Felons and Guns

B

Bucksnort1

New member
Tonight, I watched an expisode of, "Alaska State Troopers". An officer stopped a vehicle whose driver is a felon. The felon had two weapons in his vehicle. The driver told the office he was a felon but is authorized to have the firearms.

When the officer did a check on the driver, he learned the drive was authorized to have the firearms. I could not understand the short explanation for the reason. I watched the re-run of this show later but still couldn't understand what was said.

Will someone explain under what conditions felons can have firearms?
 
Will someone explain under what conditions felons can have firearms?
Click to expand...

When all required conditions have been met (full sentence served/probation completed, etc) a convicted felon can apply to a court to have their rights restored. If the court agrees, then their rights are restored, by court order.

There are, of course a lot of details in the process, both Federal and State, and it doesn't happen often, but the legal process does exist.
 
State laws vary a lot. In some states unless the felony is violent there is no restriction on rights. Some states like Alaska do not have any state code on felons in possession of guns. So people may not be prohibited by state law.

This does not change Federal Law.

State Troopers, County Deputies and Local Police in most states do not enforce Federal Law nor make arrests for Federal Law violations unless they are specifically authorized to or part of a joint investigation/ operation. This makes a lot of sense as local police are seldom aware of or trained in Federal Law. This does not include arrests for Federal Warrants. A Federal Warrant requires no special knowledge or relationship with prosecutors.

In some states, certain law officers are empowered generally to make arrests under Federal Law if the arrest is also authorized by Federal Code. Certain laws such as immigration violations do not empower local police to make arrests.

In states where there are no or limited restrictions on rights by state law for felons in possession, people tend to get in trouble with Federal Agencies by getting noticed for their criminal behavior. Activities such as posting on You Tube, committing other criminals acts, running a criminal enterprise, posting ads online for sale of prohibited items, committing violations on Federal Property or any kind of media attention tends to get you noticed in a hurry.

It may not get you arrested right away but it will put you on the radar screen. What happens after that tends to get ugly.

Some guys running around with hunting rifles for bear and moose in the Alaskan Wilderness are exactly the kind of people that a Federal Prosecutor is not going to go after. Put them on the TV and the equation may change.

I should also point out that certain felonies don't make someone prohibited. White collar criminals had their lawyers write in exemptions for business related crimes so they would not suffer loss of rights when they get caught with their hand in the till.

In Alaska if you have completed all of your sentence and there was no crime against a person your rights are deemed automatically restored. If you are on probation or parole then you have not completed your time.

I'll also note that if someone is convicted of a felony under Federal Law that person will not have their rights restored unless they give a whole lot of money to the political party in power and get a Presidential Pardon. That is currently the only way.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...convicted_felons.a_state.by_.state_survey.pdf

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/firearm.aspx
 
Last edited:
Great write Old Bill. A few years back I had an I A case involving an officer convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence battery. After completing probation, etc., he was fully reinstated and no further issues.

During the course of my I A (unrelated to his domestic violence) I routinely ran him through all systems and came back with a federal "hit" which specifically stated that according to federal "Brady" law he was forbidden to possess a firearm. I'd never seen that before. I presented this, along with all other findings, to the chief of police. Nothing ever came of the "Brady" situation and I asked once and was told, "Yeah, that's federal." Weird.
 
There used to be a well understood saying; "Ok, you wanna make a Federal Case out of it?!"

I am not sure where it originated but it undoubtedly had to do with the difficulty and effort of making a Federal Case when you are not the Federal Government. Federal Indictments are pretty big deals.

Previously there was an exemption for Misdemeanor DV for LEO's. This has been eliminated. He may have been grandfathered in or your state law is silent on it.
 
...get a Presidential Pardon. That is the only way.
Click to expand...

That would work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, there is a mechanism for restoration of gun rights through the federal court system. However, as I understand it a required part of the process is investigation and review by a certain federal agency, and there has been no funding for that for some time.

So we technically have a system to allow for restoration of rights, on a case by case basis, BUT there is no money allocated to it, so effectively no one can actually use it.

