Prohibited persons hunting with another person

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

Is it legal for a prohibited person to hunt with a friends longun under the supervision of that person. Say two people are in a duck blind and one is prohibited from owning firearms but the other person is legal, can the prohibited person use the shotgun to take a bird?

 

[divemedic]

No. Not only will that get the prohibited person in trouble, that will also turn the friend into a prohibited person as well, as knowingly giving you access to a firearm or ammunition is a felony.

18 USC 922(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
etc, etc

there is also 922(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (snip irrelevant parts)
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Here's the Federal law on it.

Note that is says POSSESS, not just own.

So generally what you describe is not allowed. It's in section (g)

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

And, YOU become a felon for providing the gun, that's in (d).

ETA: I'm slow, divemedic beat me to it


Consider a muzzleloader........not firearms from a Federal standpoint. There are frontstuffer shotguns and generally those are excluded from the Federal law.

Might be some state law applying too.

 

[TCOV]

Muzzleloader no good for prohibited person in Washington State.

 

[stampsm]

Does this apply to antique weapons under federal law also? so can you hand the prohibited person an antique shotgun and not be breaking federal law? (state laws also apply of course)

 

[divemedic]

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

(16) The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

Just remember that if the shotgun you hand him fires modern ammunition, you are still breaking the law.

 

[Deanimator]

Well, if you do that while poaching deer on the NASA Plumbrook station, it'll get you driven home by the guards... WITH your guns... at least if neither of you has a valid driver's license.

Actually, I'm just kidding. BOTH of the "hunters" were convicted felons. I think the guards drove their vehicle to their house for them too.

I'm pretty sure though that the guards didn't clean their guns or dress any deer for the two. You've got to be tough sometimes...

 

[stampsm]

actually divemedic according to that it still does not matter if it fires modern amunition as long as it was manufactured before 1899. notice the or between section a) and section b)
it has to just meet a) b) or c) to be considered antique. I knew there was this restriction that made then antique I was just wondering if they had an exception for antiques for prohibited persons. It looks like the problem is not with the firearm when it is an antique, but with the ammunition.

 

[divemedic]

But possession of the ammo itself is still illegal, which is why I said:

Just remember that if the shotgun you hand him fires modern ammunition, you are still breaking the law.

 

[stampsm]

The real kicker is nowhere I could find the word ammunition defined. So how does a black powder gun fall into the situation? What is ammo? Is it just one component or is it only the complete item ready to be used? Can just having the black powder be illegal? Do you need the ball also? If you just have the black powder and it is illegal is it also against the law if you happen to have charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate? All of which have legitimate medical purposes in of themselves. Do they extend the constructive possession line of thought to ammo also?

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Not sure if this helps but in NJ:

"Ammunition" means various projectiles, including bullets, missiles, slugs or balls together with
fuses, propelling charges and primers that may be fired, ejected, projected, released, or emitted from
firearms or weapons.

 

[divemedic]

18 USC 921 (17)(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

Edit: This would also appear that a felon with an empty cartridge case is committing a felony by being in possession of ammunition.

 

[brboyer]

Is it legal for a prohibited person to hunt with a friends longun under the supervision of that person. Say two people are in a duck blind and one is prohibited from owning firearms but the other person is legal, can the prohibited person use the shotgun to take a bird?

Notwithstanding the unconstitutional federal law, here is the Florida law:

790.23 Felons and delinquents; possession of firearms, ammunition, or electric weapons or devices unlawful.--

(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device, or to carry a concealed weapon, including a tear gas gun or chemical weapon or device, if that person has been:

(a) Convicted of a felony in the courts of this state;
. . .

 

[divemedic]

Notwithstanding the unconstitutional federal law, here is the Florida law:

So does that mean that you think the Florida law is constitutional, but the Federal one is not?

 

[CoRoMo]

in a duck blind and one is prohibited from owning firearms

Depending on the state's regs, I don't believe the prohibited person would be able to acquire a hunting license to begin with. That's mean he's now poaching, or otherwise hunting without a license. The only way I could imagine a state being able to issue a prohibited person a hunting license would be for hunting methods that don't involve "firearms".

 

[rocky branch]

I think the word "prohibited" is as just that.
No loopholes.

 

[brboyer]

So does that mean that you think the Florida law is constitutional, but the Federal one is not?

Do I feel the Florida law is constitutional. Yes.

The Florida constitution specifies:

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

So from a state perspective, it looks constitutional to me.

On the federal level, I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward. So no federal laws concerning 'arms' should be constitutional.

I do not feel the feds should have any jurisdiction whatsoever as it relates to possession, use, sale, purchase, ownership, etc. of firearms. I think the Feds have greatly overstepped their authority with the commerce clause.

The whole incorporation issue is/was a huge SNAFU. Why should there be any question about the applicability of a document that was ratified by the states to apply to the states? Before entering the Union, States should have been required to modify their constitutions to match the Union's.

Oh and maybe it would have been a good idea to have common folk review the crap the lawyers wrote/write before we agree to it, not really understanding it. Laws need to be written in very specific easily understood common English.

ETA: Just in case you were wondering, I also feel that any individual too dangerous or crazy to be allowed to possess a firearm should not be out in public to begin with.

 

[divemedic]

Regardless of the state constitution, do you think the state law violates the 2A of the COTUS, especially considering the 14A?

 

[brboyer]

Yes.