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?
First, cite the law. We should all have a chance to verify that it is what you say it is.RangerHAAF said:In Georgia, a law went into effect on July 2014 that allows felons to posses guns inside of their homes for self defense but does not allow them to carry outside of their home. This is a fair and reasonable law.
...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
...another panel of this court has held § 922(g)(1) to be constitutional. In United States v. Turner, 77 F.3d 887 (6th Cir.1996), a unanimous panel held that " § 922(g)(1) represents a valid exercise of legislative power under the Commerce Clause." Id. at 889. As this court wrote in Turner, "Every court of appeals that has been faced with this question since Lopez has held that the jurisdictional element of § 922(g) provides the requisite nexus with interstate commerce ....
...Chesney, unlike the defendant in Turner, also challenges § 922(g)(1) as applied to him by arguing that his conviction is unconstitutional because the government failed to prove any "substantial nexus between the crime charged and interstate commerce." Chesney stipulated that the gun had moved in interstate commerce, and such a stipulation is sufficient evidence to support Chesney's conviction pursuant to § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Lee, 72 F.3d 55, 58 (7th Cir.1995) (stipulation that gun was in or affecting commerce sufficient evidence to support a conviction under § 922(g)(1)). ...
The Supreme Court has held that proof that a firearm moved in interstate commerce at any time is sufficient to meet the government's burden of proving the "in commerce or affecting commerce" element of § 1202(a), the predecessor to § 922(g)(1). Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566-67, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1964-65, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Although Scarborough was decided as a matter of statutory construction, the Court noted that Congress knew how to assert " 'its full Commerce Clause power so as to cover all activity substantially affecting interstate commerce,' " and that Congress intended to exercise the full extent of its Commerce Clause power when enacting § 1202(a). Id. at 571-72, 97 S.Ct. at 1967-68 ...
All of the courts of appeals to consider the issue since Lopez have concluded that § 922(g)(1), as construed to require only the minimum nexus to commerce approved in Scarborough, is constitutional. See, e.g., McAllister, 77 F.3d at 390; Sorrentino, 72 F.3d at 296; Shelton, 66 F.3d at 992; Hanna, 55 F.3d at 1462 n. 2.,...
...Singletary contends that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional because the conduct it proscribes -- the intrastate possession of a firearm -- does not have a substantial effect upon interstate commerce, and thus does not constitute a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Specifically,...
...the Court in Scarborough v. United States had the opportunity to address squarely "whether proof that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and commerce." 431 U.S. 563, 564 (1977). The Court accepted the Government's contention that it only need prove that "the firearm possessed by the convicted felon traveled at some time in interstate commerce." Id. at 568. Thus, the Scarborough Court established the proposition that the transport of a weapon in interstate commerce, however remote in the distant past, gives its present intrastate possession a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the ambit of the statute. Because S 1202(a) is the predecessor to the current felon-in-possession statute, this statutory construction applies equally to S 922(g)(1)....
... “Section 922(g) requires that the firearm be possessed ‘in or affecting commerce.’” United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). The Supreme Court has affirmed the Fourth Circuit's holding that: “[T]he interstate commerce nexus requirement of the possession offense was satisfied by proof that the firearm [defendant] possessed had previously traveled in interstate commerce.” Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977)...
...Barron-Rivera argued that the gun was in his wife's residence at the time he re-entered the United States and moved back into that residence. Accepting that contention, the district court, nonetheless, found that Barron-Rivera's possession of the firearm was voluntary because he permitted the firearm to remain in the house after he acquired knowledge of its presence....
...In other words, by continuing to reside in the apartment in which the gun was located, he voluntarily and knowingly possessed the gun...
...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.
Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....
First, someone who provides a gun to someone knowing or having reasonable cause to believe he is a prohibited person commits the federal crime of aiding and abetting the prohibited person's violation of federal law. See 18 USC 2:Old Bill Dibble said:Kind of begs the question how do they get the guns to the house? They can't carry them there. If someone brings them one then they are transferring a gun to a felon. I guess if they owned one beforehand it might work.
