Convicted felon on parole pulls gun to defend himself

[jimandyen]

They said he was justified in pulling the firearm but............................

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Man-Pu ... 37484.html

[Dave2]

Interesting. I suppose being back in jail beats being dead, but that's an obscenely stupid thing to fight over.

[jimandyen]

I guess with a $30 tab they couldn't have been drinking much.

[AEA]

Good to see that current gun control laws are worthwhile!

(My point: Gun Control Laws only affect/infringe us)

[MoJo]

A convicted felon can not even handle a firearm.

He abridged his own rights.

Once convicted of a felony your gun rights are null and void. He could have been arrested and sent back to prison if stopped by a cop with the gun on his person.

[sugar land dave]

A convicted felon can not even handle a firearm.

He abridged his own rights.

Once convicted of a felony your gun rights are null and void. He could have been arrested and sent back to prison if stopped by a cop with the gun on his person.

Of course most on this forum have long said that signs and laws do not stop BGs from having guns; they only stop the law-abiding citizens.

[AEA]

EXACTLY.

[ELB]

A convicted felon can not even handle a firearm.

He abridged his own rights.

Once convicted of a felony your gun rights are null and void. He could have been arrested and sent back to prison if stopped by a cop with the gun on his person.

Legal Trivia time:

For those convicted of felonies in Texas, this is true. Not true for all states.

The one case I know of where the Feds tried to prosecute a CHL holder under the Gun Free School Zone Act for having a gun within 1000 feet of a school, the Feds also charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, because he had indeed been convicted of a felony in another state (Michigan, I think, but too lazy to go look it up again.)

However, under that state's law, when you have completed your felony sentence, all your rights are automatically restored (I think there are some exceptions, but generally this is true). Both the federal trial court and the appellate court ruled against the Federal DA, finding that since the man was no longer a felon under state law, he was not a felon under Federal law either. (The Feds also lost on the GFSZA charge -- they argued that the state rules for his CHL weren't tough enough to qualify as a CHL under the GFSZA (and he was a felon!), but the judges didn't buy that argument either, since the GFSZA does not specify any specific requirements for a CHL other than the holder be licensed by the state in which the school zone is located.)

Edited: Ok, I had to go look it up, it was Michigan that automatically restores rights "by operation of law;" The case is 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait

[WildBill]

Ok, I had to go look it up, it was Michigan that automatically restores rights "by operation of law;" The case is 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait

Thanks for the citation.

[MoJo]

But, how does this affect Texas law?

[WildBill]

But, how does this affect Texas law?

It doesn't.

Legal Trivia time:

For those convicted of felonies in Texas, this is true. Not true for all states.

[paulhailes]

I guess with a $30 tab they couldn't have been drinking much.

I used to go to a bar that had 50 cent wells on Friday afternoons, they had some pretty good food too.