« Bus passengers fight back in Belize | Main | Taking a long term look »
Further thoughts on effects of pardons
Snowflakes in Hell has some thoughts on the effect of a conviction and then pardon in State A, on the person's gun rights if he moves to State B.
I had a related issue once posed in relation to, I believe, Florida. A restoration of all civil rights, including gun rights, means a convicted person is no longer barred from gun ownership. Florida allowed such a restoration but the statute (perhaps unintentionally) allowed it only for residents. So what happens if a person is convicted and moves to another State and then asks for restoration? I think there's a problem with Equal Protection and also with the Article IV prohibition on a State denying nonresidents the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Why would not the full faith and credit provisions of the Constitution apply? A competent court restores your rights....thats it. To say otherwise would be to say you could be prosecuted for a crime in state A, do your time, and then move to State B and be prosecuted for the same crime.
Then there are the problem states such as Massachusetts. After 5 years most felons are qualified to apply for and obtain a "shall issue" Firearms Identification Card, which allows them to purchase and possess most rifles and shotguns. Unfortunately they are not allowed to obtain a "License to Carry Firearms" which is required in order to purchase, possess or carry handguns. The result is that there are hundreds of people who have been fooled into thinking it's OK for them to have a shotgun, since the state has explicitly given (OK, "sold") them a permit for that purpose. The problem is that by doing so, they're set up for a visit by BATFE and an extended vacation at Club Fed.
On a sorta related note:
In US vs Tait (http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait) the feds tried to convict a man of felon-in-possession and of violating the Gun Free School Zone Act by having a firearm in a school zone. The feds lost on both charges at both the trial court and appellete levels.
Tait had been convicted of three felonies in Michigan, served time, and upon release had full rights restored automatically according to Mich state law.
He then moved to Alabama, got a concealed handgun permit, came to the attention of the feds when he was subsequently arrested for something that happened in a school zone (the case at the link does not go into this).
The feds tried to argue that under federal law, he was still a felon, but the trial and appellate judges said no -- the federal felon-in-possession law does not apply to those who have rights restored unless the gun rights are specifically restricted. Tait's were not, Mich law restored all his rights.
They also tried to gig him under the GFSZA by arguing that the Alabama gun permit did not qualify for the GFSZA permit exception in the GFSZA because Alabama law did not require a background check, and also because Alabama law does not allow permits for people convicted of -- wait for it -- felonies.
Both courts tossed this as well since the GFSZA only requires that a person have a concealed carry permit issued by the state or it subdivisions, no matter how lenient the process, and Tait was no longer a felon since his rights had been restored.