The situation in Virginia makes my head hurt:
The question lawmakers will have to grapple with in the coming years is how they can achieve public safety when violent criminals are released with their gun rights restored, while the rest of the citizens are left with diminishing options to protect themselves.
So they’re taking away firearms from law abiding citizens, but giving gun rights back to violent felons who have served until they’re “geriatric” at the age of 50 and to the “14- to 16-year-old murderers aren’t old enough for meaningful punishment, much less a ban on gun ownership.”
I’m not sure how giving people who have proven to be violent with firearms their rights back and taking away the rights of people who have been responsible gun owners makes “our children are safe at school, we are safe where we choose to worship, and that all of us are safe at home and in our communities.”
Can anyone explain that logic to me?
We could explain logic if there was some!
Maybe Virginia is also giving away geriatric AARP Memberships and sending them Christmas Cards
Can’t imagine why decent people always are compelled to take one for the team and other types always get over on the system.
As far as this state bill goes, I question whether it can be enforced. In places that allow for Pot as medicine and even time limits for Misdemeanor Domestic Violence to be allowed to own weapons again (Texas) can happen under Federal Background checks. Just read the form.
Don’t misunderstand me. I support reestablishment of civil rights for felons who have served their time, And insuring that they have the same access to housing, education, job training, even voting as anyone else. If we don’t make it possible for them to return to society and succeed, we are doing neither taxpayers, the ex-felons, their families, or society as a whole any good. Creating a permanent underclass becomes a major societal problem.
If you expect perfect justice from the court system and its results, then you are unfortunately in a fairy tale land. It is not going to happen.
But when it comes to weapons, those people that show a willingness to use them to commit serious crimes like armed robbery and murder whether with a knife, gun, or piece of pipe. These kind of people do not deserve the right to carry a weapon anytime in the future. It does not keep them from getting a job,having a home, or even marrying/raising a family.
Until we can better understand the dynamics of sex offenders, I am behind the sex offender registry as a preventative and protection measure. Nevertheless, the list and its impact should be carefully evaluated as to the kind of person listed and real risks associated with those persons. A very complicated issue to examine.
Just as people who demonstrate a propensity to choose to violate hunting laws can be denied the ability to hunt or own weapons for the rest of their lives. Some punishments are acceptable and should continue for life.
Serial rapists, murderers, child molesters, armed robbers (they are just one step from committing murder) , domestic violence, and such need to be removed from society and kept from it. If we stop mandatory minimums of 10 years or more for things like being a drug user. We can make sentences for these kinds of people meaningful and affordable. They are the smallest part of the criminal equation in jail. Life… should mean life. 10 years should be 10 years for violent offenders.
If they get to the point that they are absolutely unable to be any threat to society, then consider putting them in a nursing home. Letting them go there to die. Even if the home is on prison grounds and operated by a contractor.
No geriatric murderer or child molester should ever walk out of prison that is ambulatory. There are recorded cases of child molestation again and murder by Social Security age prisoners released as no longer a danger to society.