Are ALL felony convictions a disaster to gun owner ship?

[Jim K]

IIRC, the federal law does not use the word "felony"; it says "convicted of a CRIME punishable by more than one year in jail." In most states, misdemeanor pushishment is less than one year, but the federal law specifies one misdemeanor (domestic abuse) that also bars firearms possession. (The word "possession" is used rather than "ownership" to get past arguments like "the gun isn't mine, a friend left it here.")

Jim

 

[M1911]

In the "shall issue " states , its a conviction. In th e"may issue " states (Like Massachusetts);it is subjet to the interpretation of the CLEO.

Gripper, actually you are mixing up two different issues. In MA, certainly the issuance of an LTC is may issue and thus at the discretion of the police chief. What is being discussed here, however, has nothing to do with discretion.

If you are convicted of a DUI in MA, there is no discretion at issue at all -- you are then a prohibited person for life.

The maximum penalty for a first-time DUI in MA is 2 1/2 years in jail. It doesn't matter whether you serve a day. If you are convicted of that DUI, then because of that possible jail sentence you are federally prohibited from ever possessing a gun again.

Note that 5 years after that offense, MA law stipulates that you could get an FID card. But if you then use that FID card to buy a long gun, you would be committing a federal felony (felon in possession of a firearm).

The issue here is not concerning a shall issues state versus a may issue state. What is at issue here is 1) the maximum possible penalty for the infraction and 2) whether your state will reinstate in its entirety your ability to own firearms.

 

[RobNDenver]

I can't speak for everyone who has managed to avoid being convicted of a crime with penalty greater than one years confinement, or not gotten a dishonorable discharge or never committed an act of domestic abuse . . . but IMHO them's that have done, shouldn't own guns unless they have been pardoned, or their record expunged. With enough time, proven track record and so on you can make a case for rehabilitation and reinstatement. I know I sound harsh, but frankly, if some addict gets a third (felony) DUI he shouldn't be owning firearms like the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

 

[Zoogster]

Many states do not allow expungement. Other states use the term in a way that will still subject the individual to federal prohibition. It is a legal term, and as such the definition varies from state to state.
In some places the term expunge means little different than sealing records, which keeps them a prohibited person.
Expunge can often mean when the offense is considered to have never been done, not when it has been put behind them and they have made amends. In some states the most that is available is a sealing of those records. That does not make them federaly eligable.
In others the conviction is removed. In others it is something in between. Whether it removes federal prohibition or not all relies on the legal definition of that state. A state is not legaly able to remove someone from prohibited status. They can however decide whether convictions in thier jurisdiction are valid or not.

I find a great irony in that someone who commits an offense, owns up to it and has changed thier life is still permanently prohibited. Someone who however never has to own up for what they have done because justice is undone and it is legaly removed and considered to not have happened can have thier rights.
It is promoting not taking responsibilty for actions in a person's past.
Not owning up to wrongs someone has done is legaly superior to taking responsibility and becoming a responsible law abiding citizen.
The exact opposite of the beliefs present during the creation of the constitutiton.

A person that commits a crime at 18 that prohibits them and then never has any legal problems thier entire life will still be a prohibited person when they are a senior citizen, and in many states there is nothing they can do to change that. If they are living in a bad neighborhood with predatory criminals, living on thier retirement that due to inflation is no longer worth enough to live a decent quality of life, and in ailing health they will still not qualify to have a means to defend themselves or loved ones.

Some misdemeanor offenses are also prohibiting offenses even at the federal level. Any misdemeanor offense which can be punished by over 2 years as a maximum sentence, even if in reality people serve little or no time for said offense, they are a prohibted person for life. That is why the MA DUI offense is a lifetime prohibition for such a person for the rest of thier life anywhere in the United States. It doesn't matter if the actual sentence was probation for a few months.

 

[publiuss]

If the conviction was expunged from his record he should be inthe clear. In Mississippi 1st offense-misdemeanor, 2nd- misdeamenor, 3rd-felony. If you get the first 2 which are misdemeanors within a five year period they go off your record after 5 years. If you get that third one in that five year period you are screwed. With the corrupt cops we have here, if one does't like you they will set you up in a heartbeat, whether of not you are drunk. I do think you would have a much better chance of getting an expungement or pardon for DUI rather than a violent crime or burglary/stealing.

