PDA

View Full Version : Tennessee: No Restoration Of Rights


sholling
09-28-2011, 8:49 AM
An interesting question has been raised in Tennessee that may effect our efforts to restore rights. For the purposes of 2nd Amendment rights Tennessee does not recognize pardons and presumably expungements granted by other states. Tennessee is a very gun friendly shall-issue state but they do not allow for restoration of rights by any means even when the offense and full pardon (including gun rights) happens in another state. It's interesting because it raises both 2nd Amendment and full faith and credit issues as well as restoration question with the somewhat similar federal issues in Enos V Holder.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110923/NEWS03/309230071/Should-pardoned-felons-have-gun-rights
David Scott Blackwell has repaid his debt to society, by Georgia standards.

He served five years in prison for selling drugs. He successfully finished his probation. He was even granted a full pardon by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which would allow him to possess a gun in that state.

But should Blackwell, now living in Franklin, be able to own a gun here?

Blackwell is suing the state after being denied a gun permit in Tennessee, arguing that the Georgia pardon fully restored his rights ó even the right to bear arms. Itís a battle being played out in other states as well, as lawmakers in places such as Alaska and Oregon have mulled over laws to loosen firearms restrictions on felons who have had some of their rights restored.

GaryV
09-28-2011, 1:11 PM
I think the primary, and far clearer, argument is the simple Second Amendment one. Yes, states can pass their own prohibitions against felons possessing firearms that mirror the prohibition in the '68 GCA. But once those rights are restored by the standards of the GCA, that's it. State law can't be stricter on that point than federal law, because that would then infringe on a federally guaranteed right incorporated though the 14th Amendment, which specifically prohibits states from violating those rights.

The full faith and credit argument fails because Tennessee doesn't restore rights even when you receive a pardon in Tennessee, as I understand it. So it is not that they are discriminating against people from out of state by not recognizing their pardons (that would be a full faith and credit violation), they simply apply a stricter standard for restoration of rights than other states, and enforce it equally among their own citizens and those of other states. That's not a full faith and credit issue.

nicki
09-28-2011, 1:23 PM
IMHO, once someone has actually served time and been out of jail for a period of time, say 5 to 10 years and lived a "Law Abiding Life", they should get all their rights back unless their is some compelling reason not to.

Many criminals do crimes in their late teens, early 20's and then they are stuck as a felon for the rest of their lives.

Of course the penalities for crimes should be appropriate for the crime in the first place.

If violent felons are getting appropriate sentences, they will be in the gray bar hotels for many years. Felons guilty of crimes such as murder should be quickly executed.

Nicki

Jason P
09-28-2011, 1:32 PM
If violent felons are getting appropriate sentences, they will be in the gray bar hotels for many years. Felons guilty of crimes such as murder should be quickly executed.

Nicki

I'll bring the ammo:)

sholling
09-28-2011, 2:14 PM
IMHO, once someone has actually served time and been out of jail for a period of time, say 5 to 10 years and lived a "Law Abiding Life", they should get all their rights back unless their is some compelling reason not to.

Many criminals do crimes in their late teens, early 20's and then they are stuck as a felon for the rest of their lives.

Of course the penalities for crimes should be appropriate for the crime in the first place.

If violent felons are getting appropriate sentences, they will be in the gray bar hotels for many years. Felons guilty of crimes such as murder should be quickly executed.

Nicki

I agree with you on this.

Wild Squid
09-28-2011, 3:34 PM
An interesting question has been raised in Tennessee that may effect our efforts to restore rights. For the purposes of 2nd Amendment rights Tennessee does not recognize pardons and presumably expungements granted by other states. Tennessee is a very gun friendly shall-issue state but they do not allow for restoration of rights by any means even when the offense and full pardon (including gun rights) happens in another state. It's interesting because it raises both 2nd Amendment and full faith and credit issues as well as restoration question with the somewhat similar federal issues in Enos V Holder.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110923/NEWS03/309230071/Should-pardoned-felons-have-gun-rights

This doesn't make much sense to me. Say an ex-felon is out of prison, he retains ALL of his rights except the 2nd A.

Mstrty
09-28-2011, 3:54 PM
This doesn't make much sense to me. Say an ex-felon is out of prison, he retains ALL of his rights except the 2nd A.

Felons should only be returned to society when they are no longer a risk to society. So Yes! Keep them locked up until society deems them fit to own a firearm. For most this may be a lifetime. For other offenses I have no problem with allowing a fundamental individual right to all FREE AMERICANS. If you dont trust them to have guns, then why would we ever let them out?

