Many financial felons can own guns?

[Arizona_Mike]

You learn something new every day:
18 USC 921 (a) (20):

(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include - (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

Mike

 

[stressed]

Sounds like the ones who created that law are looking out for their own..

 

[bikemutt]

Well, the possession impairment only applies to those felons who showed poor judgement

 

[Nickel Plated]

I don't see why they should be. Embezzling money is quite different from holding up a liquor store. Being convicted of the first is really not an indicator of you committing the second in the future. I don't see a white collar crime as a good enough reason to strip someone's rights once they serve their sentence. Even if it was a felony.

Remember, not all felonies are the same. You'd be surprised at the petty BS that can get you marked as a felon nowadays.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

SOOO, can Martha Stewart own a gun?

and to be spelling nazi: "financial"

How about the lobsterman who temporarily stored his catch in the wrong color of box, are we "safe" from him owning a gun?

 

[wildbilll]

Martha got nailed for lying, not the crime for which the federal investigators were questioning her.

The moral of the story is: never lie to federal investigators.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litiga...il-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

 

[Frank Ettin]

The statute says what it says, but without some reference to court decisions applying it, or other authoritative legal sources, it's pretty useless to speculated on it's application.

The language is fairly specific:

...any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices...

Lawyers will tend to have a pretty good idea what sorts of laws are included. Something like embezzlement would most likely not be included since that just a particular form of theft. Something like the insider trading laws might well be included, but absent a court decision it's impossible to know for sure.

I'll leave this open for the time being to see if anyone has anything useful to add. But if the idle bantering continues. I'll just close it.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

The moral of the story is: never [strike]lie[/strike] talk to federal investigators.

Fixed that for you. Remember, they talk to you, then they go and summarize what they remember hearing, and if that record differs from what you said, then you're still in a place you really don't want to be. There's a reason they won't speak to you if you're recording the session; as long as they have total control over the official record of the conversation they hold all the cards.

 

[wojownik]

Here's some background (and thanks Frank Ettin for re-opening this thread).

The types of offenses excluded under 921(a)(20) depend on whether they have an effect upon commercial competition (as noted in Dreher v. US 1997). That is, most financial crimes - mail fraud, embezzlement, etc. - are not "offenses" that are excluded from the section 921(a)(20) definition of "crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

So, how the heck did such a narrow exemption for anti-trust and anti-competitive offenses make its way onto to books? This dates from before the 1968 GCA 68. Back then, a major U.S. company with a substantial ammunition business got convicted of felony antitrust violations. So Senator Tom Dodd (the father of Sen Chris Dodd from CT) inserted this language as amendment so the corporation wouldn't have to divest its ammo business. The amendment was passed, and is now a matter of law. The company is suggested to have been Olin-Mathieson, which happened to have a plant in CT. FWIW, Sen. Dodd was known to have close ties to each of the big five firearms firms (back then), most or all of which had a manufacturing presence in CT.

So, now, back to the narrow interpretation of 921(a)(20). The 1997 Dreher ruling narrowed (or at least clarified) the range of offenses that are "similar offenses". So, it was ruled that the mail fraud offense in Dreher had nothing to do with the regulation of business practices (or anti-competitive offenses).

And again in Stanko v. US (2005), the courts maintained the narrow interpretation of 921(a)(20), in a case where Stanko was convicted of selling meat in violation of Federal law. The court ruled against Stanko, but there is an interesting dissent from Judge Bright who pointedly complains that the law can be seen as unacceptably ambiguous.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Interesting background wojownik. Thanks.

Mike

PS. It looks like Olin-Mathieson's friends in high places were also responsible for the now closed process for restoration of rights according to this article. It looks like O-M's crime involved kickbacks to foreign government officials who made purchasing decisions.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1882&context=ulj

 

[BSA1]

I have never been able to make the connection between a felony conviction and the loss of your 2A right.

p.s. Actually it doesn't have to be a felony as domestic violence is not a felony in many states.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I have never been able to make the connection between a felony conviction and the loss of your 2A right.

Let's not drift into the general subject again. It's been discussed extensively, and some folks have made the connection. Anyone who is interested can use the search function and check out old threads.

But the general subject is off-topic for this one.

 

[BSA1]

Frank,

Fair enough. It is a twisted topic.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So I think the answer to my initial question is that the law is interpreted so narrowly that only a small handful of financial felons can own guns.

Mike