[rustymaggot]

ok, heres the situation. a friend who got into trouble 6 years ago wants to come out shooting. my question is if i would be breaking any laws letting her shoot with me. the guns would be mine and she would not be unsupervised.

edit: i am in california.

[Kaeto]

If she even so much as lays a finger on one she has broken the law. And so have you by allowing a felon to touch a gun.

[michael_aos]

I'd like to know the legality of this one also.

I've often heard felons aren't allowed to OWN guns. Maybe even heard the term "possess" firearms.

What's the actual law?

Mike

[hagar]

If this friend is your girlfriend, dump her pronto.

[Professor K]

It'd be illegal, but it's kinda unenforcable and you're not likely to get caught at all.

As far as dumping her, so what, she has a felony. You dont have to kill someone to get a felony anymore. Selling a bootleg movie can make you a felon. She's probably a pretty good girl, we don't know her, so innocent until proven guilty.

[LawBot5000]

Felons cant possess guns. Not under federal law, not under CA law. See 18 USC 922 (g).

As far as I can tell, mere ownership is not necessarily relevant, though many of the acts which would constitute taking ownership also constitute taking possession, either literally or constructively.

At the range, she is in possession because the gun is under her control. She could put it in her pocket, shoot another person at the range or run outside and rob someone. These sorts of evils are meant to be guarded against by sanctioning felon possession of weapons and it is to persons like her that the law clearly applies.

Knowingly providing her with the weapon is also a crime. Under federal and likely CA law.

Now if she came into the possession of the weapon because she was defending herself, there is caselaw suggesting that the concepts of necessity and self defense might excuse her temporary possession of it.

[RevolvingCylinder]

If I'm not mistaken, she can have blackpowder firearms that meet the criteria.

[LawBot5000]

Take a careful look at that one, especially at the state level, and get an AG letter stating that she is legal. There have been a lot of state level surprises for felons in possession of blackpowder rifles. The text of the statute rarely lets you claim a mistake of law defense- you need an official letter saying that your specific gun is in the clear. Unless you want to go to jail of course.

edit- sorry, you can claim mistake of law, but you probably wont prevail.

For example, Florida's law APPEARS to state that any rifle with a primitive ignition system is ok, but this is not what the FL Supreme court held. Apparently only replicas of actual primitive rifles are legal for felons to possess- so putting a red-dot scope on a blackpowder gun, or using one with a synthetic stock would place you afoul of the law.

[one-shot-one]

the use to be a gun range that allowed you to rent machine guns.
i asked them about the leaglaity of this they said that sience one of them was next to you on the firing line they still had effective control of the weapon. i do not know if this will apply to the situation you set forth.

[CleverNickname]

"Possession" of machine guns and "possession" of firearms are defined differently in different sections of US Code. It is legal for someone who can legally possess firearms to shoot/handle another person's machine gun as long as the other person is supervising them, but that has no bearing on the fact that felons are legally prohibited from owning/using/touching firearms.

[rustymaggot]

i think its humorous that people will automatically assume im dating the girl.

i read the 922g section and it says somthing about the felon having to have spent over a year in jail/prison. since my friend spent only 30 days in county, would that make her able to go shooting? or is there some other law saying that she cant shoot?

also, it is a private range. there will be no one else around besides others in our group of friends. no one around to get robbed or injured. doesnt matter anyway since the girl is not a screwup at present. she had a rough year way back 6 years ago and got involved in drugs and did some time for possession. she has been clean since then. she is in the process of having the felony reduced.

[PILMAN]

i think its humorous that people will automatically assume im dating the girl.

i read the 922g section and it says somthing about the felon having to have spent over a year in jail/prison. since my friend spent only 30 days in county, would that make her able to go shooting? or is there some other law saying that she cant shoot?

also, it is a private range. there will be no one else around besides others in our group of friends. no one around to get robbed or injured. doesnt matter anyway since the girl is not a screwup at present. she had a rough year way back 6 years ago and got involved in drugs and did some time for possession. she has been clean since then. she is in the process of having the felony reduced.

Doesn't matter if it's a private range or not, if your intent on going shooting with her then you have already made it known on a public forum which I'm sure LEO monitor. Until she has her felony reduced or expunged, then you are still breaking the law. Use your own judgement if you want to risk breaking the law or not or consult an attorney. Ignorance is not an excuse to break the law.

