Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Times Wrings Its Hands over Barrett and Guns

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY

    Times Wrings Its Hands over Barrett and Guns

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/u...e=articleShare

    Fear that Justice Barrett and the 4 other progun justices will overpower antigun Roberts and take meaningful cases.

    A side issue is whether giving some felons gun rights is a good thing. Interested in LE opinion on that.

    Previously, I said she might be a bulwark against the doom porn crowd. Hope that's correct. We need decisions that void state bans and forbid federal ones, move may issue to shall issue and other issues like SBRs, HPA stuff, etc.

  2. #2
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    A side issue is whether giving some felons gun rights is a good thing. Interested in LE opinion on that.
    My state only bans for those felons convicted of a 'serious violent felony', of which there is a list. A felon who's a felon for, say, Forgery, is legal under our state's law to own a firearm. I've literally never seen the ATF pick up a non-violent felon solely because he came to our attention for having a gun. I won't say they never do, I surely don't see even the majority of their cases, but from my work with them and talking to the agents it seems like it's a very low priority to use resources for those sorts.

    Short version: Depending on how it's defined, it's likely a codification of the status quo in most ways.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    My state only bans for those felons convicted of a 'serious violent felony', of which there is a list. A felon who's a felon for, say, Forgery, is legal under our state's law to own a firearm. I've literally never seen the ATF pick up a non-violent felon solely because he came to our attention for having a gun. I won't say they never do, I surely don't see even the majority of their cases, but from my work with them and talking to the agents it seems like it's a very low priority to use resources for those sorts.

    Short version: Depending on how it's defined, it's likely a codification of the status quo in most ways.
    We do it quite often, sometimes with the ATF, but most of the times not. Of course, we have one of the most proactive USAO's in the country.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter RoyGBiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    The case at hand is regarding a Federal tax conviction. The NYT article is firewalled, but in the FOX opinion piece, many details not given, such as the specific charges.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-...onathan-turley
    willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns.
    Which sounds a lot like "lying to the FBI". Could be anything.

    Should an intentional misreporting of income or whatever on a tax return be sufficient to lose your 2A rights? Dunno. Probably not, but maybe? Depends?
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

  5. #5
    Those same four justices are now on high alert for a promising case in which to expand Second Amendment rights...
    No, Mr. Liptak, these justices are not looking to expand Second Amendment rights but reverse decades of their suppression.

    Massive difference.


    Okie John
    “The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
    "Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's

  6. #6
    Replace second amendment with right to vote and the left will have a different opinion on the issue.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Ahea
    Quote Originally Posted by 5pins View Post
    Replace second amendment with right to vote and the left will have a different opinion on the issue.

    Or, talk about common-sense abortion laws...

  8. #8
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    My state only bans for those felons convicted of a 'serious violent felony', of which there is a list. . . I've literally never seen the ATF pick up a non-violent felon solely because he came to our attention for having a gun. I won't say they never do, I surely don't see even the majority of their cases, but from my work with them and talking to the agents it seems like it's a very low priority to use resources for those sorts.
    If the "felons'" rights to possess firearms/ammunition are completely restored by the state where they were convicted, then ATF couldn't "pick up" the case, as the person would no longer be prohibited by federal law (18USC922(g)(1)), from possessing firearms/ammunition.

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-p...-have-firearms

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
    18USC921(a)(20)(B): "The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include . . . any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

    What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."


    For example, in the State of Texas, state law allows that after a certain number of years (can't remember, and I'm too lazy to hunt for the TX statute now) have passed since the completion of the sentence, a "felon" may possess a firearm in their home, for self-defense. However, because it's not a complete restoration of rights, and the state still prohibits possession of firearms under other circumstances, a "felon" is prohibited from legally possessing firearms under ANY circumstance by federal law (18USC922(g)(1)).
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  9. #9
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    If the "felons'" rights to possess firearms/ammunition are completely restored by the state where they were convicted...
    There is nothing to restore in the situation I'm talking about. The right was never lost to need restoration as the felon was never prohibited under state law if the felony is not one of the listed "serious violent felony" crimes. The length of sentence, etc. doesn't matter. Theft is never a 'serious violent felony', even if you sentenced to 3-6 years for it. The person will be a prohibited person federally, can't buy at an FFL due to that, but there is no state law that prohibits them from possessing a firearm the day they get out of jail (absent parole/probation requirements, of course). The person could still seek a restoration due to being in violation of federal law, but that's a different matter.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  10. #10
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    There is nothing to restore in the situation I'm talking about. The right was never lost to need restoration as the felon was never prohibited under state law if the felony is not one of the listed "serious violent felony" crimes. The length of sentence, etc. doesn't matter. Theft is never a 'serious violent felony', even if you sentenced to 3-6 years for it. The person will be a prohibited person federally, can't buy at an FFL due to that, but there is no state law that prohibits them from possessing a firearm the day they get out of jail (absent parole/probation requirements, of course). The person could still seek a restoration due to being in violation of federal law, but that's a different matter.
    So even while serving a probation or parole sentence, the "felon" may possess firearms? What about while incarcerated? Are they allowed to possess firearms while in jail/prison?

    If the answer to those questions is no, then it seems that their right to possess firearms is restored at the end of their sentence.
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •