Possession vs. Ownership by a felon; how fine is the line?

N

Numbers

New member
Kinda curious about this. I know that laws might vary from state to state so answers may differ, but if someone was convicted of a felony, served his time and successfully completed parole, it is my understanding that he is not allowed to own a firearm. I also assume that he is not allowed to be in possession of a firearm.

Just what is possession? Is it the loan of a firearm to the convicted felon that is kept in his residence or automobile?

What about the convicted felon going to range with me and I allow him to shoot a few rounds, after which he hands the weapon back to me?

Can anybody clear it up for me?

Joe
 
California Penal Code section 12021(a)

"Any person who has been convicted of a felony . . . who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony."

People v. Hunt (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 224: "Under this section, two or more persons may have joint possession of a single weapon, and exclusive possession need not be shown."

In California, it sounds to me as if picking up and shooting anyone's firearm would be prohibited to a convicted felon. If possible in your state, your friend should petition the convicting court from relief from this prohibition.
 
Cutting through legalese:

If you are a felon, you cannot have a firearm in your premises, in your car, or on your person.

If the firearm belongs to someone else, they must be present, and in control of the weapon. (The only exeption to the above statement- but then it is their firearm in their possession.)

The argument that the gun is your brother's, your husband's, your wife's goes nowhere fast with the police.

Erik
 
Numbers,

I sat on a jury a few years back where a couple of shotguns were used in a murder. The defendant had a prior felony conviction. That was all we were told at the time about his priors. Based on that information, and the fact that his fingerprints were found on the guns, we convicted him of the 3-year mandatory minimum sentence crime of even touching a firearm. That conviction was separate to the other convictions for aggrivated murder and Grand Theft-Auto, and was to be served consecutively, not concurrently. That means that he had to serve the three years FIRST before he started serving the time for his other convictions.

So, based on what I know of the law here in Ohio, it is ILLEGAL for a convicted felon to even TOUCH a gun again.

------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
Unfortunately the ole boy can't even touch it. One of many civil rights violation openly suppoted by many who supposedly support RKBA.
 
Title implies the power to sell, loan, pawn, destroy, in short, do anything which legally may be done with the item. That is the concept behind ownership. Absent some regulation, the owner is free to do as he or she may please with the property.

Possession differs from title (ownership) in that the possessor's rights is limited to the use of the item. Think of it like a rental car. The rental is yours to use, but title (ownership) belongs to the Titleholder (rental agency) and ultimately, the rental must be returned. Possession then is the concept of lawful (limited) control. The possessor may use, but his/her use is limited and anything in excess of that license (permission) may result in damages.

Now, turning to a felon, the difficulty facing law enforcement is who possesses the firearm? Two persons in a room, one a felon and one with no arrest record. Both are 21 years old and the gun sits in an unlocked drawer. May the Fred Felon be charged with possession if Ian Innocent asserts that the gun is his? Maybe, maybe not. The gun is sitting in the drawer and Ian Innocent's assertion of ownership helps Fred Felon. Even if Fred Felon was charged, it's a call for the jury. Depending on the jurisdiction, some DAs won't even touch this one. Same scenario but this time Fred Felon has the gun in his hand. While Ian Innocent may assert that the gun is his, and it may even be registered to him, that Fred Felon now has control over the firearm would be sufficient to charge him with possession.

Bottom line it depends on the circumstances, and the ability of the DA, public defender and the call of the jury. Enough said for now.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt

[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited March 28, 2000).]
 
4V50 Gary,
It may get interesting if Fred had just disarmed Ian Innocent I would imagine. Actually, I believe here in Ohio, there is provision for that type of circumstance. Her it mostly boils down to how the prosecuter feels, and if it's a "newsworthy" item or not.
 
If Fred Felon disarmed Ian Innocent, he took possession of the firearm from Ian, thereby making Fred a felon in possession of a firearm.

Ultimately, like you said, it's how the DA feels and how newsworthy the issue is.
 
"The right of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in the case of felons"??????

Not MY Second Amendment!

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Listen to G Gordon Liddy--he is a convicted felon. He shoots alot--with his wife's firearms. He hasn't been arrested----for illegal weapons possession.

------------------
RKBA! NRA JPFO SAF


[This message has been edited by Lucas (edited March 28, 2000).]
 
I was going to mention G. Gordon as well.

Sounds to me like this is one of those crimes that generally is a non-issue unless a felon gets his butt in the wringer for other reasons. That is, I doubt LEO's generally go looking for this kind of charge.

