How Are Convicted Felons Like the Japanese?
Citizens of Japan, with very few exceptions, are barred from even touching a single round of ammunition. Defy the law and they could end up in jail for five years.
Convicted felons in the United States, or people who received a Dishonorable Discharge from the armed forces, are pretty much operating under the same restrictions. This section of Federal law has been the subject of much debate amongst those interested in armed self defense. I’ve decided to post about it because John of The Zeray Gazette fame is asking his readers if they agree with the practice.
Just keep in mind that this is my opinion only, and I am certainly not a lawyer or government official by any stretch of the imagination. I’m sure that there will be plenty of stuff in the rambling post below to piss just about everyone off. But this is how see it.
The United States can be said to be an experiment started during the heyday of The Age of Enlightenment, where reason was considered to be the sole legitimacy of authority. What is notable to the discussion at hand is that criminal law was codified in the new Republic as a social contract, an idea that was originally toyed with by Hobbes more than a century before the US was formed. What was revolutionary in this concept is that society is seen as a business, with everyone receiving benefits as long as they meet their own obligations to the country as a whole.
What does that verbose paragraph above actually mean? If you get with the program, you can fully participate. Screw around and you lose out.
It is worth noting that convicted felons lose a great deal more than just 2nd Amendment rights. They cannot vote in Federal elections, are barred from holding or even running for most elected posts, can no longer serve in the armed forces. They crossed the big hairy line, committed a felony, and that proves they can not function as responsible members of society. They are not considered to be responsible citizens because they have chosen to act like anything but.
A good example would be that foreign citizens are also barred from owning firearms even while within our borders, as they are obviously not completely covered under the social contract of the US. (Kristopher says I’m wrong about that.) They might be expected to respect and obey our laws while here, and could very well be scrupulously law-abiding, but they don’t have anywhere near the same obligations that a citizen does.
If you will, please consider that, should the US be attacked, no one would even suggest that foreign nationals be drafted to defend our country. Or, at least they wouldn’t short of a total catastrophe like a zombie apocalypse. But, if that happens, I bet even felons would be turned out of their cells and armed in an attempt to stem the undead hordes.
Our culture, like just about every culture, has milestones in people’s lives. These can be seen as moments where everything changes. One second a certain set of conditions apply, but now new rules are enforced. In most states, you can legally begin to drive on your 16th birthday, vote on your 18th, and drink when you turn 21.
The same goes for the way laws are defined. Misdemeanors might be crimes, but they are small potatoes. The person who commits such petty offenses is punished, but not nearly as severely as if they turn their hands to felonies. Criminals who confine themselves to misdemeanors can still act as nearly full participants in our society, and they will suffer few penalties later in life if they decide to give up their criminal activities. (At least they will as long as they avoid getting arrested for domestic violence or non-felony drug possession. But the way that these misdemeanor crimes carry many of the same penalties of felonies will have to be left for another time.)
But there is a line that should never be crossed. Commit petty crimes and it is assumed that you might still be able to meet your social obligations, but commit a felony and it is assumed that you are irredeemable. This is hardly a secret, as many of the criminals I have encountered are usually careful to keep from crossing that line.
Speaking as someone who has actually held a law enforcement job, I can attest that you would have to go far and wide to find a felon who was a law abiding citizen and then, one day for whatever reason, they just up and decided that it was time to go and commit a major crime.
The vast majority work their way up to it, gaining confidence through years of having the courts hand down small punishments for petty offenses, before finally taking the plunge. Barring felons from owning firearms does not mean that it is a sudden or hasty event in the light of the past history of most of them. If someone is interested in holding an opinion on this subject, then they are not being reasonable if they refuse to consider the track record of the people under discussion.
Another factor to take under consideration is the recidivism rates of convicted felons. The majority quickly fall back into their old behaviors, causing a great deal of misery for those of us who walk the straight and narrow.
“Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.”
So most of these people will go on to cause even more damage to innocent people after they are released from prison. They will do it again, and again, and again. How is it a good idea to allow these people to legally arm themselves?
SUMMARY
The US criminal justice system is designed to give people as many chances to be productive members of society as possible, but there are limits. A criminal who sticks to petty offenses can still get their life on track if they simply avoid committing any more crimes, but it is different the instant they are convicted of a felony. At that point, the criminal is considered to be too destructive to society at large, and many of their rights are suspended.
Considering the damage of which they are capable, as well as how the majority continue to commit crimes even though they have been punished in the past, it seems obvious to me that barring felons from possessing firearms is a good idea. True, they will get them anyway through theft or the black market. But the fact that possession will add more time they are locked up and away from innocent victims is a good thing in my estimation.
(Cross posted at The Chicago Boyz.)
November 8th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Foreigners who are in the US legally can possess firearms, barring state restrictions. For example, hunters and competitive shooters can easily get a form 6 to temporarily import their firearms.
Foreigners who are legal residents can buy from an FFL, barring state restrictions.
The State of Washington requires an Alien firearms card … and then never issues them. The State of Oregon completely ignores the matter, and will even issue CCWs to foreign residents of the state.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:52 am
“Considering the damage of which they are capable, as well as how the majority continue to commit crimes even though they have been punished in the past, it seems obvious to me that barring felons from possessing firearms is a good idea. True, they will get them anyway through theft or the black market. But the fact that possession will add more time they are locked up and away from innocent victims is a good thing in my estimation.”
Yep yep yep
November 8th, 2009 at 4:00 am
“Foreigners who are in the US legally can possess firearms, barring state restrictions.”
I stand corrected.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:37 am
My biggest concern is the recent expansion of what a felony means. Everything from having kids accidentally see a naughty picture on your computer to having sex with your underage girlfriend to driving a bicycle while drunk.
If we restrict felonies to murder, rape, armed robbery and similar (as per the original meaning of the term) I think you have a very valid argument. I’m not entirely sure I agree or not, but that’s a basic problem of crime and punishment - if someone is released from prison, have they served their debt? Or are they someone who can be statistically shown is more likely to commit again? Are they more likely to return to their bad ways if their rights as citizens are removed?
I think you can see a bit of this unintended consequences with the various sexual offender camps being set up under Florida laws - with all the restrictions on where they can live, there *is* nowhere left that they can live except in a camp under a bridge. And these suffering people have no voice at least partially because they now have no vote.
Like I said - I buy the social contract theory, but I’m not 100% convinced that in practice it’s the best solution currently.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“I’m not entirely sure I agree or not, but that’s a basic problem of crime and punishment - if someone is released from prison, have they served their debt?”
That is an invalid concept, totally wrong. There is no debt to pay. You get punished for committing a crime, but it doesn’t have anything to do with wiping the slate clean.
Consider, if you will, the people who have been wrongfully convicted and jailed. A number have been found to be innocent of the most terrible crimes through ever advancing forensic science, particularly DNA matching. Sometimes these poor bastards have been cleared only after they have already served their sentences.
So that means they can victimize anyone they want, right? I mean, they were put in jail for putting at least one innocent person through the most terrible ordeal, sometimes even killing someone. They “served their debt” even though they had done nothing to incur their debt. That must mean you are all for them being able to go ahead and kill, rape, steal. Whatever they were jailed for erroneously, that must be what they can now do. The books must be balanced!
I say the first people they victimize are those who have this bizarre notion of “paying a debt” in their heads.
“Or are they someone who can be statistically shown is more likely to commit again?”
I think it is pretty much indisputable that they are.
“Are they more likely to return to their bad ways if their rights as citizens are removed?”
Like I pointed out above, the different severity of punishment between misdemeanors and felonies is hardly a secret. If keeping their rights were such a big deal to them, then felons wouldn’t have committed their crimes in the first place.
In other words, if losing their rights didn’t make them keep to the straight and narrow, then keeping them even after committing a terrible crime is hardly going to.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Mike, I find myself having a hard time sympathising with the plight of a child molester who can’t find an apartment.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
James … it’s not an invalid concept, it’s just that the State does not properly provide Justice, despite seizing a monopoly on its distribution.
You are correct, in that the State is more interested in punishing breakers of State rules, than meeting out justice. Accidental justice is simply a byproduct.
Of course, if the State gets too stupid about justice provision, people will start to make there own, regardless. Prison used to be about justice … prisoners in the Arizona Territory were given a horse, saddle, and a rifle once they served their long sentences. The people were through with them, so they could now go on about their business unmolested.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“… it’s not an invalid concept, it’s just that the State does not properly provide Justice, despite seizing a monopoly on its distribution.”
( snip )
“Prison used to be about justice … prisoners in the Arizona Territory were given a horse, saddle, and a rifle once they served their long sentences.”
