Felons slip through cracks in system to carry firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seminole

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
689
Location
Where the west begins
This article, one of two on CCW in today's Memphis' Commercial Appeal, seems to be intended to delegitimize handgun-carry permits (in TN licensure allows one to carry a pistol either concealed or openly). The other article, which I'll post momentarily, is about how prevalent handgun carry permits are in Shelby County, where Memphis is located.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/aug/03/wrong-fingers-are-on-the-triggers/


Twenty years ago, after being shot in the face at point-blank range with a .38-caliber revolver, Antonio Bedford, then 21, vowed never to be defenseless again.

From that day forward, he made sure he could protect himself and his family. For Bedford, living in North Memphis, that often meant carrying a gun.

But earlier this year, Bedford lost the right to carry his weapon of choice, a .380-caliber automatic pistol. On Feb. 4, the Department of Safety sent a letter informing him that his state-issued handgun permit had been revoked because of a felony reckless endangerment charge he pleaded guilty to in 1995.

It took one year from the date Bedford was issued a permit for Tennessee officials to determine that he should have been barred from carrying a gun.

"Until I got the letter, I didn't know I couldn't have a gun," Bedford said. "I was trying to do things right to protect myself, my family and my neighbors, but come to find out I wasn't allowed."

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, requiring individual states to thoroughly vet applicants for gun permits.

"I really feel like they could have easily -- instead of taking me through all this trouble -- got on the computer, punched up some numbers, get all the information they need and tell me, 'No, you have been denied.' "

Bedford is one of nine convicted felons in Shelby County who received letters this year demanding they surrender their handgun permits, illustrating the difficulty Tennessee has had in keeping firearms out of the hands of felons.

A Commercial Appeal review of the nine permit mistakes in Shelby County revealed just how inefficient agencies have been in sharing information about convicted felons that could bolster public safety.

Four of the nine accidentally given permits had felony convictions recorded in Shelby County Criminal Court -- convictions that were also recorded in a database maintained by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts in Nashville.

What's more, three of the nine felons mistakenly given permits spent time in the custody of the state Department of Corrections, meaning their felony records were available through an additional state database in Nashville.

The problem, according to state officials, began in September 2006, when the Department of Safety's handgun unit lost its subscription to the FBI's National Crime and Information Center database. Since the Department of Safety was part of the state's driver's license division, it did not qualify as a law enforcement agency -- a requirement to access the federal database.

Without access to the database, state safety officials said they couldn't conduct background checks on permit holders seeking renewals -- even though they could have had easy access from other state agencies to felony records from Tennessee, where most of the applicants would have committed crimes.

Safety Department officials, who are not required by law to conduct background checks for permit renewals, said they sent letters to local law enforcement agencies about the problem in August 2007, but spokesmen for the Shelby County Sheriff's Office and the Memphis Police Department said they were unaware of any such notification.

As the situation allowed, if a Tennessee resident already possessed a handgun permit when he or she committed a felony after September 2006, the citizen had a good chance of keeping the gun permit despite the felony conviction.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has access to the national database and runs background checks when a gun permit is issued for the first time -- a legal requirement. But Bedford was issued an original permit in 2007 and his background would have been run through the NCIC database, suggesting that inefficiencies in the information exchange go beyond the state level.

These breakdowns in communication have allowed some felons to stay legally armed.

Take, for example, the case of Dementrius Roberson, who received a gun permit in May 2005. Nearly two years later, on March 6, 2007, the 58-year-old Memphian was in a traffic accident. During a dispute with the other driver, Roberson pulled out his gun and fired, accidentally wounding a bystander. Roberson pleaded guilty to felony reckless endangerment and is now on probation.

According to state records, however, Roberson's gun permit won't expire until 2009.

Lisa Knight, manager of the state's handgun unit, said officials were aware felons might be able to renew permits after September 2006 -- yet those same officials did not correct the problem until February of this year. That's when the handgun permits unit merged with the Tennessee Highway Patrol's Criminal Investigations Division, qualifying the unit as a law enforcement agency and giving it access once again to the FBI's national database.

The department is also now comparing its gun-permit data with felony data maintained by the state Department of Corrections.

Since the reviews began earlier this year, the Department of Safety has sent out 99 permit-revocation letters statewide, though not all are for felony convictions. Some permits are being revoked because of DUI charges and orders of protection.

However, until recently, the Department of Safety's director was unaware a problem even existed.

Dave Mitchell, appointed director in January 2007, did not learn until earlier this year that his department issued gun permits to felons.