Project Exile puts a different spin on this, however.

Can't see it happening, but personally I don't have a problem with a non-violent felon (that is, convicted of a non-violent felony, of which we have too many) possessing firearms. 'Course, the trend with the anti-self defense types is to expand the classes of prohibited possessors, not reduce them. Until, eventually .... we're all prohibited possessors.

But, of course, that's paranoia ... those nice, anti-self defense folks just want reasonable citizen control (oops, I mean gun control) laws ... ;)
 
Numbers - by CA standards, a felon may not be in possession of a firearm unless it was necessary to protect him/herself from unlawful deadly force. Once the threat of that deadly force has passed, the felon must relinquish control (and possession) of that firearm. So, to answer your question about loaning a firearm to a felon, the answer is NO, not in CA.
 
Here in Texas the key words are "care, custody and control". A convicted felon may not even touch a gun under state law. In addition, a lot of you may be unaware that under federal law, the felon can't possess a firearm OR EVEN ONE ROUND OF AMMO.

With regard to how we feel about gun control issues, if we start to even IMPLY that we think it's OK for a convicted felon to shoot or possess guns/ammo for any reason, we will very swiftly and completely lose any credibility with the uncomitted fence sitting group out there that will ultimately determine what happens regarding private ownership/possession of personal arms in this country. We really must get united with the attitude that no matter what type of felony somebody perpetrated, they are out of the "gun club" for life!


Wayne Dobbs
 
Funny, I didn't read the felon part in Constitution. I think that my mind is unchangable on this subject. I find the credibility loss working the exact opposite from you.

What other reasons are we willing to give away natural rights for? Misdemeanors? Parking tickets? Speeding? Not filling in the census?

We will lose this fight to RKBA because many gun owners are generally p*ssies. Many gun owners will bend over and grab their knees and call it common sense compromise until there is nothing left.

Can anyone name the gun control act that this felon bull sh*t happened under?

[This message has been edited by 6forsure (edited March 28, 2000).]
 
There was not a "gun control act" that caused it...under common law felons generally forfeited their civil rights: to vote, to sit on a jury, to own property (not generally effective today), etc.

I do think that the government went WAY TOO far with Lautenberg when they said any misdemeanor domestic violence assaults caused forfeiture of your gun rights ex post facto. I respect your right to disagree on this, but I think you're not just out in left field on this, but out in the cheap parking spaces. And no, I'm not a pussy on gun control or anything else with regard to civil rights. My police chief and I (a line detective) butt heads on this regularly (the right of citizens to keep and bear arms), but I keep on preachin'.

Seriously, felons don't have (and shouldn't have) gun rights and that goes back a long time before GCA 68 and all the other stupid attempts to control our gun rights.

Wayne Dobbs
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Funny, I didn't read the felon part in Constitution.[/quote]

Hmm.

There is also nothing in the Constituition about putting felons in prison.

Would the loss of liberty and denial of pursuit of happiness involved in throwing a felon in prison therefore be UnConstituitional? You won't read it in the Constituition.

As far as the Bill of Rights goes, a felon in prison may be prevented from speech that would tend to cause riots, discontent or enrage other prisoners (Violation of 1st Amendment),

a felon in prison may not carry a weapon of any sort, be it pistol, knife or shank (Violates his 2nd Amendment rights),

is subject to unannounced no-warrant searches (4th Amendment), et cetera, et cetera, so on and so forth. All of which have gone on for centuries, even during the time of the Founding Fathers, and none of which you will read anywhere in the Constituition.

Have you read anything in the Constituition limiting how long a felons punishment may be? Is there anything in the Constituition that says that a felons punishment is done when his time is served? Is there anything in the Constituition, other than the injunction against cruel and unusual punishment, that sets any limits on the punishment for a felony? Does the Constituiton even mention any other felonies besides treason and felonies committed upon the high seas?

Since you won't read anything about any felonies other than those, does that make 200-some-odd years of people convicted of felonies (other than Treason and those felonies committed on the High Seas) UnConstituitional?

Just wondering.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 29, 2000).]
 
F-E-L-O-N:

You know? as in murderer, drug-dealer, molester of little boys and girls.

Killer.

Burglar: One who steals hard-earned gun collections from gun owners (I speak from personal experience). Then sells them on the streets for a rock of cocaine and which kills police officers pulling a car over for a busted tail light,

and citizens down the line.

Parasite of Humanity.

Why can they not understand that they are NOT,.....are not,...and never will be,

In the same class as stable, clean, tax-paying, hard-working folks, who struggle so hard to keep their firearms and retain their dignity in the face of the relentless, assault by the Socialist forces?

Of course, the Founding Fathers did not need to worry too much about this breed.

Most of them were shot, hung, or flogged by the community, way back when.

The community could never envision this modern day Sodom & Gomorrah that we have idiley stood by and allowed to happen without confrontation.

Habitual, dangerous, repeat, predatory, felons should look apon firearms as though they were extremely radioactive or a letter-bomb.

Dont touch 'em,....dont get near 'em.


END OF STORY.

Everything else after that is easy.

Meat-Hook
 
The greatest problem that I see with restrictions upon felons is that we've created too many "gotcha" felonies. Acts that are neither morally wrong nor historically illegal have become major crimes through a few lines of fine print.

Also, how does the law avoid violating the RKBA of a felon's spouse? If my wife were a felon, how could I prove that she doesn't know the combination to my gun safe?
 
Good topic. The "law" varies from state to state and government to government. The feds for instance, as they have a remarkable tendancy to do, stretch the law as far as the imagination will allow based on "evidence" no more substantial than the lies of a paid (with money or a lesser sentence) informant. The rules of evidence established by the war on drugs apply; which means that no rules apply until the government establishes them in a given case, and then changes them on a whim.

Until quite recently in Texas, an ex-felon could own and possess a rifle or shotgun on his property provided that 15 years had elapsed since the completion of his sentence including any form of supervised release.

I found it, it did change from 15 to 5 years! I don't know what the current law is, but per my copy of the 1995-1996 Texas Concealed Handgun Laws 46.04(a)"A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm: (1)after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or (2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree."

In Oklahoma, an ex-felon can possess firearms during the course of his employment as a gunsmith.

As easily as one may become a convicted felon in this day and age, it surprises me that some participants in THIS forum are so dogmatic as to buy into this prohibition nonsense. As with gun regulation in general, ex-felon prohibition punishes the innocent for the acts of the guilty. The ex-felon who will rob, rape, or murder you cares not that it is illegal for him to have the weapon that he is doing it with. The only ex-felon who will be deterred is the individual who truly is leading a productive life and who also can fall victim to a violent crime.

How easy is it to become a felon? Well, lets look at the Texas Statutes again. Committing the following horrible and evil act will cause me to be guilty of the same third degree felony as the ex-felon who is sitting on his sofa in his living room and has a shotgun under his bed 4 years and 11 months after his release; and the same felony as the ex-felon carrying a shotgun on his way to do a home invasion and murder at the home of the first felon.

What is that horrible act that places me, a CCL holder from Oklahoma (OK CHL honored in Texas) and the employee of a federal law enforcement agency in the same criminal class as the above ruffians? Well, according to 46.035 of the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws sec. (b) a (CHL) "holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person: (1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, or 69, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51% or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption;"---an offense committed under this subsection is a "felony of the third degree."

So, if I take a trip to Dallas next weekend and eat in one of the many excellent franchise eateries that also serve alcohol for on premises consumtion, and during the course of my meal, the Wild Bunch from Arligton Stadium come in and start dropping $100 bills on booze at the bar, and the alcohol sales of the franchise eatery exceed 51% of the total sales, I then become a felon waiting for an arrest and conviction due to the fact that I 'recklessly' carried a handgun into the premises; reckless because any "reasonable" person knows that at any point in time the sale of alcohol could exceed 51% of sales.
 
Just my humble .02. While some states disallowed the ownership and possession of firearms by convicted felons, there was, to my knowledge, no federal statute disallowing felon fron having firearms. At least, not until that abortion called the Gun Control Act of 1968. Persons convicted of felonies after that were federally prohibited from possession of any type of firearm, with the exception of muzzleloaders for hunting. The are not considered firearms by "Uncle" yet.
A few years back, a convicted drug dealer was arrested by the ATF for possession of a firearm. Seems this guy had petitioned the court to have his rights restored, and the judge did restore them, including the right to possess guns. This case went, I believe all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that if a court restres a felons rights, he may possess firearm.
I am reasonably sure of this, because my neighbor got into a scrape with the law and after his sentence, petitioned the court to have his rights restored. They were, and he now is able to own firearms. BTW. You can call any ATF office and confirm that.
My feeling on the matter is that to have to petition to have your rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, restore is reconstituted bull fodder. Just more money in the lawyers pockets. What ever happened to "He paid his debt to society."????????
As I said, just my .02 worth.
Paul B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top