Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights

[onehandle]

Source: New York Times

Decades of lobbying by pro-gun groups have loosened laws across the country, allowing thousands of felons each year to regain gun rights, often with little or no review.

In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr. Zettergren’s girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr. Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.

Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave. After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson’s hysterical fiancée, at gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river. It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a judge’s ruling two months before, it would probably never have happened.

For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous. Yet Mr. Zettergren’s gun rights were restored without even a hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application as long as certain basic requirements had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for safekeeping.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html

[Tejas]

1. NY hit piece on WA, how quaint.

Crucify the entire country on the actions of one individual, how stupid.

[primavera]

3. Read the article

"Yet Mr. Zettergren’s gun rights were restored without even a hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application as long as certain basic requirements had been met."

The incident described reflects the state of laws in Washington, not just an isolated anecdote.

[Tejas]

31. The article would have never been written

had that incident not occured.

[primavera]

34. a.) How do you know that to be true?

b.) Even if that were true, how, in your opinion, would the failure of media to report on a law which strips judges of discretion in such cases place the law beyond reproach?
c.) The incident in question did happen, so it's really kind of a moot point, isn't it?

[Tejas]

44. Uh...because the NYT hasn't ever published such an article before?

duh?

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Oh, there are many more examples than 'one individual'

Of course, that requires going beyond the opening paragraphs and actually reading the article.

[CreekDog]

10. "crucify" a law based on its consequences?

you doth protest too much.

[Tejas]

45. Yes, 3yrs in prison for lying comes to mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2319827


Convicted felon lies on app to get food stamps, gets 3 years in federal prison. It is an unjust law.

[russspeakeasy]

24. any reading classes available in your hometown ?

[DrDan]

2. I am quite sure there will be plenty of support for this bizarre practice in the gungeon

what a sad little country we are becoming

[primavera]

4. They'll just dismiss it as anecdotal

Anything that conflicts with their view that guns are wonderful gets written off as an isolated example, blown out of proportion by a media motivated by an agenda of persecuting gun-loving Americans for their freedoms, and in no way indicative of any systemic pattern. There appear to be no limits to this subjectivity of gun proponents' perceptions: they could be the last human beings living on a planet covered in bullet-riddled corpses, and they would still deny that guns had anything to do with it.

[DrDan]

8. there was a poll posted there a week ago or so - and there were several that supported

no restrictions on gun ownership.

NO RESTRICTIONS!!!

none on age
none on felons - even felonies using guns
none on mentally-challenged

NONE

[KamaAina]

29. Great. What the world needs is Fisher-Price's "My First 9mm".

:eyes:

[Cirque du So-What]

13. This'll probably get moved there anyway

where we'll be treated to musings over the 'idiot reporter' using a hyphen between 'Glock' and '17.'

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. This topic is already in the gun forum.

But it should be cross-posted in the Beer Forum. Should felons be allowed access to alcohol? None of this would have happened if they were sober.

The good news: These drunken morons made it home safely from the party without killing any innocents on the road.

:hi:

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Congratulations, NRA and useful idiots!

Your exuberant efforts at assuring that guns end up in the hands of as many people as possible - despite felony convictions and/or mental health problems - has resulted in situations like those described in this blurb and elsewhere in the NYT article. First and foremost, the NRA is the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, whose primary concern is their bottom line. They have no regard for where those guns end up; they only want to sell more firearms by hook or by crook - public safety be damned!

I grudgingly accept that the gun culture has made such inroads in this country that elimination is now impossible, although I feel it's an issue that's too important to be left up to the whims of individual states. Federal law prohibits gun ownership by all felons. Period. I believe that's too restrictive, as it makes no distinction between instances such as described above and someone convicted in a nonviolent drug-possession case. Perhaps the federal law needs to be amended in order that felons can regain their right to gun ownership - based, of course, upon individual circumstances - a law that supersedes all state laws.

[4dsc]

7. The should have their gun rights restored

if they meet the requirements to regain their rights. But here in Iowa, the governors office hasn't restored any felons right to bear arms for over 30 years. Its a travesty of justice.

[CreekDog]

11. gun advocacy is a religion now

the adherents do it so that gun companies can make more money.

kind of odd.

[Tejas]

32. ...and that pesky Bill of Rights.

