Felon friend shooting

[DaveTN]

RobertNashville types his posts out in like a MS Word or

something.. I never get people who do that.

Because it’s far more advanced than forum software, and in two keystrokes it’s in the reply window.

[Daniel]

mikegideon/Daniel;

If you are referring to the separation of sentences (and if you are not then I don't know what you are referring to), it has nothing to do with word wrap or using Word. I separated the two sentences you quoted purposely because the second sentence is not a continuation or an elaboration of the thought in the first. That is the reason I separate most sentences. It also, I believe, makes a post much easier to read than having what winds up as one, huge paragraph.

Not what I was talking about... I was agreeing with what you posted then making a seperate statement. When I quoted your text it had a lot of uneccasary code embedded that I took to be from using a word processing program outside of the forums reply window.

[Daniel]

Because it’s far more advanced than forum software, and in two keystrokes it’s in the reply window.

It just seems more trouble than just hitting quick reply and replying.

[mikegideon]

Okay but then, who/what were you referring to???

Daniel's comment about the posts that have limited characters per line to avoid word wrap. Your posts don't do that.

[RobertNashville]

Not what I was talking about... I was agreeing with what you posted then making a seperate statement. When I quoted your text it had a lot of uneccasary code embedded that I took to be from using a word processing program outside of the forums reply window.

And who gave you permission to look at my underlying code???

Anyway, I see now.

When typing a sentence or two, like I am here, using the forum window only is fine but when writing a long post or one with multiple quotes and/or one that I'm spending considerable time on it makes fare more sense to do it in Word and then when I'm ready, post it in the forum. The keystrokes necessary to copy and past from Word into the forum pane takes a bout a half-second.

[Guest Jamie]

Interesting thread... After reading the whole thing, a couple of things caught my eye:

Some people truly deserve what they get, but some people make stupid mistakes when they are young. No need to pay for it for the rest of their lives when they are good, responsible citizens.

The problem is, there are many mistakes a person a person can make that they'll have to pay for the rest of their lives... and that don't always have anything to do with the law. Doesn't matter if they ( the person ) are good, bad, or indifferent. And this is something that far too many youngsters don't learn soon enough.

Being charged and being convicted are two different things. Go ahead and trust a felon, give him (or her) a great big hug and sing koom-bye-ya together. My money is on the DA, judge and the juries' judgment on these matters. Life ain't fair, dude. It's even less fair if you're a low-life.

And the folks you mention are the same people that regularly put known violent offenders/re-offenders back out on the streets.

Kind of ironic that it's the ones who haven't learned their lesson and who've demonstrated that the rules don't mean anything to 'em are the very ones that can and will still carry a weapon, while the ones who did learn from their mistake and will follow the rules are now disarmed... at least until they decide not to follow the rules any more. Helluva way to reform a criminal, isn't it?

BTW... I know 2 people who've been convicted of felonies... one for threatening to kill someone, the other for something drug-related. The first has never been without a gun since leaving prison. The other, as far as I know, has never even picked up a gun, and is now trying to do right and do all the things one should do.

Who would y'all say is the more reformed of the two? ( Though neither has ever gotten into any more trouble. )

Edited September 27, 2010 by Jamie

[daddyo]

Maybe most felons, IE repeat offenders, but not all. I think you'd be surprised at some of the things that are felonies. I don't think that just because you get in a really bad fight at 18 or 19 and get charged with felony assault that you should be forever scorned from society and gun ownership if you stay out of trouble.

I tend to agree; case-by-case basis seems to be appropriate.

[Guest DMasterson]

From a question on a point of law, to a discussion of what a 'felon' is, to sniping about age, back to discussions about what constitutes a felon, to forum appropriate grammar-nazi and back to felons again....

Man, I love this thread

[mikegideon]

From a question on a point of law, to a discussion of what a 'felon' is, to sniping about age, back to discussions about what constitutes a felon, to forum appropriate grammar-nazi and back to felons again....

Man, I love this thread

Welcome to TGO

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

From a question on a point of law, to a discussion of what a 'felon' is, to sniping about age, back to discussions about what constitutes a felon, to forum appropriate grammar-nazi and back to felons again....

Man, I love this thread

...

