Question about taking prior convicted felon shooting.

[ultradoc]

Call your local cop shop and ask them. Or a lawyer that specializes in that typ of thing. Good luck.

 

[jdh]

Asking a cop for legal advice is a recipe for disaster. Cops are not lawyers.


Constructive Possession

Constructive possession is a legal theory used to extend possession to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. Most courts say that constructive possession, also sometimes called "possession in law," exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it.

I had an inmate on my work crew who was in on a constructive possession charge. The story was he had a room in a 4 bedroom house shared with three others. One of the housemates kept a shotgun in his room. The parole officer made a home inspection and saw the shotgun. He charged the felon with a parole violation and constructive possession. To get the housemate to cooperate and testify he filed conspiracy and making available charges on him. The charges were dropped after the trial, BUT he still has the arrest on his record.

 

[bikemutt]

Felons who are on parole usually have many more rules they need to follow in order to not be in violation of said parole. One common rule is they must strive to avoid associating with other known felons, they may have travel area restrictions, stay away from liquor establishments, houses of ill repute etc.

I agree in principle though, it would be extremely unwise for a felon under court ordered supervision to go to a gun range, or engage in any hunting activities where guns are used.

 

[Evil Monkey]

how about we get rid of these stupid prohibited person laws and there won't be a problem.

 

[Sport45]

how about we get rid of these stupid prohibited person laws and there won't be a problem.

You can't think of anyone you believe shouldn't possess a firearm???

Of course prohibiting something doesn't mean it won't happen, but it does make prosecution easier later on.

 

[jmstevens2]

No, if they need to be permanently prohibited, they need to be permanently locked up.

 

[Birch Knoll]

No, if they need to be permanently prohibited, they need to be permanently locked up.

Well, they're not. Now what?

 

[Evil Monkey]

You can't think of anyone you believe shouldn't possess a firearm???

If anybody, it's violent-felons, and THAT'S IT.

oh no......these days, all you have to do is speak to your wife loudly and in some states that can be considered "domestic disorderly conduct". That's a "domestic violence" crime and if convicted, can have you lose your 2ndA rights for the rest of your life. You can kiss that $10,000 collection goodbye too.

 

[Bovice]

Don't ask and don't tell.

I'm not a prohibited person, but I still feel that MOST cases of prohibiting people from firearms are total malarkey. Unless it was something totally evil and physically brutal, you should not be black-listed.

You can be herded like sheep, or separate yourself. Just don't make too much noise or the dogs will come looking.


That's all I have to say about that. You're free to make your own choice.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Unless it was something totally evil and physically brutal,

That description would seem to fit the four classes of crime which make up the FBI UCR's "violent crime" category: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. In 2010, there were over 1.2 million such crime committed.

 

[Sport45]

We're supposed to be on The High Road. That means we don't pick and choose which laws we think should be followed. We don't get a break for driving 20 over because it was silly to have a 50mph speed limit on a straight stretch of empty road and we don't get to decide that a "prohibited" person shouldn't have been.

If you want to maintain your gun rights I suggest you don't follow some of the well-intentioned advice given above.

 

[Bovice]

Your opinion of "high road" and mine aren't the same then. I don't agree with everything that can prohibit a person from gun ownership. Some things have nothing to do with guns or violence at all. There are a lot of arguments on here about laws violating rights. I agree that there should be punishments for crimes. But the punishments should fit the nature of the crime.

Do you call the police and record the plate number every time you see somebody flick a cigarette butt out the window of their car? That's littering, and it carries a fine depending on where it occurred. Do you think that they should have their driver's license revoked for it? If you think that non-violent crimes that reach felony level should result in losing gun rights, you probably agree to that punishment too.

Have some perspective before you blindly accept everything that's thrown at you.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What do you think about all those criminals who signed the declaration of independence in 1776 in open defiance of "the law"? They would have all been hung if not for the fact that they raised an illegal malitia and drove the authorities out.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh good grief. We were presented with this question:

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.

Now we're talking about raising militas and overthrowing authority.

That's enough drifting for now.