Convicted felon at a gun show?

[danez71]

Thus far....Nothing

Again, not true. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not there.

Certainly implied.

False again.

It's been repeatedly clarified they no one is saying it's explicitly illegal.

You refuse to acknowledge it.

No wonder few people post in the legal section of this forum and it's basically a desert.

I tend to think it's from people like you that has forced the legal secton to be over moderated in effort to squash the misinformation, or worse, from spreading.

I'm done.

Thank goodness.

 

[tarosean]

Browning
Location: DFW - Texas

Guessing you're not much of a boxing fan??

A high profile TX case a few years ago.
Professional boxer James Kirkland, and convicted felon, was arrested for buying a gun at a Austin gun show... He bought it on the second day of the show, after being there the first day.

 

[Elkins45]

I'm glad I started this thread because it's been informative, but at the same time I'm sorry I gave one fellow the rope to hang himself.

So can we say the consensus regarding a felon attending a gun show is that maybe it's illegal and definitely an unnecessary risk?

Oh, and to answer Derry's initial question: I have no idea because it was a purely made-up question, I wasn't asking for "a friend."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So can we say the consensus regarding a felon attending a gun show is that maybe it's illegal and definitely an unnecessary risk?....

Think that pretty much covers it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nope. Argumentum ad verecundiam is:

​

In this discussion, with regard to legal matters Spats, Derry and I are proper authorities and commenting within our field of expertise.

The phrase also encompasses those within that profession who attempt to use their employment alone to bolster their claims....

Really? And do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Actually, as described here:

​

that's been your strategy. You've repeated several times your claim that a convicted felon is legal at a gun show as long as he doesn't touch a gun without ever providing any legal authority to support your claim.

Actually I made a statement, you stated that was 'wrong' and we've gone back and forth with me asking for you to give some sort evidence that you're correct....

No, I said you were wrong, explained why and cited authority supporting my contention.

You have continued to claim that you were correct, but you've never backed your claim up.

...No wonder few people post in the legal section of this forum and it's basically a desert....

This was discussed at some length in this thread. It also begs the question of how it would improve the Legal Forum to encourage the posting of unsupported and incorrect opinions and information about important legal matters.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm glad I started this thread because it's been informative, but at the same time I'm sorry I gave one fellow the rope to hang himself.

No reason to be sorry. You didn't do the hanging.

So can we say the consensus regarding a felon attending a gun show is that maybe it's illegal and definitely an unnecessary risk?

I'd say that's a pretty good summation.

 

[steve4102]

WOW, that was fun.

Thanks for the great advice and also the good humor.

After reading and glancing at the posts here, here is my take on all of this. Take it for what is is worth, (0), from a guy that knows absolutely nothing about the law.

To be in "possession" one does not have to have physical possession or have to actually "touch" a firearm, having "Access To" constitutes "possession".

Being in the same vicinity, room, building as an unsecured firearm can constitute having "Access To" which according to the Law equals "possession".

The Walmarts, the Gander Mountain and even the Local shops around here have their firearms either in a locked glass case or behind the counter and one really doesn't have access to them without asking first.

The Guns shows are different, the firearms are not locked up, are not behind a counter, they are sitting right out in the open for anyone and everyone to fondle and have "Access to".

I think it's all pretty simple, If you can touch it(even if you don't), then you have access to it and also possible possession.

 

[BSA1]

Originally Posted by BSA1
... Another big no-no is being around guns so as a Parole Officer I can charge him with a violation for being at a gun show and put him in jail until he sees a Judge or Parole Board. He can explain to them why he was at the gun show for the beef jerky

There's a saying down south that you can charge someone with eating a ham sandwich on Sunday. The question is, are you just charging someone just to waste their time or can you get a conviction?

Well for starters I don’t understand your “eating a ham sandwich on Sunday” comment. That comment is just plain silly and shows a total lack of what Probation & Parole is and why a felon possessing a firearm is a risk factor.

Can you charge someone with the same for shopping at BigBox store if BB also sells firearms?

For just being in the store no. Big Box stores such as Cabelas sell a lot of clothing, camping, fishing and other outdoor products.

However the gun department in Cabelas are kept for sale in two different areas on the sales floor and in the Gun Library. So a reliable report(s) the Felon was their looking at guns is going to raise red flags. Let the report state that the Felon was asking the clerk to take guns out of the display case or off the gun rack behind the counter and handle the gun…ding! ding! ding! This is clearly showing interest in the gun and not merely walking by the department while on the way to the fishing section.

