Hacker News Reader

Comment by tracker1 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

It does mention "a well-regulated militia" though, and oddly legal gun owners don't belong to one of those.

The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right.

The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this.

The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.

I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.

"Well-regulated" in the context of 18th Century American English refers to the object's character, not to a system of regulations.

You might say that a farmer runs a "well-regulated farm" because things run smoothly. Or that the windmill was a "well-regulated machine."

In 1700s terminology, the process of regulating (training) the militia has to take place after first gathering the 'irregular' militia, whose members bring their own weapons. This was established even in colonial times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Ca... You'll recall the Baker Street Irregulars, and Paul Revere's "You know the rest, in the books you have read, how the British Regulars fired and fled." The 2A's 'Arms' also covers non-gunpowder weapons. The right of the People to keep arms comes prior to issues related to their use.

The "well-regulated militia" bit is given as the rationale behind the amendment. That does not therefore mean that the right codified by the amendment only applies to those who are a part of a militia.

According to the first militia act, which defines the militia ss every able bodied male over 18... everyone is required to own a firearm... yeah, it's a musket, but it was the most common weapon of the time, today it would likely be a 9mm handgun and an AR-15.

It would also mean having regular meetups in your community to discuss any coordination necessary in times of emergency... Where to show up with your gun(s), who is in charge, who to communicate with, etc.

I'd be a proponent of returning to this norm.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

You should consider that this process varies wildly in different locales and sometimes even case by case.

"such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony"

I think we know all we need to know.

So because someone gets railroaded into a plea deal that includes a felony, they should never be able to vote or protect themselves again unless they can form the connections and/or the ultra-wealth to coopt a seated governor of that state?

I'd be more inclined to see an English language and American history/civics test as a requirement to vote. Not that I'm advocating for this, but it would be just as justified by your logic.

If you've served your time, you've served your time... I wouldn't even mind a reasonable parole term (something up to even a decade) after release... but at least some limit on the restriction(s). I'm also opposed to private prisons for similar reasons... you shouldn't incentivize restricting/removing people's rights. If you're too much of a danger to society, you should remain locked up.

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).

I feel like there is important context missing here. I don't think not paying insurance is a felony (if it is, I think it should be changed)

No, but the felony involved damage to property and so there was a civil penalty involved and where I live my criminal status is linked to whether or not I've paid that off. They did restore my voting rights after my parole was up, though, and I don't care to own a gun, so I've made peace with the situation.

I was trying to get ahead of the debt for awhile but I realized that's a sucker's game and now I just pay the minimum that keeps them from confiscating parts of my paycheck or other assets.

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...

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.

It is representative because people died.

People die everywhere, at all times, doing everything. "people died" does not make an event interesting.

"People lived" during the same event. In fact even more people lived. Was that interesting?

If you lost someone, you might feel differently. And the people that lived that day, almost most certainly don't want to die like that.

That's the problem with those style of arguments. As logical as you want them to be, it doesn't remove the trauma burned into the psyche of the people who lived that day.

If you deny someone's humanity in your argument, you've lost.

> 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.

They said exactly that they do not think these are double bad.

They are presenting them as examples of things that a lot of people do say, and many laws are written this way, and many cops, prosecutors, & judges treat them as double bad.

Speeding without a seatbelt is two separate infractions so it should be double bad. Just like robbing a bank and shooting someone is double bad compared to either individually.

And intentional killing is generally considered worse because it means you thought about it and then did it, vs when it's due to acute emotional disorder. Intentional crimes are usually treated more harshly

I'm not talking about two crimes together... I'm talking specifically about changing the punishment based on intent or secondary effects.

Owning a gun is legal, but if you've ever smoked weed it's illegal for you... murder is bad, but if it's because you hate a protected group it's a much harsher punishment... in some places, you can't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, but you can be charged with it if you're pulled over for anything else. It's just to attach additional charges for prosecution.

I don't like the idea of excessive charges as part of the prosecution process in general. It creates/extends what I consider an unfair asymmetry between the state (prosecution) and the individual. That's not to say there aren't similar examples in the other direction, such as a clerical error resulting in dismissed charges altogether.

> I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms

That’s valid. But if we literally can’t keep them from having guns, I’d want longer sentences for violent crimes and a default of life for gun crimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com