In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Firearms & Misdemeanors

books129books129 Member Posts: 20 ✭✭
Hey guys, just curious about something. I just read a post about a guy who was out target practicing with a felon and had his 1911 confiscated. This brought up concerns for me.

If someone you knew had a MISDEMEANOR that prevented them from buying a firearm, would it still be legal for you to let them shoot one?? Also, could they LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE as someone who owned firearms??

Comments

  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    If I am not mistaken (please correct me if I am) Anything that would prevent a person from buying a firearm would also preclude its possession in any way. That said, if you live with one of these individuals, you leave the home, he is considered in possession of that firearm. This makes you a felon for providing it.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    It is likely that story included the owner of the 1911 actually letting the felon handle and shoot the 1911. If so it is probably lucky the 1911 owner wasn't arrested. From what I have read over the years in the various media, it is illegal to supply/provide firearms or even AMMO to a convicted felon. Just as it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm and/or ammo. Even one round of ammo. And by handing a firearm or ammo to a felon while you are out shootng, then both you and the felon are breaking the law and can be immediately arrested.

    If the convicted felon is out on parole, and caught with a firearm and/or ammo, they immediately go back to prison to finish their sentence, no questions asked. If the felon had completed his/her prison sentence, then they face a new charge of a "convicted felon being in possession of a fire arm and/or even one bullet. If you are the one who handed that felon the gun and/or ammo, if the law so wishes, you will be arrested, booked, bailed, and then tried for a FELONY. If you are convicted of providing the gun and/or ammo to the convicted felon, NOW YOU ARE A CONVICTED FELON and your gun owning friends have to treat you like you have leprosy so they can avoid of BECOMING A FELON.

    If it appears to anyone that the government, in this case anyway, seems to me more interested in puttting perhaps peaceful citizens into prison for sometimes a pretty minor reason, or the government seems more interested in turning more citizens into felons, I would have to agree with you. And if you wonder why, there are numerous reasons.

    One reason is that gun owners and convicted felons are BOTH easy targets if the government wants to harass us. EVERYBODY has been condititioned to look down on felons and of course most of government and much of society doesn't like guns and gun owners. So we are some of the most easy citizens in America to harass.

    And as we gun owners know, the peaceful, honest, law-abiding gun owners are good citizens who do not deserve to be harassed. But what many people do NOT know is the many "convicted felons" are not the evil people our government and part of society has made them out to be. Ask yourself exactly what a felony is? One thing a felony is, is just a law. EVERYBODY reading this post has at one time or another broken a law. And either they didn't get caught or that broken law was not a "felony". Of course a felony can be a violent, planned murder of an innocent person. Nobody should have sympathy for that felon who committed the murder. But there are "felonies" that you can commit that are far, far removed from any hint of danger or violence to the public. Such as even small cheating on your income tax. I frankly don't fear that a small time cheater on his income tax, after serving his probably probation for his "felony" is now likely to become manical, violent, murderous gun-waving manic who is a danger to me and my family. Beside, if that "felon" has paid his debt to society, then he should be given back ALL his rights; not have certain rights restricted just because the government feels like restricting those rights for no good effect to the public.

    So before anyone hears "he's a convicted felon" and automatically condemns that "felon" as being a worthless person who deserves nothing, remember that it a felony to go to the gas station and pump gas into a glass container, a felony to take a postage stamp off an envelope on which you accidently placed it on and use that stamp on a new envelope, a felony to store prescription drugs in a container other than what it came in, a felony to share your prescription medicines with anyone but yourself, and etc.

    And I would be willing to bet $1,000.00 that if the government wanted to, or could, closely track ANY gun owner who has bought/sold/traded dozens of various type firearms over a several decade period, that gun owners, no matter how hard they tried to avoid breaking laws, can be found to be guilty of having violated at least one felony. Just one tiny example is when Clinton's assault weapons ban was in effect from 1994-2004. This ban, among other things, created two classes of legal guns; pre-ban and post-ban. And by looking at these guns THERE WAS NO WAY TO TELL THEM APART. This means if was quite possible to ACCIDENTLY place an AWB prohibited part on a post-ban gun and thereby commit a felony. Or you could accidently come into posssesion (buy a box of mixed parts/ equipment, etc) of a high capactity gun magazine whose only difference between the magazine that you owned since 1991 was that the new magazine said "for law enforcement/military use only". Just because of that sentence and the fact you now possess that magazine, you have committeed a felony.

    Remember , the law enforcement branch of government is in the business of creating felons. The jusdicial branch of government is in the business of judgeing felons. The penal branch of goverment is in the business of housing felons. It is human nature to want "business" to always be booming. And frankly, to exaggerate to make a point, a nation of felons would be easier for the government to govern because WE WOULD HAVE FEWER, IF ANY, RIGHTS.

    So if anyone reading this post has not pooled their meager funds, time, political clout, etc. by paying dues and getting on the membership list of one of the national civil rights groups, then you are just making it that much easier for our government to make a felon out of you.

    I am only an average citizen and certainly no expert. All I know is what I have encountered and remembered over many decades. So search, seek and verify for yourself.

    I suggest you join the NRA, GOA, SAF, CKRKBA, or the JPFO. If I don't get at least one question from someone about what/who/where these organizations are, I will know you have chosen to remain lazy and continue to do nothing.
  • kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
    edited November -1
    guns make criminals, oui oui... <-sarcasm


    http://www.sydesjokes.com/Joke_Categories.html
    funny stuff some stuff 18+ but extremely hilarious
  • One shotOne shot Member Posts: 1,027
    edited November -1
    Damn, we need to start our own civil rights movement. Need to find a "Martin Luther King" of "gun ownership" to lead this movement. Just don't let him get shot this time. Stand up and be counted[:)]
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Moral of the story:

    Don't let anybody handle your guns that you wouldn't let handle your woman.

    [:D]
  • books129books129 Member Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by One shot
    Damn, we need to start our own civil rights movement. Need to find a "Martin Luther King" of "gun ownership" to lead this movement. Just don't let him get shot this time. Stand up and be counted[:)]


    I nominate Uncle Ted Nugent! [^]
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Being a felony or misdemeanor makes no difference. The person in question cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition. To be able to shoot it, he must have it in his possession. Did you see where he can NOT possess a firearm?

    As far as living with a felon and guns.
    This is the email I received back, when I asked the BATFE that very question.

    quote:Thank you for your inquiry to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). We apologize for our delay in responding. For information on prohibited persons of firearms or ammunition, go to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(g). Additionally, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(d)) it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to a person who is known by that person to be prohibited. Therefore, the firearms or ammunition should not be accessible in any way to the prohibited person, no matter what relation is held. It is suggested that the firearms not be stored in the same house or domicile of the prohibited person, and would include preventing the prohibited person access to any keys associated with the storage or operation of the firearms or ammunition.
  • KYfatboyKYfatboy Member Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I know several folks who are convicted felons, and legally own firearms. They served their sentence, had their rights restored, they can't own A handgun, but they are allowed to own A centerfire rifle, rimfire rifle, and shotgun. Hell one old boy I used to work with owned A mak 90. With several 30 round clips.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Being a felony or misdemeanor makes no difference. The person in question cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition. To be able to shoot it, he must have it in his possession. Did you see where he can NOT possess a firearm?

    As far as living with a felon and guns.
    This is the email I received back, when I asked the BATFE that very question.

    quote:Thank you for your inquiry to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). We apologize for our delay in responding. For information on prohibited persons of firearms or ammunition, go to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(g). Additionally, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(d)) it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to a person who is known by that person to be prohibited. Therefore, the firearms or ammunition should not be accessible in any way to the prohibited person, no matter what relation is held. It is suggested that the firearms not be stored in the same house or domicile of the prohibited person, and would include preventing the prohibited person access to any keys associated with the storage or operation of the firearms or ammunition.


    Pickenup, thanks for once again being the one to come through with cold hard facts. The above in red tells me that if a husband and wife are both gun owners and one of them becomes a felon, the other one must chose between living with their spouse or living with their guns.

    Meaning no more guns in the house, no guns transported in the car while the felon spouse is in the car, no felon spouse with you when you go to the range, etc.


    To me this situation, created by government rule/law, would violate the civil rights that give us the right of free association as well as the right to not have our property (the non-felon spouse's guns) unlawfully taken from us. Or in this case, the government unlawfully putting the non-felon spouse in a situation whereas he/she must rid themselves of their guns even though the non-felon spouse is totally innocent of any crime.

    Yet another example of how our government knows full well it can abuse and generally kick around lawful gun owners. Gun owners seems to be in the position of the blacks back in the 1940's.

    If this situation was the same only involving a motor vehicle instead of guns, there would be public outrage and such a policy would be withdrawn. Imagine if your wife got her third DUI (a felony in KS) and her license was revoked. And to keep from both of you from getting in trouble you had to lockup your car so there was no way she could have access, could not leave her in the car while you run into the store for a second or two, or just to be safe had to sell your car our store it away from your home.

    The car and the gun situation are similar. And if it ever came to this (it won't, the government is too smart to offend 250 million people at once) there would be riots in the streets.
  • books129books129 Member Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Being a felony or misdemeanor makes no difference. The person in question cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition. To be able to shoot it, he must have it in his possession. Did you see where he can NOT possess a firearm?

    As far as living with a felon and guns.
    This is the email I received back, when I asked the BATFE that very question.

    quote:Thank you for your inquiry to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). We apologize for our delay in responding. For information on prohibited persons of firearms or ammunition, go to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(g). Additionally, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(d)) it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to a person who is known by that person to be prohibited. Therefore, the firearms or ammunition should not be accessible in any way to the prohibited person, no matter what relation is held. It is suggested that the firearms not be stored in the same house or domicile of the prohibited person, and would include preventing the prohibited person access to any keys associated with the storage or operation of the firearms or ammunition.


    Pickenup, thanks for once again being the one to come through with cold hard facts. The above in red tells me that if a husband and wife are both gun owners and one of them becomes a felon, the other one must chose between living with their spouse or living with their guns.

    Meaning no more guns in the house, no guns transported in the car while the felon spouse is in the car, no felon spouse with you when you go to the range, etc.


    To me this situation, created by government rule/law, would violate the civil rights that give us the right of free association as well as the right to not have our property (the non-felon spouse's guns) unlawfully taken from us. Or in this case, the government unlawfully putting the non-felon spouse in a situation whereas he/she must rid themselves of their guns even though the non-felon spouse is totally innocent of any crime.

    Yet another example of how our government knows full well it can abuse and generally kick around lawful gun owners. Gun owners seems to be in the position of the blacks back in the 1940's.

    If this situation was the same only involving a motor vehicle instead of guns, there would be public outrage and such a policy would be withdrawn. Imagine if your wife got her third DUI (a felony in KS) and her license was revoked. And to keep from both of you from getting in trouble you had to lockup your car so there was no way she could have access, could not leave her in the car while you run into the store for a second or two, or just to be safe had to sell your car our store it away from your home.

    The car and the gun situation are similar. And if it ever came to this (it won't, the government is too smart to offend 250 million people at once) there would be riots in the streets.


    Yea, this is a cause for outrage. But what is MORE outrageous is someone living under the roof with someone that is NOT A FELON, but a spouse/friend/relative that was convicted of a MISDEMEANOR YEARS PAST, and NOT a misdemeanor of domestic violence, which prevents them from having firearms in the house! I mean, is this for real?? What country is this again????
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by books129
    Yea, this is a cause for outrage. But what is MORE outrageous is someone living under the roof with someone that is NOT A FELON, but a spouse/friend/relative that was convicted of a MISDEMEANOR YEARS PAST, and NOT a misdemeanor of domestic violence, which prevents them from having firearms in the house! I mean, is this for real?? What country is this again????
    Only certain misdemeanors, in the governments eyes, take away your rights to own firearms.
    Not many that I am aware of....yet....but watch as that list grows. [:(!]

