sparx wrote:
A convicted felon, unless their crimes were of a violent nature or other reason to be legally denied, has a right to, after 5 years after their release from supervision (parole or probation, or prison if no parole or probation is mandated after release), are legally allowed to have a gun in their home for self-defense. This does NOT give the felon a right to carry the weapon outside of their home, which would be illegal.
Time for me to insert my standard "don't try this at home!" warning.
Relying on any state's relaxation of restrictions can earn a former felon 5+ years in federal prison. It doesn't matter what the state law says, and it doesn't matter if it was a state crime with no federal counterpart. It doesn't matter if the felon served more than 1 year, or no time at all. As far as the feds are concerned, anyone convicted of a crime for which the
maximum punishment
could be 1 year incarceration or more, is forever barred from possessing any firearms or ammunition.
The feds can, and do, prosecute for this, even in cases where the actor is in complete compliance with state laws. One of the disturbing criteria they sometimes use is "constructive possession", meaning not in actual possession, but knowing where they can have unrestriced access. Such as, a relative having unsecured guns and the felon having access to that house.
I do not defend these prosecutions, but they happen.
But back to the original story: the homeowner was reported as licensed, so felony background shouldn't be involved. I can also imagine where "voluntarily went to the station for questioning" can be mis-reported as "taken into custody".
Reporters seldom check facts as if their own reputation was at stake.
Kevin