[melm00se]

12. substitute voting rights for gun rights

and you would hear plenty of hallelujahs

[4dsc]

14. These are seperate issues

Ex-felons have to get their voting rights restored too. Its a separate issue from restoring gun rights.

[Cirque du So-What]

15. I'm much more likely to support restoration of voting rights

than gun rights - to the extent that I support restoration of voting rights after a felon has served time and any probation imposed universally. Gun rights, however, should remain subject to review and restored on a case-by-case basis.

[melm00se]

18. so you get to selectively

choose which rights are rights and can and cannot be restored.

hmmmmmm

[Cirque du So-What]

20. Rights are earned

and felons lose rights when they are convicted of crimes. To my way of thinking, additional criteria need to be imposed before allowing any & all felons to regain the right to own firearms, while restoring voting rights after time served is the right thing to do. Sorry, this all-or-nothing line of reasoning won't fly.

[24601]

33. Yes, felons can lose rights by their conduct. But rights, unlike

privileges - don't have to be earned. Otherwise they wouldn't be rights.

Otherwise, tell me the process and what I have to do to earn the right to live, move, vote, speak or pray, etc.

[Cirque du So-What]

38. Where legal rights are concerned, I disagree

And if any allusion to so-called 'natural rights' enters this conversation, I am sooo outta heah! The bronze-age sky daddy hasn't written on stone tablets for some time now. Lettuce examine each of the diverse rights you enumerate, as they're not identical.

For instance, I categorize 'right to live' as one of those 'inalienable rights' that cannot be (or is touted as unable to be) taken away. It doesn't spring from the laws of any specific civilization, and some cite it as having been handed down from God His Own Self. It's wrapped-up with morality in a nebulous sort of way, but I see little in the way of any civilization - from ancient Samaria onward - of civilizations practicing what they preach.

The 'right to move' is infringed upon every time a person is incarcerated in a jail or prison, and it continues for some convicted felons who have restrictions upon where they can live, where they can go, etc. It's part of the 'rehabilitation' (or 'punishment') process; ask any parolee with restrictions attached to where they can live and with whom they can associate (another myth of a 'right' - freedom of association - debunked...bonus!) if it's a right or a privilege, and you'll get something other than, 'I can go wherever the hell I damn well please whenever the fuck I like it!' Of course, technically, they *can* do whatever they like, but walking-around privileges will likely be revoked.

I have more of a problem when the 'right to vote' is revoked than I do with the 'right to bear arms' is revoked, as I consider voting one of those 'inalienable rights' that is inextricably tied to citizenship itself...although I recognize the right of the state (not individual states, but the federal government) to revoke voting rights to felons currently incarcerated or on probation. Once the sentence and probation have been served, however, I believe voting rights should be restored. No exceptions. The 'right to bear arms,' on the other hand, I believe should be contingent upon the felon having followed other basic rules of society, e.g., not assaulting, restraining anyone else, or stealing their property. If that's why they ended up in the can, then they must *prove* by their continued good behavior their intent to obey the basic rules of society. I believe the 'right to bear arms' should be restored on a case-by-case basis. I make a distinction between allowing someone convicted of 1st-degree murder to carry a gun again legally than for someone convicted of drug trafficking (weapons charges aside, of course) regaining the privilege to carry firearms.

The 'right to free speech' is so broad that I won't begin to tackle it in this post. Suffice to say, I believe the 'right to free speech' doesn't mean anyone can say whatever the hell they want to whenever and wherever they want, as I could cite any number of examples where it's against the law, hence, free speech is a privilege; saying illegal things has consequences. I will limit this to three examples:

1. The old chestnut, 'shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater.

2. Inciting others to riot through the use of language.

3. Lying under oath in court.

I suppose the 'right to pray' is the closest to a 'right' as opposed to a 'privilege' of anything you cited. Our society guarantees that nobody will be persecuted for praying to their heart's content to their deity, saint or demigod of choice. I won't tackle things like Fred Phelps' hate group protesting at funerals, as I consider that more of a 'free speech' issue than a 'right to pray' issue.

As I've demonstrated, not all rights derive from the same source, they are not 'guaranteed' and insofar some of them may be considered 'inalienable,' that's pretty much up to *us* to ensure that the people we place in positions of power in government obey the Constitution.

