Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-28-2011, 7:49 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,098
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Tennessee: No Restoration Of Rights

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/20...ave-gun-rights
Quote:
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 — even the right to bear arms. It’s 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.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-28-2011, 12:11 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-28-2011, 12:23 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,170
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Restoration of civil rights.

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-28-2011, 12:32 PM
Jason P's Avatar
Jason P Jason P is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Part-Time, NV - Part-time, CA
Posts: 751
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
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
__________________
"It's easy to be hungry when you ain't got $h!t to lose..." W. Axl Rose

NRA Certified Instructor

Any views or opinions posted by me are mine, not that of any organization. In fact, my views are often way off the reservation. I'm OK with that.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-28-2011, 1:14 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,098
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
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.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-28-2011, 2:34 PM
Wild Squid Wild Squid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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/20...ave-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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-28-2011, 2:54 PM
Mstrty's Avatar
Mstrty Mstrty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,423
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Squid View Post
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?
__________________
~ ~
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-28-2011, 2:59 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,862
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmaster View Post
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.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-28-2011, 3:02 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,862
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
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.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-28-2011, 3:04 PM
RRangel RRangel is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,141
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-28-2011, 3:07 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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/20...ave-gun-rights
I just happen to have a pdf, on Tennessee DV, expungements and gun rights!
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Tennessee DV.pdf (91.9 KB, 17 views)
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2011, 4:31 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,098
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
I just happen to have a pdf, on Tennessee DV, expungements and gun rights!
Interesting.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2011, 4:59 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A comment from the linked article.


"Please TN stop acting like Kalifornia's long lost retarded step brother and conduct yourself accordingly..."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2011, 5:10 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Expungements and pardons should be recognized "equally nation wide"! Other wise, equal rights are not being respected!
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2011, 7:17 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-29-2011, 11:14 AM
Pixs Pixs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-30-2011, 6:09 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
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
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-30-2011, 1:09 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
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.

Last edited by GaryV; 09-30-2011 at 1:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-30-2011, 2:09 PM
greybeard greybeard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 1,056
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixs View Post
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
__________________
John

The internet is like a 12 step group. Take what you need and leave the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-30-2011, 3:15 PM
redking's Avatar
redking redking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lake County
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

George Washington himself said "These are our unalienable rights, unless we do something against the law... then they are entirely alienable!!!!"
__________________
"It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-30-2011, 4:01 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,098
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
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 but I say eliminate victimless crimes and you'll reduce the prison population far enough to allow for locking up violent felons for life.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 09-30-2011 at 4:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-30-2011, 4:54 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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 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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-01-2011, 7:31 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
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
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-01-2011, 7:32 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
That just makes too much sense.

Which is why it'll never happen.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:48 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.