Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 45 of 75
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    724

    Default Can a felon hunt with a muzzleloader ?

    My son has a felony DUI so I know he can no longer hunt with or own a modern firearm. We have ben thinking bow hunting for him. He lives on his own so there are no issues with my collection and he currently has no firearms in his possession. Muzzle loaders are as I understand it not considered a firearm by BATF. I will get with my local Game and FIsh office about this but I was just wondering if any of you have any ideas on the subject, thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Corruptahoga County, Ohio
    Posts
    2,416

    Default

    the BATF may not consider a ML a "firearm", but that doesn't mean shit........the state you are in may consider it a firearm. people forget that it's not just fedeal law you have to go by, but state, and in some cases local laws as well.

    This is from last year,

    upreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
    Cheyenne- Posted 6/28/06
    Associated Press

    The ruling comes in an appeal by a convicted felon who says he thought he was allowed to own a black powder rifle. Such rifles are excluded from the federal definition of firearms.

    A spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the ruling will come as a blow to some Wyoming residents who have felony convictions in the past but who are now dedicated black powder hunters.

    Governor Freudenthal says he would favor changing the state law to allow convicted felons to continue to hunt with black powder guns.

    The court ruling released Wednesday upholds the conviction of Frank Alan Harris in a Casper court on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    According to the court ruling, Harris was previously convicted of aggravated robbery and robbery.
    Last edited by SfcRet; 12-07-2007 at 10:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    across the River from Poontang City, KY
    Posts
    3,659

    Thumbs down Huh?

    explain to me what a DUI has to do with a firearm and ownership thereof??? Absolutely nothing except the felony status.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    3,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Connie View Post
    explain to me what a DUI has to do with a firearm and ownership thereof??? Absolutely nothing except the felony status.
    Connie;
    This is an argument for you to take to your local court house or prosecutor.

    This is not a good argument for the boards because every state has different rules in regards to DUI and substance abuse related crimes.

    If you go to the courthouse and bury your feelings and ask POLITELY about restoring hunting privileges.

    (Yes, I wrote privileges because I want you to understand that you need to be non-confrontational to get anywhere in the legal system)

    In the past the judge or prosecutor would write a letter to restore hunting priveliges or allow hunting for bow or BP seasons.

    I do not think they are able to do this in Michigan anymore.

    The laws have changed since then.
    Semper Fi,
    ret_Marine2003

    Located at American Legion post 300, somewhere in Northern Michigan.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Took me a while to find it on the Game and fish web but it's good news for my son.

    Possession of firearms by felons: A convicted felon, regardless of where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as defined by Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal Code, §46.01, a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singleshotcajun View Post
    Took me a while to find it on the Game and fish web but it's good news for my son.

    Possession of firearms by felons: A convicted felon, regardless of where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as defined by Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal Code, §46.01, a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition.
    Better news would be to look into getting his rights restored. May be tough for a robbery or violent crime felon, but I'd think the courts would look at drunk driver a little less critically.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Connie View Post
    explain to me what a DUI has to do with a firearm and ownership thereof??? Absolutely nothing except the felony status.
    DUI = potential SUI? Or CCWUI? Or gun handleing while drunk?

    Either shooting or carrying under the influence doesn't sound good to me.
    Now , if the problem is history , go thru legal channels and get the lost right back.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    OK =Hope not out of line - but the state you live in ?- Ohio - as where I live - you need to go to locial proscuters office and ask them ? cost for a lawyer around $1,000 -but if he still has his drinking problum ! NO WAY - Have seen to many pople killed by DRUNKS with GUNS :

  9. #9

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by AZshooter View Post
    Better news would be to look into getting his rights restored. May be tough for a robbery or violent crime felon, but I'd think the courts would look at drunk driver a little less critically.

    Best to check with the State Attorney General, you may find out they have a different opinion. Now I don't mean any offense to anyone here but death or serious injury at the hands of an habitual drunk driver is no better than death or injury by any other form of violent crime. Seriously now, back in the Fall of 1975, a drunk hunter put a bullet close enough to my head to cut my hair. I was wearing blaze orange but there was 50 yards and a laurel thicket between me and him - he saw something move and took a shot at it - no way he could tell what he was shooting at. What kind of judgment does a drunk have? Frankly if a fellow has a tendency to drive a one ton vehicle while under the influence, I'd personally rather not see him exercising that judgment while carrying a gun. Just my personal experience.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Well the good news is my son has been clean and sober for three years now, thank God. More good news is that I can give him my Thompson sidelock New Englander that I have killed many deer with and as it stands it is curently the only gun I can pass along to him,so he will inherit it early. He will get it as a surprise Christmas present, along with the news that He can hunt with it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Queensland Australia.
    Posts
    1,485

    Thumbs down Booze, Drugs and Guns.=Idiots.

    Strange our lawmakers aint started confiscating guns from drunk drivers down here yet, I wont be getting upset if they do.
    They have only just started roadside drug testing here and that will no doubt get rid of some crazy's that have guns.
    Have a safe and merry xmas. chester.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    Drunk driving is a serious crime. A danger to the public.

