Jailed for gun possesion ONLY ?

N

NukemJim

New member
Hello, requesting assistance please. In a discussion with a LEO friend I made the statement that people (with a clean record, no felons,priors or domestic violence convictions) had been arrested, convicted and sent to jail in this country for possesion of an unloaded firearm.

My friend disagreed and maintained that anyone had to have been doing something else illegal or was not allowed to possess a firearm for other reasons (felony conviction, priors or domestic violence convictions etc...)

I strongly believe that I have read of such cases IIRC in Mass prior to FOPA (1986) or New York City. However my Google-Fu is not stong, I do not have access to Lexus/Nexus and search on this and other forums have not been succesfull.

I am looking for a name or names and any other data of someone who

A) Is not under federal law a "prohibited person"
B) Not commiting another crime at the time
C) Was convicted and sent to jail for POSSESION ONLY of a firearm (this would include those who did not "Register" their firearm(s).
D) It was not a NFA firearm i.e no full auto, suppressed firerarm or SBR/SBS

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

NukemJim
 
Last edited:
The only way that would happen is if they had any priors, warrants, or reasons prohibiting them from possessing a firearm.

Bottom line.

If they told you they were arrested solely on the grounds of firearms possession .... there is something they aren't telling you. Think about it .... criminals are the best cons out there. They can make you believe the sky is pink if you didn't know better. Cons are in the habit of rallying people to their side with misinformation or omission of the facts involved. Half of their lawyers don't know ALL of the facts! ;)
 
As all handguns and a wide variety of longarms are totally banned, and the rest require an intricate process of registration, this happens fairly often in Chicago. If the Chicago PD comes across a handgun, that person is going to jail, no other crimes required.

Hopefully the Supreme Court is about to do something about that (knock on wood).:)
 
Wait a minute. You can not even enter the state of New York with your lawfully owned (in your state) handgun, unless you are traveling straight through (FOPA). You need a New York State pistol license, even to have it locked away and unloaded, and they don't issue them to out of state residents.

Are you suggesting that those who are otherwise without any criminal record are exempt from that heinous law? What about Chicago's draconian BS? Am I to believe I wouldn't be arrested in such localities, simply because I have a squeaky-clean record? Highly doubtful.

No, friends, we may be closer to national 2A protection, but until McDonald and the ensuing cases are settled, we don't have it yet. Thank God some states are setting good examples for others to follow, post incorporation.
 
Follow up to the Utah man who was arrested...he lost his lawsuit.
http://volokh.com/2010/03/30/unexpe...stay-criminal-prosecution-for-gun-possession/

In Feb of this year, three men were arrested
Three out-of-towners found out the hard way not to fly with their firearms, cops said yesterday.

The men all attempted to declare their weapons during baggage check-in at La Guardia Airport between Feb. 3 and Feb. 7, cops said.

Ticket agents called police to see if the weapons had been registered in New York state, which they had not been, sources said.

Arrested were Norman Dott, 67, of Lawton, Okla., Frank Rivera, 27, of Dallas, and Kamal Bradai, 34, of Tampa.

All were charged with criminal possession of a weapon, a spokeswoman for DA Richard Brown said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/..._blotter_qLVqz3LcTlPuFSemNxAxMN#ixzz0m7qJ4Ltd


And a letter from the US Attorney General's office:
http://www.nysrpa.org/FOPA-DOJltrTSA.pdf
 
Anywhere that someone brings a firearm (unloaded or loaded) where possession of firearms is not legal; whether that is a federal building such as a post office or court house, a hospital, a federal site or facility such as a military base, or a state like Massachusetts, can be arrested for simply possessing an unloaded firearm.

In these cases, the charges would be possessing the firearm where it is not allowed. Guys get arrested in airports for having firearms in their briefcases all the time.

But I'm not sure that was what NukemJim had in mind...
 
I guess it depends on where you live. I live in Wyoming, I dont see a problem here since you can carry guns in your vehicle loaded. Open carry is legal, or you can get a CC permit.

I was LE in Alaska. They are pretty lax also, (more so now then when I left in 94).

I will say, in my 20 years in LE, I have never, nor have I seen another officer charge anyone with position of a weapon UNLESS, it was part of another crime, such as Felon in Position, stolen weapon, or using the weapon in a crime.

We (Alaska) didnt even have CC permits when I started. But I've seen many people carrying, unless, as stated above, some sort of crime was involved, I didnt care. I never charged anyone, for carrying a concealed weapon in its self.

But as I said, it depends on where you live, there are some places I wont go at all, even though I can carry legal (per HR 218). Those locations normally have other reasons to keep me from visiting.

This is a big country, differant states and differant cities, all have differnant rules, so its hard to come up with a blanket statement on either of your arguements.
 
POSSESION

I dont understand,federal law trumps state law,and an public official depriving a citizen of his or her contitiounial rights or a conspiracy to do so is a felony under the color of law statues,why arent some people being prosecuted.:mad:THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
 
Actually, states may place all manner of laws into effect that limit possession of firearms.

New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts come to mind.

So may cities or municiple governments. For example, Denver or Chicago.

The question is where should lines be drawn that limit states' (and municiple) governments' ability to "infringe"...

The US Supreme Court decision on Chicago v. McDonald is due out this summer, sometime in June if I recall correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top