 

[Big Boomer]

I know a very close and personal "friend" that was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor (2 counts), Indicted on a Class C Felony (2 counts) and now not only possesses many firearms but has also been granted a Texas CHL after the fact and after disclosing the misdemeanors.

Punishment for the Class A misdemeanors was up to 10 years and or $100,000 fine per count. I'd say that legally that fails the possession case. But what say you all?

 

[gripper]

Actually , a DUI in Ma. is notalways a prohibition for life-case in point;I personally know people who got reinstated."subjet to the interpretation" however is the scary phrase;other folks who had their troubles before the passage of Ch180 got revoked RETROACTIVELY;and I am talking years in th epast being the time of the OUI vs. the passage of the law in question.
In Ma., th emain problem is that the judges have let the CLEOs make it upo as theyu go along RE defining "suitability".Believe me;I know this from painful experience.
WTH,if God has a sense of humor;he'll put on eor two of the "other than good " cops I have known in the same place outside of Massachusetts.Otherwise ;I just figure Karma will catch up with them.

 

[gripper]

Sorry about the typos , bad keyboard.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Punishment for the Class A misdemeanors was up to 10 years and or $100,000 fine per count. I'd say that legally that fails the possession case. But what say you all?

I've never heard of a misdemeanor being punishable by more than one year in jail (plus perhaps a fine). In fact, AFAIK, what distinguishes a misdemeanor from a felony is the possible punishment - a year or less in jail and it's a misdemeanor and a year or more in prison and it's a felony. Some crimes may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, and the way the crime is charged will then determine the possible penalty.

Now I admit that I'm not an expert on Texas law. So if we have any Texas lawyers out there, I'd be grateful for clarification.

 

[Zoogster]

I know a very close and personal "friend" that was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor (2 counts), Indicted on a Class C Felony (2 counts) and now not only possesses many firearms but has also been granted a Texas CHL after the fact and after disclosing the misdemeanors.

Punishment for the Class A misdemeanors was up to 10 years and or $100,000 fine per count. I'd say that legally that fails the possession case. But what say you all?

Some states return the rights of citizens. In fact numerous states have ways for a citizen to regain thier rights after so much time has elapsed or certain variables have been met for some offenses. Many of which do not change thier status as federaly prohibited. State and federal law is different. The state can say someone after doing a. b. and c. is no longer prohibited, but unless they throw out the conviction, or there never was a conviction, then federaly they are still prohibited.

The federal government only has so much funding and databases to collect and reference information. That is improved every year.
So I don't know if your "10 year max sentence" is correct for the charge, however assuming it was over a 2 year maximum sentence then he would in fact be prohibited. The Federal government however does not review every misdemeanor in the nation to insure nobody slips through the cracks. Currently they predominantly focus on felonies which the states tend to report, and domestic violence related offenses.
If however he was closely scrutinized and what you say is even close to correct then he would in fact be prohibited under federal law even if he is passing the NICS.

Every year the databases improve and they are able to be more inclusive in what is checked. Every year more states link more databases with the feds. So individuals such as him getting by with prohibiting misdemeanors become less and less frequent and they can focus on pettier issues and technicalities. Some states do not have streamlined, detailed, easily reviewed databases that can be used to add to federal databases at a rapid pace, yet.
The limit on many things is resources and funds.
However with technological improvements and databases being improved at state levels control becomes easier, but the feds still only have so much manpower. So for many things they depend on states to self report. Texas might not be in the habit of highlighting that certain misdemeanors have made the person prohibited under federal law. So the federal databases such as NICS might not reflect that. That does not mean they are technicaly not in violation of federal law and commiting felonies by possessing those arms. It just means the database has not caught up with them yet, because the offense was not red flagged as prohibiting even though it was in fact prohibiting.

 

[M1911]

Actually , a DUI in Ma. is notalways a prohibition for life-case in point;I personally know people who got reinstated."subjet to the interpretation" however is the scary phrase;other folks who had their troubles before the passage of Ch180 got revoked RETROACTIVELY;and I am talking years in th epast being the time of the OUI vs. the passage of the law in question.

Gripper:

Actually, the crucial issue is WHEN they were arrested for the DUI. The DUI law changed in the 1990s, but I don't remember exactly when (1994?) and I don't have my reference material at work. Before that law changed, the penalty for first time DUI was less than 2 years, so no federal prohibition and you will likely be issued a LTC (unless your CLEO is a jerk).