[rustymaggot]

pilman, you misunderstand. it was said by someone above that taking a felon shooting might result in them hurting or robbing someone. i stated that there was no chance of that because no one else would be there.

[thorn726]

>>>As far as I can tell, mere ownership is not necessarily relevant<<<

this is true- there is a provision which states arms owned before felony can be sold - you dont have to turn them in, but you cant possess them. what i dont remember was any wording stating you MUST sell them, only that you could.

possesion or use is illegal, and that includes black powder.
im fairly sure fed laws also cover black powder though some states may allow it for felons, CA does not
heck in CA it includes a bunch of stuff. i think you can own in home but not carry outside pepper spray or stun guns either.

[thorn726]

wow this is disturbing
i read the 922g section and it says somthing about the felon having to have spent over a year in jail/prison.

obviously you are far from clear on what the term felon even means.

felon means convicted of a felony.

a felony is any crime punishable by over a year in jail.

THINK. no part of that says how long you were in.

felony is a class of law, not of jail time. you can get probation for a felony= or less even, a suspended sentence..... but you are a felon.

most(?) drunk drivers are felons and they get only probation (correct? fairly sure )

further=If this friend is your girlfriend, dump her pronto.

although that seems harsh, you do have one of two things on your hands-
a girl who is clueless enough to commit a moajor cirme without understanding the consequences
OR Worse, a crafty girl who knows exactly what she's doing and is not caring about how much trouble she's about to get you both into.
worth consideration

[Delta608]

pilman, you misunderstand. it was said by someone above that taking a felon shooting might result in them hurting or robbing someone. i stated that there was no chance of that because no one else would be there.

If a tree falls the forest, blah blah, blah....Its illegal, and since you said there was "no chance of that happening"..Thats when things really turn to ****. But jailhouse wedding are pretty cool....:rolleyes:

[Pilgrim]

pilman, you misunderstand. it was said by someone above that taking a felon shooting might result in them hurting or robbing someone. i stated that there was no chance of that because no one else would be there.
We seem to be having a dandy game of "Yes, but..."

If you are dead set on taking a felon shooting, go ahead and enjoy yourself.

Pilgrim

[Zedicus]

best bet would be (depending on what the felony was for) to try to get it expunged, which from what I hear is near imposable in C.A.

[busy_squirrel]

I may have done this once, I'm not sure.

He mighta mentioned something about not being allowed to possess in a different state while he woulda been picking up my S&W 4013. The loaded SBS woulda stayed in my hand with me facing him at any time he was touching a gun that day.

:o :(

[Aguila Blanca]

also, it is a private range. there will be no one else around besides others in our group of friends. no one around to get robbed or injured. doesnt matter anyway since the girl is not a screwup at present.
Doesn't matter to whom?

It should matter to you, because if you were caught you would be guilty of providing her a firearm. And it damned sure should matter to her, because if SHE gets caught the penalties for felons caught in possession of firearms are rather draconian. She would most certainly lose any possibility of having the first felony reduced or expunged, plus she would have a nice, shiny NEW felony added to her record. I suspect prison would be virtually automatic, perhaps even mandatory.

I think the gal needs a serious course in growing up and acting responsibly.

[Rocketman56]

Now, I'm sure different states handle this differently, but..

I distinctly remember listening to G. about 7-8 years ago on the radio..
He mentioned he'd been shooting recently at a range.. In fact, he
talked about it a lot.. Someone in his family or an acquaintance
would bring firearms and he was allowed to shoot them, but only at the range..

Not sure what state that was, but I think it was near DC.. (VA?)

Later,
Steve

[EricTheBarbarian]

dont do it, and certainly dont tell anyone you are doing it if you do. hate to see someone get in trouble for something stupid

[Robert Hairless]

taking a felon shooting?

ok, heres the situation. a friend who got into trouble 6 years ago wants to come out shooting. my question is if i would be breaking any laws letting her shoot with me. the guns would be mine and she would not be unsupervised.

edit: i am in california.

Are you sure she is a felon? You've said only that she "got into trouble" and, later, that she "spent 30 days in county." Doesn't sound like she did a felony to me. But that's not the real issue you need to consider.

The real issue is why you are asking this question of people you don't know and whose qualifications you can't evaluate. If she is a felon and if you are charged with one or more felonies as a result of what you do, do you expect to tell a judge and jury that you were following the advice of some screen names who gave you their legal opinions on an Internet gun forum?

Hairless' Third Law of Relationships with Women: When in doubt, run like hell. Away.

[LawBot5000]

Prohibited person under federal law means:
-anyone convicted of a felony
-anyone convicted of a crime potentially punishable by > 1 year in jail
-anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
-anyone dishonorably discharged or bad conduct discharged through a general court martial
-anyone addicted to drugs
-anyone judged to be mentally insane
-any fugitive from justice
-anyone whose parole, sentence or terms of release has a restriction on possessing firearms
-any illegal alien

I might have missed one in there, but I think you get the idea.

California law has a similar but different definition you need to consult CA statutes or preferably an attorney. There is almost certainly a list of predicate offenses that get you prohibited status.

30 days in county might have been some sort of misdemeanor but you need to find out from her what she got put away for.

[Barbara]

Regardless, if it was truly a one time thing, she should consult an attorney and see if she can have it expunged.

[Trebor]

If it is truly a felony conviction, she can go back to prison for shooting your gun and you could face charges for knowingly supplying a felon with a firearm,

Don't think they won't prosecute. There was a case recently where the wife of a police officer, who had a previous felony conviction (the wife), was charged with violating her parole by having access to a firearm because her husband failed to lock up his duty weapon after returning home one night.

There was another case I read about where a 19 year old women was also charged with violating her parole for possession of a firearm after a picture of her posing with a gun was posted on the net.

If she's a felon, don't let her handle your guns. What part of that don't you understand?

[jeep-2]

What TREBOR says is true

the laws are clear and ignorance is no excuse

if she has been convicted of any crime and was sentenced to more than one yr in jail or convicted of domistic violence, she can't even hold a bullit or ride in an auto where there is a gun or ammo.
http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec.%20924

by federal law she can shoot and own a muzzle loading gun, you have to ck what your state laws are. if she was convicted of a crime that calls for more than one yr in jail, she can't even be at a shooting range or near any weapon but a muzzle loader unless she is with a LEO.

[Derby FALs]

Has to be part of the most Un-Constitutional gun laws (http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm) ever conceived by damn NAZI admirers.

[Shotgunner60]

Just wondering does state statytes override federal law. according to Oregon Revised statutes a person with a valid hunting license can posess going to and from and during legal hunting? Any thoughts? R

[Derby FALs]

Depends if it was a State or Federal felony conviction.

[jeep-2]

Just wondering does state statytes override federal law. according to Oregon Revised statutes a person with a valid hunting license can posess going to and from and during legal hunting? Any thoughts? R

No, the Feds have the upper hand.
The Feds say anyone can use a muzzle loading rifle and most states say the same thing, but there are a couple states that will not even let felons use them, you know dangerous a .54 cal can be when you start putting 2 slugs a minute thru them..

The term "firearm" shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

(b) Machinegun.:The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

(c) Rifle.:The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

(d) Shotgun.:The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

(e) Any other weapon.:The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

(f) Destructive device.:The term "destructive device" means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device;(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one- half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon;any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device;surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

(g) Antique firearm.:The term "antique firearm" means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

[Shipwreck]

Actually, I just had to look up the muzzle loader thing because of a probationer down here in TX - In some states, felons CANNOT have any muzzle loader. In TX, they can if it is a model made prior to 1899, or is a replica of a pre-1899 type of gun.

But, I was surprised to see it vary state to state.

[ConfuseUs]

Like a lot of others have posted, a felon and your guns don't mix. If you are caught you probably will have your guns confiscated at the very least. I might also add that since you know she is a felon and she probably knows she cannot legally handle firearms, the both of you might also be open to charges of conspiracy to violate federal law as well. The amount of legal trouble this could lead to depends on how zealous the DA handling the case is. Whether or not she's a nice person is irrelevant; she can a) wait for the felony to be reduced, then go shoot or b) not go shooting. Period.

I am not a lawyer, so by no means should you take my $.02 as legal advice.

[GRB]

Felons cant possess guns...See 18 USC 922 (g). That is almost what said sections says, but not quite. You missed a very specific mention of interstate commerce in that sub-section.

All the best,
Glenn B

[littlmak]

never mind!

[SAG0282]

most(?) drunk drivers are felons and they get only probation (correct? fairly sure )

Not hardly.......DUI is a criminal traffic offense and misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor in most if not all US states.

