Utah Guns Forum banner

RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS FOR NONVIOLENT FELONS

8K views 31 replies 17 participants last post by  David Nelson 
#1 ·
HB 75 - Rep Oda

Summary: This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
I would love to see this pass. Allowing felons with non-violent pasts to regain some of their rights. Would only be the case inside the state but defiantly a step in the right direction.

Contact your representatives in support if you agree with it.

Link
 
#2 ·
Snaggle said:
HB 75 - Rep Oda

Summary: This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
I would love to see this pass. Allowing felons with non-violent pasts to regain some of their rights. Would only be the case inside the state but defiantly definitely a step in the right direction.

Contact your representatives in support if you agree with it.

Link
There ya go. :D
 
#6 ·
Snurd said:
Snaggle said:
HB 75 - Rep Oda

Summary: This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
I would love to see this pass. Allowing felons with non-violent pasts to regain some of their rights. Would only be the case inside the state but defiantly definitely a step in the right direction.

Contact your representatives in support if you agree with it.

Link
There ya go. :D
Grrrr. Crazy iphone auto-correct. Thanks for the korektion!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#7 ·
Snaggle said:
Snurd said:
Snaggle said:
HB 75 - Rep Oda

Summary: This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
I would love to see this pass. Allowing felons with non-violent pasts to regain some of their rights. Would only be the case inside the state but defiantly definitely a step in the right direction.

Contact your representatives in support if you agree with it.

Link
There ya go. :D
Grrrr. Crazy iphone auto-correct. Thanks for the korektion!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know, your word might have been better.

(Sent from iSnurd)
 
#10 ·
MichaelD said:
I would prefer to have certain nonviolent felonies simply reclassified as misdemeanors. IMO, 'felony' is highly overused.
In certain cases, that would make sense.

But remember that one of the legally defining characteristics of "felony" is that jail time of more than 1 year is (or can be?) imposed as punishment. We could have a great philosophical debate about whether long jail/prison sentences are a better or worse way to punish criminals and then convince them not to reoffend and encourage others to avoid first offenses, vs the Swiss model of much shorter sentences. But within the context of our current society, there are plenty of non-violent crimes that I believe deserve more than a year in jail. For example, how many life savings and retirements does a man have to defraud away from his victims before he draws more than 1 year in jail?

That doesn't mean the man should lose is RKBA for life. My goodness we might as well revoke his driver license for life because of white collar crime as revoke his RKBA for life.

On the flip side, the anti's have managed to revoke RKBA for certain violent misdemeanors: namely domestic violence misdemeanors. And while I don't think any misdemeanor should result in lifetime loss of rights, so long as the standard has been established that it is violence we are concerned about, we ought to use that to our advantage to push back on lifetime loss or RKBA for non-violent felonies.

Charles
 
#11 ·
This sounds like a great idea to me.

However, I wonder how far it can go. I'm feeling too lazy at the moment to check the federal statutes, but I seem to recall that there are federal provisions banning transfer to or maybe even possession by felons as well, and the state can't override federal law. Though I suppose they can try and then fight the constitutional battle.

Has anyone looked into the federal aspect?
 
#12 ·
18 U.S. Code I 44 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person-
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
The federal Law doesn't specify Felony, it's any crime punishable for a term exceeding one year. (I know that is a big part of the definition of a Felony) And I see nothing that allows a state to waive that.

Further I jumped to Section II of Title 18, criminal procedures, and read through the sentencing specifications and felony classifications and saw nothing about any ability to simply waive a conviction. Simply put, looking through the areas of the federal code I know to look at, it looks like the only way to restore that right is a pardon (I know there is another way, also done on a case by case basis, but am not sure where to look for that.)

So if this does pass it's just setting people up for Federal problems or for another State vs Fed battle.

Okay, kept looking and duh, found this in Title 18 I 44 925:
(c) A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.
Personal appeal filed with the AG's office. Not sure a State can do a blanket relief. Though if they could convince the AG to accept it, then it would likely be valid.
That changes my interpretation a bit. IF this passes and the state can convince the US Attorney General (Holder) to sign off on it then it would work. But would a one time sign-off work or would they need to convince every AG to approve it. Or if Holder refuses, could we keep it on the books until a Republican AG is in office and is willing to sign off on it. But any future AG could have the ability to revoke said approval.
 