After that law changed, you are statutorily prohibited from possessing a firearm. The only options at that point are 1) a pardon from the governor or 2) appealing to the Firearms License Review Board: http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/Petition and Instruction Letter v3.0.pdf

RobNDenver:

Here in MA, it doesn't have to be a 3rd DUI -- it is the first DUI. Say you went to your buddy's wedding and had 3 drinks and drive home. Legally you are likely over the limit and if you get stopped in MA will lose your ability to own firearms ever again.

 

[TEDDY]

mass

1911:you are not up to date there is no 5 yr period any more since the gay pushed thru the 1998 law. it used to be 5yrs after release you could get a FID card but not a pistol permit.Cheryl J stopped that. and added the 4 classes.:banghead:

 

[Zoogster]

Here in MA, it doesn't have to be a 3rd DUI -- it is the first DUI. Say you went to your buddy's wedding and had 3 drinks and drive home. Legally you are likely over the limit and if you get stopped in MA will lose your ability to own firearms ever again.

Actualy that is a common misconception about DUI. You can get a DUI for being under the limit. Over the limit is just mandatory DUI and also often a seperate charge.

I have known people that dealt with the issue. A person can have a .06 for example (legal limit .08 many places) and still recieve a DUI. DUI is based on being impaired, not being over the limit, they are two seperate variables. Being over the limit just means its definately automaticly DUI/DWI, and being under means it can be.
Being under the influance is just that. If someone fails a field sobriety test which shows impairment(some of which can be difficult to pass sober) they can recieve a DUI (or DWI or whatever the state calls it) if there is any alcohol in thier bloodstream even if they are under the limit.
Any alcohol at all may be a DUI. Over the legal limit is a definate DUI.
So being below the legal limit does not mean you won't get a DUI, it just means it is not mandatory.

 

[DMF]

F4GIB posted:

DMF posted:

Quote:
[1] It's one year.

[2] Again, it's best to consult with an attorney who is competent in fed, state, and local firearms laws if this is more than a hypothetical.

Half right.

[1] The statement is incorrect or, at least, misleading. Regarding convictions under non-federal law, the state law of the jurisdiction of conviction determines WHICH state felonies are "felonies" for purposes of the GCA '68.

This happens behind the scenes, so to speak, in the definition of "conviction" in 18 USC 921(20), last paragraph. You can go to prison for 5 years but, if your state restores ALL civil rights on release, you no longer have a "conviction" for '68 GCA purposes. For example, in Minnesota only about 30 state felonies are "GCA '68 'felonies.'" Read Minn. Stat. sec. 609.165, subd. 1a, in conjunction with 624.712, Subd. 5.

[2] Q.E.D.

Not only were my statements correct, they were not misleading. Please note I had previously posted, "It is possible that a person can have their rights restored by the state in which they were convicted, but that is rare, and your friend would likely know if that had occurred." It is not a question of Minnesota determining whether or not the felony is prohibiting under 18USC922(g)(1), but rather as your citations show it's a matter of whether or not Minnesota fully restores the convicted felon's right to possess firearms.

However, this issue, and the issue of prohibiting misdemeanors, is really a complicated enough matter that anyone who could possibly be affected by such an issue is best to not base their actions on the advice given here, whether it's from a law enforcement officer or claimed attorney. If someone is worried about these details they need to contact competent legal counsel and work it out with the attorney, and the relevant jurisdictions involved.

 

[gripper]

To M1911-RE "when"...I have seen folks denied renewal for OUI/DUI's YEARS in th epast previous to CH180 's passage in 1998. It was not until 2005,that Ch150 ,a partial refor was passed setting up th eFLRB in Chelsea;a Firearms Licensing Review Board headed by Colonel of State police,and sat on by various appointed officials and lawyers. The law was SUPPOSED to (in original form ) take away the local CLEOs ability to "interpret" the law based on anything but convictions RE "suitability". Unfortunately Mitt Romney blocked that part opf the reform,and had a press conference detailing how he "stood up to the NRA". This had the effect of allowing the CLEOS to create legislation in their AO by "interpreting( that word again!).The irony is the FLRB actually can help some folks who were denied renewal or issuance based on non violent misdemeanors that pre-dated the passage of 180;however;no judge hads allowed any petion for Judicial Review of a chiefs dtermination of "unsuitability" based on a charge that did NOT result in a guilty finding or plea.
Like I said earlier;I lived through it. Now I am licensed in the state of NH. Go figure ;they don't consider me to be a bad guy.