I would say not, but if they are they shouldn't limited in their rights.
I take that as not impossible. I agree there should be a process to be made whole. I believe that should be upon release.
I would say not, but if they are they shouldn't limited in their rights.
I take that as not impossible. I agree there should be a process to be made whole. I believe that should be upon release.
Then they should not go free!
I'm still not absolutely sold on Constitutional Carry, which in most instances I view through a pro-LE lens.
A few questions:
If the state adopted Constitutional Carry:
-why should they waste money and manpower issuing LTCHs?
-should carriers be required to inform (if legally stopped) LE that they are carrying?
-how does reciprocity work?
Question two is an interesting one in Indiana. Indiana currently has no duty to inform, but it is in many ways circumvented by the tying of drivers licenses and handgun licenses together in LE databases which occurred a few years ago. Before that was done, at least locally, licenses for handguns did not appear in state returns in the local database here. There are also a decent number of people who may carry handguns without a license, so when they are stopped no such thing shows up.
Yeah, well kinda... but why should Indiana be concerned with reciprocity? There's no benefit in it, and for persons who oppose constitutional carry, why should their tax dollars be used for a benefit that is designed to be used in another state? Perhaps, LTCHs should be issued, unless the person want one pays for it individually?
That is in the interest of the individual, not the state.
Not if they've been released and can't be trusted to exercise their constitutional rights in civil society.
Then what are they doing being released/unleashed upon civil society?
Fair argument.
Using the same logic, I am in favor of ending Welfare funding, to make up any budgetary impact.
...The term felony is Constitutionally Vague...
Any crime with a maximum penalty exceeding 1 year imprisonment....that's been the definition for hundreds of years. Not vague.
....but where does the Constitution limit the 2d Amendment to non-felons, regardless of the definition.
Felons have 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th. 6th etc. amendment rights.
I was under the impression 30 common law definition at the time of the constitutions ratification was any crime for which one could receive capital punishment, but I stand open to being corrected.
Mandatory life sentences for every felony?