Is this true? Felons in NC can own guns

[answerguy]

http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncnews/story/3505815p-3110180c.html

N.C. gun laws frustrate some prosecutors


The Associated Press

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) - North Carolina gun laws have some prosecutors frustrated as firearm charges are dismissed against convicted felons.
It isn't illegal in North Carolina for convicted felons to carry rifles or shotguns in their vehicles. Nor is it illegal for them to keep multiple guns in their home, as long as the weapons are not fully automatic.
"It's quite disturbing," said Assistant District Attorney John Phillips, a gun prosecutor in Durham. "If Charles Manson got paroled and came here, he could have a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle in plain view in his vehicle and not be in violation of the law.

 

[boofus]

I thought it was a federal law that barred convicted felons from owning firearms?

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle

From my limited understanding, that's an oxymoron.

 

[Reno]

Maybe they should adequately "rehabilitate" prisoners such that they are no longer a danger to society.

That IS how the justice system is supposed to work, is it not?

 

[kbr80]

Its legal, IIRC, to own a firearm (not carry) in Texas if you are a felon.......But still you are in violation of federal law.

 

[WonderNine]

There is still Federal law. The guy is just whining that he doesn't have another charge to tack onto somebody that he wants to nail to the wall.

None of the Manson murders were committed with a gun anyways, were they????? Not sure, but like it would matter anyways....

 

[Ironbarr]

Nah -

they just banned automatic felons - replaced their "fire control" with semi-auto units - just like da guns. Only post-ban felons can have firearms.

 

[Arc Angel]

Several of the Manson Family murders were carried out with a handgun. Donald Shea was shot; and neighbors heard shots at the home of Sharon Tate the night she and her house guests were murdered. There were, in all probability, other shooting deaths as well. Charlie and his crew liked to use guns. (Remember Squeaky Fromm and her Colt GM 45?) There are two things, here, you definitely don't want to see happen: Charlie getting out on parole, or Charlie with any gun in his pickup truck.

 

[LAR-15]

Bull????!

Fed Law says felons no own guns.

And this guy is a prosecutor????

 

[LAR-15]

Some guy shot a deer in Haywood Co NC out of season a few years ago and well the Feds went after him being an ex-felon and having a rifle.

Don't know what happened.

 

[LAR-15]

Under federal law, and under the laws of many other states, it's illegal for convicted felons to possess any kind of gun anywhere, including in their home.

 

[WonderNine]

Fed Law says felons no own guns.

And this guy is a prosecutor????

I suspect the reporter was fed a line of b.s. from a whiny prosecutor and since he's not too knowledgable on the subject in which he's reporting and has liberal authoritarian tendancies, he fell for it.

He might be a little green as well. Don't want to piss off your sources by refuting them in the daily mud....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It does not matter what the state law says. It is federal law that felons cannot own firearms. The DA is a moron.

 

[Riffraff]

Funny it seems to me some DA is trying to advance his political career. Durham is part of the liberal gun control area of NC. Also known as the Research Triangle, this area is loaded with UNC Chapel Hill, NC State, Wake, Duke, and gads of transplants from more liberal areas of the country.

NC State law as it stands now is at least trying to perserve the right to self defense, which sad as it is applies to all people not just those not convicted of a crime. It is not like a convicted felon in NC is legally carrying in public. According to the law:

"Nothing ... would prohibit the right of any person to have possession of a firearm within his own home or on his lawful place of business."

Hoorah! A true defense clause!

Sad part is that the DA admits in the article he hands off cases to the Feds since he can't touch them. Seems to me what he wants is double jeopardy, he wants to convict felons of gun charges then let the Feds convict them of the same crime.

 

[RED-DOG 40]

Maybe they should adequately "rehabilitate" prisoners such that they are no longer a danger to society.


How about sending all the hardcore prisoners to search out caves for Bin Laden , issuing them a radio to contact intel and a flashlight.....Sounds like a start to rehab to me....

 

[thumbody]

County or state prosecuters can not prosecute federal law, the federal prosecuter must. The Feds aren't doing thier jobs as we can see by the Brady instant check results. They claim over 750,000 purchases prevented but have only prosecuted a handful. Ever purchase that was stopped for felony conviction should be charged. I believe a conviction for a felon attempting to purchase is a 7 year sentence.If they touched any firearm more prison time could be added. Every felony commited with a firearm could be a federal charge.Our government just wont get serious with these criminals. The NRA has worked with several cities to intensify local prosecutions of felony gun infractions and this has helped lower the crime rate in these cities . I believe the local prosecuter could notify the feds and ask them to prosecute.

 

[client32]

Its legal, IIRC, to own a firearm (not carry) in Texas if you are a felon.......But still you are in violation of federal law.

You are correct, Texas and federal laws do conflict here. I'm not suprised to hear that other states are this way as well.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Thumbody:

You've nailed it.

 

[Fed168]

Guys and gals- it is true, much to mine and others dismay. I can't tell you how many times I have not been able to charge on a good gun case due to this law.

I know this prosecutor well- in this case the squeaky wheel gets the grease. He is voicing his opinion, which was misprinted. The article mentioned the ak-47, but has quotes around the word (assault rifle) in the article. This straight from the Herald Sun.

Trust me, the DA is not trying to further his career in this matter, and does know the difference between weapons.

 

[Riffraff]

I guess I should clarify what I was getting at earlier. Self Defense is a right. Rights IMO should never be stripped away completely. Modified maybe but never stripped. The article mentions that Felons may own firearms with:

barrel lengths of at least 18 inches and overall lengths of 26 inches or more. That includes rifles and shotguns.

I don't personally see anything worng with this law. Most folks I know couldn't carry a weapon that big concealed. Most folks I know wouldn't want to carry a weapon that big all the time. But the option for a person to own a weapon and keep it in their home (maybe even thier car or truck), as I mentioned earlier, should be there for most everyone.

That includes felons in certain circumstances. A car thief that doesn't physically assualt someone (not a carjacker) should not nessecarily be prohibited from defending his home. By the same token someone who shoots/stabs another person should never see the outside of a prison again. Their new home (a prison) is defended for them.

Long story short there are defferent types and circumstances of felonies and each should be treated accordingly in my opinion.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Riffraff I agree with your POV.

I'm in favor of throwing the book at violent criminals who are rightly convicted of their crimes and it's fine with me if they keep on throwing it BUT the criminal justice system:

1. sometimes makes mistakes and convicts the innocent
2. does not correct that error when it happens, rather the contrary, but that's a different thread

If a non-violent felon does his or her time, makes restitiution and turns their lives around and demonstartes such by record and fact over time I have no problem with them possessing a weapon in their home for self defense, especially if their life is not the only one in that abode that might be protected by that weapon.

S-

 

[atek3]

I can't tell you how many times I have not been able to charge on a good gun case due to this law.

If we had NO gun control laws, what would you charge them with?

just curious,
atek3

 

[RangerHAAF]

As I understand the situation where state and federal law conflicts and there is no constitutional question; it is state law that should prevail, however to compel compliance with federal law, the US government often threatens to withhold federal monies that are critically important to the states operating budgets. For example, in some states marijuana, according to state law, is legal to be dispensed for medicinal purposes but the laws conflict with the feds and the DEA has threatened to pull any doctor's drug prescription number if they prescribe it. So, there is a major catch-22.