H.R 3335

[karlm]

Apparently this thing has been in committee since 2009. So now they want to restore the right to vote to convicted felons? WTF is going on in this country, dems trying to lock in more votes?
h ttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3335:

[chile]

I think once the time and all probation is over and done then maybe. Will they all vote and all vote for the progressive party? Who's to know, but I would go 50/50 on both issues.

[wowzers]

Why shouldn't they have their voting right restored upon completing all of their sentence (including Parole, Probation)? I also don't understand why they lose second admendment rights either. They don't lose any other rights in the Bill of Rights. Also in another thread I think it was deemed that the right to arm your self was a natural right. Instead of trying to come up with ways to deal with criminals in the future deal with them the first time.

[yojinbukai]

So far as I am concerned, someone convicted of a felony has given up those two rights knowingly and willingly when they decided to commit a crime. The statutes are held at the state level, not the federal level. Once again, this bill is another means for the fed to control the states.

If you seriously want to give convicted felons the right to bear arms again, you should spend some time with a few of them who are not related to or otherwise known to you previously. While you're at it, strike down the Lautenberg amendment, which removes the 2nd amendment rights without a felony conviction.

*****************
from http:// archive.fairvote.org /?page=205!!!! (parsed to stop linking)

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.

[wowzers]

So far as I am concerned, someone convicted of a felony has given up those two rights knowingly and willingly when they decided to commit a crime.

Why? They don't give up their other Bill of Rights rights. Do they lose freedom of speech, right to a fair and speedy trial? Why can one right that shall not be infringed be cherry picked? I can agree that the voting should be a states issue though.

[karlm]

Why? They don't give up their other Bill of Rights rights. Do they lose freedom of speech, right to a fair and speedy trial? Why can one right that shall not be infringed be cherry picked? I can agree that the voting should be a states issue though.

That is the point I was trying to make, since there is no constitutional right to vote why is the Federal Government trying to control the states with blanket legislation yet again.

[Fu King Lawyer]

They can do as much (perhaps more) damage with a vote as they can with a gun.
v/r
FKL

[8Ball]

They can do as much (perhaps more) damage with a vote as they can with a gun.
v/r
FKL

Yep.
Furthermore... Get this passed. Get immigration reform passed. Keep handing out goodies to the Citizens.
It will create a permanent majority. Who will they be voting for? I wonder... ;)

[MikeP]

There are some relatively minor things that are considered felonies, such as theft in the $500 or less range.

Not a simple issue.

[heavyguns1/1]

Should be that taxpayers are the only ones that vote. Felons should stay excluded.
On the local level, people that don't pay a school tax bill shouldn't be voting on school budgets.
The right to vote should extend to citizens that pay for the consequences of the vote.

[wowzers]

Ollie North was convicted of three felonies for about a year.

Edited to add: The ACLU helped get his convictions vacated. Never would have though that.

[Fu King Lawyer]

There are some relatively minor things that are considered felonies, such as theft in the $500 or less range.

Not a simple issue.

MikeP,

You are correct and I couldn't agree with you more. But in the general sense, I don't want some child porn/child rapist puke being able to live near a school. I don't want some gang bang thug ever being able to possess a gun (hard to read his mind that he "reformed" and only needs it for protection) and I don't want people who have done serious $**t with premeditation, being able to skew our political process.

The fact is the legislation - just like health care -goes too far, too fast. We have become an MTV generation that no longer engage in considered opinions. The only productive moment for any member of congress regardless of party is a 20 second soundbite on the evening news.

When doing the more weightier things, it is best to do things a step at a time, watch, assess and move on. We can try it, "You stupid $**ts that bounced multiple checks, smoked dope, (take your pick) are our first test case. We'll give you back some (all) of your rights and then let's see...". We can always stop the process or later advance it - but giving them all back rights as a class is just plain stupid. IMHO

v/r
phil

[wowzers]

MikeP,

You are correct and I couldn't agree with you more. But in the general sense, I don't want some child porn/child rapist puke being able to live near a school. I don't want some gang bang thug ever being able to possess a gun (hard to read his mind that he "reformed" and only needs it for protection) and I don't want people who have done serious $**t with premeditation, being able to skew our political process.
l

I agree with you on that, but if they guy is such a menace then deal with them the first time. The gangbanger should never have the right to own a firearm again because he never going to get out of prison. I know this is wishful thinking, but he legal system should be dealing with these types the first time instead of hardly dealing with it and legislating for future problems with them. If they are truly reformed enough to be back in regular society it should be because they are truly reformed, not just reformed enough to stick back out here with half rights.

[yojinbukai]

God help us if we actually start holding individuals accountable for their actions while simultaneously not forgetting the things they've done in the past.

To me, it's no different than saying a DUI conviction is forfeiture of your privilege to drive.

Make the decision to commit a felony (which regardless of dollar amount or perception is still as wrong as Michael Jackson at a Cub Scout Jamboree) and you knowingly give up certain things. One thing you are forgetting is that this person has given up ALL of their freedoms while incarcerated. Society, at the state level, has dictated the rule of law and written that in most states, a convicted felon cannot be trusted with providing any input into the leadership of their state or nation.

There are avenues for redress already, used by a lot of convicted felons, to reinstate their right to vote. Those are sufficient and addressed individually, providing a solution to the "every felony is not the same" issue.