    With all due respect and best wishes to people who have cleaned up thier act:
    Drunk driving and drunk gun handling do not help the the 2nd Amendment cause, or make the rest of us any safer. In my state , CCW in a bar is legal, but either carrying while impaired or simple drunk driving costs the criminal thier CCW permit. Due process, day in court, guilty beyound a reasonable doubt, all the safeguards apply.
    Sounds reasonable to me.
    Last edited by campperrykid; 12-12-2007 at 09:15 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Palmyra New Germany erra Jersey
    Posts
    22

    Default

    WOW. I'm amazed at the thought that just because a person has a DUI conviction that people would assume he is a drunkard or alchoholic. In this day and age with the way the laws are written it is very easy for anyone to get a DUI. A couple of beers after work and crossing paths with the wrong officer is all it takes. Don't get me wrong I'm not condoninig drunk driving by any stretch of the imagination but the rules are overly stringent in my state anyway.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    481

    Default rights lost expostfacto

    Heck you can lose your right to have a fire arm by just having a Mistermeaner Ex post facto say years ago you got into a argument with your brother girlefriend wife etc. and the law was called and someone will have to spend the night in jail so you go for the night later you plead no contest and paid your $100 fine because it was just a 3nd degree mistermeaner and you lost no rights , now years later Latenberge Law gets passed guess what, you have lost your gun rights forever grandfathered in (ex post facto}

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    He apparently did not have a "simple DUI". A felony DUI conviction in most states means someone received a serious injury or was killed by the drunk driver. Or it has to do with many repetitive DUI's.
    I never met a gun I didn't like!
    Dogs are better people than most people.

  16. #16

    Default back up

    can a convicted felon even get a hunting license.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JIMMY C View Post
    He apparently did not have a "simple DUI". A felony DUI conviction in most states means someone received a serious injury or was killed by the drunk driver. Or it has to do with many repetitive DUI's.
    Both, In this case it was Louisiana (seven years ago) and it was his third DUI and at the time three times made it a felony, I think it is less now. I'm not going to debate if He should be allowed to hunt or own a firearm. I think that Driving while under the enfluence of drugs or alcohol is a serious offense and I thank God that in my son's case, he only had one accident and he was the only one hurt. Again, He is now by the grace of God clean and sober for the last four years.
    He now is the proud and legal owner of a Thompson New Englander that I built from a kit in the eighties. I installed a Musket nipple on it and it really improved the ignition time,even if all I can buy locally is Hogden triple seven and not real Blackpowder.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    On top of the world, looking down on creation
    Posts
    26,629

    Default

    Careful,

    In some states (Kentucky for sure) a blackpowder weapon is still a "firearm" per the state's code, although per Federal sale/shipping purposes it is not.
    Любишь сиськи много?_____________Nein Frulein, das ist kein Leberwrst
    Да, мне нравится сиськи много. _____
    in der Tasche



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singleshotcajun View Post
    Took me a while to find it on the Game and fish web but it's good news for my son.

    Possession of firearms by felons: A convicted felon, regardless of where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as defined by Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal Code, §46.01, a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition.
    Does a replica of an antique or curio muzzle loader mean that convicted felons are prohibited from using modern design muzzle loaders as manufactured by Ruger, Remington, Savage, Thompson Center, Knight, etc?
    Last edited by Clermont; 01-03-2008 at 05:29 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    724

    Default

    This is one of the few laws that is still a States Rights issue. Yes, it is governed by state law, as it should be. In Texas a felon may hunt with a black powder rifle provided that said rifle is an antique or a reproduction of an antique rifle. In other words no in-lines and certainly no Encores. I have not checked Louisiana law.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    263

    Default My take on Felons and their rights:

    Hello,
    I don't want to start a legal debate here but in my opinion a convicted felon has been punished for his crime and supposedly his dept to society was paid. Seems to me to hold that over his head the rest of his life where he can't even hardly go hunting, etc, is a form of Double Jeapardy, being punished twice for the same crime. In this case being continually punished. Just my take on that subject.

    Besides, I thought that whole thing about a felon not allowed to own guns was just about handguns and was thinking that they could own longguns.
    Take care,
    Dave
    Alabama

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    About 25 miles west of Knoxville, TN.
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Dave,

    I've been following this thread and must say that I have mixed emotions about the issue. There are many "crimes" that I personally feel should not be crimes at all. For example, I recently met a gentlemen who had served 4 or 5 years in a Federal Pen for growing marijuana. This guy is no "drug kingpin." He just wanted to grow his own marijuana. He made the mistake of doing something that is simply "illegal." He now is unable to own any kind of firearm. Most of us are aware of how easy it can be for anyone to be denied the right to own a firearm - like "rubber stamped" restraining orders and such.

    I strongly agree that anyone who has served their time for any "non-violent" crime should automatically have their rights restored. What would be of concern to me, is to have rights restored to "career" criminals who will immediately resume a violent predatory lifestyle upon release.

    At least one of the founding fathers (I don't remember who) said something about a person of "good character" not being denied the right to carry arms. This makes some sense to me. However, who will decide which of us are of "good character?" This is a complex issue.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Hello Celt,
    I agree with you 100% now that I think on it. I have a friend that went to the pen for a couple of years for the same reason, grew a bit of pot, etc.. That was in the early to mid 80s. A few years ago he took his wife to B'ham to work or something. It was her car and she had her pistol in the car with her. The got pulled over for a bad tail light and the short of it is that he got snatched right then and there, put in federal prison for five more years, because that pistol was in the same vehicle with him. In my opinion he should never have gone to jail to begin with or at least should get his rights back.

