SCOTUS takes on a new gun case

[usmarine0352_2005]

Too bad they won't take on two of the more important and pressing gun cases that deal with shall/may issue and carry outside the home.





http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/20/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN0I91X220141020

Supreme Court agrees to decide gun ownership case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:55pm EDT

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a Florida man convicted on drug charges and forced to give up his firearms under federal law could sell the guns or transfer ownership to his wife or a friend.

The legal question is whether the federal prohibition on felons possessing firearms terminates all ownership rights. Lower courts are divided on the issue.

 

[JRH6856]

Not really a 2nd Amendment case. It looks more like a 5th amendment due process case.

 

[Quiet]

In 1968, SCOTUS ruled in a 7-1 decision (Haynes v US) that felons and other prohibited persons are exempt from firearm registration laws because those laws violate the prohibited person's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

[JRH6856]

Quiet, are you saying that somehow applies to this case?

 

[HankB]

With "HIS" guns in the hands of the Feds, I expect it won't go his way.

Instead of "voluntarily" turning them over to the Feds, maybe the perp should have transferred ownership to his wife before he was tried & convicted. In a state with no registration (Florida?) it could have been as simple as:

Him: "Hey, honey, all my guns are yours now."

Her: "Thanks, darling, I'll keep them warm for you when you're on trial or in jail."

Now, if they're still living under the same roof, some provision will have to be made so they're not accessible to him; if he's paroled there may be additional requirements. But it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem - convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy once allowed that while he had no guns any more, Mrs. Liddy had a fine collection.

 

[stchman]

It's not that I don't have a problem with convicted felons having their firearms taken away from them, I have a problem as to the ownership of the firearms.

I do not believe that the firearms should now be government property. If the government wants the firearms, then they should give him fair market value for them or he should be allowed to sell them. I am surprised he did not sell them while he was on trial as he might have needed the money for a lawyer.

 

[brickeyee]

Her: "Thanks, darling, I'll keep them warm for you when you're on trial or in jail."

More like out of his constructive possession.
She would have to lock them in a container HE did not have access into.

 

[Jim K]

FWIW, which is nothing, I think the guy will lose. The basic premise, that a felon cannot legally own a firearm, was settled years ago. So as soon as he was convicted he lost his right to own the guns and they are forfeit to the government; since he no longer owns the guns, he cannot sell or dispose of them. As noted above, he should have transferred/sold the guns before his conviction.

Jim

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The basic premise, that a felon cannot legally own a firearm, was settled years ago. So as soon as he was convicted he lost his right to own the guns and they are forfeit to the government; since he no longer owns the guns, he cannot sell or dispose of them....

Actually, there is some authority to suggest that a convicted felon may have legal title to guns he doesn't physically possess.

In U.S. v. Casterline, 103 F.3d 76 (C.A.9 (Or.), 1996), the 9th Circuit set aside a conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun, because the conviction was based solely on evidence of ownership, but under circumstances in which the defendant could not possibly have had access to or possession of the guns. Casterline was in prison at the time, and the guns were in the sheriff's department evidence locker. As the Ninth Circuit wrote in Casterline, at 79 (emphasis added):

...The felon-in-possession statute is prophylactic, intended "to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated that 'they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society.' " Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 572, 97 S.Ct. 1963 1968, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Ownership without physical access to, or dominion and control over, the firearm does not constitute possession. If the felon owns a firearm, but does not actually possess or have dominion and control over it, then he does not possess the firearm for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). ....

 

[Ryanxia]

The ownership should still belong to the 'felon'. It is their property, the law just says they can't be in possession of them. Say a son or grandson uses your computer and downloads music without your knowledge and you get caught and become a felon, say you have a $50,000 collection, you should be allowed to at the least sell/give it away at your discretion. Especially if you have siblings that you'd rather see dad's old gun go to.

And as far as the ATF's 'fair market value', they already "offer" that. I saw a letter they sent someone after they confiscated his firearms, they said they would pay him a very low amount for everything, ($150 for a Beretta 92, $300 for a Windham Weaponry AR15, etc. and this was at the height of the scare last year).

They also charge you something like $8 a day to 'store your firearms for you' (even though THEY confiscated them) after 30 days of their initial letter. He received his letter about 35 days after the letter was dated so $8 per day per gun starts to add up quickly.