Opinion
In America, the struggle for voting rights has long been a fight for justice and inclusion, particularly for those who have served time in prison.
But there’s another fight that echoes the same sense of unfairness— the struggle for gun rights for felons who have completed their sentences but remain barred from owning firearms for self-defense, hunting, or even living in a household where guns are present.
The question is simple: Why is it that once someone has “paid their debt to society,” they can regain the right to vote [and pay taxes], but in most states, they still can’t own a gun?
Both the right to vote and the right to bear arms are fundamental to what it means to be an American. Just like the Tennessee woman fighting to regain her voting rights, former felons are often forced to jump through legal hoops just to exercise what should be a basic right. A person may have turned their life around, built a family, and contributed to their community, but the government still deems them unworthy of the right to protect themselves and their loved ones.
In many states, this restriction extends beyond just the individual. Imagine you’ve done your time, started fresh, and now you’re living with your family. But because of your felony conviction, your spouse or roommate can’t legally have a gun in the home, even if they have never broken the law. That means not only are you denied your Second Amendment rights, but your family’s safety is also compromised.
This issue ties directly into the conversation about fairness and equality under the law. Just as disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect certain communities— particularly Black Americans— restrictions on gun rights often unfairly target low-income individuals and people of color who have served their time.
These laws are remnants of an old Democrat-controlled system designed to control and suppress, keeping individuals from fully reintegrating into society.
There’s a common argument that felons who have served their time should be trusted to vote again because they’ve paid their dues.
So why should the same logic not apply to gun rights? If we believe in second chances, in redemption, and in the ability of individuals to change, then we must also believe that they should have the right to defend themselves.
Opponents of restoring gun rights to felons argue it’s a public safety issue, but the reality is that responsible gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. It’s not about handing out firearms to everyone indiscriminately. It’s about acknowledging that people who have rebuilt their lives deserve to exercise the same rights as anyone else.
Denying these individuals the right to own a firearm, even after they’ve proven themselves to be upstanding citizens, perpetuates the stigma of their past. It’s time to reassess these outdated laws and recognize that once someone has completed their sentence, they should be able to rejoin society fully—and that includes being able to defend themselves and their families.
Just as the right to vote empowers citizens to have a voice in their government, the right to bear arms empowers individuals to protect what matters most. It’s time to stop moving the goalposts for people who have already paid the price and allow them to live as free Americans with all the rights that come with it.
About Tred Law
Tred Law is your everyday patriot with a deep love for this country and a no-compromise approach to the Second Amendment. He does not write articles for Ammoland every week, but when he does write, it is usually about liberals Fing with his right to keep and bear arms.
from https://ift.tt/MIz9DKg
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment