TexasCHLforum.com

It just hit me that I should make a technical clarification based on the question as originally asked: "Can a felon own a gun?"

The answer is: yes.

The problem is, that's not the right question to ask. The right question is, "May a felon possess a gun?"

If someone owns firearms and is convicted of a felony, he still owns those firearms, and that ownership isn't illegal. But, he may not legally possess them. He can transfer ownership to someone else. He can also retain ownership while transferring possession elsewhere.

If someone is convicted of a felony, and owns a valuable collection that can be expected to appreciate in value, he can have someone else store them where he has no access. When he needs or wants money, he can sell through a third party and still enjoy the appreciated price.

Kevin

stevie_d_64 wrote:This is where I had the rub with my brothers handler...

She told me that I could not have one in my posession at all when I was in proximity to my brother...Regardless if it was holstered, under my control, spare magazine in my back pocket, the whole smack...CHL and all...

She's absolutely incorrect, and has no case law to back her up.

I counted to ten and let it go...

Wise choice.

She also told me that if he visited me at my home (even if she just heard about it), that she would find him in violation, and me complicite in allowing him to be around guns, even if they were locked up ammo and all in my gunsafe...

She said she'd just let the court sort it out...And if I raised a question (or in her words "stink" about it) she'd lower the boom...

You've obviously encountered a power-tripping peon, who wants to enforce the law as she wishes it to be, not as it actually is. IIRC from previous threads, she's a USPO, right? A long conversation with her supervisor is in order, followed by short but thoroughly documented correspondence with her supervisor's chain of command. (Note: USPOs work for the court system, not the DoJ.)

The upside: you and your brother would win in the long run. The downside: the minute she says he's violated, he goes to jail. (The double entendre of her "violating" him is deliberate, and appropriate.) We all understand about beating the rap, if not the ride; but for a convicted felon on supervised release, the "ride" is a helluva lot longer, and much harder to get off.

Kevin

seamusTX wrote:All of these incidents seem like miscarriages of justice in my book. Technical offenses that serve no good end.

You're absolutely right.

Lest anyone think I actually agree with the application of the law in those cases I cited, let me make it clear: Anyone who cannot be trusted with firearms should not be walking the streets.

Just as prohibition didn't work for alcohol and doesn't work for drugs, it also doesn't stop criminals from carrying guns. "Forbid" != "prevent".

If the sentence has been served, then full rights should be restored. By that, I include the right to own and possess firearms, the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, and the right to serve in elective office.

Kevin

loosecannon wrote:I'm a layman, but...my knowledge of this question is up-to-date because of a gun-buddy friend who married a felon. The feds say no guns and no access to them. So, a gun safe keeps everybody out of trouble including the lawful owner, who might otherwise be charged with allowing access.

Correct: the key term is "constructive possession". To add to my previous example, I examined a case in the last couple of years, where a guy got out of prison, was staying with his brother until he could get on his feet, some LE agency was looking at the brother or some of his associates, and my guy wound up getting the mandatory five years because his brother (unbeknownst to him) had a shotgun in his closet.

Because it was unsecured, he had "constructive possession" of it: he could have accessed it at will.

(Which puts the lie to G. Gordon Liddy's claim that his wife keeps her revolver in the bedside drawer on his side of the bed. She might do so, but they're not legal.)

Suggest that your friend ask the ATF. I think that black powder stuff is excluded.

The federal laws only apply to the federal definition of "firearm". That means that black powder is excluded, as is anything manufactured before January 1, 1899.

A .45-70 rifle manufactured in 1898 is legal, but one manufactured in 1899 is not. But --lawyer logic is lovely!-- the ammo would be illegal for a felon to possess. No worries with black powder possession, since there is no "ammunition" involved.

Kevin

Okay, let me expand on my prior statement about federal law.

Every single week when a new busload of federal inmates arrive, I see several who are serving sentences for "felon in possession of a firearm".

Most of the time, they were continuing their criminal ways, and just happened to get caught with a gun instead of drugs. But every now and then, I see someone who's lived a straight and narrow life after being convicted of a youthful indiscretion, only to wind up in serious trouble over this issue.

Case in point: I had an inmate who just didn't seem like the "inmate type", if you know what I mean. I read his file, then asked him about his case. Turns out he'd had "spirited" teenage years, and when he was 18 he served a year+ on a state charge (car theft, I think; joyriding).

He got out of prison as a changed man. He married, raised a family, shunned all his old criminal buddies, owned a hardware store, became a pillar of society, Sunday School teacher, PTA, Lion's Club, yada-yada... everything we hope for when a young man is released from prison.

Fast-forward 20 years... the DEA is investigating some of the guys he ran with as a kid, and want him to get information on them. He hasn't seen them since they got in trouble as teens, and tells the DEA he doesn't want anything to do with that whole bunch.

They don't want to take "no" for an answer. They keep pressuring. He keeps insisting he has nothing to do with his previous life. They ask to search his truck. He wants to prove he's a good guy, so he says okay.

His state (I think it was Wisconsin or Minnesota) allowed felons to own long arms for hunting. He had a hunting license, it was squirrel season, and he had a .22 squirrel rifle behind the seat of his truck. Feds said, "A-ha! Gotcha!" and sent him to federal prison for five years.

It didn't matter that his previous felony conviction was a state charge. It didn't matter that his gun possession was legal by state law. Even though the official charge was "felon in possession of a firearm", his real offense was "failure to cooperate with the feds".

This was the clearest example I've seen, although I've seen many others like it.

Kevin

State law aside, federal law says he can never possess a firearm or ammunition.

And yes, they do prosecute. They love to use it as a "big hammer" to coerce someone to testify, or to gather evidence against a third party.

Kevin