(again, I don't personally know if this is actually the case, but it is what I have heard... judge for yourself, I guess.....)
 
That is correct and the status quo since 1992. It is in the link from the DoJ that I posted previously on page #6. This was confirmed in Beehcam vs US in 1994. With no Federal Funding the only relief from 925(c) is a Presidential Pardon
 
Old Bill Dibble said:
....I should also point out that certain felonies don't make someone prohibited. White collar criminals had their lawyers write in exemptions for business related crimes so they would not suffer loss of rights when they get caught with their hand in the till....
Click to expand...
That is not exactly true. See the federal law definition of disqualifying state crimes (18 USC 921(a)(20), emphasis added):
(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.​

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Click to expand...
The exclusions of certain "business" crimes is very narrow. A great many, in fact most common, whit collar crimes are outside that exclusion, for example: embezzlement, securities fraud, tax evasion, etc. Conviction of such financial crimes would disqualify one under federal law from legal possession of a gun or ammunition.

Grizz12 said:
from my point of view, if someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm they should not be aloud to walk free.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The question was about what the law is, not what it should be.

There are people who disagree with you, and there are people who agree with you. Those who agree with you have the opportunity to use the political process to attempt to convince Congress and the state legislatures to change the law. Those who agree with you may also pursue litigation.

But unless/until things change, we need to understand the law as it is.
 
I have no idea, but do have a question. The first time I was in the military, they were cleaning the jails out. If you completed a tour and were honorably discharged, would you gain some rights back?
 
I suppose I wasn't really specific on the business crimes, although it is in the link I posted.

I should also point out that some state laws are more restrictive than Federal Law although this tends to be the exception. I'd say anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime needs to research the laws of the state they reside in or contact an attorney to determine their status.
 
44AMP et al,

I thank all of you for your responses.

So the bottom line is there must be a state law in Alaska that restored his rights. The dude was up front with the officer telling him he is a felon and has weapons in the vehicle. Of course, the officer verified this then released the man.

I don't want to appear critical or unappreciative of responses but this is one of those topics that suffers from TMI (too much information). I did read all the responses but didn't go to the links. Some of you must be attorneys.

It's like when I ask a civil engineer friend a question about a project or an opinion about a political matter, I'll get an encyclopedia response when all I need is a simple paragraph or a yes or no. I understand he wants to cover all the bases. When I get no quick response, he will sometimes give me a heads up by saying, "I'm 'crafting' a response. When I see the word crafting, I know an encyclopedia is on the way. He's a great friend and I won't hold it against him because he is an engineer and a civil one at that.
 
Bucksnort1 said:
I won't hold it against him because he is an engineer and a civil one at that.
Click to expand...
Does that mean he's a civil engineer by profession (as opposed to something like a software engineer), or that he's an engineer who is also civil to converse with?

Or is he a civil civil engineer? :)
 
Old Bill Dibble,

You are right. Some topics just can't be answered with just a few words.

Aguila Blanca,

My two civil engineer pals are professional civil engineers. I laughed at your response about civil. I tell my two civil engineer pals that "civil engineer" is an oxymoron.

Another of my favorite digs at them is when we see something that's built in a goofy way, I tell them it was designed by engineers but used by real people. One of my two engineer friends is ribbed by his wife so he gets it at home and when he's with me.

Heck, I would have been an engineer if not for the fact I'm a math phobic. If you recall Gary Larson's cartoon about a math phobic having to answer a math question in order to get into heaven, that' me. You know, a train leaves Philadelphia with twenty passengers and traveling at 60 mph...


I started out with nothing and still have most of it left.
 
To an optimist, the glass is half full, to a pessimist, half empty. But, to an engineer, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
 
so there is a law that in theory says you can have your rights restored after a felony conviction, providing that you have a lot of money to fight the system. however, a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence without having committed violence still bans somebody for life?
 
a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence without having committed violence still bans somebody for life?
Click to expand...

When I lived in ABQ they tried to pass that law but apparently rendered a percentage of the LEO's unable to carry/own weapons so the law was shot down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top