Crime

Should Pardoned Felons Have Gun Rights Restored?

If you served your time, and your home state granted you a full pardon, should another state be able to deny your 2nd Amendment rights?Should Pardoned Felons Have Gun Rights Restored?

That is the question faced by the state of Tennessee, as Kent Scott Blackwell believes his restoration of all rights by Georgia cannot be trumped by the Tennessee state legislature.

The Tennessean reported last week that Blackwell, who served five years for a drug conviction and was subsequently granted a full pardon, believes that when Georgia restored all of his rights, that included his 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

The Attorney General in Tennessee, on the other hand, believes that his state does not have to respect the Georgia pardon, and has a vested interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, pardoned or not.

It has shaped up to be something of a convoluted Constitutional question. Basically, if Georgia no longer claims to nullify Blackwell’s federal right to own and carry a firearm, Tennessee cannot usurp that role for itself, even if Blackwell resides in Tennessee.

Blackwell‘s lawyer doesn’t believe the issue at hand is that complicated. He told the Tennessean:

“The pardon restores constitutional rights — that’s what a pardon does, therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That’s it, in its simplest terms.”

The State of Georgia’s pardon notice itself reads:

“All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm … are hereby restored.”

Despite the apparent clarity of the pardon’s language, a judge initially ruled against this line of argument, but the Tennessee court of appeals has heard arguments and will take on the case.

The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, and ruled against the pardoned felon’s right to own a gun.But the landmark Heller vs. District of Columbia case has set the precedent that gun ownership is an individual right.

Some of those who support Blackwell’s quest for gun ownership believe the Heller case will force the Tennessee Supreme Court to recognize pardons as a restoration of all rights, including the 2nd Amendment.

A ruling from the Tennessee appeals court is expected within a few weeks.

Blaze readers — what do you think, should pardoned felons be allowed to own guns?

Comments (280)

1 2 3 ... 8
  • Bowmaster
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 6:41am

    If it was not a violent, or strong arm crime….sure

    Report Post » Bowmaster  
  • JesusFreak95
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 6:35am

    If the man was pardoned, he should have ALL of his rights restored. Felons who have NOT been convicted of violent crimes should also have their rights restored once they have served their sentence and shown they are not likely to re-commit.

    Report Post » JesusFreak95  
    • old white guy
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 7:59am

      if the person getting the pardon was convicted of a violent crime and found guilty then no gun.

       
    • Eliasim
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:01am

      Yes, if they are pardoned. And yes if they served their time for an other than violent crime.

      Report Post »  
    • Ramcharger
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:29am

      Full rights restored violent conviction or not – the pardon overrides the jury and is used to free wrongly convicted etc. if the system says the man is free with ALL rights restored then it would be wrong to cherry pick the restored rights – if he is guilty then do not pardon him.

      Report Post » Ramcharger  
    • MomaGrisley2
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:31am

      PARDON means all rights restored…however, if the person commits a crime with a gun afterwards, the idiot who PARDONED them should also serve time in prison! Then maybe, they will think twice and make sure the FACTS are there before issuing a pardon.

      Report Post »  
    • webpreacher
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:34am

      I would ask, that if someone has served their time, their “debt to society” paid in full, whether time served in prison, fined, or both, whatever however, then why wouldn’t all rights be restored pardon or not ? Does a person remain a criminal for the rest of his or her life, after paying their “debt” for whatever their crime? How is that justice, how is that freedom, and is that democracy as we know it in America?

      So then there are those among us who are not allowed to protect themselves and their families with the constitutional right to bear arms, Someone breaks into their home, where there is Wife & Children and the husband because he served time in prison (felon) can not use a gun to ward off the intruders?

      Really, that’s America today, so what are they then less than other citizens, a lower grade tax payer who, what are not equal to others, branded for life, how is that,a “debt payed to society” ?

      I don’t know, does not seem right for democracy, does not seem American !!!!

      Report Post » webpreacher  
    • DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 9:22am

      It’s a RIGHT. When you are FREE, you CANNOT lose it. When released you get ALL your rights. I don’t see you “no gun” dumb***es calling for a ban on their 1st, 3rd,4th,5th… If a person who committed a crime has paid their debt then they paid the debt!!!

      “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Jefferson

      You cannot stop someone who wants to commit a crime from getting a gun with any law. If you want to kill, then you won’t mind stealing.(a gun)

      It is a right, therefore there should be no gun bans of any kind on any level. “Gun control” is as unconstitutional as “hate speech”. Welcome to fascism.

      Report Post » DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)  
    • dtracy911
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:06am

      I protested agains the IRS’ constitutional right to collect a direct tax 10 years ago and spent 18 months in a federal prison camp. I did this non-violently by challenging the IRS with written questions over a period of years without any reply, until I was indicated for Tax Evasion. Since then I have had my civil right restored in Florida. I am in my 10th year of compliance by filing my 1040′s as required. However I am no longer able to protect myself or my family with the PERMANENT loss of my 2nd amendment right. Is this the America of the free? I think NOT!!

      Report Post »  
    • Captain Crunch
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:08am

      @ Webpreacher & DTOM_Jericho
      Gun laws which prevent an ex-felon from legally purchasing and carrying a firearm is a violation of that persons constitutional rights. Under our present laws an ex-felon has no rights to self protection or protection of his family. Historically, when a person got out of prison and any form of state supervision, they were able to secure a gun just like anyone else. Gun laws do not stop crime. Gun laws are senseless knee-jerk reactions to crimes. A man is morally obligated to God to protect his wife and children by whatever means necessary in the face of a threat. As an ex-felon having been out for 30+ years, I would rather stand before a judge for killing a man with a gun for threatening my family, than have to live the rest of my life with myself after not being able to defend my family from a violent incident. Reguardless of what the court may do, including life in prison or even the death penality, I’ll know I can stand before God with a clear conscious….and that is what really matters! The bible says “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword”, but it doesn’t say you are forbidden from using the sword for a righteous purpose.

      Report Post »  
    • DanWesson455
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:11am

      As Old White Guy Said… Just because you get a pardon…..You still could have been convicted of a Felony….served time….then was pardoned. NO GUN.

      Report Post » DanWesson455  
    • DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:26am

      @DTRACY911
      Thanks for sharing your plight. I think you are a patriot. You still have YOUR right. It cannot be taken from you and if I were you I would not put governmental tyranny ahead of your family. “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”. If I were on that jury and you were defending your family with an “illegal” gun, I would cast a not-guilty vote.

      Report Post » DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:45am

      .
      “Should Pardoned Felons Have Gun Rights Restored?”
      Yes.
      Otherwise, don’t grant a pardon.
      This isn’t rocket surgery, folks.

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • pennsy.357
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:48am

      One of the ways of becoming a US citizen is enlisting in the US military. If felons enlist in the military after they’ve served their time or have been pardon then the felon can have all of their US rights, including their 2A, restored once they’ve been honorably discharged from the military.

      Report Post »  
    • truscott555
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:02pm

      Once a person has served the sentence prescribed b the criminal justice system, they should be returned to full Citizenship status. The U.S. is not supposd to have varied classes of Citizenship. Limiting or restricting any rights,(remember they are endowed by our creator and to be guaranteed by our government), after the end of a sentence makes that person a second class Citizen for LIFE.

      Another overlooked aspect of this issue is the definition of FELONY. Traditionally, a felony was defined as a crime in which one person deprived another of property or caused them physical harm or death. Ther are many crimes today that are called felonies that should not be. If we want longer sentences for misdemeanors, so be it. Labeling someone a felon for life and depriving them of essential liberties for the rest of their life is a punishment far exceeding any reasonable sense of justice, especially for the mere possession of drugs.

      Report Post »  
    • Faith in God
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:12pm

      right on!

      Report Post »  
    • Chutz
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:36pm

      To the naysayers I ask, since they are not a citizen, all citizens have a 2nd amendment right, does this mean they do not need to pay taxes and can claim diplomatic immunity?

      Report Post »  
    • woodyb
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:53pm

      A pardon wipes the record clean, right???

