Tennesseann Article - Should Pardoned Felon have Gun Rights Restored?

[strickj]

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.

That.

I think we forgot sometimes that part of the punishment for committing felonies is loosing rights. If you commit a crime, you do the time. Doesn't matter if that time is in prison, community service, fines, or loss of privileges or rights. It's all part of that punishment.

Now, that said, I do see reason to change laws regarding punishment on some non-violent felonies. I think it was MikePappa that suggested a 10 year limit on loosing rights... and I like that thought very much.

[Guest lostpass]

This is a problem. The idea that a one size fits all kind of rule is troublesome. IT is easy to say that anyone convicted of a felony must be a super evil person and deserves to pay for that mistake for a life time. So you live in the back woods and decide, hey, a 15" barreled rifle would be nice for hunting what with all the brush around and stuff or you really want to make your own suppressor or you're making moonshine or you've got two wives, and so on. At no time did you actually threaten or endanger anyone else and yet your constitutional right is gone forever. Seems crazy to take that right away.

On the other hand, suppose the offender is illegally harvesting trophy bucks year round on government land, leaving the meat and selling the trophies. Suppose someone has a freaking arsenal of illegally modified AKs for full auto and they are selling them, suppose you're selling botulism tainted beef jerky at gun shows. Yeah, I pretty much think those folks should be banned from owning guns or even being at a gun show though they've committed no violent crime.

I would argue that we pay judges good money to evaluate things on a case by case basis this should be one of those things. I know, I know, there are crazy judges and all that and it won't ever be fair but a case by case basis is probably better than one over arcing rule.

Edited September 24, 2011 by lostpass

[deerslayer]

Pardoned due to doubt about the evidence? Restore his rights. Pardoned due to a political favor, etc? Nothing indicates that he is now not guilty, so no restoration of rights. I laugh when I read crap like, "if they are safe enough to let out of prison, they are safe enough to own a gun." I guess recidivism is just a myth. Most felons have used such hideously bad judgment to attain their felon status that I'll never trust them with guns (violent or non-violent). Part of their punishment is a loss of certain rights, not a temporary loss of certain rights.

Sorry, I just don't feel sorry for criminals.

Edited September 24, 2011 by deerslayer

[Guest TackleberryTom]

Honestly, if a convicted felon is released and gets his rights restored and he wants to legally own a firearm, then I don't really see much problem with that. If he does not want to obtain one legally, he will still get one anyway. Preventing them from legally owning firearms only hurts and punishes those who are trying to be law abiding citizens now. They served their punishment. Those that don't care, and will most likely end up back in detention, will get as many firearms as they want anyway and not have any care whether they are breaking the law.

[Deerbnb]

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.

exactly ! if his RIGHTS are restored then they are just that, RESTORED. like it or not its the right thing

[Guest clownsdd]

This is simple, it boils down again to personal responsibility and the punishment that goes along with breaking the law.

[MphsTiger1981]

I see this as like a mulligan in golf. I used to play a lot and was not bad. I played with a lot of guys who would take a mulligan or two during the course of a round, then they would claim the score after the round was over. Lot of them would shoot in the 80's with the mulligans. I've played in tournaments with them, and when it comes to playing it "down", by the rules, they shoot something like high 90's or even triple digits. My point of my analogy is, the mulligan is a second chance and to pretend the first bad shot never happened. The truth is when the pressure is on, and life gets hard, there are no "mulligans". What has been done whether as a stupid youth, or whatever, there are consequences for making the wrong decisions. We are a nation of laws. Those laws are there to protect us. I understand what the pardon means, but for me personally, if the guy got a pardon in Georgia and just can't live without a gun, it makes reasonable sense to move back to Georgia where they have provided him with his pardon and apparently have no problem with him as a gun owner. Just my .02.

[Guest clownsdd]

/\ well put tiger

[Guest pfries]

I see this as like a mulligan in golf. I used to play a lot and was not bad. I played with a lot of guys who would take a mulligan or two during the course of a round, then they would claim the score after the round was over. Lot of them would shoot in the 80's with the mulligans. I've played in tournaments with them, and when it comes to playing it "down", by the rules, they shoot something like high 90's or even triple digits. My point of my analogy is, the mulligan is a second chance and to pretend the first bad shot never happened. The truth is when the pressure is on, and life gets hard, there are no "mulligans". What has been done whether as a stupid youth, or whatever, there are consequences for making the wrong decisions. We are a nation of laws. Those laws are there to protect us. I understand what the pardon means, but for me personally, if the guy got a pardon in Georgia and just can't live without a gun, it makes reasonable sense to move back to Georgia where they have provided him with his pardon and apparently have no problem with him as a gun owner. Just my .02.

I understand what you are saying but under the Law as it currently stands his rights were restored.

My analogy of this situation is more akin to being pulled over for doing the speed limit and because a few people were doing 5 under the officer decided you were driving an excessive speed, and then the courts up holding it.

They cannot do that the law is what the law is until it is changed, they cannot or should I say should not bend and manipulate it to their liking.

Just as you stated when the individuals are held to the rules the outcome changes.

But they are held to the rules you don’t get to add strokes to their game because last weekend they took a mulligan.

[DaveTN]

I understand what you are saying but under the Law as it currently stands his rights were restored.

That’s the question that will be answered in this case. His rights were restored in GA; TN claims they are not bound by that.

State wins 2002 case

The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn’t possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.

The Attorney General’s Office argues that Tennessee’s constitution doesn’t bar the legislature from removing felons’ rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.

“The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute,†attorneys for the state wrote.

[Guest TackleberryTom]

That’s the question that will be answered in this case. His rights were restored in GA; TN claims they are not bound by that.

If they recognize Ga's decision of him being convicted in the first place, then they should honor their decision to restore his rights. Picking and choosing which parts they feel like they want to recognize is BS.

[MphsTiger1981]

If they recognize Ga's decision of him being convicted in the first place, then they should honor their decision to restore his rights. Picking and choosing which parts they feel like they want to recognize is BS.

While its somewhat like comparing apples to oranges, some states like Tennessee allow for their citizens to not only own handguns, but certain citizens are allowed to apply for permits for the privilege of carrying them. Other states, while fewer and fewer, do not allow citizens to carry handguns. Does this not seem that the states which do not allow handgun carry are picking and choosing which parts of another state's laws they wish to recognize and honor? If this was true, your HCP from TN would have to be honored in Illinois. I personally think it should be, but even with the "full faith clause" not all of the rights granted to their citizens by one state are recognized by another. I agree with the earlier poster that based upon the 2002 case, it's highly unlikely the State Supreme Court will reverse this one. If its going to be changed, the legislature will have to address it.

[Guest CCI]

He's a free man. He's free, and safe enough, to be in society with us! If their not safe to be with us, then keep them locked up!

[Guest nysos]

I am sure there are plenty of people that made a mistake, learned from it and would never do it again - but there are countless career criminals that the second they get out, will just commit another crime. I don't mean to generalize, but that is just how it boils down to. I also don't believer in punishing the whole, for 1 bad apple.

I am in favor of a probationary period after sentence served. Depending on the crime(s) committed determines the period (3,5,7,10 years). Upon completion of that period with no strikes against them, their rights get restored. I also believe this should be for people without a long list of charges against them, and only their first time serving a sentence. If you don't learn from your mistake and getting caught the first time, you shouldn't be given a second chance for redemption to be treated equally like an outstanding citizen.

[hkgonra]

If a person isn't "safe" to own a gun I don't think they should be out in public.