#13 ·
This is one that I do not agree with. It is well known that if a person doesn't follow rules/policies/laws, there are consequences for those actions.

If a person drives drunk, they know that if they are caught, it's possible their license will be suspended/revoked, meaning they can't drive. That is a consequence of their actions.

If a man hits his wife during a heated argument and she calls the police, he will be going to jail for domestic violence and will probably be court ordered to go through some kind of anger therapy course. That is a consequence of his actions.

A white collar criminal defrauds people $200,000. He/she knows what he is doing is against the law. Based on the amount of money that he gained during his fraud scheme, he goes to jail for more than year. He also pays fines, does community service, and loses the RKABA. Those are all consequences of his actions.

It's not a big secret that those that commit felonies lose their RKABA. It is a well known fact and consequence of their actions. I feel that those who knowingly and willfully broke laws to such an extent as a felony should not have these rights restored simply because their offense was non violent. They have already displayed blatant disrespect for the law, I can't say I would trust them to follow laws on firearms.

Just another day in paradise.
 
#14 ·
Wrangler_dave9 said:
This is one that I do not agree with. It is well known that if a person doesn't follow rules/policies/laws, there are consequences for those actions.

If a person drives drunk, they know that if they are caught, it's possible their license will be suspended/revoked, meaning they can't drive. That is a consequence of their actions.

If a man hits his wife during a heated argument and she calls the police, he will be going to jail for domestic violence and will probably be court ordered to go through some kind of anger therapy course. That is a consequence of his actions.

A white collar criminal defrauds people $200,000. He/she knows what he is doing is against the law. Based on the amount of money that he gained during his fraud scheme, he goes to jail for more than year. He also pays fines, does community service, and loses the RKABA. Those are all consequences of his actions.

It's not a big secret that those that commit felonies lose their RKABA. It is a well known fact and consequence of their actions. I feel that those who knowingly and willfully broke laws to such an extent as a felony should not have these rights restored simply because their offense was non violent. They have already displayed blatant disrespect for the law, I can't say I would trust them to follow laws on firearms.

Just another day in paradise.
That makes RKBA sound like a reward for staying good. RKBA is a specifically enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. Why do they lose RKBA, but not speech, petition, religion, etc? Why do they not lose the 4th? 5th?

(Sorry for those that missed my reply. Seems I hosed up WHERE my reply went!)
 
#17 ·
brainoncapitalist said:
He responded. He just put his response within the quote section.
Ah... now that I re-read it, you're right (UtahJarhead's comment in bold for others who might have missed it):

UtahJarhead said:
Wrangler_dave9 said:
This is one that I do not agree with. It is well known that if a person doesn't follow rules/policies/laws, there are consequences for those actions.

If a person drives drunk, they know that if they are caught, it's possible their license will be suspended/revoked, meaning they can't drive. That is a consequence of their actions.

If a man hits his wife during a heated argument and she calls the police, he will be going to jail for domestic violence and will probably be court ordered to go through some kind of anger therapy course. That is a consequence of his actions.

A white collar criminal defrauds people $200,000. He/she knows what he is doing is against the law. Based on the amount of money that he gained during his fraud scheme, he goes to jail for more than year. He also pays fines, does community service, and loses the RKABA. Those are all consequences of his actions.

It's not a big secret that those that commit felonies lose their RKABA. It is a well known fact and consequence of their actions. I feel that those who knowingly and willfully broke laws to such an extent as a felony should not have these rights restored simply because their offense was non violent. They have already displayed blatant disrespect for the law, I can't say I would trust them to follow laws on firearms.
That makes RKBA sound like a reward for staying good. RKBA is a specifically enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. Why do they lose RKBA, but not speech, petition, religion, etc? Why do they not lose the 4th? 5th?

Just another day in paradise.
 
#19 ·
UtahJarhead said:
That makes RKBA sound like a reward for staying good. RKBA is a specifically enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. Why do they lose RKBA, but not speech, petition, religion, etc? Why do they not lose the 4th? 5th?
+1 to Jarhead.

The ability to defend one's life (and the life of their family or loved ones) is a natural, God-given right -- as are the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It can not be taken away by the laws of man.

