Felons and Guns

I must have missed it, I don't see a word in there about felons being allowed to possess guns other than what was already covered.
Click to expand...

It's buried in Section 1-3:

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 119 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title."
Click to expand...

The red part was stricken from the law. It's the subsection of Title 16 that covers possession of illegal guns or guns possessed by felons. The idea is that, if someone is justified in using deadly force in self-defense, they won't be hung out to dry based on the weapon type or legal status.

Still, as Frank pointed out, federal law prohibits the possession of firearms by felons at all, so that reading of the bill law is largely academic.
 
??

I may be missing something here, but it appears to me that in the above passage, "...shall be immune... unless" specifically excludes felons from immunity.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I may be missing something here, but it appears to me that in the above passage, "...shall be immune... unless" specifically excludes felons from immunity.
Click to expand...

Basically, the person under that code shall be immune unless the carrying or possession under part 3 is unlawful. That's the felon/NFA/illegal gun part of state code on the matter. By striking the reference to part 3, the "unless" part goes away, and the person (in theory) should be immune.

The idea was to get rid of an old reference to NFA weapons not being legal for self-defense. Like much of Georgia law, it's really poorly written.

Now, would I want to be the test case? Heck, no. If I were convicted, my only avenue of appeal would be through a federal court.
 
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...

Well, it might take awhile for that to happen. FWIW your not "trusted" or they wouldn't do an NICS on you before selling you the firearm.
 
For anyone who wonders, a federal agent will not defer or refuse prosecution when someone is caught violating federal law just because the state it happened in chooses not to prosecute under state law... The one exception to that being possession of user quantities of marijuana in a state that has legalized its use. I will say that this policy decision does not apply to any firearm statutes, and could ended tomorrow with marijuana as well. If you're a felon with a gun and a federal agent catches wind of it, you will likely be prosecuted. There's a good chance that you would never be caught if you do everything else right... But that leaves a lot to chance.

Likewise there are tons of states where you can technically OC an AK47 (semi auto version of course), its not just "how you roll in Georgia." Also as many have said... Citing law is quite important in our legal system. You can't give legal advice while saying "I don't need to cite a reference, its just how we do things." Try using that as a defense when you end up charged with a crime in court. "Your honor, that's just how we do things. No I can't give you a legal reference, its just how we roll in GA." Of course there really is no need to chime in, anyone here with half a brain knows not to count on this as legal advice.
 
Unless a person has a mental disorder I dont see the problem with a felon owning a gun. We dont know why they are one and it can be for something minor.
 
SlipSlow said:
Unless a person has a mental disorder I dont see the problem with a felon owning a gun....
Click to expand...
Whether you think it's a problem is irrelevant. It is a violation of federal, and in most cases, state law. See post 27 for an outline of federal law.
 
Tom is correct. Ga. law is interpreted as unless there is a problem with the use of deadly force in a specific situation, the actor using said force will not be prosecuted under state law simply because the federal government says they are a prohibited person.

Frank is also correct. the Federal government doesn't give two whistles about state law when it comes to the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution.
 
JERRYS. said:
...the Federal government doesn't give two whistles about state law when it comes to the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution.
Click to expand...
But that is not correct. Under the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) federal law trumps state law.
 
"...the Federal government doesn't give two whistles about state law when it comes to the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution."

Which says so much for "states rights".

"But that is not correct. Under the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) federal law trumps state law."

Again, so much for "states rights" which in turn ends up violating a person's right restored by a court. As far as the feds are concerned you will be punished for life. Tango Sierra. You only have "rights" if Big Brother allows it. Yes, I'm mad as hell. It's just plain flat out wrong.
Paul B.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul B. said:
Again, so much for "states rights" which in turn ends up violating a person's right restored by a court. As far as the feds are concerned you will be punished for life. Tango Sierra. You only have "rights" if Big Brother allows it. Yes, I'm mad as hell. It's just plain flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is correct, either.

We have to remember that there are two sets of laws: state, and federal. Penalties and procedures for each are separate. I hope Frank or Spats will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if someone is convicted under a state law and subsequently has the conviction expunged (in other words, his rights are restored), the federal government will recognize that and the person is no longer a prohibited person.

There are two issues with this, as I understand it: First, not all state expungements satisfy the federal government's interpretation, so sometimes and expungement isn't a full restoration of rights under federal law.

Second, although federal law also makes provision for restoration of rights following a conviction, Congress hasn't funded that particular program for more than 20 years. No state court can expunge a federal conviction, so anyone who was convicted of a federal felony is up the creek unless they can wangle a presidential pardon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul B. said:
...so much for "states rights" which in turn ends up violating a person's right restored by a court. As far as the feds are concerned you will be punished for life. ....
Click to expand...
Hogwash! Don't you bother to read this thread?

Once again, under federal law a State's restoration of rights in connection with a conviction for a state crime is recognized as removing the federal prohibition of possession of a gun or ammunition. This was addressed in posts 9 and 27.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top