a felony at common law to commit Security Fraud, but many states have made that a felony. A Federal Court could rule that such a felony is not a felony as the word Felony is used in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Thus such a felon could own a firearm (please note I have NOT checked out the exact status of Security Fraud laws, so before anyone convicted of such a crime buys a firearm check with an attorney who practices in that field of law).

Now, a state can also pass a Gun Control Law forbidding Felons from owning guns, even if they are NOT Felons, as the term Felon is used in the Federal Gun Control Act. This is the type of Felons the State Judge is ruling on, someone who is NOT barred by Federal Law, but is Barred by State Law, due to the differences is treatment of the term Felon and Felony.

Under the Common Law a Felon was someone who lost his property to his Misne Lord, a Misdemeanor was someone who did not (i.e. his or her heir kept it). In the 1800s the definitions changed (along with abolishment of forfeiture) to whether you stayed in jail for one year or less (then a Misdemeanor) or more then one year (then a Felony). Since 1900, this divide has blurred, they are misdemeanors that you can served several years in jail for, and some felons get off with a suspended sentence. The names are retains more due to historical reasons then any real difference in treatment (State's have preferred to give set jail periods for individual crimes as oppose to a set time for "Felonies" and another time of "Misdemeanors".

Personally, I believe we should do as Britain has done, abolish these terms, they are becoming more and more meaningless. Force each level of Government to clearly declare WHAT Crimes, if you are convicted of that crime, BANS you from owning a Firearm, not use these old terms that most people (including Lawyers) do NOT know what they mean (and due to that fact becoming meaningless terms).

Side note: Under the Common Law, if someone was convicted of a Felony, the King received his or her property for his own use for one year, then it went to the Felon's Misne Lord (which in most of England was the King, but not always). Treason, which today is considered a Felony, was NOT a Felony under the Common Law, it was TREASON, a separate class of crimes, where the property of the Traitor was forfeit permanently to the King NOT his Misne lord. THis last came up in 1715 in Boston Massachusetts. A wife and her servant conspired to kill her husband. Under the Common Law that could be Murder but also could be the crime of "petit Treason" (Thus the term "High Treason" for Treason against the State). The sentence was the same for both, death, but what happened to the property of the defendant differed and who obtain her property on her execution was why this woman was tried to for the crime of "Petit Treason" not the "Felony" of murder. The Governor of Massachusetts in 1715 was an appointee of the King, and thus upon conviction of Treason (High or Petit) the property of the Defendant reverted to him as the King's agent. If convicted of the "Felony" of Murder, the property went to the Governor for one year, then it reverted to the Colonial Legislature of Massachusetts, which under its Colonial Charter was the "Misne Lord" of Massachusetts. Thus the Governor wanted the Treason Charge NOT the Felony of Murder Charge against these Murderers. i.e. Thus the Governor NOT the Colonial Legislature received the property of the murderers.

In the 1800s most States abolished "Petit Treason" and merged in with Murder since Independence made each state both the "King" and the "Misne Lord" for that state (no matter what charge, the state still obtained the money), then the State abolished forfeiture for most murderers did NOT have any money to forfeit.

The abolition of Forfeiture upon conviction lead to the problem of Children inheriting from their parents, when their murder their parents. Under the Common Law, upon conviction the murder's property, including the property inherited, went to the State for it was both the "Crown" and the "Misne Lord" of all the real property in the State (and while held for Trial, the Court had full use of the Property, not the Defendant). Thus the right that a Child could inherit from a parent their had murdered was NOT a problem under the Common Law (The State ended up with the money upon conviction). It became a problem when the State redefined Murder and the sentence and removed forfeiture as a feature of the law. You then had a situation where Murders could inherit from people their murdered and keep the property. Thus the various State Laws forbidding such inheritance (which leads to another problem, what happens if the person DOES inherit, gives the property BACK to the murders, by direct gift OR by another inheritance? This has occurred, in the trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez case in California saw that happened, the two sons who murdered their parents ended up getting the money via their parent's sister, who gave them the money to pay for their defense. I am sorry, the Common Law Rule was better i.e. leave the murders inherit the property, but upon conviction it becomes the property of the State (and during any trial, held by the State until the trial is over).

While I believe I have shown the Common Law Rule was better, the Rule in the US is conviction of a Felony does NOT bring with it a Forfeiture in the US today, unless there is a separate forfeiture law. Drugs cases tend to have such forfeiture laws, but most crimes do no t. On the hand prior to the mid 1800s and the general rewrite of the Common LAw, forfeiture was the biggest difference between Felonies and Misdemeanors.

ineligible to purchase a firearm. That would likely also mean that person would be a felon in possession if he or she happened to have a firearm as well.

But you are correct, the states classify these various crimes so hodgepodge who can keep up?