[24601]

40. I'm not trying to make this complicated - the concept really isn't..

Yes, for cause, you can lose rights that are otherwise guaranteed under the Constitution. I'm also not claiming that everything articulated is an absolute right - there limits.

But I am saying that rights don't have to be earned like privileges.

Let's take an easy one - no. let's take a complex one instead. You have the right to be free from unreasonable searches. And not only that, when a search requires a warrant (as many meet the reasonableness standard completely free of warrants) you have the right that the warrant shall be issued only after a judge accepts a showing of probable cause.

Easy right? Because I'd never define as reasonable as anything that's unreasonable. You have the right to trust me. But you also have the right to rely not on my definitions but to appeal reasonableness in the hope that a court will agree with you. Entire careers have been made in this one limited area of law - and it ultimately comes down to your right to try and convince 5 justices to take your case and convince them you are correct. Sometime you win and sometimes you don't but you have thy right to try, even if the courts rule you have no case and toss you out.

Yep, you can lose some of this right because the more you are in prison, the more reasonable it is to toss your cell on a regular basis. No warrant needed. You can cross the border into & out of the US with frequency and no warrant is needed for a visit to the Customs proctologist.

When you are busted, a search incident to arrest is reasonable and needs no warrant.

But if your asshole neighbor turns you in to the Secret Service for printing your own money, unless there exigent circumstances, you have the right to have the search warrant issued only after a judge is satisfied that there is probable cause. Not only that, if the probable cause doesn't hold up in court, resulting evidence may be excluded - even if they have you dead to rights.

Is it absolute? Absolutely not. Can it be forfeited? It sure can. But did you have to pass any test for this right? Did you have to prove that you earned it while another less worthy miscreant doesn't? Nope. That's what makes it a right.

But not only that, you have the right to waive the right and let the police search just based on your consent. But even that right's not absolute - for example if you are not competent to waive your rights. So you could be forced to accept your rights even when you don't want to.

Compare that to a privilege, like a driver's license - you have no right to one of those.

[unionworks]

43. rights are most certainly NOT EARNED

They are provided for in the bill of rights. Suggest you read it someday when you learn to read.

[Ter]

36. Not me

There's more of a Constitutional right to own a gun than to vote.

[Ikonoklast]

16. No one ever died by an ex-felon voting again.

People die when ex-felons shoot people again.

[CreekDog]

25. your post illustrates why the gun advocacy movement is morally bankrupt

and that has planted the seeds of its failure.

when your guns are ultimately restricted because you overreached so badly, you can lament your actions and their contribution to that.

:shrug:

[Chan790]

30. No, with a family full of felons...

I've seen all the proof I ever need that we should be making the restoration of voting rights to most felons impossible.

[madmax]

17. But not the right to vote. NT

[JNelson6563]

19. That really helps because they won't find jobs.

Can't stick up a store or be a tough guy on the streets without a gun. Without jobs that's the fallback. Once again, thank you GOP for keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.

Julie

[Iggo]

21. Why shouldn't my rights be restored?

I've completed my sentence.

[flamin lib]

22. Not a right, a religeon . . .

The NRA is my Shepherd; I shall not want.
It maketh me to buy more guns,
it leadeth me to hoard ammunition.
It reinforces my echo chamber:
It leadeth me in the paths of the Second amendment for its own sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Brady,
I will fear no gun control: For thou art with me;
Thy lobby and thy influence, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a concealed carry permit in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou annointest my guns with oil; My extended magazines are all full.

Surely situational awareness and a round in the chamber shall make me feel safe all the days of my life,
and I will finance the House of the NRA forever.

[AlbertCat]

23. A chicken and a gun in every pot!

America's gun cult is just embarrassing.... and dangerous.