"We are, and have been since I became aware of the situation," Mitchell said, "aggressively making sure that those people that don't lawfully deserve to have a handgun permit in their possession don't."

-- Lani Lester: 529-2395 and Megan Harris: 529-2701
 
Four of the nine accidentally given permits had felony convictions recorded in Shelby County Criminal Court -- convictions that were also recorded in a database maintained by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts in Nashville.

How, exactly, does someone "accidentally" print someone's name on a permit?

If the firearm licensing was through the driver license division then what were they doing for background checks? Were they looking at speeding tickets and parking violations?

I have to wonder if they weren't just rubber stamping permit applications as they went by. Not that doing so is necessarily a bad thing.
 
And just what has Mr. Bedford done since 1995 that makes him still dangerous?

This is an excellent example of why that law needs to go away.
 
classic it's always about stupidity....

The problem, according to state officials, began in September 2006, when the Department of Safety's handgun unit lost its subscription to the FBI's National Crime and Information Center database. Since the Department of Safety was part of the state's driver's license division, it did not qualify as a law enforcement agency -- a requirement to access the federal database.

uh- DUH!

without access to the fed HOW STUPID CAN THEY BE??? --- with no Fed access, ANYONE could move into Tenn, buy a gun if their records are out of state. I'm amazed a string of felons hasn't figured this out
 
I have mixed emotions about felons and weapons. I was talking to a lawyer on Saturday who started talking about it.

It seems the constitution does not prohibit felons from carrying weapons.....so that means the federal govt decided to add the language. And, because it's incrimental and only affects a few people at a time....the states and federal govt are adding more and more "crimes" to the felony side of things.

For instance.....by far the most common thing to be arrested for in my part of the country is domestic violence. Now, get this......you only have to be accused of it. There doesn't have to be any connviction, trial, nothing!!! If you are accused.....you lose your right to carry concealed forever. With people who get into an argument and somebody calles the cops.....it's all over for them.

There are many more examples.......so I'm beginning to look at this differently. Maybe a period of losing it.....but not forever. Besides....if somebody has paid their price to society (prison or jail) for being convicted....after proving their ability to act in society properly for a given period of time....shouldn't we allow them to protect themselves???
 
Besides....if somebody has paid their price to society (prison or jail) for being convicted....after proving their ability to act in society properly for a given period of time....shouldn't we allow them to protect themselves???

Those are my thoughts. If we don't want them to have guns when they get out because they are still considered dangerous, then why do we let them out at all in the first place?
 
I love how these articles try to make it look like "since a few slip through the cracks, we should get rid of CCW." Mistakes happen. How many pedophiles get authorized to work with children? How many with suspended or revoked DLs get a license in another state?

propaganda
 
The problem, according to state officials, began in September 2006, when the Department of Safety's handgun unit lost its subscription to the FBI's National Crime and Information Center database. Since the Department of Safety was part of the state's driver's license division, it did not qualify as a law enforcement agency -- a requirement to access the federal database.
We get to the real problem. Only LE can access NCIC. Why such a bizarre restriction, especially considering that everything in it is already public information?
 
Flyboy said:
And just what has Mr. Bedford done since 1995 that makes him still dangerous?

This is an excellent example of why that law needs to go away.
More to the point (maybe) ... what, exactly, is "felony reckless endangerment," and is it something that really REALLY needs to be a felony that can deprive someone of their right to self defense for the remainder of their life?

According to the always-authoritative Wikipedia:
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
I guess I'd like to see some examples of why this should even be considered a felony.
 
For instance.....by far the most common thing to be arrested for in my part of the country is domestic violence. Now, get this......you only have to be accused of it. There doesn't have to be any connviction, trial, nothing!!! If you are accused.....you lose your right to carry concealed forever. With people who get into an argument and somebody calles the cops.....it's all over for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
 
As someone who was assaulted by a man previously convicted of battery I can say I don't want the law to change one bit.

He beat me w/ a golf club. If he had been allowed to have a gun I'd be dead.
 
We get to the real problem. Only LE can access NCIC. Why such a bizarre restriction, especially considering that everything in it is already public information?
Because some cities and politicians were accessing the data and misrepresenting it in support of gun control laws. Congress cut that off.

As someone who was assaulted by a man previously convicted of battery I can say I don't want the law to change one bit.

He beat me w/ a golf club. If he had been allowed to have a gun I'd be dead.
And if the potential victims around him are equally armed, he will meet his demise in short order through natural selection.
 
And if the potential victims around him are equally armed, he will meet his demise in short order through natural selection.


That's a big IF. I didn't get a gun until after he assaulted me.

If I had known of his battery conviction I would have gotten a gun and would have been able to defense myself better. (I was recovering from major surgery and had just gotten out of the hospital)

This is a man who has the ten commandments posted in his yard and goes to church. May God judge him accordingly. I know the bible says that God does not like to be mocked. This man is mocking God. I hope he gets what he deserves and I get justice...in this life.

People who have already shown themselves to be violent by being convicted of battery or some type of assault should not be allowed to have a gun.
 
As we all know, everyone with any sort of conviction is definitely guilty of it, and nobody escapes justice in court, right?
 
More to the point (maybe) ... what, exactly, is "felony reckless endangerment," and is it something that really REALLY needs to be a felony that can deprive someone of their right to self defense for the remainder of their life?
This is exactly the point that we should be making.

As XD9sc pointed out, some folk cannot be trusted with a deadly weapon of any kind. Right now, our society considers convicted felons to fall in to that category. But when we dilute the meaning of a felony to address some political whim, we paint all sorts of folk with the same broad brush regardless of the actual nature of their crime.

Where is the appropriateness in that?
 
Well. It's a good thing that the law stopped him from committing a crime, isn't it?


I lived thru the golf club incident. I probably wouldn't have if he'd had a gun. That was my whole point. But I guess you missed that. Rudeness doesn't in and of itself make people think, but it does point out what kind of person you are. :cool:
 
And if the potential victims around him are equally armed, he will meet his demise in short order through natural selection.

I read threads where someone says, "I was attacked, so I decided to start carrying a gun."

I'm a member of that club. When I moved to a state that was "shall issue", I started to carry a pistol.

The attack was 30 years ago. No, I haven't forgotten.

However, I believe that I would still carry a pistol, even if I hadn't been attacked.

I understand it's like a first aid kit, or a fire extinguisher. We should all be capable of learning from the experiences of others, and not have to find out firsthand that the world is a dangerous place.
 
Re: felons and guns

I believe the Second Amendment pretty well states the founding fathers' view of the matter. Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Felons who want guns have guns. OK, it may be illegal but that really doesn't matter to most of them. That's likely why they are felons in the first place. All restrictive gun laws need to be repealed and the public armed for their own protection. Maybe guns should be exempt from sales tax...

rr2241tx
 
As XD9sc pointed out, some folk cannot be trusted with a deadly weapon of any kind. Right now, our society considers convicted felons to fall in to that category. But when we dilute the meaning of a felony to address some political whim, we paint all sorts of folk with the same broad brush regardless of the actual nature of their crime.

Well if they cannot be trusted with a weapon then why are they turned loose on the public? You will not practically restrict actual possession of guns by felons as long as they are on the street! If you really want to protect society from violent felons then keep them in prison. When you release them they are going to get guns and any other item that they want!
 
Well if they cannot be trusted with a weapon then why are they turned loose on the public? You will not practically restrict actual possession of guns by felons as long as they are on the street! If you really want to protect society from violent felons then keep them in prison. When you release them they are going to get guns and any other item that they want!

TCB, you said it better than I did.

Those of us in the pro-RKBA movement argue against the antis with the same basic argument: a true thug will get a gun, or any other weapon regardless of what the law says. It is unwise to adopt part of the anti's argument to justify why a certain group of free citizens should not have any 2nd amendment rights. The antis will just take our argument, expand upon it, and move forward with their own agenda. As TCB said it, releasing individuals from prison that are too dangerous to trust with a gun should not be released at all.

XD9sc,

I understand where you are coming from, though I respectfully disagree with your position. I am glad you survived, and can be here with us today. :cool:
 
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Enough released felons commit crimes and go back to prison so that we call it a "revolving door" system. Why in the world do you want to legally arm these bozos after they serve their time or are paroled?

Granted there may be a few innocents who are convicted. There may be a few who truly repent and reform. And that's just tough if they can't legally own or carry a weapon.

I have known and still know a great many convicted felons. Most are likable folks but most are also psychopaths. And most are armed anyway. I sure as hell don't want to legalize their weapons.

In the case of the subject of the article, in order to be convicted of felony reckless endangerment, a parson, at the very, very least has demonstrated an appalling lack of sound judgment and utter disregard for the safety of others. And you want to give this guy a gun? What makes anyone think that his judgment and temperament have improved and that he can now be trusted with a gun on his person?

Gun ownership and a CCW carry great personal and social responsibilities. Many people are incapable of recognizing and discharging those responsibilities. And that unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility is a trait shared by virtually all felons. It would be totally irresponsible for a government to legalize their gun ownership, much less grant them a CCW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top