|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TN: Tennessee Will Now Let Felons Possess Guns, but Only if the Guns Are More Than 120 Years Old
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
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. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/17/2019)
|
Well, included guns would be the Colt Peacemaker, the iconic "six-shooter" of cowboy history fame.
These guns are not exactly ideal in today's world, but would still kill a deadly attacker just as dead as they would have in 1879.
200 grains of lead is very persuasive. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
