Felons and Firearms: Am I unclear on the topic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting article...here is a quote from it that might help you
Rourke deemed Anderson's possession of the gun used in the shooting to be legal based on the Colorado Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in People vs. Carbajal, which established that a previously convicted felon can possess a weapon for the purpose of defending his home, property or person, spokesman Tyler Hill said.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting indeed , I can see how a felon would be allowed to use a firearm in self defense . I can think of multiple ways that a person that did not buy or actually own a firearm could end up with one in his possession at the time of use . How ever my question is if he was a prohibited person how is him having the gun not a crime ? I get that he can use one in self defense but did he own the firearm or was he with someone that had the gun like a girlfriend and he just used her firearm to defend both of them ?

How ever reading the whole story tells me there was something fishy going on there
 
Last edited:
Under the law, in Colorado, even a felon has the right to defend himself.
Without speculation, and based on the facts presented, the shooter had a right to possess the gun.
I may not like the idea of all felons carrying gun but it seems to be legal under these conditions.
 
Generally speaking, felons are "prohibited persons" at the federal level. That means they are not allowed to possess a firearm. State laws may vary, but unless they had their rights restored (and I don't think that program is funded), were pardoned, or had their conviction overturned, they would still be in violation of federal law. However, the DA has discretion in which cases they bring to court. Perhaps this one thought it wasn't worth the time (for lack of evidence, public sympathy, or whatever other reason).
 
Under the law, in Colorado, even a felon has the right to defend himself.
Click to expand...

Yep , in theory a good shoot is a good shoot right . How ever I think it's different to say you can defend your self with a firearm then saying is lawful for felons to posses firearms . Possessing a firearm to me would mean to own or keep with ones self at any given time . If the later were actually accurate then a felon should be able to fight a background check denying the purchase of a firearm .

I think I need to go read that ruling they sited for clarification . I just don't see how the law or ruling they site was to mean all felons should be able to own firearms or the ability to have access to a firearm at all times .

Again I can see multiple ways a person could defend there life with a firearm with never having or bringing that firearm to the place it was used .

1) Uses a girlfriends/boyfriends firearm that was carrying at the time of the incident .

2) At a friends house or parents house where firearms are present and while there needs to defend ones self with said firearms .

Both of those examples would seem to be reasonable scenario's where a felon uses a firearm for self defense with out actually "possessing" them before hand . I don't see how they mean that the felon can have the firearm at home . Bring it to the drug deal and when it goes bad he then can use it in self defense . That to me is WAY more possession then they intended .

I'll give you another example , Here in CA it is unlawful to open carry a firearm . How ever it is legal to open carry a firearm if defending your life . Well how do you get to open carrying for self defense if you can't have the gun with you in the first place . They give example of going to retrieve your firearm from a lawfully stored area then defending your self . In most of those instances you will have removed your self from danger to retrieve said firearm so why would you go back and put your self in danger again . In fact in CA if you left the area and were no longer in danger then came back with a deadly weapon . You likely would be going to jail for escalading the conflict .
 
Last edited:
raimius said:
Generally speaking, felons are "prohibited persons" at the federal level. That means they are not allowed to possess a firearm. State laws may vary, but unless they had their rights restored (and I don't think that program is funded), were pardoned, or had their conviction overturned, they would still be in violation of federal law. However, the DA has discretion in which cases they bring to court.
Click to expand...
It goes beyond that. District Attorneys (DAs) prosecute offenses under state law, in state court. If the state's highest court has ruled that a convicted felon has a (state) constitutional right to possess a firearm and to use it in self defense, a DA would know he/she can't win a conviction, so why bother to press charges and go through a trial?

Possession by a convicted felon is still a federal crime, but that would have to be charged and prosecuted by the federal government.

The same applies to the restoration of rights. People convicted of state offenses in state courts can have their rights restored by courts in that state. The restoration program that isn't funded is the federal program, and that applies only to convictions under federal law in federal courts.
 
If the state's highest court has ruled that a convicted felon has a (state) constitutional right to possess a firearm and to use it in self defense, a DA would know he/she can't win a conviction, so why bother to press charges and go through a trial?
Click to expand...

Smart prosecutors don't bring charges they KNOW they can't win in court. I agree.

Now, here's the rub, all I know about this is what has already been posted, so it is unclear to me just what the CO high court ruled. Did they rule that "a convicted felon has a (state) constitutional right to possess a firearm and to use it in self defense"???

OR

Did they rule that if a convicted felon USED a firearm in justifiable self defense that possession of the firearm was not a chargeable offense????

I see a considerable difference between the two, but its not clear to me from quotes and soundbytes which (if either) the court meant.

Laws, and court rulings which determine the way we enforce laws, can be broad or very narrow in both their considerations and applications.

A ruling (or law) that says you cannot charge a convicted felon with illegal possession if the gun was used in justifiable self defense could be just that. It does not have to take into account that there was no legal means for the felon to obtain the gun prior to using it in self defense, that could be considered outside the scope of the law.

Absent further information, it seems to me that the CO ruling does not allow (make legal) a felon obtaining, possessing or carrying a gun, those acts are illegal under other laws. The ruling seems to only restrict the prosecution, from ALSO adding an illegal possession charge in cases of self defense.

Unless convicted (due process) of a crime where the penalty is death, everyone has the right to defend their life. It's a rather important thing, one can tell because it comes first in the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" sequence. Even the worst of people have the right to life, and the right to defend it, until their own actions deprive them of it, either through court decisions, or the need of another to defend their life.

As I see it, the CO ruling is NOT an empowerment of convicted felons to posess arms, but a restriction on what charges may be brought in a very specific situation where a convicted felon has used a firearm for legal self defense.

Is there a conundrum here? Quite possibly, our laws are FULL of them.
 
That's an interesting read and set of circumstances. We had a case where a felon used a firearm in SD years ago. He was not charged, but he was also at home and the aggressor in the incident traveled from a town 20 miles away to the felon's house to start the encounter. There were witness statements and phone messages where the aggressor had threatened to kill him. The felon confronted them in the yard, got shot at and chased to the door of the house. He went inside, got a .22 rifle, and ended it all with one shot.

This appears to be a much different set of circumstances. I'm sure it is still a VERY active investigation, and I'm sure there is VERY much more to the story that we are not privy to. I would almost lay money on the table that the guy will be charged with something, at some point.
 
Some things some folks aren't focusing on:

  1. This discussion has been based on one news story. As with every news story, it's necessarily incomplete. There's a lot more to this than we know.

  2. News stories are often not entirely accurate. And they can leave out details which could be important for this sort of discussion because those details don't appear to the reporter or the editor to be important to a general understanding of the event.

  3. Prosecutors have broad discretion whether or not to pursue a charge.

  4. The investigation appears to be ongoing, so this isn't necessarily over.

  5. We have no idea whether the United States Attorney is looking into this and considering possible federal charges. But even if he's not, it's still a matter of prosecutorial discretion and allocation of resources.

  6. So as usual much of the discussion has been based on guesses and assumptions. Without complete information it's impossible to fully understand the situation, and we really can't learn anything particularly useful about felons and firearms from a discussion based on guesses and assumptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top