Welcome to TGO

This is true.

[Guest TargetShooter84]

IBTL!

[mikegideon]

IBTL!

Nope... got at least 3 more topics to cover

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

<OBJECT id=ieooui classid=clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D></OBJECT>

With regards to the rest of your post, I think it boils down to this…either you truly believe human beings have God given rights; recognized and protected by the Constitution or you don’t. if you believe that they don't then what we call "rights" are really nothing more than privileges dispensed through the good graces of politicians. However, if you believe that our rights are truly inalienable then those rights should and can only be restricted under very specific circumstances and only to the extent absolutely necessary.

That thinking is what allows us to have some, but not many, restrictions on freedom of expression such as not inciting people to riot and not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire and not being able to publish pornographic pictures of children. That line of reasoning is what supports the idea that some people should lose their right to keep and bear arms under certain circumstances.

However, if you believe that our rights are truly rights, then there no logic in saying that anyone convicted of a felony, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of any other consideration should lose a God given right forever. Nor is there any logic in singling out just one, specific right like the right to bear arms. If there is any logic for such a position; it would be equally logical to say that a convicted felon, regardless of the specifics and regardless of the circumstances or any other consideration should lose ALL his rights forever.

Carried to the extreme, you could make the argument that a felon should lose even the most basic right of all, the right to life - at the very least, you could make good argument for making the penalty for any any felony crimes a life sentence in prison...I mean, why should society bother to draw any distinction between severity/type of felony at all; why not just lock them away forever!

Obviously, you and I disagree here but I would encourage you to reexamine your opinion because some of what you are suggesting sounds a lot like punishing a person for what he might do - thankfully, our system of justice doesn't work that way and I hope it never does.

And yes, I do think the states should decide almost everything for themselves. That is, in fact, why we have states in the first place! And just to make note of something; unless you are in the military no one is forced to move anywhere in this country.

Robert in Nashville

Great to have someone reply in this thread with honorable intentions.

You’d make a great forum leader, when you get members of a gun forum arguing for gun control you know its just a matter of time.

Anyway Thank you…..

Zombie-Hunter Out

Edited November 12, 2010 by Zombie-Hunter

[Johnny_Utah]

It's somewhat like speeding, you might get away with it for a while, but eventually you will get caught. Though this situation isn't worth the "ticket."

Edited April 5, 2012 by Johnny_Utah

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Felonies have become like cuss words, the more they give out the less they mean.

[jughead]

it may be the law but any non-violent felon that is free to walk the streets of this nation should be able to do anything those of us that are not can do. one old mans opinion and have felt that way all my life.

[Guest TNLC9]

Welcome to our society, where some think ALL should be the quarterback or star pitcher, or every little girl should be a beauty queen. Or everyone should be a home owner, even if we ruin the economy with badly written loans.

We have become givers of "second chances" to the point nobody wants to take ownership of their actions. IE, traffic offences, traffic schools, and outragious insurance rates for everyone.

We as society are failing our children (and ourselves) in not teaching that some decisions have a FINALITY, ie, drunk driving after the prom, holding up the local gun shop (grin).

I was shot by a 14 year old gang banger during a robbery attempt. He was tried as an adult, sent to prison for 15 years, and at his last parole hearing he denied having shot me. I have no sympathy that he is not allowed to possess a firearm. Sure, he did his time, but I don't trust that given circumstance he would not 'cross over the line' again and commit a crime.

Life ain't fair folks ... and you cannot make all of the people happy all of the time.

sent from my sending device

Edited June 17, 2012 by TNLC9

[luvmyberetta]

it may be the law but any non-violent felon that is free to walk the streets of this nation should be able to do anything those of us that are not can do. one old mans opinion and have felt that way all my life.

For the most part, I agree with you. I have a friend that has been put on the TN sex offenders list because he dated a girl that was under 18. The girls mom pressed charges and he was found guilty of stat. rape. He didn't rob a bank, but he did knowingly break the law by making "whoopie" with a high school girl, which admittingly wasn't a smart move on his part. Now, to make things more difficult, his family owns the pawn shop where he works. He's not allowed to work behind the gun counter, to touch, sell, or own a gun, or even visit our city, national, or state park until the court removes him from the list. He's also not even allowed on school property to drop off or pick his son up from kindergarden. It seems like a lot of punishment for what he did, but I bet he learned a hard lesson he won't repeat.

[Guest crotalus01]

I think we should look at exactly what "Felony" means. Simply, what you did was worth more time in jail than the 11/29 cap we put on misdemeanors, OR a violation of Federal law (correct me if I am wrong).

You would be literally amazed at what is considered a violation of Federal law that you never even considered! Hell, I would bet a LOT of money that the majority of members on this very forum have committed a felony and didnt even know it.

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/you-commit-three-felonies-every-day-idiot-indiana-prosecutor-goes-after-old-woman-for-buying-two-cold-medicines/

You can say these are 1 in a million or whatever comforts you, but the simple fact is almost everyone has committed a felony whether they know it or not...Now imagine losing your rights to own firearms and vote FOREVER just because you were sick with the flu and didnt realize it was a felony to buy more than one bottle of cold medicine in a weeks time in your state.

[Oh Shoot]

I think we should look at exactly what "Felony" means. Simply, what you did was worth more time in jail than the 11/29 cap we put on misdemeanors, OR a violation of Federal law (correct me if I am wrong).....

Federal crimes are not all felonies.

For example, illegal immigration is a federal misdemeanor but returning after a deportation is a felony. Not that either is ever enforced, of course.

- OS

[mdmoseley]

I didn't read every post but there seems to be some confusion on the felony thing. Yall really need to actually read the TCA. Per Tennessee law only felonies involving drug offenses, involving the use or attempted use of force, violence or a deadly weapon are prohibited from possessing ANY firearm. All other felonies are only prohibited from possessing specifically a handgun. If the felony conviction doesn't fall under the first subsection in 39-17-1307B then a convicted felon could still possess a rifle.

[Oh Shoot]

I didn't read every post but there seems to be some confusion on the felony thing. Yall really need to actually read the TCA. Per Tennessee law only felonies involving drug offenses, involving the use or attempted use of force, violence or a deadly weapon are prohibited from possessing ANY firearm. All other felonies are only prohibited from possessing specifically a handgun. If the felony conviction doesn't fall under the first subsection in 39-17-1307B then a convicted felon could still possess a rifle.

You're right about the long gun and felony class, but you're not reading the handgun part correctly. Under TCA can't possess a handgun if convicted of ANY felony.

However, I've often wondered about this compared to federal law, where it is unlawful for anyone "under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to possess any firearm (also for a conviction of domestic violence).

Isn't TN actually negating Federal law in this regard?

- OS

[BryanP]

You're right about the long gun and felony class, but you're not reading the handgun part correctly. Under TCA can't possess a handgun if convicted of ANY felony.

However, I've often wondered about this compared to federal law, where it is unlawful for anyone "under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to possess any firearm (also for a conviction of domestic violence).

Isn't TN actually negating Federal law in this regard?

- OS

Not really. There are two overlapping laws, one Federal, one State. Both apply. You can violate a Federal law while not violating a State law and vice versa.

[DaveTN]

I was shot by a 14 year old gang banger during a robbery attempt. He was tried as an adult, sent to prison for 15 years, and at his last parole hearing he denied having shot me. I have no sympathy that he is not allowed to possess a firearm. Sure, he did his time, but I don't trust that given circumstance he would not 'cross over the line' again and commit a crime.

Being a victim of a violent crime changes your outlook on a lot of things doesn’t it? Sorry you had to go through that. Did he get paroled? I didn’t think you could get paroled without openly acknowledging your crime and at least pretending to show remorse. Unless of course he did his full sentence.

Edited June 24, 2012 by DaveTN

[redfsr]

Not really. There are two overlapping laws, one Federal, one State. Both apply. You can violate a Federal law while not violating a State law and vice versa.

The TCA was updated a few years back to just read "firearm" and not handgun where it relates to being a felon or having a domestic violence conviction.

Here is the best link I could find for the latest version - http://www.lexisnexi...ttopics/tncode/

You have to agree to the terms before browsing the code but if you look at 39-17-1307( and the definitions at 39-11-106, it doesn't just prohibit a handgun anymore.

Edited June 29, 2012 by redfsr