    Which one are you refering to books?
  • books129books129 Member Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    quote:Originally posted by books129
    Yea, this is a cause for outrage. But what is MORE outrageous is someone living under the roof with someone that is NOT A FELON, but a spouse/friend/relative that was convicted of a MISDEMEANOR YEARS PAST, and NOT a misdemeanor of domestic violence, which prevents them from having firearms in the house! I mean, is this for real?? What country is this again????
    Only certain misdemeanors, in the governments eyes, take away your rights to own firearms.
    Not many that I am aware of....yet....but watch as that list grows. [:(!]

    Which one are you refering to books?


    I believe it was a conviction of 'simple assault' around 10 years ago.

    So I'm assuming this applies to everyone that's ineligible to purchase firearms, like people that have had a restraining order against them sometime in their past...

    Well, I guess this is what happens when each hammered chip of the 2nd Amend goes unprotested...[V]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by books129
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    quote:Originally posted by books129
    Yea, this is a cause for outrage. But what is MORE outrageous is someone living under the roof with someone that is NOT A FELON, but a spouse/friend/relative that was convicted of a MISDEMEANOR YEARS PAST, and NOT a misdemeanor of domestic violence, which prevents them from having firearms in the house! I mean, is this for real?? What country is this again????
    Only certain misdemeanors, in the governments eyes, take away your rights to own firearms.
    Not many that I am aware of....yet....but watch as that list grows. [:(!]

    Which one are you refering to books?


    I believe it was a conviction of 'simple assault' around 10 years ago.

    So I'm assuming this applies to everyone that's ineligible to purchase firearms, like people that have had a restraining order against them sometime in their past...

    Well, I guess this is what happens when each hammered chip of the 2nd Amend goes unprotested...[V]


    I've never known of a simple assault conviction causing anyone to lose their gun rights for life. And in the case of the "restraining order" I believe when that order expires your gun rights are usually reinstated.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Books,
    Here are the reasons listed by the BATF to loose your rights to firearms. About the only way I can see a conviction of a simple "assault" taking away his/her firearm rights, is if it fell under reason number 1.

    quote:(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]

    Yes, a person who -

    (1) Has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
    (2) Is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
    (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
    (5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa;
    (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    (7) Having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her 8 citizenship;
    (8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
    (9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. [18 U. S. C. 922( g) and (n), 27 CFR 178.32( a) and (b)]

    P.S.
    You are RIGHT in that "this is what happens when each hammered chip of the 2nd Amend goes unprotested."
    SUCKS....doesn't it....Apathy runs rampant.....

    P.P.S.
    Welcome to the Gun Rights forum. [:D]
  • books129books129 Member Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Books,
    Here are the reasons listed by the BATF to loose your rights to firearms. About the only way I can see a conviction of a simple "assault" taking away his/her firearm rights, is if it fell under reason number 1.

    quote:(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]

    Yes, a person who -

    (1) Has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
    (2) Is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
    (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
    (5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa;
    (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    (7) Having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her 8 citizenship;
    (8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
    (9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. [18 U. S. C. 922( g) and (n), 27 CFR 178.32( a) and (b)]

    P.S.
    You are RIGHT in that "this is what happens when each hammered chip of the 2nd Amend goes unprotested."
    SUCKS....doesn't it....Apathy runs rampant.....

    P.P.S.
    Welcome to the Gun Rights forum. [:D]


    Yep, that's exactly how he meets the criteria... I always assumed these were "rights" and not priviledges. I guess big government has a different idea...

    Its sad to think of gun owners today agreeing with this kind of crap. But don't worry, in the near future when the gov decides THEY meet the criteria for some ridiculous traffic violation, there won't be anyone left to protest on their behalf...
Sign In or Register to comment.