Tennesseann Article - Should Pardoned Felon have Gun Rights Restored?

[midtennchip]

Everyone:

Patrick Stegall and I have been talking about writing an article on this issue to be posted here, but haven't finished yet. Several times a year, I get a call from someone who has had his rights restored in another state and is being denied a HCP or a gun purchase here in Tennessee (despite the fact same person was able to purchase guns in his prior state following the restoration of rights). Tennessee's law is a bit different than many states and, in essence, a restoration of rights does not necessarily restore gun rights.

David Raybin, a VERY good criminal attorney in Nashville, is handling the case referenced in the Tennessean article linked below. It is a fairly decent article on what the case is about. I believe this case (which started last year) has been discussed here before. But, with the decision for the Tennessee Court of Appeals expected soon, this is a timely article.

Should pardoned felons have gun rights? | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

Chip

[Jonnin]

I am not sure about this one. If the person is not guilty, IE their conviction is overturned due to new evidence or whatever, yes they should be allowed. But a pardon? Maybe not. Say some thug up in chicago happens to know Obama, and is therefore pardoned for whatever, can he now own a gun? Or someone knows someone who knows the governer, or whatever? A pardon of that sort is a get out of jail free card, but it should not restore access of firearms to someone who has been proven guilty of breaking serious laws. I do not know the legal terms but the only way the rights should be restored is if it can be shown that the person did not break the law; there is a difference between an innocent person/wrongful conviction and a pardon, a big difference.

[Guest pfries]

And I quote

"But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon’s civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights."

If a felon has their rights restored then they are in fact guaranteed all the rights of a citizen. Weather this be through a pardon or other means.

Weather I personally like it or not if an individual’s rights are restored they are restored in, and for all practical and legal reasons.

[Mike]

Yes, They should also have them restored after their sentence has been served. If they're deemed well enough to be released back into society their debt has been paid and all rights should be restored.

Mike

[Jonnin]

There are plenty of people deemed well enough to be at large in society that cannot own a firearm, including the unpardoned but free ex-cons, the mentally handicapped, the underage, as well as temporary states such as medication/booze/etc. I totally agree with pfries, but I do not like it one bit that a thug with a buddy politician could be restored full rights every time is caught and pardoned -- unlikely, but possible, if a corrupt enough person is elected. Reminds me of that jerk in lethal weapon, running around breaking the laws on purpose using his diplomatic immunity....

[LagerHead]

Yes, They should also have them restored after their sentence has been served. If they're deemed well enough to be released back into society their debt has been paid and all rights should be restored.

Mike

This is a tough one. The Libertarian in me agrees with this statement. The realist in me disagrees. I can say with confidence that my brother is the poster child for why felons should not have that right. But I do agree that a person who makes a good faith effort shouldn't have to pay for the rest of their life outside prison when they already did their time inside. Call me on the fence on this one.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I'm not in favor of this. Perhaps if there was some sort of mitigating circmustance, for instance...

3 roommates live together, 1 is possessing, selling and doing drugs in the apartment, unknownst to the 2 other roommates. Police get an anonymous tip that this activity is going on, they get a warrant and come in, and they find drugs in the offender's room, in the common areas, and everyone gets arrested and charged (guilt by association). If one of the roommates who wasn't doing the drugs, selling or possessing, was a person like David Scott Blackwell, just in the wrong place at the wrong time, did his time and received a pardon, I might be ok with it.

But this guy knowingly sold drugs, got caught and paid a price. A pardon doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong. It just means that the crime itself has been forgiven, and the remainder of the punishment has been set aside.

In my opinion, drug users, abusers and distributors who have been convicted of a felony, not matter their level of rehabilitation (or pardon) should ever be allowed to own a firearm ever again. There's too many cases of drug users, dealers, and abusers, who have used guns on other people, and innocent bystanders are killed every day in this country because of drug and gun violence. While maybe Mr. Blackwell didn't use a gun in his situation, the baseline fact is he committed a crime, that he knew was wrong, he was arrested and convicted for it, and served time for it. Drugs, Guns, and Violence have all been closely documented and correlated in our society, and I see no reason to make an exception of the law in this instance just because he received a pardon. He was not an innocent man, falsely imprisoned and exonerated of wrong doing, he was just fortunate to get a pardon for his actions.

I applaud Mr. Blackwell's efforts to rehabilitate and turn things around, and society has forgiven him by giving him another chance at life, and he's paid his debt to society, but that does not mean you should get special privileges that are expressly forbidden to convicted felons. Who's to say Mr. Blackwell doesn't have a relapse in the future, during some personal struggles? Say he loses his job, money problems arise, his wife divorces him, cleans him out, and he finds himself in a situation where he resorts to selling drugs again, but this time he's armed, and then he kills someone in a drug deal gone wrong? Or an innocent bystander ends up dead or seriously injured?

The media would have a field day with this. It would also give the anti-gun activists more fuel to their fire, and they would be screaming for stricter legislation, more background checks, and more stringent processes. Lawsuits would be filed, the media publicity would be oppressive.

I'm sorry, but we have come so far with extending 2nd Amendment rights and privileges in this country, and 2nd Amendment "privileges" in this state, I would hate for it all to be undone because someone thought that a convicted felon who received a pardon, should be allowed to own, possess and carry a firearm. I don't care of the level of rehabilitation. I don't care if he's now a Pastor at the First Baptist Church, prays daily, and spreads the word of God. That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact of what he did. I don't care that he served time in prison. He made that choice for himself. He knew the consequences, he took the risk and he got caught.

If this were check fraud, or some white collar crime that didn't include violence, alcohol, guns or drugs, or a case of mistaken identity (wrong man convicted who was later exonerated), I would be more apt to consider it.

If this appeal goes through, it could potentially open up a pandora's box, that gun advocates do not need to see opened.

If owning a firearm is that important to Mr. Blackwell, maybe he needs to move back to Georgia.

[ttocswob]

I own several guitars, and a couple of banjos - I am probably a felon - just not (yet) a convicted one.

I traded my one and only Gibson awhile back, FYI. Oops, now I'm a trafficker in illegal wood.

When they eventually catch up with my twang, should I lose my gun rights over it?

The term "felon" is degraded by onerous laws on the books, to the point that is has no real meaning. If there is no element of violence to the crime, there should be no loss of rights. And anyone deemed to dangerous to carry a gun is too dangerous to be out, period.

Edited September 23, 2011 by ttocswob
left out banjos - o the horror!

[1gewehr]

Guys, to me it boils down to one, simple issue; Is the former felon a danger to the public such that he should not be on the streets with the rest of us? If society is not safe from him, why is he out in public in the first place? If he is NOT a danger to society, then he should have ALL rights restored. That's it.

In this case, the person received a pardon. Either the pardon means something and he has ALL rights restored, or a pardon is just a nice piece of paper. Mr. Blackwell committed his crime in Georgia, and received his pardon in Georgia. Why Tennessee would ignore that pardon is sheer idiocy that the 'full faith and credit' clause of the US Constitution was written to address.

[Hershmeister]

This

[DaveTN]

Non-violent felons should have their rights restored when they have paid their debt. It should require a court hearing.</SPAN>

Violent felons or those convicted of crimes against persons should not. </SPAN>

[Guest pfries]

Non-violent felons should have their rights restored when they have paid their debt. It should require a court hearing.

Violent felons or those convicted of crimes against persons should not.

I understand your point,

however in this case a pardon was given, right or wrong the individual received a pardon. So the question remains, if an individual’s civil liberties are restored by whatever means should they be unconditionally restored?

I have to say yes.

I do not believe that these rights can be doled out in some categorically designed fashion.

It is up to the courts and other powers that be to determine if this should happen in the first place.

Edited September 23, 2011 by pfries

[Guest brianhaas]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't come on here and post that link myself this morning, out sick today. Great discussion, thanks for the interest in the story!

Brian Haas

The Tennessean

[Guest tommy62]

The key word to me is felon.

[MikePapa1]

I'm a libertarian so I tend to favor immediate restoration after completion of sentence on principle, but I've also been a criminal defense attorney for 28 years so I would favor a hybrid restoration system: Completion of sentence for nonviolent felons; Completion of sentence plus a time period, my personal preference would be 10 years and then restoration for even a violent felony short of murder; no restoration for murderers. I've had many clients who committed felonies in their youth who have thereafter led a law abiding life and for whom there is no valid reason not to have their full rights restored.

[Guest pfries]

The key word to me is felon.

If I am not mistaken in earlier times a felon was a crime that potentially carried the weight of capital punishment.

Now a person can be charged with a felony offense for something much less severe.

Example a young college student gets his driver’s license suspended on a speeding ticket and they cannot pay it off in a timely manner. However to stay employed and in school they need to break the law and drive to work. One day said individual is broad-sided at an intersection and the individual driving the other car is killed. Now the student can potential be charged with a felony (negligent homicide, vehicular homicide or so forth) in a state such as MI.

So this person deserves to lose his or her civil liberties and rights for the rest of their lives?

This is something I don’t feel we can have both ways.

My personal feeling is that if restitution is paid, time is served and the courts or other governing bodies deem it appropriate FULL restoration of rights should follow.

[Mike]

The key word to me is felon.

How many felonies have you committed today?

The over reaching laws we have today probably have you up to a few already.

Mike

[Guest HvyMtl]

Pardon is a full restoration of rights, unless the definition of pardon is different per state. Does a Georgia pardon equal a Tennessee pardon?

If the pardon is a full one, then all citizen rights are restored. Which means he gets his Constitutional Rights back.

My only concern: Person who gets pardoned was guilty of a violent crime, such as armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Should they be fully pardoned and get their 2nd A rights back?

[monkeylizard]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't come on here and post that link myself this morning, out sick today. Great discussion, thanks for the interest in the story!

Brian Haas

The Tennessean

Another good article. Get well soon.

[DaveTN]

Pardon is a full restoration of rights, unless the definition of pardon is different per state. Does a Georgia pardon equal a Tennessee pardon?

If the pardon is a full one, then all citizen rights are restored. Which means he gets his Constitutional Rights back.

Tennessee is one of the hardest states to get gun rights restored according to John Harris. A friend of mine retained him to get an expungement to get his guns rights back after a drug conviction in the 80’s; he has never been in trouble since.

Harris told him that it didn’t matter if it was expunged; Tennessee would not restore his gun rights.

An expungement or even a pardon doesn’t mean the slate is wiped clean. There are some jobs that you are not going to get no matter what; no one can make an arrest disappear.

[Guest brianhaas]

Another good article. Get well soon.

Thanks for the kind words Feeling better already, just a one-day thing I'm guessing.

Again, thanks to everyone for the vigorous discussion here and on the comments on my story.

-Brian

[Guest clownsdd]

A pardoned felon should not, the gubment just forgave him. An overturned conviction is another thing.

[Erik88]

This is a tough one. It really depends on the person so it's hard to lump everyone into one category. Every crime is different too.

I personally know a guy who was pardoned by the current governor of Florida. He's actually a really good guy who made some stupid decisions when he was very young. I have no problems with the fact that he know owns more guns than I do, and he does so legally.

[Guest bkelm18]

I know we'd all like to say if he's safe enough to be released back to the public, then he's safe enough to own a gun. That's great in an ideal world, but in the real world, this is not the case at all, otherwise the term repeat-offender wouldn't exist. If you're a non-violent felon and you've paid your debt, ok, your full rights should be restored. If you're a violent felon or a repeat-offender, no dice. You've proven you cannot function in a civil society, regardless if you've done your time or not. You reap what you sow.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I think this issue also opens the potential question, if someone gets pardoned and gets their gun rights restored, then what happens when violent criminals start manipulating the system and paying off public officials in exchange for pardons? And they get their rights to gun ownership restored? See where I'm going with this? We cant even enforce the maintaining of integrity within our political system, how do any of you propose that integrity is maintained with this type of situation?

In the end it will become a corrupt system, that is preyed upon by those with money and political connections and it'll be a you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours cesspool of corruption.

I hope the court of appeals denies this appeal and buries this issue forever by maintaining the staus quo.

Mr. Blackwell had his chance, he threw it away. He didnt make a mistake...he made a stupid decision to disregard the law and break it.

One of the glaring issues I continue to see more and more of in this country is less acceptance of responsibility by people for their actions and they think just because they have turned things around they should be extended some special privileges. Sorry, they broke the law, they need to be held accountable and should not receive special or preferential treatment.

In my opinion pardons should have special stipulations, no voting privileges and no gun rights, but their records should be restored so it shouldnt intefere with them getting a decent job and supporting themselves and their families and becoming productive citizens.

John Wayne said it best "Life is tough. It's even tougher when you're stupid."