[willhe]

26. Gun yes Vote no

only in america only in america

[Comatose Sphagetti]

27. My First DU Post

I find the title of this article disheartening. I see, yet
again, the tactic of associating people with felony
convictions, i.e., "those people," with some
cause/ideology in an attempt to render that cause/ideology
suspect.
This subject is personal to me...
Years ago I had a problem with alcohol and as a result had two
felony DUI convictions. Thankfully, there was never any injury
or property damage. As a direct result of treatment for
alcoholism I have lived a life alcohol-free for nearly ten
years and, in this time, I have dedicated a great deal of my
life to helping others recover. Yet, despite demonstrated and
documented rehabilitation, the stigma/punishment continues in
the form of denied jobs, health and house insurance and the
ability to obtain loans. Countless others can relate similar
stories. 
Infinite punishment for finite transgressions is wrong.
Socially acceptable prejudice, self-righteousness,
discrimination and bigotry against those with felony
convictions renders hard-won amends/restitution/rehabilitation
moot. And using people - many who are years or decades
rehabilitated/removed from criminal behavior - for the purpose
of discrediting any cause is unjust.

Thanks for letting me rant.
Non Sum Qualis Eram  

[Iggo]

28. Amen.

And welcome tu DU.
:hi:

[primavera]

35. Welcome to DU

:hi:

I think the discussion above sheds a lot of light on your concern. Most here, I suspect, would agree with you that a bona fide right, i.e., a thing to which a person is entitled simply by virtue of breathing, should be restored to a rehabilitated felon as quickly as possible. Anything less is, as you suggest, duplicate punishment. I think what you're seeing here though is some serious doubt as to whether or not gun ownership may be considered a right in that fundamental sense. Traditionally, throughout our legal history, gun ownership has been tied to membership in an organized and regulated militia. In other words, it hasn't been an absolute right to which anyone and everyone is automatically entitled. In that sense, it's been more like a privilege, like driving or practicing a profession or any of the other things for which licensure is required. A privilege, unlike a right, can be revoked until such time as the person can demonstrate their trustworthiness to exercise that privilege again. Of course, nowadays, because five rabidly right-wing judges recently opined that the militia language was just some stoned hallucination the founding fathers had while smoking crack and they didn't really mean it, the law of the land is that guns are a universal right and not a privilege. Gun advocate DUers who have historically and rightly despised these same five nazi judges are now their biggest fans and believe them incapable of erring because, on this issue, the barking mad five's error coincides with their own wishful thinking. Not all of us are as clouded in our judgment and believe that it should take more than five escaped mental patients' opinions to change centuries of legal precedent and re-write the constitution. In sum, I don't think anyone here is eager to engage in duplicate punishment, but many of us feel that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a freebie right.

[No Joe]

37. Gawwwwwwwwwd Bless Uhmerka!

:sarcasm:

[a_post_8]

39. Larger issues to consider... Self defense, personal sovereignty

Government exists for mutual protection from our own worst natures.

But government cannot guarantee protection - nor would we want it to - as we are part of that collective government.

Sometimes you have to be able to defend your own person. No "agent" is available.

Example 1: Disasters
Consider the snowstorm in Connecticut a couple of weeks ago. When you have a mass disaster - and first responders have to triage responses - you are on your own.

Example 2: Rural Areas
Further, in many rural areas this is a constant state. The few responders available may be 30 minutes away.

Example 3: Syria
No one who sees the ease with which armed governments willingly mow down their own unarmed citizens would give up the means to defend themselves. Even a fantastically sophisticated military machine cannot occupy and effectively police areas where most inhabitants have small arms and ammunition.

Liberty has cost. Felons who have paid their debt should be restored as citizens - with access to passports, voting, etc. We will have tragedies as a result of this. Yet, the people who established these rights were aware of the cost - and unlike us - had in their personal living memory the greater cost of collective and individual loss of personal sovereignty.

[jpak]

41. Proving once again that guns are the answer - and gun nuttery rules

yup

[a_post_8]

42. Do you think people living in isolated areas...

Hi Jpak

I am interested in your thoughts.

Of the three examples I offered, do you reject all of them?

What happens to the necessary sovereignty of individuals in a democracy when they are required to wait for their "state agents" to appear to ensure their safety and rights?

Are we not all sovereign "agents" of a democratic state with agency to protect ourselves and each other?

By definition, if I am in a position where my life is threatened by another, my contract with my fellow citizens - the contract that establishes the legitimacy of the state - has been breached. In that situation, a person's individual sovereignty reverts back to them from the mutually formed collective sovereignty.

This argument refers back to the enlightenment discussions that radically asserted the rights of the individual, wresting them from the false "holy sovereignty" of the "state"...