TexasCHLforum.com

Lynyrd wrote:I am aware of a young man who got caught with one marijuana cigarette on school property a few days after he turned 17. The result was a felony because it was on school property. He tried to join two different branches of the military, but I am told they wouldn't take him because of the felony. Many prospective employers refused to hire him once they did a criminal background check. Some 15 years later he has had no further trouble with the law and by all appearances is an honest trustworthy adult. There should be some way this young man could put that mistake behind him.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:First I need to say that there has been a gradual creep toward a judicial system that would make King George III proud. The trend has been to elevate far too many misdemeanors to felony status. This should not have happened. I base my comments largely on this fact.

I believe:
1. Non-violent felonies should not impact civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. In the alternative, all civil rights should be automatically restored after ____ years;
2. Violent felonies should result in loss of all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, but with an administrative procedure to have all civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The citizen should have the right to appeal the administrative finding to state court;

The reason I believe a violent felon should have an avenue to restore civil rights is because there can be circumstances where a person commits a violent crime under conditions that would prompt otherwise law-abiding persons to do so. For example, a father kills his son-in-law for beating his daughter. It's murder, but the man is not likely to be a threat to others and he should have the right to seek restoration of his civil rights. If it is shown during the hearing or trial that the father has be violent at other times, then the application for restoration could/should be denied.

Chas.