• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man arrested after firing gun at home burglary suspect

Should the law protect felons defending themselves?


  • Total voters
    16

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Man arrested after firing gun at home burglary suspect
The armed and masked suspect fled the scene
Published On: Aug 29 2013 03:29:13 PM CDT Updated On: Aug 29 2013 05:39:47 PM CDT

home-invastion-829.jpg


A man was arrested after firing a gun at a home burglar in southwest Houston.

Houston police said shots were fired Thursday afternoon at a home in the 4900 block of N. Cancun. Police said an armed suspect entered the house and a man inside grabbed his gun and fired at the suspect after the suspect started shooting. Officials said the suspect ran out of the house and jumped in a Ford F-150 pickup that was waiting for him outside. Police said the suspect was wearing a mask or scarf to conceal his face during the incident.

The man inside the home was arrested by Houston police because was a felon in possession of a weapon.
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?

*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.

This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.

A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
 
Last edited:

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I agree with Fisher. If he wanted to keep his right to own a firearm, he should have stayed away from felonies. I'm all for removing that right on felons because they do tend to repeat their offenses and the right is only removed after they are positively proven to have committed a serious crime.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
Using the utility access across the dividing median on a freeway to make a u-turn is a felony. Why do you assume the original crime was violent at all? Making an illegal u-turn hardly justifies losing your right to vote or own guns for life.

The thing is, after serving years for making an illegal u-turn, that felon can still get a driver's license and a car. Restricting the right to vote or own a gun is cruel and unusual punishment for an illegal u-turn. Instead, ban that person from the privilege of driving.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,734
Reaction score
37,891
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
What if the felony was a DWI (2nd offense), attack on an assistance animal, bigamy, alcohol in a dry zone (2nd offense), bingo fraud, practice chiropracty w/o license, selling untaxed cigarettes, failure to pay child support, delivering marijuana > 1/4 oz. or tax evasion?
 

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.

If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,734
Reaction score
37,891
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.

If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....
I would take that one step farther. If you are sentenced to X years for any felony, then after twice that (2X years) time your "debt to society" is paid. That way any felony committed at age 18, that resulted in a 3 year sentence means that your full constitutional rights (gun, voting and ect.) are fully restored at age 24 (even if you only had to serve 19 months in jail/prison).
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?

*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.

This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.

A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
Nevermind, I read it wrong, I thought this meant a felon defending himself during commission of his own crime. Once someone has satisfied a sentence they are a former felon, so yes they do deserve their rights restored.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,235
Reaction score
4,863
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?

*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.

This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.
I agree with you. If he's safe enough to interact with the general population again, then he's safe enough to own a gun.

The problem is that isn't necessarily the case. There is no attempt made to determine whether he's safe to interact with the general population again. He's simply released after an arbitrary length of time.

For this to actually work, major reforms of the prison system would need to be made first. Until they are, it's better if felons aren't allowed to own guns.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree with Fisher. If he wanted to keep his right to own a firearm, he should have stayed away from felonies. I'm all for removing that right on felons because they do tend to repeat their offenses and the right is only removed after they are positively proven to have committed a serious crime.
Well, you have to differentiate between violent and nonviolent felonies. And realistically if someone is violent, they should be in prison until they show they have changed that aspect.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Using the utility access across the dividing median on a freeway to make a u-turn is a felony. Why do you assume the original crime was violent at all? Making an illegal u-turn hardly justifies losing your right to vote or own guns for life.

The thing is, after serving years for making an illegal u-turn, that felon can still get a driver's license and a car. Restricting the right to vote or own a gun is cruel and unusual punishment for an illegal u-turn. Instead, ban that person from the privilege of driving.
It is neither cruel nor unusual :2wave:
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.

If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....[/QUOTE

My state has a process for people to get their rights back. Until one has availed themselves of the process, they are committing an additional felony by possessing a firearm. The feds, however, do not recognize restorations, but as long as you stay out of their crosshairs, you would be fine.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What if the felony was a DWI (2nd offense), attack on an assistance animal, bigamy, alcohol in a dry zone (2nd offense), bingo fraud, practice chiropracty w/o license, selling untaxed cigarettes, failure to pay child support, delivering marijuana > 1/4 oz. or tax evasion?[/QUOTE

Doesn't matter. Avail yourself of the restoration process or pay the price for your additional possession felony.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,507
Reaction score
16,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?

*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.

This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.

A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
Once you been deemed safe enough to be released in the general public after serving your sentence your right to keep and bear arms should be reinstated. So yes the law should protect felons defending themselves.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,375
Reaction score
27,505
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
So do you believe that felons shouldn't have the right to free speech, religion, a trial, or any of the other constitutionally protected rights? Why would you support removing their constitutional right to a firearm? Especially if their crime wasn't of a violent nature.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.

If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....[/QUOTE

My state has a process for people to get their rights back. Until one has availed themselves of the process, they are committing an additional felony by possessing a firearm. The feds, however, do not recognize restorations, but as long as you stay out of their crosshairs, you would be fine.
That special process is called parole. Once your time is up, that's it, the state needs to back off. I thought it would be common sense that your rights should automaticaly be protected, that there shouldn't be any other "special process" other than the normal process of being discharged from the Department of Corrections.
 
