sucks to be him but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


He’s in trouble with the law, but he’s alive.

This reminds me of our frequent conversations about carrying in a gun free zone. If you need a firearm, you’ll be glad you have one, but you need to know in advance that you will have some legal trouble.

It also reminds me- because it’s Memphis- of Mr. Noir’s question about Chicago gun restrictions. Would you rather be caught by the police on the street with an illegal handgun, or would you rather be caught by a gang on the street without one?


A convicted felon with a stolen firearm is the manager of the restaurant? Sounds like my kind of place…


I’d say there is a pretty big difference between a prohibited possessor (convicted felon as in the article) compared to a legal owner who chooses to carry into a posted or legally defined gun free zone.
Still, it sure seems like the prosecutors could work a leniency deal on this fellow.


Is there, though? Knowingly and intentionally choosing to break a law that controls what you can/cannot do with a gun is knowingly and intentionally choosing to break a law that controls what you can/cannot do with a gun.

In many cases, a person who legally purchased their gun, but carries somewhere defined as gun free, is in fact committing a felony, also, in which case the only difference is whether or not the “legal” owner has been caught and convicted yet


As an aside, I don’t personally agree with convicted felons being denied the Right to keep and bear arms once their incarceration (actual physical custody in a secure facility) is done


I feel weird about this one, too. If someone has “paid his debt to society” (whatever that means) and is safe enough to release from prison, then why not restore that person to full citizenship? Unless the sentence specifically states that part of the punishment is the loss of voting rights or 2nd Amendment rights or whatever, it makes me uncomfortable that we send someone back into the world but subject him to second class status.

I don’t know, I suppose some people will say that if they don’t like it, they shouldn’t have committed a felony. But it just feels uncomfortable denying someone their full rights unless those specific rights have been abused (i.e. you can no longer vote because you committed voter fraud, or you can no longer own a firearm because you used one to rob a bank, etc.)


I concur. Once the sentence is served and square with the law, I think these rights should be restored.


I agree that someone paying their debt to society has already been punished and should be able to resume their citizenship with full rights. However, I think there are so many things wrong with our “prison system” that I’d be very hesitant to take any action on this until we can fix the issues with recidivism.

A violent convict that comes back out has paid their “bill”, but with our current system; can we fix the issue of them not going back to violence, and now we have allowed them to legally arm themselves?

It is a very complicated and many layered issue, and we should explore all avenues, but I’m sure there is not an easy solution.


Completely agree.

If someone has proven themselves that unsafe, it makes no sense to let him and be like “no don’t go robbing any more liquor stores please” and expect that prohibition from having a gun will stop that.

Also, of course, way too many things are felonies, I would wager money that everybody in this thread has committed at least one felony they don’t know about.

I used to work a security job where I witnessed dozens of felonies, personally, in a single day sometimes. I’m pretty sure not one of them knew.

I mean, who would guess that a pocket knife with a 2.5" blade on a college campus (even in the parking lot while going to a sporting event) is a felony?


Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent: Harvey Silverglate, Alan M. Dershowitz: 9781594035227: Books

The common phrase I hear is “3 felonies a day.” Critics say that is hyperbole, but many people acknowledge that the average “law-abiding citizen” unwittingly violates many laws just by living their life.


I would agree with this in theory but the problem is that likely thousands of violent criminals who are clearly a threat to society are released every year. Often long before they pay the full price for their crime. Likely tens of thousands over the last couple years.

My workaround would be that all criminals would regain their voting rights after their sentence was over. Only clearly violent criminals would be denied their 2A rights upon release. But there would need to be a reasonable process where they could prove they have reformed and are no longer a threat so their 2A rights could be restored. Non violent felons with no evidence of being a threat to commit violence should immediately regain their 2A rights upon completion of their sentence.


I think so too, except- as in the previous example- perhaps someone who has been convicted of an election crime might lose their vote as part of their sentence.


Sounds fair to me. Though I would go with a similar opportunity for them to be able to prove they are reformed and deserve to get their vote back at some point after serving their sentence.


Here’s a worse example.

U.S. Marine veteran, licensed to carry concealed, intervened and subdued an attacker in Baltimore. He didn’t even use his firearm, but because he had it on him and was within 100 feet of a public building.
After Marine veteran makes rescue, Baltimore police file gun charges against him | Fox News

No good deed goes unpunished, especially in Baltimore.

1 Like