Lift the ATF's prohibition on restoring the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

[litlewolf2]

Federal, State.

The Gun Control Act is a Federal Law. You do not have to be convicted under a Federal law in order for it to take effect. Once it has taken effect despite the fact that the charge has been lowered below felony status it still remains in effect. That is one of the reasons for the petition and things need to change.

As far as the state goes. It's like California and Marijuana. You may be legal in the state but that doesn't stop the feds coming in arresting those who are in the right as far as their own state goes.

I'm not really sure what this statement was suppose to mean..

Marijuana has been Schedule 1 since, what, 1970? This isn't news. Sorry, but you screwed up.

But as far as I know almost all (if not all) states still have possessing Marijuana being a felony after a certain weight has been exceeded.

If you meant that Marijuana is what this post is about, it's not. It's just a example of how the gun control act is not being followed and also how the law itself is flawed.

Interesting discussion though, anything else folks?

 

[nate45]

You do not have to be convicted under a Federal law in order for it to take effect. Once it has taken effect despite the fact that the charge has been lowered below felony status it still remains in effect.

Not according to what Aguila Blanca posted.

A person is not considered convicted for Gun Control Act purposes if he has been pardoned, had his civil rights restored, or the conviction was expunged or set aside, unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration expressly provides the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)]

You say MN has restored your civil rights. Have they are haven't they?

You said you had a letter from the state restoring your civil rights. Do you are don't you?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Gun Control Act is a Federal Law. You do not have to be convicted under a Federal law in order for it to take effect.

Correct. It is a Federal law, and it does apply to convictions in either Federal or state court.

Once it has taken effect despite the fact that the charge has been lowered below felony status it still remains in effect. That is one of the reasons for the petition and things need to change.

The law obviously remains in effect, but the law says if your civil rights have been restored by the state that convicted you, the law no longer considers you to be a prohibited person.

There certainly should be funding for the Federal restoration of rights process, I won't argue with that. But the bottom line is, YOU DON'T NEED IT. According to you, your state has restored your rights. You are good to go. There is NOTHING the Federal government can do for you.

Please read what I quoted from the BATFE FAQ. If that's not enough for you, the FAQ gives the citation to the full Federal law -- look that up and read the law.

 

[Al Norris]

Can we get our facts straightened out a bit?

litlewolf2, were you originally convicted under a felony charge? Or, were you charged under a felony count which was plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor and then convicted?

There are 3 things that you need to look at.

1) Under the felony conviction, if the maximum sentence could have been more than a year in prison/jail, then you are a prohibited person under Federal law.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

2) Under the misdemeanor conviction, if the maximum sentence could have resulted in two years (or more) of incarceration, then you are a prohibited person under Federal law.

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(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.

Following the last quote, above, is this little missive:

18 U.S.C. § 921(a) 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.

3) You now have to ask yourself, was your civil right to vote, taken away and restored? Was your civil right to sit on a jury, taken away and restored? Was your civil right to hold public office, taken away and restored?

If you have answered, "No," to all three questions, then your civil rights, as interpreted by the DOJ and BATF&E, were never impacted.

They do not consider your 2A rights as a civil right. Most particularly, if that was the only right that was taken away and restored.

There are two cases, winding their way through the Federal Courts, that address these questions, albeit in slightly different ways: 1) Schrader v. Holder (#32 in the 2A Cases), and 2) Enos, et al v. Holder, et al (#39 in the 2A Cases).

Outside of an expungement or a pardon, by the Governor of the State you were convicted in, you will have to wait until these cases are decided.

Of course, if you have the $$$, you can always hire a good 2A attorney and file a lawsuit yourself on these grounds. Be warned, this will cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to take it to just the Circuit Court of Appeals. By the time you get there, one or both of the two cases, above, may have already been decided.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Thanks Al, I also am confused.

I have been charged three times with a felony. In two cases the charges were dropped and in the third case I was convicted of misdemeanor. I paid a $100 fine (And about $1,492 in attorney fees).

I have never been denied when I purchase a gun.

I was wondering if he was convicted of a felony and once his time had been served it was reduced to a misdemeanor.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Buck, I think at this point we are all confused. The OP (original poster) has said:

Fifth as far as my own charge goes it was a felony but was knocked down to a misdemeanor. It currently is classified as a misdemeanor but since it was a Felony initially it triggered the Gun Control Act and is still in effect despite the current status.

and then

My right to vote and help determine how this country is run has been restored, but by Second amendment right to bear arms has been taken away just doesn't seem right.

From the first of these two statements, it sounds like a plea bargain, but it isn't clear. It could also have been a post-sentence reduction as some sort of accelerated rehabilitation thing, I suppose. Either way, though, at this point it should be showing up in the state's records as a misdemeanor conviction. Then the question becomes, was the maximum POSSIBLE sentence for that misdemeanor more or less than two years?

As to the second, if the OP's right to vote has been restored, then according to the GCA he is not considered to be a prohibited person unless the restoration specifically noted that his rights were restored conditional upon his not being allowed to possess firearms. For a state conviction, the Federal law only requires restoration of rights by the state, so I can't understand what all the fuss is about. Somebody has given him extremely bad advice, and he is now convinced that the bad advice is correct and that we are all wrong.

 

[Spats McGee]

Welcome to The Firing Line, littlewolf2!

I'm puzzled about one (perhaps very picky) detail:

Fifth as far as my own charge goes it was a felony but was knocked down to a misdemeanor. It currently is classified as a misdemeanor but since it was a Felony initially it triggered the Gun Control Act and is still in effect despite the current status.

I read the original petition (before revision), and if I recall correctly, it said something to the effect of littlewolf2 doing something like 5 years probation before having the charge knocked down to a misdemeanor.

Here's my confusion: Was LW2 convicted of a felony or not? Ordinarily, if someone's going to be put on probation and serve out a sentence for a misdemeanor, that's part of a plea deal, and the conviction is entered as a misdemeanor on the front end. Alternatively, in some diversion programs, I suspect that the felony charge may be suspended until the end of the probation period, so that it can be reduced to a misdemeanor if the defendant successfully completes probation. In that case, we still shouldn't have entry of a felony charge at the beginning of the probationary period. It sounds to me like he was charged with a felony and someone messed up and entered a felony conviction when they shouldn't have. Frankly, this doesn't sound like a GCA issue so much as a paperwork issue.

I guess my second question (that's just now dawning on me), LW2 is this: when you say "my charge was knocked down to a misdemeanor," you mean your charge in your case, right? (Not that your legislature has reclassified the crime so that someone charged with it now faces a misdemeanor.)

 

[2GunCorcoran]

I have only limited compassion for those who break the law when the law is clear. People need to understand that there are consequences to their actions and those might be long lasting and serious.

What if the law is evil?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What if the law is evil?

"Evil" is a value judgment. To become a law, a compilation of words must have been weighed and voted on by an assembly of duly-elected representatives, a majority of whom voted in favor of adopting said compilation of words as a law. Regardless of how much you or I or any of us might disagree with the wisdom, efficacy, or constitutionality of a particular law, not even I believe that the majority of lawmakers are truly "evil" or have evil intent.

Irrespective of which, even if we regard a law as "evil," it is the law. If you think a law is evil, do whatever you can to change or repeal it. I have been instrumental in getting one state law repealed, and another revised. At the moment, I'm in the process of getting a town ordinance repealed or amended (too soon to know which way the Ordinance Committee is going to lean, but they have agreed that the ordinance as written doesn't make sense and is unenforceable).

 

[2GunCorcoran]

To become a law, a compilation of words must have been weighed and voted on by an assembly of duly-elected representatives, a majority of whom voted in favor of adopting said compilation of words as a law.

Even slavery fit these criteria.

not even I believe that the majority of lawmakers are truly "evil" or have evil intent.

Their intent does not matter. Their deeds are evil.

If you think a law is evil, do whatever you can to change or repeal it.

Like civil disobedience. If the law required you to do something evil, would you do it?

 

[litlewolf2]

Felony to misdemeanor

I was charged with a felony but was negotiated that it would be knocked down to a misdemeanor once I completed my probation. So it was a felony for 5 years and once my probation was completed it was reduced to a misdemeanor.

I applied for a hand gun permit at the with a sheriffs department. They could not allow the permit to go through due to federal restrictions. The state would not limit it, however the sheriff will not allow something that is illegal on a federal level. This was explained in the rejection letter I received after I applied for the permit. I would quote it but this was done several years ago and probably threw it away. But this was done many years after it was knocked down to a misdemeanor. I made sure that the state did have it officially knocked down to a misdemeanor with the department of corrections and the of bureau criminal apprehension so there was no confusion between state and fed.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Like civil disobedience. If the law required you to do something evil, would you do it?

There is a HUGE difference between a law with which you disagree, that says you may NOT do something without first obtaining a license, and a law that says you MUST do something morally abhorrent.

How does this discussion in any way involve a law that requires someone to do something evil?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was charged with a felony but was negotiated that it would be knocked down to a misdemeanor once I completed my probation. So it was a felony for 5 years and once my probation was completed it was reduced to a misdemeanor.

I applied for a hand gun permit at the with a sheriffs department. They could not allow the permit to go through due to federal restrictions. The state would not limit it, however the sheriff will not allow something that is illegal on a federal level. This was explained in the rejection letter I received after I applied for the permit. I would quote it but this was done several years ago and probably threw it away. But this was done many years after it was knocked down to a misdemeanor. I made sure that the state did have it officially knocked down to a misdemeanor with the department of corrections and the of bureau criminal apprehension so there was no confusion between state and fed.

You were not rejected by the Federal government. You were rejected by a county sheriff's department, which cited (incorrectly, it would seem) an alleged Federal law. Further, did you show the sheriff's office the dcument you received showing that your civil rights had been restored? Do you still have that document? If not, get a new copy, because it's important.

IMHO, instead of wasting a lot of time on a petition that isn't going to accomplish anything because you're asking the Federal BATFE to do something they can't do -- restore your rights under a state conviction, and rights that have already BEEN restored on top of it. I think you would get a lot farther if you would do two things:

(1) Pay an attorney to research ALL state records to verify that they show your conviction was classified as a misdemeanor;

(2) Reapply for a permit and, if you are rejected, keep the letter and pay the attorney to appeal the rejection on the grounds that, per the Federal GCA, you are NOT a prohibited person once your rights were restored.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The first thing that caught my attention when reading the LilWolfes post was "They", just like AB put in bold.

Are you, by any chance, a troubled youth? Maybe come from the wrong side of the tracks? One of "Them" families who we really do not want them to have any more guns? Or is your sheriff just an anti-gun guy?

All of the above are excuses people have heard from or about a sheriffs Department that does not want to issue you a gun permit. (I could answer yes to two of the four questions above )

I really think you should get an attorney who specializes in firearms or records correction and have him look at the situation. You should get a copy of your conviction and all paperwork that deals will the disposition of your case before you go see him/her.

It really shoulds like the ball was dropped on the paperwork side of the case.