Do felons lose the right to self defense.

[Ken Ford]

I have a friend that spent time as a felon. He cleaned up his act, started his own buisness and has shown himself to be trustworthy.
He applied for and was granted a pardon/clemency or what ever. Good to see him shooting the other day.

 

[CBH13]

No, he specifically ask "would you convict".

Giving "certain felons" their rights back is fine provided they have successfully re-entered society AND followed the legal safeguards that are in place. Making a blanket policy that everyone released from prison should strap on a Glock is a disaster.

but again it gets more complicated than that and i'll be honest and say im more on the side that once you've done your time and paid back to society then you should indeed receive all of your rights back. Its not like the felons that will continue to be a problem will pay any attention to these laws anyways and will still obtain firearms, the only people this really keeps from possessing a firearms are those felons who have actually changed enough to not want to go back to jail.

 

[lostchild]

If he got his voting rights back then he can own a gun. They go together, unless he did something stupid like waving that portion. Was this in Georgia. Was this really a friend, or friend of a friend? Asking for a friend. LOL

LOL.. No, actual friend. GA resident. Haven't talked in a while, I'll have to check with him about his status.

 

[CBH13]

I have a friend that spent time as a felon. He cleaned up his act, started his own buisness and has shown himself to be trustworthy.
He applied for and was granted a pardon/clemency or what ever. Good to see him shooting the other day.

its just too bad it only applies in state, know someone just like this and hes a good dude but unfortunately has to stay home on most of our hunts as they are out of state

 

[Radar363]

Exactly, but what they have proven is that they ARE felons - when they reintegrate into society and become a functioning constructive member, then they can follow the process to have their rights restored.

That's what I was trying to say in my first post.
If someone is believed to be safe enough to re-enter society they should be able to have all their rights returned, otherwise they shouldn't be released.

 

[letusbuyyourcar]

For many decades the state of Georgia was run almost exclusively by fine upstanding say one thing do something else Baptist Dixiecrats. They sat in church every Sunday listening to preaching about forgiveness and compassion but they didn't mean any of it . That's where most of the backward ass laws came from. Picture people like Zell Miller. That's the type of politician I'm referring to. Most of these laws were of the Jim Crow nature and not intended to affect whitey. But you know the saying about good intentions.
Off topic but a good example of what I mean. In the early 60s a nice Jewish gentleman wanted to open a liquor store in South Macon. There weren't any at the time. In order to satisfy all the city and county requirements this fellow actually wound up becoming an active and generous member of Mabel White Baptist Church which was the biggest Baptist Church in town at the time and where my grandmother attended every Sunday until she died in 99. That's just how it was back then. And that backwards type of thinking/legislation still haunts us today.i

 

[gh1950]

Doesn’t sound like the offender was in fear for his or someone else’s life. So it’s a bad shoot either way.

In Georgia, you don't have to be in fear of your life or for someone else. You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony Note that the statute is written in the disjunctive, so that there it contemplates forcible felonies that do not involve the threat of death or great bodily injury.

A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The news story is a little vague about the the traditional who, what, when, where, and why so a lot is speculation So if he was shooting to prevent the commission of a forcible felony he would be good. Again, from what we can infer from the charges, if he were not a felon, there would be no charges - all three charges are predicated on the felon in possession charge. Part of my inference is that he WAS NOT charged with malice murder - which helps isolate the fact that the felon in possession charge is the predicate felony.

But one of the ongoing debates in Georgia self defense circles is when does an assault actually end, and when does a person reasonably cease to be in fear of serious bodily injury. If someone has just beaten the tar out of you, can you still reasonably be in fear that they will renew the attack? Juries seem to say "yes?"

 

[gh1950]

I know a guy that picked up a felony DUI habitual violator conviction back in the 80's. He got into AA, been sober and no interaction with the law for 30 years now.
Got voting rights returned, but still no firearms rights.

In Georgia, your voting rights are automatically restored once you totally completed your sentence (hard time, probation, fines).

 

[gh1950]

If he got his voting rights back then he can own a gun. They go together, unless he did something stupid like waving that portion. Was this in Georgia. Was this really a friend, or friend of a friend? Asking for a friend. LOL

See post #28

 

[Spiderman11]

In Georgia, you don't have to be in fear of your life or for someone else. You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony - which is not a precise legal term.

Actually it is: 16-11-131 Defines Forcible Felony as: (e) As used in this Code section, the term 'forcible felony' means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person and further includes, without limitation, murder; felony murder; burglary; robbery; armed robbery; kidnapping; hijacking of an aircraft or motor vehicle; aggravated stalking; rape; aggravated child molestation; aggravated sexual battery; arson in the first degree; the manufacturing, transporting, distribution, or possession of explosives with intent to kill, injure, or intimidate individuals or destroy a public building; terroristic threats; or acts of treason or insurrection.

Again, from what we can infer from the charges, if he were not a felon, there would be no charges -

How in the world are you coming up with that conclusion??