Supreme Court says convicted felons can sell their guns

[Midwest]

Supreme Court says convicted felons can sell their guns



The Supreme Court says a convicted Felon can sell his guns after they are confiscated or turned over to authorities as long as the Felon has no control over the weapons.

This case was bought about after a former Border Patrol agent was charged with marijuana distribution. The former agent wanted to to sell his firearms to a friend after he turned them to the FBI. A lower court initially ruled against it.


http://www.fox19.com/story/29091028/supreme-court-says-convicted-felons-can-sell-their-guns


"A unanimous Supreme Court says the government can't prevent a convicted felon who is barred from possessing firearms from trying to sell his guns after they are confiscated by authorities."
.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The case is Henderson v. U. S. (Supreme Court No. 13–1487, 2015), and the opinion is here.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I read that he wanted to sell the guns to either his wife or his friend. Would I be correct in assuming that the sale to his wife would be disallowed because he would presumably still be able to control them?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

And if he sold them to his wife and lived with her, wouldn't that be illegal for him if he planned on keeping the guns in their home?

 

[MErl]

If he had access to them there would be trouble just like there is trouble if he has access to guns his wife already owns.

The important part of this is that they are not automatically forfeit. You can dispose of property that you no are longer allowed to own instead of giving it to the state.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Would I be correct in assuming that the sale to his wife would be disallowed because he would presumably still be able to control them? ....

...And if he sold them to his wife and lived with her, wouldn't that be illegal for him if he planned on keeping the guns in their home? ...

I linked to the opinion because it is useful to read the opinion (Henderson, slip op at 7 -- 8, emphasis added):

...a court facing a motion like Henderson’s may approve the transfer of guns consistently with §922(g) if, but only if, that disposition prevents the felon from later exercising control over those weapons, so that he could either use them or tell someone else how to do so. One way to ensure that result, as the Government notes, is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself independent of the felon’s control, for subsequent sale on the open market. See, e.g., United States v. Zaleski, 686 F. 3d 90, 92–94 (CA2 2012). Indeed, we can see no reason, absent exceptional circumstances, to disapprove a felon’s motion for such a sale, whether or not he has picked the vendor. That option, however, is not the only one available under §922(g). A court may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them, so long as the recipient will not allow the felon to exert any influence over their use. In considering such a motion, the court may properly seek certain assurances: for example, it may ask the proposed transferee to promise to keep the guns away from the felon, and to acknowledge that allowing him to use them would aid and abet a §922(g) violation. See id., at 94; United States v. Miller, 588 F. 3d 418, 420 (CA7 2009). Even such a pledge, of course, might fail to provide an adequate safeguard, and a court should then disapprove the transfer. See, e.g., State v. Fadness, 363 Mont. 322, 341–342, 268 P. 3d 17, 30 (2012) (upholding a trial court’s finding that the assurances given by a felon’s parents were not credible). But when a court is satisfied that a felon will not retain control over his guns, §922(g) does not apply, and the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon’s request….

 

[MedWheeler]

It makes sense. I thought I had heard of a prior case determining that a "prohibited person" isn't barred from owning firearms, only from possessing them.

Frank, am I remembering that right?

 

[larry_minn]

IMO only fair. Many felony are not violent. Even if as long as these guns not used. Person shoud be allowed to sell them.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Im relatively ignorant on this but;

How would this work if said weapons were held by a trust, and not directly owned by the felon?

 

[WestKentucky]

If owned by a trust, then the felon member just got the boot from being on the trustee list. Everybody else wins.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I thought I had heard of a prior case determining that a "prohibited person" isn't barred from owning firearms, only from possessing them.

Frank, am I remembering that right?

After a fashion.

In U.S. v. Casterline, 103 F.3d 76 (C.A.9 (Or.), 1996), the 9th Circuit set aside a conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun, because the conviction was based solely on evidence of ownership, but under circumstances in which the defendant could not possibly have had access to or possession of the guns. Casterline was in prison at the time, and the guns were in the sheriff's department evidence locker. As the Ninth Circuit wrote in Casterline, at 79 (emphasis added):

...The felon-in-possession statute is prophylactic, intended "to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated that 'they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society.' " Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 572, 97 S.Ct. 1963 1968, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Ownership without physical access to, or dominion and control over, the firearm does not constitute possession. If the felon owns a firearm, but does not actually possess or have dominion and control over it, then he does not possess the firearm for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). ....

 

[Ash]

Didn't G Gordon Liddy openly state that he no longer owned any firearms but his wife did? Something like "I can't own guns because of my convictions. Mrs. Liddy owns many guns."

 

[duck911]

This makes sense.

A felony DUI doesn't mean you permanently forfeit your car (48 states), horse (Wyoming), or riding lawnmower/motorized shopping cart (Alabama).

Why would an unrelated felony mean you have to forfeit other real property, such as a firearm (restitution and/or civil suites aside.....)?

As long as the felon immediately turns over control to a 3rd party and doesn't have any physical access to the asset, I don't have a problem with this.

--Duck911

 

[Frank Ettin]

A felony DUI doesn't mean you permanently forfeit your car...

But it might mean that you forfeit your driver's license. The loss might not always be permanent, but I believe it is in Alaska for a felony DUI, and it's ten years in Illinois after the third conviction. Difficult conditions imposed on restoring one's license could make the loss of one's license virtually permanent.

...Why would an unrelated felony mean you have to forfeit other real property, such as a firearm...

A gun is not real property. It's personal property. And conviction of a felony results in loss on one's right to possess a gun. That's a matter of federal law.

The issue here was whether a person convicted of a felony could still sell or give away his ownership interest in a gun, even though he lost the right to possess a gun. See post 6 for a quote from the Court's opinion.

 

[duck911]

But it might mean that you forfeit your driver's license. The loss might not always be permanent, but I believe it is in Alaska for a felony DUI, and it's ten years in Illinois after the third conviction. Difficult conditions imposed on restoring one's license could make the loss of one's license virtually permanent.

The difference is, a license to drive is an earned privilege. Personal property, ESPECIALLY the right to possess firearms, is a constitutional right.

A gun is not real property. It's personal property. And conviction of a felony results in loss on one's right to possess a gun. That's a matter of federal law.

You are right, I meant personal property, not real property.

The issue here was whether a person convicted of a felony could still sell or give away his ownership interest in a gun, even though he lost the right to possess a gun. See post 6 for a quote from the Court's opinion.

I get it... I am of the opinion, and the supreme court appears to agree, that one can own property without possessing it.

 

[Styx]

Were states and the Federal government doing with the seized firearms? Selling them at auction to FFLs?

 

[Kaeto]

No they were destroying them. Unless a cop took a liking to a particular one then the cop would take it.

 

[Cump]

I know this ruling doesn't reflect how the justices would split on a case like Peruta, and its a statutory rather than constitutional decision. Nevertheless, it's a positive when the USSC rules unanimously on a case involving gun ownership, with the decision written by Kagan.

I'm surprised not to see a minority opinion that public safety merited greater control of the disposition of the prohibited person's firearms.

Definitely a win.