I happen to think that part of the reason we have such high rates of recidivism is because when people get out of prison, we keep treating them like prisoners. We say they paid their debt to society, but they keep on paying it. They have trouble getting good jobs because of a felony conviction and their rights are curtailed, both of which need to change.

Yet I'm probably not in the majority on that.

Because of where I stand on that, though, some might be a little confused why I actually like Tennessee's law that ties voting rights for felons to their gun rights.

The core issue stems from a new Tennessee law that ties the restoration of voting rights to the restoration of gun rights. In July 2023, state officials declared that people convicted of felonies must have their “full rights of citizenship” restored before they can vote. This includes gun rights, which many individuals with felony convictions are ineligible to regain. Voting rights advocates argue that the law significantly complicates an already difficult process and risks disenfranchising more people than intended.

In October 2023, Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Angelita Blackshear Dalton ruled that the voting rights of four individuals should be restored, even though they remain unable to own firearms due to their felony convictions. The judge based her decision on state case law that allows for the restoration of voting rights even if gun rights remain restricted.

State’s Objections and Legal Arguments

The state, represented by Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, filed a motion arguing that the judge’s ruling misinterprets the law. The state contends that restoring only part of someone’s citizenship rights, such as voting, does not align with the full restoration required by law. According to the motion, “The definition of ‘full’ does not change to include fewer rights when a felon commits a more serious crime. Full means full.”

Additionally, the state has delayed the approval or rejection of voting rights restoration applications for the four individuals involved in the case. This legal limbo leaves their eligibility to vote this fall in doubt, as the voter registration deadline has already passed.

Here's my thing: If they're such upstanding citizens that they can be permitted to vote, why aren't their gun rights restored?

Voting is an important responsibility. I'm of the belief that it shouldn't be the start of people's rights but one of the totality of rights Americans enjoy. What I mean is that if someone is eligible to vote, they shouldn't have any of their rights curtailed. I hold that for non-felons between the ages of 18 and 20 and I feel the same way about people who are convicted felons.

And if someone can't be trusted with their gun rights, then their voting rights should also be prohibited.

They're either a citizen or they're not.

Unfortunately, that's not the way anyone with the felons' side in Tennessee seems to be seeing things. For example, those seeking to enfranchise the felons could be fighting for the full restoration of their rights instead of just picking and choosing which rights. They're not.

That's because they don't want anyone to have their gun rights. They're fine with treating guns like a privilege than a right.

But if someone can't be trusted with the means to protect their own lives, how can we trust them to protect our nation by voting for the person who represents the best option? I'm quite sure it would be different than mine, but that's fine. That's neither here nor there. I'm saying rights are an all-or-nothing thing.

We'll just have to see if the courts agree.