To use Charles' oft-spoken meme: If we don't trust the offending individual with all of their rights, why are they out of prison in the first place?
 
#20 ·
Wrangler_dave9 said:
This is one that I do not agree with. It is well known that if a person doesn't follow rules/policies/laws, there are consequences for those actions.
The question is whether the consequences are just and appropriate. I just returned from a nation where the rules/policies/laws impose some rather severe consequences for crimes, including for conduct that most here would not consider crimes.

How many here would really support amputating a person's right hand for petty theft? Granted, generally uniform application of this consequence is highly effective at discouraging theft. And it is nice to visit a society where theft is all but unheard of. That same nation will arrest you for kissing your wife in public. While they are not actively kicking down doors, If by some chance they discover you, they will put you in jail for having sex with anyone who isn't your legal spouse. I don't even want to think about what they do for homosexual sexual conduct.

Different nation, different set of rules, and I'm a big proponent of "good fences making good neighbors." I also have enough respect for self determination and other cultures' values that I'd not suggest we try to impose our values on that particular nation. I mention it to point out that just because something is in law today, doesn't mean it is just or proper.

Remember, the lifetime loss of rights for "felonies" was not part of national law until the mid-60s. I object to it is an fundamentally unjust and a rejection of the very notions of redemption/repentance/rehabilitation that are suppose to under-gird not only our criminal justice system, but also much of our entire society. In this nation, we are not defined by our parents or their mistakes. Neither should a man be left without chance for redemption for any but the very most serious of offenses. Beyond this fundamental, philosophical objection to lifetime loss of rights, I also note that in the time since lifetime loss of RKBA was imposed for "felonies", the list of crimes drawing felony level penalties have increased dramatically. When one considers literally reams of obscure environmental laws, tax laws, and guns & explosive laws, the odds are good that most people have committed at least one felony at some point in their life, if not far more often.

At both the practical and philosophical level, if a man can't be trusted to own a firearm--to exercise a fundamental, natural, God-given right--then how on earth can he be trusted to walk the streets of civilized society unsupervised? Or, alternatively, if a man can be trusted to walk our streets unsupervised, by what just standard do we claim he is not trustworthy to exercise all of his other rights including the right to an effective self defense?

Charles
 
#21 ·
This bill has been substituted (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0075.html) to provide that:

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

This bill:
. exempts persons convicted of certain nonviolent felonies and who have had felonies expunged from the categories of restricted persons prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
 
#22 ·
David Nelson said:
This bill has been substituted (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0075.html) to provide that:

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

This bill:
. exempts persons convicted of certain nonviolent felonies and who have had felonies expunged from the categories of restricted persons prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
So I guess I don't understand. Isn't it already the case that if you had been convicted of a felony but after so many years you apply and recieve an expungement, that your RKBA is returned? Or even with an expungement of a felony you are still considered a restricted person?
 
#23 ·
Photocell said:
David Nelson said:
This bill has been substituted (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0075.html) to provide that:

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

This bill:
. exempts persons convicted of certain nonviolent felonies and who have had felonies expunged from the categories of restricted persons prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
So I guess I don't understand. Isn't it already the case that if you had been convicted of a felony but after so many years you apply and recieve an expungement, that your RKBA is returned? Or even with an expungement of a felony you are still considered a restricted person?
Some states don't ever let you get an expungement. If you were young and pleaded guilty to something on some advice in a state like that, it will always be on your record.
 
#24 ·
While a state may provide a pathway to the restoration of Second Amendment rights, the federal prohibition remains in effect and BATF funding bills specifically prohibit the agency from considering applications for relief from federal firearms restrictions.

Q: How can a person apply for relief from Federal firearms disabilities?

Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general ... rms-relief
 
#25 ·
Man, I already didn't have much respect for BATFE and how they run things, but they really did a number with the appropriations. Locked that up tight, so even if your record gets expunged, you have like zero chance of having your RKBA restored. Nice. :disgusted:
 
#26 ·
Sorry but it is Congress that is blocking federal restoration of firearms rights by prohibiting the BATF from using a single cent of its funding to process applications for restoration. As I recall, anti-RKBA Senators and Representatives support this backdoor denial of rights and the opposition party chooses not to make an issue of it, therefore all are guilty of this circumvention of due process.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top