Friendly Felon Furnished with Firearms

Print This Post

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Mike says:

    It always cracks me up with judges complain about being forced to exercise their judgement!

  2. Jdog says:

    Yup, to all that. If we really mean that felons, having "paid their debt to society" should be restored their rights, how could it possibly make sense to exclude the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection? I can see that for some exceptional cases — people who have demonstrated a longstanding pattern of bad behavior — the felony conviction could be used as a reasonable wedge in between them and their rights, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    I've been long of the opinion that: IF certain criminal's individual circumstances are such that loss of certain rights (voting, self-defense, not being on the sexual offenders list) are required FOR THAT CRIMINAL it should be part of their individual sentence. IE – for a criminal convicted of violent rape with a firearm, his sentence is 30 years in prison, after which he in listed on the sexual offender list for 10 years and prohibited from posessing a firearm for the same length of time. (Numebrs made up).

    For someone convicted of, say, felony manslaughter (is there such a thing?) would serve his time but not necessarily be sentenced to the prohibition against firearms ownership afterwards.

    AFAIK drunk drivers are still generally allowed to own an automobile and can be licensed to operate such after their sentences are up, no?

  1. September 7, 2009

    […] last week, Patrick over at Popehat posted an interesting entry about the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Britt v. State. The short version is that Britt was convicted of quaalude possession (a felony) in the 1970s, sued […]