    But on the other hand, a pedaphile or serial killer, repeat drug dealer, etc, should never get theirs back.
    DAve

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Is it true that convicted felons cannot own non-shooting toy replicas of firearms and airguns that simulate firearms? In other words, are they barred from owning what appears to be a firearm?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    About 25 miles west of Knoxville, TN.
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Don't know Clermont. It may be true in some states. I don't know specifically what the Federal statute says. There are a few references from the U.S. Penal Code in this thread; perhaps someone has a link to where we might read-up on the actual U.S. statutes (including the most recent stuff)???
    Last edited by The Celt; 02-04-2008 at 12:17 PM.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    129

    Default

    I'm a criminal defense lawyer: as others have suggested, the original poster needs to have his son check with a local attorney to determine whether there are any laws that presently preclude him from possessing an antique or replica antique firearm.

    Some states consider such arms to be firearms, period - and preclude felons from possessing them. Others (my state is one) consider them to be firearms but only preclude felons from possessing firearms for a certain period after their sentence is over - since the federal law permanently bars felons from possessing what the feds define as firearms, this creates a situation where a felon can legally possess a muzzle loader (not a problem under federal law, but a problem for a period under state law) after a few years.

    In any event, this is not something that one goes to the internet to determine. Go pay a respectable criminal defense lawyer in your area to learn precisely what the law is. The potential criminal charges (felonies) that lurk behind a mistake require this to be treated seriously.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    462

    Default

    In addition to firearms, convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearm receivers, frames or cartridge ammunition including any cartridge component.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NJ USA
    Posts
    2,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckk View Post
    WOW. I'm amazed at the thought that just because a person has a DUI conviction that people would assume he is a drunkard or alchoholic. In this day and age with the way the laws are written it is very easy for anyone to get a DUI. A couple of beers after work and crossing paths with the wrong officer is all it takes. Don't get me wrong I'm not condoninig drunk driving by any stretch of the imagination but the rules are overly stringent in my state anyway.
    A FIng MEN!!!

    i too live in new Jersey....but I used to work for the Republican National Committee. As part of my duties in Maryland, i went to a briefing about drunk driving. In Maryland, a half pint of guinness would make you DUI. Anyone can get a dui these days. You are right.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Turkey Point Ontario
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Wow a DUI keeping you from owning a firearm!! I thought things where tough here in Canada.
    in Canada you would have to be involved In a violent crime, such as asult or use a firearm in the commision of a crime, or careless use of a firearm, improper storage. And some only get you a ban for a length of time as deemed by a judge. And in some cases you can obtain a fierarms permit as long as you have been a good boy for five years previous to applying for a permit. But not for a DUI. Oh yes anybody in Canada can own a bow or crossbow even if they have been found guilty of assult. They are not concidered a firearm under federal and certain types of muzzel loaders do not need a firearms permit in Canada. I belive flintlocks and some percussion cap muzzel loaders do not need permits here.
    "I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy." CAF

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    UK, Ont Canada, OR USA & Tokyo Japan
    Posts
    1,448

    Red face

    Here in UK there is no statute of limitation on a felony crime preventing a convicted criminal from owning any kind of firearm. One gunclub member here with me today was convicted at age 17 of a minor criminal offence, and served six months in jail. His offence was made into an 'illegal act' in 1980, and no longer attracts anything more than a fine.

    He is now 61, and is still prohibited from owning any form of firearm.

    tac

  31. #31

    Default

    It's not just felons anymore. Now, you can be denied the 'right' to have a firearm if you have had any kind of restraining order placed on you (by lying ex, or soon to be ex-wives), being placed on the NO-FLY list (which can happen to anybody...even Ted Kennedy), ever been treated for Delayed Stress Syndrome (or PTS, as it is called now), which is a neat way to disarm veterans, who would know how to use one effectively, ever seen a doctor for depression, and the list goes on and on......

    I took the rap for a bad check ($75.00) that a girl I was enfatuated with wrote and signed my name to it, in Tx, back in 1983. Tx is the only state that that would've been a felony on, and it is not, now. I was young, stupid and thought I was in love. I never even went to prison, but did 7 months in the Lew Sterrett Jail, because Huntsville was over-crowded (don,t figure in a state with over 2300 felonies in the books, huh?). Of course, she was long-gone with someone else when I got out (there's a shocker...), but I still have a felony, and cannot have firearms, even though I am a decorated Vietnam Vet, and have not been in any other trouble. Texas will give me a Pardon, but NOT restore my firearms rights. I was told by the Board that it wouldn't matter if I was Mother Teresa...they do not ever restore firearms rights...period. I haven't lived in TX for over 20 years, yet I still cannot have a firearm, even though felons in the state I live in (TN.) get full pardons after a reasonable period of time, and they've done much worse than I did. And Tx one of the few states that do not issue 'Certificates of Rehabilitation', nor any other way for a person to redeem themselves.

