Berger.Fan222
Member
Maybe he is but it hasn't happened yet.
The point we keep making is that there is no legal authority to the effect that the prohibited person can visit a gun show with impunity. On the other hand, there is legal authority to the effect that access to a gun is sufficient to support a conviction for being a prohibited person in possession, even without actual, physical possession.
Right. But don't the same federal laws that prohibit the possession of a gun by a felon prevent possession of ammo also? And wouldn't the precedence and interpretation of the meaning of possession of a gun also apply to ammo?
So when you say that "it hasn't happened yet", how confident are you really that a felon hasn't been charged for being in possession of ammo in a case where it is more a matter of access (living in a residence with unsecured ammo) rather than actually having it in his hand, pockets, vehicle, or among his personal belongings?
It doesn't seem to me that it's very easy to prove a negative like that. Perhaps you are unaware of any cases, but how hard have you really looked? How confident are you really in the claim that it hasn't happened yet?
Why can't we also make the point that there is no legal authority to the effect that the prohibited person can visit a Cabelas (or other retailer with open access to ammo) with impunity?