POLICESTATE
09-28-2011, 3:59 PM
Felons should only be returned to society when they are no longer a risk to society. So Yes! Keep them locked up until society deems them fit to own a firearm. For most this may be a lifetime. For other offenses I have no problem with allowing a fundamental individual right to all FREE AMERICANS. If you dont trust them to have guns, then why would we ever let them out?

If it's a lifetime sentence then we might as well shorten that up a bit for them. Their lifetime that is. No sense in hanging onto dead weight.

POLICESTATE
09-28-2011, 4:02 PM
Blackwell was given a full pardon by the state of Georgia. In other words he received his rights back. It's not simply a question of being a former felon in this case. He can legally possess a firearm in Georgia. His problem is that he resides in Tennessee.

What bugs me is the crime was in Georgia, and he served time in Georgia and was pardoned by Georgia, wtf is Tennessee's problem with that? Sure I can understand them not recognizing a pardon from another state for a crime that occurred in Tennessee but this is BS. Equal protection and all that, well I suppose we'll see how the court cases pan out.

RRangel
09-28-2011, 4:04 PM
What bugs me is the crime was in Georgia, and he served time in Georgia and was pardoned by Georgia, wtf is Tennessee's problem with that? Sure I can understand them not recognizing a pardon from another state for a crime that occurred in Tennessee but this is BS. Equal protection and all that, well I suppose we'll see how the court cases pan out.

Yes, eventually we're going to find out.

dad
09-28-2011, 4:07 PM
An interesting question has been raised in Tennessee that may effect our efforts to restore rights. For the purposes of 2nd Amendment rights Tennessee does not recognize pardons and presumably expungements granted by other states. Tennessee is a very gun friendly shall-issue state but they do not allow for restoration of rights by any means even when the offense and full pardon (including gun rights) happens in another state. It's interesting because it raises both 2nd Amendment and full faith and credit issues as well as restoration question with the somewhat similar federal issues in Enos V Holder.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110923/NEWS03/309230071/Should-pardoned-felons-have-gun-rights

I just happen to have a pdf, on Tennessee DV, expungements and gun rights!

sholling
09-28-2011, 5:31 PM
I just happen to have a pdf, on Tennessee DV, expungements and gun rights!
Interesting.

anthonyca
09-28-2011, 5:59 PM
A comment from the linked article.


"Please TN stop acting like Kalifornia's long lost retarded step brother and conduct yourself accordingly..."

dad
09-28-2011, 6:10 PM
Expungements and pardons should be recognized "equally nation wide"! Other wise, equal rights are not being respected!

GaryV
09-28-2011, 8:17 PM
I don't think that there is an issue of Tennessee not recognizing other states' pardons. As I read it, Tennessee simply doesn't allow for restoration of gun rights to felons, even if the pardon is from Tennessee itself. As the story says, even when someone in another case had his rights restored by a Tennessee court (not a pardon, but an action by Tennessee itself and not another state), the State Supreme Court upheld his conviction for subsequently possessing a gun. This is why I don't believe there is a legitimate full faith and credit case here - they're not saying they don't accept Georgia's pardon; they're just saying that, in Tennessee, a pardon, no matter where it's from, is not enough to restore gun rights.

Pixs
09-29-2011, 12:14 PM
IMHO, once someone has actually served time and been out of jail for a period of time, say 5 to 10 years and lived a "Law Abiding Life", they should get all their rights back unless their is some compelling reason not to.

Many criminals do crimes in their late teens, early 20's and then they are stuck as a felon for the rest of their lives.

Of course the penalities for crimes should be appropriate for the crime in the first place.

If violent felons are getting appropriate sentences, they will be in the gray bar hotels for many years. Felons guilty of crimes such as murder should be quickly executed.

Nicki

I'd go one step further; all rights restored for non violent offenders upon release. After all, they paid their debt to society.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-30-2011, 7:09 AM
I don't think that there is an issue of Tennessee not recognizing other states' pardons. As I read it, Tennessee simply doesn't allow for restoration of gun rights to felons, even if the pardon is from Tennessee itself. As the story says, even when someone in another case had his rights restored by a Tennessee court (not a pardon, but an action by Tennessee itself and not another state), the State Supreme Court upheld his conviction for subsequently possessing a gun. This is why I don't believe there is a legitimate full faith and credit case here - they're not saying they don't accept Georgia's pardon; they're just saying that, in Tennessee, a pardon, no matter where it's from, is not enough to restore gun rights.