    This is wrong on several levels. First, there is no constitutional provision for a life-time punishment except for certain 'High Crimes'. I am a sure a bad check doesn't meet the qualifications for that. When you have paid your debt to society, then you should get all of your rights back. I am not opposed to a reasonable waiting period...say 5 or 10 years with no problems, but if they don't give you something to shoot for, then there is no reason to try to be a good citizen any longer. We are creating our own repeat offenders. Secondly, this violates the Constitutional prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'. Since most states now have CCWs, then they must agree that it is dangerous enough on the streets to warrant having a firearm. To sentence someone to be a perpetual potential 'victim', along with all of their loved ones, for life, is cruel. And since Tx. will never restore my firearms rights, then I am being denied 'Equal Protection Under The Law'. And here is a fact I'll bet few of you knew about. The BATF is required by law to accept petitions for the restoration of firearms rights, investigate them, and restore them if they deem the person to be no threat, and it is "not contrary to public interest" (whatever that means....). But since 1992, our Congress has expressly forbidden the BATF in it's annual appropriations, to expend any funding on investigations or action on these requests. Cute trick, huh?

    The majority of former felons were not convicted of violent crimes. It is perfectly easy to catagorize what is a violent, sex, or other dangerous crime, and what is not. They could evaluate everyone easlily. There is a Federal Law that was passed to do exactly that, but as I stated earlier, Congress has forbbiden it to be exercised. And since former felons..the very people this law was passed to help, can't vote these scumbags out of office, because we can't voter either, there is little hope of relief.

    If we are to be denied our rights for life, then we should be exempt from paying taxes, at least Federal and State Income Taxes. Since we are not allowed to participate, then we shouldn't have to pay. And for all those who have said "Felons should not have rights" (the correct term should be 'former felons'), and "You should've thought about that...", when they are out doing something that seems perfectly rational at the time, or a ticked off girlfriend or wife gets a restraining order on them, after they have done nothing at all, and they get popped with a felony, I want you all to remember your asinine statements, on your way to the Big House. Of course, then, it will be too late. You will have become...one of us.... That kind of attitude is just a stupid, knee-jerk reaction very similar to saying that all Black people sell drugs, or are rapists. The media has made sure that We the Sheeple will, in true Pavlovian style, associate the word 'Felon' with Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, etc...

    At least TN. has the decency to let us hunt with muzzleloaders. For that, I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I have lived here for a while now, and it's just one more reason to love Tn.

    Semper Fi.
    Last edited by Shureshot; 07-03-2009 at 02:08 PM.

  32. #32

    Default federal felonies

    If you are convicted in a federal court for a felony, even a seemingly
    "innocuous" one like turning back the odometers on cars, you are barred for life from possessing a firearm. Now, there is a process on the books for restoring those rights, and that is a petition for Relief from Disabilities. The catch is congress does not allocate funds for the petitions to be reviewed by the BATF, so they just stay on file indefinitely. The only other way to get the record expunged is through Presidential pardon. Good luck. The odometer thing becomes a federal offense when a dealer (or anyone else) puts false mileage on the title and the title is mailed in to the DMV or Secretary of State. Once the mail is used, it is subject to the mail fraud statutes. There are people in federal prisons today for this offense.

    State to state -- I live in Michigan -- depending on the type of felony, the disability to own a firearm is dropped after a certain number of years. It is not dropped by the Feds, but then again the Feds don't consider muzzle-loaders firearms. There may be some room to wiggle there, but I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on it.



    Larry in Michigan

  33. #33
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    57,914

    Default

    Actually, Congress has (for many years - I think Lautenberg may be the chief proponent of this villainy) not only not appropriated funds for processing Relief From Disabilities applications, it has specifically PROHIBITED the use of any appropriated funds for the purpose, which strikes many as a trifle - unfair and unjust. At least one Federal District Court agreed (the statute says if you are turned down, you can ask a judge to provide the relief) and found that a failure to act on the application constituted a refusal to grant relief and therefore the (allegedly) rehabilitated felon could file his petition. The gummint opposed that and after losing in District Court appealed. Can't recall if it was Fifth Circus or US Supreme Court that agreed with them and said "mere failure to consider the application doesn't constitute refusal. FU buddy". Talk about Catch-22....


    Pity Shureshot didn't get a probated sentence - if he'd done that, he'd have been able to go to the convicting court and get it set aside. Which would include complete dismissal and restoration of rights. A sufficiently substantial political contribution to the "right office holders" and recommendations from the "right people" will cause a change in the attitude of the Board of Pardons and Paroles even now (don't ask how i know about this, but consider that while i have turned in my ticket and am no longer an attorney - I spent over 30 years packing a Bar card and for much of the time I was doing criminal defense in the State of Texas).
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  34. #34

    Default

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that America IS being disarmed.

    I have thought about talking to my elected officials and see if there was something that could be done about my situation. I am sure I am not the only one with this problem, and I would be a good test case, because the State of Tn. trusts me enough to grant me a Medical License every 2 years (I am a Dr. of Naturopathy...Holistic Health care), I am a Master Mason, and an Elk. You may not realize how hard that was to accomplish with a former felony, but it was very tough. I am also an ordained minister, and volunteer my time at the jails, prisons, hospitals and nursing homes in my area. I work with the homeless, abused children and battered women on a regular basis at the shelter. If there was anything else I could do for my community to prove I am a good citizen, I can't think of what it would be (I am prohibited by law from running for public office). I do believe that when you mess up, you should have to earn your rights back, but I also believe I have done so, many times over.

