Demorat in action

[TheeBadOne]

Ellison seeks bill to let ex-felons vote

Rep. Keith Ellison said Friday he'll pursue legislation that would require states to let ex-felons vote in federal elections once they're out of jail or prison, which would nullify laws in states across the country, including Minnesota.

Ellison, a freshman Minnesota Democrat, had introduced legislation to let ex-felons vote when he was in the Minnesota Legislature. Now he's aiming for a bigger impact.

"Allowing felons to vote signals our value on redemption," he said in an interview. "We should believe in second chances. We should believe in redemption."

The question, Ellison said, is whether people who serve their sentences can join their communities' civic life.

"If what we want people to do is reintegrate, to rehabilitate," he said, "I can think of very few things that are more public-spirited than voting."

A report by The Sentencing Project last year found that almost 4 million Americans who have completed their prison terms remain unable to vote, because laws in most states prevent them from doing so.

According to the group, which supports criminal justice reform, there are 10 states in which a felony conviction can result in a lifetime voting ban. Minnesota and many other states let ex-felons vote once they have finished their parole and probation. Only two states - Maine and Vermont - let prison inmates vote.

Ellison isn't pushing the issue that far.

"I'd be happy if people could vote once they're out," he said. "I don't think there's any real good reason to deny you the right to vote once you're in, but, once you're out and you can vote - that would be a system that would make sense to me."

Ellison said he's still polishing the legislation, along with other lawmakers.

The Minnesota Republican Party expressed opposition to Ellison's idea.

"Felonies are so serious that there have to be serious consequences," said Mark Drake, a party spokesman.

Ellison said one reason he's pushing the issue is because of the effect that banning ex-felons from voting has had on black voters. Last year's Sentencing Project found that in 2004, about 1 in 12 African-Americans was disenfranchised because of a felony conviction - nearly five times the rate of non-blacks.

"It has a real disproportionate racial impact," Ellison said.

He said that many ex-felons made errors in judgment but are not bad people.

"It's easy to say they're all just monsters - which is completely untrue," he said. "I'm not saying that people don't deserve sanctions. I spent 16 years doing criminal defense. And Lord knows I represented a lot of clients who need to be in prison. I hate to say it, but it's true. Some of them were out of their mind and needed to be locked up."

But he said many people were just "messed up, and needed a break, and needed a chance."

Ellison has already introduced bills that would ban requiring photo IDs to vote in federal elections, and would require states to have same-day voter registration for federal elections.

[Hawkeye6]

So, TBO, what are your thoughts on redemption and letting felons who have completed their jail/probation/parole vote?

On a similar issue, what about restoring all civil rights to felons once they have completed their punishment? Here I am particularly speaking of 2nd Amendment rights.

Any thougts on either point from anybody?

My own thoughts are that we should let them own firearms and vote, at least in general. Their are certainly variations in scope amongst vrious felonies on the law books today. Maybe not for, say, treason or armed rebellion. Maybe no restoration of firearms rights for certain violent crimes but restoration for non-violent felonies?

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by Hawkeye6
Maybe no restoration of firearms rights for certain violent crimes but restoration for non-violent felonies? This is how it currently is. For some violent felonies you can never again own a firearm. For other felonies you can apply to "have your rights restored".

[skeet]

In theory you can apply to have your rights(2nd amendment too) restored but the agency that is supposed to do the job has not funded the program in years and therefore there is no program. You could probably pay to do the job yourself but the Feds are the ones that do it so I don't know how you could get it done.. And not only that if the state you live in declines to recognize the restoration..it doesn't mean squat. The program was called Relief from Disabilities and was supposedly done by the BATF. It was required by the 1968 GCA but they just don't fund it. I have a friend that applied and they just said they didn't do it any longer. And not only that the fellow pled guilty to a felony in court..the plea was accepted. He did 4 yrs of probation and restoration of money. At the same time the judge told him he would be allowed to have a shotgun and a 22 rifle!!?? This is not allowed under the gun control act of 68 but at one time half of that law was ignored by local courts.
As far as restoring rights. Repeat offenders of any kind ...No They didn't become repentant or learn anything by their incarceration . Violent offenders...NO. They are violent...why give 'em a gun?? White collar crime etc....Yeah I could live with that. I am a believer of the 2 time rule. Once is happenstance..2nd is enemy action and to be dealt with in like manner. There ain't any coincidence!

