Okay so theoretical situation, say a felon is in a mall and someone opens fire on people, another man opens fires back on that guy, he’s then killed. Let’s say that felon is a former military or former cop, he picks up the weapon and prevents the crazy man from shooting people, potentially saving dozens of lives.
When he goes to court, is a judge going to charge him for handling a gun as a felon, or would he not be charged since he was defending people, and literally saved lives. Would this completely be up to the discretion of the judge, and how do you guys think most judges would rule in this theoretical case.
Judges don’t usually charge people. State attornies or their assistants do that. Or, in some places, a grand jury.
Judges also don’t often determine guilt/innocence. Juries do that.
So, no. It wouldn’t be up to the sole discretion of a judge.
You’re right, but parole violations aren’t typically heard in front of a jury. That said, as long as there is no ambiguity to the case, I don’t think the DA would chose to press charges.
Unless the event somehow didn’t make it on the news and the guy in question was a minority. (Depending on state of course).
My understanding is that a felon cannot own or use a gun while on parole. I don’t think they are given a lifetime ban on guns. (Altho’ paroles can last until a person dies of old age)
The law is the law and as stated above, it’s the prosecutor’s office’s duty to charge the person. However, extenuating circumstances (in this case saving lives) can be taken into account when sentencing (assuming the person is found or plead guilty). The judge may hand down the minimum sentence for the lightest charge, then allow for time served or parole, possibly even expunging charges from the defendant’s record.
Federal law imposes a lifetime ban on any felon from possessing firearms: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1):
Emphasis added.
(The “affecting commerce” language is merely to show that Congress has jurisdiction over the matter under the “Commerce Clause”; the courts have ruled that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate the possession of even homemade firearms.)
This should apply. Everyone is entitled to protect their own life and the life of others. It should apply, unfortunately though, justice is a process, and too often a faulty one.
OK, my understanding (and having a Favorite Nephew who is a convicted felon I have a vested interest) is that YMMV. Sometimes a parole will stipulate never handling a gun while on parole and I have been told of cases where they cannot even be by firearms, even those legally owned by another individual, while on parole. But I also know of other cases where parolees have been given permission to hunt. It depends on your crime and your behavior. Once parole is over you may (and that is a big MAY) not be able to own firearms (or certain types of firearms) but even that is not a hard and fast rule. Two cases I know of people were convicted of felony theft and still legally own guns. The convictions were 40 years ago when they were teens and they answered truthfully on the BATF form and were investigated out the ying-yang I am sure but both passed muster; one has even served as president of a local sportsman’s organization. So there is no hard and fast here.
Now the OP; again it could vary. A hard-assed DA, and a person who did the wrong crime, and there could be charges. If someone was a “violent offender”, especially one still on parole, and they could get charged. I believe someone locally a couple years back was jailed for parole violation for shooting an intruder into their home with their SOs legally owned pistol. But it was someone whose conviction had been for shooting a spouse or some other family member in what was clearly a murder. And there was some indications that the intruder could have been a drug buy gone bad although that was debated as well. Best bet, while things got sorted out, was “violate him” and then figure it all out. In the exact circumstance given, say a felon like the two I mentioned who were “upstanding citizens with a record” and I wouldn’t be surprised if some kind of medal/award and pardon was the more likely outcome.
I am not certain, but I think that by definition, someone on parole is de facto a felon, (parole means being released from prison early, and only felons go to prison, correct?) and therefore unable to legally own or possess a firearm.
Now maybe, in rare situations, a felon can appeal to the powers that be to resore their Second Ammendment rights, but I think those occurrances are very, very few and far between.
Felon would probably never get charged. If he did, he could raise this defense at trial and probably get acquitted. (but you never know what a jury might do)
Is there oversight for discrimination or conflict of interest? “I’ll prosecute every black suspect I can get ahold of but whites will never be charged of anything under my watch.”
There are many studies on how prosecutorial discretion disproportionately disadvantages minorities. Minorities are charged with more and higher level crimes for the same conduct, offered less desirable plea bargains when charged with the same crimes, are given higher bonds, are less likely to be released on their own recognizance before trial, and face recommendations for longer prison sentences upon conviction. They are also disproportionately likely to face the death penalty. They are extra, extra likely to face the death penalty if the victim is white. In fact, of all the criminology studies on the topic I’ve read, I don’t think I’ve ever found one that didn’t say blacks and Hispanics aren’t disadvantaged. Your example is a bit extreme but…
District attorneys are either elected, or appointed by the chief executive officer (mostly elected). So the oversight, ultimately, is from the electorate. Or by being sued by the federal government for violating the Equal Protection clause.
I would have to go back into some of my research and some depends on the jurisdiction but ------- my understanding is that is comes down to how “possess” is defined. For example; someone is a felon and the wife has purchased and is the legal owner - does he having it in his car going to a shooting range without her possession? Is he sitting in my livingroom holding it possession? If I am hunting with my nephew and he is carrying one of my shotguns would that be possession? (In PA its no)
As for exceptions – they could be more common than either of us think. And maybe not all bad ones. I hate to admit it but back in the carefree days of my youth I had several friends get felony convictions. Weed and car theft mostly but they happened. So now that person is 60+ and been a model citizen for over 40 years; do we still need to punish them? It is one of the reasons why some firearms dealers will stress to be honest on the form. You may still get to make the purchase if you are honest but if you lie and get found out later it is MAJOR league bad news. The big one today is over marijuana use; got a medical card? You better damn well answer yes on that box referencing drug use. You may still get to buy that Glock you want but someone is going to want to ask some questions first. Put “no” and later -------- you will for sure end up in court.
Now --------- the other extreme of the situation. I also know a person who, at least while on parole, was forbidden to hold or use ANY firearm including flintlocks and true antiques. His conviction was for assault and terroristic threats on an ex-wife and their children and the judge knew the same thing we did; the dude was too psycho at that point to even have something that was legally a curio and not a firearm. Sometimes the legal system does work.