    What I was trying to get across was that since the government can't just come in and take everyone's weapons (yet), they are doing an end-run around the law on several levels. The 1934 National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. ch.53), while clearly unconstitutional, was allowed to stand by the Supreme Court because it was presented as a 'Tax' measure, and not firearms legislation. It gave the Supremes a way to wiggle off the hook. Just as they did in the recent Heller vs. Washington DC case, where they said the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, BUT the states can infringe upon it at their whim, as long as they don't go too far (and who defines what is "too far"?).

    The government, and states are merely re-defining what constitutes a felony, so they can disarm more of the population. Now, we have gone from felons, to people who have ever seen a Psychologist, people who were diagnosed with ADD, or PTS, anyone who have ever had a Protection Order placd on them, or charged with Domestic Violence (not convicted, but merely charged), placed on a No-Fly list (which happens if you have a common name like Smith, or Jones, or a foreign-sounding name, or whatever...), and if the new Law gets passed, anyone who is placed on the (comming soon to a theater near you....) proposed Homeland Security Domestic Terrorist List. Domestic Terrorist will be defined (as is already being trained to Law Enforcement) as anyone, or is associated with anyone, who is a Veteran, talks about Constitutional Rights, is an active lobbyist, or advocates actually exercising any of their rights. The Bill already has almost enough support to pass.

    They are disarming us simply by changing the definition of what constitutes a 'Good Citizen', just like Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the 1930s. Now, the US instills fear and urgency with 'The War on Terror, and the War on Drugs, and the War on Mexican Gun-Runners, whereas the Nazis used Communism and the Bolcheviks. It's the same old song, with slightly altered lyrics. Remember, Germany was a Democratic Republic, too, and the Nazis were VOTED in, legally. Don't think it can't happen here, because it can. Once a big enough part of the population is on the 'Prohibited' list, we will all be the new Jews. Right now, fully 20% of Americans who pay taxes, and are no danger to anyone, are denied the right to have a firearm. And this is a very conservative estimate. And it is only going to get worse under the present Administration.

    I would say "Wake up, people, before it's too late.....", but I fear it may already be too late.....

    Sempr Fi.

  35. #35
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    57,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shureshot View Post
    I guess the point I was trying to make is that America IS being disarmed.

    I have thought about talking to my elected officials and see if there was something that could be done about my situation. I am sure I am not the only one with this problem, and I would be a good test case, because the State of Tn. trusts me enough to grant me a Medical License every 2 years (I am a Dr. of Naturopathy...Holistic Health care), I am a Master Mason, and an Elk. You may not realize how hard that was to accomplish with a former felony, but it was very tough. I am also an ordained minister, and volunteer my time at the jails, prisons, hospitals and nursing homes in my area. I work with the homeless, abused children and battered women on a regular basis at the shelter. If there was anything else I could do for my community to prove I am a good citizen, I can't think of what it would be (I am prohibited by law from running for public office). I do believe that when you mess up, you should have to earn your rights back, but I also believe I have done so, many times over.

    What I was trying to get across was that since the government can't just come in and take everyone's weapons (yet), they are doing an end-run around the law on several levels. The 1934 National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. ch.53), while clearly unconstitutional, was allowed to stand by the Supreme Court because it was presented as a 'Tax' measure, and not firearms legislation. It gave the Supremes a way to wiggle off the hook. Just as they did in the recent Heller vs. Washington DC case, where they said the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, BUT the states can infringe upon it at their whim, as long as they don't go too far (and who defines what is "too far"?).

    The government, and states are merely re-defining what constitutes a felony, so they can disarm more of the population. Now, we have gone from felons, to people who have ever seen a Psychologist, people who were diagnosed with ADD, or PTS, anyone who have ever had a Protection Order placd on them, or charged with Domestic Violence (not convicted, but merely charged), placed on a No-Fly list (which happens if you have a common name like Smith, or Jones, or a foreign-sounding name, or whatever...), and if the new Law gets passed, anyone who is placed on the (comming soon to a theater near you....) proposed Homeland Security Domestic Terrorist List. Domestic Terrorist will be defined (as is already being trained to Law Enforcement) as anyone, or is associated with anyone, who is a Veteran, talks about Constitutional Rights, is an active lobbyist, or advocates actually exercising any of their rights. The Bill already has almost enough support to pass.

    They are disarming us simply by changing the definition of what constitutes a 'Good Citizen', just like Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the 1930s. Now, the US instills fear and urgency with 'The War on Terror, and the War on Drugs, and the War on Mexican Gun-Runners, whereas the Nazis used Communism and the Bolcheviks. It's the same old song, with slightly altered lyrics. Remember, Germany was a Democratic Republic, too, and the Nazis were VOTED in, legally. Don't think it can't happen here, because it can. Once a big enough part of the population is on the 'Prohibited' list, we will all be the new Jews. Right now, fully 20% of Americans who pay taxes, and are no danger to anyone, are denied the right to have a firearm. And this is a very conservative estimate. And it is only going to get worse under the present Administration.

    I would say "Wake up, people, before it's too late.....", but I fear it may already be too late.....

