Convicted felon at a gun show?

[Elkins45]

May a convicted felon who has lost his right to possess firearms legally attend a gun show? My gut tells me yes because one might simply look at guns without actually taking physical possession of them. And there are usually knives for sale as well. Plus, if felons were prohibited from gun shows then wouldn't they have to be barred from many museums since firearms are often on display.

Just curious...

 

[WardenWolf]

If he so much as touches one, even in passing, he's broken the law. And attending one COULD be considered "Conspiracy to. . ." or "Intent to. . ." by an aggressive prosecutor. It's a great way to wind up back in jail even if he has no intent of illegally purchasing a firearm.

 

[danez71]

If he's on probation, the terms could be quite restrictive.

 

[Derry 1946]

In what state? How long ago was the conviction? What was the crime?

 

[Twiki357]

I never actually thought about it before, but why not? There’s a lot of thing for sale at a gun show besides guns that he/she could legally purchase.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I can't think of a single law that says a convicted felon can't attend a gun show. Nothing that says s/he can't go to a gun museum or go into a gun store or pawn shop where guns are sold.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Randy Weaver of the Ruby Ridge Standoff notoriety had a booth at a local gun show selling his book. He was a very high profile convicted felon.

I don't think there is anything to stop a convicted felon from attending a gun show and walking around or even buying army/navy surplus suitable for outdoors (tents, MREs, mess kits, ponchos, first aid), beef jerky, water purification devices, first aid kits, books, beanie babies, handmade bedazzle purses, etc.

IIRC non-violent felons are not barred from owning muzzleloading rifles for hunting/recreation in many jurisdictions.

I'll bet Martha Stewart convicted of felony perjury over selling stock on inside info could attend a gun show.

The fisherman convicted of felony holding fish in the wrong tank can probably attend a gun show.

Can anyone cite a case where a felon legally out of prison (paroled, sentence served, debt to society paid) has ever been prosecuted for attending a gun show (or shopping at a WalMart with a hunting department)?

 

[Spats McGee]

I've never heard of a law that would prevent a convicted felon from attending a gun show. Then again, I've never gone looking, either. The issues I see around this are:

• What does state law say?
• What do the terms and conditions of probation or parole say?

 

[Ranger Roberts]

Convicted felons have to buy their beef jerky somewhere!

As long as they don't possess a firearm or ammunition I don't see why they couldn't. In many states a felon can possess a black powder gun.

 

[Derry 1946]

Under Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95.1, the crime of attempted possession of a firearm by a felon carries up to seven and a half years in prison. I don't think it would be difficult for a prosecutor to show intent to attempt to possess (i.e. briefly handle) a firearm at a venue the primary purpose of which is to sell firearms.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Intent to attempt? Is that what you are saying?

Primary purpose but not ONLY purpose?

That is all very sketchy.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Intent to attempt? Is that what you are saying?

Primary purpose but not ONLY purpose?

That is all very sketchy.

It wasn't 'sketchy" at all, he made a very valid point. All a prosecutor has to do is convince 12 idiots that there was an "intent", and his case was half-way made for him by the defendant, by the act of PAYING MONEY to enter a gun show, where it is commonly believed that a "loop hole" exists for criminals to purchase "unregistered" firearms. The reality as WE he know it, is not the same reality that prosecutors and the average juror operate under.
A convicted felon has ZERO legitimate reason to be at a gunshow, and he is practically BEGGING for trouble by even being there. And the knives and beef jerky arguments are blithering nonsense.
That being said, as long as the hypothetical felon didn't touch or attempt to purchase anything, it'd be highly unlikely that anyone would take notice.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Maybe he was there to buy a Sham-Wow

 

[stchman]

If you look at Paragraph B of the law:

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=78740

Whoever is found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 14:27, whoever is found guilty of attempting to violate the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than seven and one-half years and fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

I guess attending a gun show could be interpreted as "attempting to violate". Thing is, they say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but with THOUSANDS of laws on the books just for firearms, how can one know them all?

 

[TimSr]

Considering that felons who fail a NICS check when actually attempting to purchase a firearm are rarely prosecuted, I doubt you are going to see DAs with enough spare time on their hands to try to make the case that getting to close to a gun is the same as attempting to buy or possess one any more than dining at a restaurant that has a wine list violates a no alcohol probation.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

If he so much as touches one, even in passing, he's broken the law. And attending one COULD be considered "Conspiracy to. . ." or "Intent to. . ." by an aggressive prosecutor. It's a great way to wind up back in jail even if he has no intent of illegally purchasing a firearm.

The fact that you wrote 'could' in bold recognizes that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even going to get into the whole 'touching is not possessing' aspect.

 

[X-Rap]

They don't have tattoos on their foreheads so baring recognition (which is likely) who would know?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Derry 1946]

Intent to attempt? Is that what you are saying?



Primary purpose but not ONLY purpose?



That is all very sketchy.

Less sketchy than the OP's question. Again, what state? What crime? When convicted?

 

[danez71]

The fact that you wrote 'could' in bold recognizes that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even going to get into the whole 'touching is not possessing' aspect.

No it doesnt. Your making a determination based on zero facts of a case that doesn't exist.



On a side note, some of the replies are good examples of why threads in the legal section get locked. Which is of no help to anyone.

 

[Spats McGee]

This one isn't going anywhere good or useful.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's look at federal law.

Under 18 USC 922(g)(1), it's unlawful for anyone:

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

to possess a gun or ammunition.

Under other subdivisions of 18 USC 922(g), it's also unlawful for a variety of other persons to possess a gun or ammunition, including fugitives, unlawful users of controlled substances (which would include anyone who uses marijuana lawfully under a state law), persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, aliens present in the U. S. on other than an immigrant visa (subject to a few exceptions), and a few others.

When I reviewed some of the applicable case law a while ago, I found cases in which federal courts of appeals had affirmed convictions for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun even when the defendant didn't actually have the gun on his person or in his hands. So, for example, it was sufficient to support a conviction for the defendant to have been living in a house in which there were unsecured guns or ammunition over which he could exert dominion and control.

I didn't see any cases in which a conviction for a violation of 18 USC 922(g) was based on a person merely being temporarily in a place where guns were present. On the other hand, at guns shows there are typically guns sitting out on vendors' tables where anyone can pick them up and handle them. And based on case law, a prohibited person even handling a gun is a violation of 18 USC 922(g).

So under federal law, it seems to be an open question whether or not mere presence of a prohibited person at a gun show is a violation, handling a gun at a gun show would be. And there is also a question of whether a convicted felon's presence at a gun show violates the terms of his probation or parole.

Furthermore, if the operator of a gun show knew or had reasonable cause to believe that a patron were a prohibited person, the operator would be well advised to eject that person. There is reason to believe, based on case law, that knowingly permitting a prohibited person access to guns could support an aiding or abetting charge.

...I'm not even going to get into the whole 'touching is not possessing' aspect.

Are you contending that it is not? Do you have any legal authority to support that contention? In fact, under applicable federal case law, you're wrong insofar as "toughing" includes handling or being able to handle.

 

[Spats McGee]

Well, it looks like Frank believes otherwise.

Abra-cadabra, reopened!

 

[bikerdoc]

Specific only to Virginia and my step daughter, her probation stated she could not be in the presence of firearms.

Take it for what it is worth.

 

[Browning]

No, just so long as the felon isn't touching any guns he/she is legal.

If they were on probation or parole and ran into their parole or probation officer at that show I'm almost positive they'd get arrested for attempting to purchase a weapon. I'm betting they'd beat the charge, but they wouldn't beat the ride.

Pretty narrow set of circumstances though.

 

[Derry 1946]

To me, part of the prosecutor's likely theory of the case would be that intent can reasonably be inferred from his presence at a place whose primary purpose is letting people handle, examine, and purchase firearms. This distinguishes the gun show from other venues mentioned like pawn shops or another person's home. It would be legitimate to ask a jury to conclude that a person did not go to the gun show to buy the beef jerky he can get at the gas station. A jury could reasonably find that the defendant intended to handle (clearly = possess), or attempt to handle and/or buy, a firearm.