Take the general advice here.....dont risk it. I'm sympathetic, dont get me wrong. I've been lucky to never have been addicted, but I know what it can do to otherwise great people. But it's not worth the risks associated for all involved. Work hard on reducing that felon and then revisit the idea of her going shooting with you. We could wax on and on about fairness and how easy it is to be a felon or how hard it is or whatever, but at the end of the day you'd be taking a huge risk, as would she. Do yourself a favor and protect your 2A rights and her chances of reducing that felony.

[trueblue1776]

We can all read the USC if we want but, if nobody knows, nobody cares.

Like most things, if you get caught you could be in trouble.

Right now I'm singing "take the skinheads bowling" by Cracker

:D baaaaaa ha ha aha haaa

[GRB]

We can all read the USC if we want but, if nobody knows, nobody cares.

That quote contains, in my opinion, what is truly one of the saddest and most despicable sentiments I have ever read at THR. While I do not agree with the whole concept of arms control laws, except maybe for nukes; I do try to abide by the laws of our land as they are written, and I do try to get changed those with which I disagree such as gun control laws. That though is not necessarily why I feel the sentiment expressed in the quote above is so despicable a thing to say.

You see, I have arrested a few pedophiles. I have had dealings with others, during the course of my job, and I know LEOs who have dealt with plenty more as sort of their work specialty. None of the pedophiles are ever truly repentant, none of them ever truly consider their acts a crime, none of them see any wrong in what they do - that is until someone else (beyond their victims) knows they have done it and they get caught. Now I do not care that the violation a pedophile commits, and the violation a previously convicted felon commits by possessing a gun are vastly different - they are both violations of law and are both felonies. Anyone, such as a relative, friend, associate from work, even a stranger who knowingly aides or abets one of them in the commission of their type of crime is also committing a felony under the law. If we start saying it is acceptable, by way of authorities not knowing a crime is being committed, for someone to commit one type of felony, then how long before we apply that to another type of felony, and how long before someone else applies it to the most heinous types of felonies. Just because we do not know a felony is being committed does not mean it is not taking place, nor that no one cares about its commission. Shame on you for basically suggesting such. I suggest you think about it the next time you find out after the fact that a child was abducted, tortured, raped, sodomized, and killed by a lustful madman; all the while as you did not care about it because you did not know about it. Caring about it beforehand may help to prevent it later.

Of course I used an extreme example above, but the analogy is there for any other felony. The crime is still being committed regardless of if anyone but the felon knows, and or his/her accomplice(s), about it at the time. Then when someone does find out about it what happens? Let's just say that someone who knows the previously committed felon sees her at the range holding a firearm, then shooting it; then sees her hand it to someone who hands her another gun to shoot. The person who witnesses all of this also knows that the person handing her the gun is knowledgeable of the woman's past felony conviction. The witness now calls the police. The police come to the range and arrest both of them. Both are convicted. Now whose lives are ruined or at least fouled up badly. If the friend who was handing her the firearm is convicted, even of a misdemeanor, life sucks for him and maybe even his family; if he is convicted of a felony - well then life sucks eggs mega big-time because he too will lose his liberties to shoot again. All this unless of course we all use your logic that if no one knows it is okay.

I actually believe that previously convicted non-violent felons should not lose their liberties regarding firearms, but that is not the law now. So if anyone gets caught breaking the law, they need to expect whatever they get for it in terms of consequences. The other sad thing is that in today’s world, where pedophiles may get off with a 2 week sentence for years of rapes committed against a child (for example as was the initial case in Vermont pedophile prosecution several months back), a person who is convicted of a firearms charge may face more time. Again, even if not facing more time, the person may lose his or her liberty to shoot ever again.

In addition to the outcome for the individuals, think for a moment about the consequences of such a sentiment as yours on the shooting community as a whole. When a previously convicted felon is found with guns, the antis have more ammunition to shoot down our liberties to exercise our RKBA. When the previously convicted felon is aided by a previously law abiding citizen who is also a member of the shooting community, and such is done at a public shooting range, the antis and the leftist media go berserk in blasting us and our rights with all they have. That someone would or could be so irresponsible as to foster sentiments that would help the other side by promoting illegal firearms possession or use is a very sad state of affairs that does nothing to promote our RKBA and our liberty to exercise such.