The Federal Gun Control act really does NOT include the term "Felony" but uses the definition of "Felony" popular since the 1800:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921

this is probably the first of many unintended consequences.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/louisiana_voters_approve_const.html

"The requirement that courts use "strict scrutiny" when evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws passed with about 74.3 percent of the vote. The law codifies in the constitution the standard used by the current U.S. Supreme Court when evaluating gun laws, requiring the most stringent standard be used when determining whether regulations infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The amendment also eliminates constitutional language specifically allowing the Legislature to regulate concealed weapons.

Under strict scrutiny, regulations must be narrowly tailored to fit a public purpose and it would be up to the government to prove that regulations were constitutional, rather than requiring opponents of a measure prove that the law violates the constitution.

Supporters argued that the amendment is necessary to protect guns rights since the precedent-setting Supreme Court rulings that established the standard were decided by a 5-4 vote. But opponents argue the amendment would jeopardize the concealed-carry permit system, impair police work and call into question regulations that prohibit bringing weapons to certain locations and events."

The judge ruled on the letter of the law and the law was fairly specific about what felons were NOT allowed to own a gun, from the link:

"It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence ... which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or possession of a firearm while in the possession of or during the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense ..., or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state..."

Burglary of a UNINHABITED dwelling (Caps mine) is not listed, neither are other non-violent felonies.

Without agreeing with the law, the question is: For a non-violent felon who has completed his sentence and is in theory rehabilitated, what rights should he be required to forfeit after his release? Or asked a different way, what rights does a non-violent felon get back after he has completed serving his sentence?

Do you know the vast majority of people with felonies are convicted of non-violent crimes?

Lawbreakers should have thought about their acts before they broke the law.


A felony conviction is not a small oops.

It's part of the deal. Commit a felony: never be allowed to vote again, never be allowed to own or possess a gun, pay your fines and serve your sentence, fulfill the terms of your release.

It's how it should be. (I also oppose efforts to restore voting rights to felons.)

The one thing I would do for them is bar employers from discriminating against the previously incarcerated or asking about previous convictions. It should also be barred from background checks except for a small number of fields such as law enforcement which would be allowed by statute: Law enforcement, security, financial services and banking, etc.

Kentucky and Virginia. And Maine and Vermont allow those in prison to vote. Most others allow felons to vote or allow those with felony convictions to regain their voting rights. The most recent controversies have been in Florida and Iowa, where the State of Florida and Governor Vilsak (Iowa) restored voting rights to felons, but the State of Iowa (Republicans) and Governor Rick Scott (Florida) reversed those decisions. This also seems to be a partisan issue.

when they are 69? Except in the most extreme circumstances - If you take away forever the opportunity for full redemption and full restoration - I cannot imagine ANY good in that. There but for fortune go you or I.

If this is one of those states that don't allow felons to vote then I'd say what this court just argued gives them the right to vote. Other than that, here is a judge that sentences people to prison giving them guns. Isn't he worried that they may use that gun on him? After all he is the one that put them in prison. Just like all those in Congress...better realize what happened to Gabby could very well happen to them since many of these folks stockpiling the weapons are doing it to attack the government (the Congress etc.) when they feel threatened. I'm guessing here, but the GOP House just aren't too bright are they?

List of restrictions on Voting by state:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

Only 12 state prohibit Felons from Voting even if their serve their Sentence, Parole and Probation (and on the other extreme, only two states permit Prisoners to vote while in prison, Maine and Vermont. The other 36 States have restrictions on Felons voting, 13 States and DC while the Felon is in Prison, 4 States while in Prison or on Parole, 19 States while in Prison, Parole OR Probation).


III. More details on State Felon Voting Policies:

Alabama - Some persons convicted of a felony may apply to have their vote restored immediately upon completion of their full sentence. Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement.

Instructions for Voting Restoration, State of Alabama (17 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Alabama Code: Section 17-3-31 (57 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Arizona - Automatic voting restoration upon completion of sentence and payment of all fines for first-time, single felony offenders. Second time felony offenders may apply for restoration with their county after completion of their sentence.

Instructions for Voting Restoration, State of Arizona (65 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Delaware - Persons convicted of a felony must wait five years after completion of their sentence to automatically regain the ability to vote. Persons convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense, are permanently disqualified from voting.

Delaware Constitution: Article V Section 2 (174 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Florida - On Mar. 9, 2011 the Florida rules of Executive Clemency were toughened. Automatic restoration of civil rights and the ability to vote will no longer be granted for any offenses. All individuals convicted of any felony will now have to apply for executive clemency after a five year waiting period. Individuals who are convicted, or who have previously been convicted, of certain felonies such as murder, assault, child abuse, drug trafficking, arson, etc. are subject to a seven year waiting period and a clemency board hearing to determine whether or not the ability to vote will be restored.

Prior to the Mar. 9, 2011 rule change some individuals convicted of non-violent felonies were re-enfranchised automatically by the Clemency Board upon completion of their full sentence, including payment of fines and fees.

Florida Rules of Executive Clemency (81 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Florida Clemency Application (64 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

According to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition website (accessed Aug. 15, 2012), "If you were convicted of a felony in another state and had your civil rights restored before you became a Florida resident, you do not need to apply for RCR [restoration of civil rights] in Florida."

Iowa - On Jan. 14, 2011, the Republican Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, issued executive order 70, rescinding a law allowing people convicted of a felony to automatically have their ability to vote restored after completing their sentences. The automatic voting restoration law had been instituted by former Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack's signing of executive order 42 in 2005. Felons in Iowa must now pay all outstanding monetary obligations to the court in addition to completing their sentence and period of parole or probation. People convicted of a felony may then apply for restoration of the ability to vote.

Executive Order 70 (106 KB) - Signed Jan. 14, 2011, Terry Branstad, Governor (R)
Iowa Streamlined Application for Resotration of Citizenship Rights (481 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Executive Order 42 (686 KB) - Signed July 4, 2005, Thomas J. Vilsack, JD, Governor (D)

Kentucky - The ability to vote can be restored only when the Governor approves an application for an executive pardon from an individual convicted of a felony after completion of his/her sentence.

Application for Restoration of Civil Rights, State of Kentucky (69 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Mississippi - Persons convicted of a felony are barred from voting only if they have been convicted of one or more of the following specific felony crimes (in alphabetical order): "murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy, armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, carjacking, or larceny under lease or rental agreement"

To regain the ability to vote, an individual, after completion of his/her sentence, must go to his/her state representative and convince them to personally author a bill restoring the vote to that individual. Both houses of the legislature must then pass the bill. Re-enfranchisement can also be granted directly by the governor.

Individuals convicted of felonies in Mississippi remain eligible to vote for US President in federal elections.

Mississippi Voter Registration Application (50 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Mississippi Constitution: Article 12, Section 241 (50 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Mississippi Constitution: Article 12, Section 253 (6 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Nebraska - Persons convicted of a felony are automatically permitted to vote two years after completion of their sentence of incarceration and all parole and probation for all convictions except treason.

Nebraska Code: Section 32-313 (16 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Nevada - The vote is automatically restored to all persons convicted of a non-violent felony after the sentence completion. Persons convicted of a violent felony and all second- time felony offenders (whether violent or non-violent) are not automatically re-enfranchised. Those individuals must seek restoration of their voting abilities in the court in which they were convicted.

Nevada Code: Section NRS 213.09 (26 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Tennessee - All persons convicted of a felony since 1981, except for some serious felonies such as murder, rape, treason and voter fraud, may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for voting restoration upon completion of their sentence.

Tennessee General Assembly, Public Chapter 860 (31 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Tennessee Voting Restoration Application (333 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Virginia - Individuals convicted of most non-violent felonies may apply for a gubernatorial restoration of voting ability two years after completion of their sentence and the payment of any fines and restitution. Persons convicted of violent felonies, drug sales or manufacturing, crimes against minors, and election law offenses must wait five years to apply for a gubernatorial restoration of rights.

Virginia Restoration of Civil Rights: Non-Violent Offenders 2 Year Application (146 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Virginia Restoration of Civil Rights: Violent Offenders 5 Year Application (171 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Wyoming - People convicted of a first-time non-violent felony may apply to the Board of Parole for voting restoration five years after completion of their sentence, all others convicted of a felony must apply directly to the governor five years after completion of their sentence to have their voting ability restored.

2003 Restoration of Voting Rights Bill (123 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)
Wyoming Restoration of Voting Rights Application (10 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

A Ex-Felon MAY lose his rights to vote unless he perfroms certains acts in Two Additional States:"

South Dakota - On Mar. 19, 2012, HB 1274 was enacted. The bill took the ability to vote away from convicted felons serving terms of probation. Previously, only persons on parole or incarcerated were ineligible to register to vote. Now convicted felons must serve their full term of incarceration, parole, and probation before they may register to vote.

South Dakota: HB 1274 (10 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

Washington - All persons with a felony conviction must re-register to vote after completion of their sentence and all parole and probation. However, the Secretary of State's website states that persons who have "willfully failed to make three payments in a 12 month period" on any court imposed fines may have their ability to vote revoked by the prosecutor.

Elections and Voting (76 KB) (as of June 8, 2012)

All rights should be restored at the same juncture.

...I don't think that's going to be a problem.

fml

You don't look like a cool-ass killer motherfucker in a JC Penney's carrying a ballot slung on your back.

Case closed!

I'd guess there are more potential gun owners than potential voters in the country right now.

Idiots

yup

The far right and far left are both nuts, in my opinion. Take away gun rights of violent felons. Not for minor offenses.