Can youth with records handle supervised.

[bigalexe]

Ok this is purely a legal question, there are a million other factors that come into this discussion regarding safety and wisdom of doing this but right now I just want the legal side of things.

Can a youth (under 18) with a criminal record handle and shoot firearms legally while being properly supervised by an adult? Also if so does it differ depending on what the convictions are? For the purpose of this question we are going to assume they are charged as a youth and their record can still get sealed at 21, we are not discussing being charged as an adult where the charges are permanent.

I will ask again to please stick to the legal side of this discussion so this thread doesn't become a pile of 30 other discussions.

 

[jcreid06]

What are the charges? Are you talking felony charges or misdemeanors?

 

[Frank Ettin]

To approach the question from another perspective, if the person's record (whether or not arising from acts committed as a juvenile) puts him in a prohibited person category under 18 USC 922(g), he or she can not possess, i. e., even hold, a gun. And there may be state law issues as well.

But because the details matter, and because a violation could be a very serious matter, if you have a real situation in mind, you should consult with a qualified lawyer who can thoroughly review and consider all the facts and circumstance.

18 USC 922(g) reads as follows:

...(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien -

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));​

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that -

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or​

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce....

 

[pak29]

How does one know when one "possess[es] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition"?

 

[Frank Ettin]

How does one know when one "possess[es] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition"?

It's pretty straight forward.

[1] If you're holding a gun (or ammunition), or have control of it (like holding something it's in) or have ready access to it, a judge will most likely decide that you have possession of it.

[2] If the gun (or ammunition) was imported into the United States, or if it was manufactured here by someone in the business of making guns (or ammunition), or by someone for his personal use using parts or components purchased in commerce, or if the gun (or ammunition) was sold to a dealer, or if the gun (or ammunition) was sold by a dealer, under existing law a judge is likely to rule that possession was in or affecting commerce.

[3] In general in the law "in or affecting commerce", a test that comes up in a lot of contexts, is very broadly interpreted.

[4] Also note that it is a violation of this statute for a prohibited person to, "...to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.... " If I hand you a gun or ammunition, you have "received", so if you were a prohibited person, you'd also be in trouble if that gun or ammunition had ever been transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

 

[NukemJim]

[3] In general in the law "in or affecting commerce", a test that comes up in a lot of contexts, is very broadly interpreted.

A understatement of galactic proportions!
I really like that it also covers illegal transactions as well.

A most excellent job.

NukemJim

 

[CoRoMo]

Has there ever been a federal gun law that included the words, "It is unlawful... ...unless under direct adult supervision"?

I can't imagine so.

 

[barnetmill]

I think an experienced lawyer or perhaps if possible an inquiry to the NRA legal department would be in order. Juvenile law and trials are different as are the sentences that can be handed out.
It is a common question. Many gunowners have children that have been charged as juveniles or adults with crimes. These offspring often do reside in gunowners house. If one is running a youth program that involves firearms training there may be problems as has been pointed out.
I would like to read an answer by someone with a lot of experience this field to better understand.
For example if we are informally shooting trap at family farm and cousin X with a juvenile conviction for a felonious crime fires my shotgun a few times has a crime been committed? Am I in trouble for lending him the shotgun?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...For example if we are informally shooting trap at family farm and cousin X with a juvenile conviction for a felonious crime fires my shotgun a few times has a crime been committed? Am I in trouble for lending him the shotgun?

The real question is whether the particular juvenile conviction, under the particular circumstances and applicable law, puts cousin X into one or more of the prohibited categories specified in 18 USC 922(g). And it probably does since you characterized the conviction as being for a "felonious" crime.

And if so, then yes, a crime has been committed. You are in trouble for loaning him a shotgun, even to just fire a few times. And he is in trouble for having had the shotgun in his possession.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

For example if we are informally shooting trap at family farm and cousin X with a juvenile conviction for a felonious crime fires my shotgun a few times has a crime been committed? Am I in trouble for lending him the shotgun?

Yes & You could be.

It's just like getting your nephew drunk and letting him drive your car around a field. Chances are he will not be caught, but a crime was committed.

 

[Oxide]

That's incorrect. DUI implies public roads. What you do on your own property with a motor vehicle is your own business, which is why ranch trucks have no plates.

 

[mortablunt]

I'm not exactly sure. Juvenile records get closed and sealed up when a person turns eighteen, but I'm not sure if they would still make the perpetrator a prohibited person.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

How old do you have to be to possess a gun anyway? Is there even an age limit?

 

[Zoogster]

mortablunt said:

I'm not exactly sure. Juvenile records get closed and sealed up when a person turns eighteen, but I'm not sure if they would still make the perpetrator a prohibited person.

Whether a person is a prohibited person, and whether they will remain a prohibited person once they are an adult are two very different things.


In California most juveniles that have committed a crime are put on probation. A large number of counties include weapon prohibition as a basic term of probation, even if the offense was some minor misdemeanor like shoplifting or truancy. Under state law these juveniles on probation with a no weapons probation term are then prohibited persons, and possession of a firearm while such a prohibited person is the same felony charge that a felon in possession would receive.
Ironically the probation can last for years for a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of days in jail. Turning someone into a prohibited person for years over any minor thing.
However California also does not consider juveniles to have ever been convicted of a crime, because California juvenile court has no jury trial and is really just a mickey mouse court without much in the way of Constitutional protections. Instead juveniles are only adjudicated of an offense.
This means they are prohibited persons on probation, or for a juvenile offense that makes them a prohibited person until 30 years old like most violent felonies. But not because they are a 'felon' as is the case for an adult.



Now as for the federal level the federal system typically lets juvenile 'felons' have their gun rights once they are free adults.
The feds do not tend to count juvenile offenses, even those prosecuted at the federal level.
A most extreme example was a child that murdered several classmates in premeditated murder in Arkansas, and got out in his 20s. He had his gun rights at the federal level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Golden

The murders were processed at the state level I believe, but he also received felony firearm charges as a juvenile which is what extended his time past 18 and to 21. So even federally charged felonies as a juvenile did not make him a prohibited person.


Years later with a new identity as Drew Douglas Grant and as an adult he was found riding around with a loaded gun in Arkansas along with another juvenile murderer he met while locked up who had killed his father with a crossbow. They were roommates. He had previously applied for a concealed weapons permit but was denied by Arkanas, when they linked his fingerprints to his past identity. He could legally own the guns but the state was not about to give him a concealed carry permit. His application for a permit likely put him on the radar of authorities that wanted him to be a prohibited person.
They were found riding around with loaded firearms and marijuana, and were charged at the state level for misdemeanor possession.
They federally charged him with possession of firearms and being a drug user (marijuana use and owning guns is a federal felony), because they were not prohibited felons and mere possession of the firearm itself was not a federal felony as it is for felons. They couldn't be charged as felons in possession because they had their gun rights.
(Obviously the intent of the rare firearm+marijuana charge was to turn a mass murderer that still had firearm rights into a prohibited person.)


So a murderer that killed 5 people and shot and attempted to murder several more as a juvenile had their gun rights after being released from federal prison.
Federal law generally does not count juvenile offenses.


I find the case quite ironic in that it shows being a murderer does not prohibit gun rights, even for a murderer that murdered multiple people with a gun.
Yet using marijuana that is a misdemeanor to use and possess at the federal level does as it is a federal felony for someone to be a drug user and possess a gun, so any gun owner that uses some marijuana is committing a felony.

 

[bigalexe]

Thanks guys, my mind wandered and pushed this matter to the back of my brain. My conscience was saying NO but I had to ask.