"Mad Max" - domestic violence conviction ?
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
Kreyzhorse
New member
That's a good question, but I don't see ol' Mel having a lot of movie offers in his future.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
That's what the statute (18 USC 922(g)(9)) says:
(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) 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;
(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
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence,
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.
aarondhgraham
New member
The man has enough money,,,
,,, to prove the old adage,,,
"America, land of all the justice you can afford."
Believe me, if he wants a gun,,,
He will get a gun.
Color me cynical if you so desire,,,
but I've seen it all in my long years on this planet.
If you want something and can afford the lawyers,,,
You can eventually have anything you desire.
But acting in a movie,,,
He never has true possession (ownership) of a gun.
It could be an interesting scenario though,,,
If a private citizen knew of him handling a gun in a movie set,,,
What would prevent them from calling the police and filing a complaint.
Aarond
,,, to prove the old adage,,,
"America, land of all the justice you can afford."
Believe me, if he wants a gun,,,
He will get a gun.
Color me cynical if you so desire,,,
but I've seen it all in my long years on this planet.
If you want something and can afford the lawyers,,,
You can eventually have anything you desire.
But acting in a movie,,,
He never has true possession (ownership) of a gun.
It could be an interesting scenario though,,,
If a private citizen knew of him handling a gun in a movie set,,,
What would prevent them from calling the police and filing a complaint.
Aarond
Just an old man's opinion (but one sometimes shared by the legal system), if you have a gun in your hand, you posesses it.
And you don't have to be caught in the act, photographic evidence is enough.
I don't recall the name, but a while back, there was some minor actress/model who was convicted of violating her probation/parole as a result of a photo shoot with her holding guns turned up on the net.
SO, if it's a real gun (not a dummy/prop) and you are a prohibited person, you would be held as breaking the law, if you used it (possessed it) even briefly during the filming of a movie.
The law makes no exception for guns only possessed during / as part of employment, by anyone. Including actors, police, and military service.
In a curious bit of irony, the Lautenberg law actualy removed large numbers of police officers across the nation from being able to do anything other than desk work (if they kept their jobs at all), because the law made them criminals, unable to carry a firearm, even in the performace of their duties. A great many police officers had minor domestic violence convictions, a result of the stress of their lifestyles, and the fact that before the Lautenberg law, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge, and paying a small fine was not considered a big deal, simply a way to resolve the matter and move on with life.
And you don't have to be caught in the act, photographic evidence is enough.
I don't recall the name, but a while back, there was some minor actress/model who was convicted of violating her probation/parole as a result of a photo shoot with her holding guns turned up on the net.
SO, if it's a real gun (not a dummy/prop) and you are a prohibited person, you would be held as breaking the law, if you used it (possessed it) even briefly during the filming of a movie.
The law makes no exception for guns only possessed during / as part of employment, by anyone. Including actors, police, and military service.
In a curious bit of irony, the Lautenberg law actualy removed large numbers of police officers across the nation from being able to do anything other than desk work (if they kept their jobs at all), because the law made them criminals, unable to carry a firearm, even in the performace of their duties. A great many police officers had minor domestic violence convictions, a result of the stress of their lifestyles, and the fact that before the Lautenberg law, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge, and paying a small fine was not considered a big deal, simply a way to resolve the matter and move on with life.
This is not true. I can not legally issue a weapon to a soldier who has been convicted of domestic violence. There is no doubt that the weapon belongs to the Army and not the soldier. To the soldier that means that a DV conviction is the end of any future he had in the military.
FrankenMauser
New member
Only if it's on U.S. "soil". (Territories, military bases, warships, etc)
....But I see nothing in that code about prop guns, non-firing replicas, and blank guns.
leadcounsel
Moderator
I would recon that his lawyers were able to carve an exception in the court order ... even though lautenberg is a federal law ...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Possession is holding it. Possession does not equal ownership.aarondhgraham said:
Convicted felons cannot even pick up an unloaded firearm. They cannot even live in a house where there are unsecured firearms that they COULD pick up ("constructive possession").
Yes, with a domestic violence conviction on his record, Mel cannot legally use a firearm, even on a movie set for cinematic purposes. If the firearm has been permanently modified so that it can fire ONLY blanks, perhaps there's some legal wiggle room available. A functional firearm? Not legally.
as if any movie is 100% correct