• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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....
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom