TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

All it takes to make us all felons is a pen stroke.

Do you really think that's going to happen?

Chas.

Pariah3j wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?