Right to own Reinstatement

[Smith]

Chuck I agree with the second half. If the are reinstated in society it should be a full reinstatement. If they can't do that it means they can't be trusted and so shouldn't be out.

As far as the first part people know there are consequences for their actions. The reason they made their choice for is irrelevant. These are the consequences for felonious actions. You can't much cry about it after the fact. That's why accountability at young ages is important.

[Chucktshoes]

I wasn't trying to excuse his actions then, was just setting up the back story of the how he got there so as to contrast it against the sensitive nature of his current career and the ignorance of his lack of reinstatement of rights.

In general, when it comes to crime I am not concerned with the "why" but the "what". That's why I don't support hate crimes legislation. I don't care why you did what you did. Here's your sentence, serve it. Now don't do that anymore or we won't let you back out.

[DaveTN]

Crazy thing is he is an IT security auditor for banks. He can be trusted to hack into banks and do physical vulnerability assessments, but can't own a gun, pure silliness.

Do the banks know he is a convicted felon?

[Guest Revelator]

Under Tennessee law, judicial diversion will save most folks who screwed up that one time. The way the law works currently, it will allow I think pretty much all non-violent felonies, and all misdemeanors except DUI to be permanently expunged upon completion of probation. DUIs stay on forever in this state, though that won't prevent someone from having a gun (but I think it does keep you from getting a carry permit for five years). The two catches with diversion are that it applies only to first-time offenses (excluding juvenile charges), and it's up to the judge whether you get it. Most of the time judges grant it, but there are always exceptions. So unless you've done something really bad, like rob a bank or murder someone (and acutally, three of the five classes of homicide in this state are diversion-eligible offenses), or you've just got a bad record, you stand at least a chance of having it cleared from your record. This should not prevent someone from buying or owning firearms, though I've heard stories of folks getting denied despite an expungment. I imagine that an appeal will take care of this. The purpose of Tennessee's diversion statute is to restore the individual to the status they held before they were ever charged. It wipes the slate totally clean. That's the way it works now. I don't know what the law was like 25, 30 years ago, or if this process was even available.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

The TBI's appeal is a joke, its a marry go round of the same old rehashings. Basically tell your friend to get into "black powder"... thats about the only kind of gun he's ever going to be able to use.

[E4 No More]

Under Tennessee law, judicial diversion will save most folks who screwed up that one time. The way the law works currently, it will allow I think pretty much all non-violent felonies, and all misdemeanors except DUI to be permanently expunged upon completion of probation. DUIs stay on forever in this state, though that won't prevent someone from having a gun (but I think it does keep you from getting a carry permit for five years). The two catches with diversion are that it applies only to first-time offenses (excluding juvenile charges), and it's up to the judge whether you get it. Most of the time judges grant it, but there are always exceptions. So unless you've done something really bad, like rob a bank or murder someone (and acutally, three of the five classes of homicide in this state are diversion-eligible offenses), or you've just got a bad record, you stand at least a chance of having it cleared from your record. This should not prevent someone from buying or owning firearms, though I've heard stories of folks getting denied despite an expungment. I imagine that an appeal will take care of this. The purpose of Tennessee's diversion statute is to restore the individual to the status they held before they were ever charged. It wipes the slate totally clean. That's the way it works now. I don't know what the law was like 25, 30 years ago, or if this process was even available.

I don't know about the other folks on this forum, but a REALLY appreciate it when real lawyers give learned opinions in this forum. Thanks!

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Hey Pat, there was a law that passed here in Tn either last year or the year before that pretty much said any felony even with an expungment would be prohibited. Me and John Harris were talking about it yesterday, but I cant remember the tca.

[molonlabetn]

The problem isn't so much whether or not felons should be allowed to own guns... it's how the law currently defines what a felony is, and the lame punishments for them.

A 'felon' should be only one who has intentionally and maliciously caused (or attempted to cause ) serious and irreparable harm to another person or person(s)... whether physically, financially, psychologically, etc...

By that definition, I believe felons should not own guns... felons should not be free in society either, period, if their debt to society is still considered unpaid.

The fact that one can have their rights stripped because of merely possessing some illicit object, in the wrong place, or at the wrong time (gun, drug, etc...) without actually using it to some harm, or doing harm in order to get it, is ridiculous.

But, as the law currently stands, with the wide range of things one could end up with a felony on their record for, it is at least a filter and a deterrent for certain behavior... and it's not very hard to go through life without getting a felony on your record, MOST people do. This is just one of those things to consider before allowing yourself into certain situations.

[Guest Revelator]

Hey Pat, there was a law that passed here in Tn either last year or the year before that pretty much said any felony even with an expungment would be prohibited. Me and John Harris were talking about it yesterday, but I cant remember the tca.

