the right to vote

[NOLA556]

ok so this is just something completely random that popped into my head this evening and I figured I'd get yall's opinion on it.

to my knowledge, the current law of the land is that anyone convicted of a felony not only loses their 2A rights, but they also lose their right to vote. am I the only one who thinks that's bullshit?

as far as gun rights go, ok, I can understand that it may not be the best idea for someone with a history of VIOLENT crime to be able to own guns. but not all felonies are related to violence. for example, insurance fraud is a felony. selling organic food without a USDA stamp of approval is a felony... etc. (a recent post by goodnightchesty showed a man named "Popcorn Sutton" who made moonshine his entire life. Making moonshine is a felony, and he committed suicide to avoid serving his sentence in federal prison for moonshining. do you REALLY think this man should lose his voting rights? much less go to federal prison?)

and as far as voting rights go, WHAT THE FUCK does a criminal history have to do with a citizen's right to choose who their elected representatives are?

just something that I thought about and kind of aggrivated me a bit. let me know your thoughts. do you agree with the way the system is currently set up pertaining to felons not being able to vote? as stated above, I personally think it's complete garbage and that policy needs to be gotten rid of ASAP.

[mountainredneck2051]

once you get out of prison your voting rights are reinstated as far as i know

[sledge]

You are correct on both points.  Although, in Florida, a convicted felon can petition the court to restore his rights after a period of time elapses without being arrested or convicted again.  I think this differs from state to state.  Also, I'm not sure how that works with Federal prisoners.

Some states have been introducing legislation to change the voting ban on convicted felons.  But honestly I haven't kept track of how those bills went or whether they were passed.

My son got into some trouble the first time he went drinking with some buddies at work after he turned 21.  (You wouldn't believe this story if I told you, so I won't.)  He got it straightened out with a plea deal for 1 years probation.  He petitioned the court to end his probation after 6 months of good behavior.  After 3 years he was legally able to own a gun.           

[mountainredneck2051]

in the state of colorado upon completion of sentence/probation ALL RIGHTS WITHOUT EXCEPTION are restored

that includes firearms
don't ask me how i know......


actually let me edit that, you can't have any nfa items like sbr's silencers, machine guns
but all other guns are good to go 

[sledge]

I wonder how many states are like that.  I personally think that is the way it should be across the country.  If someone does their time they should be able to come out clean with a chance for a total restart on their life.

I'm not saying all criminals in prison are innocent, they're not.  But the justice system, which is the best in the world, has a lot of flaws in it.  Most of those flaws are related to money and revenue generation.

[mountainredneck2051]

I wonder how many states are like that.  I personally think that is the way it should be across the country.  If someone does their time they should be able to come out clean with a chance for a total restart on their life.

I'm not saying all criminals in prison are innocent, they're not.  But the justice system, which is the best in the world, has a lot of flaws in it.  Most of those flaws are related to money and revenue generation.

damn straight, once you do the time you should be forgivin for your crime and treated like a damn human being and with that comes god given rights

[thekiltedpatriot]

Guys, there is no "right to vote".  Nowhere in the Constitution or its Amendments provides ANYONE a right to vote.

Oh, and before you go on about the 12th, 14th, 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments, read them carefully.  None provides the Citizen a right to vote; instead, they state that the right to vote shall not be denied based upon yadda yadda yadda....they refer to a "right to vote", but when one reads the preceding documents (US Constitution and Amendments 1-10), there is no reference to a "right to vote".

[sledge]

It was presumed that the right to vote for representatives of the various states was a right.  That's why they had to identify what would nullify the right to vote.  Then the various state representatives who were elected would chose the representatives to Congress thereby maintaining the state's dominate power over the Federal Government.

[thekiltedpatriot]

I know what you mean sledge...however, a presumption is not a guarantee.  In other words, if it isn't written, it didn't matter.

The Founders did not believe that EVERYONE should have a vote.  They were aristocratic in their belief that only property owners should be permitted to vote.  This is why the topic was never broached in the Constitution or accompanying documents.

[sledge]

I know what you mean sledge...however, a presumption is not a guarantee.  In other words, if it isn't written, it didn't matter.

The Founders did not believe that EVERYONE should have a vote.  They were aristocratic in their belief that only property owners should be permitted to vote.  This is why the topic was never broached in the Constitution or accompanying documents.

The bastards!  LOL!

[Reaver]

Staying out of this one.

[rah45]

I know what you mean sledge...however, a presumption is not a guarantee.  In other words, if it isn't written, it didn't matter.

The Founders did not believe that EVERYONE should have a vote.  They were aristocratic in their belief that only property owners should be permitted to vote.  This is why the topic was never broached in the Constitution or accompanying documents.

Not that I've thought this particular opinion through a lot, but I can see that as reasonable. Property owners have a lot of responsibility and "roots" that many non-property owners do not have/understand. In my opinion, this is just because of the different experience of working for that property and taking care of it. However, I can also see it as a weapon to be used against the "lower class," which I see as wrong. So, I would be looking for a middle ground. I'm guessing the Founders never found that middle ground/compromise (like slavery), and instead deigned to not mention it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[NOLA556]

I can't see any justifiable excuse to withhold ANYONE'S voting "privileges" unless they've been tried and convicted for voting fraud.

[rah45]

I can't see any justifiable excuse to withhold ANYONE'S voting "privileges" unless they've been tried and convicted for voting fraud.

I agree with that, too. I'm just full of contradictions today.  [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at

[tominphx]

As far as I'm concerned if someone can't be trusted with carrying a firearm, they shouldn't be let out of prison in the 1st place. So I say, that felons don't lose their rights after being released. After all inalienable rights are just that, they can not be taken away, even after you do something horrible to another person.

I would say that when in prison, restricting someone's rights, not just the RKBA, but the others, is a "reasonable restriction".

[NOLA556]

As far as I'm concerned if someone can't be trusted with carrying a firearm, they shouldn't be let out of prison in the 1st place. So I say, that felons don't lose their rights after being released. After all inalienable rights are just that, they can not be taken away, even after you do something horrible to another person.

I would say that when in prison, restricting someone's rights, not just the RKBA, but the others, is a "reasonable restriction".

I'm not sure that I fully understand you, but from what I gather from your statement... . I'm not saying that people IN PRISON should be able to vote. but once you've paid your debt to society, well then, you've paid your debt, right? why shouldn't you have every right that everyone else has?