Yes, we can all read the United Sates Code, and some of will choose to abide by it, even if we are trying to get it changed through legal means because we do not agree with it. Yes, some of us do care that people are or are not out there committing crimes, even the ones we do not know about at the moment. Yes some of us would rather do things the legal way and act responsibly in order to help show gun owners and shooters as responsible citizens; even as we are trying to get the laws changed to restore our proper and due liberties regarding firearms. I am one of those folks, and apparently so too is the person who started this thread by asking the original question instead of just going out and doing something that might have been illegal regardless as to whether or not someone else was aware of it.

All the best,
Glenn B

[TexasRifleman]

So I've read all these quotes from the statutes etc and I am still not clear.

How does that line up with the statements made constantly by G Gordon Liddy that he doesn't own any firearms but his wife "has quite a nice collection that she lets him shoot"?

I've seen photos of him on the range with his wife. Is he just blatantly asking to be arrested or is there some confusion on what exactly felons can do?

[Derby FALs]

That quote contains, in my opinion, what is truly one of the saddest and most despicable sentiments I have ever read at THR. While I do not agree with the whole concept of arms control laws, except maybe for nukes; I do try to abide by the laws of our land as they are written, and I do try to get changed those with which I disagree such as gun control laws. That though is not necessarily why I feel the sentiment expressed in the quote above is so despicable a thing to say.

The rest of your post was too despicable, IMHO, to print. Comparing convicted pedophiles to a malum prohibitum lawbreaker is truly, despicable.

[plexreticle]

If a law is too stupid to follow I have a hard time following it. Sorry Glenn.

I don't know the circumstances around the OP's felon gun deal so I have no opinion on it.

[Derby FALs]

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.

"The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.

"The constitution is an instrument from the people and a construction thereof should effectuate their purpose from the words employed in the document; and the courts may not color it by the addition of words or the ingrafting of their views as to how it should be written." Ervin v. Collins, Fla. 85 S. 852; 59 ALR 706.

"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson.

"Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).

"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government." Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.

[jeep-2]

How does that line up with the statements made constantly by G Gordon Liddy that he doesn't own any firearms but his wife "has quite a nice collection that she lets him shoot"?

I've seen photos of him on the range with his wife. Is he just blatantly asking to be arrested or is there some confusion on what exactly felons can do?


When Gorden Liddy got out of the slammer, there was money in the fund for him to get his charge expunged, those funds were cut in 1992.
Also Liddy had the connections to get on top of the list..

[Deavis]

ok, heres the situation. a friend who got into trouble 6 years ago wants to come out shooting. my question is if i would be breaking any laws letting her shoot with me. the guns would be mine and she would not be unsupervised.

Why? Really I don't get it, why even ask? You probably already have a decision made up in your mind, why would you even post something like that here? Are you looking for validation or support? Surely not if you've ever read a thread here. Read the laws and make your choice, you were going to do the latter regardless of what you read here, so just do it and quit looking for reassurance or an excuse to back out of a commitment you, might, have already made. The only person that can make this decision is you, so make it and quit asking a bunch of people on an Internet forum, many of which couldn't find the laws applicable to you (no offense I'm there too), much less quote them, if you handed them your State's penal code, to solve your "dilemna".

This is like a thread titled, "Convince me to buy the gun I already want but need reassurance to buy because I can't do it by myself." If you are smart enough to ask your original question then you are smart enough to go look up the penal code and make a choice. Sorry, but come on. :rolleyes:

[fjolnirsson]

possesion or use is illegal, and that includes black powder.
im fairly sure fed laws also cover black powder though some states may allow it for felons, CA does not
heck in CA it includes a bunch of stuff. i think you can own in home but not carry outside pepper spray or stun guns either.

A bit of thread drift ahead, but in the interest of correcting disinformation.

First, you can access CA law directly here:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Section 12650-12654 covers stun guns. There is no provision disallowing civilian carry or use, for those with clean criminal records.
When I left CA in 2005, there was no prohibition on pepper spray. I don't see one in the Penal code yet.

Whatever weapon you carry, know the laws in your state. And please don't spread bad information.

End of thread drift.

[DMF]

If she's a felon she cannot legally possess either firearms or ammunition, no matter how briefly, and no matter how closely supervised. 18USC922(g)(1)

If she's a felon you cannot transfer a firearm or ammunition to her, no matter how briefly, and no matter how closely supervised. 18USC922(d)

One can debate the probability of getting caught all day long, but none of that changes that if caught you both could face federal felony charges.

[Blackfork]

Every day, we get the choice between slavery and rebellion, and so far, everyone pretty OK with slavery.

[fjolnirsson]

Every day, we get the choice between slavery and rebellion, and so far, everyone pretty OK with slavery.

Ain't that the truth?

Sad.

[GRB]

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. It is the law of the land when it is not in violation of the Constituion. The law prohibiting a felon from ownning a firearm in not considered to be in opposition to the Constitution; never has been except by groups of radical extremists, and lone wolf wackos who were likely previously convicted felons. There is no Constitutional challenge to those laws that has ever been upheld to have found those laws too be contrary to the law of the land. By your own argument, you have arrived at the point of supporting those laws. I still oppose them, and believe that non-violent felons should not be so restricted; however I believe violent felons should be so restricted; just as I believe they should lose the liberty to exercise their right to vote.

All the best,
Glenn B

[GRB]

If a law is too stupid to follow I have a hard time following it. Sorry Glenn. Don't be sorry to me, be sorry to yourself or loved ones when someone who thought rape laws, murder laws, assault laws, criminal trespess and property destruction laws, drunk driving laws were all too stupid to follow and then somehow wind up victimizing you or yours. You like Derby FALS miss my point all together. I am not saying the law is good, I think for the most part any law restraining the RKBA sucks. It is that simple. It is also that simple that when a law is enacted, by the government that we have duly put into office as our representatives and legislators, we should obey it unless it is overtly evil and directly causes harm to innocents. Just because we disagree with it does not mean squat and gives no right to disobey it. There is a way to change the law. If you do not like it, then change the government. It works better than just moaning and groaning at THR.

All the best,
Glenn B

[Derby FALs]

It is the law of the land when it is not in violation of the Constituion. The law prohibiting a felon from ownning a firearm in not considered to be in opposition to the Constitution; never has been except by groups of radical extremists, and lone wolf wackos who were likely previously convicted felons. There is no Constitutional challenge to those laws that has ever been upheld to have found those laws too be contrary to the law of the land. By your own argument, you have arrived at the point of supporting those laws. I still oppose them, and believe that non-violent felons should not be so restricted; however I believe violent felons should be so restricted; just as I believe they should lose the liberty to exercise their right to vote.

All the best,
Glenn B

I never read that "no felons" part in the BOR.

[rbernie]

Every day, we get the choice between slavery and rebellion, and so far, everyone pretty OK with slavery.Being a slave to dogma is still a form of slavery. :rolleyes:

[Derby FALs]

Just because we disagree with it does not mean squat and gives no right to disobey it.

We sometimes have every right to disobey a law. You going to step right in that line if they make a law saying you have to wear a yellow star or something like that? It would be the "law"...it's just a patch.

[joshmm]

Instead of putting yourself at risk---suggest that she go to a gun range and rent guns there... you could possibly get in trouble for going with her, IANAL, but at least this way you would not be personally giving her the weapons...

[silverlance]

um..

if you're not dating her, then why is she so interested in going shooting with you?

[plexreticle]

Don't be sorry to me, be sorry to yourself or loved ones when someone who thought rape laws, murder laws, assault laws, criminal trespess and property destruction laws, drunk driving laws were all too stupid to follow and then somehow wind up victimizing you or yours. You like Derby FALS miss my point all together. I am not saying the law is good, I think for the most part any law restraining the RKBA sucks. It is that simple. It is also that simple that when a law is enacted, by the government that we have duly put into office as our representatives and legislators, we should obey it unless it is overtly evil and directly causes harm to innocents. Just because we disagree with it does not mean squat and gives no right to disobey it. There is a way to change the law. If you do not like it, then change the government. It works better than just moaning and groaning at THR.

I'm well versed on how the government works. Thanks for the civics lesson though. Many laws are passed that have nothing to do with criminals or safety. They are designed remove money and freedom from you and yours. I feel no obligation to follow oppressive laws. If you do that's your bag, have fun with that. Maybe when the Aussies change their government they can get the guns back the government took. ;)

I didn't miss your point btw I just don't agree with it.

[trueblue1776]

sorry I make you sad Glenn, stopped reading when you compared me to a pedophile.

Some crimes have no victims Glenn.