What if they are attending a flea market and someone at the opposite end of the market is disposing of a few of Uncle Ned's old revolvers after his untimely passing after being kicked in the head by that ol' ornery mule?

See my comment about being in Big Box store.

Perhaps they're riding public transit and the person standing next to them is in lawful possession of a firearm, are they close enough to "be around" the gun?

Maybe. Does the felon know the person standing next to them? How well does he know the person standing next to him? Is the person a causal acquaintance whom works for the same company he does or is he a “home boy?” Does he know that the person has an arrest record, especially for violent crimes? Etc, etc, etc….

Let me explain the rules in a different way that you may understand.

A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. The felon we have discussing has been convicted of molesting a children and is currently on Parole. Pedophiles are extremely high risk at reoffending and molesting children again and again.

Now he has a condition of Parole not to be around young children. Monday morning his Parole Officer gets a report that the Felon was seen in the kiddie section of a amusement park on Sunday watching the young children.

What is your call? He was doing something harmless as you put it “eating a ham sandwich on Sunday.” I mean he did not actually touch any children.

Or

Was he stalking and looking for his next victim?

p.s. I forgot to mention that the burden of proof is much lower for a Probation / Parole violations. All the P.O. has to do is show enough evidence to convince the Judge or Parole Board that the Felon knew he was committing a violation. Judges and Parole Board members are very street smart having heard the same old stories hundreds, if not thousands, of time and know whether the offender is being honest or not.

 

[morcey2]

Well for starters I don’t understand your “eating a ham sandwich on Sunday” comment. That comment is just plain silly and shows a total lack of what Probation & Parole is and why a felon possessing a firearm is a risk factor.

I wonder if he's confusing it with "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich." I hear that one all the time.

Matt

 

[MIL-DOT]

.....having "Access To" constitutes "possession".

Nonsense. I have constant "access" to my neighbor's lawnmower, but I have never been in "possession" of it. I have constant access to my family's wallets, but have never been in possession of them.
I agree that it would be very unwise for a felon to be at a gunshow, but merely browsing at a public event, does not constitute possesion of any of the wares. If the felon is not specifically prohibited from being there, by conditions of his parole/probabtion, or by any signs at the door, then his being successfully prosecuted for his mere presence there is almost impossible.
And like Browning, I'm still waiting for some substantive case history showing this to be incorrect (versus the barrage of logical fallacies and dog-piling this thread has been filled with.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I have constant "access" to my neighbor's lawnmower, but I have never been in "possession" of it....

But that has nothing to do with this subject. The fact is that courts have found that access to a firearm constitutes possession for the purpose of a conviction under 18 USC 922(g).

...merely browsing at a public event, does not constitute possesion of any of the wares....

How do you know -- at least for the purposes of 18 USC 922(g)? You might assume that to be the case based on common experience in other contexts, but that doesn't help predict how a court might rule. To try to predict how a court might rule we must look to past ruling and legal principles. And so far we have seen courts equate access to possession for the purposes of a conviction under 18 USC 922(g).

...I'm still waiting for some substantive case history showing this to be incorrect...

How about you coming up with some case law supporting your claim? So far the case law we've seen equates access to possession for the purposes of a conviction under 18 USC 922(g).

 

[MIL-DOT]

I don't HAVE to support my claim. As a general rule, anything not specifically prohibittted, is permitted. I don't have to cite case law to walk down the street, or vote, or buy a gun,etc. it's incumbent on those trying to block this to cite a legal reason why.
I haven't heard anything (that wasn;t a huge stretch) that firmly established that a felon could be prosecuted by walking the aisles of a gunshow.
And by the way, this thread is the CLASSIC EXPAMPLE of the pointless whizzing contest that you guys love to swoop in a shut down. But since you lawyer mods are having such a good time, i guess we got us a little double-standard going on here?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't HAVE to support my claim. As a general rule, anything not specifically prohibittted, is permitted....

Hogwash!

18 USC 922(g) prohibits certain classes of people, included convicted felons, from possessing a gun. Case law applying 18 USC 922(g) has ruled that mere access to a gun by a prohibited person, even without actual, physical possession, is unlawful possession for the purpose supporting conviction for a violation of 18 USC 922(g).

You now contend that nonetheless access to guns out on display at a gun show and available for handling by anyone present would not constitute unlawful possession by a prohibited person. So it is now your burden to support that contention by citation to applicable legal authority.

Yes, I can posit some decent arguments as to why the circumstances of Barron-Rivera and Huet are sufficiently different from being at a gun show to warrant a different result for the prohibited person at a gun show. But there is no guarantee that those arguments will be accepted. There might however, be other legal authority supporting distinguishing those cases from the prohibited person at the gun show.

...And by the way, this thread is the CLASSIC EXPAMPLE of the pointless whizzing contest that you guys love to swoop in a shut down.....

You might think so, but one of the things we discuss in the Legal Forum is how the law works; and this is how the law works.

As has been pointed out here before, the reality is that understanding law and how things work requires effort, study, research. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just trying to "noodle it out."

 

[200Apples]

As a general rule, anything not specifically prohibittted, is permitted.

Now you're thinking like a NASCAR crew chief.

This thread discusses law, and Mr. Ettin has gone to great lengths to attempt to educate all of us as to HOW the law really works... and as much as we'd like it to be so, logic, fairness, even common sense have little to do it.

 

[Theohazard]

And by the way, this thread is the CLASSIC EXPAMPLE of the pointless whizzing contest that you guys love to swoop in a shut down. But since you lawyer mods are having such a good time, i guess we got us a little double-standard going on here?

In my opinion, this thread is a classic example of why the THR Legal forum is such a good place to get accurate information. This forum has a higher standard for providing accurate information than other sub-forums do, and bad, irresponsible information is shut down quickly. As it should be.

Browning was tremendously irresponsible when he blanketly declared that it was always legal to go to a gun show as a prohibited person. As several experts have pointed out in this thread, that's not necessarily true.

So what do people like you and Browning want? Are you seriously advocating that bad legal information be uncorrected and allowed to go unchallenged? Would you prefer that experts like Spats, Frank, and Derry stay out of these discussions and allow ignorance to dominate?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MIL-DOT:

I haven't heard anything (that wasn;t a huge stretch) that firmly established that a felon could be prosecuted by walking the aisles of a gunshow.

Nor do I recall anyone having said that such a prosecution would be successful, should it occur. I presume that you meant "for", rather than "by".

As a general rule, anything not specifically prohibittted, is permitted. I don't have to cite case law to walk down the street, or vote, or buy a gun,etc. it's incumbent on those trying to block this to cite a legal reason why.

Well, citing case law will not permit you to do anything, if you are prohibited from doing it.

There are people who are prohibited from walking down the street in freedom, from voting, and from buying a gun. There are people who are forbidden from possessing firearms, and that means from having access to them.

Walking down the aisle in a place in which firearms are on display, unsecured, for examination by the public may or may not constitute having access. The way to find out is to try it, be arrested and charged, be connected, and appeal that conviction on the grounds that walking down the aisle did not constitute having access that would legally constitute possession under 18 USC 922(g) or under an applicable state law. Until that has been done and an appellate court has ruled, any assertion that it does not is pure, unsubstantiated conjecture.

Of course, the question of prosecution is but one issue. If the felon is on parole, a different set of rules, and a different standard of proof, will apply.

 

[steve4102]

Nonsense. I have constant "access" to my neighbor's lawnmower, but I have never been in "possession" of it. I have constant access to my family's wallets, but have never been in possession of them.
I agree that it would be very unwise for a felon to be at a gunshow, but merely browsing at a public event, does not constitute possesion of any of the wares. If the felon is not specifically prohibited from being there, by conditions of his parole/probabtion, or by any signs at the door, then his being successfully prosecuted for his mere presence there is almost impossible.
And like Browning, I'm still waiting for some substantive case history showing this to be incorrect (versus the barrage of logical fallacies and dog-piling this thread has been filled with.)

You do as you wish.

According to case law presented here, Firearms possession is very clear, not murky and not "clear as mud", very clear.

"Access to" can be Legally considered "possession".

Maybe not for a lawn mower, but the lawn mower is not restricted, or is it's possession denied to a "prohibited persons" under Federal Law.

If you were Legally "Prohibited" from possessing a lawn mower then maybe just having access to a lawn mower would constitute possession. Know anyone or any law that would "prohibit" possession of a lawn mower?

 

[MIL-DOT]

....."Access to" can be Legally considered "possession".

So, you're saying, if our hypothetical felon were to be legally inside a normal pawnshop, standing at the counter asking about the compound bows hanging on the wall, and another customer asked to see a Glock 19, and the pawn shop employee pulled it out and placed in on the counter in front of the other customer (but within arms reach of the felon), then we now have established legal "access", and a prosecutable offense? Right?
Well, I ain't seeing it.

If you were Legally "Prohibited" from possessing a lawn mower then maybe just having access to a lawn mower would constitute possession. Know anyone or any law that would "prohibit" possession of a lawn mower?

But actually, I AM legally prohibitted from possesing my neighbor's lawnmower......without his permission. According to the criteria laid out here, my "access" to it constitutes "possession",ergo, I'm now a thief.
Obviously,that's absurd, just like it would be absurd to expect prosecution of a felon that was merely in proximity to guns being for sale in a public place.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Hogwash!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional principle of English law—an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen. The converse principle—"everything which is not allowed is forbidden"—applies to public authorities, whose actions are limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law.[1]

 

[MIL-DOT]

You might think so......

Well,apparantly so did one of the other mods, until you over-rode his closing of the thread to keep harping on this issue.

Well, it looks like Frank believes otherwise.
Abra-cadabra, reopened!

 

[danez71]

We're talking firearms; Not lawnmowers.

Firearms fall under 18 USC 922(g); not lawnmowers.

Frank has appropriately provided documentation of 2 instances of being convicted for possession without actually having the gun in the hand.


NO one here made those decisions.

So why argue as if any of us made those decisions?!?!

Disagreeing with the cases, or those that presented them, or those that explained the potential connection, is pointless and is arguing for the sake of arguing.


The FACTS are, those people were convicted with out it in their hand.

The decisions were made in court after the defendants attorneys tried to get them off but failed.



Could someone NOT be arrested, or, arrested but NOT convicted, absolutely.

Could someone be arrested for possession with out handling he gun?

Documented facts say Yes.

Can someone be convicted for same?

Documented facts say Yes.


So, while it may not be explicitly illegal to attend a gun show for a felon, the circumstances are obviously (to some) carry some risk of being perceived to be attempting to buy a gun whether or not they actually are.


That perception can lead to an arrest.

That arrest, undeniably, opens the door for potential conviction.

 

[steve4102]

But actually, I AM legally prohibitted from possesing my neighbor's lawnmower......without his permission.

...but are you prohibited from possessing any lawn mower under Federal law, not just someone else's property?


Are you prohibited from owning, purchasing or possessing a lawn mower of your own under Federal Law?

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . Well, I ain't seeing it.

Feel free to make the "I ain't seeing it" argument to whatever judge you'd like. Let us know how that turns out for you.

. . . . According to the criteria laid out here, my "access" to it constitutes "possession",ergo, I'm now a thief.
Obviously,that's absurd, just like it would be absurd to expect prosecution of a felon that was merely in proximity to guns being for sale in a public place.

It's quite a leap from "possession doesn't require physical touching" to "expecting a prosecution."

. . . . From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . . . .

Wikipedia really isn't the best place to do your legal research.

You might think so......

Well,apparantly so did one of the other mods, until you over-rode his closing of the thread to keep harping on this issue.

Well, it looks like Frank believes otherwise.
Abra-cadabra, reopened!

If you're going to drag me into your feud with Frank, don't drag my quotes out of context. Placing my quote from page 1 after Frank's quote from page 4 most certainly does so.

 

[danez71]

Well,apparantly so did one of the other mods, until you over-rode his closing of the thread to keep harping on this issue.

That's a bit disengenous.

This would be the appropriate post to quote.

originally said by Spats
This one isn't going anywhere good or useful.

Spats, at the time, was neither agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[danez71]

In my opinion, this thread is a classic example of why the THR Legal forum is such a good place to get accurate information. This forum has a higher standard for providing accurate information than other sub-forums do, and bad, irresponsible information is shut down quickly. As it should be.

Browning was tremendously irresponsible when he blanketly declared that it was always legal to go to a gun show as a prohibited person. As several experts have pointed out in this thread, that's not necessarily true.

So what do people like you and Browning want? Are you seriously advocating that bad legal information be uncorrected and allowed to go unchallenged? Would you prefer that experts like Spats, Frank, and Derry stay out of these discussions and allow ignorance to dominate?

Very well said.

This isn't Yahoo Answers or a magic 8 ball here in the legal section.

If a person wants that type of discussion you find there, they should go to one of those other sites.