Opinions on new gun law.

[K191145]

First of all i'm not quite sure about the laws except that criminals don't care about them when committing a crime. I am assuming that in Tennessee that there is an additional charge committing a crime/robbery using a firearm which will add to a criminals sentence. We all know that a felon caught with a firearm is a violation in itself and so far I have never heard any opposition from the NRA or any other (real) 2nd Amendment supporter to those laws, it is generally agreed that a convicted felon forfiets some of their Constitutional rights. Now i'm in favor of restoring a (non-violent) felons rights after a time peroid has passed but the crime really should be a victimless crime so to speak. What i'm getting at is i'm not sure that theft of firearms from a burglary is an additional charge different from any other property. For one thing a forceable entrey of a home is a felony, when convicted of breaking and entering the criminal is a felon so he should be considered a felon during the act, so stealing and possession of firearms should carry an additional seperate charge than stealing a laptop or chainsaw etc. I do worry a little about putting firearms in a different catagory than any other property but that has already been done, property and a weapon. I don't consider home burglary a non-violent crime even if the home owner is not there because there's always the chance that someone will be there and the criminal is threatening the life of the home owner by just breaking in, chancing that he will have to fight the home owner if confronted.

Anyway, is there or should it be an additional charge for stealing firearms, even if the criminal wasn't a convicted felon before committing the felony?

Edited May 28, 2015 by K191145

[LagerHead]

That's sure some food for thought. I don't feel that crimes related to firearms should be their own special class, except for the possession of one by a violent felon. I also believe that at least non-violent felons should get their rights to own firearms and vote back after their sentence is served. It's a shame that someone who made a mistake when they were 19 but then is a contributing member of society for the rest of his life is denied his right to self defense after we tell him he has paid his debt to society. Well, has he or hasn't he?

[Tncobra]

Anyway, is there or should it be an additional charge for stealing firearms, even if the criminal wasn't a convicted felon before committing the felony?

 

Short answer is no. 

 

 For one thing a forceable entrey of a home is a felony, when convicted of breaking and entering the criminal is a felon so he should be considered a felon during the act

He is, and can be charged with possessing. Also, you do not have to "force." Walking in is enough as long as the intent to commit a felony is there. Agg, burglary C felony.

[JAB]

 For one thing a forceable entrey of a home is a felony, when convicted of breaking and entering the criminal is a felon so he should be considered a felon during the act, so stealing and possession of firearms should carry an additional seperate charge than stealing a laptop or chainsaw etc.

 

I am not a lawyer but I think the key is in the phrase (which you actually used) "when convicted."  Technically, I would say that the burglar does NOT become a felon upon committing the act of breaking and entering.  Instead, he (or she) becomes a felon upon having his (or her) day in court and being convicted of the crime.  That is why people who lose their rights due to having committed a felony are called convicted felons.  Think of it this way - the DA may decide to deal the charges down to allow the suspect to avoid felony charges (maybe in return for information about another case, etc.)  In such a case, the person still committed a B&E but simply committing that B&E did not automatically make that person a (convicted) felon.  Even being charged with a felony does not automatically make the suspect a felon - only a conviction on said charges makes the suspect a felon.

 

So, precluding any prior felony convictions, as the suspect had not yet been charged with a felony at the time of the theft, much less convicted of a felony, then at the time of the theft the suspect was NOT a convicted felon.  Again, the conviction is the key here and I don't think you could charge someone with being a felon in possession of firearms for an act committed before such time as the person was, in fact, a convicted felon.  In other words, I don't think the felony conviction could (or should) be retroactive. 

 

Think of it this way - if the B&E were committed on the day before election day and (however unlikely) the suspect (having not yet even been identified by the cops, much less arrested, charged and convicted) went to vote the next day then he or she would be allowed to vote and his or her vote would be just as legal and valid as anyone else's.  It is not until he or she is convicted that the right to vote is lost.  Again, the conviction is not retroactive. 

 

I do wonder, rather that 'possession of a firearm by a convicted felon', if the suspect could be charged with 'possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony' as the firearm(s) would be in the suspects possession while the suspect was still in the act of committing the burglary, etc.  Some might see that as simply semantics but I think it is an important destinction.

Edited May 28, 2015 by JAB

[Omega]

I am not a lawyer but I think the key is in the phrase (which you actually used) "when convicted."  Technically, I would say that the burglar does NOT become a felon upon committing the act of breaking and entering.  Instead, he (or she) becomes a felon upon having his (or her) day in court and being convicted of the crime.  That is why people who lose their rights due to having committed a felony are called convicted felons.  Think of it this way - the DA may decide to deal the charges down to allow the suspect to avoid felony charges (maybe in return for information about another case, etc.)  In such a case, the person still committed a B&E but simply committing that B&E did not automatically make him a (convicted) felon.  Even being charged with a felony does not automatically make the suspect a felon - only a conviction on said charges makes the suspect a felon.

 

So, precluding any prior felony convictions, as the suspect had not yet been charged with anything at the time of the theft, much less convicted of a felony, then at the time of the theft the suspect was NOT a convicted felon.  Again, the conviction is the key here and I don't think you could charge someone with being a felon in possession of firearms for an act committed before such time as the person was, in fact, a convicted felon.

 

I do wonder, rather that 'possession of a firearm by a convicted felon', if the suspect could be charged with 'possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony' as the firearm(s) would be in the suspects possession while the suspect was still in the act of committing the burglary, etc.  Some might see that as simply semantics but I think it is an important destinction.

I think a good prosecutor can argue the point that a thief with a gun should warrant an extra charge no matter where the gun was acquired.  The only thing that can't be charged is premeditation, if an injury or death occurs during the B&E, if he got the gun from the house. That is unless it can be proven that he had foreknowledge that the gun was there.

[K191145]

I am not a lawyer but I think the key is in the phrase (which you actually used) "when convicted."  Technically, I would say that the burglar does NOT become a felon upon committing the act of breaking and entering.  Instead, he (or she) becomes a felon upon having his (or her) day in court and being convicted of the crime.  That is why people who lose their rights due to having committed a felony are called convicted felons.  Think of it this way - the DA may decide to deal the charges down to allow the suspect to avoid felony charges (maybe in return for information about another case, etc.)  In such a case, the person still committed a B&E but simply committing that B&E did not automatically make that person a (convicted) felon.  Even being charged with a felony does not automatically make the suspect a felon - only a conviction on said charges makes the suspect a felon.

 

So, precluding any prior felony convictions, as the suspect had not yet been charged with a felony at the time of the theft, much less convicted of a felony, then at the time of the theft the suspect was NOT a convicted felon.  Again, the conviction is the key here and I don't think you could charge someone with being a felon in possession of firearms for an act committed before such time as the person was, in fact, a convicted felon.  In other words, I don't think the felony conviction could (or should) be retroactive. 

 

Think of it this way - if the B&E were committed on the day before election day and (however unlikely) the suspect (having not yet even been identified by the cops, much less arrested, charged and convicted) went to vote the next day then he or she would be allowed to vote and his or her vote would be just as legal and valid as anyone else's.  It is not until he or she is convicted that the right to vote is lost.  Again, the conviction is not retroactive. 

 

I do wonder, rather that 'possession of a firearm by a convicted felon', if the suspect could be charged with 'possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony' as the firearm(s) would be in the suspects possession while the suspect was still in the act of committing the burglary, etc.  Some might see that as simply semantics but I think it is an important destinction.

 

If they already are a convicted felon it shouldn't matter, they are in possession of a firearm if it's in their hands or vehicle weather they just stole it or got it from a sale.

[K191145]

That's sure some food for thought. I don't feel that crimes related to firearms should be their own special class, except for the possession of one by a violent felon. I also believe that at least non-violent felons should get their rights to own firearms and vote back after their sentence is served. It's a shame that someone who made a mistake when they were 19 but then is a contributing member of society for the rest of his life is denied his right to self defense after we tell him he has paid his debt to society. Well, has he or hasn't he?

 

I still don't consider a buglary as a non-violent crime, they are creating a situation where if someone was home that they didn't expect, life and limb is in danger. Just like an armed robbery where the criminal's partner was killed or an innocent person, even if they didn't pull the trigger they can still be charged with murder for creating the situation to begine with. I look at home burglaries that way but that's just my opinion.

[JAB]

If they already are a convicted felon it shouldn't matter, they are in possession of a firearm if it's in their hands or vehicle weather they just stole it or got it from a sale.

 

Right but in the scenario you presented in the original post they aren't (weren't) already a convicted felon when they stole the guns.  They weren't a convicted felon until they were caught, charged and tried which wouldn't occur until after the theft/possession of the firearms.  Simply committing the B&E (or any felony) does not make the person a convicted felon.  Being convicted of the crime is what makes the person a felon.  Therefore, they were not a felon in possession of a firearm unless they steal a firearm in a later incident after having been convicted of a felony.

Edited May 28, 2015 by JAB

[Jonnin]

Yes.  Someone who steals a firearm *and sells it* should be convicted of some form of "aiding and abetting" other criminals.  Don't matter who bought it, IMHO selling a stolen gun is implied to be on the black market and at that point all buyers are potentially felons.   If the steal it and do not sell it, they should be convicted instead of some form of "going armed" or "intent to do harm" type laws.  

 

When someone steals a gun they are, absolutely, either selling it which enables other criminals or using it to commit worse crimes.   There is no room for a gentle hand here ... 

[Dolomite_supafly]

I just hope any would be thief would also be tempted to steal my NFA items. That way there will be additional federal, hopefully, charges as well as additional resources applied towards finding, arresting, charging and convicting those responsible.

[btq96r]

I think the current applicable laws are good enough.  A good enough DA or ADA would be able to comb through the TCA and find plenty of charges if the evidence was good enough.

 

Your standard variety thief isn't going to steal a gun for home defense.  Odds are they don't have a HCP, so they can get hit with a charge on carrying it while out and about, if they use it while committing a crime that will be an additional charge, and if they tried to sell it- probably to one of their friends- I'm pretty sure it would qualify as deliberately selling a firearm to someone they know does not qualify to possess one, which incurs a charge as well.

 

As to the restoration of rights (voting, firearms, etc...) I think that in non-violent crimes, once a sentence and any probation time is complete, the person should have all rights restored automatically.  Violent offenders are always going to be a case-by-case basis.

[K191145]

I think the current applicable laws are good enough.  A good enough DA or ADA would be able to comb through the TCA and find plenty of charges if the evidence was good enough.

 

Your standard variety thief isn't going to steal a gun for home defense.  Odds are they don't have a HCP, so they can get hit with a charge on carrying it while out and about, if they use it while committing a crime that will be an additional charge, and if they tried to sell it- probably to one of their friends- I'm pretty sure it would qualify as deliberately selling a firearm to someone they know does not qualify to possess one, which incurs a charge as well.

 

As to the restoration of rights (voting, firearms, etc...) I think that in non-violent crimes, once a sentence and any probation time is complete, the person should have all rights restored automatically.  Violent offenders are always going to be a case-by-case basis.

 

Problem is that often a DA will work out some slap on the wrist plee bargian deal, the more charges they have the stiffer the sentence.

BTW, my brother left me a voice message, they caught the pieces of crap who broke into his home he said on something else. I don't know any real details but he hopes to recover some of his property. I personally want to go to whatever court or hearing they have to look these parasites in the face.