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Where do you get the idea that the federal government doesn't prosecute prohibited persons for unlawful possession of a gun. The federal government does successfully prosecute such crimes. See the cases cited by me above.RangerHAAF said:...probably gives the ATF fits but they claim they've got better things to do than chasing down or prosecuting felons for gun violations....
What makes you think that the federal government doesn't recognize a state restoration of rights? That is, in fact, not true. See 18 USC 921(a)(20) as quoted my me in post 9.Paul B said:I do find that the federal government refusing to recognize the fact that a state has restored someone's right in rather dark light....
States are supposed to do so. It's my understanding that some States have been criticized for not being diligent about doing so.Paul B said:...I also think that if a state does restore a felon's rights, they should notify the FBI/NCIS people of that fact, that is if they don't already. ....
It's a gross oversimplification for the purposes of this thread. Antique forearms as defined in the Gun Control Act are not subject to various provisions of federal law relating to the possession, interstate transfer, shipment and transfer by an FFL of firearms.Armybrat said:Doesn't the BATFE classify cap & ball and flintlocks as non-firearms? If so, it stands to reason that a felon (preferably one who has regained his or her civil rights) could possess a Ruger Old Army or an Uberti Colt Civil War replica.
Is that correct, or would I be wrong?
It is irrelevant because they would still be violating federal law and subject to up to 5 years in federal prison.RangerHAAF said:It's not "irrelevant" if they won't be prosecuted in state court.....
I'm presuming nothing. There are any number of ways a person could wind up being prosecuted by the federal government for a federal crime.RangerHAAF said:...Your assertion presumes state prosecutors are going to refer violators to federal prosecutors; Outside of NYC or California I've never heard of or seen it happen except the most public and egregious cases....
That link is not a citation to the law. It is an article about a bill being considered. Nothing in the article says anything about the bill having actually been enacted.RangerHAAF said:
Did the bill actually become law? If you contend that it did, cite the statutes as shown in the official Georgia statutes.RangerHAAF said:...that was in the bill also....
Then we can not and will not accept any assertion you make regarding what the law is. Clearly you don't understand the law or how things work in the legal system. Your claims without the backup of appropriate citation to legal authority are worthless and need to be disregarded.RangerHAAF said:I'm thru citing;...
Then prove it and show us the actual law as adopted.RangerHAAF said:...The law went into effect on July 1st 2015.
Of course federal law applies to you. It applies to everyone present anywhere in the United States.RangerHAAF said:don't get caught up in the details of federal law and could care less about it since it doesn't apply to me....
So federal law also applies to you as a federal firearms licensee.RangerHAAF said:...I got my own FFL....
Which only means that as a result of your ignorance you might very well be creating federal law problems for yourself. Be that as it may, it's your problem and not ours.RangerHAAF said:...I'm only concerned with the gendarmes and court officers of my state....
Phooey!RangerHAAF said:....Attached is a video of our governor signing the bill into law. and my mistake, it was signed in April not May. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gPzS4Sqlz8
Of course you don't care. You are apparently determined to remain ignorant about what the law is and how it works. That's your prerogative, and the consequences of your intransigence will be yours alone.RangerHAAF said:Well I really don't care about your opinion relative to our laws in Georgia. You can cite yourself for all I and the world cares and bend your knee to whatever federal law or agency that you want to,...
What one sees, or thinks he sees going on is a lousy basis for an opinion about legal matters.RangerHAAF said:...I've merely explained how it is or is not applied practically as I've seen it done here....
No, I have a different perspective because I'm a lawyer. I am educated in the law and successfully practiced law for 30+ years before I retired.RangerHAAF said:...You apparently have a different perspective living in California....
That is, of course, preposterous.RangerHAAF said:...interjecting yourselves nationally into state gun control issues outside of your region and then scratching your collective heads and throwing tantrums in confusion when nobody votes your way.....
I'm thru citing
The law went into effect on July 1st 2014. You may have heard it referred to as the "guns everywhere" law, that is an accurate description.
We carry our guns whenever and however the hell we want to. I openly carry my AK-47 down to the Atlanta airport riding public transportation with no problems; A lot of side looks from both cops and civilians but no words exchanged.