Ex-Convicts in US face little difficulty in getting gun rights restored

[caption id="attachment_17533" align="alignleft" width="800"] Prison inmates[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — "I'm an ex-convict and ex-felon and I own more guns and ammunition then most of all you legal gun owners in the United States." This post is on the first page of Google on felons and gun rights on  January 13, 2013. The problem is he is not alone.

Ex-convicts can't vote, but they can own guns. Some people might find that surprising. After all, many people agree that mentally unhealthy people should not own guns. Yet what is an ex-convict in relationship to the issue of violence, especially when many crimes are committed with guns.

The New York Times points out that ex-felons have little difficulty legally owning a gun. That is in spite of the fact that most Americans believe that those with a criminal history should not. The Times article examines the case of a man in Washington State,  Erik Zettergren, who shot and killed a man who was in bed with Zegttergren's girlfriend. He had two previous felony convictions and a record of mental health problems, yet was able to legally purchase a gun, which he used in the fatal shooting.

As the Times observes, federal law prohibits those who have been convicted of felonies lose their right to bear arms. Yet annually thousands of ex-convicts get their rights reinstated, and often with minimum review. Much of this is because the rights to reinstatement are examined by judges and relegated to the states to make a decision. Many of these individuals use the Second Amendment clause of the Constitution as justification for the reinstatement of their gun rights.

The Times examined the laws in the several states and found that in many states ex-felons have little difficulty getting their gun rights restored. The publication discusses the work of Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington, D.C., who has found in her research of gun rights restoration laws, that in more than half the states, felons have a reasonably likely chance of getting back their gun rights. Numerous examples are then used to illustrate cases where those with a history of violence, and consequently prison time,  have no problems getting guns.

Gun rights advocates often justify ex-convicts getting their gun rights back by statements like those of Ken Hanson, legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Coalition,. He said,“If it’s a constitutional right, you treat it with equal dignity with other rights,” he said.

Daniel Webster, a professor and the co-director at the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, offers this opinion:

"Given the prior data on the enormous social costs of gun violence in the U.S. ($100 billion a year, by one estimate), criminal recidivism, and public opinion, people convicted of nonviolent felonies should be eligible for review of their fitness to possess firearms only after a substantial period of crime-free living (like 10 years), including no history of restraining orders for domestic violence. The review should also involve an in-depth examination of the individual’s mental health and history of substance abuse."

It's interesting to note that some of the petitions circulating social media for support of second amendment rights following the school shooting in Connecticut, are being promoted by ex-convicts, many of whom may have little knowledge of the foundations of the second amendment or the statistics on recidivism rates and levels of domestic abuse that often ensues following periods of incarceration.

The anonymous poster who bragged about his gun rights as an ex-felon wrote the following on December 14, 2012, after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

"Whne all your guns are taken away. I'll still have mine. You'll still be able to vote but what good will that do when the elections are rigged anyways. Your life is a shame. How much protection do you need that you hand all your freedoms the to a machine that sees all of us as the enemy."

Webster's final argument in Time's opinion column is this:  "Few felons should have guns. "

 

The ethics of modern weaponry viewed through the prism of the Coloradoshooting

[caption id="attachment_15848" align="alignleft" width="235"] Assault Rifle[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — As the publisher of Green Heritage News, I set a standard not to be argumentative in politics, which means respect for government leaders as persons in the tradition of rendering unto Caesar what is his. But commentaries with respect to specific social issues, as they relate to humanitarian principles are important, and no more is that of greater significance than in the instance of killing others, for it is that inhumanity that brings all people shame.

Today in Colorado, a solitary gunman shot 71 people. The specific details are reported by the media, and it is not those details that are the focus of my opinion article today. Instead it is the confusion we have with respect to bearing arms and how we ignore both basic faith, scientific, ethical, and moral principles when we uphold certain rights that interfere with the actualization of those rights of others and facilitate the perpetuation of violence.

Rather than enter into the Second Amendment discussions, for there are bound to be many in these days, instead the focus should be on the value of life itself. For every man's life has value. In the rush to judgment and the sensationalism of the Colorado shooting that is forgotten. 12 people are dead. Many others will lose their lives with the proliferation of guns; yet there are people of faith that nevertheless tout the rights to weapons virtually as a religious edict.

While interpretation of Biblical scripture is presented as the foundation for man's right to bear arms, along with Constitutional arguments, the weapons of Biblical days were far less capable of creating the widespread killing of an assault rifle or a manufactured bomb.

In a world where toxic speech continues and where anger rises and people confront each other in anonymous ways to spew hatred and vindictive argument, weapons capable of creating mass killings become even more awful. One might say a crazy man is simply that, and it is the person who kills, not the weapon. Yet, without the weapon, the killings are far fewer, although the value of a single life remains.

As the publisher of Green Heritage News, I welcome people of all faiths and beliefs to share with the staff of this magazine, and many others, in mourning lives lost in Colorado today.

Oregon drug arrests part of increased prison numbers exceeding Stalin'sRussia

[caption id="attachment_11849" align="alignleft" width="120"] Marijuana plant[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - In Oregon, a state that legalizes marijuana for medical purposes, there is a felony arrest for possession or distribution of the drug weekly, often leading to incarceration of those arrested, at a time when the number of inmates in American jails exceeds that of Stalin's during the time of his worst efforts to control Russian citizenry through imprisonment and torture.

We are, as Fareed Zakaria points out, "the incarceration nation."

Even some religious leaders, like Pat Roberts,  according to Zakaria, are taking a second look at their beliefs about marijuana and the  rapidly growing number of people going to jail for drug possession or for crimes involving drugs.  Recent estimates place the number in American jails at 6 million.

This comes also at a time, when the State of Oregon has reaffirmed the right to bear arms in almost every place, including on college campuses. This occurs despite the fact that research has proven over and over again that it is not the violent thinking and behavior of people that drives gun violence, but the availability of guns everywhere. Many of these firearms are obtained from the drug lords and through individuals at gun shows or on roadsides that come from drug-related activities. These guns for drugs trades are happening everywhere, as  recent arrests reveal.

It's guns for drugs, and its guns and increased violence as well. And its drug laws that don't discriminate and often are contradictory that continue to create problems for law enforcement and the American citizenry, experts tell us. It is the evidence about gun availability that Zakaria had examined in an earlier article.

The Rogue Area Drug Enforcement (RADE) team had been investigating the Wolf Creek area which led to the arrest Wednesday of a man who lives in the area and is the owner of the Grants Pass business "Get Your Hemp On/Southern Oregon Cannabis Club". Fifteen pounds of marijuana were taken by law enforcement along with 300 small marijuana plants. Richard Larry Lacey, age 62, has been charged with multiple felonies resulting from his arrest for marijuana with an estimated street value of $37,500.

The State of Oregon legalizes marijuana for medical use. That medical use requires state registration of the users and growers, but still conflicts with the federal mandate that outlaws the sale and possession of the drug.

It also means more and more people are arrested for possessing the drug despite the state mandates allowing its distribution legally within Oregon borders. And it also means the possible incarceration of another individual, adding to the increase in state budgets for jails and to the Stalinized methods of jailing American citizens.