Monday, June 22, 2015

Bringing up the question "Should someone convicted of a felony

be blocked forever from arms ownership?"  That's a question to start an argument with, the two sides being
"That's part of the punishment, and they're not trustworthy"
"If they've served their time, and cleaned up their act, why?"
Question brought up by this:
The man who shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Knoxville convenience store may avoid charges under Tennessee law -- despite the fact he was a felon with a gun.

Issac Jamal Scruggs, 42, of Knoxville, was at a Breadbox convenience store early Monday on Asheville Highway when 18-year-old Tamon Stapleton held the clerk at gunpoint.

Scruggs, a friend of the clerk's, shot and killed Stapleton. A previous felony conviction would ban Scruggs from carrying the gun he used, but Tennessee law says the fact he protected someone else means the gun charge doesn't matter.
Impression given is that the guy has cleaned-up his life.  And here, stopped an armed robber.

It's a messy question.

This makes it sound like Mushroom Head was a nutcase looking for SOMEWHERE to hurt people.  And finally settled on that church.
A black friend of the white man accused of murdering nine people at a Charleston church says the suspect told him a week prior to the killings that he planned to shoot up a local college campus,” reports. “Christon Scriven, [above] a drinking buddy of Dylann Roof, told The Associated Press that he thought Roof’s statements were just drunken bluster. However, Scriven said that he was concerned enough that he and another friend, Joey Meek, went out to take his .45-caliber gun, hiding it in an air-conditioning vent of a mobile home until they all sobered up.” And then gave it back, later.


Anonymous said...

There's still a question of how he obtained his firearm. Any person who knowingly purchases a firearm for a felon is committing a felony. As I understand it, the states pass their own laws concerning felons and firearms. It's still very controversial as most folks think that all felons are hardened criminals...not true.
Felons get returned to society and many of us lead productive lives with jobs, going to church, getting a good job and education, and raise families.
My wife buys all our firearms, as I am not legally allowed to do so. I believe felons should be able to own firearms to protect themselves, their families, and others as necessary.

Anonymous said...

My own opinion is that the right to self preservation is immutable. Only americans who are in custodial care (prison, hospital, or legal guardianship) should be denied access to guns. If they are safe enough to be wandering free they are safe enough to carry. If yhey aren't safe enough to be free, why were they released? If anything, former criminals have a greater need for guns since they likely still have contact with other criminals and need to protect themselves.


Titan Mk6B said...

I am a bit torn on this issue. I do feel that once you have served your sentence you should be able to possess firearms once again. And also be able to vote. But, that would mean my brother in law who is fucking crazy would be able to have a gun again. That would not be a good thing. Actually I am surprised that he has not found a way to get one.

Hey, I have an idea. Enforce the laws when a gun is used in a crime. That will keep a lot more of the real criminals in jail.