« Review of Steve Halbrook's "Gun Control and the Third Reich" | Main | Motion in California 1st Amendment case »
Stories like this make me shake my head
I'd say they make me pull my hair out, but I have little to pull, and pull my beard out just doesn't have the ring. "Can a felon own a gun? 5 loopholes in Federal law".
"Although Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun,"
No, it was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
"1. A 1965 amendment to the federal Firearms Act of 1938 allows felons who want to own a gun the ability to apply for "relief from the disability of not being able to possess a gun.""
Yes, and for ten years appropriation riders have made that relief unavailable.
"2. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in order to be prohibited from owning a gun, a convicted felon must have been convicted of a crime that is "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." Although even the least serious felony convictions carry a sentence of up to three years, sentencing guidelines are open to the interpretation of judges. Thus while it would be rare for a felony conviction sentence to be less than one year, it is not impossible."
Which means nothing. "Punishable by imprisonment" keys on the potential sentence, not the actual sentence given.
"3. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, "Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored" are not considered "convicted" and thus they would not be prohibited from owning a gun."
Yes, that's in the statute, part of the 1986 amendments. A conviction that has been set aside, pardoned, or had civil rights restored (unless the restoration excludes gun rights) doesn't count as a conviction. That's a loophole?
"4. Certain "white collar" crimes that result in a felony conviction don't prohibit those felons from owning guns. For example, felony convictions related to antitrust laws, restraint of trade, or unfair trade practices do not carry the same prohibition on gun ownership...."
True, that was put in the GCA (and its predecessor, the Federal Firearms Act) by Tom Dodd, Sr., to protect a major corporation in CT that had a conviction of that type, and owned an ammo manufacturing firm. Being wealthy and powerful has its benefits.
"5. Some states will reinstate a felon's right to own a gun after they have served their sentence or gone through a period of "cleansing.""
This overlaps with No. 3.
This is up there with "60% of quotations found on the internet are entirely spurious." Abraham Lincoln, 1864 Inaugural Address.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Saw paperwork for a relief.
Tough to read. There were stamps all over the page and it takes time to figure out if the Relief was approved or not.
At one time a federal relief was *available*, but no more. Take monumental effort nowadays.
And, of course, this only applies to legal gun ownership. Someone who has cleaned up their life has a long, hard row to hoe if they want to legally own a gun.
The repeat offenders have as many guns as they want as often as they want.
As astonishing as it seems, I think the people who write these articles really do think that career criminals can be stopped by making something illegal.
I find explicit grants to punish counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, treason, and possibly copyright and patent infringement in the Constitution. However no power to punish for any other violation of federal law was ever granted. Except for these few delegations, the bulk of the police power was left to the states.
Some try to argue that the N&P clause confers associated/linked/implied/connected/etc powers to those granted. That interpretation would make the explicit grants wholly unnecessary and would imply that the Framers were a bunch of morons who had no idea about the Union they were founding. The power to punish counterfeiting is the simplest example of the fact that attached/linked/implied/etc police powers DO NOT exist and ARE NOT miraculously granted by the N&P clause. If one wishes to defame the founders go right ahead. Implied powers do not exist.
Why would the Framers explicitly grant punishment power over counterfeiting and yet NOT explicitly grant punishment powers over commerce laws or taxation laws?
My point is that, as Madison and others stated, the federal government does not have the authority to decide anything about firearms. A primary reason no Bill of Rights was thought necessary was because the Framers understood that the federal government had no power to legislate in any of the areas covered by a Bill of Rights. The fear also was there that inclusion of a BoR would cause people to think the feds had such authority.
Police powers reside with the states not with the federal government except in the few granted areas. All these laws and discussion concern usurped powers and unconstitutional actions by the federal government.
"When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it."
-Joseph Goebbels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#Goebbels.27s_use_of_the_expression