    Sempr Fi.
    You are just a TRIFLE over the top, Shurshot. Not without some grounds, but - you are NOT disabled just because you have seen a phsrink or been diagnosed or treated for PTSD. Have to have been ADJUDICATED as mentally ill or incompetent.

    A charge, unless still pending or resolved by conviction, of a crime of domestic violence is not disabling.

    An ADD diagnosis is not, unless accompanied by an adjudication as referenced supra, is not disabling.

    Having had a Protective Order issued against you - IF it was issued after due notice and an adversarial hearing - is.

    Heller does NOT give the states free range to infringe - indeed, Heller does NOT deal with the states at all, other than to offer some guidance as to possible impacts when and if the issue of incorporation is presented to the Court (which will probably be soon - will be interesting to see how much influence the "Wise Latina" has over th decision).

    But - we have thrown far too wide a loop, that's for sure.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  36. #36

    Default

    7 years ago, the Clinton Administration illegally added 83,000 names of Veterans, who had been treated in the past for PTS, to the NICS, denying them the right to have firearms. This is not hearsay. Several of my family members cannot have firearms now, and the BATF came to their houses to collect their previously owned firearms. I was a personal witness to this on several occasions. A few of my relatives are surviving WW-II vets, and they were effected, as well.

    So the 'aduticated' requirement actually means little. Although these actions were not commited under HR 2640, it demonstrates the fact that the governemnt will do what they want, when they want. Since the law has passed now, all they have to do is modify it slightly by removing the word 'adjudicated', or merely re-defining what the definition of 'adjudicated' is, and by whom. And, under 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 , anyone who has ever been diagnosed with ANY possibily of ever being a danger to themselves, or others, can now be placed on the Prohibited list, including anyone who has ever gone to a psychiatrist for Depression, treated for ADD, placed on Ritalin, treated for PTL, etc...And no Dr. is ever going to go on record as saying anyone will NEVER, EVER be a danger to anyone with 100% certainty, even if there is nothing wrong with them.

    A charge of Domestic Violence is disabling, if it has a Restraining Order attached to it, which will invariably be the case. Persons under any kind of restraining order are prohibited from possesing a firearm by the 1996 Lautenburg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

    I am not just running around screaming "The sky is falling...". I've been alive long enough to have seen the changes that have taken place over the last 50 years.

    To prove it, I'll play Rush Limbaugh for a bit. I am going to make a few predictions for the next 5-10 years. Copy these down, and check them off as they happen.

    1. The number of persons on the Prohibited List will increase 20%-30% by the year 2012. The governement will say it is because their records, and retreival systems are more efficient, but it will really be just because they added more people by 'expanding' the definitions.

    2. The Supreme Court will rule that the government is not prohibited from registering firearms, owners and ammunition by the 2nd Ammendment. This will be followed by a National Registration (which they already partially have now). Then it is just a matter of time before we copy Canada, Australia, and Great Britain in virtual total civilian disarmament.

    3. The Assault Weapons Ban will return, and the definition of 'Assault Weapon' will be expanded to include just about any firearm that is not single-shot. The ban will be extended to cover any ammunition that might be used in an 'Assault' weapon, such as .223 (5.56 NATO), .308 (7.26 NATO), 9mm, and any used by foreign powers. Of course, the government, military and police will be exempt.

    4. Legislation will be passed, probably by Dianne Finstein (D-CA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), or both, which will completely eliminate the private transfer of any firearms, anywhere. Gun Shows will be so heavily regulated that they will simply disappear. All background checks will be retained, along with all private gun transfers, in a government database, creating a de-facto registration.

    5. The First Amendment, which is pretty much trashed already, will gasp it's final breath, with passage of a "Hate Crimes" law, which will subject anyone who speaks out against anybody in a non PC manner, to prosecution. Speech will be considered an 'attack'. 'Hate Speech' will be outlawed, and defined as any oral, written, or electronic communication that complains about anything. Ministers will be subject to prosecution under this law as well, since it will be ruled that this law 'trumps' the 1st Amendment, due to 'Public Security'. Like Gun Laws, it will be considered 'reasonable' legislation.

    The next 10 years will be very interesting. You see, I know and understand everything that is happening in this country, and all the issues. The media does not play a part in forming my opinions, which means that I, and people like me are dangerous to the adminsitration. The more of us they can disarm, and disenfranchise from voting, the more secure they will be. They only want 'sheeple' to be able to vote, and only people who would most likely not buck the system, no matter what they do, to be armed. They want a nice, docile, obediant, dumb, and apathetic voting population.

    Since I can't vote, I am doing the only thing I can do....inform others who can of what is really happening.

    Semper Fi.
    Last edited by Shureshot; 07-06-2009 at 05:13 AM.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SfcRet View Post
    the BATF may not consider a ML a "firearm", but that doesn't mean shit........the state you are in may consider it a firearm. people forget that it's not just fedeal law you have to go by, but state, and in some cases local laws as well.

    This is from last year,

    upreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
    Cheyenne- Posted 6/28/06
    Associated Press

    The ruling comes in an appeal by a convicted felon who says he thought he was allowed to own a black powder rifle. Such rifles are excluded from the federal definition of firearms.

    A spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the ruling will come as a blow to some Wyoming residents who have felony convictions in the past but who are now dedicated black powder hunters.

    Governor Freudenthal says he would favor changing the state law to allow convicted felons to continue to hunt with black powder guns.

    The court ruling released Wednesday upholds the conviction of Frank Alan Harris in a Casper court on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    According to the court ruling, Harris was previously convicted of aggravated robbery and robbery.
    No need to pass another law. The governor can pardon a whole category of felons across the board! Bill Clinton pardoned an Arkansas cocaine dealer; precisely because his old buddy wanted to hunt with firearms again...

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default according to federal law

    I wrote the BATF and received 2 letters from the BATF dated DEC 25, 2007 and MAY 06, 2008. DEC 25, 2007: "Because black powder guns are not classified by ATF as firearms, there is no federal prohibition preventing a convicted felon from owning, possessing, or hunting with these weapons. Also, ATF does not regulate the purchase or possession, of archery equipment. However, you should be aware that some State laws could govern the use or possession of archery equipment and black powder firearms by felons." May 06, 2008: "Section 921(a)(16) establishes that convicted felon may possess (1) antique muzzle loading firearms using loose black powder, (2) black powder substitutes designed for use in muzzleloaderers as propellants, and (3) flintlock or percussion cap ignition items. However, they cannot possess a muzzle loader that incorporates the frame or receiver of a firearm, or 209 primers for a muzzleloader that utlizes such primers. Although possession of a muzzle loader that does not incorporate a frame or receiver of a firearm is legal, it would be unlawful to possess the #209 primers since "primers" are included and defined under "ammunition' in the GCA."

    Federal law does not prohibit a convicted felon from owning, possessing or hunting with a black powder gun that does not incorporate a frame or receiver of a firearm.

    MAY 06, 2008: "Concerning "antique ammunition." there is no such item under Federal law: thus, percussion caps and black powder are not ammunition components, are part of a primitive ignition system, and may be possessed by prohibited persons. However, FTB cautions that modern primers (e.g., shot shell #209 commonly used with in-line ignited muzzle loaders) are considered ammunition. Therefore, although a convicted felon may legally own a 209 primer type muzzle loader because it falls within the GCA's definition of an "antique firearm," possession of 209 primer shotgun primers would, in fact, constitute a violation of the GCA."

    Federal law does not prohibit a convicted felon from owning, possessing, or hunting with in-line percussion cap ignited muzzle loader, which does not incorporate a frame or receiver of a firearm.

    I have checked with some states and most states allow convicted felons to own, possess, and hunt with archery equipment. Some states allow a convicted felon to own, possess, and hunt with a percussion cap or flintlock ignited muzzle loader, which does not incorporate a frame or receiver of a firearm.

    Example a convicted felon would not be allowed to own, possess, or hunt with a Thompson Encore, because it incorporates a frame or reciever of a firearm.

    Check with the state you live in.

    Write the BATF about black powder guns and archery equipment.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southeast Valley, AZ
    Posts
    290

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celt View Post
    Dave,

    I've been following this thread and must say that I have mixed emotions about the issue... However, who will decide which of us are of "good character?" This is a complex issue.
    Um, most people would agree leaving the decision to a JUDGE and JURY as they define FELONS who do time in PRISON for commitiing CRIMES against the rest of US!

    Alden

    PS: I do agree people can get caught up in things, and I'd like to be as tolerant as I am forgiving, but that isn't prudent, is it? There seem to be some places with an interesting compromise, i.e. blackpowder arms. Personally, I'd require 'em to be single shot. My state does not consider them firearms... Until you load them!

    PPS: Shureshot, sure you weren't originally from Philadelphia? Anyway, decaf and another hobby is my suggestion. Many of your rights are abdicated once you've become a felon -- the tribe has spoken. That doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules anymore either, it means you are being watched, have MORE rules to follow, and will be held accountable. As Obama would say: the debate's over.
    Last edited by Alden; 09-25-2009 at 11:51 PM.

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2

    Felons and Muzzleloaders Part I

    I'm 37 years old, and I've been convicted of two felonys and a DV case. All of the aforementioned stems from the process' of divorces. The first divorce, I recieved a felony for passing a bad check greater than $300. My rent check. Little did I know, my ex was taking the money out of the same bank account I used to cover rent, bills, etc. It was a joint account, and at 22, I was too naive, and a little dumb, to not have taken her off of the account. I was contacted by the sheriffs dept. about the check, called my Dad, and he covered the check. However, my ex father in law, was very well connected (knew the judge and prosecutor) in this small Ohio town, got them to pick up the charge anyway. My landlord was a city councilman, and also knew my ex's father very well. I was convicted, and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The maximum he could give me, and yet I had never been in trouble before. I was sent to the opposite side of the state. My ex and her father wanted me out of my 1 year old sons life. He is now 16. They managed to do it, since I have not been able to see him in 15 years.

