Rule 41P

[TMF]

It just seems to me that if someone has served their time and has properly reformed, there should probably be a way for them to re-attain the possibility to legally exercise that right. Consider also that one may not necessarily be a violent individual to end up convicted of a violent crime.

When someone has served their time that does not mean their sentence is over. It just means they've served the physical part of their sentence. I don't believe there is a constitutional argument for restoring the rights they forfeited with a felony conviction. Just like sex offenders must register and be tracked. Just like I believe those guilty of rape should be castrated. Anyone guilty of felony neglect or abuse should lose their right to raise children or produce another one. Just like when someone murders they should lose their right to life. I realize these are extremist views here, but I'm attempting to illustrate how a sentence may be more than a few years in a cell.

The argument regarding false convictions isn't relevant here. If it were then we would be exploring the option of no punishment whatsoever for any conviction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dolomite_supafly]

TMF, I think we agree on the non-violent crimes. Probably we don't disagree completely on the violent crimes. It just seems to me that if someone has served their time and has properly reformed, there should probably be a way for them to re-attain the possibility to legally exercise that right. Consider also that one may not necessarily be a violent individual to end up convicted of a violent crime.

Agreed but I think the qualifier should not be felony vs misdemeanor and should be violent vs non-violent. Again because there are way too many crimes that are felonies that should not be. A felony should be reserved for someone who commits a serious crime, not someone who has a few joints in their pocket.

 

As much as I hate Bieber and think he is a pretentious little brat who should have been spanked a lot more as a child I also think he was over charged. He was arrested for felony vandalism because he threw some eggs at a neighbors house. No you shouldn't be throwing eggs but does it warrant a felony charge? I don't think so. I bet there are a lot on here that threw and egg or two when they were young. Vandalism should never be a felony.

 

And we are not even sentencing people correctly for felonies. In my county people get time served for felonies all the time. It is because the judges and courts are seeing that some crimes should not be felonies and are sentencing them as though they are misdemeanors. Problem is those felonies that should be getting serious time are not because the other felonies are not. I think a lot of the new felony laws, as well as the upgrade of existing laws to felonies, is a way to start the process of controlling the population. With a felony you take away their right to peaceful change by voting.

 

There should not be a single drug law that should be a felony if the amounts are personal use amounts. There are a lot of places where the possession of cocaine, even personal amounts, are a felony. A person should not be charged with a crime if they want to ingest something bad for them. If so then hotdogs, crème puffs and Twinkies should also be illegal to have. There is a lot more cost involved in treating the populace that eats bad stuff than the populace that uses "illegal" drugs.

[DaveTN]

So a felon who stole millions of dollars from grannys and orphans, should get to keep his guns because it was not a violent crime?

Who cares?
I don’t care if a convicted felon ever gets his rights back. But there are things they can do to make it happen other than whining about it.

But there is absolutely a difference in violent and non-violent felons. Non-violent felons in this state can get their rights restored in some cases. Violent and drug felonies they can’t. That is Tennessee’s call on the matter; has nothing to do with the Feds.

[DaveTN]

I wish silencers were unregulated.

They are. If you can find a Tennessee manufacturer that is willing to sell you one; the state says it’s legal. (TFFA)

Of course the BATF will pull his FFL if he has one and charge you both; but the state will help you.

[tnguy]

When someone has served their time that does not mean their sentence is over. It just means they've served the physical part of their sentence. 

 

OK, if we take that then any loss of rights should be part of the sentence, no? Sure, if you want to have the judge say "You are sentenced to 6 years in federal penitentiary and the permanent loss of your legal ability to exercise your right to keep and bear arms", that seems reasonable.

 

And it's not really part of the argument but Dolomite touched on it. I don't think anyone should lose their right to vote, ever.

[DaveTN]

OK, if we take that then any loss of rights should be part of the sentence, no? Sure, if you want to have the judge say "You are sentenced to 6 years in federal penitentiary and the permanent loss of your legal ability to exercise your right to keep and bear arms", that seems reasonable.
 
And it's not really part of the argument but Dolomite touched on it. I don't think anyone should lose their right to vote, ever.

When you are convicted of a felony (or a violent misdemeanor) you automatically lose your gun rights. You also are barred from some jobs and just won’t be selected for many others because you are a convicted felon. Actions have consequences.

Being able to petition the court for a, restoration of rights, an expungement of that conviction, or even a full pardon is reasonable.

[tnguy]

Well, if we just want to talk about what *is*, we won't be here long.

[TMF]

OK, if we take that then any loss of rights should be part of the sentence, no? Sure, if you want to have the judge say "You are sentenced to 6 years in federal penitentiary and the permanent loss of your legal ability to exercise your right to keep and bear arms", that seems reasonable.

It's already known to be automatic, so it goes without saying. I suppose that a judge could throw that in there, and maybe some do that to remind the felon they have messed up royal. Does a judge need to remind a person who is locked up for a misdemeanor that they have no right to keep and bear arms while they're behind bars? They don't? Well why can't prisoners have firearms? Obviously their rights are being violated since a judge never told them it was part of their sentence!

Regardless, it remains part of the punishment so it has nothing to do with constitutional rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

It's already known to be automatic, so it goes without saying. I suppose that a judge could throw that in there, and maybe some do that to remind the felon they have messed up royal. Does a judge need to remind a person who is locked up for a misdemeanor that they have no right to keep and bear arms while they're behind bars? They don't? Well why can't prisoners have firearms? Obviously their rights are being violated since a judge never told them it was part of their sentence!

Regardless, it remains part of the punishment so it has nothing to do with constitutional rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well, my point is that the sentence should include 100% of the punishment. Now, when it comes to the incarceration part, it goes without saying what the restrictions are there (I'll agree to disagree on whether inmates should be allowed to vote) but I have issues with automatic punishments continuing past the term of the sentence. As to employment restrictions, I wouldn't necessarily consider those as part of a punishment (nobody has a right to a job) but that could be argued, I guess.

[TMF]

Well, my point is that the sentence should include 100% of the punishment. Now, when it comes to the incarceration part, it goes without saying what the restrictions are there (I'll agree to disagree on whether inmates should be allowed to vote) but I have issues with automatic punishments continuing past the term of the sentence. As to employment restrictions, I wouldn't necessarily consider those as part of a punishment (nobody has a right to a job) but that could be argued, I guess.

So child rapists should have no stipulations on where they live, coming into contact with children or registering with local law enforcement when they move? Those stipulations involve forfeiture of rights past their incarceration sentence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

Well, if they are any danger at all, they should not be in the community at large. Though I would probably prefer they be rotting (literally) at the bottom of a dank hole somewhere. But that's a bit of a glib answer so let's explore it a little more.

 

Those restrictions you mention apply, I believe, to all sex offenders, including those arrested for public urination (a national passtime where I grew up), borderline cases (boyfriend and girlfriend close in age but one just under legal) and many of the insanely defined types of statutory rape that seem to be popular (do they have that one about transporting a woman without shoes across state lines here?*). So no, it should not be a blanket thing applied automatically. It can ruin the lives of otherwise decent people. Wouldn't it be better if such restrictions were applied with a little more thought? Save it for the cases that need it, don't waste time, money and resources on trivial ####?

 

(* Seem to have conflated two different offences here, one real, one questionable).

Edited February 10, 2014 by tnguy

[TMF]

Well, if they are any danger at all, they should not be in the community at large. Though I would probably prefer they be rotting (literally) at the bottom of a dank hole somewhere. But that's a bit of a glib answer so let's explore it a little more.

Those restrictions you mention apply, I believe, to all sex offenders, including those arrested for public urination (a national passtime where I grew up), borderline cases (boyfriend and girlfriend close in age but one just under legal) and many of the insanely defined types of statutory rape that seem to be popular (do they have that one about transporting a woman without shoes across state lines here?*). So no, it should not be a blanket thing applied automatically. It can ruin the lives of otherwise decent people. Wouldn't it be better if such restrictions were applied with a little more thought? Save it for the cases that need it, don't waste time, money and resources on trivial ####?

(* Seem to have conflated two different offences here, one real, one questionable).

Right, but I think you're failing to acknowledge the point I was making. I would agree that it is just as absurd to make someone guilty of public urination a registers sex offender and require that person to forfeit certain rights he should not have to. But that isn't the point. The point was there ARE people who should permanently lose certain rights once they commit certain sex offenses.

While I agree that a child rapist should be put to death, at a minimum, they should lose the right to live near certain areas, the right to have any interaction with children, to include their own, and be registered with local law enforcement for the rest of their lives. Same as violent offenders. They have proven they no longer deserve the right to bear arms. They don't. Non-violent felons though? Well I think that would be in a similar category as someone who is is categorized as a sex offender because they really had to pee.

And just for the record, they have different classes of sex offenders. If you get hit with public urination you aren't screwed for life the way rapists are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[John Wells]

The real point here is, if you're thinking about getting a suppressor or SBR or other NFA item, you should contact me and get your trust set up.  The rules may be changing come June.  If you're not going to go the trust route, you should get your paperwork in sooner rather than later.

[TMF]

The real point here is, if you're thinking about getting a suppressor or SBR or other NFA item, you should contact me and get your trust set up. The rules may be changing come June. If you're not going to go the trust route, you should get your paperwork in sooner rather than later.

Ugh, sorry. I'll stop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

I'm done. Just food for thought.

 

I'd ask what the benefits of a trust are. But I should probably just google it.

[John Wells]

I'm done. Just food for thought.

 

I'd ask what the benefits of a trust are. But I should probably just google it.

 

Right now, the benefits include avoiding a CLEO signoff, fingerprints and photo id submission when submitting your forms to the ATF.  These benefits are what the rule change proposes doing away with.  Currently, in order to E-File your forms, you must have a trust, corporation or LLC.   In addition, you have the estate planning benefits that a trust provides, keeping anything that the trust owns out of your probate estate.

Edited February 10, 2014 by John Wells

[tnguy]

I'm definitely considering a suppressor so I'll definitely think about it.