From the TFA..Restored felons lose their guns

[dunndw]

Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc.

Legislative Action Committee

For many years it has been possible for those with felony convictions (excepting crimes of violence and felony drug offenses) to go through Tennessee's restoration of rights procedures and regain their ability to purchase and own firearms. NO MORE!!!

In fact, a law enacted with Democrat and Republic support in Tennessee at the end of the legislative session now makes it a felony (state and presumably federal) for anyone who has ever had a Tennessee felony conviction - any felony conviction - to own a firearm - any firearm - even if they have received a restoration or a pardon.

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/Chapter/PC1176.pdf

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF

TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1307, is amended by adding the following new subsection © and by relettering present subsection © and any reference to subsection © as (d):

©(1) A person commits an offense who possesses a handgun and has been convicted of a felony.

(2) An offense under subdivision ©(1) is a Class E felony.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008, the public welfare requiring it.

It is important to note that the effect of this change in the law, because of the provisions of federal law, means that its a felony in Tennessee and federally for anyone with a prior felony conviction to possess a handgun. Furthermore, because of federal law, these same individuals cannot own rifles or shotguns either.

If you or someone you know has a prior felony conviction they should immediately dispossess themselves of any and all firearms. They should also contact the Tennessee Department of Safety concerning whether their handgun permits must be surrendered.

[Guest grimel]

Even though they won't, the ACLU should be all over this one. Can't see it standing up to the first challenge. Ex Post Facto felony?

[TripleDigitRide]

This is interesting. An acquaintance of mine was arrested several years ago for something to do with pot. I know it was a felony of somesort. He had never been in trouble before, so he had a pretrial diversion. From what I understand, that means he wasn't guilty or not guilty. I'm not 100% sure about that part, just what I always understood.

Anyway, he was able to get everything expunged from his record, and now has a HCP and owns a gun. I wonder if this will cause him to lose his privileges. Afterall, he was not actually found guilty.

[Guest jackdog]

Sorry but I think that people with a single non violent felony should not lose their gun rights, or their right to self defense. A lot of folks do stupid crap in their youth that they would never consider doing later in life. Bottom line is this law sucks from where I sit.

[Guest gsbell]

Sucks big time! I also believe non-violent criminals should be able to have their rights restored after they have served their sentence and proved they are valuable members of society.

[molonlabetn]

How common it is for non-violent felons to be restored? I wouldn't expect the number to be very high... but I suppose ya' never know.

This legislation seems to me to be a waste of taxpayer dollars, for the time spent on it.

[BrasilNuts]

How common it is for non-violent felons to be restored? I wouldn't expect the number to be very high... but I suppose ya' never know.

This legislation seems to me to be a waste of taxpayer dollars, for the time spent on it.

+1

[GLOCKMEISTER]

How common it is for non-violent felons to be restored? I wouldn't expect the number to be very high... but I suppose ya' never know.

This legislation seems to me to be a waste of taxpayer dollars, for the time spent on it.

++1

[Guest Revelator]

This is interesting. An acquaintance of mine was arrested several years ago for something to do with pot. I know it was a felony of somesort. He had never been in trouble before, so he had a pretrial diversion. From what I understand, that means he wasn't guilty or not guilty. I'm not 100% sure about that part, just what I always understood.

Anyway, he was able to get everything expunged from his record, and now has a HCP and owns a gun. I wonder if this will cause him to lose his privileges. Afterall, he was not actually found guilty.

This should not affect people who have gone on diversion. It looks like it will affect only those who are going through the restoration of citizenship or pardon process to regain their gun rights. Diversion is not a conviction; the law here says "convicted of a felony."

[Guest Len]

Yep. +1 Jack.

Its interesting to note that I have heard anecdotal evidence that suggests there is an increase in the # of felons who attempt to go through the process of getting their rights restored. The main reason, supposedly, is so they may vote.

Sorry but I think that people with a single non violent felony should not lose their gun rights, or their right to self defense. A lot of folks do stupid crap in their youth that they would never consider doing later in life. Bottom line is this law sucks from where I sit.

[Guest grimel]

How common it is for non-violent felons to be restored? I wouldn't expect the number to be very high... but I suppose ya' never know.

This legislation seems to me to be a waste of taxpayer dollars, for the time spent on it.

I'd say the FEW who have had their rights restored are probably model citizens to get their rights restored.

The money spent on this would have been MUCH better spent funding an officer or three to help round up the recently released felons who are still committing felonies.

But, what do I know?

