Gun Forfeiture Case Going To Be Heard By U.S. Supreme Court

[Dennis The B]

An interesting case that's going to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Supreme Court To Decide Gun Ownership Case

I just love the logic of the Solicitor General:

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the government, said in court papers there was no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case, in part because Henderson could have sold the guns prior to his conviction.

Doesn't that beg the question?

 

[doc84]

Should be interesting...

 

[LoboGunLeather]

In his autobiography "Will" G. Gordon Liddy mentioned that, as a convicted felon he was forbidden to possess firearms, but his wife had a large collection, some of which she kept on his side of the bed.

Seriously, I can see no legal obstacle to giving the firearms to his wife or to allowing the sale to another party. So long as the man does not have possession of the firearms there is no violation.

 

[robertrwalsh]

Ownership is ownership and possession is possession. It might be "technical" but the law consists of technicalities. As long as he no longer owns the guns and is not in physical possession of them, I fail to see the legal issue. With luck SCOTUS will feel the same way.

 

[vito]

A situation where an individual has lost or will be losing the right to possess firearms highlights one of the pitfalls of so-called "universal background checks" that the left is so anxious to advance. If one cannot transfer or sell firearms to a family member or friend without the approval of the government as part of the transaction, it would be a simple matter for authorities to deny that the transfer or sale ever took place.

Right now I assume that I could transfer my firearms to my wife with just a verbal declaration, possibly followed by a handwritten document, and thus not have any firearms to turn over to law enforcement should I be charged with a crime which requires such a turnover. But if the transfer would require the time and effort to go through a FFL and do the mandatory background check, its less likely that I could get that done prior to being asked to turn in my guns.

Of course this is all theoretical since I no longer have any guns in my possession.

 

[Comrad]

Hmmmm, a pot conviction....isn't it ok to smoke that stuff all over the place these days?

put the guns in the hands of either his wife or a friend, which "created a significant risk" that he would still retain access to them


The guy got caught with weed and he's a threat to society?

Don't they know a conviction can be expunged and then gun ownership rights are restored?

 

[brucev]

Hmmmm, a pot conviction....isn't it ok to smoke that stuff all over the place these days?

put the guns in the hands of either his wife or a friend, which "created a significant risk" that he would still retain access to them


The guy got caught with weed and he's a threat to society?

Don't they know a conviction can be expunged and then gun ownership rights are restored?

Agree. It's ridiculous. Simply and completely ridiculous. I don't use marijuana nor alcohol. But, pretending that marijuana is some kind of terrible drug ala heroin, etc. and that anyone who uses it is a threat to society is about as logical as pretending that someone cranking out homemade wine is the equivalent of a moonshiner running white lightening through old car radiators.

 

[SMSgt]

A felon "having open access" to firearms in a home is possession. possession does not require it to be in hand.

 

[Bill Bates]

I'm just sitting here wondering what other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are denied to someone convicted of a crime but not sitting in jail or on probation???

 

[HorizontalMike]

A felon "having open access" to firearms in a home is possession. possession does not require it to be in hand.

So... according to your logic, the mere walking thru a WallyMart near the ammo aisle/shelf, would be considered "possession".

Sorry, I just do not buy that.

 

[usm1rifle]

So... according to your logic, the mere walking thru a WallyMart near the ammo aisle/shelf, would be considered "possession".

Sorry, I just do not buy that.

I think he said your home. I hope Walmart isn't home...

 

[HorizontalMike]

I think he said your home. I hope Walmart isn't home...

Waall 'ah dunt kno fer shore, cuz dey made ust movez last nite. Ah betz weez kin gets our spotz back ta'nite. Jes gotz ta' beez kwiet.

 

[mistermills357]

To: vito;138347345

A situation where an individual has lost or will be losing the right to possess firearms highlights one of the pitfalls of so-called "universal background checks" that the left is so anxious to advance. If one cannot transfer or sell firearms to a family member or friend without the approval of the government as part of the transaction, it would be a simple matter for authorities to deny that the transfer or sale ever took place.

Right now I assume that I could transfer my firearms to my wife with just a verbal declaration, possibly followed by a handwritten document, and thus not have any firearms to turn over to law enforcement should I be charged with a crime which requires such a turnover. But if the transfer would require the time and effort to go through a FFL and do the mandatory background check, its less likely that I could get that done prior to being asked to turn in my guns.

Of course this is all theoretical since I no longer have any guns in my possession.

Rest assured and have no doubt, all Ten Amendments are under attack.
It has gained steam under President Obama, but it will continue, long after he leaves office.
It may be a fight that America loses too.
And rest assured, if a soft putsch occurs, you won't have anything that you "own". They will own it.
There is such a monster of a bureaucracy in place, that anything is possible.

 

[ladder13]

It's going to be interesting in the coming years, with all the "legal" weed states. Will their ID's and purchase habits be used against them in the future?
I'm 21, no not me , and a "recreational" user. When I apply for a CCW license in 3 years, what happens? Are, or will, these states be forced to hand their database(if they even exist) over to NICS?
Most everything you tell a doc today gets entered into the obamacare database.

 

[Muss Muggins]

It's going to be interesting in the coming years, with all the "legal" weed states. Will their ID's and purchase habits be used against them in the future?
I'm 21, no not me , and a "recreational" user. When I apply for a CCW license in 3 years, what happens? Are, or will, these states be forced to hand their database(if they even exist) over to NICS?
Most everything you tell a doc today gets entered into the obamacare database.

Just a point of parliamentary procedure. Whether you agree with it or not, the same US statute that makes it illegal for previously convicted felons to possess a firearm also makes it illegal for unlawful uses of controlled substances. The federal government does not consider recreational use of marijuana to be lawful, no matter what the states say.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

 

[ladder13]

Just a point of parliamentary procedure. Whether you agree with it or not, the same US statute that makes it illegal for previously convicted felons to possess a firearm also makes it illegal for unlawful uses of controlled substances. The federal government does not consider recreational use of marijuana to be lawful, no matter what the states say.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

Agreed, the 4473 has a question about drug use, just wondering if people realize the unintended consequences possibly facing them in their future.
I've done stupid things in the past that have come back to bite me.

 

[Skeet 028]

If you have even a medical marijuana card you will NOT be able to purchase a firearm. Even if it is legal in your state. And if you LIE on the 4473 about the Illegal use of controlled substances(Federal) the data base is already out there for MJ cards..You think the Po-Leece don't have access to that info?? Heck guys..they listen to our phone calls for God's sake!!

 

[LoboGunLeather]

If you have even a medical marijuana card you will NOT be able to purchase a firearm. Even if it is legal in your state. And if you LIE on the 4473 about the Illegal use of controlled substances(Federal) the data base is already out there for MJ cards..You think the Po-Leece don't have access to that info?? Heck guys..they listen to our phone calls for God's sake!!

The day they start listening to my phone calls will be the day that terminal boredom shuts down the entire government. Guaranteed!

 

[Mcwsky09]

I just a guy on the show COPS explaining how he wasn't trying to buy drugs, just weed.