A remarkable ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court has held that a state statute barring convicted felons from possessing firearms for life is unconstitutional, thus raising a question among legal scholars, gun rights activists and gun prohibitionists: Should convicted felons ever be allowed by law to regain their constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
The 5-2 ruling came down last Friday in the case of Britt v. State. The plaintiff in this case, Barney Britt, pleaded guilty in 1979 of felony possession with intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance. Britt pulled a two-year sentence, and spent four months in prison and the remainder suspended for two years while he was on supervised probation. He completed probation in 1982 and five years later, in 1987, Britt’s civil rights were fully restored under existing state statute at the time.
However, in 1995, the North Carolina General Assembly amended the law, prohibiting felons from possessing handguns or any firearm with a barrel less than 18 inches and shorter than 26 inches overall. Still, Britt was able to keep his rifles and shotguns for hunting under the revised statute.
It is unreasonable to assert that a nonviolent citizen who has responsibly, safely, and legally owned and used firearms for seventeen years is in reality so dangerous that any possession at all of a firearm would pose a significant threat to public safety. – Justice Edward Thomas Brady
In 2004, the General Assembly was at it again, this time further amending the law to prohibit possession of firearms of any kind by anyone who had ever been convicted of a felony. By a stroke of the pen, Britt’s once-restored firearms rights had been ripped away from him, despite the fact that he had lived as a good citizen since his youthful brush with the law.
Britt sued the state in 2005, asserting that the amended state law violates his rights under both the state and federal constitutions. The trial court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment, and the appeals court upheld the trial court.
However, Britt remained stubborn and appealed to the high court. And that’s where he found what many believe to be true justice.
Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Thomas Brady – the only member of the court to note in his biography that he is a Life member of the National Rifle Association – noted that Britt “through his uncontested lifelong nonviolence towards other citizens, his thirty years of law-abiding conduct since his crime, his seventeen years of responsible, lawful firearm possession between 1987 and 2004, and his assiduous and proactive compliance with the 2004 amendment, has affirmatively demonstrated that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety. Moreover, the nature of the 2004 amendment is relevant. The statute functioned as a total and permanent prohibition on possession of any type of firearm in any location.
“In particular,” Brady added, “it is unreasonable to assert that a nonviolent citizen who has responsibly, safely, and legally owned and used firearms for seventeen years is in reality so dangerous that any possession at all of a firearm would pose a significant threat to public safety.”
Dissenting were Chief Justice Sarah Parker, who once served on the executive committee of the State Democratic Party, and Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, the first African-American woman to sit on the state high court. Parker did not write a dissent, but Timmons-Goodson did, in which she noted, “Plaintiff’s right to possess a firearm is not absolute, but subject to regulation.”
She lamented, “Today’s decision opens the floodgates wide before an inevitable wave of individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but to our statutory provisions prohibiting firearm possession by incompetents and the mentally insane.”
That reads suspiciously like rhetoric from the gun prohibitionist lobby. Besides, is that not what the courts are supposed to do, hear arguments, challenges to law and decide according to statute and precedent and constitutionality?
This case does raise a question: Should convicted felons ever be allowed to own firearms?
At what point would a felon’s right to own a firearm be considered for restoration?
Today’s decision opens the floodgates wide before an inevitable wave of individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but to our statutory provisions prohibiting firearm possession by incompetents and the mentally insane. – Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson
Would you support a law that:
Allows a convicted felon to apply for full restoration of gun rights five years after completion of his sentence, provided his record is clear of any violations?
Allows a convicted felon to own rifles and shotguns for hunting, competition and home or business protection?
Allows a convicted felon to own a handgun?
Abolishes the prohibition on gun ownership by anyone who has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
This door would never have been cracked had it not been for a push by some Democrats to restore voting rights to convicted felons. One civil right is no more or less important than another, and they should know that.
If we can trust a person to vote, which is arguably the highest responsibility of any citizen, then should not society also trust that individual to exercise his other civil rights with equal responsibility, once he has paid his debt to society?
The Britt ruling suggests we can.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
Perhaps the question of whether or not felons should have their second amdnment rights restored is the wrong question. The more pertinent question in my mind is why would we release a person from prison if we still believe them to be a threat to society?
The lawsuit and ruling is correct from Britt's standpoint. That does not mean I agree or disagree with the outcome or the law. Actually I believe the outcome in the lawsuit is correct and that the law is pretty much the problem.
I believe violent felons should not ever be permitted to own guns again. Regardless of how long ago the incident was.
To go and change the laws so that it is retroactive is the main source of the lawsuit and crux of the issue.
Good point Mr Wyatt. I have mixed feelings on this topic. If a criminal has served his time, and is not insane, there is no lawful reason to keep him imprisoned. But, given the frequency of repeat offenses, there is a strong argument against allowing a man to have and carry a gun when he has demonstrated an inability to do so lawfully and responsibly.
I would be OK with restoring gun rights to those convicted felons who were not convicted of a violent crime and who are not repeat offenders of felony offenses. I would strongly oppose restoring gun rights to felons who have a record of violence or repeated felonies, as it demonstrates a likelihood to offend again.
I think we as a society would be foolish to allow people with multiple carjacking, robbery, and assault charges to own and carry firearms legally. Please note that Mr. Britt, IMO, is not the sort of person I view as a threat to society, and I do not feel denying him his gun rights would be right.
If a man is not trusted with one of his most basic rights because of fear that he will use it for criminal intent, then I ask why is this person out of jail at all? Either a man is free or not; if time has been served for your crimes, you should regain your rights as a free man when your sentence has been served. On the matter of sheer practicality, it has been shown that barring said felons from owning a firearm has done nothing to stop those who intend to reoffend and remain criminals from obtaining a firearm outside of legal channels. All the current law regarding prior felons owning firearms does is strip those who truly wish to become productive, legal members of society again from exercising one of their most basic rights; it deprives them of their right to self defense and their right to join the ranks of other freedom loving citizens should overthrow of a tyrannical government become necessary. Either a man is free or not....there is no "partial" freedom.
Mr. Robertson, I would suggest that we are much more foolish as a society to believe that the wording of a statute or requirement of law will protect us from someone who is intent on breaking the law to begin with. It may not pass muster with regard to logic for most, but I have absolutely no fear of felons who have served their time. Whatever the crime, I can only deal with what's in front of me at any given moment. Speaking in terms that would deal with an absolute revocation of rights in an imperfect system is unconscionabe. If the ethic is that it's far better to let 100 bad men go free than to imprison one innocent man, I would expect the same ethic to apply with all rights; not just that of a right to liberty.
I'm a little ambivalent about this one myself. I tend to think violent criminals shouldn't be trusted with guns, especially handguns. OTOH since someone intent on committing a crime is already in the process of ignoring the law, what good will a law do that will offset the loss to a felon who actually is rehabilitated.
Two other parts of the problem are the rampant criminalization of everything, and the catch-all nature of some of the statutes which read something like "conviction for any offense for which the defendant COULD have been sentenced to more than a year in prison".
We have this mental picture of a violent criminal, one who has committed murder, rape, kidnapping, treason, or some other REAL crime, and it seems absurd to ask if these people should be allowed to rearm themselves. There are many, many crimes defined as felonies and as misdemeanors possibly leading to more than a year in jail that don't mesh with that picture. Fix that problem and the answer is clearer
Summarizing and combining the comments above, I'd offer a suggestion or two.
1) Non-violent felons automatically have all civil rights restored (voting, firearms ownership, privacy, etc) after a crime-free (misdemeanors count for this purpose) post-release period equal to the original sentence length of all felony convictions and may petition the court for expungement of their record.
2) Felons whose crime involved violence or attempt thereat, who are adjudged sane w/o benefit of medication, may petition any court of record for restoration of civil rights (again, full package, no picking and choosing between rights)after a similar period not more than once every 3 years. All persons testifying at the original trial must be notified at least 90 days in advance of the hearing by the court in question, as well as the victim(s), and would have a right to testify for or against said restoration in the new hearing (either in person or by certified mail).
If a person has done their time for a non-violent felony and has kept out of trouble for a few years, I think they should indeed get their rights restored. If they go back to being a criminal, then it's back to prison and rights are gone again.
1. The fireams ban is societally useful only when the criminals' violations are violent or greatly facilitated by the presence of a firearm. All else is "random punishment unrelated to the behavior"...or the BS of politicians who "just want to DO SOMETHING" (always a bad sign). No bans for embezzlement, small scale drug use, check-kiting and various crimes that are based on the "victims'" FEELINGS of offense (i.e., verbal sexual harassment). The key is psersonal violence or threat of violence. Bans would also be made where the criminal has committed large-scale offenses that damage the larger society, (i.e. Bernie Madoff or people who knowingly supply tactiacally/strategically defective military equipment).
