I'll be honest, I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms in the first place. I think the right itself as part of self-defense is pretty clear and self-evident. I also don't like secondary crimes in general.

Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. etc.

If you are such a danger to society that you shouldn't be allowed to be armed in case of defense, then you probably shouldn't be in society and remain locked up. That's just my take on it. I feel similarly on taking away voting rights after prison as well. I may not like how you vote, but I'm just not a fan of taking away people's rights outside prison/jail.

▲

jfengel 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I agree about the guns. The second amendment doesn't say "except felons". It says "shall not be infringed".

Possibly, if there are enough armed felons running about, we might be able to get both sides to the table and admit that maybe there should be some limits. Until then it does us no good to exclude some groups just because we don't like them, while still enduring school shootings.

▲

bb88 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here's an interesting story about a non-violent felon becoming violent in my city. Not all felons are this way, but this one was.

Oh and yeah, people are allowed to open carry guns in the statehouse here.

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/boise-mall-shooter-d...

	▲	Brian_K_White 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not interesting because it's not representative. Pair this with some stat that shows it happens the same way most of the time and then it's interesting.

▲

mat_b an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad.

Why would either of those be double-bad? They're the same thing as the original.

If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and you like to risk your own life, then that's on you. Just like riding a motorcycle.

▲

WillAdams 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Too expensive/punitive, and note that there is an option to be restored to full citizenship after time served/restitution is made.

My take on it is that if your judgement is so twisted that you are able to commit a felony and not be able to successfully petition for rights restoration, then you are not suited to deciding by whom the country should be governed.

▲

c22 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I haven't had my firearm rights restored since I caught my (non-violent, bullied into a plea deal) felony over 20 years ago because I have not yet managed to fully pay restitution to a large insurance company. Despite having paid more than the original judgement, interest is a killer and my current balance stands at over $130k (original judgement for $33k).

▲

cbdevidal 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s political theater. Not intended to actually accomplish much except “See!? We did something! Now vote for us again.”

Meanwhile, open source printers can and will just bypass it.

	▲	WillAdams 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Doesn't the law include that devices which fail to implement such checks are barred from sale? >In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor. The inobvious thing is that that aspect of the law cannot be applied to felons or persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, since like failing to pay the tax stamp on a Class-III firearm or accessory, it would require self-incrimination, which thus far, is still illegal.

▲

tracker1 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Have you actually looked into what it takes to restore full citizenship in many places? In some locations it means having to get the Governor to act on your behalf. Imagine what it would take to even get in contact with the Governor of a largely populated state, let alone trying to convince them that you should have your rights restored.

Your judgement is twisted if you think that's a reasonable expectation for anyone who has served their time.

▲

WillAdams 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes, I have experience of this, having known a person for decades who has done this --- if a person can't manage it, they shouldn't be voting, and they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as I reasoned/rationalized above.

Just to confirm your meaning --- if a person has demonstrated such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony, and then cannot trouble themselves to then recant this judgement and argue that they are now capable of making responsible decisions, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms despite not being willing to make an effort to state that their character has changed?

	▲	c22 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You should consider that this process varies wildly in different locales and sometimes even case by case.