    #2 !! I was married again in 2001. However it deteriorated fast. On our one year anniversary, I was filing for a divorce. We had one child, a daughter. Soon after I filed, I found out she was pregnant. There was question to paternity, hence the divorce. However a few months before, my house was broken into. Several items were stolen. I called the police and made a report. shortly before filing for the divorce, I found out who had been in my house, and "confronted" him. It was a "so-called" friend. I was able to recover my computer system, but nothing else. Now, when I filed for the divorce, I filed for custody of my 5 month old daughter, and (due to lunacy over my custody of our daughter) a restraining order. My ex, soon contacted a friend of hers that was a local detective, said that I had the computer, and that I had made a "false report". The search warrant they used had statements from her stating that she had recently been in the house and saw the computer. An admission of violating the PPO. I wasn't home when they came to the house, but a neibhor called me on my cell and said there were police in my house. I went straight home to find out what was going on. When I got there I was questioned about the computer, and told them exactly what had happened. This Detective, Patrick Mogue, says to me to identify to them who stole it, they would confirm that with him, and everyone would be in the clear, as I was not pressing charges against him. I said sure,that these two detectives where going to go to this guys house. Confirm with him that he did a B&E on my house and stole a computer, and he was going to jump right on admitting that to them! They called me a smart a$$ and arrested me. Soon after a custody battle began over my daughter. All the while, I am facing this charge.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default Felons and Muzzleloaders Part II

    All the wile my ex is living in a scummy run down, by the week, hotel. I felt I had to protect my daughter. WHen I went to court, my attorney is telling me that I am facing four years in prison for this. If I plead guilty, he can gaurantee me two years probation. All I could think of was my daughter, and where she would be if I was in prison for four years. I took the plea and got the probation. Now mind you, I did not have any insurance to file any claim on. I did not rip anyone off. I was just in posession of my own stolen property.

    Now the DV. My ex was able to see our daughter for four hours every Sunday. On one Sunday, we met at the police department, and she asked me what I was doing that day. I said I would be at my mothers fixing her porch. I left, went to my mothers, and ten minutes later my ex shows up with my daughter in tow. She begins a huge argument, and I keep telling her to leave. I told her I would have to call the police with the restraining order violation. She continued to refuse. I did not want to have her arrested. Especially not in front of our daughter. I took her by her arm and took her back to her car. I just kept telling her to leave. I later discovered that I was being prosecuted for domestic violence, because I had left a "thumb print" bruise on her arm. During all of this, my ex was looking into adopting out our up coming chid. I fought this adoption every step of the way. We both ended up fighting these people for six years. They were so desperate for a child that even though they knew I wouldn't consent, they kept me off of the birth certificate and did it anyway. I fought and fought. They used connections and money to bash this around from court to court, to drag it out for all these years. When I went to court on the DV. I approached my ex outside, and tried to talk to her. I said that this had all gotten way out of control and that she needed to cut this out. When I got into court, I was threatened by the prosecutor, Mary Rubio, that if I did not plead guilty, that she would have me charged with felony coercion of a witness for talking to my ex. Well, what frickin choice did I have. I have since found out that the couple that was trying to keep my son, was very good friends with the judge and his wife. The prosecutor also showed up at on eof the court hearing for my son, on personal time, to testify against me. My sentence? My sentence was exactly the same as the gentlemen beside me. They had to wheel his wife in, because he beat her so mercilessly in the back, he broke her spine. 90 days!

    Consequently, with her having shown up at my mothers, she was convicted of yet another violation case with the restraining order. All this was in 2002.
    I will stay single! LOL Google, Cody Barnett adoption. There was a lot of local coverage.

    At any rate, I cannot own a firearm. I accept that. I don't think that it's fair, but what the hell can I do. I was never convicted of any dangerous, violent, drug related, offense. Is it truly fair that there are white collar felonies that are exempt from the FBI ban list? I live in tennessee, and hunt with a muzzleloader, and a crossbow. I have never in my life, aimed a weapon at anyone. The only way I would is to protect my family in a perilous situation. I was taught very well with firearms, and safety. I come from a long line of a family that hunts. I will not give it up. I know a few of the local law enforcement, and unless your an idiot, out doing soemthing stupid with a muzzleloader, they're not going to give you any grief. Pay attention to the laws about transporting it, don't give them reasons to believe you are unsafe or a danger, and you won't have any problems. The case you do see for weapons under disability, are ones where someone was acting like a moron. Like pointing the weapon out of a vehicle. UM, what the hell do you expect?! You should be in the can for it. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, laws prohibit ANYONE from doing something like that!

    I'm not going to give up my muzzleloader, or my crossbow. I deer hunt, and use it to feed my family. One day, I intend to teach my son. Maybe someday I will have enough time past to get an expungement, but for now, I am happy hunting the way I do. When someone comes along and say I can't, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Gun laws are over rated, clouded, bull$hit

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,741

    Default

    My brother got his third DUI in 1995 or 1996 out in Kommiefornia. The judge confiscated his guns, while he served a one year of probation. This was not a felony (that involved other people or vehicles) and nobody got hurt. Those guns were returned after the sentence was finished...

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    1,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFoley View Post
    Here in UK there is no statute of limitation on a felony crime preventing a convicted criminal from owning any kind of firearm. One gunclub member here with me today was convicted at age 17 of a minor criminal offence, and served six months in jail. His offence was made into an 'illegal act' in 1980, and no longer attracts anything more than a fine.

    He is now 61, and is still prohibited from owning any form of firearm.

    tac
    :eek:
    This is the gubment our citizens want to immulate....

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    142

    Default

    NC now considers them to be firearms. Unless you are not giving us all the info it should not be a huge problem for him to petition the court and have his rights restored. He may have to spend a few bucks on a lawyer but that is far better than giving up hunting.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •