Today is Tuesday, July 22, 2014rss RSS feed

By Alan Korwin

Cuffed Hands

Monster Gun Loophole Discovered for Convicted Felons

Gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Felons aren’t federally banned from owning guns.

They can’t carry them in any way of course, or ship, transport, possess or receive them, but nothing in law appears to ban felons from actually owning firearms.

If a person was convicted of a felony and owned an entire collection in a home in another state, for example, that doesn’t violate anything.

You (a felon) couldn’t go into (or maybe even near, depending on the judge) that home while the guns were in there, that would be “constructive possession,” the same legal theory that makes everyone in a drug-lord’s house guilty of possession if anything is found.

But charging you with possession if you’re in another neighborhood, or state? I don’t think so.

Show me where I missed something. Even in the same home, a spouse can keep guns — even your guns after a conviction — as long as you cannot exercise control over them. If your spouse sold any, I suppose that’s your money.

What in federal statute prevents a felon from simple ownership? Not a thing.

Could a person use such a collection as collateral, or will it, even sell it? It’s just private property. The controlling statute is 18 USC §922(d) and (g), and its requirements seem pretty clear.

Talk about strange twists in complicated laws.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.
  • One User comment to “Monster Gun Loophole Discovered for Convicted Felons”

    1. Charles Nichols on June 20, 2014 at 11:45 AM said:

      “Possession under § 924(c)(1) can be shown through either constructive or actual possession.” United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 966 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Lott, 310 F.3d 1231, 1247 (10th Cir.2002)). A defendant has actual possession of an item “if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it.” United States v. Cain, 130 F.3d 381 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The definition of constructive possession is similar. “A person has constructive possession when he or she knowingly holds ownership, dominion, or control over the object and the premises where it is found.” Lott, 310 F.3d at 1247 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879, 888 (8th Cir.2008). The government can prove actual or constructive possession using circumstantial evidence alone. United States v. Bernard, 48 F.3d 427, 430 (9th Cir.1995).” US v. Thongsy, 577 F. 3d 1036 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2009) at 1041.

      Of course it isn’t just Federal law one has to worry about. The California courts have held that a single bullet in one’s home counts as “constructive possession.”

      Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.

      “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

      “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

      Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
      http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Michael Rivera: The NFA is and always has been Unconstitutional, Therefore should not have been made a...
      • TEX: I really hate to see Gov.Perry leave office.But soon to be Gov.Abbott will be a tough,no nonsense,Gov.too. They...
      • BillCa: “Veterans are used to creating order in chaotic environments…” That’s it in a...
      • Eric: The Tea Party is too liberal . People need to start taking care of themselves instead of crying for free...
      • Eric: All these states keep violating my right to defend my self saying I need a permit as a non resident. Self...
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • Google+ Direct Connect

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Win a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle

    Subscribe and receive our emails , the drawing will be August 15, 2014 maybe you will be the lucky shooter receiving a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle. For more information visit the Daniel Defense promotional page.
    Monthly email subscription from Ammoland
    13462384
    14016704