      Then they should have ALL rights restored, or it was not, in reality, a pardon, but more of a simple forgiveness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Melvin Fernwhipple
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:07pm

      The receipt of a pardon does not necessarily mean the person was not guilty, nor does it mean that they served their time out. If they were in fact, found guilty of a violent felony, or misdemeanor, they should NOT have all of their rights restored as if the crime had not been committed. The only thing that should restore their full civil rights, is proof that they did not commit the crime, and being found not guilty in a court of law.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:19pm

      @ Pennesy.357

      I don’t think you know how this works. If you’ve ever been in the military you would know that your career is over if you are ever charged with a felony. Your command will never let you handle a weapon again and you will probably spend the rest of your time in the brig or as a private. This is because people convicted of a felony cannot own a gun under federal regulation (the ATF CANNOT make law) and the military follows those regs. Your idea of sending felons to serve in the military is backas$wards, not to mention the headaches it will cause command leadership should those felons turn out to truly be bad guys and decide to take out some rage during rifle qualification or even just daily activities. NCO’s have it bad enough trying to maintain the discipline of men who grew up without having a decent set of parents and your idea would only exacerbate this problem.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • Lambta
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:31pm

      I agree. The inverse of this would be a state, in this case Tennessee, saying they don’t have to recognize another states conviction of a person. That makes no sense and neither does their argument on not recognizing the pardon.

      Report Post »  
    • UH60L13
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:47pm

      The Constitution doesn’t say that if you are a fellon or any other type of crimminal that you lose your 2nd Amendment right to protect yourself. EVERYONE has the 2nd Amendment Rights!! “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! It doesn’t say if you are a Fellon or any other type of crimmal you lose your Rights!!!!!!

      Report Post » UH60L13  
    • old white guy
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:46pm

      how about clinton’s pardons. some serious criminals get pardons.

      Report Post »  
    • Shadrack
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 6:29pm

      if pardoned he was at one time proven guilty. still a felon. NO GUNS. NO AMMO.

      Report Post »  
    • chris vrahnos
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:14pm

      The true question is has that person been truly rehabilitated so he/she is not a danger to society?To answer that question one has to look at their background as to their lifestyle.Are they a productive member of society?Have they committed any other crime?have they payed their debt complete to society?Are they the law abiding citizens?Have they gotten the right to vote back?If the answer is yes to it all.Restore their gun rights.after all not all people want to own a gun of any kind and some want a gun for sporting perpuses.Deadly weapons come in a wide verity of differnt forms.This is why the self defence for owner ship is not argument I would consiter valid.This tells that the person want to kill people on any pretext that seems ligitament.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:18pm

      A right is a right. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you folks understand. As long as any man has LIFE and is at Liberty (not in prison or detention), he has all his fundamental and natural Rights. The right to express himself, to earn a living, to religion, to publish his thoughts, to have a free conscious, to travel, to defend himself, etc. Pardoned felons are allowed to travel, be religious, work, have a job, hire, contract, publish, sing, dance, defend their life, property, liberty, etc. Don’t feed the Progressives by giving them one more reason to deny our RIGHT to own and use arms. I remember seeing reruns of old westerns, no matter the crime, the sheriff always returned the gun to the proper owner. Justice, individual liberty and private property rule in this country.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:24pm

      A right, such as self defense, is so ingrained into our human nature that it cannot be denied. Your denial of a pardoned felon’s right to own and use a gun, can be the difference between that man saving and defending his family, children and home from other attackers or threats, and him losing and being unable to protect his own, though they be innocent. You think you’re denying HIM a right, but if he has a daughter at home to protect, you’re also denying her a father to defend her from others.

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 4:28am

      This is not as cut and dried as some are making it out to be.
      A pardon does not infer innocence of a crime.
      It just means you are excused because someone in a position of authority allowed you to be.
      Criminals with convictions of gun related felonies on their records should never be allowed to possess a firearm even after their debt to society has been paid. That’s right you lose when you choose to commit an armed-crime. Even upon a pardon I don‘t think it’s right.

      The only way I could see it being ok is if a court reversed it‘s ruling based on new evidence and the crime was expunged from the person’s record. If a governor feels a criminal should be pardoned then there must be a significant reason based on evidence and the courts could overturn the decision if that were true. Otherwise it’s a personal decision, in which case, the pardon might be bogus.

      One person (a governor) should not be given that much authority, in my opinion. How in the world did someone who was simply voted by people to an office become smarter than the court system, the evidence presented at a trial by a prosecutor and the jury of 12 people that found that criminal guilty? Seems like a bit too much authority is just handed over to me.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • Rice Water
      Posted on October 1, 2011 at 9:35am

      So can Oliver North legally own a firearm?

      Report Post » Rice Water  
  • cayenne523
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 6:09am

    If they are pardoned why not? They have a right to defend themselves.

    Report Post »  
    • Wayne
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 9:22am

      Amen,

      Report Post »  
    • SREGN
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:23am

      If you’ve “paid your debt to society” all rights should be restored.

      Report Post »  
    • webpreacher
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:51pm

      Doesn’t ever citizen of this country have a right to defend themselves from any who may seek to to them or their families harm? As someone else has posted as to Felons loosing their 2nd amendment rights, why stop with the 2nd, what not take away all constitutional rights ? In some States, it is also the right to vote that is taken away, how is that justifiable, that pretty much puts felons in a non-citizen category. Also, it is taxation without representation, since Felons still have to pay taxes ? Seems to me America was lost a long time ago, and we are all just going through the motions, hypocrites is how the world sees us !

      Oh, here is a bit of news, I was just listening to Hannity on the radio, with his quest J.Sekulow, ACLJ Founder, who were talking about a Governor (Women, SC, I believe) along with some Powerful Figures in the White House, wanting to suspend the Constitution and 2012 election for 2 years, as to afford Congress time to fix the economy….Hello !

      Report Post » webpreacher  
  • skippy6
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:38am

    The problem isn‘t whether you’re a felon or not it’s what you did to become a felon…Are you a true danger to other people… It almost seems that pretty soon every violation will be a felony,then they could take your rights away for that reason…

    Report Post » skippy6  
    • truscott555
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:19pm

      Indiana made the commission of a second misdemeanor offense within a 5 yr. period a felony with the mere stroke of a pen.(DWI) There is no reason spitting on the sidewalk won’t be a felony someday.

      Report Post »  
    • AARON BURR
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:07pm

      All people are dangerous, and are capable of violent acts, which is why we have the right to defend ourselves, and our loved ones. If a court sentences you to life without a firearm, then so be it. If they sentence you to 10 years prison or probation, and you serve it out, regardless of the crime, you have fulfilled the sentence and should be allowed to continue your life with no further obstruction. I will guarantee that anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can do far more damage with a gallon of gasoline than they can with a firearm.

      Report Post »  
    • Faith1029
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:50pm

      If pardon means not guilty, then he should definetly have gun rights.

      It seems criminals only get a slap on the hand and hardly any consequences for crimes commited and so of course there will be more crimes. No matter what the crime was, if it was a felony in the eyes of the law, you lose your rights. If the law states a certain act is a felony whether you think it should be one or not, don’t commit it and losing your rights will not be an issue. Maybe people would think twice before not obeying the law and we would have a safer America.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 1:16am

      @ arron burr, God forbid people find out that the fluid that powers a 2 ton car down the road 30 miles with one gallon can have explosive uses.

      I agree with you. For anyone with an ounce of sense and an internet connection or access to a library can come up with ways to cause damage that go beyond what “normal” people would ever consider. Take for instance a commercial aircraft. Most aircraft are made of aluminum frames nowadays. That means that a person with a few ounces of mercury on board can pour out the mercury in a discreet spot and then scratch the surface and the plane will start to “rot” away within mere hours. Done towards the end of one flight, an idiot could ruin the next flight by causing the aircraft to have severe mechanical damage and possibly fatal decompression at altitude or even a complete structure failure. All of this could be accomplished with the mercury from just a few thermometers. I won’t even get into the rust aluminum mixing, but there sure are alot of ways to hurt people that don’t involve guns and most of them are more sinister and deadly for people in mass.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 4:33am

      @ Faith

      A pardon is an act of the Executive of a state or country whereby a person is forgiven of a crime. If the person is still serving criminal penalties such as a prison sentence, that penalty is no longer in effect and the person will be released immediately. Any restrictions placed on ex-convicts do not apply to the pardoned person. That being said, a pardon does not erase a conviction. The conviction remains on your criminal record and must be disclosed in any situation where information about past criminal activity is required.

      So no, you are not “not guilty” just because you’ve been pardoned.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
  • loknarr
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:33am

    A pardon should restore all rights granted to US Citizens, period. If the state does not want people to have certain rights, do not grant them. All states should recognize the pardon with full rights thereof. A state should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws they wish to follow, it should be all or none!

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 9:34am

      States and/or the government DO NOT “GRANT” RIGHTS!!!
      We are BORN WITH THEM!
      The Constitution (and Bill of Rights) only ENUMERATED (STATED) what those rights are.

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 4:43am

      You have a right to freedom too, but when you commit a crime, you lose that freedom by going to jail.
      Same thing should go for a convicted felon of a violent gun crime.

      I’m not of the opinion that just because you have a right, that it’s 100% safe from ever being taken away. With rights, come responsibility. If you choose to harm someone with a firearm without cause, you should lose the right to bear an arms.

      Yes, some rights were created by men.
      The rights to live life and have liberty (in the sense that no man should own you, not that you can’t go to jail when you commit a crime) and equality among men—those are given by God.
      Other rights were written by men. Like the right to defend your home with a weapon. That’s not a God given right. You certainly have the right to defend your home, but if you’re a convicted gun-felon, well, defend it with a baseball bat.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
  • Gump
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:10am

    Oh by the way , the Glock model 23 shown in the picture is a great pistol. It is a compact 40. cal. very dependable, nice size.

    Report Post »  
    • cemerius
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:12am

      Guess I wasn’t the only one that identified the gun before reading the article lol

      Report Post » cemerius  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:12am

      I must agree. The gen 4s need to have some bugs worked out.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • BuckeyeWithA45
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:04am

      Meh what is it with folks and ..40s and 9mm’s. For true pistol stoping power NOTHING beats a .45 loaded with hydra-shock or gold dot

      Report Post » BuckeyeWithA45  
    • DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:32am

      Glocks are for pigs and hoods. No thanks. CZ/Jericho for me.

      Report Post » DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:08pm

      Wow, gun snobs on The Blaze. Most 45′s are bulky and cunbersome to conceal. If you get a compact, then you have an ammo/ reload issue. I’ll keep my 40. Gold Dot and Hydo Shok are both very good. The difference is that Hydos have a tendency to frag where as Gold Dot is less likely.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • ArmedPrincess
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:12pm

      Like most other debates, all we have to is look to the founders.

      Thomas Jefferson once said that “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” This was Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in 1764

      Of course Thomas Jefferson also said that “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep & bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against Tyranny in Government.”

      Which in turns leads to one of Jefferson best quotes in saying “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

      I am fairly certain that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and speaking to us on The Mall in Dc, that the D.H.S would consider him a Domestic Terrorist. Wake Up my fellow Countrymen. We need a return to Liberty in this country. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will try to restore our freedoms.

      For Liberty,
      Ron Paul 2012!

      Report Post » ArmedPrincess  
    • BuckeyeWithA45
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:46pm

      Most 45′s are bulky and cunbersome to conceal.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Take a look at my carry gun. Taurus PT145 Milleneum Pro
      23oz Unloaded, 2′ Barrell and holds 10+1. If ya cant drop a couple of goons with 11 rounds of .45 your doing it wrong!

      Report Post » BuckeyeWithA45  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 1:21am

      @ Buckeye, or anyone else who doubts the power of a 9mm. I’ll hold a special demonstration for you at my place of residence. No need to call ahead, just come on in and I’ll give you a great demonstration of how effective the 9mm is on thin skinned animals. The 45 is heavier, but slower. And both the 40 s&w and 45acp are more expensive to shoot than the 9mm. 9mm is one of the cheapest and most abundant rounds on the planet and comes in a variety of flavors. Best of all, my springfield holds 17 + 1, so while you are fiddling with reloading when the zombies come, I’ll still be shooting head shots with my night sights and my faster, more accurate bullets.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • Gump
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:07am

    Some should, some should not.

    Report Post »  
    • dnewton
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:34pm

      The worse thing that could happen is the Tennessee Legislature or the Tennessee Courts get involved. Whatever they come up with will be bad in one direction and worse in the other. This state is infamous for laws that can be interpreted several different ways. For instance, a private property protection bill was written to protect people from the confiscation of property for industrial parks by the state and local governments. The bill that was written required the government to “use condemnation sparingly.“ How many times do you condemn before it is not considered ”Sparingly” anymore? The ink was barely dry before a city and county immediately tried to condemn for a purpose that was not restricted industrial uses (possibly a motel). This is a toss to the courts to figure out what the legislature might have meant. It also makes the victim go to court to find out the true meaning of the law. This is barratry, but not in the usual sense.
      As far as the gun is concerned, I say the guy gets the gun. I am a lot more concerned about convicted felons getting to vote. Florida is really bad about that stuff.

      Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:07am

    My Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia… Hence, a Felon not being an acceptable Militia Man, I would say a State has the Right to prohibit Felons from Gun Ownership.

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • DaBig2na
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:28am

      Look the key word here is PARDON

      He is NOT a CONVICTED FELON once he receives this.

      Report Post » DaBig2na  
    • dpselfe
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:53am

      LUKERW, you need to better understand the words “Militia” and “regulated” in the context of the 2nd Ammendment before you spout your Progressive interpretation. “Militia” in this context means all men of age, NOT the military. “Regulated” in this context means “practiced”, NOT (as you would like to believe) under complete government oversight and control. Once this man receives his pardon, he is indeed, according to the Constitution, a member of the Militia, and in being so, needs to be regulated (practiced). Kind of hard to do if some Left Winger doesn’t think rights apply to ALL MEN equally.

      Report Post » dpselfe  
    • cemerius
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:11am

      Read up on some of our fore fathers and their quirks! Using your basis in describing a militia would mean we would never be….

      Report Post » cemerius  
    • ozchambers
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:26pm

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      as previously stated, “regulated” means well-practiced, NOT burdened by regulations. Secondly, the first part of the sentence “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is simply A reason, and not the ONLY reason for the crucial second part of the sentence. “the rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Note that it didnt say “the rights of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It says the People. All citizens have this right. And it didn’t say that you needed a permit either……

      This pardoned individual should be able to purchase and keep and carry his firearm.

      Report Post » ozchambers  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 1:28am

      The second has nothing to do with arming a militia or military force. It is about arming the people. Please note that the British redcoats were not an invading army. They were the well regulated militia that was supposed to protect the British subjects living in the colonies. Because the were so well regulated, they shot and killed the colonists when ordered to do so. They also took away the weapons of the colonists when ordered to do that. Remember that the Revolutionary war was actually a civil war and that the people had to protect themselves from the well regulated militia of the greatest military power in the world at the time.

      The right is a personal right, not a state right to arm militia men.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • mr molotov cocktail
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:53am

    prior to the 1900s when you were released from prison they handed your-gun right back to you as you left
    everyone has a right to bare-arms its just a fact!

    Report Post » mr molotov cocktail  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 6:48am

      I agree, the government should not be able to imprison a citizen for simply possessing something without some demonstration of intent to do harm. Right to self defense is God given and the gov can’t give or take that away. Fact is, bad people will do bad thing, no law will ever stop that.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
  • Velkro
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:11am

    One of the definitions of a pardon according to Merriam-Webster is “a release from the legal penalties of an offense.” Based on that definition, I would have to say yes to pardoned felons being allowed to own guns. They are relieved from any legal penalties, and that includes penalties normally placed on convicted felons.

    Report Post » Velkro  
  • Karama
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:02am

    Nope absolutely not! Especially not repeat offenders. I don’t even really like them voting, because they always vote democrat.

    Report Post » Karama  
    • jfc1068
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:03am

      I was convicted of a felony 30 years ago. I am a Republican and would never vote for a democrat. Guess that ruins your generalization, doesn’t it?

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:51am

      So if somebody commits a crime, you apply a patch for them to sew on their clothing and send out Javert to track them down if they dare assert any rights ever again. How nice.

      Once you’ve served your time, you get your rights back. The whole point of prison is to deprive you of most of your rights and rehabilitate you back into society. If you’re still a danger to society, then you should not be released from prison. If you’re released from prison, that means you are no longer a danger to society as deemed by the penal system, ergo, full rights restored.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • mecanic
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:05am

      your an idiot.

      Report Post » mecanic  
    • CinciGator
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:43am

      I to was convicted of a Felony when I was 18 and have only voted Republican. I was a first time offender who wrote a check to cover my mother mortgage and was charged and concited of “Uttering” wow what a risk I am to society 30 years later. Not every Felon is a murder, rapist, or drug dealer.

      Report Post »  
    • Chutz
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:51pm

      Same here….odd ,isn’t it, that people think with knee jerk reaction rather than rational thought

      Report Post »  
    • Captain Crunch
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 7:40pm

      @Karama

      I vote to take away all your rights because you”re a dumb a$$.

      Report Post »  
  • Kilkman
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:19am

    The only difference between a convicted felon and any other citizen is a conviction. they didn’t have the money to have a lawyer deffer judgement, or reduce the charges.there are over 6,000,000 laws on the books and I guarantee you break several hundred of them daily. I’m not implying that Chronic violent offenders who have abused their rights should retain them, But to strip a whole segment of hardworking generally law abiding citizens of their rights because the bear the scarlet label of FELON unjust. Particularly when one considers just what counts as a felony today.

    Report Post »  
    • lumpydick
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:09am

      Just a few DUI’s here and guess what? Felony, 7 years probation, and no guns, no voting, limited job opportunity. I have a family member living this nightmare. Maybe time to look at what should be classified as a felony.

      Report Post » lumpydick  
  • WireWizard
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:16am

    I agree that a non-violent felon should be able to get their 2nd amendment rights restored. It is a state’s rights issue and I would hate to see this escalated beyond that.

    Report Post » WireWizard  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:53am

      All felons, duly released from their sentence, are by definition no longer a threat to society. Full rights restoration, period. What one may do after being released is not the dominion of government, it is rather an act of freewill that cannot be accounted for before the fact.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • widowmaker
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:59am

    What part of Pardon is not coming through? When pardoned, it is the same as never having been charged. Give the man his rights back!

    Report Post »  
  • ConservativeCharlie
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:45am

    I am one who thinks that you cannot take away someones rights. If they are a huge danger hang’em or cage em. If they served their time and they are no longer a threat all rights should be restored. Why crime is so bad now, these guys get out and cant do anything. No one wants to hire em, at all. Felons are the only group you can legally discriminate against like.. Job Application? Huh? get the hell out of here before I call the cops. Well Felons and Whites are the only ones you can discriminate against. When someone commits a crime or makes a mistake I dont think it automatically bars them from ever being a citizen again. Besides, do you guys have any idea how easy it is to get a felony charge now, they have laws on top of laws that no one even knows about until some crafty prosecuter decides to enforce it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s17Jh2tc04A

    Report Post »  
    • Conservative Voice
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:02am

      Agreed, if you have done the time then justice has been served. If you can’t be trusted with a gun then you should be locked up ( in a hospital or prison ) otherwise leave them be

      Report Post » Conservative Voice  
    • jfc1068
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:06am

      A recent study showed that 96% of American have done something that would put them in prison if they had been seen. The difference between those in prison and those outside is that those outside have not been caught yet.

      Report Post »  
  • Chutz
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:27am

    With all the criminals we have in congress holding Concealed Carry Permits, you cannot judge a person whose served their time. If it is a non violent crime release of parole should grant them their rights back. For those that say they shouldn’t have done the crime…take a look at some of the records of our congress, past and present.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:30am

      You know, I agree in principle with you. But there are those pardoned who actually were guilty, as you would expect in any imperfect system. How can you ‘trust’ where considerable doubt has already been demonstrated in a court?

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 1:46am

      @ ruler,

      Are you really saying that we should take away the rights of every felon for all time, whether or not they are pardoned because one might slip through the cracks? Isn‘t that kinda like saying that we should put every person convicted of murder to death even if one is pardoned just to ensure we don’t accidentally let a guilty person walk? It sounds like you walk with fear in your day to day life and you have contempt for humanity and its vices as a whole.

      If a person has proven that they will use any weapon to mame and kill people and not in self defense, then they should serve time or die and if it is the former, they should not be a second class citizen when they re-enter society. There is no place in our nation for making people any less of a citizen than your average John Doe. If a person serves their sentence and repays the debt society feels they owe, then after payment they should get their rights back in full like everyone else.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • critterbait
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:26am

    It should be a case by case base.Protection From Abuse laws have done more to strip away gun rights then any law I have seen. I have heard countless peoples story of a spouse that just use this law to strike back /Not only do they lose the gun right but lose the guns and never returned.The courts do use this law to strip away gun rights.
    One case the man lost his gun and his rights to own one and now the courts cannot find the person who made the report in the first place and his gun was a collectors piece and after 3 years is sitll not able to get it returned by the Sheriff thousands of dollars later and four 12 hunderd mi round trips and still have not released it back to him.And he is now still to this day not able to have a gun or buy a gun when he did nothing wrong..But he still can contuinue it for another $1000.00 lawyers fee..
    Abuse by the system OH YES…

    Report Post »  
  • jdog777
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:20am

    The second amendment is applicable to everyone…. even those who have made mistakes in their life. If the man is too dangerous to own a firearm, then he is certainly too dangerous to be pardoned.