And they used to hang people back then for stealing a horse. Human life was ended because someone took an animal that didn’t belong to them. Would that be considered justice in this day and age? Someone steals a pure bred puppy, a valuable animal in itself that can exceed the replacement cost of a horse, and they get the noose?
The state isn’t in the justice business because no one can agree on what justice is. You and I might agree that some punishments fit the crime, disagree on others. So the state metes out the punishment that the law dictates, and any citizen can try and get elected to office and change the law if they don’t think it gets close enough to the ideal.
Any citizen who isn’t a convicted felon, that is. And I think just about everyone would agree that it is a good idea that someone who broke the law should be barred from amending or authoring the law.
And that is pretty much what I am talking about. The concrete world. The place we all have to live in, talk about abstract concepts aside. What policy gives the greatest returns?
Unless everyone can unanimously agree on what action equals justice, then it is simply outside of this discussion.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
For the most part, I agree with you. I think that ex-cons should not be able to own firearms. However, given the massive expansion of the term “felony” in recent years to include unknown violations of administrative regulations, there are an increasing number of people deprived of their right to vote and arm themselves despite having harmed no one and acting without criminal intent.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
James,
This is a brilliant and well-stated argument. I am especially gratified with your introduction of the concept “Social Contract,” without which urban life is simply impossible - as we are seeing daily in the New Age.
A formerly-liberal friend has recently reminded me of his scorn at my use of the phrase “What we are seeing is the erosion of the Social Contract” in response to the sudden emergence of traffic-light ignorers in San Francisco almost 20 years ago (interestingly enough coincident with the universal acceptance of the idea that it was all right to drive while talking on a telephone.) His grasping of my premise seems to have coincided with the development of his political insight, btw.
The origin of the “debt to society” meme is lost to history, but I’m confident it got a real boost from the Socialism of the ’30s. Somebody else who echoes your opinions is here: http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/03/crimes-against-society.html
Thanks again for a wonderful post, well-written and profoundly well-reasoned.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“…given the massive expansion of the term “felony” in recent years to include unknown violations of administrative regulations, there are an increasing number of people deprived of their right to vote and arm themselves despite having harmed no one and acting without criminal intent.”
You are right that it is troubling, and I would sincerely like to see felony class crimes be restricted to the really nasty offenses.
But you weren’t talking about felonies that shouldn’t be classed as felonies, you just asked if forearms should be banned for felons. And that is what I addressed.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
[...] as they are obviously not completely covered under the social contract of the US. (Kristopher says I’m wrong about that.) They might be expected to respect and obey our laws while here, and could very well be [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
People can and do change. And states’ laws vary greatly. Some restore a limited right to possess and own to felons. Vermont allows felons to own and possess upon the end of their punishment. In Texas it is legal if the person keeps their nose clean for five years after their last required interaction with the penal system.
Most states have a system for restoring full rights that can be availed by former felons.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“And states’ laws vary greatly. Some restore a limited right to possess and own to felons.”
Go back to my original post above and check out the 2nd paragraph. You will find a link to the Federal BATF website by clicking on the words “…are pretty much operating under the same restrictions.” The link will show that felons are explicitly barred by law from receiving or owning firearms and ammunition.
Think about that for just one minute. The BATF website! A Federal agency!
In light of this, all I can do is ask why anyone should care what the states say? A convicted felon who buys a gun might not have to worry about the state or local cops coming to arrest them, but they shouldn’t be surprised when the Feds break down their door.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I had a friend, former Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (and all around great guy), who was amazed he could go into Walmart and buy a weapon. “They would never let common people have these guns in Iran!”
He despised the current Iranian President, and was very happy to be here.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am
And they used to hang people back then for stealing a horse.
Just jumping in and picking a nit here, but that’s not as draconian as it may sound to some. At the time this was this was SOP, a person’s horse was frequently a necessity of life. If a man’s horse was stolen out in the boonies ( and the boonies were farther and wider than now ) it could well have been a death sentence for him. Hangin’ a horse thief was a serious response to a serious crime.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am
At the time this was this was SOP, a person’s horse was frequently a necessity of life. If a man’s horse was stolen out in the boonies ( and the boonies were farther and wider than now ) it could well have been a death sentence for him. Hangin’ a horse thief was a serious response to a serious crime.
Sure, and that just goes further to make my point. What is considered good, proper, even necessary in the past probably won’t pass muster when conditions change.
Kristopher clearly stated that it was justice in the past to provide a horse, saddle and rifle to convicted felons upon their release from jail way back in the day. Do you think it would be justice to give each felon a pickup truck, a full tank of gas, and a rifle when they are released now???