But, the guy got in trouble for violating Georgia law. Tenn. has no problem with holding that against him. But, Georgia law has also pardoned him. Which Tenn. does have a problem with. What makes this a Full Faith & Credit issue is that Tenn. isn't giving FULL faith to Georgia law. I.E., they shouldn't be allowed to pick & choose which part of Georgia law that they pay attention to. If they're going to ignore the part of Georgia law that says the guy can own guns, then they should ignore the part that says the guy is a felon.

Right?


The Raisuli

GaryV
09-30-2011, 2:09 PM
But, the guy got in trouble for violating Georgia law. Tenn. has no problem with holding that against him. But, Georgia law has also pardoned him. Which Tenn. does have a problem with. What makes this a Full Faith & Credit issue is that Tenn. isn't giving FULL faith to Georgia law. I.E., they shouldn't be allowed to pick & choose which part of Georgia law that they pay attention to. If they're going to ignore the part of Georgia law that says the guy can own guns, then they should ignore the part that says the guy is a felon.

Right?


The Raisuli

That's not what Full Faith and Credit is about. If Tennessee has a law that says convicted felons may not possess firearms, and there is no exception, even for pardoned felons, then, according to SCOTUS precedent on FF&C, they are not obliged to put Georgia's judgement over their own law. As long as they apply that law equally to all pardoned felons, no matter which state has pardoned them, then there's no FF&C issue. Now, if they said that they did not recognize pardons from other states, that would be a different matter.

By your interpretation, that one state must respect all other states' laws, even if their own laws conflict, my Florida LTC would automatically give me the right to carry in California, limited only by Florida standards, since the restrictions that Florida places on where I may carry do not include California (although one might argue that California meets the definition of "place of nuisance" under Florida law ;) ). California would be obliged to accept Florida's judgement that I am qualified to carry a loaded firearm in public.

greybeard
09-30-2011, 3:09 PM
I'd go one step further; all rights restored for non violent offenders upon release. After all, they paid their debt to society.
I only one problem with this statement a 70 % recidivism rate

redking
09-30-2011, 4:15 PM
George Washington himself said "These are our unalienable rights, unless we do something against the law... then they are entirely alienable!!!!"

sholling
09-30-2011, 5:01 PM
I only one problem with this statement a 70 % recidivism rate
Sure there are some hardened gang bangers that are never going to be anything else but I don't think they make up the majority. We send people into institutions where they have to be prepared to fight for their survival every day and we're shocked when they go in for a victimless crime and come out hardened and dangerous. But that aside my guess is that at least half of that 70% is because they have little hope of finding a decent job again.

I'm hardly a bleeding heart liberal :p but I say eliminate victimless crimes and you'll reduce the prison population far enough to allow for locking up violent felons for life.

anthonyca
09-30-2011, 5:54 PM
Sure there are some hardened gang bangers that are never going to be anything else but I don't think they make up the majority. We send people into institutions where they have to be prepared to fight for their survival every day and we're shocked when they go in for a victimless crime and come out hardened and dangerous. But that aside my guess is that at least half of that 70% is because they have little hope of finding a decent job again.

I'm hardly a bleeding heart liberal :p but I say eliminate victimless crimes and you'll reduce the prison population far enough to allow for locking up violent felons for life.

That just makes too much sense.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-01-2011, 8:31 AM
That's not what Full Faith and Credit is about. If Tennessee has a law that says convicted felons may not possess firearms, and there is no exception, even for pardoned felons, then, according to SCOTUS precedent on FF&C, they are not obliged to put Georgia's judgement over their own law. As long as they apply that law equally to all pardoned felons, no matter which state has pardoned them, then there's no FF&C issue. Now, if they said that they did not recognize pardons from other states, that would be a different matter.


Do you have a citation for this?


By your interpretation, that one state must respect all other states' laws, even if their own laws conflict, my Florida LTC would automatically give me the right to carry in California, limited only by Florida standards, since the restrictions that Florida places on where I may carry do not include California (although one might argue that California meets the definition of "place of nuisance" under Florida law ;) ). California would be obliged to accept Florida's judgement that I am qualified to carry a loaded firearm in public.


LOL! Just because it is SO true!


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
10-01-2011, 8:32 AM
That just makes too much sense.


Which is why it'll never happen.


The Raisuli