2. Misdemeanors should never lead to a ban. That existing ban was purely "after the fact", regarding offenses that society had ALREADY DEFINED AS MINOR! Losing life-or-death rights for a minor crime is totally illogical and disproportionate, hence unconstitutional.
An absolute ban of firearms for all felony convictions should not prevail. Rather, rights pertaining to firearms ownership and use should be restored for those convicted of non-violent felonies after all sentences, including probation, are concluded. Perhaps a five year period for shotguns and rifles and, if the individual exhibits a clear record, then restoration of rights to possess handguns would be in order.
I am in agreement with prior comments regarding release of an individual if there is question that they would be a threat of violence to society.
Absolutely! There are a lot of felons, so classified because of improperly laid laws. If the so-called felony was non-violent,
after he serves his time, probation or whatever, he should have the count dismissed, his record expunged, and all civil rights restored.
When a person has done his time, as required by the judgement, his obligations are over. All of them.
If one has paid his/her "debt to society", and has been released from jail, then all rights and privileges held by any other citizen should be restored to them.
If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm due to their assumed "violent tendencies", then that the person can also not be trusted to be unconfined, as they will always have access to screwdrivers, hammers, axes, cars, steak knives, etc.
That type of person should remain in prison if they cannot be trusted to function as a proper member of society.
Bottom line: If a person cannot be trusted to have access to a gun, that person should not have access to society.
Mr. Wyatt,
There is a distinct difference between prohibiting a felon from having a firearm and actually stopping him from getting one. I don't believe any statute will stop a man from illegally acquiring one.
I have no objection to restoring the rights of those who have been convicted of non-violent crimes, or even those convicted of violent crimes who have demonstrated a few years of responsible behavior after being released. But to do so immediately, or for those who are career offenders, is just plain myopic.
"Bottom line: If a person cannot be trusted to have access to a gun, that person should not have access to society."
And what is the legal justification for holding someone who has served his sentence and has not been adjudicated mentally ill?
If this is their first run in with the law, and if one has paid his/her "debt to society", and has been released from jail from a non-violent crime, then all rights and privileges held by any other citizen should be restored to them. After their second time , no hand guns no matter what, and the third time my be they should stay in jail.
I would agree with allowing a felon to recover his right to keep and bear arms after completing his sentence plus some years in civil society to demonstrate his newly law abiding nature.
To balance that out, I would also want to see proportionately severe penalties for recidivism. A firearms offense after restoration of the right should call for very extended incarceration. Conviction of murder after restoration of the right should not be survivable.
The rights of virtually all criminals should be restored after they have been released from prison and a period of time has passed so that they can demonstrate that they have adjusted and changed their ways. About the only exception I might make is for those guilty of first degree murder.
Mr. Robertson with all due respect, the only myopic point of view I see here is one that would contnue to spend tax money on laws that can't be enforced, strip individuals of their natural rights, and serve no purpose except to provide a distraction from the fear generated in poliics to push agendas. It would seem to me that the availability of firearms, legal or otherwise, is a symption to the root concern: recidivism. Treat the cause, the symptoms will go away. Chasing symptoms consistently leads to further infection and more damage.
It seems like most everybody is on the same page as I am. Crimes like counterfeiting, check forgery, and embezzlement are felonies but they in no way imply that the criminal has any violent tendencies that would threaten society if allowed to keep and bear firearms after serving time. There should be no ban on firearms for them.
As for when and if violent felons should have their firearms rights restored, that's a bit harder to decide. Part of it would probably depend on the level of violence and the circumstances.
"Bottom line: If a person cannot be trusted to have access to a gun, that person should not have access to society."
And what is the legal justification for holding someone who has served his sentence and has not been adjudicated mentally ill?
I believe everyone deserves a second chance—but that means one second chance, not thirty-eleventy-ninety-twelve second chances.
I'd make the second chance available to anyone and everyone, and it would amount to a chance to restore full civil rights. I believe the burden of proof ought to be on the convicted criminal to demonstrate a sweeping change of attitude and pay for the process.
I fully support the restoration of all second amendment rights to non-violent criminals after they have served their time and have returned to society. To deny these people who have paid their debt to society such a basic right as self-protection is wrong.
If we are going to release people from prison but make laws that infringe on their legal rights we are assuming that an actual criminal who really was a bad guy would pay any attention to the law. Why not make laws to change the rotation of the Earth? It makes about as much sense...
Summarizing and combining the comments above, I'd offer a suggestion or two.
1) Non-violent felons automatically have all civil rights restored (voting, firearms ownership, privacy, etc) after a crime-free (misdemeanors count for this purpose) post-release period equal to the original sentence length of all felony convictions and may petition the court for expungement of their record.
2) Felons whose crime involved violence or attempt thereat, who are adjudged sane w/o benefit of medication, may petition any court of record for restoration of civil rights (again, full package, no picking and choosing between rights)after a similar period not more than once every 3 years. All persons testifying at the original trial must be notified at least 90 days in advance of the hearing by the court in question, as well as the victim(s), and would have a right to testify for or against said restoration in the new hearing (either in person or by certified mail).
Voting really is a separate issue as the constitution already kicks that one to the states. By law, some states let felons vote while other states only allow a first felonious strike before curtailing voting rights.
Hypothetical: A police officer recognizes "Jimmy" walking down the street. The officer knows Jimmy from the numerous times in the past he busted Jimmy for various violent felonies. The officer chats with Jimmy for a few minutes and learns that Jimmy has just been paroled from prison after serving time for several violent felonies.
The officer cannot now follow Jimmy home and proceed inside of Jimmy's home, absent a warrant and absent probable cause, to "just look around" since Jimmy is a convicted felon and now devoid of his Fourth Amendment rights. He still retains those.
Similarly the officer cannot seize Jimmy's printing press which he uses to exercise his First Amendment right in publishing "Convict Times".
Curtailing of Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of convicted felons does not appear to have any justification under the Constitution. Nevertheless, it does indeed give me considerable pause were the courts to declare convicted felons could own guns.
Never for a violent felon. With restrictions until proven reformed for non-violent felony. And, do away with all laws which prohibit, hinder, tax (fee), in other words, infringe, any citizen who has not committed a felony crime. If one has committed a murder with intent to kill, they should never be allowed back into society, let alone ever get a firearm.
I have been an advocate of such for a very long time, relying on a quote by one of our founders which stated "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," by T. Jefferson. George Washington made note of this, as well.
If not jailed, one is free. However, as I noted, no one who commits murder with intent should ever get out of jail, or be free, and they should certainly never be armed. However, in a free society, how is one to keep such from happening short of incarceration. Let me note that on an MSNBC show on prisons, when asked how many weapons they found in one prison, in one year, on the inmates, the guard said 13,0
I dont know what part of the Constitution you people seem to find limits in, because the Second Ammendment clearly states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say that if you got convicted of a crime you, as a citizen of this contry, lose that right once you serve your time. It does not say that if you have a mental disorder you as a citizen of this country lose that right. It does not say that any government or jurisdiction has the right to keep you from the tools needed to protect yourself and your family under any circumstanses If a violent felon commits a crime with a weapon chances are he wont make it to court, the morgue will handle the problem. Yes some people do have a problem with feeling the need to commit crime, and they should be punished for it. The three strikes rule would solve that problem real quickly if they make it that far. Life in prison for the commission of the third felony would make any person unable to use a weapon on society.
I would argue that firearms rights should never be abridged for those convicted of non-violent felonies, nor for any misdemeanor. As for those convicted of violent crimes, they either can or cannot be trusted to be responsible citizens. If they can, then the should have full rights and equality under the law. If they cannot, then society still has an interest in segregating them from "civil" society, in which case they should remain segregated, although not necessarily in a tiny cell.
A violent felon can harm someone with a gun or other weapon, regardless of any prohibition. For my money, when you are convicted of a violent crime, the fundamental freedom you should lose, forever, or until you can demonstrate reform, is easy access to more prey.
I've always thought this question was the Bill of Right's best kept secret and wondered if the issue at hand would ever see the light of day. Apparently, it just has. My view is this: If the Second Amendment has equal stature with all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights and we as a society have mandated that a person's conviction of a crime in no way jeopardizes his or her "self-evident" rights as an American citizen after they have "served their time" (as we have done), then it only follows that ex-cons have the right to keep and bear arms. To strip that fundamental right from an American citizen but not the others only serves to diminish its ranking with the others.
The only way "out" as I see it is to pass an amendment that allows for two classes of American citizenship: one for law-abiding Americans and one for Americans that commit felonies (or crimes that we as a society feel are particularly egregious). If you're a good American, you get to keep a gun. If you've prove
If you've proven that you can't be trusted with sharp, pointed things, well, then we are compelled to at least forbid you to have a gun.
What say you?
Dave,I don't think I've seen so many thoughtful, well reasoned out letters on a subject here or anywhere else, ever. You obviously hit a chord and brought out the thinkers in the crowd. Thanks again for another timely and wonderful article. I've thought for many years how unconstitutional the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights are. Many, many people have made serious mistakes in life especially when they were younger and stupider, yet, except for truly violent egregious crimes like murder, it always seemed wrong to me that a U.S. citizen should lose any of his Constitutioal rights forever. You and Barney Britt have made a case for how unfair losing them is also.
While a convincing argument can be made that a felon on parole can be denied a weapon, such an argument falls logically flat after their sentence is up. The punishment is done, over. If the right of self defense is absolutely fundamental (IMO even more so than free speech), depriving someone of that right for life, especially if their crime had nothing to do with guns, opens up other sections of the "right" to be applied to others for less viewed criminal offenses... like being a "town hall protester, or voting Republican.
Anytime someone attempts to circumscribe the right to self defense, simply apply the same argument to all the other rights enumerated in the Constitution and see how it sounds.
This is the sillines of NY & some other states. A guy commits a felony. After serving his time, never gets in trouble again. As time goes on-he gets a City job, buys a house,gets married, even is a responsible landlord,always pays his bills on time, doesn't drink/or do drugs, no methadone program, doesn't even know the idiots he used to hang out with in his youth.A complete changed person from his youth. 15, 20 yrs later--still an outstanding citizen--his son/or grandson wants to go to the range to shoot a 22 cal rifle. If the father/grandfather drives him there, puts the rifle in his car's trunk, takes a shot or 2 with the rifle, he can get thrown in jail for a felony. That is not fair. How would society be safer by throwing this guy in jail ?
When you get out of prison your guns should be handed back to you. If you can not be trusted with guns, you can not be trusted in polite society.
No problem with a two (violent) strikes law - 1st violent crime draws serious time (and when served you can have your guns back). A second violent crime should be death - Period.
Also, Go back to firing squads and carry it out quickly
If you are allowed to be amongst society, then you have full civil rights. If the law says you can't have weapons, then you need to be in jail, dead, or in a mental hospital. Felony checks gets the government's nose under the tent.I will not be happy until any adult can send in cash to a gun shop and have an imported sub machine gun delivered to his front door, with no government interference or "back ground" checks at all. Then we can rest for awhile.
Case in point, a person I know lived in upstate NY. He had a CCW for years after a background check. Because he had been dating a divorced woman her ex called and threatened his life, and told him when and where he was going to kill him. The guy was at work in his bar, the ex came in with a large knife and came over the bar. The attack was stopped when a 44 mag got emptied into the attacker by the owner. Only one shot would have been fatal, but not instantly. It became a crime was when the not dead attacker moved to reach for the knife, the owner reloaded and dumped 6 more into him. The state said the attack was over when they guy was on the floor bleeding and the man was convicted of manslaughter when he reloaded his weapon rather than leave the area,and he got 10-15 for it. He served his time, and cannot even own the business he used to own let alone a firearm of any kind. Is this what the Constitution calls justice? To me it was a violent crime prevented.
IMHO...if they can't be trusted to own a gun, they shouldn't be set free.
I think that once you have paid your debt to society, you should be forgiven and all rights returned to you.
The rights of a "free citizen" are (and should be) restricted while imprisoned or on probation for conviction of a crime against the society that he/she lives in. But when the sentence has been served, he is once again a free citizen and has all the rights of any other. Felons (who have served their sentence) do not lose the right of free speech, they do not lose the right of self-defense, nor any other right guaranteed to the people.
The "felon in possession" law is nothing more than gun control in disguise because it reduces the number of citizen who may lawfully "keep and bear arms". Remember that a "felony" is not a particular crime, it is a sentence.
How does this all work when rights restoration is NOT POSSIBLE at the federal level since anti-gunners in Congress de-funded taht section of the BATF?
Aren't they still going to get nailed on not having their federal rights restored when they go through NICS?
Have not seen this explained yet.
Thanks,
Buckshot
You're right. The gun banners have made it impossible to have gun rights restored through the BATFE even though that process was once in effect, proving that they don't really want anyone to own firearms ever, or ever again for former convicts.
So if it is the case that a person has been convicted of a crime, serves their sentence, has the totality of their ‘Rights’ restored;- ( in this instance including their ‘Right’ to ‘legally’ possess a firearm ) then through mere legislative action, without having been charged, tried and convicted of any other crime, the person is suddenly made into a criminal again for possessing what was already legally held?
This being the circumstance--that a person with all the ‘Rights’ of a Citizen is legislatively made into a criminal--then what exactly prohibits the legislature from enacting laws declaring every free Citizen who owns a firearm to be a criminal, exempting only those authorized by the State to ’legally’ possess one?
Horse hockey. All this "non-violent" bullshit as a prerequisite for restoring rights is just stupid. Either keep them in jail or make them whole. If you didn't meant that 10 years or 15 years or 2 years was the time for the crime, you shouldn't have said so.
This isn't about felons, convicts, or restoration of rights. This is about whether or not we have the guts to live what we claim to believe and to follow the constitution.
If we don't, let's just say so. Just say "We're too chickenshit to live as free men and we certainly don't want to take a chance that others might. Especially if they have already displayed less than docile behavior."
How brave do we have to be to only feel safe if we must assure ourselves that all around us are docile? To Hell with that, I vote for living like a man.
To pass a law that punishes Britt years after he committed his crimes is unconstitutional anyway . . . it is an "ex-post-facto" law and should be discarded on this basis for all felons who were sentenced prior to its passing. Second amendment advocates would do well to more fully understand the various constitutions in this country, including the federal Constitution, and understand how very many ways the "establishment" has ingnored/marginalized our rights away in more than the 2A arena.
I think Justice Edward Thomas Brady said it perfectly - "It is unreasonable to assert that a nonviolent citizen who has responsibly, safely, and legally owned and used firearms for seventeen years is in reality so dangerous that any possession at all of a firearm would pose a significant threat to public safety."
This person has paid his debt to society and should have all rights reinstated. Judging by his wisdom on the subject, I think that Justice Edward Thomas Brady should be considered for a supreme court nomination.
The answer is YES
Prior to the 68 GCA non-violent felons could buy guns through the mail without background checks or 4473 forms.
Prior to the 1930 uniform federal firearms act all person after they paid their debt to society could purchase and own firearms
What the once a felon always a felon interpretation has done is create a revolving criminal class of people that are unable to ever change or improve their lives.
At one time in this country if you paid your debt to society you had the right to reenter society as a free person; yet crime was low because many were able to through the stigma of their mistake.
The only people that should be disqualified to owning a firearm are those in prison and in a mental institution or those that are illegally in the USA.
Once a felon always a felon is know as the slave of the State and I do not support slavery
Dave reading some of the comments on this editorial of yours it looks like a lot of people don’t agree with the current law that created these disqualifiers; the 68 GCA
Will the SAF and the NRA start working to use the awakening in this country to RESTORE our rights!
Laws like the 68 GCA and Illinois FOID card are wrong so are the other 20,000 laws on the books.
Will you step up to the plate and encourage the NRA to stop making concession in the face of tyranny and encourage them to work for repeal of gun control laws?
Think Repeal, Demand Repeal!
We all need to get together and remind congress that the greatest gun control law has already been written. Failure to comply with it is an act of treason punishable by imprisonment and/or death in that it is a guarnteed law. That law is the Second Ammendment of the Constitution and every member of both houses, the president, the supream court justices and every person ever sworn into the military took an oath to defend that law and preserve its integredy. Those that took the oath and dont believe in it have commited purgery. Let us begin proscuting them.
I am a former felon. I was in law enforcement for over 13 years and I am a former NRA life member. I served 45 months in federal prison for a non-violent crime that I committed when I was 39. Why should my rights NOT be restored once I am off supervision? I served my time, was released on good time, and I am determined to be a law-abiding citizen once more. Many people don't understand that many people in my situation also have families. What about my wife's gun rights? What about my son's gun rights? We can't have any guns in the home while I am in this situation or I can do up to another 10 years for "constructive possession". Certainly some people should not have their gun rights restored, but most federal felons were convicted of non-violent drug crimes or some type of offense where there is no direct victim. I really don't believ that the Founding Fathers had it in mind to strip people of their rights forever for one life mistake.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!