testtest

Jelly Roll wants his rights restored, especially 2nd Amendment. What say you?

Nothing to do with the article. Just a thought that has rattled around in my head for a long time. When someone serves their sentence, it is said "They've paid their debt to society." Or another one is that they must convince a parole board they have been "rehabilitated." If and when a convict is released back into society, why aren't their rights restored if either of the two aforementioned statements are true?

Additionally, the removed right(s) should fit the crime. Outlandish suggestions below.

• Kill someone drunk driving - No more alcohol or motor vehicles for life.
• Kill with a firearm - No more firearms for life.
• Commit fraud for financial gain - Every penny you earn for the rest of your life goes to your victims minus very minimal living expenses.
• Sexual crime - Ding-a-ling removed.

The one that really trips my trigger is loss of voting rights. No vote should = no taxes. I realize voting rights can be restored. But the process in some states is painful. I personally wouldn't participate in the process and I feel a person should no longer be obligated to pay taxes unless the right to vote remains untouched before, throughout, and after incarceration.

This list could go on and on for a lifetime. But my point is if a person wasn't convicted of a crime that even remotely involved a firearm, don't remove that right. I understand the "violent person" aspect but a violent person can be violent with a multitude of makeshift weaponry.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with restoring a felon's 2nd Amendment Rights if the crime was non-violent and they have completed their sentence or probation and are off of parole. Jelly Roll should absolutely not have his rights restored until he is off parole, which is a period of post incarceration supervision to ensure they can reintegrate into society with certain activities curtailed.

While I applaud the work he's done on himself spiritually and physically, someone with his record should have to show a substantial period of staying out of trouble before having gun rights restored.
 
I’m on the fence about it. Yes some people get their life turned around and actually become productive citizens. If he paid for his crimes and never went back to jail in a decade then I say work on getting it sponge off then go for it. The government has ways of keeping records and all.
 
While not a friend, I went to high school with a guy who got convicted of felonious possession of a very small amount of cocaine at 18YO. Paid his price to society, grew up and matured. At age 40 he was married, had a couple teenagers, and could not take them deer hunting. Seemed a punishment unfit in his situation.
 
It's not about hunting, his words
He admitted his wish to own a gun goes beyond his desire to hunt, but he wishes he would be able to protect himself.

"I'm a million dollars plus a year in security. I'd cut that bill in half tomorrow if I had the right to carry," Jelly Roll said.
Click to expand...
If it was about "hunting" he could hunt with a bow, many felon's go this route. If you crack this door for him expect a rush of others expecting the same treatment.
Here's a thought, if you like to hunt or enjoy firearms then do not do anything to jeopardize your right to do either. Everyone here has!
I'm against it.
 
Model 457 said:
Nothing to do with the article. Just a thought that has rattled around in my head for a long time. When someone serves their sentence, it is said "They've paid their debt to society." Or another one is that they must convince a parole board they have been "rehabilitated." If and when a convict is released back into society, why aren't their rights restored if either of the two aforementioned statements are true?
Click to expand...
Drop the parole board part and I'm right there with you. Some of the nicest, most helpful people you ever want to meet are in prison........... right up until you say no. I could go on about hug-a-thug, "we can fix em", oh so edumatcated..., but I won't. Don't want to wind myself up this morning.
If someone has done their time, ALL THEIR TIME to include probation, made all mandated restitution, completed mandated "education" then they have served their obligation to society and should be a free, and complete citizen in good standing.
If we can't trust them with an inanimate object, maybe we shouldn't trust them to be out and about in society.
 
IMHO-committing a violent crime basically shows a tendency to violent aggressive behavior and poor judgement, so no, these clowns should not be allowed firearms (I’ve got two idiot nephews who are both in this category-prior felony offenses involving alcohol and violence). Giving these morons a firearm is almost guaranteeing trouble. An embezzler or other “non violent” offender? No problem. Somebody made the comment “no vote = no taxes”, I’m old fashioned enough that to ME, no taxes should be= no vote😏
 
I think every case should be based on the seriousness of the crime committed.
We probably all did something in our younger days that should never follow us forever.
That being said in Illinois, Governor Flintstones bought and paid for judges would not give you a second look no matter the infraction hell, his judges don't want law abiding citizens to own any firearms.
 
I have mixed feelings about it. Ideally, if someone pays their debt for criminal acts they committed then I think all of their rights should be restored. Currently, I believe, convicted felons who have paid their debt in full have a right to free speech, right to a trial by jury, the right to not self-incriminate, etc... So, why shouldn't their second amendment rights be restored too?
However, there are people who never committed a crime but cannot exercise their second amendment right but can enjoy other rights protected by the the constitution. These are people who are prohibited due to mental illness, involuntary psych commitment, recreational drug use etc... So, a scenario already exists where all rights are protected for some, while some rights are restricted for others, which, on its face, is bothersome.
Maybe 2a rights can be restored for felons on a case-by-case basis who have paid their debt and meet the criteria of not being a prohibited person?
I don't know, but it is an interesting question with no good answer. It does remind me of Jefferson's quote, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
 
No. He made his choices so now he has to own them. Singing half assed songs about them/your life shouldn't count. Another privileged celebrity looking/expecting to get a pass for their past. Why all the love for Jelly Roll (Criminal) and the venom for Bruce Springsteen (views I don't like). If AI can be believed he was arrested 40 times. Makes a mockery of the justice system. Pardons should be for the wrongfully convicted. Don't believe he was.
 
Wirenut said:
I think every case should be based on the seriousness of the crime committed.
We probably all did something in our younger days that should never follow us forever.
That being said in Illinois, Governor Flintstones bought and paid for judges would not give you a second look no matter the infraction hell, his judges don't want law abiding citizens to own any firearms.
Click to expand...
You're correct I smoked weed but didn't commit aggravated robbery for example. Not the same I don't believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top