It's said that the average American commits three felonies a day without necessarily realizing it. Looking at some of the felonies that exist, it's not hard to imagine that being accurate. Of course, as it's an average, it means some of us go all day without committing a felony while our neighbor commits more than his or her share.
Still, with so many laws on the books, including those that come with felony charges, it's not difficult to imagine that any of us could get jammed up.
Most felons, admittedly, knew they were breaking the law. At a minimum, they knew what they were doing was wrong, even if they didn't realize it was criminal. It's easier to have less sympathy for those souls. It shouldn't matter, though, because once they've paid their debt to society, they should be able to move on with their life.
They can't.
Besides the stigma that comes from being a felon, there's the simple fact that they'll probably never be able to own a firearm again. While the DOJ is working on a process to restore rights to many, state laws also work against these folks. Now, thanks to a case before the North Carolina Supreme Court, the question is being asked there.
For generations, felons in North Carolina and other states have been banned from owning guns. But the North Carolina Supreme Court could get rid of that rule — or at least pare it down — as soon as this year after it considers a case that has led to unity among strange political bedfellows.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is often associated with liberal political causes, is teaming up with conservative Second Amendment advocates to argue for the ban to be overturned.
On the other side, law enforcement advocacy groups — including at least one with a board comprised mostly of Republican elected officials — are teaming up with Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to urge the court to keep the ban in place.
Republicans hold a 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court. In January the court’s justices agreed to hear the case, noting that the arguments present “a substantial constitutional question” that warranted addressing. Oral arguments could be held this fall.
The case revolves around a question of whether it’s fair for the state to automatically deny all felons the right to own guns — typically for the rest of their lives, even after they do their time and rejoin society — or if it would be better to consider the factors in individual cases and let many more felons get their gun rights back.
In particular it seeks to ease the ban on people with nonviolent felony convictions, an argument the state says would create a slippery slope toward violent offenders eventually earning the same rights.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, a Democrat, is leading the state’s case to keep the ban in place. “This is a big case for us,” he said in an interview. “And listen — we are on the side of law enforcement here. Joining us in this argument are police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors.”
I have no doubt that law enforcement is joining in on this. However, while I respect law enforcement for having a tough job and most of them doing their best to get it right, law enforcement also has a history of looking at issues regarding rights as what makes their job easier or harder and little else.
First, let's understand something law enforcement should be well aware of, and that's how little good the current system gets guns out of the hands of felons. Those who want to obey the law after their sentence is complete will be disarmed, while the recidivists will find a gun no matter what you do. They know exactly where to go to get one, even in a community they've never set foot in before. You're not stopping them.
Second, non-violent felons aren't necessarily going to become violent felons. This is especially true if they're interested in complying with the law.
My thing is, if they're so dangerous, then why are they walking around among regular, law-abiding people in the first place? Why aren't they being kept locked up until they've actually learned their lesson?
Let's also face the fact that when you treat people as if they're criminals because of past mistakes, you're just telling them that they've never paid their debt to society, so why bother walking the straight and narrow? You're encouraging a certain degree of recidivism.
So yeah, felons should get their gun rights back once their sentence is complete.
Otherwise, do gun rights actually exist, or are they really just privileges?