[molonlabetn]

That was more-or-less my point... this exercise was a waste of time.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

I have no problem with there being a process for restoring the rights of nonviolent felons. There should be a review of all pertinent factors; the crime, the circumstances, the amount if time sine the offense. Someone who did something stupid at the age of 18 and then walked the straight and narrow for the next ten years should get the benefit of the doubt. He should not be lumped into the same group as a guy who's committed multiple armed robberies.

[Tim Nunan]

Not sure if I need my tinfoil hat but this certainly lowers the number of potential gunowners; not unlike actions at the federal level to declaring all veterans seeking help for PTSD ineligible for gun ownership.

[TripleDigitRide]

Not sure if I need my tinfoil hat but this certainly lowers the number of potential gunowners; not unlike actions at the federal level to declaring all veterans seeking help for PTSD ineligible for gun ownership.

There is a method to their [Government] madness.

If you want to maintain the ability to own firearms, don't cost us money by claiming to have PTSD. Hey, at least we're giving you a choice.

[Guest grimel]

not unlike actions at the federal level to declaring all veterans seeking help for PTSD ineligible for gun ownership.

Get your facts straight. This did not happen regardless of what GOA reported.

[DaveTN]

If you can get your conviction expunged or get a pardon; your rights should be restored.

People (especially young people) make mistakes. A violent offender could not get a conviction expunged.

I don’t see how this is legal, but a friend of mine just went through it and an attorney told him that no matter what happened to his conviction; <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><ST1:pTennessee </st1:State>would not restore his gun rights.

Also if you are convicted of misdemeanor “Domestic Violence†your gun rights are gone under Federal law.

I have made a lot of “Domestic Violence†arrests. Arrests that I would not have normally made; but our discretion was taken away. It’s wrong.

[Guest jackdog]

how is voting a problem, the illegals seem to it with no problem. Actually for the most part all government is a total waste of tax dollars. The elected officials serve only those with the money, to add to their coffers. Normal Americans are nothing more than servants to the ruling class. It is definitely time for a revolution.

[Tim Nunan]

Get your facts straight. This did not happen regardless of what GOA reported.

Then why was H.R. 5865 filed in the House of Representatives?

"To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require a court adjudication before certain veterans may be denied the right to possess a firearm, and for other purposes."

[Guest 270win]

People who are convicted of nonviolent felonies and have the conviction expunged should be able to possess a firearm. I thought under federal law, expungement allowed one to possess a firearm again?

[DaveTN]

People who are convicted of nonviolent felonies and have the conviction expunged should be able to possess a firearm. I thought under federal law, expungement allowed one to possess a firearm again?

It was explained to my friend that federal law does allow it; <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State> law does not.

[Guest grimel]

Then why was H.R. 5865 filed in the House of Representatives?

"To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require a court adjudication before certain veterans may be denied the right to possess a firearm, and for other purposes."

Since when does anything put forth in a bill in Congress solve an actual problem. The sponsor of that bill thought doing so would get him votes and cash.

Take time to read the actual bill that was passed, ignore the idiots at GOA, and think about what that bill actually did (hint it makes it possible for said vets to GET BACK their rights which wasn't possible before the bill was passed).

[Tim Nunan]

Since when does anything put forth in a bill in Congress solve an actual problem. The sponsor of that bill thought doing so would get him votes and cash.

Take time to read the actual bill that was passed, ignore the idiots at GOA, and think about what that bill actually did (hint it makes it possible for said vets to GET BACK their rights which wasn't possible before the bill was passed).

One is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

[Guest nraforlife]

Our great grandparents didn't refuse a man the right to own a gun after prison, those they didn't hang that is. Is a non-violence related convicted felons life less worthy than anyone else's? How about their spouse or kids life should they, the ex-con, not be able to defend them?

The frickin dog owns the gun and shot the BG. Thats my story and I'm sticking with it and the wife and kids will back me up..

Edited August 5, 2008 by nraforlife

[Guest grimel]

One is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

You can make your claims as fact all you want. That doesn't change what the bill DID vs what GOA claims. I have my facts straight. Your opinion doesn't change that.

Here is the VPC's take on the law (read NRA when it says gun lobby):

http://www.vpc.org/press/0712nics.htm

under fair use part is reprinted below.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, adds, “It is ironic that the gun lobby has coerced Congress into providing resources to rearm mentally disabled veterans during a time when the VA is struggling to provide adequate mental health care to those in need.â€

Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Legal Community Against Violence, comments, "The bill's original intent, to increase reporting of state records to the NICS database, is an important objective that would improve enforcement of federal laws governing persons prohibited from possessing firearms. The changes made by the gun lobby risk undermining those laws."

Here is gunlaws.com take:

http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6.htm