owning a gun by a convicted felon

[lestat]

What is the name of your state?north carolina.I was convicted of a violent crime 20 years ago,i applied for a gun permit and was granted one,got a gun,and have had it a few years.one night i was stopped routinley and asked if i had any weapons in the car i said yes and when it was verified i had all the legal papers to have it was let go.several months later the federal government is charging me with posession of a firearm by a convicted felon.Can they do that since i was given a permitt by the state?

[Some Random Guy]

just because you were able to trick the state into giving you a permit (by not telling them of your felony conviction) doesn't mean that the federal government will magically permit you to own a firearm.

[lestat]

The state ran a record check and said they permitt felons to have a gun permitt if the conviction was over ten years old.I told them of the conviction,they ran the check to MAKE SURE it was over ten years old.

[Jack_David]

Wow that really sucks.

What I think happened here is that the state has no law preventing someone in your situation from owning a firearm, however the federal government does and thats why its the feds are charing you.

Get yourself a lawyer and good luck.

Also I'm not exactly sure how it works but you might want to have your lawyer also see about writing the governor of your state or whoever about either getting you a Pardon for your past crime or maybe just merely getting your rights restored.

If you can get either of those I think that might make the feds have to drop thier case against you.

[Son of Slam]

Originally Posted by lestat

What is the name of your state?north carolina.I was convicted of a violent crime 20 years ago,i applied for a gun permit and was granted one,...several months later the federal government is charging me with posession of a firearm by a convicted felon....

Hey! Hey! Hey! Another one bites the dust! An' another one's gone, an' another one's gone. And another one bites the dust!


*

[hittingrabbit]

Id recommend looking into the specific law that forbids you from owning the gun.
A

[JETX]

Originally Posted by lestat

several months later the federal government is charging me with posession of a firearm by a convicted felon.Can they do that since i was given a permitt by the state?

Just curious.... What did you do to bring the attention of federal officers??

[hittingrabbit]

Id recommend looking into the specific law that forbids you from owning the gun.
A law that was written may not apply to you in your situation,if the law was written after your conviction the law cannot go into retro active status,or should I say if the law was written after your conviction it cannot be used against you,as it becomes an ex post facto law,basically a law thats makes it illegal for a person to do something after the occurrance,in which prior to the act would not be illegal.
lets say if the law states a mandatory life sentence for murdering someone,and you are convicted,then a new law is passed that makes it a mandatory death sentence.
They cannot execute you,because the law was created after the act of the crime,onlythe governing laws at the time applies.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by hittingrabbit

Id recommend looking into the specific law that forbids you from owning the gun.
A law that was written may not apply to you in your situation,if the law was written after your conviction the law cannot go into retro active status,or should I say if the law was written after your conviction it cannot be used against you,as it becomes an ex post facto law,basically a law thats makes it illegal for a person to do something after the occurrance,in which prior to the act would not be illegal.
lets say if the law states a mandatory life sentence for murdering someone,and you are convicted,then a new law is passed that makes it a mandatory death sentence.
They cannot execute you,because the law was created after the act of the crime,onlythe governing laws at the time applies.

And of course, that is all crap.
The OP is noticed of being charged with 'felon gun possession'. The law is clear. Why would you even think that your 'wonderful' post has any value at all??

The FACT is... we don't know the facts of why the OP is facing FEDERAL gun charges. The law (18 USC 922) has a plethora of restrictions..... any one of which could be the issue here:
[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html[/url]

Though I assume it is likely 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) which provides that it is unlawful for any person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to possess . . . any firearm or ammunition."

[hittingrabbit]

Originally Posted by JETX

And of course, that is all crap.
The OP is noticed of being charged with 'felon gun possession'. The law is clear. Why would you even think that your 'wonderful' post has any value at all??

The FACT is... we don't know the facts of why the OP is facing FEDERAL gun charges. The law (18 USC 922) has a plethora of restrictions..... any one of which could be the issue here:
[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html[/url]

Though I assume it is likely 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) which provides that it is unlawful for any person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to possess . . . any firearm or ammunition."

