Question about taking prior convicted felon shooting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Miracle

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
44
Location
Savannah (SHTF), TN
I have a friend of mine that is coming in for a visit here soon, and he wants me to take him shooting with me. He is prior service USMC, but he has some things in his past that may make this a sticky situation for both of us.

He has 2 felonies on his record, and has done state prison time here in Tennessee in the past. He is not currently on probation or parole.

The question is this... is he legally allowed to go to a range, or hunting with me at all? I am just wondering... any answers will be appreciated.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 
If he was convicted of a felony, and hasn't had his gun rights restored, he would be committing a felony by being in possession of a firearm.
 
Further, if you loan him a gun to go hunting or let him use yours for target shooting, you would be an accessory to his crime of possessing a gun as well as violating the law by giving a gun to a person you know is prohibited from having one.

Do NOT get involved. If he wants to go hunting or shooting, simply say "no, sorry."

Jim
 
Thanks Jim... I wasn't sure of they law was as simple as gun ownership.... didn't know it extended to just simple operation, even for sporting use.

So that's out of the question, for sure.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 
If he just wants some good buddy time and will not be a participant in the shooting, or any other possessive element of gunhandling, he, and you should be fine.

The 600lb gorilla in the room though is what to do if he asks for a favor, just this one time, to hold and maybe shoot a gun. Good friends have been made and lost over less.

I think if you can discuss it openly with him so you are comfortable he understands his impairment and what it means, you'd both be good.
 
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the police have to prove that you knew he was a convicted felon and that you allowed him to shoot your guns anyway?

What if you had asked and he lied?

I let a neighbor put a few rounds through my AR the other day. He seems like a nice guy and as far as I know has never been in any serious trouble but I never asked. Do I have some legal obligation to run a background check on everyone that I let shoot my rifle? What about people at the range?

BTW, We found out that the president of our local shooting club was a convicted felon!

The news paper said that he was picked up for a parole violation and extradited back to Illinois to face charges. He had been living here with his Dad for several years and no one knew that he had a criminal history. I can't remember exactly what he had done but it was something non-violent, receiving stolen property maybe? Anyway, no one ever contacted any of the members about him so I assume the authorities never found out that he was in posession of firearms or if they did it never made the paper.
 
But gun powder or cartidges are considered ammunition, which is a No-No.
We just had this dicussion at work last week. One of the guys looked it up and a felon cannot posses gun powder.
He can have the black powder gun, but not the powder.

Rick
 
Blackpowder are not firearms. Got any muzzleloaders?

Only under federal law. Most states consider them to be firearms, and even the federal government considers them to be weapons, they just are not subject to most firearms law.

If you don't believe, load up your muzzle loaders, and go down to your local federal courthouse, and start walking around inside, and see how long it takes for the SWAT team to take you out.
 
Not sure about Tennessee, but here in Indiana, the state police website has information stating that muzzle loaders are legal for felons to own. Nothing that I recall about the black powder though. I Have a friend in a similar pickle with his past, and he has done his research to make sure he doesnt run afoul of the law again.
 
Where do air rifles fall in the laws of convicted felons?

Air guns have gotten such authority since Lewis and Clark expedition with the larger than .22 calibers and high impact energy that I wonder if in certain states they would be allowable to own and shoot by felons? The .50 cal air gun has been used successfully on Moose hunts!
 
Q. Can a felon have a muzzleloader for hunting?
A. If the felon has had his/her rights restored through the court of sentencing, yes the felon may use a muzzleloader to hunt. If the felon has NOT had his/her rights restored through the court, then the felon may NOT possess a pistol, shotgun, muzzleloader, or other firearm. The felon can hunt with archery gear but not firearms.

This from WA Fish & Wildlife.

Strictly speaking the requirement that the felon's right be restored "through the court of sentencing" is inaccurate, any Superior Court may hear and grant the petition. More recently, the court where the petitioner resides, or where convicted must hear the case.
 
I've taken a prohibited person hunting before. He used a muzzleloader while everyone else carried "firearms". He goes shooting with us at the range quite often too, but he never does any shooting, just hangs around with us, sets up the targets, and talks guns like any other gun nut. He'll chip in with casting bullets and reloading because he loves this hobby, but he has to sit at the back of the bus when it comes too close to "real guns". I noticed recently that when one of us has a new gun to show off, and we all head out to the pickup to check out the new purchase, he stays behind and doesn't get put in a spot where someone might slip up and hand it to him to check out. For now, he has to 'drink from the designated water fountain', so to speak.

He's been working closely with a couple attorneys to get his status changed and whatnot.
 
If he just wants some good buddy time and will not be a participant in the shooting, or any other possessive element of gunhandling, he, and you should be fine.

The 600lb gorilla in the room though is what to do if he asks for a favor, just this one time, to hold and maybe shoot a gun. Good friends have been made and lost over less.


The 900 pound bear in the room is the way police define 'possession'. He desn't have to actually handle a firearm to be found guilty of 'possessing' it. He doesn't have to be driving the car they are in. He only has to be anywhere where it's possible that he could handle a firearm. Unless they are secured in a safe the whole time he's around, he could be potentially be nailed for possessing them.
 
The 900 pound bear in the room is the way police define 'possession'. He desn't have to actually handle a firearm to be found guilty of 'possessing' it. He doesn't have to be driving the car they are in. He only has to be anywhere where it's possible that he could handle a firearm. Unless they are secured in a safe the whole time he's around, he could be potentially be nailed for possessing them.

With all due respect, unless you can cite a case where a felon in a public place (gun range or hunting area) was convicted of unlawful firearms possession simply because he was somewhere he "could" handle a firearm, I must politely disagree with your assertion. Fortunately, we still live under a system of law where one must be convicted of a crime, not just that one may commit crime because one could.

Now, I do believe if a felon establishes himself in a situation where unlawful activity is occurring, even though he may not be a participant in said activity, and other participants have guns laying around, he is borrowing heavily from the Bank of Trouble.
 
Someone I know who I consider a reputable source and subject matter expert told me that. The example I was given was of a person prohibited from possessing firearms, visiting a different person's home, who legally owned a firearm, that was located in the house in such a way that the prohibited person could conceivably gain possession of it, that person was in violation of their firearms prohibition.

Now lemme see if I can find some good and universally valid information on it. So far I've got the Legal Dictionary definition for possession, which isn't explicit but seems to confirm what I've heard through it's description of constructive possession and the use of constructive possession in criminal courts.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession

Still looking
 
Go to the section on carguns. It's a weird website, but it's got a pretty good description of the scenario that was described to me.


Gun in a Car
Another frequent type of gun case is the "gun in a car" case. The gun in a car case presents a significant opportunity for injustice as the result of a combination of the reality of police-citizen interactions and a number of laws passed just for gun cases that most people would find startlingly unfair.

Here is the problem as the Government saw it:

Guns are small and easily hidden in cars. Cars are very mobile. When inside a car a person is likely to hide the gun somewhere out of sight (although, judging from police testimony and police reports, people in New York seem to be generally oblivious to this strategy).

Furthermore, if the gun is located by a police officer somewhere inside a car, all of the passengers in the car (if there is more than one) are likely to say, "not mine". In such a circumstance it might be very difficult for the Government to convict someone of a crime even though the Government knows that at least one person in the car probably committed the crime of illegal weapon possession.

This distressed the Government a great deal.

http://www.queensdefense.com/guns.htm
 
Also from Queensdefense.com

The New York State Legislature, just like other state legislatures around the country, came up with an ingenious solution. They developed a series of "presumptions" that would apply whenever a gun is found in a car. These presumptions would relieve the Government of the sticky business of actually having to have direct proof that a person committed a crime.

For example, in New York, when an illegal gun is found in a car (and I mean anywhere in or on or about a car, including secret compartments in the trunk of the car) EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THAT CAR, whether there are 2 or 202 people in the car is PRESUMED to be in possession of that gun. Every single person in that car can be indicted, brought to trial, and convicted based only on proof of the fact that the person was in the car and that the gun was in the car at the same time.

Now the New York Legislature, as well as other state legislatures realized that this business of PRESUMPTIONS when actual proof is lacking might pose a problem to those who would try to pervert our Constitution into a stumbling block to efficient justice. The New York State Legislators remembered something from 5th Grade about proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence. These two lofty, technical principles represented something of an obstacle to the more pressing need to make sure that people who hide guns in cars can't get away with it by relying simply on saying, "not mine" when the gun is found under their seat.

But our legislators were a clever group of lawmakers and discovered a magic word that, as long as they used it, would trick the old fogies in our appeals courts into letting their PRESUMPTIONS stand. This magic word was "PERMISSIVE." You see they realized that if they simply said that the PRESUMPTION was PERMISSIVE and not MANDATORY, then the presumption did not run afoul of the presumption of innocence or the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
And more, this time from about halfway through the search warrants section.

These are not idle threats either. I have been involved in multiple cases where entire families, including the 80+ year old grandma have been arrested and charged with serious felonies because they all happened to be in the house when the police executed a search warrant.

By the way, the reason the police are able to arrest the 80+ year old grandma when they find something in the house as the result of a search warrant is because of yet another PRESUMPTION (see previous section on gun in car cases). Presumptions seem to follow illegal guns around like little dogs.

This presumption says that if you are in a room in which an illegal gun is found, you can be presumed to be in possession of it, just as if it were found in a car in which you were an occupant.

This runs into all sorts of knotty debates about where people were when the search warrant was executed.


I realize this is an NYC criminal defense attorney's office website, but the principles and real-world execution of these laws is pretty much identical across the entire country.
 
Fair enough NG VI, the examples you provided make sense however, they are private places; shooting ranges and hunting areas are generally public places, which are the OP's stated venues.

I wonder if an absurd example would be useful: is a felon handling a gun at the Cabelas gun counter any more guilty of unlawful possession than the counterman is of unlawful transfer? I'd say yes.

Now, is the same felon equally culpable because he's at the archery counter, which is adjacent to the gun counter, because he could go to the gun counter and engage in an unlawful act? I'd say no.

Actions and thoughts have yet to be connected, thankfully.
 
It seems pretty over the top to me, but that's the world we live in, the privilege of the DA's office to maintain high conviction rates and keep that ever-important funding flowing to the DoJ system takes precedence over a person's right to live.


To the OP the best favor you can do your friend is to keep your firearms locked up securely where there is no question that you are the only one able to access them, and if he wants to hang out, don't go out to shoot, find something else you two like to do together.
 
No way

My brother is a convicted felon and I won't let him step foot into our house because of all firearms we own.
We are an 07 and can't take the risk.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top