Even if you think it is a good idea, I bet the vast majority would freak out when they heard of it.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
A couple of points, if I could be late to the game.
Point the First: I think that the concept of “Debt to Society” is an important one. We the People create laws and punish lawbreakers in order to ensure the proper functioning of the social contract. But if we permanently push out those in breach of contract, then we begin to incubate a little pitri dish of barbarism, right in our midst. This is bad both for us the law abiding, and them, the lawbreaking. It is bad for us because over time, a certain level of resistance is built up in the culture of the lawbreaker, reducing respect for the law and the law abiding. They look at us as Chumps and prey. Denied any hope of getting into the system they see no need to respect it, and in fact resent it such that they hope it gets destroyed. For the law abiding, we begin to see the lawbreaking as something Other. Someone less than fully human, someone undeserving of the rights and privileges we enjoy. We excuse harsher and harsher punishments, find humor in their degredation and abuse. For example, lets look at the prevalence of prison rape jokes.
The only way to combat this is to provide some way for those in breach of the social contract to buy their way back into the system. And provide a way to remove those who don’t wish to or are incapable of buying into the system, either through exile, penal colony, or, lets face it, execution.
Point the Second: James, I don’t think your argument can stand if you do not address the concept of Felony Creep. I see it as a logical progression of the dehumanization of the lawbreaker in the eyes of law abiding, but YMMV.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
No, but they do put felons in half-way houses, and give them welfare checks.
I think the modern equivalent, a couple of c-notes and a new suit, might be a bargain compared to making him a dole blodger.
I guess I’m hopelessly old fashioned … I’d rather see the victim restituted through money made by prison labor, than worry about rule-breaking per se. And if the crime can’t be restituted, a long drop from a short rope will suffice.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
By the way, it recently became a felony to have in your possession any product made with wood, that does not clearly display the country of origin of the wood. The law explictly includes paper products.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’ll echo the concerns about felony creep (apart from being unjust, it fundamentally undermines the otherwise reasonable rationale for the disenfranchisement of felons), and add one more: I think it’s desireable for the law to recognize differences between individuals, and wherever possible to avoid depriving a man of his liberty based on the statistics associated with his group.
That is, if 95 percent of felons will turn back to crime and be a hazard to the public, it seems reasonable make some effort to respect the rights of those five percent who actually make the effort to turn their lives around. This is partly because I despise the practice of jusdging individuals collectively, and partly because it seems like a good incentive to encourage at least that small portion of felons turn back into productive members of society.
Proving that you’ve reformed yourself should be a high bar, of course. But if a man who was once convicted of a felony has served his time, then walked the straight and narrow for five years, ten years, or even twenty years, is society really still benefitting from treating him like a non-member?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
DaveP said:
“Mike, I find myself having a hard time sympathising with the plight of a child molester who can’t find an apartment.”
Dave, the problem is that “sex offender” no longer means “child molester”. All kinds of things can get you on a sex offender registry, fron flat-out assaulting a child all the way down to public urination. A seventeen year old girl texting a topless photo of herself to her boyfriend? Sex offender. In some jurisdctions, you can end up on a sex offender registry if you don’t prevent your teenaged son or daughter from having consensual sex.
I get the impulse to say “I don’t care what you do to those freaks”, but that’s how we ended up in this insane situation. How many bad laws do we have today because of moral panics about child molesters, terrorists, drug dealers, communists, anarchists, bootleggers, gangsters…
November 11th, 2009 at 1:54 am
A few random thoughts:
- Like others have said, felonies are not nearly the serious crime they used to be.
- Until somewhat recently, there was no such thing as “citizen of the United States.” You were a citizen of your state of residence, and the feds didn’t have any reason to know you existed, aside from the census headcount.
- Likewise, foreigners have every natural right that locals do. The government does not give the rights, thus, neither are they granted by citizenship. Only voting and citizenship go together.
- Going with the above, until fairly recently, there was no federal gun control, so the feds didn’t decide which nationalities could or could not purchase firearms. States could decide, but it was fairly wide open.
- On the subject of crime and punishment, I’m for the ancient notion of restitution, rather than plain punishment. Others have already commented eloquently about justice vs punishment and the difficulties of discerning and meting out proper justice and punishment. Restitution is much more cut and dry. The state benefits from punishment; restitution benefits the victim.
- With that, the “justice system” is not about rehabilitation or punishment or quarantining the defectives - it takes restitution from the criminal and gives it to the victim.
- In cases where no restitution is possible — rape, murder, etc — the restitution is death.
- People on the street are 100% free. Even in today’s society, felons, sex offenders, and other undesirables are 100% free when roaming around on the streets. We are fooling ourselves with all the idiotic sex-offender living zones and registries, felon registries, gun control laws, and every other law that pretends to tell known criminals what not to do and where not to go for our safety.
- Which is why I’m all for eliminating all gun control laws, background checks, registries, etc. We know criminals and felons can get whatever they want. The only people hindered, inconvenienced, and taxed by those regulations are the law abiding.
- Hopefully, the above would make self-defense more common.
- More self-defense means less repeat offenders. And more frequent use of the death penalty would mean even less repeat offenders.
- I think I had other thoughts, but now I’m sleepy.
Thanks for an excellent post!
November 11th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Mike: Do you have any figures about the number of sex registry offenders who are actually ‘minor offenders’, versus those who are actually rapists/short-eyes? Last time I looked at my state’s registry, there weren’t many illegal-peeing cases there. Maybe it would be a more energy-efficient method for you to be campaigning for tighter definitions of who should and should not be on the registry in the first place, and not for campaigning on the, “I’d rather have a hundred innocent victims than one inconvenienced perpetrator” platform.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Nope. I have no stats. The matter is one of principle, not of counting. You can’t treat a group as unpersons when you define that group so as to include people who’ve committed trivial offenses.
I’m fine with having harsher punishments for “sex offenders” when “sex offenders” are truly bad guys, just as I’m fine with disenfranchising felons as long as felons are truly bad guys.
And while we’re on the subject, let’s not diminish massive invasions of personal liberty (like being de facto forced to live in isolated camps) by handwaving them away as “inconveniences”, huh? Our gun-grabbing friends like to play the same game; let’s not sink to that level. The present burdens many states place on “sex offenders” may be justified, and they may not be (that’s another discussion), but they sure as hell go way beyond inconvenience.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Ah, sorry–just realized you weren’t speaking to me. I’m also a Mike behind the nom de web.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I have to think that such “anti gun” laws are a bad idea
#1 Punishment after the fact by denial of a constitutionally guaranteed right is a good way to make a “right” into a privilege. It isn’t wise for gun rights people to play by the same prevent guns stop crime before it happens book as the gun grabbers
#2 As nothing in the Constitution suggest this is necessary or a good idea (the document doesn’t say a thing about it) I’d suggest such a law is a bad idea.
#3 despite imprisoning more people than any other society in human history we have utterly failed to get at the the root of the problem, which is mainly drugs and poverty. drugs are cheap and the US has the worst rich/poor ratio in the industrialized world.
#4 The justice system is a joke. Its mainly a poor to jail, the middle class cut a plea (maybe probation) and the rich skate deal. The poor get a lot less chances too.
Why contribute to such a system with more victimless crime laws after all owning a weapon victimizes no one only misusing it does.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“…despite imprisoning more people than any other society in human history…”
No, I’m afraid not. The Chinese now and the Soviets back when have us beat.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Actually the NYT says we do
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html
. Sure is a lot for the land of the free and home of the brave no matter what way you look at it.
I figure if we get to the roots and bones of the issue (jobs, fatherless families, bad social safety net, drug/vice war) we can easily tackle the crime issue. Its just if a State government wants a prison for “good jobs” the last thing they want is to do the right thing to prevent crime. Same with the Feds, who use “fear of crime” as a social control
I’d tend to think the US has a prison/military/industrial complex run by big business on top of a society so ill that 75% of our kids can’t qualify for military service (Army Times)
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/military_unfityouths_recruiting_110309w/
Thats got to stop if we are to have a future. In addition to a real social safety net another good way to put a stop to it is to remove as many laws as you can and still have basic public safety. If someone is that big a problem and they can’t be stopped after we’ve done all we can (and we really do jack) then lock up. But otherwise with very few exceptions, you do your time, you’ve done your time.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:01 am
While it makes sense that violent felons, or those that used guns in their crimes, should be barred from owning firearms making it so all felons lose this right is just wrong.
Think about finacial criminals or those arrested under our rediculous drug laws. The “War on Drugs” alone has created hundreds of thousands of opportunities to strip citizens of their rights.
The federal gun laws need a serious overhaul when it comes to this issue. Not all felons are unredeemable.