Convicted felon at a gun show?

[Berger.Fan222]

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?

 

[steve4102]

Is the ammo actually accessible at Cabelas just sitting on the shelf, if a person has to actually pick it up and pay for it before they are allowed to leave the store with it?

Not to go off tangent to far, but wouldn't this possession accessibility issue apply to others like those that carry a medical Marijuana card?

 

[Midwest]

As far as ammo accessibility, in Meijer (a regional Midwest supermarket/department store). They have rifle and shotgun ammo right out in the open on the shelves in the sporting goods department. The handgun ammo is behind a locked glass case. So a convicted felon could be in proximity of easily accessible shotgun and rifle ammo if he walks down that aisle.
.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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?...

First, the word is "precedent" not "precedence."

Second, the statutes say what they say, and the cases cited thus far say what they say. Perhaps no prohibited person has been caught just walking in a WalMart or Cabelas or a gun show. That doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted if they are caught. And as noted by Derry in post 43, prosecution can result from doing more.

...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?...

You, or anyone else, is welcome to do some research and report back.

...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?

Because the legal authority we've seen so far finds access even without physical possession to support conviction. So without legal authority clarifying how or if that principle might apply to presence at a guns show or in a retail establishment, we remain in doubt.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

You, or anyone else, is welcome to do some research and report back.

So you were guessing that it hasn't happened yet without doing much looking into it.

That's what I thought.

 

[danez71]

You can assume that if you'd like but Frank's track record has been that he puts considerable research into his thoughts.

What's the point of continuing to dream up new scenarios and expecting some one else to do the research?

Is it just to find something to try to pick at?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...

You, or anyone else, is welcome to do some research and report back.

So you were guessing that it hasn't happened yet without doing much looking into it.

That's what I thought....

Phooey! You're quoting me out of context.

First, let's look at post 154:

...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?...

You, or anyone else, is welcome to do some research and report back.

You assumed that I claimed something never happened, but I didn't actually say that. See post 150 (emphasis added):

...If a felon at a gun show is at risk of being charged, why isn't a felon at Cabelas at the same risk?

Maybe he is but it hasn't happened yet.

I was merely offering a speculative possible answer to your assumption.

As to what research I have done, I've searched an on-line legal data base with pretty much every reported case in the United States since the Constitution was ratified. Of course "every reported case" isn't the same as "every case."

Reported cases are generally those cases in which a court of appeals made a ruling or wrote an opinion in the course of making a ruling on a disputed point of law, which opinion was published in the official reports or an unofficial reporter covering that jurisdiction. The world of reported cases generally doesn't include trial court cases which simply went to verdict and were not appealed nor cases resolved by settlement or a plea agreement.

My search was limited to reported federal court decisions in cases involving a charge of unlawfully being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. I didn't see any case which, in my view, would help clarify whether or how the principle that access even without actual, physical possession supports a conviction for being a prohibited person unlawfully in possession of a gun (as applied in Barron-Rivera and Huet) to mere presence at a gun show or in a retail establishment.

Now there might be something out there I missed. So that is an opportunity for anyone who would like to actually increase out knowledge and understanding of the issue. Do the research.

 

[Old Fuff]

It should be clear that anyone who is a Prohibited Person and continues to have any association with firearms or firearm ammunition is placing themselves in harm's way. If their perspective (let alone actions) are wrong they may face arrest, prosecution, and conviction. If the are willing to accept these consequences then it's their business.

It is well known that one can get away with breaking any and all of the laws in the books...

Until they get caught.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Phooey! You're quoting me out of context.

First, let's look at post 154:

​

You assumed that I claimed something never happened, but I didn't actually say that. See post 150 (emphasis added):

​

I was merely offering a speculative possible answer to your assumption.

As to what research I have done, I've searched an on-line legal data base with pretty much every reported case in the United States since the Constitution was ratified. Of course "every reported case" isn't the same as "every case."

You made a positive definite assertion that ...it hasn't happened yet.

Meaning a felon has never been charged for being in possession of ammo for merely having access to openly shelved ammo at a retail store.

I called you on it. After some obfuscation, you acknowledged that you had searched one data base that likely did not include most cases that had not been appealed or had been subject to a plea bargain.

Are you even a real criminal attorney? Do you even understand how many cases are charged that never make it to appeal? Yet you use a database relating to appeals to bolster your positive definite claim that no felon has been charged for possession of ammo in a case where there was only access on a retail store shelf.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You made a positive definite assertion that ...it hasn't happened yet....

Balderdash! What I wrote was:

Maybe he is but it hasn't happened yet.

As that sentence is written, without a comma between "is" and "but", the adverb "maybe" modifies both clauses, i. e., "he is" and "it hasn't happened yet."

So no, I didn't say what you claim I said.

...Are you even a real criminal attorney?...

• I'm a real attorney licensed to practice law. You are not a lawyer of any kind.
  
  
  • I have, in fact, handled legal matters for real live clients in most States, associating with local counsel as necessary to satisfy practice rules.
    
    
  • We have lawyers here, including Bartholomew Roberts and Spats McGee who are licensed in other States. I'm confident one of the other lawyers around here will let me know if I've made a misstep.
  
  
• I've had a good deal more formal legal education than you have.
  
  
• I've practiced law for a lot of years more than you have. I've represented the interests of real clients in the real world for real stakes. I've done so under the scrutiny of regulators, judges, colleagues and opposing lawyers.

...Yet you use a database relating to appeals to bolster your positive definite claim that no felon has been charged for possession of ammo in a case where there was only access on a retail store shelf.

First show me exactly where I made the claim that, "...no felon has been charged for possession of ammo in a case where there was only access on a retail store shelf." I never made any such claim.

Second, reported cases are what matter in the practice of law. It is these cases which have use for the purposes of arguing disputed points of law -- either as binding precedent or for any persuasive value they might have.

Obviously you have no useful information to contribute to this discussion. You have nothing but your guesses.

 

[danez71]

You made a positive definite assertion that ...it hasn't happened yet.

That is an intentionally made false statement.

Meaning a felon has never been charged for being in possession of ammo for merely having access to openly shelved ammo at a retail store.

This is an intentionally false interpretation.

 

[Jeff H]

This has to be the 3rd or 4th evening that I have caught up on my reading of this thread and wondered why it hasn't been closed yet. Seems about time, doesn't it?

 

[9mmepiphany]

You may be right.

If the OP has something he needs to add, he can PM me