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 - 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.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3m26d67
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.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3m26d67
0
-
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
No, they should be executed...................therefore, no gun rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
Sorry, this thread seems to have gotten away from me.
I was simply carrying the claim of automatic restoration of rights as fact, to conclusion.
The right to property (a job) is as fundamental, if not more, to our legal system.
If we are going to assume that state laws should not include barring felons from gun possession as a part of the state sentencing laws, then the same logic may apply to any other rights lost through adjudication .
Leading to some strange conclusions and situations.
A lifetime bar to possession APCF is neither a surprise, nor an unnatural law.
After all, if not a subscriber to the 14th amendment, there is no constitutional bar to such state laws.
Of course the real issue is with the sentencing of the convict, not of the restoration of rights. What purpose does sentencing a man to 7 years for murder accomplish, but to instill an "I got away with murder" sentiment that would carry onward?0 -
For me, anyone having served whatever sentence the courts deemed appropriate to their transgression should be returned to society with all rights restored. Since we in this country have one of the highest percentages of incarcerated citizens the expense is considerable and concessions are made with regard to length of sentence for purely practical means. IMO that is wrong. Appropriate sentencing and adherence to the conditions of sentencing would be a necessary cornerstone to ensuring the restoring of rights on completion of the sentence.
I believe re-establishing a vested interest in society and regaining one's place fully is required if one is shooting for the elimination of future criminal behavior. For sex offenders it is a little different. I don't believe having them on lists is in any way helpful to either them or the community. If they are not trusted then keep them locked up. No half measures seem to work too well.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
Sorry, this thread seems to have gotten away from me.
I was simply carrying the claim of automatic restoration of rights as fact, to conclusion.
The right to property (a job) is as fundamental, if not more, to our legal system.
If we are going to assume that state laws should not include barring felons from gun possession as a part of the state sentencing laws, then the same logic may apply to any other rights lost through adjudication .
Leading to some strange conclusions and situations.
A lifetime bar to possession APCF is neither a surprise, nor an unnatural law.
After all, if not a subscriber to the 14th amendment, there is no constitutional bar to such state laws.
Of course the real issue is with the sentencing of the convict, not of the restoration of rights. What purpose does sentencing a man to 7 years for murder accomplish, but to instill an "I got away with murder" sentiment that would carry onward?
I didn't say the guy was convicted of murder.
Funny things can happen with juries and prosecutors.
Maybe it ended up as involuntary homicide.
That part is immaterial to the well known fact that what you know cannot always be proven.
States apparently have the authority to restrict gun possession to anyone, if I am following the argument here in this thread.
Still, the issue is with the punishment of the criminal and not the restoration of rights. You only argue that his rights not be restored because you have some knowledge that is outside of what can be proven or admitted in court. If he is not convicted of any crime in a court of law, why would you feel he needs to have rights restricted in any capacity?
Of course courts are not perfect and we have laws that often protect criminal and not victim. Why not address those issues and leave fundamental rights alone?0 -
Yep!
: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
If he has met the terms of his punishment, his rights should be restored. All of them.0 -
Put woulda, shoulda, and coulda in one hand, and crap in the other. See which fills quicker. 0 -
It use to be the law,if you were a convicted felon,you could not vote or own a firearm.The laws have changed.If you pay your debt,you should be reinstated to your full citizenship.This includes all people.At one time rape was the death penalty! What difference does gun ownership have to do with citizenship? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
It use to be the law,if you were a convicted felon,you could not vote or own a firearm.The laws have changed.If you pay your debt,you should be reinstated to your full citizenship.This includes all people.At one time rape was the death penalty! What difference does gun ownership have to do with citizenship?
If those convicted of crimes against a person have the right to to be armed then the law should read if they use those arms to victimize AGAIN they should be eliminated for good!!!![^]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
68 comments