While state laws vary, the general rule in most states is that if you have been convicted of a felony, then you are no longer permitted to own a firearm. So it would be anyone with a felony record.
I live in PA, and our list of folks who can’t own a firearm are those who have any of the following:
Have been convicted of a violent crime (felony or misdemeanor);
Are an undocumented immigrant;
Are declared mentally ill by the court;
Are under 18 years old;
Are a drug addict or habitual drunkard;
Are a fugitive from justice;
Have been convicted of three separate DUI charges within a five-year period; or
Are subject to an active protection from abuse order.
Note that PA restricts firearm ownership based on “violent crime” conviction. A felony doesn’t automatically bar you from owning a gun in PA. It depends on the nature of that felony. Also, some misdemeanors may prevent you from owning a firearm.
Minnesota did a cross reference search a few years back.
The crossed felon’s with firearms big game licenses.
A former co-worker who had a issue with the bottle received his DWI that qualified as a felony.
The LEO’s knocked on his door and asked him about his season. They then asked him about the gun he used and he replied, " I used that 30-'06 right there against the wall.
Well he got to spend 3 year for that indiscretion.,
Do I feel safer now because of this, Hell No! but the law is the law :smack:
Sorry, not sure if that looked snotty but I didn’t intend it to be; just re-referencing the previous and adding more detail/cites.
Federal law (Form 4473) makes loss of rights the default, with an exception for exungement, pardons, or restoration of other civil rights (voting) if the state granted it or allows it. I believe that most don’t. Here is a list which I skimmed; looks like most allow it only for pardons so better be connected! Note that convictions in Federal court hold their own requirements.
Domestic abuse, primarily. And the above mentioned drug abuse, but that’s asking for self-report on active use and not any arrests/convictions. Some federal student loans are similarly strict.
If a jurisdiction has these laws, then they apply to everyone, law-abiding or not, but the criminals choose to ignore them. A felon caught with a firearm may be charged with that in addition to whatever caused them to be arrested again.
Haynes v. United States
1968 was a United States Supreme Court decision i
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm,
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes
felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves
I originally asked this in the general question forum . But I made a real mess of the question By calling all politicians liars and using an undesirable word for people that tend to follow the majority without question . I had linked to the US v Hayes decision ( 1968) in that OP . When I rewrote the question’s I forgot the link . And the 'new ’ thread was moved to this forum .
Here’s the link .
The above sentence is the reason for my question about Why bother even having a law on the books that can not be enforced or the convicted felon prosecuted for an unregistered gun.
Both of my hand guns are legal .
I made a point of taking my fire arms to the local cop shop so yes they do have the numbers off all my fire arms and the description of each on file I have permits for the ones I need permits for . I have taken the conceal carry training class for my .38 and have all the t’s crossed and the I’s dotted on all the paper work .
The reason for having a gun that travails with me is , the closet town of any size to my place is a 45 mile one way trip on a two lane state road . 40 of those miles are across non residential range land . Some times a pickup will break down and sometimes the people who stop to ‘help’ are not so nice people .
I don’t recall CCWs being mentioned in this thread previously. But to be explicit: the state government having a record of every or most firearms of a category that you own, and able to trace it back to you is quite rare. Them having the ability to recognize that you may be carrying a firearm because you qualified for a carry permit (that says nothing about your past purchases) is pretty common.
Therefore I think there is a problem of terminology: NM (or wherever you are, you didn’t confirm) does not care nor allow you to tell them what you own. And because they don’t, why did you voluntarily do so, and why would these police officers humor you? If you instead got a CCW, I understand that in some states now or in the past they required people to bring multiple firearms to qualify (IIRC here they allowed you to carry any semi if you qualified for any other one, but each revolver needed to be qualified separately, or vice versa, but that has since been repealed because WTF?). But they should not write down any numbers and if they do that sounds incredibly sketchy.
You could say the same thing about any unconstitutional law. Anyway, what you don’t seem to understand is that they can and will still be prosecuted for being felons in possession of firearms; they just aren’t subject to the extra charge of being in possession of an unregistered one.
My mother’s attic contains three 22 caliber rifles. These had been owned by my cousin (he was on a target shooting team). The rifles are all over 45 years old, and are unregistered-what should I do with them?
Think about the difference between “owning a gun” and “registering a gun.” Owning a gun means that you have it – not only possession of a gun, but you paid for it, etc. Registering a gun is a process by which you tell the authorities that you own a gun. The important part of registering a gun is the “telling the authorities” part – this is not the same as owning a gun.
If someone is a felon, it is most certainly illegal for them to own a gun. If a felon is stopped for some reason, and the police find a gun on him, he is going to be prosecuted.
What the Supreme Court said is that if a felon owns a gun, and the government then passes a law that directs him to go to a police station and register the gun with the police, the felon cannot be prosecuted for failing to go register his illegal firearm with the authorities. This is because he has a Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to do something which will incriminate him, which is going to the police station and saying, “I need to register this firearm that I acquired illegally, please! Hey, what’s with the handcuffs?” The Supreme Court most certainly did not say that a felon has a Fifth Amendment right to own a firearm. Again, it merely said a felon could not be punished for failing to admit to the government that he is breaking the law.
I’m pretty sure that serial numbers are involved. That way when the cops find a gun, they can ask the FBI to trace it for them and the FBI can find out where the gun was sold and ask the FFL to tell them who bought the gun.
The serial number is recorded on the 4473 but not communicated to NICS in the process of doing the background check. **GaryM’s **post was accurate. Other law enforcement agencies can inspect the 4473 records with proper authorization, including the ATF. Records are not required to be electronic, though they can be. 4473 Records are required to be maintained for a period of 20 years in most cases. With paper records, using this method to track guns can be inefficient.
Part of the resistance to universal background checks is because there is a desire to not have a record of firearms owned. Yes the 4473 may show that Steve bought a handgun, but after that, Steve sold it to Joe. Joe’s ownership provenance is unknown - on purpose.
It’s Hollywood of course, but in the movie Red Dawn, as soon as the Cubans hit town they were told to get the 4473 forms from the gun store so they could get the guns. Not an impossible scenario.