Ammo For Sale

« « RINO Sightings | Home | Blogger hits the big time » »

Felons and guns

In light of recent events, I have some more thoughts and information on Scoot. Nine years ago, he was convicted of two felonies. Those were felony contempt and felony reckless endangerment. All I know is the names of the charges and have no other details of the crimes. My wild-ass guess is he violated some sort of court order (restraining, child support, etc.) and fled when confronted. I have no factual information pertaining to that and itís just speculation.

In the past, Scoot was an EMT, an occupation that requires a license that youíre apparently excluded from if you have a criminal record. I Googled his name and discovered that he appeared before the Tennessee Department of Health for an appeal hearing, and they approved his license despite his conviction noting that he does not endanger the general public. Additionally, Iím fairly certain he, at some point, had passed a TICS. And, according to him, he also had custody of his kids.

In my mind, something doesnít add up here. Something is missing and I donít know what it is. Those are three things that you would not associate with someone who is a felon. Also, not all felonies are equal. A person who murders a child is a felon. But so is a person who imports orchids into the United States. You can lose your right to arms, right to vote and others whether youíre an axe murderer or you import lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. Obviously, some crimes warrant stripping access to guns.

In other words, when it comes to determining the severity of a personís crime, the term felon is about as useless as a cock-flavored lollipop.

7 Responses to “Felons and guns”

  1. Ravenwood Says:

    That’s because a politicians way of getting “tough” on something is to convert it to a felony.

  2. countertop Says:

    The felony contempt charge is new to me. The reckless endangerment part is scary, like he drove his car into a crowded shopping center or something. I guess it could be something less shocking, but reckless endangerment usually signals some sort of depraved heart type of action.

    As far as the TICS check, not sure how it runs, but those records aren’t near complete. They really get you on the form you fill out where you state your not a felon and then swear under penalty of a fine or imprisonment to that fact.

  3. anonymous Says:

    How can the second amendment be a check on government power if government gets to decide who does and who doesn’t get to own arms?

    Anybody regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, age, etc has an inherent human right to own and bear arms. Period. Full stop.

  4. markm Says:

    For federal possession-of-a-gun-by-a-felon purposes, a felony is any crime that could have carried a 1 year sentence – even if the actual penalty was a small fine, and even if no one has ever been sentenced to a year for that crime. Sometimes no one realizes that it is a “felony” until some federal agency takes a dislike to someone with a gun and starts digging. Considering all the background checks he has passed, and that apparently the ATF didn’t come up with this charge until it became obvious that their theory that “gun nut with a milling machine = machine gun manufacturer” would be laughed out of court once the actual milled parts were looked at, I suspect that this is one of those cases.

    Gun-hating prosecutors also been known to look up the current maximum sentence for an old crime, and “forget” to look up the (often lower) maximum at the time the crime was committed. They’ve been known to mix up felonies and misdemeanors with similar sounding names. Courts have been known to keep such poor records that it’s impossible to determine whether the actual charge was the felony or misdemeanor. Scoot better make sure his lawyer is alert to those possibilities.

  5. _Jon Says:

    You closure reminds me of a joke:

    This boy is frying ants using a magnifying lens and the sun. As he is doing so, he keeps repeating; “Damn useless ants. Damn useless ants.”

    A priest sees the boy and overhears his comment. He solds the boy;
    “Young man! All of God’s creations have a purpose. I challenge you name three of God’s works that are ‘useless’!”

    The boy ponders this for a moment then replies with;
    1. Tits on a nun
    2. A dick on a priest
    3. And the damn ants!

    —-
    (I know – poor timing for the joke.)

  6. wrangler5 Says:

    I’ve about reached the same conclusion as Anonymous, above. Since anyone intent on mischief (i.e., a threat to society, felon or not) can get a gun if they put their mind to it, and since many “felons” are not a threat to society, there’s no rational reason to deny anyone the right to possess a firearm, other than as a vindictive move.

    Now, if somebody wanted to add as an aggravating factor in sentencing for a gun crime that the perpetrator was a prior felon, that’s a different (and to me, probably acceptable) approach.

  7. robert Says:

    First Angel Shamaya, now shoot and scoot, both with the same approach.

    How many times does this happen before it’s considered enemy action and not just coincidence?