• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Tennessee Will Now Let Felons Possess Guns, but Only if the Guns Are More Than ...

KVX

Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Messages
716
Likes
1,350
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Tennessee Will Now Let Felons Possess Guns, but Only if the Guns Are More Than 120 Years Old
A change in Tennessee’s definition of a firearm allows for felons to own a gun provided it was manufactured before 1899.



carophotos330406


(Caro / Sven Hoffmann/Newscom)


Convicted felons can now possess guns in the Volunteer State.
The catch? The guns have to be so old they don't technically count as firearms under state law. That also means they'd probably be pretty useless in terms of self-defense.
Earlier this year, the state legislature unanimously passed legislation that amended Tennessee's definition as to what constitutes a firearm in order to make the state's definition the same as the federal government's. Notably, the federal government doesn't consider "antique weapons"—by which the government means guns manufactured prior to 1899—to be firearms. That means, by extension, Tennessee now doesn't either.
State law previously denied felons—including individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses—the right to own any firearms, including those classified as antique. However, Tennessee's reaffirmation of a felon's right to own an outdated, ineffective weapon does little to address the fact that nonviolent drug offenders are still being denied their Constitutional right to self-defense in the state.

Reason's Jacob Sullum has written about how "drug prohibition and indiscriminate gun laws conspire to deprive people of the constitutional right to armed self-defense."
For example, in 2018, Krissy Noble, a pregnant woman who used a gun to defend herself after she was attacked in her own apartment, ended up facing potential jail time for her legally justified use of a firearm due to a past felony marijuana conviction in Arkansas. Even though the courts found her actual use of the gun justifiable, her prior felony charges of "possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia" (both nonviolent offenses) disqualified her from possessing a gun under Arkansas law. Noble was eventually sentenced to six years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a $2,500 fine for defending herself and her unborn child with the illegally possessed firearm.
While it's encouraging that Tennessee recognizes that flintlock pistols pose little threat to society, it's unclear what tangible benefits the state's new law holds for nonviolent felons, like Noble who are barred from owning firearms and left defenseless.



 
The first line might as well have been written, ‘Convicted felons have possessed guns for decades across the Country.’
 
Gun laws are an infringement. Why does one lose the right to self defense after a mistake? Or even an on purpose?
Why shouldn’t hookers be able to protect themselves from violent johns or pimps?
Why should drug dealers not be able to defend themself from a double crosser dealer?
White collar scammers like Maddoff probably need more protection than average joes like me.

If the convict is so terrible that he/she shouldn’t be armed, keep him/her in jail or execute them.

Yes, I truly believe the statements I just made. But I’m willing to compromise those as part of “common sense gun laws” as long as we get something in return.
 
What about in Mass?

Could I open carry one of those old guns?

I think that would make a great fashion statement.
 
The first line might as well have been written, ‘Convicted felons have possessed guns for decades across the Country.’

Looking at violent crime rates in large urban cities governed by Democrats, I'd say they enacted Felon Sanctuary status long ago.
 
I know this will not be a very popular opinion. But a while ago I came across an article or a website about the second amendment. As we all know the first drafts of each amendment were not the ones that were ratified. Anyway, an earlier version or proposal of the second amendment, according to the website I saw which I cannot find now, have a stipulation about released felons. But that was removed. My thought is probably because there was a lot more capital punishment then and those that were released really weren't a significant threat to society. If any of what I read is true.....like I said, I cannot find the site.

Even so, there is nothing in the B.O.R. that says a released convict cannot legally possess a firearm after they served their time.

So they get all their rights back except 2A? So much for squaring it with the house.

As such, I think this is a good start. If someone has that violent of a past or predisposition to violence then they shouldn't be on the street.

So if they are to much of a risk to have a gun then why are they not too much of a risk to still be ;locked up?
 
Does this include replicas that work like the originals?

There are plenty of cap and ball revolvers, or even pre 1900 lever actions and colts. Not cheap, but can be found.

Also, a Blunderbuss would be a great home defense weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom