Do felons lose the right to self defense.

[gh1950]

One of the ongoing debates in the gun world is the question of should felons lose the right to self defense for life -regardless of the nature of the crime committed. Someone who has shoplifted more than $500 sometime in their life is just as barred as someone who killed a person, or several persons.


The context of this argument is the basis for most legal discussions of the the 2nd Amendment, which discussions begin with the premise that one of the inalienable and natural rights is the right to self defense (self preservation).

It's easy to say you did the crime, so now do the time. But then this sort of story comes up - who do you favor, the wife beater (probably also a felon) or the convicted felon?

Would you convict ?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/man-f...uring-visit-with-kids/mpsFfCG5OTUqY28bTzDo4I/

There is scant information, but Mr. Watson is charged with felony murder, and the only felony with which he is charged that could serve as a predicate for that charge is the possession of a firearm charge. So based on this limited information it appears that if Mr. Watson had not been a felon, it would have been a "good shoot."

 

[Radar363]

Personally I believe that if the State doesn't feel safe enough to give you back all your Constitutional rights it shouldn't feel safe enough to let you out of prison.

 

[Grub Master]

It looks like it happened in Clayton County. That explains it. He should run for sheriff and will be in good company.

 

[Bonecollector]

 

[BIKER13]

Should have beat the guy up,he knew damn well he was not to have a gun in his possession.All on him.

 

[woodstock]

Regarding your question op, I used to think that any felon should not be allowed to carry or possess a firearm.
But now I believe that many non violent felons could, not should, be considered for carry/possession.
This would exclude pedophiles and some other crimes

 

[StuP]

Personally I believe that if the State doesn't feel safe enough to give you back all your Constitutional rights it shouldn't feel safe enough to let you out of prison.

An interesting perspective with some merit.

Should have beat the guy up,he knew damn well he was not to have a gun in his possession.All on him.

Can't argue with that.

Regarding your question op, I used to think that any felon should not be allowed to carry or possess a firearm.
But now I believe that many non violent felons could, not should, be considered for carry/possession.
This would exclude pedophiles and some other crimes

As soon as you start 'excluding' it get's pretty complicated. I think there's an argument that if no firearm, or physical violence, was involved in the original crime, that could be a decider.

 

[lostchild]

The cruelty to children charge makes it seem there's more to the story than is being reported. Guy's probably been wailing on the woman and kids, dad tries to step in, gets shot. Cops want to get the shooter a long vacation, hit him with every possible charge, so the felon in possession. If my theory is correct, good riddance.

 

[gh1950]

The cruelty to children charge makes it seem there's more to the story than is being reported. Guy's probably been wailing on the woman and kids, dad tries to step in, gets shot. Cops want to get the shooter a long vacation, hit him with every possible charge, so the felon in possession. If my theory is correct, good riddance.

The cruelty to children charge is because he is accused of committing a crime in the presence of the children. It has nothing to do with physical harm to the children or anyone else.

A parent driving DUI with children in the car will pick up the same charge.

 

[Spiderman11]

One of the ongoing debates in the gun world is the question of should felons lose the right to self defense for life -regardless of the nature of the crime committed. Someone who has shoplifted more than $500 sometime in their life is just as barred as someone who killed a person, or several persons.


The context of this argument is the basis for most legal discussions of the the 2nd Amendment, which discussions begin with the premise that one of the inalienable and natural rights is the right to self defense (self preservation).

It's easy to say you did the crime, so now do the time. But then this sort of story comes up - who do you favor, the wife beater (probably also a felon) or the convicted felon?

Would you convict ?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/man-f...uring-visit-with-kids/mpsFfCG5OTUqY28bTzDo4I/

There is scant information, but Mr. Watson is charged with felony murder, and the only felony with which he is charged that could serve as a predicate for that charge is the possession of a firearm charge. So based on this limited information it appears that if Mr. Watson had not been a felon, it would have been a "good shoot."

So, let me get this straight . . . .

Your wife leaves you, takes the kids, moves felon boyfriend in. One day you go over to visit your kids, she meets you in the yard and says, "Yo, you need to get up outa here, you ain't seein yo d*** kids". In the heat of the moment you shove her back, or even slap her back as she's all up in your face (which is probably not the best reaction but let's say it happens). Felon boyfriend comes out of the house puts two in your chest, you die there in the front yard as your kids watch through the front window ---- and you don't want felon boyfriend charged -- because of gun rights??? Are you for real?