Non-violent offenders should also get back the ability to own guns after jail, too.
You think I am joking. I am not.
sue, this is ridiculous and exactly what the 8th amendment was for, to protect against forcing people to pay for their rights
I only think you're joking because it's a good idea that makes logical sense.
i think you need to stop assuming what i'm thinking because this is the second time now
Honestly kinda expected someone to go "Well gee, I don't know about that - guns are dangerous!". The logic is really as such: If you're a convict, then yes, certain rights should be nullified until your sentence is up. When you get out then there's really no reason to keep you de-personed anymore. I can see firearms being barred for violent offenders (although I still fundamentally disagree with that idea...) but nonviolent ones? Shit man, as an ex-con things are going to be tricky enough for you as-is
Ex felons or not, nobody should be denied the right to vote in a democracy.
ya when bernie was on fox he really laid bare the disturbing trend to demonize prisoners. He opposes stripping them of their rights not because they're prisoners, he opposes stripping them of their rights because those rights are said to be inalienable, and to strip anyone of their rights for any reason is to be abhorred
The only reason someone should be barred from owning firearms following commission of a crime is if the crime they are convicted of is a violent one. Only felons who are more likely to shoot someone than a non-felon.
I'm in agreement with this with certain specific reservations.
For example, I think we can all agree that felony perjury is by itself a non-violent crime. You didn't rob a bank, you didn't shoot someone, you didn't rape someone, you didn't drive a car in a threatening or destructive way. You lied to the police or a judge.
Someone who lies to the police or a judge accidentally because they were badly informed by their defender or were ignorant of a particular piece of information's relevance to an officer/judge question, not because they were deliberately trying to withhold information and get away with something, is still guilty of perjury because ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think that someone who is convicted of perjury because of something like this should have their voting and gun rights restored after they have served their time and have begun reentering society.
But someone whose perjury charge stems from lying about getting a little too uncomfortably close to building a bomb after browsing extremist bomb-making info online (let's assume there wasn't enough to convict them on conspiracy to commit terrorism charges so they settled for a lie to cops to pin a technicality for what they know was going on), yeah no we need to have a different conversation about restoring this person's gun rights over their perjury case.
I support restoring voting and gun rights to rehabilitated post-release felons who did not become a felon for posing a threat to public safety and order. We can split hairs over whether "non-violent" adequately covers this definition but I hope my intentions are clear. If Americans are going to have gun rights why the hell can the government effortlessly and permanently remove them because someone got nailed for lying over a parking ticket because they misremembered something that happened 4 months earlier while giving sworn testimony.
I don't think people serving a sentence should have the right to vote. They lost their freedoms and privileges. But once they're out, having served their sentence, they should absolutely have their right to vote reinstated
What imminent societal threat does their voting pose, such that it is necessary to revoke their right to vote?
The only thing stripping prisoner voting rights does is add another tool for voter surpression, it never was and never will be a good idea.
they might vote to legalize murder and crime
or something, idk
yes, some people think like this though it's always totally in bad faith
My dad got nabbed at 17 for joy riding his neighbor's horse, it was considered grand theft since the horse was over $500.
Felony theft on his record.
Isn't this literally a poll tax which is illegal under the 24th amendment
The author of the ballot amendment said that paying court fees was part of the intention of the amendment so it will likely be held up in court
All this is doing is giving rich felons the right to vote without giving poor felons the right to vote. It's literally a poll tax and it's anti-democratic horseshit.
then they'll just increase the sentence length
If our prison system actually did what it was supposed to, Rehabilitation instead of punishment (funny I know). Then there shouldn't be a question of giving ex-felon's the right to vote.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.