I'd like to know what law that is. In my opinion it would conflict with both the judicial diversion statute and the unlawful weapons possession statute. If a person goes on diversion they must plead guilty to the charge and serve probation, but they are never convicted; that is, a judgment is never entered against them. The case is simply deferred until their probation is up, then they may come back and get the charge expunged. It's important to understand that charges may be expunged but convictions cannot. And under diversion, a person is not convicted. Furthermore, once it's expunged the person is restored to the legal status they held before they were ever arrested. That's the whole purpose of diversion. They cannot be found to have made a false statement or commit perjury if they ever say they were never charged with an offense. That includes filling out a 4473. And in the weapons statute, it says that a person commits an offense if they are in possession of a firearm and have been convicted of a felony. As I explained expungments are not convictions. I just don't see how someone who completed diversion and had it expunged can be legally denied to own a firearm. I don't doubt that they deny folks who were at one time charged with something (and TBI would have access to the non public records that don't get destroyed), but that denial should get reversed.

I do know that the laws regarding convicted felons have changed, and I imagine if they've had their rights restored it doesn't help them in trying to buy a gun. But that's why I chimed in about judicial diversion--it'll save those folks who screwed up bad that one time. If they do it right they can keep it off their record and it'll never be a conviction.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Now Im vague on this but I beliieve its the one that took away the ability for everyone with a felony conviction passed in 2008. I think its codified in 39-17-1307... I will recheck it in a few when I have time.

Btw, I was just asking I consider you and some others here more up to date then I am.

Edited March 5, 2010 by GLOCKMEISTER

[Smith]

The problem isn't so much whether or not felons should be allowed to own guns... it's how the law currently defines what a felony is, and the lame punishments for them.

A 'felon' should be only one who has intentionally and maliciously caused (or attempted to cause ) serious and irreparable harm to another person or person(s)... whether physically, financially, psychologically, etc...

By that definition, I believe felons should not own guns... felons should not be free in society either, period, if their debt to society is still considered unpaid.

The fact that one can have their rights stripped because of merely possessing some illicit object, in the wrong place, or at the wrong time (gun, drug, etc...) without actually using it to some harm, or doing harm in order to get it, is ridiculous.

But, as the law currently stands, with the wide range of things one could end up with a felony on their record for, it is at least a filter and a deterrent for certain behavior... and it's not very hard to go through life without getting a felony on your record, MOST people do. This is just one of those things to consider before allowing yourself into certain situations.

+1 . I think it's a case of unintended, or if your tin foil is tight, intended consequences. The "lesser" felonies were added to increase the sentencing ability on accomplices and peripheral criminals and ended up catching a lot of other people it was not necessarily intended for. Plus police like felony arrest (propaganda, stats, ect.) and it is a lot easy to get possession felonies than actual "crime" felonies. Serpas own statistical LE tactic is proof of that. Stop as many cars as possible to increase felony arrest.

[Guest Dean Wormer]

Are antiques considered "firearms" under the law?

IAMAL

I do think that it shouldn't be a blanket ban, except on violent felonies and repeat offenses. (I am of the persuasion that multiple felonies, and particularly violent crimes, 1-time, should = life in prison). So effectively, if you can't be trusted with a gun or a ballot, you really should be in prison. Some white collar crime, though maybe not directly, IS VIOLENT... just ask Madoff's victims.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Dean Wormer

[Guest clownsdd]

Whatever has happened to personal responsibility? All of the above examples knew they were committing a crime and are now complaining about their rights....bs....THEIR FAULT, they have got to suffer the consequences. I really don't care if a convicted felon gets any rights back, serves them right.

The same ones that are wanting to claim ignorance, youth, stupidity, are the same ones that are clamoring for harsher punishment, incarceration, do the crime, do the time etc....You break the law, you pay the consequences whatever they are. Ignorance and stupidity is no excuse.

Sorry if I hurt anybodies "feelings", but we have too many repeat offenders out there already.

[Fallguy]

I don't think anyone is saying that a person who commits a crime shouldn't be punished. The question is, how long should that punishment last?

[tntnixon]

What I find interesting about this discussion is the fact that so many "gun people" are arguing against the "fundamental right" to keep and bear arms by a entire class of people. Last time I checked it is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Would these same people argue that convicted felons should not have the right to speak, pray, publish a newspaper, have warrantless searches of their property or be forced to harbor military personel in their dwelling? Probably not.

Until we recognize the 2nd Ammendment for what it truely is (Heller ruled that it is a fundamental right or God-given right that no government can take away), how can we expect non-gun folks to do the same?

[molonlabetn]

What I find interesting about this discussion is the fact that so many "gun people" are arguing against the "fundamental right" to keep and bear arms by a entire class of people. Last time I checked it is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Would these same people argue that convicted felons should not have the right to speak, pray, publish a newspaper, have warrantless searches of their property or be forced to harbor military personel in their dwelling? Probably not.

Until we recognize the 2nd Ammendment for what it truely is (Heller ruled that it is a fundamental right or God-given right that no government can take away), how can we expect non-gun folks to do the same?

