• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

West Virginia gun case goes to the Supreme Court

B

Baradium

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
128
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
Applying this to the gun owner with the domestic violence charge, if he bought the gun when a domestic violence charge did not disqualify (before '96), it was legal for him to buy it and they cannot charge him for buying it. Whether it was legal by the letter of the lawfor him topossess it when it was found in his homeafter the law passed, OTOH,depends on whether the law specifically makes an exception (a grandfather clause) for weapons ownedeither before the law passed or before theperson wasfound guilty. The law probably does not specifically grant or deny this exemption, however thesituation is similar to others where things are grandfathered either explicitly or implicitly, and thus the question before the court is whether it is unconstitutionalto refuse tograndfather a possession that is made illegal to possess. In either case, it is perfectly logical that it is illegal for himto buy any new gun after 1996, because that is the letter of the law. Depending on the ruling he MAY be able to keep what he has until for whatever reason he doesn't have it anymore, but he cannot get more.
Click to expand...



I disagree based on the premise that it is additional prosecution for the crime (domestic violence) due to a change of law that occured after it was committed.
 
D

Dahwg

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
661
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

Baradium wrote:
I disagree based on the premise that it is additional prosecution for the crime (domestic violence) due to a change of law that occured after it was committed.
Click to expand...
Agreed! In addition you have a double jeopardy situation. And to be threatened with a felony for misdemeanor actions is cruel and unusual- bad law all around, I hope the SCOTUS considers all of these arguments and finds theLautenberg ammendmentunconstitutional and throws it out all together.
 
U

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

Dahwg wrote:
Baradium wrote:
I disagree based on the premise that it is additional prosecution for the crime (domestic violence) due to a change of law that occured after it was committed.
Click to expand...
Agreed! In addition you have a double jeopardy situation. And to be threatened with a felony for misdemeanor actions is cruel and unusual- bad law all around, I hope the SCOTUS considers all of these arguments and finds theLautenberg ammendmentunconstitutional and throws it out all together.
Click to expand...

but you have to look at all of the other laws which were passed that create similar infringements. when it became ilegal for felons to possess guns, those who already had previous possession were exempted for those guns, but they couldn't buy any more guns, even though they were convicted prior to the enactment of the law ( I believe is how it worked)

personally I believe that ALL federal gun legislationis illegal and should be done away with, but thats just my opinion.
 
L

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

Assuming this isn't just a troll...

I don't know where you got that idea. That is absolutely wrong, unless the person has obtained post-conviction relief and full restoration of his civil rights by court-approved expunction of a prohibiting conviction (including any felony, whether the person actually served any time at all), or by gubernatorial or presidential pardon. They are otherwise prohibited from possession of any firearm or ammunition. There is no exception for antiques, long guns, black powder pieces, etc. It is not necessary to call in a purchase for a black powder gun, but that doesn't make it legal for a felon to have one. They are still "firearms" under the legal definition.

Please consult the Gun Control Act of 1968, your state law code, and/or call the ATF. They will be glad to clarify this to your satisfaction. You will stand to suffer greatly for misjudging the law on this, or their resolution in enforcing it harshly.

Friendly advice, truly.

-ljp
 
L

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

USC title 18 prohibits possession, etc by felons of firearms that were ever involved in interstate commerce. Perhaps if he can document that the guns never left the state he resides in, he might skirt application of this or that federal statute. You admit yourself that state law is a problem, however. More specifically: sec 941.29 of the Wisconsin criminal code explicitly prohibits this person from possessing any firearm. Links to the relevant text here: (sorry, I'm having trouble embedding the linkproperly here, but you can cut and paste in your browser, perhaps)

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0941.pdf


I'm afraid it's pretty unambiguous. And since there are no gun manufacturers that I know of in Wisconsin, if your pal has a gun made in any other state or country, then he's in violation of federal law as well (it had to be shipped there at some point in the course of interstate commerce, therefore it's covered under USC18). Whether the police are aware of this, I can't say, but he's playing with fire.

Relief from disability can also be obtained by dispensation of the attorney general of the US. However, the Department of Justice does not budget any money for performing investigations as to whether someone is eligible for such restoration of rights. The right to petition thus exists in name only. It will never happen.

-ljp
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

FWIW, I have met black powder shooters at the firing range who have stated, when offered the opportunity to shoot a modern firearm, that they had a felony conviction so can only own or be in possession/control of blackpowder firearms and have offered the same explanation of the law.
 
U

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

this may be a little off topic here, but does anyone know where I can get a .pdf copy of USC title 18? I am working on getting printed copies put together of all of the federal gun laws, and the applicable state laws in my area. I have the state ones, but haven't been able to find anywhere that has 18 USC all together.
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
this may be a little off topic here, but does anyone know where I can get a .pdf copy of USC title 18? I am working on getting printed copies put together of all of the federal gun laws, and the applicable state laws in my area. I have the state ones, but haven't been able to find anywhere that has 18 USC all together.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you'd need to do some work, but it's all here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html
 
D

Dahwg

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
661
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
this may be a little off topic here, but does anyone know where I can get a .pdf copy of USC title 18? I am working on getting printed copies put together of all of the federal gun laws, and the applicable state laws in my area. I have the state ones, but haven't been able to find anywhere that has 18 USC all together.
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html
 
L

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

The thing about black powder guns is not that there is an exemption as such, it's just that dealers don't have to call in background checks to sell them.You still have to certify on a 4473 form that you are not a felon when you go to buy one. That's a crime. Game, set, match. The "loophole" doesn't exist, I'm afraid. A felon can likewise buy "modern" guns in private sales at gun shows and not have them called in - doesn't make it legal.

-ljp
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Legba wrote:
The thing about black powder guns is not that there is an exemption as such, it's just that dealers don't have to call in background checks to sell them.You still have to certify on a 4473 form that you are not a felon when you go to buy one. That's a crime. Game, set, match. The "loophole" doesn't exist, I'm afraid. A felon can likewise buy "modern" guns in private sales at gun shows and not have them called in - doesn't make it legal.

-ljp
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is the case. There are states that have requirements that others don't have but I believe you can order black powder weapons right off the internet and have them delivered to your house.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/standard-item.jsp?id=0006184213009a&navCount=2&podId=0006184&parentId=cat20817&masterpathid=&navAction=push&cmCat=MainCatcat602007-cat20817&catalogCode=XH&rid=&parentType=index&indexId=cat20817&hasJS=true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top