    Report Post »  
  • wills120
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:07am

    Chuck is right, if he’s been granted a pardon and absolved of all felony charges against him, he should have his full rights back. If he is still a convicted felon, regardless of his jail status, he should not be allowed to keep and bear arms. I‘m not sure why some people don’t understand this….

    Report Post »  
  • Constructionist
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:57am

    “The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual‘s civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person’s innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime.”

    The pardon not only got this man out of jail but it returned his innocence in the eyes of the law. There is no legal difference between denying this man his 2nd Amendment rights and denying any other law abiding citizen their 2nd Amendment rights.

    It‘s not an emotional issue of ’convicts shouldn‘t have guns’; it is purely a matter of respecting and upholding the law and individual constitutional liberties (even when you don’t agree with them). Remember, the power to pardon comes directly from the Constitution. Perhaps the Tennessee AG should consider that.

    Report Post » Constructionist  
  • Norm D. Plume
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:43am

    This is really very simple.

    If he is out of jail, he should have ALL his rights. Period. If he’s too dangerous a criminal to be allowed to keep and bear arms, then he is obviously too dangerous to be mixed in with “society”, and should therefore be incarcerated.

    Even were he not pardoned, and got out of jail because his sentence was served in full (I can see — A LITTLE BIT — restricting rights during a probation period,) then he should have all his rights restored to him.

    But he WAS fully pardoned. His rights should be his, again, immediately.

    Norm D. Plume  
  • cwbyway102
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:40am

    If their crime had nothing to do with violence or fire arms I would have to agree that after he serves his time a person should have all of their rights restored including the right to posses a fire arm.
    Case in point http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mNlJYSIzjoU this man could get up to 75 years for filming a police officer.If convicted and he was to ever get out and complete his parole does he deserve to have his right to protect his home taken away?

    Report Post »  
  • Sunnyr
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:35am

    NO WAY!

    Felon’s should NOT be able to purchase or own a firearm of any kind! EVER! They gave up their gun rights when they committed the felony.

    Report Post » Sunnyr  
    • GOA_AMD65
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 4:07am

      I do not think you understand what a pardon is.

      Report Post »  
    • melbhinn
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:37pm

      What about other rights? Why is the 2nd amendment treated like a stinkbug, even by people who claim to support it?

      Report Post »  
    • ej509
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:48pm

      Agree 100%.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 1:53am

      I wish people like you would go away. You are part of the big government system, and I hate to say this, but most people who say things like this are women. For some reason it is in a woman’s nature to like to limit the rights of others so that she can feel all safe and warm at night. It’s a sad fact and with the feminization that is happening to our male population, this syndrome is happening in ever greater frequency in men as well. Maybe it stems from some freudian psychological disorder similar to small man syndrome that so many police seem to suffer from.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • Chuck Stein
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:32am

    The whole point of a pardon (as opposed to clemency or commutation of sentence) is that the person convicted is treated as if the conviction never happened. Pretty simple. Looks like Tennessee is limiting the Georgia governor’s power to grant pardons and violating the Full Faith and Credit provision of Art. IV of the U.S. Constitution.

    Report Post »  
    • proliance
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 7:16pm

      The hell with Georgia. Keep your criminals in your own damn state.

      Report Post » proliance  
    • SgtB
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 2:01am

      @ proliance, I’m glad that we live in a nation where people like you are the minority and we have a printed social contract called The Constitution which specifically prohibits its member states from denying the rights of people from other member states. This includes the right to travel, which is a human right and is not subject to legislative restriction in much the same way that the right to self defense is held.

      I think if you’re pro anything, it is pro big government and tyranny.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • motherof18
    Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:25am

    Get back in your cage jailbird.

    Report Post »  
    • Marci
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:37am

      On the fence with this one.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 8:15am

      I think all rights are restored with a pardon. If you try and make it a case by case you’ll end up having another debocle like New York City.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • Wayne
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 12:15pm

      Hey Motherof18, I wonder how perfect you are to set in judgment on other people. You know somepeople make mistakes in this world.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 8

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love