Last edited:

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My state has a process for people to get their rights back. Until one has availed themselves of the process, they are committing an additional felony by possessing a firearm. The feds, however, do not recognize restorations, but as long as you stay out of their crosshairs, you would be fine.
Yep, one that can cost thousands of dollars. Considering that the majority of felons can't get decent paying jobs due to their felony conviction just how are they going to get thier rights restored? In Washington state it takes 3 seperate court procedures to get your rights fully restored. First you must get your record expunged, then sealed, then you have to apply to get your rights restored. Each process takes at least 1200-1500 dollars....just for the process, not counting any additional fees that you know lawyers will tack on.

And then there is the simple fact that no one should have to petition the government to be able to exercise ones Rights....much less pay for them rights.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,522
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?

*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.

This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.

A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
and then you have idiots in the IL legislature which allows for a felony conviction for throwing a cigarette butt on the ground....
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That special process is called parole. Once your time is up, that's it, the state needs to back off. I thought it would be common sense that your rights should automaticaly be protected, that there shouldn't be any other "special process" other than the normal process of being discharged from the Department of Corrections.
The refusal to even support or recognize existing laws is what provides ammo, if you will, for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The refusal to even support or recognize existing laws is what provides ammo, if you will, for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms.
Presuming we could...would we want to bar felons from obtaining an abortion? Same thing. In both cases, home defence and abortion, its an otherwise perfectly legal and ethical thing.

Also in both cases, the felon could get one if they wanted one regardles of what the law says, so why bother with the restriction at all? It's a wast of time and money. We should instead write laws which support victims of violence.
 
Last edited:

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree with Fisher. If he wanted to keep his right to own a firearm, he should have stayed away from felonies. I'm all for removing that right on felons because they do tend to repeat their offenses and the right is only removed after they are positively proven to have committed a serious crime.
People make some dumb mistakes, especially young people... take away that firearm and they may not be able to defend their family. Why should the family have to pay for the mistake, which if he/she is out of jail the offender has already, ostensibly, paid for, now the family possibly paying with their lives? Does not seem like sound judgement, fair and while I agree with punishment, this seems like it could, depending on the neighborhood one lives in, be vengeful and downright dangerous.
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The refusal to even support or recognize existing laws is what provides ammo, if you will, for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms.
The Second Amendment asserts that we, the people, have a right to keep and bear arms, and that government is absolutely forbidden from infringing upon this right. Period.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that allows government to created specific classes of people to whom this right is denied.

Your logic is exactly backward. Fully standing up for this right is not what “provides ammo…for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms”; what “provides ammo…” is allowing government to get away with some violations of this right, which serve as obvious incremental steps toward further denying this right to more and more people.

This isn't a right that we will lose all at once, in one big step; it is a right that we are losing, little by little, in many little steps, each step being made to seem reasonable once we have accepted the steps that led up to it.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Second Amendment asserts that we, the people, have a right to keep and bear arms, and that government is absolutely forbidden from infringing upon this right. Period.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that allows government to created specific classes of people to whom this right is denied.

Your logic is exactly backward. Fully standing up for this right is not what “provides ammo…for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms”; what “provides ammo…” is allowing government to get away with some violations of this right, which serve as obvious incremental steps toward further denying this right to more and more people.

This isn't a right that we will lose all at once, in one big step; it is a right that we are losing, little by little, in many little steps, each step being made to seem reasonable once we have accepted the steps that led up to it.
We are going to lose the right to have firearms. That is just the reality of it. There are too many people like you who are so full of rights with zero sense of responsibility. Rights only exist to the extent that the government wants them to. Has always been that way; will always be that way.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,507
Reaction score
16,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We are going to lose the right to have firearms. That is just the reality of it.
In a country with over 310 million firearms in the hands of civilians,I seriously doubt it.

There are too many people like you who are so full of rights with zero sense of responsibility.
I do not think he said anything about a zero sense of responsibility.He is not advocating that laws against murder be taken down or that it should be legal to shoot your firearm off at 3A.M. for no reason nor is he suggesting that you should be able to randomly shoot people for the hell of it.


Rights only exist to the extent that the government wants them to. Has always been that way; will always be that way.
THe only way our rights will disappear is if we allow the government to take them away.This is why we don't give anti-2nd amendment trash a inch.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,941
Reaction score
75,562
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Using the utility access across the dividing median on a freeway to make a u-turn is a felony. Why do you assume the original crime was violent at all? Making an illegal u-turn hardly justifies losing your right to vote or own guns for life.

The thing is, after serving years for making an illegal u-turn, that felon can still get a driver's license and a car. Restricting the right to vote or own a gun is cruel and unusual punishment for an illegal u-turn. Instead, ban that person from the privilege of driving.
having been a municipal prosecutor for a few of my early years as an attorney I find that hard t believe
 
Top Bottom