Necessity vs. Ideology [Gun ownership for felons]

Great Debates
1

Hi. I’ll keep this short.
I realize this forum has a reputation for delivering good information, but I would request that people who have no idea what they’re talking about spare me their ‘theories’ and sending me off on a wild goose chase. Bona fide legal knowledge a plus. (Scroll to bottom for cliff notes)

Long story short: My brother in law had a felony conviction 18 years ago (when he was 19). Federal conviction, so no expungement or relief from firearm disability. No prison time, it was his only charge either before or after. He lives a stable and productive life, no involvement in criminality of any kind, all in all, a tremendously good guy.

He currently lives with my sister in a neighborhood in Cincinnati that has seriously deteriorated in recent years. Drugs, violence, gangs are now common. He works at a local hardware store in the neighborhood and walks to work every day. On numerous occasions, he’s been approached by gang members. He usually just ignores them but sometimes, they force him into conversation. He always tries to be nice and cordial, but they sometimes aren’t.

My elderly mother lives in this neighborhood and refuses to move, ergo, they’re trapped there since mom needs my sister (his wife) to get by. On moms block, there have been shootings, burglaries, etc.

Here’s our problem.
Recently, they had a window shot out. It appears to have been deliberate, but who knows? Maybe it was just a stray. They keep to themselves and don’t cause any trouble, but it’s getting to the point where they cannot take the dog for a walk without risking a dangerous encounter with very bad people. These people will accost, harass, intimidate and attack random people who aren’t bothering them and just minding their own business. Gangs and thugs are what they are.

It’s arrived at the point where he has no choice but to take means to defend himself and the family. He’s probably going to have to get a gun. He understands that if he has to use it, even if the encounter is an otherwise lawful act of self defense, he may still endure a legal consequence for having the firearm on the basis of some soaring ‘ideology’. Still, given the way things have been unfolding, the alternative is death or serious harm.

**Cliff Notes

Question: **Is anyone aware of any acquittals/dismissals or even sentencing departures where a person who was otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm was granted a measure of relief due to credible, exigent circumstances?

2

[moderating]
Edited thread title for clarity (added parenthetical to it).

You’ll find you get much better responses to your questions if the title of the thread accurately indicates what the question is about.
[/moderating]

3

What “ideology” do you mean? What are you getting at here?

4

Sorry. I thought I was pretty clear.

He is essentially forbidden from lawfully owning a firearm for life, in spite of having a credible, present (and desperate) need for one.

Setting aside the opinions from the “WELL HE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE HE…” peanut gallery and without getting into the macro gun debate itself (of whether society-at-large should or shouldn’t have them), denying a man effective means of self defense- in a culture that otherwise permits gun ownership and everyone has them, good guys and bad guys alike- on the sole basis of a single, non-violent past mistake- begs some pretty fundamental questions.

He has to make a choice between him/his family becoming a victim or taking effective measures to protect them, but risking going to jail on the ideological basis that his past mistake precludes him from owning a gun…

… even if he uses that gun in a situation that itself affirms his need for one, he still faces going to jail on the basis of a legal dicta, not universal ethics.

If you need any further clarification, do let me know :wink:

5

Can’t your sister buy a gun? Is the brother-in-law permitted to use a gun purchased by her?

Edited to add, here is a recent article on the subject of felons regaining the right to own guns. It even mentions a case of an Ohio resident who went before a judge and was able to do so.

6

Courts have ruled that any gun in the same domicile as a person with a felony conviction constitutes ‘constructive possession’, ergo making him liable to the same problems he’d have if he just went out and acquired a gun on the streets.

It’s a very interesting question that might make for a good Supreme Court case, seeing as they’re effectively holding that a wife or husband gives up a fundamental, individual right on the basis of who she married.

When SCOTUS ruled in DC v. Heller that gun ownership was a fundamental, individual liberty it really opened up a can of worms, in spite of Scalia trying to hedge his bets by articulating in the majority opinion that the decision ‘didn’t apply to felons’

7

On what basis are you certain that your friend’s right to carry a weapon is gone forever? To start with, what state does he reside in, and what was the nature of his felony?

And LOL to “universal ethics.”

8

Basically he wants to rant (albeit a bit indirectly) about the the sacredness of the right to gun ownership, and forestall anyone from contradicting him.

His actual question (or his pretext for posting this to GQ) is only to be found in the little “Cliff notes” bit at the end.

9

I’ll note that under Federal Law, a muzzle loading black powder gun is NOT considered a firearm. Not the best solution to be sure, but better than a sharp rock.

The muzzle loader must NOT use modern primers but must use percussion caps.

I am not a lawyer etc. Be sure to check with one in your jurisdiction. There are many felons here in Missouri hunting with muzzle loaders.

10

That’s basically a hit piece. His conviction is Federal, thus no relief mechanism is available like there is in some states. There used to be, but in 1994, a hit piece almost identical to that one was published that caused Congress to eliminate funding to the branch of the ATF that was supposed to handle the restoration petitions.

Basically, it’s a tricky issue since there’s always going to be some idiot who gets his gun rights restored, then people with a natural aversion to firearms use that as a political hot potato.

“HERE! SEE? LOOK! JOHN JONES HAD A CONVICTION FOR COCAINE, GOT HIS GUN RIGHTS RESTORED AND WENT ON TO ROB A 7-11! THIS MUST BE STOPPED!”

It’s very effective fear mongering and since more people would be alarmed by that then there are people who approach the matter rationally, politicians respond on the basis of whatever keeps them employed.

11

Yeah, the problem is, state laws have been ‘reinterpreted’ to completely screw guys who thought they were acting in good faith.

See: Florida v. Bostic

Harris V. Wyoming
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wy-supreme-court/1190055.html

Those guys hunting with black powder guns are on thin ice.

12

On the basis that his conviction was Federal, the state he resides was noted (Ohio, unless you sincerely didn’t know Cincinnati is in Ohio) and even so, since it’s a Federal conviction, state procedures are totally irrelevant (again, as noted).

So, if we want to LOL at something here, lets not LOL at the concept of universal ethics. Instead, lets LOL at your thinking you could add anything to this conversation.

13

Well ain’t you a peach. Nevermind then.

14

Let’s try to get some factual info in this thread, even if it’s only from an armchair scholar like myself. A bit of Googling brings up this PDF from a North Carolina legal aid agency. See in particular question #10:

(The “…” above is specific to North Carolina.) If (as the OP says) the crime was federal and expungement is unlikely… well, a presidential pardon isn’t much more likely, but who knows?

Really, the OP’s brother should talk to a lawyer, which I most assuredly am not.

ETA: I have no idea why “feno” is appearing as the title of this post. Werid.

15

I know a negative post doesn’t help much, but I keep my eye open for news along these lines and can just say in the case of Federal convictions, if a lessening or excusing of charges does occur, it must occur so rarely as to be once in a blue moon. I seem to recall a single case where it was possession, and not use, which was excused, but it was an extreme case and could have gone either way.

16

There’s non-lethal alternatives, including the oversized “bear” pepper spray, etc. Mind you, that’s for the other people living there, assuming it’s legal. IANAL.

Even tho I am a defender of gun rights, I don’t know of anywhere in the USA where you HAVE to own a gun or die. And I have my doubts as they are forced to live there, the Mom can’t be rational if this is so, in which case you need to move her anyway.

I am sorry but the OP’s story raises grave doubts.

17

I also need to point out, that a gun is poor defense anyway. Let us assume that the Op’s bro does need to use it, and do so legally. Does he really think he can win in a gang war with a entire gang? His family will be in serious danger anyway. In the OP’s sitrep, assuming it’s true, the only answer is to move. Even the 100% legal ownership of a arsenal won’t really help.

18

Tell you what.
You convince mom that it’s time to move, then you write the check to fund it all.
Till then, your ‘grave doubts’ are about as solid as your tactical assessment of needing a firearm to begin with.

If you’re unaware of anywhere in the United States where lawful people are being overrun by shitheads and need effective means to defend themselves, might I suggest you step out of the cul-de-sac and visit any given major city, focusing on those areas with ‘changing demographics’.

19

I live in a major city, have done so for most of my life, even those with ‘changing demographics’. Even when I carried a gun I never needed it. Mind you, I think that having a gun is not a bad idea at all. I am in favor of gun rights. But it’s not necessary. In nay case, in your bro’s sitrep, if he did have one, and legally used it, it would likely just unleash a shitstorm upon him and his family.

20

I want to say that I do have sympathy for the Op’s brother and family. I do think that a properly trained person does add to his home safety with a gun. And, it’s a shame his brother can’t own one.

But the Op’s main question has been asked and answered- there’s no real way to allow his brother to own a gun legally.

Of course the Op also has two philosphical questions, both best suited for Great Debates:
is this fair? And is a gun needed for defense in American inner cities?

However, since choice A (find some way for his Bro to legally own a gun) is out, that leaves us with how to best make his brother and family safe:

B Illegally own a gun
C. continue to live in danger
D move.

I think both B & C are foolhardy.