[TheeBadOne]

Here's what my state says:

609.165 RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

Subdivision 1. Restoration. When a person has been deprived of civil rights by reason of
conviction of a crime and is thereafter discharged, such discharge shall restore the person to all
civil rights and to full citizenship, with full right to vote and hold office, the same as if such
conviction had not taken place, and the order of discharge shall so provide.
Subd. 1a. Certain convicted felons ineligible to possess firearms. The order of discharge
must provide that a person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section
624.712, subdivision 5, is not entitled to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm for the
remainder of the person's lifetime. Any person who has received such a discharge and who
thereafter has received a relief of disability under United States Code, title 18, section 925, or
whose ability to possess firearms has been restored under subdivision 1d, shall not be subject to
the restrictions of this subdivision.
Subd. 1b. Violation and penalty. (a) Any person who has been convicted of a crime of
violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or
receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15
years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.
(b) A conviction and sentencing under this section shall be construed to bar a conviction and
sentencing for a violation of section 624.713, subdivision 2.
(c) The criminal penalty in paragraph (a) does not apply to any person who has received a
relief of disability under United States Code, title 18, section 925, or whose ability to possess
firearms has been restored under subdivision 1d.
Subd. 1c.[Repealed, 1999 c 61 s 2]
Subd. 1d. Judicial restoration of ability to possess a firearm by a felon. A person
prohibited by state law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm because of
a conviction or a delinquency adjudication for committing a crime of violence may petition a
court to restore the person's ability to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms and otherwise
deal with firearms.
The court may grant the relief sought if the person shows good cause to do so and the person
has been released from physical confinement.
If a petition is denied, the person may not file another petition until three years have elapsed
without the permission of the court.

Subd. 2. Discharge. The discharge may be:
(1) by order of the court following stay of sentence or stay of execution of sentence; or
(2) upon expiration of sentence.

Subd. 3. Applicability. This section does not apply to a forfeiture of and disqualification
for public office as provided in section 609.42, subdivision 2.

[skeet]

Your state is pretty clear on the restoration of rights except for the relief from disability thing. He may have the right to possess firearms in your state..but without the relief from disability he is breaking a Federal Law if he so possesses the firearm. The other Civil rights are covered pretty clearly in your statutes. To put it clearly and try to test it...take a former convict to a gun shop and see if he will pass the instant check. Bet he won't. Federal Law takes precedent

[fabsroman]

My view on it is that any two time felon should not have any of his rights restored. They shouldn't have the right to vote or the right to touch a firearm. Now, for a first time felon, as long as the crime isn't one of violence, I guess I could live with the restoration of their rights after any prison sentence and/or probation term is fullfilled.

The problem I have with repeat offenders voting is that eventually we will have a society of crime. I think crime is bad enough in this land already. Just had a person a couple of miles from me, in some brand new high dollar condos, get shot 3 times in his condo as 5 hispanics broke into the place at night and tried to rob him. After they shot him three times, they made him get down on the floor and they roughed him up asking for his money. The guy will probably be paralyzed for life and the max sentence these guys can get is 15 years. Me, I say break the trigger man's spine and then let him free. If I'm the guy that got shot, I'd hire an attorney to get a judgment against this guy and pursue it for the rest of that guy's life, regardless of the cost. Personal injury judgments obtained because of a crime of violence cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Anyway, I am getting off the point here. We are already too lenient on criminals. If somebody wants to commit a felony, they should have thought about losing their right to bear arms and their right to vote. Now, that brings me to a friend of my brother who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when he plowed into an old lady's car at 100+ in a 40 mph zone. He was 20 when this happened and received 5 years of probation. However, he still cannot possess a firearm and I know he is huge into hunting. The only thing he does is bow hunt. I'd like to see his right to possess a firearm restored and think that this might be one of the cases where it is a good idea.

There are always pros and cons to it. Maybe it should be something that is brought in front of a jury and a jury of ones peers can make the decision.

That brings me to another question. Can convicted felons serve on a jury? Do you think we should allow convicted felons to serve on a jury?

[skeet]

If they can vote they can serve on a jury..at least in most states. In Wyoming that is where they get the jury pool from. Now would a prosecuter choose to have a convicted felon on the jury?? I doubt it. I know of one person who served on a jury in a murder trial who had served time on probation but I don't know if he was convicted of a felony. Whatever it was it wasn't a crime of violence

[Lilred]

Usually I would say...if you are a convicted felon..then that is your own fault and you get what you get. However, these days, at least in my state, it dont take much to get a felony charge slapped on ya...so with that bein said, its hard to say.

I dont think felons should vote or serve on a jury...period. Birds of a feather DO flock together. Its also human nature to feel sorry for folks who has went through somethin bad if you have been through the same thing so puttin em on a jury is just silly.

Felonies and guns..I think while sometimes a felony charge aint always violent...but you made yer bed and now you gotta sleep in it.
Its unfortunate in some cases...but oh well.
Fabs got it pegged...criminals in general get away with too much now as it is and I dont see no need in lightenin up on em even more.
I understand that sometimes, people just make mistakes like Fab's freind. However, not only did that mistake cost someone their life, but it was stupid and irresponsible. You dont want someone with those 2 characterisitcs with a gun, on a jury or votin.
(I aint tryin to pick on your freind Fabs but he is a good example. I'm sure he is a good person, but it dont change what he done.)

[skeeter@ccia.com]

I think it is the democrats way of getting more voters. Dems and their history of handouts does kind of involve more people as a whole of the class that is involved in most crimes that would land you in jail. Domestic abuse, drugs, bar fights robbery etc... Still is a way to gather more votes. Now what about this? Do you think the drug dealer, car thief, street corner hood will go to the poles and vote? Na. Not unless he plans on having a kid he can collect $5000 for if Dem Clinton gets elected. Now he would have a reason to vote.
Maybe it would depend on the crime you were in for as to getting your life back when time served. I have no faith in the law system now days and the theory of innocent till proven guilty does not exist at all. We all know soon as you are held for anything it is splashed on the pages of local papers and you are cuffed and stuffed in a cell till you 'prove' innocent. So you are guilty until that time. I do have a cousin that did time for a set up and he could prove it was a set up for money and a game the people played to get money and he was the 4th person they took to court in the same manner but he could not bring up that fact in court and he did time. Law is unfair and how can you prove you are innocent if you aren't able to show all the facts? We need to go over the laws and get things back to the way they are to be. Fair and innocent till proven guilty.
Depends on the crime I guess.

[popplecop]

Keep the Federal Goverment out of States Rights. May be when they can get the Federal house straightened up they can look at other things. One of my Senators, Fiengold, will probably sponsor that bill in the Senate. He's so liberal Fat Teddy sits to his right.

[PJgunner]

IIRC, under the Firearms owners Protection Act of 1986, a convicted felon who has his rights restored by the state may own firearms. The law passes over the BATFE as I understand it. It's confusing as to whether it was the Congress who refused to give the BATFE the money to restore people's rights ot if the BATFE was offered the money and they refused. :mad: I've heard it both ways, but the one that sticks most with me is the BATFE refused the money. IIRC, it was written up on the American Rifleman.
Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, a felon had most, if not all of his rights back after paying off his debt to society. GCA 68 was Adolph Hitlers gun control law with the word felon substituted for Jew.
One can only hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing on the 2nd Amendment issue coming before them. Laws like GCA 68 should be repealed for the violations of the Constitution that they are.
Paul B.

[skeeter@ccia.com]

so isn't the person that takes an oath for office and swears to uphold the Constitution in violation of it when they get into office and want to change the Constitution? Still say that should be reason enough to get kicked out of office. Are we sure we want our state courts to have more power than the feds by keeping the feds out of state court issues? That is part of the anti program is to let the local and state courts determine their own gun right laws...NOT !.........in that case we can kiss our rights good bye

[skeet]

Back yonder in time the BATF was kinda trampling gun owners rights so Congress took some money away from them. At that point with the money crunch they discontinued the investigations into trestoring rights to people. Now with the new thing about people getting their rights back after mental problems we'll see what happens. As far as States giving people their rights back...that is fine. All states don't do it..the law of the land is the 68 Gun Control Act. If you have a conviction for a croime punishable by more than a year in jail(doesn't mean you had to get that punishment) you can't own a gun...by Federal Law. Try buying one with the instant check. A convicted person probably won't pass the nics check! Nics means NATIONAL instant Check system!

[PJgunner]

Skeet. From the BATFE website; Firearms FAQ.
Paul B.


(A8) Are there any alternatives for relief from firearms disabilities? [Back]


A person is not considered convicted for Gun Control Act purposes if he has been pardoned, had his civil rights restored, or the conviction was expunged or set aside, unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration expressly provides the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Persons convicted of a Federal offense may apply for a Presidential pardon. 28 CFR 1.1-1.10 specify the rules governing petitions for obtaining Presidential pardons. You may contact the Pardon Attorney's Office at the U.S. Department of Justice, 500 First Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20530, to inquire about the procedures for obtaining a Presidential pardon.

Persons convicted of a State offense may contact the State Attorney General's Office within the State in which they reside and the State of their conviction for information concerning any alternatives that may be available, such as pardons and civil rights restoration.

[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)]