When the definition of a 'felon' is one who has commited a crime heinous enough to have their rights stripped by a judge/jury, yes. They can't vote either. At some point they had a choice to be part of the criminal activity or not. It is my personal opinion that this is currently executed improperly, however, since a person who has sacrificed their own 'rights' by preying upon those of others should not be allowed back into society until their debt has been paid... (in some cases the debt cannot be repaid, since there is no way to bring life back to a murder victim, or rape victim, etc... those are capital crimes which should be punished accordingly). But, if some are judged to be fit to become a citizen again, free in society, all of their rights should be restored as they were before. Plus, repeat offenders should never see the light of day again, one way or another.

[tntnixon]

When the definition of a 'felon' is one who has commited a crime heinous enough to have their rights stripped by a judge/jury, yes. They can't vote either. At some point they had a choice to be part of the criminal activity or not. It is my personal opinion that this is currently executed improperly, however, since a person who has sacrificed their own 'rights' by preying upon those of others should not be allowed back into society until their debt has been paid... (in some cases the debt cannot be repaid, since there is no way to bring life back to a murder victim, or rape victim, etc... those are capital crimes which should be punished accordingly). But, if some are judged to be fit to become a citizen again, free in society, all of their rights should be restored as they were before. Plus, repeat offenders should never see the light of day again, one way or another.

Actually, your views are very close to mine.

One problem we now have is the fact that we have made so many crimes that would have historically been misdemeanors, into "felonies".

I personally would like the term felony only applied to violent acts and guaranteed a true life sentence and/or execution. I also would not limit misdemeanor sentences to 11 months 29 days.

The truth is our entire criminal code needs to be re-vamped. It does not reflect our society, our belief system or our Constitution as it was originally intended. It has evolved to a point where it no longer makes any sense.

If someone is safe enough to be roaming the same streets as I am, they should not be denied any of the same rights and priviledges that I enjoy. However, all too often our legal system sees fit to put way too many un-safe people back on the streets to commit the very same crimes they were originally convicted of and/or worse.

[molonlabetn]

The problem is our judicial system is based on how much money a crime generates or costs for the districts, agencies, and lawyers involved... there is very little honor left in the law.

[ShamGlock]

Whatever has happened to personal responsibility? All of the above examples knew they were committing a crime and are now complaining about their rights....bs....THEIR FAULT, they have got to suffer the consequences. I really don't care if a convicted felon gets any rights back, serves them right.

The same ones that are wanting to claim ignorance, youth, stupidity, are the same ones that are clamoring for harsher punishment, incarceration, do the crime, do the time etc....You break the law, you pay the consequences whatever they are. Ignorance and stupidity is no excuse.

Sorry if I hurt anybodies "feelings", but we have too many repeat offenders out there already.

Wow man, really. The actions are their fault, I won't make excuses for anyone. But if it's non-violent how long does someone need to pay for their transgressions before it's enough? My brother got involved in some stupid stuff in Nashville a few years back. All non violent charges but he could not afford a lawyer and got hammered on the money laundering and tax evasion charges. He spent 3 years in prison and the only job he can land now is a crappy over the road truck driver job. He was lucky to get that. If you don't allow anyone a second chance to re-enter society and function normally within the confines of the law what do you think they will do to survive? I'm not making excuses for anyone, God knows he put my family through hell and I'm still pissed, but he paid his debt. He did more time than alot of violent offenders and has been stuggling to make ends meet for years now. How long do non-violent felons need to be ostracized before somebody like you can cut them a break?

[molonlabetn]

Basically, non-violent offenders shouldn't have been labelled felons in the first place... but without opening the door to even violent offenders being able to wash away their transgressions just as easily, I don't see the rules on expunging felonies and reinstating rights changing, unless crimes are recatagorized across the board.

[tntnixon]

Whatever has happened to personal responsibility? All of the above examples knew they were committing a crime and are now complaining about their rights....bs....THEIR FAULT, they have got to suffer the consequences. I really don't care if a convicted felon gets any rights back, serves them right.

The same ones that are wanting to claim ignorance, youth, stupidity, are the same ones that are clamoring for harsher punishment, incarceration, do the crime, do the time etc....You break the law, you pay the consequences whatever they are. Ignorance and stupidity is no excuse.

Sorry if I hurt anybodies "feelings", but we have too many repeat offenders out there already.

Hope you never do any of these things Stupid Laws - Tennessee

[rab]

I guess I opened up a can of worms with my original question. I have continued to read all the post from everyone and as I had said not looking for anything speical,just that it hard to believe that for growing two and a half lbs of pot in in 1980 could cost someone so much. My brother and I both know that what he did was wrong. Just wants you be able to go hunting now with out breaking the law once again.

[redfsr]

I guess I opened up a can of worms with my original question. I have continued to read all the post from everyone and as I had said not looking for anything speical,just that it hard to believe that for growing two and a half lbs of pot in in 1980 could cost someone so much. My brother and I both know that what he did was wrong. Just wants you be able to go hunting now with out breaking the law once again.

Easiest thing would be for him to hunt with black powder. Black powder only guns aren't defined as "firearms."