Necessity vs. Ideology [Gun ownership for felons]

Did you even read my question?

“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?”

see posts 14 & 15. Not to mention your own research.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not distinguish between antique and modern firearms with respect to prohibited persons. If a person is legally prevented from owning a modern firearm, he may not possess any antique weapons or replicas thereof. (pdf).

It is a widely believed myth that since antique firearms and some replicas are considered non-guns for commerce purposes, that firearms laws in general do not apply to them. There may be no federal law prohibiting a felon from possessing a Colt Navy revolver, but the fifty states are not necessarily so lenient. Nor are the many counties and cities that have their own regulations in place. Before anybody starts hauling a smokewagon as some kind of legal rule beater, they need to very closely study their exact legal environment. Here in Pennsylvania, for example, if you are a felon you can’t have any kind of a gun at all. If you are not a prohibited person, carrying an antique concealed will require exactly the same permit as a modern gun. Open carry of either an antique or modern gun is legal for non-prohibited people without a permit, but if you are non-prohibited there is no reason not to choose a modern gun since you don’t need to “beat” any rules.

Mom knows the neighborhood is dangerous and her family is at risk and she refuses to move even though all of them could afford to?

The problem here is not your brother-in-law’s inability to bear arms legally.

It appears as if the avenue is impossible due to Congress prohibiting funds to be used for this.

I wonder, since the ATF has the authority to do this, if they could be compelled to do so if ALL of the costs were paid for by the applicant.

Based on the responses so far - does not look like he’ll be able to legally obtain a gun.

So he gets one and carries it illegaly. Even if he never uses it, he still stands a chance of going to jail based on being stopped or frisked for other reasons. (Police stops don’t happen in “changing” neighbourhoods?) If he is nervous now, what’s going to change when he has a gun? Sooner or later he’ll have to pull it. Now, people with an incentive to trade information with the police for leniency know something they can spill that does not get their gang bro’s in trouble. Or… he does end up in a confrontation. Nothing says “gunfight” like pulling a gun. Assuming he wins the draw, so what? Either he shoots someone, or next time they approach with weapons already drawn and determined to re-establish their dominance. Plus, as others have pointed out, how is he planning to win a war against a whole gang with better firepower and more testosterone than prudence?

The other major problem is that a prosecutor gets no brownie points for giving a sympathy break to a convicted felon who blatantly breaks the law. Instead, it is more likely to become a “Willie Horton Career Moment”. OTOH, prosecuting a slam-dunk case against a previously convicted felon builds his conviction statistics. Based on the reception here, do you think the brother would really win by pleading to a jury that “mom wouldn’t move so I needed a gun”?

By a majority vote then, this forum recommends White Flight.

When “demographics” overtake southern states, the group consensus is that the southerners are “getting what they deserve”. Isn’t it ironic that northern states are now being engulfed by savage, violent gangs after all that the northerners have done for them throughout history! :cool:

What does your mom “need” your sister for? It sounds like it might be better for all concerned if your mother moved to a place that provides professional assistance for the elderly at whatever level they need* and then your sister and BIL could move wherever they preferred to live.

  • plenty of assisted living places aren’t “nursing homes” - they’re apartments where a nurse checks on you as needed. As a bonus, they aren’t generally in crime-ridden [del]ghettos[/del] changing neighborhoods.

Another option of course is for your mother to get armed. I think you said that she lives in a separate house from your sister and brother-in-law so that ruling would not apply.

Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebted to Dufus for clearly stating what needed to be said. I’m particularly glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed something little seen in this day and age.

Sorry, Sailboat. I guess I stepped across the party line pretty heavy there didn’t I? It’s interesting that you consider 3 sentences to be a “speech”.

All of my sentences spent trying to help in your “Trying to Remember a Native American Battlefield” didn’t even elicit a single response from you.

Most of the respondents to Camera’s question didn’t even carefully read the question before attacking him. Is that common in this day and age?

The Cliff notes version of the question was all we needed to provide an answer. The OP provided the backstory for reasons unknown but if he wanted to keep the peanut gallery quiet, it didn’t work. He described the crappy situation about his mother, sister and brother-in-law; people commented on it.

Since my comment went without comment, let me add another - I suggest that the sister divorce the felon and marry a man who can carry a gun, only because his mother-in-law doesn’t consider getting a window shot out as a reason to get the hell out of there. Good luck with that - a sane groom to be would probably ask a simple question - “Why can’t Camera take care of his mother?” before dumping the sister at the altar.

Jesus God, I had no idea what kind of northern cockroaches I would stir up with my humble reply to Camera’s post.

Moderator Note

Dufus, political commentary of this kind is not appropriate for General Questions, and insults are not allowed outside the Pit. No warning issued, but do not do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

In any case, I think it’s past time to move this over to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Good point. My earlier post about muzzle loaders not being considered firearms did reference Federal Law but perhaps I should have stressed that local or state laws may differ. I became aware of the situation when I read a news story about a Missouri felon who’d been arrested for hunting with a modern muzzle loader that used shot shell primers for ignition rather than percussion caps. He was charged as a felon in possession of ammunition or ammunition components rather than being in possession of a firearm.

Which cases are those?

Would that count as a straw purchase, even if it’s technically registered to her? Why can’t she just use it herself?

Also, if you don’t mind my asking, what crime did your brother-in-law commit?

Since this is in GD now, I can share my opinion, which is: either someone should be in prison, or executed, or they should be a free person with all of their normal rights. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, then they should still be in prison. I don’t agree with this whole idea of making felons second class citizens. I have friends who have done time in prison and truly reformed themselves. People can change. But if they can’t, then they should still be in prison, not “free” and yet unable to vote or defend themselves with a gun if necessary.

He didn’t close the door on “reasonable restrictions”, which allowed for essentially the status quo (for the moment) while allowing for future challenges.

I suspect the subject of this thread got whacked for drug possession in large quantities/distribution. Other than RICO that’s all I can think of that’s both federal and non-violent. Regardless, barring a policy change, unlikely from either party, he will never get his right to own a weapon restored. I’m somewhat ambivalent about that, as I support the right of the government to forbid ownership to felons, but I’m also supportive of the right to get that right back following years of demonstrated good behavior, a track record if you will. But it doesn’t matter because of a 2002 SCOTUS case. Treasury can’t do anything about it due to a Congressional mandate. Nothing in Heller or McDonald takes Congress’ right to exclude felons away.