A statute which increases the punishment for a crime after its commission violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

you are assumming the situation based upon the case of United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 513 U.S. 894 (1994). In Brady, a defendant named DeMatteo invoked the prohibition of ex post facto laws in contending that his 1951 felony conviction could not serve as the predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1988), a statute enacted after 1951 that makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year to possess any firearm in or affecting commerce.
This does not seem to be the case,in this posters claims is that he was allowed to own a firearm by state authority,regulated under state authority,thus unless he traveld across intrastate,or on a highway federal law would lack jurisdiction to enforce it.
reveiw the courts definition and distinction between highways,roads,etc.
Otherwise the federal law would invade upon state Sovereignty.
But dispite this arguement,the fact may very well be that in the above case cited was based upon ,
1. Proper notification.
2.and whether or not it was changed by effects of a misdemeanor,to a felony.
It is not a compelling arguement to assume that simply owning a gun by a previousely convicted felon that they will simply use the gun in a crime,intent must be established,did the poster have the gun in his possession legaly?
That answer is made clear that he was authorised to own the gun.
After authorisation of a gun permit under the regulatory purposes of the constitutional commands of the commerce clause,he was legally allowed to own it.
On the other hand the state may very well in an attempt to oblige federal law revoke the owners gun license.
Upon notification but the poster may also invoke his constitutional right to keep and bear arms,because he was allowed and the license was revoked not according to commerce,unless the state provided for a specific law forbidding a previousely convicted felon from travelling within the states boundaries of roads.
Certain rights cannot be abolished simply because the state or federal government wishes to convert a right to a privilage,theres a clear distinction between a governmental boundaries specifically for commerce,and for a non commercial purpose of owning a gun.
Owning a gun is no more inheritantly dangerouse then for the same person to own a rifle.

The Supreme Court held that “a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause where it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.”5 The holding contains two distinct requirements: for its application to be found unconstitutional, the statute at issue must be (i) enacted “after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period” and (ii) “applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.”
Its clear that the state law of the poster allowed gun ownership by a convicted felon after the end of the statutory period had ended,thus the federal law as I original posted if it were enacted after the statutory period then YES,it clearly becomes an ex post facto law.
It all depends upon the end of the statutory period,and whether or not the poster had knowingly violated the law,and had been given due process of notification that upon gun ownership he was breaking a law.

Just to clarify I had a family member that was a victim of a violant crime of murder,she was killed by a gun,more specifically a shotgun useing Deer slugs.
So I know of the dangers involved with a weapon.
But I am not willing to surrender rights to be totally regulated by my servants.
Criminals in general arent going to register a gun,and then commite a crime with it.
So the law lacks reasonablness.
A lier will lie,and a theft will steal.
A theif will lie about stealing,and a lier will lie about stealing.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by hittingrabbit

A statute which increases the punishment for a crime after its commission violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

And ANOTHER pile of crap.
There is NOTHING in this thread to even suggest that the punishment for a crime is relevant.
In fact, we don't even know the specifics of the charge.

You are simply ranting blah-blah crap because it serves your personal agenda. Spout it elsewhere. Your crap has nothing at all to do with this thread.

[hittingrabbit]

It's been awhile but it would be intresting to know how it turned out for the original poster.
If his attorney was descent he wouldv'e probably had it dismissed on the grounds that he was released once the officer let him go when he was stopped.
I know this to be true because I was stopped for speeding,gave the officer my license he then handed back to me,and I made a comment that the officer did not like,so he requested my license again I gave it to him,he wrote me a ticket fine,on the court date I plead not guilty,the officer did not deny what he had done,the Judge made the officer silent in traffic court,so no one else would learn of their rights,and dismissed the charge.
A friend had nearly the same happen to him except his drivers license was suspended for not having insurance while in a traffic accident,no notification was received,later a state tropper pulled him for a tailight out and gave him a warning ticket and his license back,some 6 months later he was pulled over for failing to yeild and his license came back as suspended,officer wrote him some $700.00 in ticket fines,he plead not guilty because he had not knowingly been driving under suspension,factual proof was given when the state tropper gave him his license back,was an affirmitive defense.
He won the case,and his license re-instated.
The ironic part was when he was given all of those tickets the officer wouldnt let him drive his truck of course so he called someone to drive him and his truck to his home,the friend did not have a license either as it was revoked some 7 years earlier.lol!