Recidivism and Felon carry.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

For those of you that were asleep the last two years, let me fill you in.

Where and when you carry a gun is not a individual constitutional right. Owning a gun and keeping it on your property is a right.

It is a crime to carry a gun in the state of Tennessee. It is also a crime for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm. If I'm not mistaken in the last couple of years Tennessee passed legislation that made that offense mandatory prison time.

Now that we have determined that this is a state issue and not a constitutional one, I will say this; If a person has done their time and the state has seen fit to release them, they should have their rights reinstated. If a person committed a crime so violent that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun; they either shouldn't be out of prison or they should be on parole for life, and the gun restriction can be a condition of parole.

Only one question-- Even if TN did not have such laws, wouldn't it still be illegal under the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968?

[JayC]

+100

Should Bernie Madoff or Robert Hannson own a gun? Should non-violent convicted felons be allowed to become FBI agents? Violent/non-violent criminal is not an issue.

Umm you realize that certain "white collar" federal convictions are exempted from current federal law restricting the right to own a firearm right?

[deerslayer]

Umm you realize that certain "white collar" federal convictions are exempted from current federal law restricting the right to own a firearm right?

No idea, but if it were up to me, they wouldn't have access to guns.

[Chucktshoes]

For those of you that were asleep the last two years, let me fill you in.

Where and when you carry a gun is not a individual constitutional right. Owning a gun and keeping it on your property is a right.

It is a crime to carry a gun in the state of Tennessee. It is also a crime for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm. If I'm not mistaken in the last couple of years Tennessee passed legislation that made that offense mandatory prison time.

Now that we have determined that this is a state issue and not a constitutional one, I will say this; If a person has done their time and the state has seen fit to release them, they should have their rights reinstated. If a person committed a crime so violent that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun; they either shouldn't be out of prison or they should be on parole for life, and the gun restriction can be a condition of parole.

I don't agree with you much. This is one of those times.

[DaveTN]

Only one question-- Even if TN did not have such laws, wouldn't it still be illegal under the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968?

I don’t know.

But I know that a convicted felon can get their gun rights back in many states; but not Tennessee, no matter what the Feds say. Tennessee is more restrictive than most states or the Feds. You can get your gun rights back here even with an expungement.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don’t know.

But I know that a convicted felon can get their gun rights back in many states; but not Tennessee, no matter what the Feds say. Tennessee is more restrictive than most states or the Feds. You can get your gun rights back here even with an expungement.

Thanks DaveTN

Wasn't trying to be a smart-a$$. Didn't know much about that 1968 law until googling this weekend. I don't read legalese well, but as best I can tell, according to this passage, gun-owning felons in all states risk up to 2 years in jail (as you described in TN). It seems to say that the feds ban the gun ownership even if the guy was convicted of felony at a state or local level?

Section 1202: "Any person who - "(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony, or "(2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, or "(3) has been adjudged by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of being mentally incompetent, or "(4) having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship, or "(5) being an alien is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I ask again, should felons be allowed to obtain a carry permit?

Now that we have determined that this is a state issue and not a constitutional one, I will say this; If a person has done their time and the state has seen fit to release them, they should have their rights reinstated. If a person committed a crime so violent that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun; they either shouldn't be out of prison or they should be on parole for life, and the gun restriction can be a condition of parole.

I was not ignoring you Deerslayer I just have not been back on the site until now.

There was a time not all that long ago that I was on the other side of this issue just as you are now, but my mind has been changed over time so that what DaveTN wrote is exactly how I feel about it. Other than the parole for life part, I feel like if a person needs that they should stay locked up because there isnt any way to supervise them 24/7 otherwise.

But if they can be trusted to walk among us they should be able to protect themselves.

I wouldnt worry about it though as it isnt going to be happening here in TN anytime soon.

[bajabuc]

I ask again, should felons be allowed to obtain a carry permit?

No

[bajabuc]

This really doesn't have anything to do with the carry permit. Felons aren't supposed to have civil rights...they aren't supposed to vote, possess firearms, or participate in the military. It was that way when I was a kid...has it changed?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

This really doesn't have anything to do with the carry permit. Felons aren't supposed to have civil rights...they aren't supposed to vote, possess firearms, or participate in the military. It was that way when I was a kid...has it changed?

Hi Bajabuc

I had thought the same thing, but was wrong about some of it.

The right to vote thing supposedly has changed over time. Dunno about the military thang.

According to this wikipedia article, felon disenfranchisement has been ruled constitutional, but only a couple of states practice it any more in the USA. It says the practice is ancient going way back in history.

I got the impression that most states don't let prisoners vote, but give back the right after release, nowadays. But maybe that is still the wrong impression.

Felony disenfranchisement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand, was surprised to find that felon disarmament MAY be a relatively recent development.

[1gewehr]

So the previously non-violent convicted felon who shot my father in his driveway should be able to walk into Guns and Ammo and buy a Glock 17 after he gets out of prison for attempted 2nd degree murder, no strings attached? You people are NUTS.

NO. You are reacting emotionally to an argument that has not been stated. The point that has been made is that it is NUTS for the person who shot your father to get out of prison at all!

If someone is safe to live among the law-abiding, then they should be able to defend themselves and their family. If they are not, then we should not be releasing them. Releasing violent murderers, rapists, etc is NUTS!!

[bajabuc]

Originally Posted by deerslayer

So the previously non-violent convicted felon who shot my father in his driveway should be able to walk into Guns and Ammo and buy a Glock 17 after he gets out of prison for attempted 2nd degree murder, no strings attached? You people are NUTS.

They had to let him out...there were too many pot smokers who needed the space.

[mikegideon]

NO. You are reacting emotionally to an argument that has not been stated. The point that has been made is that it is NUTS for the person who shot your father to get out of prison at all!

If someone is safe to live among the law-abiding, then they should be able to defend themselves and their family. If they are not, then we should not be releasing them. Releasing violent murderers, rapists, etc is NUTS!!

Truth... every bit of it.

[mikegideon]

They had to let him out...there were too many pot smokers who needed the space.

Yep. The only time pot kills anybody is when they're executing the war on drugs.

[deerslayer]

NO. You are reacting emotionally to an argument that has not been stated. The point that has been made is that it is NUTS for the person who shot your father to get out of prison at all!

If someone is safe to live among the law-abiding, then they should be able to defend themselves and their family. If they are not, then we should not be releasing them. Releasing violent murderers, rapists, etc is NUTS!!

Agreed, but the reality is that dangerous people will get out of prison and go back to their old ways (his second parole hearing is next year). I don't support allowing them to re-arm.